![]()
The Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Nutrition has a tendency to cling to bad policies and reject any new ideas. So it was back in the 1990s, and so it is now—a couple of decades later.
The latest evidence came Friday when it released a long-awaited proposal to fix the nutrition label. The proposal received widespread praise, including by the first lady and the FDA commissioner who touted it as a “valuable resource.” Just one problem: The idea of a label makes much more sense on paper than it does in real life. Consumers don’t really use nutrition labels to eat healthier because it’s too complicated to try and combine all of the information into one decision. Perhaps even worse, what we know about the relationship between diet and disease is almost entirely based on data that come from people trying to remember what and how much they ate. Their memories are terrible, and subsequent study has shown that the data are flat wrong. The FDA needs to give up on this failed policy and try other ideas that help consumers make healthier choices.
How am I so sure that the nutrition facts panel has been a failure? Because I made all of the upbeat predictions about how helpful it would be when, in 1993, we implemented the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. That law created, among other things, the Nutrition Facts Panel that you see on the back of packaged food. At the time, I was the chief economist at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition in the FDA and I asserted that people would see this information and use it to make wise, healthy choices, which would lead to better health outcomes for the nation. We thought we would see about 40,000 fewer cases of cancer and heart disease over the next 20 years and prevent 13,000 deaths.
Sadly, as nearly a quarter of a century of experience has revealed, pretty much none of that occurred. Today, fewer people read food labels, and most Americans think it’s easier to figure out their income taxes than to really understand how to eat healthy. After all, who knows how to trade off the different kinds of good fats and bad fats and good fiber and—in some cases, but not all—bad sodium and calories all together. If you don’t know, don’t feel bad; virtually no one does. The FDA suggests using its “5/20 rule,” which calls for limiting the bad characteristics of the food you buy to less than 5 percent and making sure the good ones exceed 20 percent. Unfortunately, the science doesn’t tell us whether this actually helps.
Part of the problem is that different people have different dietary needs. As scientific advances move toward allowing doctors to offer customized treatment plans for patients based on very specific needs, nutrition science continues to use a one-size-fits-all solution.
But even if everyone’s needs were uniform, research from the FDA’s sister agency, the Department of Agriculture, shows that the nutrition labeling law has no effect on consumption of total fat, saturated fat or cholesterol. Another study suggests that food labels may be actually misleading to consumers who are trying to make healthy choices.
Nutrition science also turns out to be much more uncertain than we thought. To estimate the effects of the label changes in the ’90s, we used nutrition science to link dietary fat to cancer, but now it appears that relationship doesn’t exist. We also linked high levels of LDL cholesterol to heart disease, but the age-adjusted decreases in coronary heart disease ceased to decline even as LDL continued to decline.
In its latest iteration, the FDA is updating two of the least understood parts of the nutrition label: the Daily Reference Values and Reference Daily Intakes. The former is the average percentage of a nutrient that a serving of a food provides in a day and the latter is the numerical quantities of the amounts of macronutrients that a person who consumes 2,000 calories per day needs. From a nutritionist’s perspective, those values may be useful information. But for most Americans, they are entirely meaningless and may serve only to discourage consumers from even looking at the label. One of the lead nutritionists at the FDA once told me that the problem was so complex, she would need to sit down with every American family for at least 15 minutes to explain the label.
If the nutrition label doesn’t work, how else can the government help consumers make more informed, healthier choices? For starters, the FDA should be more like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the people who created the Internet. Instead of just focusing on trying to fix the unfixable, the FDA could shift its focus toward thinking more creatively about viable solutions and give up on what isn’t working.
First, the FDA would need to honestly concede how little it knows about how different foods and food combinations actually affect individuals with distinct genetic and environmental factors, along with their personal preferences or capacity (or willingness) to exercise. The FDA would need to expand its base of knowledge and understanding within these areas and then consider how manufacturers and consumers would respond to any changes the FDA suggests as a result.
