The federal government requires that most packaged foods carry a standardized label--the Nutrition Facts panel--that provides nutrition information intended to help consumers make healthful choices. In recent years, manufacturers have begun to include additional nutrition messages on their food packages. These messages are commonly referred to as 'front-of-package' (FOP) labeling. As FOP labeling has multiplied, it has become easy for consumers to be confused about critical nutrition information. In considering how FOP labeling should be used as a nutrition education tool in the future, Congress directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to undertake a two-phase study with the IOM on FOP nutrition rating systems and nutrition-related symbols. The Food and Drug Administration is also a sponsor.

In Phase 1 of its study, the IOM reviewed current systems and examined the strength and limitations of the nutrition criteria that underlie them. The IOM concludes that it would be useful for FOP labeling to display calorie information and serving sizes in familiar household measures. In addition, as FOP systems may have the greatest benefit if the nutrients displayed are limited to those most closely related to prominent health conditions, FOP labeling should provide information on saturated fats, trans fats, and sodium.

Contents

• THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
• COMMITTEE ON EXAMINATION OF FRONT-OF-PACKAGE NUTRITION RATING SYSTEMS AND SYMBOLS
• Reviewers
• Preface
• Summary
• 1. Introduction
  • THE CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE AND THE STUDY PROCESS
  • GUIDING PRINCIPLES
  • ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
• 2. History of Nutrition Labeling
  • VOLUNTARY NUTRITION LABELING
  • INITIATIVES TO STANDARDIZE AND REQUIRE NUTRITION LABELING
  • PASSAGE OF THE NUTRITION LABELING AND EDUCATION ACT (NLEA) OF 1990
  • NUTRITION LABELING AS AN EVOLVING PROCESS
  • REFERENCES
  • ANNEX MILESTONES IN NUTRITION LABELING
• 3. History and Current Status of Front-of-Package Systems
  • DEVELOPMENT OF FRONT-OF-PACKAGE SYSTEMS
  • REACTION TO FRONT-OF-PACKAGE SYSTEMS
  • REFERENCE
• 4. Overview of Health and Diet in America
  • OVERWEIGHT AND OBESITY
  • CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE
  • TYPE 2 DIABETES
  • CANCER
  • NUTRIENTS AND FOOD GROUPS TO ENCOURAGE
  • FINDINGS
  • REFERENCES
• 5. Purpose and Merits of Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems
  • CATEGORIZATION OF FRONT-OF-PACKAGE NUTRITION RATING SYSTEMS
  • GENERAL PURPOSES OF FRONT-OF-PACKAGE SYSTEMS
  • REFERENCES
• 6. Scientific Basis of Front-of-Package Systems
  • DEVELOPING FRONT-OF-PACKAGE NUTRITION RATING SYSTEMS
  • CATEGORY-SPECIFIC STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF FOP NUTRITION RATING SYSTEMS
  • SUMMARY
  • REFERENCES
• 7. Conclusions and Plans for Phase II
  • TARGET AUDIENCE
  • PURPOSES
  • NUTRITION INFORMATION TO INCLUDE
  • POTENTIAL QUALIFYING AND DISQUALIFYING NUTRIENT CRITERIA
  • PLANS FOR PHASE II
  • CONCLUDING REMARKS
  • REFERENCES
• Appendix A Glossary with Abbreviations and Acronyms
• Appendix B FDA Regulatory Requirements for Nutrient Content Claims
• Appendix C Sources of Criteria and Program Information and Sample Product Evaluations
• Appendix D Workshop Agenda
• Appendix E Committee Member Biographical Sketches

This study was supported by Contract No. 200-2005-13434, Task Order 20, between the National Academy of Sciences and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Contract No. HHSF22320810201, Task Order 12, between the National Academy of Sciences and the Food and Drug Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project.

Suggested citation:

IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2010. Examination of Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems and Symbols: Phase I Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.