“Smart Choices” A Dumb Move?
Diet Pepsi, Kraft’s macaroni & cheese, Kid Cuisine, Lunchables, and Froot Loops (now with added fiber!) are just some of the 500 processed foods getting the green “Smart Choices” label. “Smart Choices” is front-of-the-package labeling meant to help rushed or confused consumers pick healthy(er?) foods.
Sure, Diet Pepsi and Kraft’s macaroni and cheese are smart choices…compared to crack…
Ten big food processors are a part of the program, including Kellogg’s, General Mills, Kraft Foods, ConAgra Foods, Unilever, PepsiCo and Tyson Foods. They pay the American Society of Nutrition up to $100,000 a year for the privilege of having the green check mark on their products. Can you say conflict of interest?
These industries are probably trying to circumvent any action on part of the government to create easy-to-read healthy food labels. They fear that Britain’s traffic light system, or some version of it, will hop the Atlantic and doom their processed ‘goods’. In the UK, the Food Standards Agency (the government, not the food industry) developed a clear and concise labeling system–packages have the amount of the four demonized ingredients right on the front with big colored circles. As you might expect, green is good, and red is bad, with yellow somewhere in between. The labeling system is voluntary, but a lot of manufacturers are using it.
Compared to “Smart Choices”, the traffic light labeling criteria is super transparent. To understand why a certain product is a ’smart choice’, you have to find and read this rather unhelpful page. There, they attempt to convince you that their products must meet “strict, science-based nutrition criteria”. The science, which is not cited, was developed by an unnamed ‘coalition’. (I’ve complained about that before.)
Which page seems to have consumer’s best interests at heart? The traffic light or “Smart Choices”?
Some nutritionists do in fact defend the program specifically because of its “consumer friendliness”:
Eileen T. Kennedy, president of the Smart Choices board and the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, said the program’s criteria were based on government dietary guidelines and widely accepted nutritional standards.
She said the program was also influenced by research into consumer behavior. That research showed that, while shoppers wanted more information, they did not want to hear negative messages or feel their choices were being dictated to them.
“The checkmark means the food item is a ‘better for you’ product, as opposed to having an x on it saying ‘Don’t eat this,’ ” Dr. Kennedy said. “Consumers are smart enough to deduce that if it doesn’t have the checkmark, by implication it’s not a ‘better for you’ product. They want to have a choice. They don’t want to be told ‘You must do this.’ ”
Did Eileen Kennedy, a so-called nutrition expert, just say that if a food doesn’t have a checkmark on it, it’s not good for you?
Hopefully, consumers are also smart enough to deduce that many companies with healthy choices haven’t bought their way into the checkmark system. I am also optimistic that the media fury over the Smart Choices program has made many consumers aware that this is not a governmental or consumer advocate label.
I think Walter Willett, Chair of the Harvard School of Public Health, says it best:“These are horrible choices.” Indeed.
Any bets on how long it will be before the “Smart Choices” label is forcibly expired?
September 7, 2009
Tags: food event, Health, innovation, marketing, nutrition, obesity, pepsi, sugar Posted in: Health, Science & Technology
2 Responses
Food Fortification – Too Much Of A Good Thing? | Food Bubbles - September 9, 2009
[...] By 1984, 92% of ready-to-eat cereals were fortified. The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 allowed some claims about nutrient content and health benefits to be put on their products. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 allowed structure/function claims (read: more health benefits) opened the door to even more products being promoted with added vitamins and minerals. Add to that the more recent trend of fortifying foods with preventative antioxidants…and you see how you can end up with Froot Loops and Coco Crisps being labeled “Smart Choices“. [...]
Sign Change.org’s petition calling out nutrition scientists for their support of “Smart Choices”. The letter reads, essentially, “Don’t Let Kellogg’s Buy Scientists: Froot Loops Aren’t a Healthy Breakfast”.
See and sign the petition at http://www.change.org/actions/view/dont_let_kelloggs_buy_scientists_froot_loops_arent_a_healthy_breakfast
Leave a Reply