October 27, 2008
Smart Choices Program Aims to Simplify Nutrition Labels
By Tom Ryan
A group of the largest food companies are unveiling a common, easy-to-read nutrition label moved to the front of packaging. It has a prominent green checkmark next to the words “Smart Choices Program” identifying a product as meeting science-based nutrition criteria derived from the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
The label, unveiled at the American Dietetic Association conference in Chicago, is the culmination of nearly two years’ work by food suppliers, nutritionists, government agencies and retailers.
The logo lists the number of servings and calories per serving for each product. Foods bearing the logo must meet certain standards for limited fat, cholesterol, sugar and sodium based on the Food Guide Pyramid. Most products must have positive attributes as well, such as including calcium, potassium, vitamins and fiber, or encouraging people to eat from major food groups such as fruits, vegetables and whole grains.
The voluntary industry standard was developed to aid consumers in making informed shopping purchases. It comes after complaints that the Federally-mandated “nutrition facts box” on the backside of almost every food product is too complicated, too hidden, and written in too small print.
Companies that adopt Smart Choices must rid themselves of proprietary labels denoting “better-for-you products that have drawn fire for only adding to the confusion.
“We believe that a single, credible system that is recognizable and uniform across categories will benefit consumers,” said Susan Crockett, RD, vice president of General Mills’ Bell Institute of Health and Nutrition, and a member of the Smart Choices Plenary, in a statement. “The new Smart Choices initiative harmonizes and unifies various competing approaches, reducing potential confusion and making it easier for consumers to identify healthy food choices and compare calorie and serving information at-a-glance.”
Michael Jacobson, head of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a food-labeling watchdog, told the Chicago Tribune, that Smart Choices clearly marks an improvement over the hodgepodge of healthy-for-you labels in the market. But his group was looking for a label that also spelled out what foods are unhealthy for consumers as well. He called it a program food makers “can live with,” suggesting that it represents a way for the food industry to get ahead of any government regulation that might be stricter but would take longer to implement.
Eileen Kennedy, a nutritionist and member of the group that put together Smart Choices, told the Chicago Tribune that consumers want a solution to the labeling confusion, and research indicates they will be satisfied with a program pointing to just healthy foods.
“We, as scientists, may think you need to know good foods and bad foods, but consumers just want to know what’s healthy for them,” said Ms. Kennedy, dean of Tufts University’s School of Nutrition Science and Policy.
Discussion Question: What do you think of the “Smart Choices Program” labeling system? Is it too simple? Do you think it should have done more to identify what foods are unhealthy for consumers as well as those that are healthy?
- Good for you,’ label will shout – Chicago Tribune
- General Mills to Implement New ‘Smart Choices’ Front-of-Pack Labeling Program – Business Wire
- ConAgra to take part in ‘Smart Choices’ labeling – Business Wire
- Unilever U.S. Applauds New Uniform Food Labeling System for American Consumers – Business Wire
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
I think even this small step in the right direction will be useful. Maybe the next step will be to give even more useful information to the consumer.
The label will only remain credible until a study is done by a competing group that states that “40% of all foods that carry the Smart Choice label actually cause obesity in adults over the age of 30,” or something along those lines.
Not to be cynical, but there needs to be more substance behind this label if it is really going to be meaningful, and while a great start, this label does not go far enough.
Too much information isn’t always better.
All to the good. But it’s interesting that it was retailers that first became consumer advocates by coming out with credible assistance for shoppers like this some time ago via shelf tags of one sort or another, well ahead of the manufacturers. I’d love to see this system spread, but you’ll never get unanimity. An underlying point here is that manufacturers should be in closer touch with retailers on what’s happening in the trenches. Retailers are still closer to the consumer; too many manufacturers still have too many MBAs and committees in between them and the shopper.
On the surface, this program is contradictory to these companies’ biggest and most profitable products. Processed foods are what they live by and processed foods are rarely good for anybody.
So, to satisfy my cynical mind, I did a little searching. I could not find many specific products, but then I landed on PepsiCo’s Smart Choices website. And while they listed Quaker Oatmeal (I hope not the instant stuff), they also listed Baked Lays Potato Crisps and Chewy Granola Bars. There is the answer! The products don’t have to be good for you. They just can’t be so-o-o-o bad for you.
It is unfortunate that the government directed labeling is hard to understand and often times misleading itself. Take the example of a single large chocolate chip cookie that is found on sale in most airports. The cookie is packaged in singles. If one reads the nutrition information, it doesn’t sound bad at all. However, it’s based on one serving. Most would assume the cookie was one serving. However, a closer look at the nutritional information indicates that there are 4 servings per cookie. Who decided that? Who shares this one cookie among 4 people?
