I blogged earlier today on the possible ineffectiveness of laws requiring restaurants to disclose the calorie content of the foods that they sell in an effort to curb obesity. I suggested that current disclosures may be retooled as we learn more about their impact, just as tobacco warnings have been changed over the years.
A reader, Colin Hector, has responded with this interesting comment:
[O]n calorie disclosures, I think it's important to note that some of this retooling is hopefully going on. Although not in the context of menu labeling, the FDA's announcement in October 2009 that the agency is considering different forms of front-of-package labeling gives some hope that we may see more effective forms of calorie disclosures in grocery stores and elsewhere (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/NewsEvents/Newsroom/MediaTranscripts/UCM187809.pdf). One promising model is the "traffic light" system, using the familial colors of the a traffic light to express relative levels of fats, sugar, and sodium. Sadly, while the British Food Standards Agency advised the use of the traffic light system, the EU recently rejected making the system mandatory. A less consumer-friendly model is the Grocery Manufacturer Association's "Nutrition Keys" model, which fails to utilize any effective signals for calorie information (and would only require information on saturated fat, not overall fat), and has been criticized as an attempt to circumvent more effective government regulation.
Colin's comment reminds me of a recent post by Jeff Sovern, who noted that, although most disclosures are ineffective, disclosures may work if they are simple and easy to understand.
In the end, is there really any difference between unhealthy foods and tobacco? How long until government steps in, just as it ultimately stepped in with respect to tobacco?
Posted by: Tim Condon | Saturday, July 09, 2011 at 11:16 AM