Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems and Symbols Promoting Healthier Choices (2012) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Summary
Summary
Pages 1-8
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
The committee concluded that for a government-sponsored FOP symbol system to help achieve population health benefits, it must not only inform consumers about detailed nutrition content, but also, more importantly, encourage healthier food choices and purchase behaviors. The committee determined that these goals can be better achieved by a simple FOP symbol that serves as a signal or cue to consumers rather than by detailed information about nutrient content on the front of food packages or beverages.
|
From page 2... ...
These guiding principles were intended to assist the committee in identifying the systems and elements of systems most important to assisting American consumers in making healthier food choices and the system criteria that could be implemented in the current food environment. The guiding principles are: 1.
|
From page 3... ...
In addition, an effective FOP symbol system would encourage food and beverage companies to provide healthier choices through reformulation or development of new products, and would encourage retailers to highlight healthier products. Given the goal of encouraging healthier food choices, the committee evaluated FOP and shelf-tag nutrition rating systems that have demonstrated some success in the marketplace, but concluded that no FOP symbol system is superior to all others.
|
From page 4... ...
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FRONT-OF-PACKAGE SYSTEMS AND SYMBOLS From its review of the available evidence, the committee concluded that no flawless FOP symbol systems exist in the marketplace -- each has strengths and limitations that must be weighed against the system's intended purposes. The committee also concluded that a single, standardized system that is easily understood by most age groups and appears on all food products would best maximize the effectiveness in encouraging consumers to make healthier food choice and purchase decisions.
|
From page 5... ...
The Phase I committee concluded that added sugars should not be a component of an FOP nutrition rating system because of insufficient evidence about the contribution of added sugars beyond calories to the most pressing diet-related health concerns among Americans; the inability to distinguish analytically between added and naturally occurring sugars in foods without obtaining proprietary product information and including that information on the NFP; and the relatively small number of food categories with high amounts of added sugars. This committee reconsidered this Phase I conclusion in light of events occurring after the release of the Phase I report, specifically the release of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the development of an approach to evaluating added sugars content.
|
From page 6... ...
Neverthe less, the committee concluded that implementation of its recommendations offers the best option to maximize the effectiveness of an FOP symbol system in encouraging consumers to make healthier food choices and purchase decisions. There should be ongoing monitoring and periodic evaluation of a new FOP symbol system.
|
From page 7... ...
CLOSING REMARKS After reviewing the available evidence, the committee determined that there is a need for an FOP symbol system designed to encourage consumers to make healthier food choices and that a single, simple FOP symbol system, aligned with current dietary guidance and consistently applied across food product categories, would be most useful to achieving that goal.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.