Transcript Food Label Posterx - ScholarWorks@GVSU

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, PhD.)
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
•
•
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.
Figure 1. I read food labels before
choosing to purchase and consume a
food or beverage.
TRUE
FALSE
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
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 27g 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
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), 391398.
For more information, email [email protected]. A more detailed, supplementary paper to follow.