The Smart Choice labeling may do more harm than good for the consumer. Rather than take the time to look at the labeling and making an informed decision, the consumer will give the manufacturer greater credibility and simply pick out products that have the logo. In the end, Lay’s sales mix may shift away from Potato Chips to Potato Crisps. But, this logo may give a consumer permission to shift from a snack of an apple to Potato Crisps.
Consumers are being pressed between more tight vises these days. Time, economic and health pressures have increased and they want quick reassurances that what they are buying for themselves and their families is safe and nutritious. They want to be able to feel totally secure when they see “Smart Choices” or “Good Housekeeping” labels and trust that true reliability and substance are built into such seals.
The market will actually be a little bit confused for awhile, since, with the launch of Smart Choices, there are now at least three non-proprietary nutritional navigation systems with potential national scope in play. Smart Choice is the only front-of-package program. Guiding Stars from Hannaford and NuVal from Dr. David Katz at Yale’s Griffin Hospital, a program supported by Topco, are shelf tag/in-store signage systems.
The good news is that simplified, validated nutritional navigation systems are coming on stream to help the consumer make healthier selections and supplement the Nutrition Facts panel. More good news is that Smart Choice is voluntary and symbolizes food manufacturers’ dedication to market healthier food. Guiding Stars and NuVal do the same for retailers. All are validated with scientific panels. Guiding Stars is in Hannaford and Food Lion stores, while NuVal is currently rolling out in select Hy-Vees and Price Choppers. Smart Choice will debut in 2009 and will be national almost immediately, or as soon as the products arrive on the shelves.
Next year will be the shake out, as consumer research will presumably tell us what system is seen as credible, accurate and helpful–or if they really turn out to be complimentary and compatible.
I’m not sure about this program and the reason is that I remember seeing this label on one of those soft drinks that offers no calories, no sugar, etc. While this may be a healthy alternative to the sugar laden version, it is still an ’empty’ product. By ’empty’, I mean it has zero nutritional value whatsoever (you would probably be better off eating the bottle). Having this label on a ‘soft drink’ may lull consumers into falsely thinking that this is a healthy product. They should come out with an alternative label that will identify products that are less bad for you over the standard versions.
Who is going to make the decisions as to what is good for you? An impartial group of nutritionists or food scientists? Who will they work for and be paid by? Food manufacturers or the government? For this to work and do any good, it must have the consumer’s trust. Trust isn’t very high in our government right now and for good reason.
I would love to see better labels armed with accurate information that is easy to read and understand. I also want to know where this food is grown or made so I can decide if that is a good choice or not. We can’t make people eat right but if we can at least better educate them, we will have done them a great service as a start.
Or, will the logos just come to mean, “Tastes like sawdust (or worse)” ?
Seriously, though.
Legend has it that AOL’s parental controls–and the company’s prominent promotion of them–in fact became the making of its adult-content business. And then there’s the story of the fast-food rebel Hardee’s, who, every time the rest of the world hyperventilates about healthy food choices, just comes out with another, even bigger coronary-on-a-bun.
So will the assiduous food rebel in the grocery aisle learn to avoid the green Smart Choices label like the plague, and just go for the stuff they like? If that’s the case, Smart Choices are especially smart business: preemptively segregating the market is a sure way, if counterintuitive, to build up the unhealthy categories while the brands look as if they’re doing the right thing.
It might be too simple.
If the objective is to encourage healthy eating, perhaps the logo should get the consumer in the habit of reading the nutritional information. However, I believe that any steps taken to assist those consumers who need the help in eating healthier is a good step.
I really like this idea and believe that consumers will appreciate it. My hope is that the information will be accurate. Consumers in the US are defined by being extremely busy. They want to eat right but are challenged by time.
More Discussions
As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…Is Supply Chain Volatility Here To Stay?
Can we expect an ongoing volatility to remain in terms of retail supply chain?Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?
I think even this small step in the right direction will be useful. Maybe the next step will be to give even more useful information to the consumer.
The label will only remain credible until a study is done by a competing group that states that “40% of all foods that carry the Smart Choice label actually cause obesity in adults over the age of 30,” or something along those lines.
Not to be cynical, but there needs to be more substance behind this label if it is really going to be meaningful, and while a great start, this label does not go far enough.
Too much information isn’t always better.
All to the good. But it’s interesting that it was retailers that first became consumer advocates by coming out with credible assistance for shoppers like this some time ago via shelf tags of one sort or another, well ahead of the manufacturers. I’d love to see this system spread, but you’ll never get unanimity. An underlying point here is that manufacturers should be in closer touch with retailers on what’s happening in the trenches. Retailers are still closer to the consumer; too many manufacturers still have too many MBAs and committees in between them and the shopper.
