The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has begun to loosen its labelling restrictions, allowing manufacturers of certain products to make qualified health claims on the labels. This has led to some companies purposefully adding certain ingredients to products in order to position them as “healthy”. But the rules could leave consumers confused as to which products are actually healthy, and could lead to a general mistrust of labels, as David Robertson reports.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Food companies in the US are seeking permission to put unproven health claims on their packaging in a move that has prompted critics to liken the industry to “snake-oil salesmen”. Until recently, food companies have faced strict restrictions on what a product can claim in the way of health benefits. However, these rules have changed in the face of legal challenges that asserted free speech extends to corporate language.
As a result the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has begun to loosen its labelling restrictions and a number of products are now able to make “qualified” health claims.
For example, Kraft’s Planters’ nut division has introduced the NUT-rition Heart-Healthy Mix which has the following disclaimer on its packaging: “Supportive but not conclusive research shows that eating 1.5 ounces per day of most nuts as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol may reduce the risk of heart disease.”
This is not exactly catchy language but it does allow Kraft to promote its nuts as a “health food” to consumers who are increasingly attracted by that proposition. The company also benefits because consumers are much more likely to believe a scientific statement about a product than corporate advertising or marketing. (The University of Kentucky found, in 1995, that just 1.4% of consumers completely trusted information in product advertising. But nearly 60% trusted food labels.)
How well do you really know your competitors?
Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.
Thank you!
Your download email will arrive shortly
Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample
We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form
By GlobalDataFree speech
But what may be good for marketing departments may not be good for the consumer and advocate groups have issued legal challenges in an attempt to derail the new labelling system.
The first piece of US legislation covering health claims for food was passed in 1990 when the US Congress introduced the Nutrition Labelling and Education Act. This Act was designed to aid consumers who wanted to buy healthy food and the FDA only allowed statements that there backed up by “significant scientific agreement”.
The claims that were approved under this gold standard (“diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol reduce the risk of coronary heart disease” being one) have now become part of the language and nutritional experts agree they have done a great deal to educate consumers.
But as soon as the new rules were introduced, the food industry (and vitamin and dietary supplement companies in particular) began lobbying for looser restrictions. In 1998 a supplement manufacturer hoping to make more claims for folic acid sued the FDA claiming that “significant scientific agreement” restricted its free speech. After much wrangling through the courts, the FDA recently agreed to introduce new criteria for making health claims.
More in the pipeline
These have been graded (B to D) so when a food category or product is assigned a grade the food manufacturer can put a specific, but qualified, declaration on its packaging.
For example, a B product must say that research looks positive but is not conclusive; a C product must say the evidence is limited and inconclusive; and a D product that there is little scientific evidence supporting the claim.
So far the FDA has granted just three food categories – olive oil, some nuts and omega-3 fatty acid foods – the right to use qualified statements, although dozens more are in the pipeline.
Dennis A Baliant, chief executive of the California Walnut Commission, said: “Our members were most pleased to be given the qualified statement because it justifies 13 years of investment in clinical trials. It has given our products a recognition and that is gratifying. This year is likely to be a record year for walnut sales although I can’t say how much of that is down to labelling, but we think it must help.”
Too wordy?
Given the obtuse language the FDA is insisting upon, it is not surprising that food companies are still pressing for rule changes. For a start, they believe that the qualified statements could be reduced in length. California’s walnut growers met the FDA recently to talk about changes, although there is little indication at this stage that the FDA will alter the wording.
Baliant said: “We’d like to drop the “may” from the statement as there are already a couple of qualifiers in the language and that makes it more confusing. Why does the statement need to be so wordy? It becomes less meaningful with all this boilerplate language.”
Because only a handful of food categories have been approved by the FDA for qualified health statements, not many companies have taken advantage of the rule change. But this is likely to change. A number of companies are planning to alter their packaging in the near future, and some are even adding approved ingredients to their products in order to take advantage of the new labelling rules.
For example, Kellogg is believed to be introducing a DHA-fortified cereal that will be marketed as “heart healthy” because DHA is an omega-3 fatty acid, which has been approved by the FDA for qualified advertising. This may result in processed foods that contain some beneficial ingredients being able to put a “healthy heart” label on the packaging despite the product containing other, harmful, ingredients. Also, these new qualified health statements could lead to a proliferation of claims that leave consumers unable to distinguish one from another.
Spurious claims
Critics have dubbed the food industry “snake-oil salesmen” for wanting to take advantage of these rules and a Center for Science in the Public Interest spokesman recently added that the new rules were “allowing food companies to turn the supermarket aisles into a Tower of Babble”. Even the food industry itself is concerned that the new labelling system may be abused.
Baliant said: “We all have to be responsible in order to maintain the value of good clinical research for all our products. The worse thing we could do would be to make vague or misleading claims.”
Baliant added that removing the D category of qualified statements might help to remove some of the more spurious claims. But it is hard to see how these rules will not come to be exploited by marketing departments desperate to tap into the lucrative health food market. If, and when, this happens consumers may start to lose faith in the labels, which will potentially harm the industry in the long-term.
Other products being considered by the FDA for qualified language include:
- Green Tea, which may reduce the risk of cancer.
- Tomato products, which may reduce the risk of prostate cancer.
- Barley and B-glucan soluble fibre, which may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease.
- Soy protein, which may reduce the risk of certain cancers.
- Glucosamine and/or chondroitin, which may reduce the risk of joint problems.