The FDA may need to think beyond labels or, at a minimum, think about something simpler like front-of-package signals that would convey the food’s nutrition information as a “healthier” or “less healthy” choice. Or maybe it’s time to start thinking even more outside the panel and consider using genetic modification to create foods that are healthier—as the researchers at the John Innes Centre did when they created a tomato packed with extra antioxidants meant to fight cancer.
Eventually, rather than consumers relying on poor memories of what they have eaten, we’ll have personal nutrition monitoring devices (including apps on cellphones) that can scan bar codes in grocery stores and input better data for actual meal intake. Rather than relying on faulty recall data, this could generate accurate data to establish diet-disease relationships—e.g., diets high in saturated fat leading to heart disease. The FDA can play a role in providing food labels that have more information in bar codes on packages or electronic tags within foods, which can provide more useful information to help with individual diets.
Whatever the FDA does, it should study, test and try pilot programs first—but it should not experiment on the entire American population without performing this due diligence. The health of 320 million people is far too important to leave to outdated policies and practices. The Nutrition Facts Panel is certainly not improving our health—and more and more tinkering is just poor policy.
Richard Williams is director of the regulatory studies program with the Mercatus Center, former FDA director for social sciences at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, and coauthor of a new study, “Retrospective Analysis of the Regulations Implementing the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990.”
The agency responds to a recent assertion in POLITICO that it isn't preparing for climate change.
America’s top nutrition thinker tried to unpack the most important food law. It was a mistake.
A nasty squabble among Democratic economists pinpoints a key question about the economy.
Occupational licensing laws are out of control. We need to fix them.
Aviation needs to be reformed, but Congress is about to crush a crucial part of the market .
The Debrief
When Congress can’t find real money to pay for laws, it turns to gimmicks. A guide to the top offenders.
Scholars are saying it passes muster. They're wrong. The courts would throw it out.
From 'The Interview' to the OMB heist, an interactive tour of the low points in cybertheft.
Two former ambassadors weigh in.
They’ve got a powerful record to run on. Saturday’s debate is the latest evidence they’re blowing the chance.
Why most of the big things we argue about are wrong.
The Debrief
6 expert ideas for fixing the process—and a cry for help
Student aid: It shouldn’t just be for college anymore.
Our bipartisan panel of tax and budget experts expects a deal rather than a shutdown, and gives the White House the upper hand.
The Debrief
Eight cutting-edge proposals for tackling America’s next great financial crisis.
How to fix inequality? It's time for research universities to step up, says ASU president Michael Crow.
Our policy reporters truth-squad the Republican debates.
Inside a new labor bill, a simple change that could be crucial to fighting inequality
Ben Carson wants to end the VA? Good luck. Here’s why it’s nearly impossible.
A budget insider says a shutdown this time might be unavoidable—and will drop huge amounts of power in Obama's lap.
Whose interest is a retirement adviser supposed to serve?
The Debrief
Five new transport ideas from around the world.
Critter crossings, sensitive bridges, and other ways to re-imagine good old asphalt
It’s true. Here’s why.
A Q&A with Jason Furman.
Ex-Im Bank CEO Fred Hochberg answers the critics who say his bank is just a subsidy for Boeing, and explains why it won’t shut down June 30.
“You don't win a knife fight without swinging a knife.”
Yes. This is how it works.
Our policy reporters truth-squad the Democratic debate.
If you look at their actual policies, the insider and outsider have more in common than they let on.
Obama's recent move to shine a light on unfair pay disparities will help but we must do more.
New research finds an intriguing benefit to employee ownership.
The Navy's plan to modernize its largest ships would just make them obsolete. Here's how to fix it.
The Premier of Taiwan argues that it's time for his country to join the pact.
Influential cybersecurity thinker Becky Bace says American companies need a wake-up call. Here’s what could make companies—and citizens—finally pay attention and stop just patching the problem.
Matt Blaze understands why politicians want a ‘back door’ into your devices—and why it will never work.
Eighteen years ago I was the first to use that term publicly. It was the wrong analogy then. Not anymore.
The Debrief
The Debrief
The main way Congress spends money every year isn’t the federal budget. It’s the tax code. And next year it's going to cost $1.3 trillion.
