An article recently published in the New York Times focuses on the complexities of modern-day food labeling. It seems that almost every product in the grocery store touts a label boasting of some health benefits, from supporting heart health to lowering cholesterol levels . These items are referred to as functional foods or nutraceuticals , and they are foods that claim to provide health benefits beyond the traditional nutrients they contain. Functional foods are one of the fastest growing areas in the food industry.
While companies cannot claim that functional foods actually prevent or cure diseases, they can market foods with having health-promoting or wellness-maintaining properties. The article explains how economists refer to items like functional foods as credence goods . For these foods, most consumers are unable to assess the utility of health claims and therefore rely on advertisements to be true. Misleading marketing and advertising can leave consumers confused about what they are buying and about just how helpful some products are in maintaining overall health.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) oversees food advertising and has filed recent complaints of deceptive marketing against Kellogg and Dannon. Frosted Mini-Wheats can no longer claim that they are clinically shown to improve children’s attentiveness by nearly 20 percent, and boxes of Rice Krispies are no longer emblazoned with a claim that they support children’s immunity. Dannon was forced to remove claims that its Activia yogurt improves intestinal transit time, as the FTC found no scientific proof for such a claim.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which oversees food labeling, has also noted the problems with false or misleading claims on functional foods. Commissioner Margaret Hamburg wrote an open letter to the industry urging them to examine product labels to avoid violating established labeling standards . But the issue seems too complicated for an open letter to solve. As the FDA’s deputy commissioner for foods Michael Taylor wrote last year,
“Going after [misleading marketers] one-by-one with the legal and resource restraints we work under is a little like playing Whac-a-Mole, with one hand tied behind your back.”
The Deputy Commissioner appears to be right, and not all food companies are willing to give up false or misleading claims or labeling without a fight. In 2010, the FDA found that the makers of POM Wonderful pomegranate juice had violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by making therapeutic claims that “establish that the product is a drug because it is intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.” When POM did not retract its claims, the FTC filed a complaint against the maker for deceptive advertising based on unsubstantiated scientific claims. POM was initially defiant (calling the FTC complaint unwarranted), but eventually settled and changed their advertising.
The company did, however, file a federal lawsuit against the FTC for acting outside its authority and violating the right to free commercial speech . As NYU Professor Marion Nestle pointed out in an article , POM’s suit is being brought “not because they are claiming they have science on their side, but because they think their health claims, believable or not, are protected by the First Amendment.”
There are other ways to confront misleading ‘healthy’ claims before they are printed on products and sold to consumers. The article notes the approach of the European Food Safety Authority , an independent panel of experts to whom food makers submit applications of scientific evidence backing their desired claims. The panel reviews each case and issues an opinion on the evidence, and will create a list of approved health claims for companies to use in the future.
The FDA’s approach is focused on the other end of the product line, and encourages consumers to learn to read nutrition labels and make wise purchasing decisions. This includes updating the Nutrition Facts Panel printed on the back of food packages, adding calorie counts to restaurant menus, and pushing the Let’s Move initiative to combat childhood obesity. A smarter consumer is an admirable and essential goal, but with the amount of money put into advertising on a global scale, the FDA must issue stricter guidelines for food companies. Hopefully, the outcome of the POM lawsuit will help empower the FDA to do just that.
While companies cannot claim that functional foods actually prevent or cure diseases, they can market foods with having health-promoting or wellness-maintaining properties. The article explains how economists refer to items like functional foods as credence goods . For these foods, most consumers are unable to assess the utility of health claims and therefore rely on advertisements to be true. Misleading marketing and advertising can leave consumers confused about what they are buying and about just how helpful some products are in maintaining overall health.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) oversees food advertising and has filed recent complaints of deceptive marketing against Kellogg and Dannon. Frosted Mini-Wheats can no longer claim that they are clinically shown to improve children’s attentiveness by nearly 20 percent, and boxes of Rice Krispies are no longer emblazoned with a claim that they support children’s immunity. Dannon was forced to remove claims that its Activia yogurt improves intestinal transit time, as the FTC found no scientific proof for such a claim.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which oversees food labeling, has also noted the problems with false or misleading claims on functional foods. Commissioner Margaret Hamburg wrote an open letter to the industry urging them to examine product labels to avoid violating established labeling standards . But the issue seems too complicated for an open letter to solve. As the FDA’s deputy commissioner for foods Michael Taylor wrote last year,
“Going after [misleading marketers] one-by-one with the legal and resource restraints we work under is a little like playing Whac-a-Mole, with one hand tied behind your back.”
The company did, however, file a federal lawsuit against the FTC for acting outside its authority and violating the right to free commercial speech . As NYU Professor Marion Nestle pointed out in an article , POM’s suit is being brought “not because they are claiming they have science on their side, but because they think their health claims, believable or not, are protected by the First Amendment.”
There are other ways to confront misleading ‘healthy’ claims before they are printed on products and sold to consumers. The article notes the approach of the European Food Safety Authority , an independent panel of experts to whom food makers submit applications of scientific evidence backing their desired claims. The panel reviews each case and issues an opinion on the evidence, and will create a list of approved health claims for companies to use in the future.
The FDA’s approach is focused on the other end of the product line, and encourages consumers to learn to read nutrition labels and make wise purchasing decisions. This includes updating the Nutrition Facts Panel printed on the back of food packages, adding calorie counts to restaurant menus, and pushing the Let’s Move initiative to combat childhood obesity. A smarter consumer is an admirable and essential goal, but with the amount of money put into advertising on a global scale, the FDA must issue stricter guidelines for food companies. Hopefully, the outcome of the POM lawsuit will help empower the FDA to do just that.