• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Dietitians for Professional Integrity

  • Home
  • Our Team
  • Resources
    • Advocacy & Action Toolkit
    • Conflict-Free CEUs
    • Distinguished Dietitians
    • Ethical Sponsorship
    • FNCE Guides & Reports
    • Like-Minded Organizations
    • RD Resource Toolkit
    • Statements of Concern
    • Understand The Issues
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Blog
  • Donate
  • Search

Jun 23, 2015 Leave a Comment

Industry’s Latest: “Added Sugar Labeling Could Be Too Confusing for the Public”

As we have mentioned on several occasions, the food and beverage industries are on high alert regarding the Food and Drug Administration’s proposal to label added sugars on the revised Nutrition Facts label.

The latest claim? “Consumers may struggle to understand food nutrition panels that include “added sugars.”

Who is saying that? The International Food Information Council (IFIC) — a food and beverage industry front group funded by the likes of Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, McDonald’s, and General Mills — via a study published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

Here is what IFIC bases that assertion on, per a Reuters article:

  • “To see how consumers might interpret new labels with “added sugars,” [they] first interviewed 27 adults in Los Angeles, Baltimore and Atlanta. Consumers interpreted the new labels in a variety of ways, including some who thought the “added sugars” were in addition to “sugars” shown in the line above on the label, others who understood that it meant the manufacturer put extra sugar in the product, and some who found products with “added sugars” less desirable.”
  • “Then, they surveyed 1,088 men and women to see how they currently used nutrition facts panels and find out if they could accurately interpret “added sugars” displayed in formats that might be adopted in future labels.”
  • “Consumers who first viewed the label without any “added sugars” line correctly tallied the total amount of sugar in the food 92 percent of the time. When they saw a label with “added sugars” indented on a line below “sugars,” they were correct 55 percent of the time. And, if they first looked at a label with “added sugars” indented on a line below “total sugars,” 66 percent of them got it right.”
  • “Even among consumers who said they frequently read food labels at the store, about 45 percent of them incorrectly identified the amount of sugar when they first looked at the label with separate lines for “sugars” and “added sugars,” the researchers report in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.”

Reuters also got input from a dietitian not affiliated with IFIC, who had a different, less industry-friendly take:

  • “Consuming too much added sugar can increase the risk of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and certain cancers.A better-designed label that made it easy for consumers to understand, for example, that a 16-oz iced tea had 9 teaspoons of added sugar, might lead people to make their own tea or drink water.”

Does industry truly believe that adding one line of information to a nutrition facts label will suddenly befuddle shoppers? Somehow, the American public manages just fine with individual lines on the Nutrition Facts label for saturated fats, trans fats, and fiber.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Related

Categories: Academic Research, Industry Spin Tags: IFIC, Nutrition Facts Panel, sugar

Reader Interactions

Leave a Comment Cancel

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

sidebar

Blog Sidebar

Social Media

FacebookTwitter

Subscribe to receive our quarterly newsletter and other breaking news!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Browse by Topic

  • Academic Research
  • Advocacy
  • Distinguished Dietitians
  • Ethical Sponsorship
  • Industry Spin
  • Industry-Funded Research
  • Interviews
  • Photos
  • Problematic Sponsorship
  • Recommended Reads
  • Reports
  • Statements of Concern
  • Uncategorized

Tags

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics American Beverage Association Andy Bellatti Big Tobacco California Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Center for Science in the Public Interest CEUs Civil Eats Coca-Cola ConAgra conflicts of interest Corn Refiners Association FNCE front groups General Mills Global Energy Balance Network Hershey's industry-funded research junk food Kellogg Kids Eat Right Kraft Kraft Singles lobbying Marion Nestle marketing marketing to children Mars McDonald's meat industry Michele Simon moderation National Dairy Council Nestlé New York Times PepsiCo policy soda soda tax soda taxes sugar The Sugar Association Unilever World Health Organization Yoni Freedhoff

Footer

Subscribe to receive our quarterly newsletter and other breaking news!

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Recent Posts

Farewell to Our Supporters

Dear DFPI Supporters, Since February of 2013, we at Dietitians For Professional Integrity have been a voice for uplifting the registered dietitian credential at a time when corporate influences - both overt and covert Read More

Highly Processed Foods Can Negatively Impact Health

Good read from New York Times on how highly processed foods (and the ingredients in many of them) can negatively impact health by creating an imbalance in the gut microbiome. This is the future of nutrition. The fact Read More

Social Media

FacebookTwitter

RSS

  • RSS - Posts

© 2021 Dietitians for Professional Integrity