Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Public Health Nutr. 2012 Feb;15(2):262-7. doi: 10.1017/S1368980011000826. Epub 2011 May 16.

Choosing front-of-package food labelling nutritional criteria: how smart were 'Smart Choices'?

Author information

1
Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, Yale University, PO Box 208369, New Haven, CT 06511, USA. christina.roberto@yale.edu

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The 'Smart Choices' programme was an industry-driven, front-of-package (FOP) nutritional labelling system introduced in the USA in August 2009, ostensibly to help consumers select healthier options during food shopping. Its nutritional criteria were developed by members of the food industry in collaboration with nutrition and public health experts and government officials. The aim of the present study was to test the extent to which products labelled as 'Smart Choices' could be classified as healthy choices on the basis of the Nutrient Profile Model (NPM), a non-industry-developed, validated nutritional standard.

DESIGN:

A total of 100 packaged products that qualified for a 'Smart Choices' designation were sampled from eight food and beverage categories. All products were evaluated using the NPM method.

RESULTS:

In all, 64 % of the products deemed 'Smart Choices' did not meet the NPM standard for a healthy product. Within each 'Smart Choices' category, 0 % of condiments, 8·70 % of fats and oils, 15·63 % of cereals and 31·58 % of snacks and sweets met NPM thresholds. All sampled soups, beverages, desserts and grains deemed 'Smart Choices' were considered healthy according to the NPM standard.

CONCLUSIONS:

The 'Smart Choices' programme is an example of industries' attempts at self-regulation. More than 60 % of foods that received the 'Smart Choices' label did not meet standard nutritional criteria for a 'healthy' food choice, suggesting that industries' involvement in designing labelling systems should be scrutinized. The NPM system may be a good option as the basis for establishing FOP labelling criteria, although more comparisons with other systems are needed.

PMID:
21729490
DOI:
10.1017/S1368980011000826
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Cambridge University Press
Loading ...
Support Center