There are at least 20 different nutrition rating systems on food packages; you only need to check four important ingredients.

RODALE NEWS, EMMAUS, PA—Earlier this year, when Froot Loops and Fudgsicles were dubbed healthy choices under the food industry's new "Smart Choices" front-of-package food labeling system, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration did a double take. The agency sent the Smart Choices' general manager a letter stating that the label was misleading, at the very least.

But even before then, Congress had noticed a proliferation of these front-of-package labeling systems and nutrition rating systems, each with its own individual set of criteria as to what made a food healthy. A dozen such systems have been created in the past few years, ranging from industry-created labels like Smart Choices to nutrition rating systems developed by grocery stores, such as Wegman's and Harris Teeter, and still others, such as the NuVal nutrition rating system, created by nonindustry diet and nutrition professionals. So Congress requested that the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the health arm of the National Academies of Science, study these labeling systems and determine how effective they are, how useful the information presented on food packages is, and how big an effect they have on consumer purchasing decisions.

The first part of the IOM's report was released last Wednesday by a committee of academics, epidemiologists, and nutritionists, and while the committee didn't criticize any label in particular, it presented some conclusions about the kinds of information people should be given when trying to make truly smart choices (and just a hint: Froot Loops and Fudgsicles wouldn't qualify).

THE DETAILS: The first phase of the IOM study focused on the strengths and limitations of these labeling systems, with a focus on the nutritional criteria used in each. The committee focused on four specific criteria: Did the label address such factors as being part of a high-quality, well-balanced diet? Was it consistent with the Nutrition Facts panel required to be on each packaged food item? Could it be applied to as many food products possible? And did the system highlight nutrients and ingredients most closely associated with diet-related chronic diseases that are affecting Americans, namely obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancer?

"Given current public health needs, we found that front-of-package systems with a limited amount of information may have the greatest potential benefit," said Ellen Wartella, PhD, the committee chair and a professor in the department of communication studies at Northwestern University. "But it's clear that there is great variability among systems and that no system is perfect."

Rather than overload consumers with the amount of every "good" ingredient, such as fiber, vitamins, and minerals, the way some labeling systems do, the committee concluded that each labeling system should clearly state serving size and calorie content per serving. It also felt that each labeling system should clearly state the amount of saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium in each serving. The committee chose these four because calories, fat, and sodium are the primary contributors to the chronic diseases of greatest public health importance. "There really is no overarching public health need for information on nutrients such as protein or vitamins and minerals, other than sodium," said Tracy Fox, MPH, RD, president of Food, Nutrition, & Policy Consultants, LLC. And adding information such as total fat could be confusing, she added, due to the fact that intake of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fat should be encouraged.