Candy Makers Fight FDA to Avoid Nutrition Labeling

Makers of candy and snack foods are fighting an FDA proposal for a nutrition ranking system because any scoring of foods rudely violates the industry's first rule of marketing -- there are no bad foods, only bad diets.

When asked, most people can probably name more than a few bad foods, but you'll never hear about any of them from the lips of a food industry executive.

"We are concerned there will be a good-food/bad-food approach," said Jim McCarthy, president of the Snack Food Association, explaining why he opposes a mandatory rating system. "There is no such thing as good or bad food, just bad diets."

The FDA's proposed ratings scheme, which is part of the agency's attempt to make food packages less confusing, is designed to help steer consumers towards healthier choices. Still in the concept stage, the plan might give nutritious choices a higher number, or products that have too much sugar, fat, or sodium a stigmatizing colored-coded label.

Under such plans, many foods would clearly fare poorly, particularly most candy products and many snack foods. In comments filed with the FDA, the National Confectioners Association urged the agency to consider "confectionery-specific issues," apparently code for: "Don't penalize us just because our products are loaded with sugar and have no nutritional value."

Instead of ratings, the candy group proposed that the FDA simply call for food companies to voluntarily declare calorie counts on the front of packages.

Such lobbying underscores just how impossible it will be to get the food industry to sign off on any meaningful ratings system. And since industry approval seems to be a prerequisite for government action, a scoring system will probably never actually see the light of day.

Britain's Food Standards Agency wasn't able to pull it off. Earlier this year, the regulatory agency ditched its plans for a traffic light warning system after years of relentless industry opposition.

It's understandable that candy makers don't want their products "denigrated," as they put it. But in reality, everyone knows M&M's, even the peanut variety, aren't healthy. It's hard to see how a red sticker indicating that a Snickers bar has high levels of sugar is going to be greeted as news by anyone.

The problem with opposing meaningful reform, and lobbying instead for watered down, useless, voluntary solutions is that it doesn't add credibility to the food industry's claims it's trying to help solve America's obesity problem. This passage from the NCA's comments to the FDA seems to sum it up:

NCA supports the important goal to reduce childhood obesity in the United States, and will continue to promote candy's role in a healthy lifestyle.

• FDA's Flurry of Warning Letters Signals the End of an Era of Audacious Food Claims
• The FDA's Fight Against Portion Size Trickery: It's About Time
• Junk Food Armageddon: Feds May Impose Strict Nutrition Standards on Items Marketed to Kids
• Obama Gives Former Food Lobbyist Michael Taylor a Second Chance at the FDA
• Kroger's New Food Scoring System Spells Trouble for Food Manufacturers