![]()
First lady Michelle Obama Friday unveiled the country's first update to nutrition labels in more than two decades — a move that helps cement her campaign to encourage Americans to eat healthier.
The new Nutrition Facts labels, which will take effect in two years and appear on billions of food packages, for the first time require food companies to list how much sugar they add to their products and suggest a limit for how much added sugar people should consume — two changes vehemently opposed by many food companies.
Story Continued Below
The impact of the rule is difficult to overstate — labels on products from candy bars and sodas to crackers and cereal, at every point of sale across America, must be overhauled at an estimated cost of $2 billion. And those labels will remind Americans every time they open a package of how much added sugar they are consuming.
"Very soon, very soon you will no longer need a microscope, a calculator or a degree in nutrition to figure out whether the food you're buying is actually good for our kids," Obama said today as she unveiled the new label at a health summit in Washington. "That's a phenomenal achievement."
The administration’s determination to stand its ground on added sugar labeling amid fierce opposition from business groups is a sign the first lady intends to bolster her already substantive food policy legacy in her final months in the East Wing. While the media has often painted Obama’s Let’s Move! campaign as soft and uncontroversial, the first lady has brought enormous pressure to bear on groups like the processed food industry and notched a series of wins related to what Americans eat. Those include the administration’s effort to all but ban trans fats, mandate more fruits and vegetables as well as less sugar, salt and fat for the meals served to 30 million school kids, and use government financing to get grocery stores into poor communities that lacked access to healthy food.
“This is an enormous accomplishment,” Marion Nestle, an influential food policy advocate, said of the new nutrition labels. Nestle gave the administration credit for not walking back any of the changes, first proposed in February 2014 to industry protests. "This is really hard to do.”
Although food companies with less than $10 million in annual sales would have three years to comply, significant pushback is expected. The Nutrition Facts label, described as the most reproduced graphic image in the world, hasn’t changed substantially since it first graced food packages in 1994.
The Sugar Association, which represents the vast majority of sugar producers, has argued the FDA has no scientific justification for mandating added sugars labeling and that doing so sets “an alarming precedent for this and future product labeling regulations.”
Some in the industry also contend that labeling added sugars is likely to confuse consumers and hinted at the possibility of litigation.
"We have seen this before — the demonizing of a specific ingredient like fat or cholesterol has not worked in the past," said Bruce Silverglade, a principal at Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Matz, who has worked for the sugar industry. "It's unfortunate that FDA is following the same old failed approach with its efforts to demonize sugars,"
"The agency is on very weak legal ground," Silverglade added. "One can punch holes in FDA's legal rationale for the labeling of added sugars bigger than the Washington Beltway."
The final rule, published today by the Food and Drug Administration, has been in the works for more than a decade, but the East Wing has been instrumental in shaping the policy and moving the process forward. The regulation stems from a law Congress passed in 1990 giving FDA the authority to mandate nutrition labels on food packages.
Obama will formally unveil the new labels in a presentation today at the Partnership for a Healthier America summit in Washington. The administration is hoping food companies will reformulate their products to reduce sugar, much like they did when they were required to label trans fat in 2006. Since then, the industry has cut more than 80 percent of trans fat out of processed food.
The design of the new labels won't look radically different. The first thing consumers are likely to notice is that calories are listed in a much larger and bolder font, a change to make it easier for those on the go to spot how many calories are in a product.
The standard serving sizes for many foods are also being updated so they align more closely with how much people actually eat — in some cases, significantly larger portions than they are used to seeing fat and caloric breakdowns for. A pint of ice cream, for example, has for decades been labeled as four servings. Under the new rule, a pint will be labeled as roughly three servings — a move that could surprise consumers because it will increase the amount of fat, sugar or calories listed per serving by about a third.
The new rule also makes changes to which nutrients have to be included on the label. Vitamins A and C will no longer be mandated (Americans mostly get enough of them), but now Vitamin D and potassium will be listed along with calcium and iron.
Mandating that companies disclose added sugars and list a new percent Daily Value for added sugars, however, are without question the most controversial elements of the final rule. The food industry has long pointed to the fact that science shows people process added sugars and naturally occurring sugars the same way and argued there is no reason to single them out.
It remains to be seen how willing groups like the Sugar Association may be to get tangled in a long and high-profile legal battle, especially opposite a popular first lady. The association is also just coming off of a long, bruising and expensive legal fight against the Corn Refiners Association over the image of sugar vs. corn syrup.
The trade group, which represents the vast majority of sugar producers, released a blistering critique Friday: "The extraordinary contradictions and irregularities, as well as the lack of scientific justification in this rulemaking process are unprecedented for the FDA," it said in a statement. "We are concerned that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent that is not grounded in science, and could actually deter us from our shared goal of a healthier America."
The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents giant companies such as General Mills and Coca Cola, had a far more tepid reaction despite its earlier opposition.
“Because consumers could be confused by the new label with its numerous changes, a robust consumer education effort will be needed to ensure that people continue to understand how the revised label can be used to make informed choices and maintain healthful dietary practices," the association said in a statement.
Not all food companies are opposed to listing added sugars. Mars and Nestlé, two leading global food companies, have come out in support of mandatory labeling.
“We really applaud this,” said Brad Figel, vice president of public affairs at Mars. “We think this is a major step forward in giving consumers more transparency.”
“We think the science is established and that’s why we’re supporting it,” Figel added. The 2015 Dietary Guidelines and the World Health Organization have urged people to not get more than 10 percent of their calories from added sugars, which is along the lines of what FDA is recommending.
That recommended limit comes out to be about 50 grams of sugar a day. A regular Pepsi, for example, has 69 grams of sugar, so it would have to be listed has having 138 percent of the Daily Value for added sugars.
Health groups, including the Academy of Nutrition of Dietetics and the Center for Science in the Public Interest, are also cheering the new label.
“Clear, easy-to-understand food labels will help put Americans on the path to healthy eating," said Nancy Brown, CEO of the American Heart Association.
Nestle (no relation to the company), said she is particularly pleased about the large calorie labeling and added sugars mandate.
“Sugars have been hidden in foods for far too long and now they’re going to be out in the open,” she said. “That’s a good thing. I think for people who read the labels, the information is going to come as a big surprise.”
