The United States is in the middle of an obesity epidemic with no end in sight, and the Food and Drug Administration, with a long history of failing to improve the country’s health, is suggesting yet another regulation for packaged goods.
Despite the FDA’s best efforts, chronic disease and obesity have skyrocketed since 1970. But hope springs eternal with taxpayer-funded agencies. The agency, endowed with an over $6.5 billion annual budget, plans to require “front of package” labels to call attention to foods with an excess amount of the recommended dietary allowance for sugar, saturated fat, and salt.
The FDA believes FOP labels will help people make healthier choices, but consumers should be skeptical of labeling endeavors. Is America really getting fat because shoppers aren’t aware that Froot Loops or cans of Mountain Dew are packed with sugar? It’s unlikely a symbol on the front of a package will deter a poor decision.
Nevertheless, the FDA has forged ahead, conducting focus groups to determine what labels would be most useful for busy shoppers. It tested visuals such as green and red boxes to indicate low or high levels of either saturated fat, sodium, or sugar, as well as a yield sign with an exclamation point inside.
Only one of these, sugar, clearly contributes to obesity and poor metabolic health.
Most consumers equate sodium with salt, even though salt contains only 40% sodium. This confusion is understandable because common advice suggests cutting back on salt to reduce sodium intake. However, despite decades of government regulators’ fixation on salt, there’s no compelling evidence that it is bad for most people. Salt may be a concern for those with high blood pressure, but other ingredients, such as artificial coloring or flavors, are more problematic for the general population.
Saturated fat has been the victim of the government’s misguided, decadeslong crusade against fat, but there’s strong evidence against the charge that it’s bad for the heart. Dietary fat per se is not what makes people fat. Nevertheless, the cabal of three-letter agencies in Washington insists on demonizing products such as butter, eggs, and full-fat dairy despite a persistent lack of proof of their danger.
This has come at great cost. The government’s anti-fat crusade likely contributed to the obesity epidemic as it encouraged purveyors of processed food to replace fat with metabolism-busting sugar and other addictive flavor enhancers.
It is the country’s growing addiction to sugar that contributes to insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and obesity. All sugar does that to some degree, not just added sugar. The sugar hidden in products where consumers aren’t looking and the FDA isn’t labeling, such as bread, salad dressing, and flavored yogurt, should be more of a concern than the obvious candy bar and cookie.
There’s strong evidence that the main dietary culprits for our obesity epidemic are industrially refined carbohydrates (especially sugar), hyperprocessed foods, and artificial additives that make these foods ever more addictive but not satiating. Except for flagging added sugar, however, nothing in the FDA’s labeling scheme addresses this larger problem with the U.S. diet.
For addicts, even the most blatant and graphic warning labels aren’t an effective deterrent, whether the substance is sugar or nicotine. A report from RAND concluded that “there’s little evidence for the effect of graphic warning labels on smoking initiation or cessation.”
“In fact, there’s reason to believe graphic warning labels might have the opposite effect, making smokers feel defensive or causing nonsmokers to become inattentive to anti-smoking messages,” the report stated.
Instead of scary labels, a commitment to long-term education could be more effective if it teaches the right lessons. Standards must be updated to comply with the best research on food’s impact on hormonal balance, mental health, and weight gain. The low-fat fiasco is a shining example of teaching the wrong lesson. Consumers and food companies complied with the government’s messaging, and waistlines across America swelled as a result.
In contrast, the campaign against smoking, based on solid science, modified consumer behavior for the better. It led to a shift in social attitudes, including the banning of smoking in confined public places. In 1965, about 42% of U.S. adults smoked, compared to about 12.5% now.
Many have done the work of deciphering labels on their own, but nutrition-savvy consumers read labels as a concession when buying packaged goods. Most try to limit purchases from the aisles in the center of the grocery store, opting for food that can be described with one word: “egg,” “avocado,” or “cucumber,” for example.
Simply put, one should avoid food products with long and complicated labels altogether.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Indeed, America’s waistlines seem to increase proportionately with the amount of ingredients and information on a package. The terms “organic,” “whole grain,” or “gluten-free” don’t seem to help people’s weight loss efforts.
A clear, consistent FDA public education campaign could help shoppers make healthier choices. But first, the agency should turn its attention to the true culprits of our obesity crisis. Moving labels around merely looks like costly busywork.
Jennifer Galardi is the founder of the Center for Healthy America and spent decades as a health and wellness expert. Jay W. Richards is the director of the DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at the Heritage Foundation.