McGill University. Canada: Current government-mandated nutrition labeling is ineffective in
improving nutrition, but there is a better system available, according
to a study by McGill University researchers published in the December
issue of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
Study compares four types of nutrition labels, the least effective being the one currently required in Canada and the US.
The researchers compared four different labeling systems and found
that the Nutrition Facts label currently required on most food products
in the US and Canada was least useable. That label, which lists the
percent daily value of several nutrients, took more time to understand
and led to nutrition choices hardly different from chance. Another label
type, NuVal, enabled quick and nutritious choices. NuVal is a shelf
sticker used in some American food markets, which indicates the overall
nutritional value of each food item with a number from 1-100.
Resolving “nutrition conflicts”
“Food shoppers typically have a limited amount of time to make each
food choice, and they find the Nutrition Facts labels to be confusing
and difficult to use,” says Peter Helfer, lead author and PhD student in
Psychology and Neuroscience at McGill. “One product may be low in fat,
but high in sugar, while another product may be just the opposite.
Nutrition Facts labels can highlight nutrition conflicts but fail to
resolve them. Even educated and motivated shoppers have difficulty
picking out the most nutritious product with these labels.”
NuVal scores are calculated by nutrition experts at several
universities, including Yale, Harvard, and Northwestern, and emphasize
both the positive and negative aspects of each food. By reducing
nutritional content to a single number, NuVal labels resolve nutrition
conflicts.
Two other labeling methods produced mixed results. The Traffic Light
system used in the UK allowed for a bit more nutritious choices than
chance. But it took more time to use, because the colors of several
traffic lights have to be counted and compared. Labels that certify some
foods as nutritious, but not others, are used in Denmark, Sweden, and
Canada. These allowed quick decisions, but did not increase nutritious
choices. “Such certification labels are not sufficiently discriminating
to produce consistently better nutrition. They also create controversies
about exactly where to draw the line between nutritious and harmful
foods,” says co-author Thomas Shultz, Professor of Psychology and
Computer Science at McGill.
The widespread availability of low-nutrition, high-calorie food is
believed to be an important cause of an epidemic of obesity and
associated diseases throughout the world. Shultz argues that “Empowering
consumers to make healthier food choices with valid and useful
nutrition labeling could help to stem this epidemic. If consumers have
the information to make nutritious choices, this could nudge food
sellers and producers to improve their products.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24913496