On the surface, this program is contradictory to these companies’ biggest and most profitable products. Processed foods are what they live by and processed foods are rarely good for anybody.
So, to satisfy my cynical mind, I did a little searching. I could not find many specific products, but then I landed on PepsiCo’s Smart Choices website. And while they listed Quaker Oatmeal (I hope not the instant stuff), they also listed Baked Lays Potato Crisps and Chewy Granola Bars. There is the answer! The products don’t have to be good for you. They just can’t be so-o-o-o bad for you.
It is unfortunate that the government directed labeling is hard to understand and often times misleading itself. Take the example of a single large chocolate chip cookie that is found on sale in most airports. The cookie is packaged in singles. If one reads the nutrition information, it doesn’t sound bad at all. However, it’s based on one serving. Most would assume the cookie was one serving. However, a closer look at the nutritional information indicates that there are 4 servings per cookie. Who decided that? Who shares this one cookie among 4 people?
The Smart Choice labeling may do more harm than good for the consumer. Rather than take the time to look at the labeling and making an informed decision, the consumer will give the manufacturer greater credibility and simply pick out products that have the logo. In the end, Lay’s sales mix may shift away from Potato Chips to Potato Crisps. But, this logo may give a consumer permission to shift from a snack of an apple to Potato Crisps.
Consumers are being pressed between more tight vises these days. Time, economic and health pressures have increased and they want quick reassurances that what they are buying for themselves and their families is safe and nutritious. They want to be able to feel totally secure when they see “Smart Choices” or “Good Housekeeping” labels and trust that true reliability and substance are built into such seals.
The market will actually be a little bit confused for awhile, since, with the launch of Smart Choices, there are now at least three non-proprietary nutritional navigation systems with potential national scope in play. Smart Choice is the only front-of-package program. Guiding Stars from Hannaford and NuVal from Dr. David Katz at Yale’s Griffin Hospital, a program supported by Topco, are shelf tag/in-store signage systems.
The good news is that simplified, validated nutritional navigation systems are coming on stream to help the consumer make healthier selections and supplement the Nutrition Facts panel. More good news is that Smart Choice is voluntary and symbolizes food manufacturers’ dedication to market healthier food. Guiding Stars and NuVal do the same for retailers. All are validated with scientific panels. Guiding Stars is in Hannaford and Food Lion stores, while NuVal is currently rolling out in select Hy-Vees and Price Choppers. Smart Choice will debut in 2009 and will be national almost immediately, or as soon as the products arrive on the shelves.
Next year will be the shake out, as consumer research will presumably tell us what system is seen as credible, accurate and helpful–or if they really turn out to be complimentary and compatible.
I’m not sure about this program and the reason is that I remember seeing this label on one of those soft drinks that offers no calories, no sugar, etc. While this may be a healthy alternative to the sugar laden version, it is still an ’empty’ product. By ’empty’, I mean it has zero nutritional value whatsoever (you would probably be better off eating the bottle). Having this label on a ‘soft drink’ may lull consumers into falsely thinking that this is a healthy product. They should come out with an alternative label that will identify products that are less bad for you over the standard versions.
Who is going to make the decisions as to what is good for you? An impartial group of nutritionists or food scientists? Who will they work for and be paid by? Food manufacturers or the government? For this to work and do any good, it must have the consumer’s trust. Trust isn’t very high in our government right now and for good reason.
I would love to see better labels armed with accurate information that is easy to read and understand. I also want to know where this food is grown or made so I can decide if that is a good choice or not. We can’t make people eat right but if we can at least better educate them, we will have done them a great service as a start.
Or, will the logos just come to mean, “Tastes like sawdust (or worse)” ?
Seriously, though.
Legend has it that AOL’s parental controls–and the company’s prominent promotion of them–in fact became the making of its adult-content business. And then there’s the story of the fast-food rebel Hardee’s, who, every time the rest of the world hyperventilates about healthy food choices, just comes out with another, even bigger coronary-on-a-bun.
So will the assiduous food rebel in the grocery aisle learn to avoid the green Smart Choices label like the plague, and just go for the stuff they like? If that’s the case, Smart Choices are especially smart business: preemptively segregating the market is a sure way, if counterintuitive, to build up the unhealthy categories while the brands look as if they’re doing the right thing.
It might be too simple.
If the objective is to encourage healthy eating, perhaps the logo should get the consumer in the habit of reading the nutritional information. However, I believe that any steps taken to assist those consumers who need the help in eating healthier is a good step.
I really like this idea and believe that consumers will appreciate it. My hope is that the information will be accurate. Consumers in the US are defined by being extremely busy. They want to eat right but are challenged by time.