15.3.5: Changing Labels for Changing Times

What’s in a Name?

There was once a time when unscrupulous food companies would add water to cheeses. Or they’d mix a bit of fruit with a lot of water and pectin and artificial color and flavor—and a bit of grass seed—and call it jam. So in the late 1930s, certain foods (e.g., ice cream, mayonnaise, jelly) were given standards of identity, which specified amounts of mandatory ingredients. Cheddar cheese, for example, could have no less than a certain amount of milk fat and no more than a certain moisture content. Add water beyond this limit, and you could no longer label it cheddar cheese.

In those days, a lot of people still made many of these foods at home. They were familiar with their recipes, and when they bought any of these foods ready made, they expected them to contain the ingredients they had used.

Beat up a bit of egg and vinegar with a lot of oil, and you have mayonnaise. Buy it in a store, and that’s what you expected it to be. The content of these foods was so commonly agreed upon that their labels required an ingredient list only if optional ingredients were added.

Today, there aren’t many people who make their own mayonnaise, ice cream, cheese, and such. In fact, many are quite surprised to learn that mayonnaise is mostly salad oil, and that cheese is so high in fat. Today’s typical consumer needs an ingredient list on the labels of these “standard foods,” and unlike before, the law requires it.

Recent times have also brought a consumer awareness that many of us are eating more fat and calories than is good for us. So food makers responded by giving us lower-fat and lower-calorie versions of ice cream, cheddar cheese, and the like. They provided healthier food options, but created marketing problems for themselves.

A low-fat cheddar cheese could no longer be labeled cheddar cheese, since it didn’t conform to its standard of identity. It could be called “cheese food,” “cheese substitute,” “imitation cheddar cheese,” etc., but it couldn’t be called cheddar cheese. And these new descriptions weren’t attractive to consumers.

Consumers were torn, particularly because so many have become enthusiastic about anything “natural,” and repelled by “unnatural.” What could sound more “unnatural” or “chemical” than an “imitation”? The consumer was lured by the lower-fat concept, yet repelled by the idea that these must not be “real foods.”

Lower fat versions of familiar foods are the more healthful choices for most of us. In fact, now we want water added to cheeses, to replace some of the fat! Thus the regulations designed to prevent consumer deception in the 1940s became a problem of consumer perception in the 1980s.

As a result, the 1990 law did away with standards of identity, allowing low-fat versions of cheese, mayonnaise, ice cream, sour cream, and such, to be called “low-fat sour cream,” “cholesterol-free mayonnaise,” etc.

What About the Unprocessed Foods?

The irony of the major revamping of food-labeling regulations is that nutrition information isn’t required on fresh vegetables and fruits—foods that are generally low in saturated fat, and sodium, and high in fiber—the very foods that nutritionists encourage us to eat. Wasn’t getting us to make more healthful choices an aim of the 1990 law?

Of course, it isn’t that fresh fruits, vegetables, meat, poultry, and fish (and alcoholic beverages) were purposely overlooked in the labeling reform. Guidelines are given for voluntary labeling of these foods, and labeling may become mandatory. Mandatory or not, there are unique challenges.

For one, the labeling of most of these foods aren’t under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (as most other foods are). Fresh fruits and vegetables and fresh and frozen meat and poultry are regulated by the Dept. of Agriculture, fresh and frozen fish by the Dept. of the Interior, and alcoholic beverages (except for wine beverages with less than 7% alcohol) by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. This is but a minor hurdle. There have already been some coordinating efforts by these organizations to establish a system for consistent labeling.

The biggest hurdle is the most obvious one. How do you label a bunch of grapes? Do you change the label of a banana as the sugar content increases as it ripens? Is the 5-oz. steak one serving, and the 7-oz. steak in the package underneath also one serving (each is, after all, packaged as an individual serving)? If so, which do you use to compare the nutrient content of a serving of steak to a 6-oz. chicken leg? Should they be compared cooked or uncooked? If cooked, how cooked? Trimmed of fat or not?

Clearly, the likes of Oreo cookies are much easier to label—they’re consistent in size, weight, and composition, and stay the same for a long time. The same is true of the many drinks that are essentially water, to which precise amounts of sugar, vitamins, flavor, and color have been added before bottling.

What about comparative shopping? We already know “you can’t compare apples and oranges.” But we can’t conveniently compare fresh apples with canned apples either. In comparing sour creams, the various brands of regular sour cream are there next to the low-fat and fat-free versions.

We can compare prices and nutrient content, and even factor in our taste or distaste for various versions. In comparing peaches, those canned in syrup are shelved next to those canned in juice—but a long way from the fresh peaches. Some stores do provide nutrition information for these foods on leaflets and the like—portable information that facilitates comparative shopping.

As part of the trend towards less cooking “from scratch,” we eat out more often. Restaurant chains with 20 or more restaurants must provide nutrition information on their menu items on-site and/ or on their websites, and an increasing number of restaurants provide some general nutritional guidelines, such as putting a heart symbol (“heart healthy”) next to low-salt items on their menus.

Organic Foods

Labeling a food as Organic has marketing value, and so it was that many foods were labeled Organic without a uniform definition of what that meant. This led to a push for national standards, enacted in 2002 as the National Organic Program of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (USDA).⁴

Products labeled as USDA Organic must meet specific production and processing requirement, and specific substances are prohibited, e.g., synthetic pesticides and GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms). Products labeled as USDA Organic are precisely defined:⁵

• 100% Organic: contains only organically produced ingredients, not counting added water and salt.
• Organic: contains at least 95% organically produced ingredients by weight, not counting added water and salt; remaining ingredients are ones not commercially available as organic and/or other allowed substances. Can’t contain sulfites.
• Made with organic ingredients: contains at least 70% organic ingredients, not counting added water or salt; remaining ingredients are ones not commercially available as organic and/or other allowed substances. Can’t contain sulfites, except sulfur dioxide in wine, as specified.
• Has some organic ingredients: contains less than 70% organic ingredients, not counting added water or salt; remaining ingredients are ones not commercially available as organic and/or other allowed substances.

Products that are 95-100% organic can display the USDA Organic seal. Organic farms must comply with USDA standards, as must organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products.