Interpreting Food Labels and Proposed Changes to the
Interpreting Food Labels and Proposed Changes to the Label (To Improve Consumer Choice) Jamie N. Murawski Grand Valley State University Frederick Meijer Honors College Senior Project (Mentor Steven Nizielski, Ph. D. ) ABSTRACT RESULTS (CONTINUED) A sample of Grand Valley students took a questionnaire concerning nutrition information to assess their knowledge of food labels. The questions were compiled from previous literature and demonstrated that the consumer understanding has not changed or improved throughout the last two decades. Misinterpretations of the information exist about serving size, the definition of %DV and how it is used, and how to use the back-of-package label to choose between two similar foods. The results reinforce the continued need for the FDA to overhaul the design of food labels in order to improve consumer comprehension. Several of the FDA’s proposed changes, including increasing the font size of serving size and calories, adding added sugar and decreasing the daily recommended amount of sodium, will likely be effective. Table 1. Participants’ Classification of Foods as Low, Medium, or High Sources of Fat, Based on Information Given on Food Labels (Adapted from Levy et al, 2000). INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND RESULTS Figure 1. I read food labels before choosing to purchase and consume a food or beverage. Eighty Grand Valley State University students were asked to answer questions; 56 were female (70%) Figure 1 shows 82. 5% of the students identified that they read food labels before making a purchase. 76. 25% of those said they read food labels at least once per month, while 18. 75% described their use as “rarely or never”. The results of the hybrid questionnaire follow. It should be noted that due to the small sample size, these results are not generalizable to the population. They do give insight regarding the similarity of the current comprehension of nutritional information to past literature. • • TRUE Actual Food Whole milk Whole wheat Vegetables in sauce Main dish Frozen spaghetti dinner Trail mix with nuts Snack Nutrition is a vital component of our everyday life because what we eat largely determines our health. Of the leading causes of death reported in 2009, heart disease, some types of cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and diabetes were all related to nutrition and poor diet. Understanding food labels is a crucial part of maintaining a healthy lifestyle by aiding in food choice. Nutrition labeling initially began in 1990 when the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) was passed in the United States. This act required packaged foods to disclose information on food about nutritional values, like calories, fat, cholesterol, carbohydrates, sodium, sugar, and fiber. The goal was to improve the choices of food that consumers purchased. However, the scientific research regarding what it means to be “healthy” has changed in the last twenty years, while the nutrition labels have not been updated. Food labels remain confusing and difficult for the consumer to understand. The FDA is currently in the process of passing new legislature to update the Nutrition Facts graphic. It is important to assess the current misunderstandings to ensure the need for each proposed change. There is a vast amount of literature assessing consumer understanding of food labels. This project adapted questions from two of these studies in particular (Levy, Patterson, Kristal, & Li, 2000; Rothman, Housam, Weiss, Davis, Gregory, Gebretsadik, Shintani et al, 2006) to make an informal questionnaire given to GVSU students. • Food Type Beverage Bread Side dish FALSE Don't know Label Information %DV* Fat (g) 12 8 3 2 5 3 DISCUSSION Participant Classification (%) Low Medium High 5 30 65 77. 5 20 2. 5 67. 5 20. 5 2. 5 15 10 7. 5 45 47. 5 12 8 2. 5 55 42. 5 Table 1: Participants were given food type but not the actual food. They were also given the label information (%DV and grams for fat content. They were asked to select whether a food type was low, medium, or high in fat based on the nutritional information alone. The correct classifications are highlighted in italic orange. For the main dish, the criteria for fat were: low = 0 -10%, medium = 11 -20%, and high = >20%. For all other food types, the criteria were: low = 05%, medium = 6 -10%, and high = >10%. (Levy et al, 2000). *%DV is the percentage of daily value (the percentage of daily recommendations for nutrients based on a 2000 Calorie diet. ) Questions Interpreting Components of Food Labels (Adapted From Levy et all, 2000). Correct answers are indicated by bolded, orange italics The ingredients on a food label are listed in: Order of decreasing mass (67. 5%) Order of increasing volume (22. 5%) Alphabetical order (5%) Type of food (5%) Definition of %DV for fat (Levy et al, 2000). Percent of ideal daily amount recommended for fat (57. 5%) Percent of minimum daily amount recommended for fat (10%) Percent of maximum daily amount recommended for fat (30%) Don’t know (26%) How many calories come from 1 gram of fat? 7 kcal/gram of fat (20%) 9 kcal/gram of fat (45%) 4 kcal/gram of fat (17. 5%) 5 kcal/gram of fat (17. 5%) Which measure on the labels is most useful for assessing fat content? (Levy et al, 2000). Total fat (g) (55%) Calories from fat (32. 5%) %DV (7. 5%) Don’t know (5%) How would you use %DV to select a diet low in fat? (Levy et al, 2000). Add all the %DV for fat so that the total is not over 100% (37. 5%) Add all the %DV for fat so that total is at least 100% (10%) Concentrate on not going over 100%DV for saturated fat (20%) Select food with no more than 30% calories from fat (17. 5%) Don’t know (17. 