Food labeling requirement in the United States are governed by economic and public health concerns by which consumers have the information of their choices, necessary information for food safety and wholesomeness are made available and honesty and fair dealing in the market place are assured. As many as eight laws regulate food-labeling in the Unites States. They are 1)Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act , 2) Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, 3) Federal Meat Inspection act, 4) Federal Trade Commission Act, 5) Poultry Products Inspection Act, 6) Egg Products Inspection Act, 7) Federal Alcohol Administration Act, and 8) Tariff Act.
Nutrition labeling is one of the specific aspects governed by these acts. However the main law in this connection is The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act which applies to all foods items except meat from domesticated animals, poultry products form domesticated birds and alcoholic beverages. The federal act stipulates that label should have name of the food, declaring as to the net content, statement of ingredients, name and address of the party responsible for the product and nutrition details. The nutritional value of the product in terms of nutrient content and health claims is allowed on the label as per provisions of the Federal Act.
Though the Federal, State, and local Governments can have their respective laws on food production and distribution, uniformity in labeling requirements at the national level is required by Federal Acts. (Blanchfield J 2000) Under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA), manufacturers need to state net contents on the labels both in metric as well as in pound units. Besides it requires nutrition facts to be presented on the label in the prescribed format. Definitions for claims such as high fiber and low fat must also be explained. (Kurtzweil 1994)
As mentioned above, generally, the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act requires food labeling for ready-made foods such as breads, cereals, canned and frozen foods, snacks, desserts, and drinks referred to by the FDA as “conventional foods”. Dietary supplements which come under another category have different labelling requirements. ((US FDA) While in the rest of the world, symbols on foods and medical products have been in use, the governing body F. D. A in the U. S does not recognize symbols for the reason that the consumer cannot understand symbols which would result in improper use of the product and that U.
S. labeling rules do not recognize symbols. Some producers are suggesting to the FDA that symbols could be used on products such as medical devices meant for use by professionals to counter the FDA’s reluctance on the ground of inability to understand. ( Smith ) Strauss J’s (1995) argument is a case in point that words are capable of misinformation. He cites an instance of labeling of the soup can with the word ‘97% fat free’. This will mislead a hurried and harried customer who would not read before purchasing or some times even while consuming that 97% represents just water which is not nutrient.
What actually the soup contained was 97% water and 3% fat. This would actually mean that the consumer ate 8gm of 100% fat cube along with 297 gm equivalent of water (total net weight of the soup-can being 305 gms). If probed still deeper, this will be a case of 43% of total calories in the soup are derived from fat. The author says that not only soup companies but also other food products companies indulge in misuse of water in calculating percentages. Justification of this fat content is akin to calling a product 0. 01% deadly lethal poison as 99.
999% pure water. This is how semantic distortion and misinformation on products creep in the products solely dependant upon words without symbols. As part of interventionist strategies to combat cardio-vascular disease, Sweden introduced in 1986 symbols on the labels of food of high fiber and low fat content. Though there was resistance among the manufacturerss, researchers persuaded shop-keepers selling groceries to display a heart symbol at the edge of the shelves of these products with high fiber and low fat content.
Soon companies themselves started marking on their labels heart symbol which eventually was renamed “the green key hole” and made a national food labeling symbol for healthy heart diets. (Weinehall et al 2001) Kinnunen (2000) reports introduction of heart symbol in a food labeling requirement in Finland. The author himself was one among the 50 nutritionists engaged in launching Heart symbol to consumers of Finland as early as in 2000. The Food and Drugs Act of Canada under section 3 prohibits food labels containing heart symbols and statement such as healthy heart because consumers are likely to mistake them as
the sole means of disease prevention. The policy statement says that use of heart symbols on food labels or even menu showing heart symbols at the restaurants will likely mislead the consumers that the food by themselves provide for shealthy hearts. However a heart symbol used in conjunction with the name of an NGO appearing on food label as part of a health program may be acceptable. Use of heart symbols in any other manner will lead a consumer to believe that the food itself is an exclusive remedy for healthy heart.
(Canadian Food Inspection Agency) However symbols are necessary for variety of reasons as an element of safety. While European standards maintain that symbols are capable of rendering communication across language barriers, U. S. manufacturers need the symbol system for three important factors to ensure safety. The factors are that world is now a single market place, safety messages of legal consequences can not be communicated to the diverse and in some cases illiterate U. S.
population and well drawn symbols will make the safety labels serve the purpose because when words are ignored or left out inadvertently, symbols are quite visible and stand out from the often smudged letters of the text. (Clarion) Only recently in September 2007, U. S. FDA allowed corporations to have their own symbols on food labels until establishment of national symbol system. Accordingly General Mills Inc and Kellogg Co. have come out with symbols on their product labels summarizing the products’ nutritional information.
