Food Label Folly

By ACSH Staff — Jan 01, 1993
Reprinted with permission of The Wall Street Journal © 1992 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission of The Wall Street Journal © 1992 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved.

In one of his final regulatory moves as president, George Bush last week capitulated to the strident calls of self-appointed consumer groups. In announcing the administration's decision mandating the relabeling of nearly 300,000 American food products, Louis Sullivan, secretary of health and human services, declared: "The Tower of Babel in food labels has come down, and American consumers are the winners." The media bought this line, hailing the move as a victory for consumers. The reality is just the opposite. consumers will be the losers, left paying the bill with no benefits to show for it.

The new labeling rules require detailed information about fat and other ingredients and strict definitions of such routine advertising hype as "lite," "reduced, " "low fat" and "high fiber." Further, the regulations officially bless specific health claims made by the food company itself or by a third party organization, like the American Heart Association, which receives licensing fees from the food company. The relabeling program is costly, confusing, condescending and controversial.

* Costly: The estimated cost of relabeling all the processed foods in the land is between $2 billion and $4 billion, depending on how quickly companies are required to comply. Dr. Sullivan argues that expenditures will be offset by "multiple billions of dollars" in reduced health costs from improved nutrition. But what evidence is there that health benefits will follow from the relabeling? Will the rates of coronary heard disease, cancer, stroke and other leading causes of death actually decline because consumers will dutifully read their federally prescribed labels?

Pharmaceuticals cannot be approved unless there is clear scientific evidence of efficacy proof that the proposed intervention will achieve what it claims. Where are the efficacy data here to justify the consumer costs of relabeling? (And have no doubt, these costs will be passed onto food shoppers.) The current labels that already contain fat and cholesterol data have conferred no benefit that I'm aware of why should more details and fine-tuning to add percentages of daily recommended consumption work any better?

* Confusing: What possible enlightenment would the average consumer gain from learning that a serving of macaroni and cheese at lunch contains 13 grams of fat and 30 milligrams of cholesterol, that, respectively, account for 20 percent and 25 percent of the amount of those components deemed by the government as OK for us to eat? Are we all supposed to keep running totals of ingested percentages? If we order pizza for supper (while it is still legal to do so), how do we determine the percentage of fat and cholesterol in the pie? (Restaurant food is not included in the labeling but "just you wait" say the consumer advocates who think the law does not go far enough.) Should we have conversion tables to help us adjust the nutrient quotas to the levels suitable for our age, sex, weight and reproductive status?

* Condescending: The labeling effort clearly suggests that the regulatory nutrition nannies in Washington think that we are not smart enough to determine the ingredients of good nutrition on our own. Did it ever occur to them that if more information and clarification were needed and wanted, consumers would demand it and food companies would compete to serve up bigger and better ingredient profiles? The new regulations even presume to protect us from our own alleged ignorance: They forbid the claim "no cholesterol," even when the food has not cholesterol, if the product in question has high levels of a different substance fat.

* Controversial: The cornerstone of the new Bush labeling law is that medical scientists have reached a consensus that a diet low in fat and high in fiber will dramatically reduce the risks of chronic disease. The labeling legislation now actually encourages health claims to this effect. (Look for products that brag: "Fiber-o cereal reduces the risk of colon cancer!" "Fat-less Freebies are good for your heart!") But currently there is substantial disagreement and controversy among scientists as to the causal connection, if any, between specific components of our diet and disease risk. The literature is relatively sparse and inconsistent as compared, for example, to the literature that documents a causal link between smoking and disease.

The labeling scheme is "lite" on science, "reduced" in common sense and "high in fat" of the type that will inflate consumer costs.

(From Priorities, Vol. 5, No. 1)