Skip to main content
×
Home

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

  • Christina A Roberto (a1), Marie A Bragg (a1), Kara A Livingston (a2), Jennifer L Harris (a1), Jackie M Thompson (a1), Marissa J Seamans (a1) and Kelly D Brownell (a1)...
Abstract
AbstractObjective

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.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Choosing front-of-package food labelling nutritional criteria: how smart were ‘Smart Choices’?
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Choosing front-of-package food labelling nutritional criteria: how smart were ‘Smart Choices’?
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Choosing front-of-package food labelling nutritional criteria: how smart were ‘Smart Choices’?
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
*Corresponding author: Email christina.roberto@yale.edu
References
Hide All
1. World Health Organization (2010) Diet and physical activity: a public health priority. http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/en/index.html (accessed September 2010).
2. Finkelstein EA, Trogdon JG, Cohen JW et al. (2009) Annual medical spending attributable to obesity: payer- and service-specific estimates. Health Aff (Millwood) 28, 822831.
3. Choices Programme (2010) Healthy choices made easy. http://www.choicesprogramme.org/en (accessed September 2010).
4. Food Standards Agency (2010) Traffic light labeling. http://www.eatwell.gov.uk/foodlabels/trafficlights/ (accessed September 2010).
5. US Government Accountability Office (2008) Food Labeling: FDA Needs to Better Leverage Resources, Improve Oversight, and Effectively Use Available Data to Help Consumers Select Healthy Foods. Report to the Chair, Sub-committee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives. Washington, DC: US Government Accountability Office.
6. Lupton JR, Balentine DA, Black RM et al. (2010) The Smart Choices front-of-package nutrition labeling program: rationale and development of the nutrition criteria. Am J Clin Nutr 91, 1078S1089S.
7. Taylor M & Mande J (2009) Letter to the Smart Choices program. http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/LabelClaims/ucm180146.htm (accessed August 2010).
8. Neuman W (2009) For your health, Froot Loops. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/05/business/05smart.html (accessed October 2009).
9. Delauro R (2009) DeLauro calls for FDA investigation into ‘Smart Choices’ labeling. http://delauro.house.gov/release.cfm?id=2653 (accessed August 2010).
10. Connecticut Attorney General (2009) Attorney general investigates ‘Smart Choices’ food labels that endorse mayonnaise and sugary cereals. http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?Q=448878&A=3673 (accessed August 2010).
11. Food and Drug Administration (2010) FDA calls on food companies to correct labeling violations; FDA commissioner issues an open letter to the industry. http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm202814.htm (accessed August 2010).
12. Metcalfe K (2010) Smart Choices program postpones active operations. http://www.smartchoicesprogram.com/pr_091023_operations.html (accessed August 2010).
13. Rayner M, Scarborough P, Boxer A et al. (2005) Nutrient profiles: development of final model. http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/nutprofr.pdf (accessed September 2009).
14. Lobstein T & Davies S (2009) Defining and labeling ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’ food. Public Health Nutr 12, 331340.
15. Food Standards Australia New Zealand (2011) Health Claims Nutrient Profiling Calculator. Canberra: FSANZ; available at http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/nutritionhealthandrelatedclaims/nutrientprofilingcal3499.cfm
16. Smart Choices Program (2009) Helping Guide Smart Food and Beverage Choices. http://www.smartchoicesprogram.com/index.html (accessed May 2009).
17. Scarborough P, Boxer A, Rayner M et al. (2007) Testing nutrient profile models using data from a survey of nutrition professionals. Public Health Nutr 10, 337345.
18. Arambepola C, Scarborough P & Rayner M (2007) Validating a nutrient profile model. Public Health Nutr 11, 371378.
19. Sharma LL, Teret SP & Brownell KD (2010) The food industry and self-regulation: standards to promote success and to avoid public health failures. Am J Public Health 100, 240246.
20. van Kleef E, van Trijp H, Paeps F et al. (2008) Consumer preferences for front-of-pack calories labelling. Public Health Nutr 11, 203213.
21. Moser A, Hoefkens C, Van Camp J et al. (2009) Simplified nutrient labeling: consumers’ perceptions in Germany and Belgium. J Consum Prot Food Saf 5, 169180.
22. Vyth EL, Steenhuis IH, Mallant SF et al. (2009) A front-of-pack nutrition logo: a quantitative and qualitative process evaluation in the Netherlands. J Health Commun 14, 631645.
23. Malam S, Clegg S, Kirwin S et al. (2009) Comprehension and Use of UK Nutrition Signpost Labelling Schemes. UK: British Market Research Bureau.
24. Dotsch-Klerk M & Jansen L (2008) The Choices programme: a simple, front-of-pack stamp making healthy choices easy. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 17, Suppl. 1, S383S386.
25. Vartanian LR, Schwartz MB & Brownell KD (2007) Effects of soft drink consumption on nutrition and health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health 97, 667675.
26. Montaner JSG, O'Shaughnessy MV & Schechter MT (2001) Industry-sponsored clinical research: a double-edged sword. Lancet 358, 18931895.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Public Health Nutrition
  • ISSN: 1368-9800
  • EISSN: 1475-2727
  • URL: /core/journals/public-health-nutrition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 19
Total number of PDF views: 170 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 314 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.