5%) Locating Nutrition Information: Participants were asked to use the following sample Nutrition Facts labels to calculate the quantity of nutrients they would consume for specific servings. *Adapted from Rothman et al, 2006. • The common errors in reading food labels were demonstrated by Levy et al (2000) and Rothman et al (2006) and were mirrored in the answers given by GVSU students. This confirms the continued existence of misunderstandings of the nutritional information on backof-package labeling. • The definition and usage of %DV for fat is one example of confusion • Commonly thought to be the ideal amount recommended daily. • For all types of fat, as well as cholesterol and sodium, the %DV is meant to be a guideline for the maximum daily consumption. • %DV is meant to put the grams of fat in one food item into perspective of the entire day’s diet. • For some, grams might be an easier piece of information to understand than %DV. It was noted that other studies found over a third of consumers do not look at %DV at all when reading a food label. (Levy et al, 2000). • The majority of people are able to use nutrition Figure 3: Original Label (above) Proposed Label (below) information on food labels to calculate the quantity of nutrients they would have consumed for a specific serving size. • However: common calculation errors include: • Not taking serving size into consideration, especially with foods like the 24 oz. soda, which a person might drink in a single sitting. 22. 5% of people did not multiply 27 g by 2. 5 servings to obtain total carbohydrates in one bottle. They might have wrongly assumed one serving is one bottle (Rothman et al, 2006). • FDA’s Proposed Changes to the Nutrition Facts Label (Figure 3 (Kessler, 2014; FDA. gov)): • Servings will be made a larger, bolder text. • Actual serving sizes have not been updated in more than twenty years and Americans today are eating much more than they used to (Erickson, 2014). The serving sizes for many products will be updated, and therefore, increased (e. g. a serving of ice cream will change from ½ cup to 1 cup). • Calories per serving will also be increased in size and bolded. • Percent daily value will be moved to the left side of the label (so it can be quickly compared between two similar food items). • Carbohydrate breakdown will include added sugars as a category. • Food manufacturers will have to list the actual numerical amount of vitamins and minerals and potassium/vitamin D will be added (vitamins A and C become optional to include). CONCLUSION • Figure 2. When I read food labels I look at: • 50 40 30 20 10 0 • e. . . ei n No ne . . . d an in m ta Pr ot Vi Co nt t . . . en e en t at on t rc Su ga dr on t er c rb oh y Fib Ca t sf at fa d an te ra tu Sa Tr s ie lf ta To um or al lc To ta So di at • Figure 2: Participants were instructed to circle the top two things they look for if they read Nutrition Facts. If they did not read Nutrition Facts, they should have answered “none”. Almost 20% of the responses should have been “none” based on Fig. 1, but that was not reflected in the answers. The two most common categories were total calories and protein content. When broken down by gender, 61% of females and 33% of males selected total calories while 21% of females and 33% of males selected protein. A chi-squared analysis rejected the null hypothesis that there was no difference in choice among gender for protein and total calories. Females were more likely to select total calories and males were more likely to select protein. The food label above is from a package of bagels. If you eat half a bagel for breakfast, how many grams of total carbohydrates does this contain? 28 g (77. 5%) Incorrect answers: 56 g (12. 5%) Other (10%) The food label above is from a package of candy. You eat five candies. How many grams of dietary fiber are in 5 candies? 1 g (90. 0%) Incorrect answers: 5 g (7. 5%) Other (2. 5%) The food label above is from a bottle of soda. You drink the whole bottle of soda. How many grams of total carbohydrates does this contain? 67. 5 g (75. 0%) Incorrect answers: 27 g (22. 5%) Other (2. 5%) Many people do not understand %DV or how to use them to make healthy choices, but this does not limit their ability to evaluate the fat content of different food types. GVSU students most likely exaggerated their use of food labels due to a perceived bias that they were expected to use them. It is known that people with low literacy rates or low education would have trouble reading food labels, but this demonstrates that even in higher education, there are issues understanding the nutritional information. The FDA has a great opportunity to implement changes to improve consumer understanding. The proposed changes, especially differentiating added sugars within carbohydrates, will be a big step. However, it will be a costly change and simply moving %DV to the opposite side of the Nutrition Fact label will not improve consumer comprehension of %DV. The changes likely do not go far enough to help the average user. Research needs to be done to determine the best way to put a food into perspective of the entire diet. References Erickson, B. (2014). Food label fight. Chemical & Engineering News, 92(30), 26 -28. Kessler, D. (2014). Toward More Comprehensive Food Labeling. New England Journal of Medicine, 193 -195. Levy, L. , Patterson, R. , Kristal, A. , & Li, S. (2000). How well do consumers understand percentage daily value on food labels? American Journal of Health Promotion, 14(3), 157 -160. Rothman, R. , Housam, R. , Weiss, H. , Davis, D. , Gregory, R. , Gebretsadik, T. , Shintani, A. , & Elasy, T. (2006). Patient understanding of food labels - the role of literacy and numeracy. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31(5), 391 -398. For more information, email murawskj@mail. gvsu. edu. A more detailed, supplementary paper to follow.
- Slides: 1