As seen above such symbols have already been in vogue in Sweden, Britain, and Finland. US FDA has exhorted the food companies, trade associations and public interest organizations, medical professionals and similar groups abroad to come out with suggestions of front-label symbols to promote public health just like traffic light symbol system used in Britain. As there as been no FDA action so far , Pepsi co has already started using “smart spot’ symbol on its “diet Pepsi”, baked lay chips etc. In New England the supermarket giant has put in place “0 to 3 star” rating symbols on their 25,000 food items.
In Britain the Government has asked companies to use Green, Yellow and Red to signify their products as low, medium and high fat, salt and sugar content. In order to avoid inconsistencies between different symbol systems for the same kind of products, FDA should arrive at National consensus on uniform symbols on food products. ( Bridges 2007) Following pictures demonstrate the traffic light labeling system in U. K. and current practice in the U. S allowing symbols of Heart to signify that the food is good for the heart. The heart symbol is to be accompanied by a definition in the form of a statement in words as shown below.
(Greenberg 2007) Already UDSA (U. S. Department of Agriculture) has been allowing companies to use the following symbol to signify that a product is organically produced. The term ‘organic’ is defined which the symbol is supposed to signify. If the product carrying the symbol does not comply with the definition standard, a fine $ 10,000 is levied. (Food Symbols) A study conducted in 2002 reveals that participants were unable to identify foods containing allergic ingredients and hence the study recommended improved labeling with understandable English terms and allergen warnings.
(Joshi 2002) This reinforces the suggestion that symbols would be of great help. An earlier 1994 study in New Zealand observed the consumer awareness of the ingredients. It studied food labels collected form 28 supermarkets in Auckland. From a questionnaire sent to about 1500 consumers, it was found that consumers did not like the traditional nutrition label. About one third of them who were illiterate could not point out 100 gm fat mentioned on the table in the label. On the other hand alternative designs were welcome though these also misled some consumers.
The study concluded that there was need for education programs and also urged nutritionists to consider alternative means to overcome limitations on nutrition descriptions on the labels. (Scott and Worsley 1994) Already the U. S. Federal Government allows pesticide products to use symbols if they are shown along with explanatory text which are understandable and do not obscure or crowd label language or result in misbranding of the product and as untrue and misleading. However the symbols can not be used in the place of text.
The pesticide regulations have prescribed symbols to signify how to handle the products such as opening, spraying and such others which would increase the understanding of the text on the label. Some graphics and symbols have also been prohibited such as a food or flower on a pesticide label which has no relevance for use of that particular food or flower. There are as many as 13 prohibited methods of graphics and symbols mentioned by pesticide regulations. (Environment Protection Agency) In view of what has been stated above, it would emerge that it would no longer be prudent on the part of the U.
S. Government not to bring out a uniform symbol system for food labels lest it would result in proliferation of voluntary symbols which would only compound the problem of having no symbols at all on the label which the protagonists are arguing against. Almost all the countries in the world except the U. S have long before implemented symbols on food product labels. Hence the U. S. has the advantage of learning from their experience and bring out an even better symbol system to ensure optimal health and safety to consumers..
References Blanchfield J Ralph 2000 ‘Food Labelling’ p 49, Woodhead Publishing Limited, England and the US Bridges Andrew “FDA considers food-label symbols to steer shoppers toward healthier eating” Associated Press, accessed <www. nctimes . com> Canadian Food Inspection Agency :
Food > Labelling > Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising > Chapter 8 “Policy Respecting the Use of Heart Symbols and Heart Health Claims on Food Labels and in Food Advertisements Annex 8-2” Accessed <www.inspection. gc. ca> Clarion “Standards FAQ: Symbols” accessed 20 January 2008<www. http://www. safetylabel. com/index. php> Environment Protection Agency “Label Review Manual, Chapter 16: Graphics & Symbols on Labels” Accessed 20 January 2008 < http://www. epa. gov/oppfead1/labeling/lrm/chap- 16. htm> Food Symbols “Cook’s Recipes That Work” accessed 20 January, 2008 < http://www. cooksillustrated. com/default. asp>
Joshi Preeti 2002 “Interpretation of commercial food ingredient labels by parents of food-allergic children” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Volume 109, Issue 6, June 2002 P 1019-1021 accessed 20 January, 2008 < http://info. sciencedirect. com/> Greenberg F Eric “label symbols make nutrition choices simpler, but never simple’ Packaging World Magazine, October 2007 page 34. Kinnunen I. Tajra 2000 The Heart symbol: a new food labeling system in Finland Nutrition Bulletin 25 (4), 335–339. Blackwell synergy Publishing online issue 25 Dec 2001