Is a ‘Traffic Light’ Coming to Food Labels?

Reader Comments
Back to blog

This traffic light idea will be helpful when it comes to consumers making the quick decision on the healthiest thing to eat, but most Americans know what they are getting when they consume their food. I mean if you quickly grab a Snickers bar for a snack, you know that it is not a healthy thing to eat and you do not necessarily need a red light to reinforce this. So, this red light could in fact hurt industries, such as the candy industry, and further injure our economy, which is something America does not need at this point in time. So, as of right now, I say we stick with the current labeling process of Smart Foods etc. and the FDA should just crack down on false advertising.
Christine

Christine Ulses of MO 2:07PM March 14, 2010

It is very important for the health our nation to have meaningful legislation that establishes clear standards for the food producing companies to grow and market their products.
Nowadays, most customers do not have reliable, clear information of what products are best for their consumption. We are living in a very unhealthy nation. The lack of clear label coding/standard causes most Americans to put in their mouths foods or products that will cause them chronic illness or death. These affects our quality of life and overwhelms
our health care providing centers/hospitals. Then,we are taxed
to pay for services on health care needed but caused by the irresponsible food corporations. What do you think about this?
We are set to have no other choice, but ingest unheathy food supplies;then, we find out that our pay check is not enough to pay for health services caused by the toxic foods you consumed.
It is the irresponsible food corporations the ones that shoud be taxed to cover for illnesses they caused on us. After all,
we consumers are deceived with poor food labelings and we have no freedom of choice on consuming something healthy or something unhealthy. Average consumer thingks that by consuming vegetables and fruits they are doing the right thing; but do not reaize that most of our fresh food supply is all loaded with higher than allowed levels or they are altered with seriously unhalthy geneticly modified organisms.
While sugary, and starchy foods are highlighted in written artices and or discussions, there is no mention on all pesticides and genetically modified organisms that have plagued our food supply. Instead, I see a trend on attacking the organic food producers or discouragement of organic product consumers to use organic products.
On whose sise is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? Is it on the side of the Monsanto genetically modified food products and all their highly paid lobbyist and their goal of monopolizing our food supply? Or is the FDA on the side of Consumer food supply safety? I find it so hypocritical that the officials that we elected entrusting them to advocate and protect us from those corporate entities that only seek profit
look the other way and become complacent on out of control corporations that are only after profitting and do whatever it takes to achieve their selfisy, GREEDY objectives.
All I say is, our elected officials need not to forget that they hold office becaue we elected them; and they need to be
vigilant on behalf of the majority of Americans and not to allow themselves to give into any tactics or threats by those representing the greedy corporations.

Ivett of TX 1:49PM October 24, 2009

Eat what ever you like, eat as much as you like - that is not the issue at hand. The issue is the misleading information that is put on the food label. The FDA regulates when labels can state "fat free" or "sugar free". They also require that when a health statement is made such as "sugar free", the manufacturer must add disclaimers if the fat content is high, as to not mislead people.
When one buys a food product, and actually reads the label it needs to be accurate and informative. Then, and intelligent person can make his or hers own decision.
Let us not forget that the front food label panel is advertising, and as such, when it is used to advertise and market a product it should fall under the descriptive trade practice act. It is in effect false advertising.
Several months ago I was helping a customer create his food labels ( we deal with the labels and printing side of it) The customer was very confused about the regulation. As a result we created a "human readable" (no need to be a lawyer) food labeling guide that is based on the FDA regulations. the section dealing with statements and claims is particularly relevant to this discussion.
http://www.tpgtex.com/statement_and_claims.html

Orit Pennington of TX 7:27PM October 21, 2009

I use the 3 colors on my website because I think it is helpful to get a quick visual on whether a food is nutritious or not. This is terrifying for packaged food creators because many would end up with a red label. But, the obesity epidemic is here and we need to take radical measures to end it.
Lisa
http://www.snacksnoop.com

Lisa Cain of MA 8:30AM October 21, 2009

I am happy to be informed. I want to live a long, long time. People like Bob of NY at the top of this list, don't speak for me.

SeanG of MI 12:06AM October 21, 2009

I am happy to be informed. I want to live a long, long time. People like Bob of NY at the top of this list, don't speak for me.

SeanG of MI 12:06AM October 21, 2009

let us be fat if we want to. we can choose for ourselves.

bob of NY 9:07PM October 20, 2009

what the hell people? why are you reading this shite?

anonomous 6:16PM October 20, 2009

We can't make informed choices if we have misleading labeling - which the FDA allows. Such as "contains sugar or HFCS" - they have very different metabolic effects, and a cola manufacturer knows very well which of these two it is putting in the can. Or so-called "natural falvoring" when it is one of many forms of sodium glutamate* - an ingredient whose sole function is to make us eat or drink more than we would otherwise. Is it too much to hpope that Commissioner Dr Hamburg and Dr Schneeman might put the FDA's house in order.
And then maybe we can get some proper food standards or will the USDA will revise theirs? Under Secretary Vilsack's leadership, USDA is "providing healthy fruits and vegetables to women and their infant children to encourage nutritious eating." Awesome. But if he really wants to "encourage nutritious eating, combat the obesity epidemic, and prevent health problems down the road" let's have nutrition guidance that doesn't emphasize grains, dairy, and unhealthy oils, and let's remove subsidies from "poor choices" agriculture. And a final thought, many people in Britain don't like the voluntary "traffic light" program.

Dr Mike 6:05PM October 20, 2009