He says Trump’s wall would “would probably compromise border security more than it would help it.”
Here’s where the Dems are going to “wonk out”—and who time is running out for.
He’s found a way to quietly go after Americans’ favorite tax deduction. Will it work?
Federal rules explode in August. What's going on?
Will the “sharing economy” help kill off government regulation?
And TMI about SAFETEA-LU. Seriously, what's up with transportation acronyms?
Even Ike was disappointed by what highways did to cities. Here's a conservative case for fewer overpasses.
An experiment in figuring out what Washington likes about outer space.
A ‘catastrophist’ says longevity poses huge risks we aren't dealing with.
A look inside our little-known export pipeline suggests who might benefit when the embargo lifts.
The man who coined ‘Internet of Things’ says this is the first tech race America might lose.
A more humane way to die? Don’t bet on it.
Big Government
We surveyed food experts, and by a remarkable margin, they want Washington to butt in.
It sometimes seems children come last in school-lunch laws. It’s been that way from the beginning.
It started in Washington. Here's how Janet Yellen can undo the damage.
Two Senate veterans from opposing parties: Yes, it slows things down, but that's what's great about it.
A field guide to the 2016 scorecards you probably didn’t know about (until now)
The Debrief
And how to fix it.
Tweaking the rules sounds wonky, but a former Congressman explains how much it could matter.
With taxes off the table, Congress searches for creative new ways to pay for government.
If Congress lets the Export-Import Bank die, it gives up a valuable form of American influence.
The first Democratic debate made it official: The two parties are living on different worlds
The Debrief
Wrongometer
Analysis: Trump's plan would benefit the rich, and cost $2-3 trillion
How Congress is quietly killing one of the best ideas in government.
How our roads came to depend on a broken tax scheme Washington can't fix. An investigation.
The problem isn't too many lobbyists, an expert says: It's that they don't lobby hard enough.
A decade after Katrina, are our flood estimates dangerously wrong?
The new Havana embassy is the last big move left for the White House to make. Any progress after this won't be so easy.
The Debrief
A movement’s sudden success forces a tough question for Democrats.
An exclusive interview with DOT Secretary Anthony Foxx
Transport leaders agree it's time for a fresh start
An Agenda investigation
Fusion research splits the House and Senate. Why? Because, er… science.
Gearing up for a floor fight, the senator sees a “100 percent failure” to protect victims in military.
A new effort to fight regulation overload.
Capitol South
China's hackers aren't delicate cat burglars. They're smash-and-grab artists helping build an economy, and that makes the Chinese hacking problem harder to fix than you think.
War hawks want to make you think it worked the first time. Don't believe them.
Scholars are saying it passes muster. They're wrong. The courts would throw it out.
It's not public safety that gun-research advocates really care about.
It’s not only fair, it’s written into the law.
Last week’s symbolic victory eclipsed a far larger battle.
What their policy sites reveal about Clinton, Sanders, and their rivals.
Four ideas for keeping debt in control.
Dissent Channel
Readers respond to our articles on gifted programs and virtual schooling
Crunching the words, experts find Trump got the attention, Rubio made the most of his chances and Jeb squandered them.
The Debrief
POLITICO’s education survey finds surprising support for a strong federal role in schools, and big worries about student debt.
Wrongometer
Though weaker than both supporters and critics say, the new rules do pack one big punch.
Hillary Clinton has a sharp insight on reforming CEO pay. The policy it could fix is her husband's.
For all the hype, it’s only Obama’s fourth most-important move on climate.
Could the next great funding scheme ever really work?
A letter from 13 senators to prevent the U.S. from selling its oil is full of sensible-sounding points, but they’re wrong. Here’s why.
One thing to remember about populism: It's popular. It tends to go over well with the populace.
CAPITOL SOUTH
Behind the Metro billboards.
The Big Idea
President Barack Obama wants to make college more affordable. Here's how.
The Big Idea
Data scientists graphed every word from members of Congress about coal. Here’s what they found.
