Ingredient lists should be the easiest indicator of how bad something is for you. If you can't pronounce it, you shouldn't eat it. After filtering products through that requirement, you've already eliminated 80-90% of the stuff you shouldn't be eating. The rest is a matter of moderation.

Reply

Can we also follow suit with the British in labeling all manufactured foods "(Not) Suitable for Vegetarians"? My year eating in England was the easiest year of my life. No squinting at labels and trying to figure out if food had any meat in it. When will the US catch up to easy, clear food labeling?

Reply

To David: That's a very good guideline and one we should all strive to live by. But we will never convince all people in this nation to be as conscientious about their food decisions as those who post on this site are. Can you really take issue with a system that makes it that much easier to see if food is good or bad for you?

Reply

David and Jessica...

I'm all for better labeling and conscientious food choices, but really, this tired rhetoric that long ingredient name = bad for you is just willful ignorance. When something comes out of a lab that doesn't mean it's automatically unhealthy, just as when something comes out of the ground that doesn't automatically mean it's healthy, and it's disappointing to see people treat such illogical and sensationalist generalizations as fact.

Reply

I'd love to see this with one more space for fiber - as long as it didn't replace the current labeling. I am a label reader, but this new system would help people who aren't.

Reply

OK, the traffic lights are fine as a start but they don't address someone with allergies or a medical reason to eat/avoid foods. As a diabetic I count carbs literally for my life. The detailed listing is still needed.

I can see where it would make shopping with kids, and teaching them nutrition easier to use the traffic lights!

Reply

Jessica:

I do take issue over the way it will be used by consumers. Terms like "low fat" and "sugar free" are taken to mean "good for you" by many consumers, and now they'll have the pretty green light to give them an extra warm fuzzy feeling for loading up on Splenda (low in sugar) and partially hydrogenated soybean oil (low in saturates).

Dmnkly:

Of course it's a generalization as are all "rules of thumb", but for a consumer who wants to keep it simple, it's a pretty good one.

Reply

Adding a couple more lights would be great, but I'd love to see this implemented in the U.S. It's a pain to squint all the way through the fine print to figure out how many ways sugar has been hidden in items that shouldn't be sweet to begin with.

Reply

David...

I apologize, and I will concede that I may be overly sensitive on the subject. But I think you inadvertently hit the nail on the head. Simply avoiding ingredients with scientific-sounding names is the same kind of oversimplification as assuming that low sugar, low saturates means healthy. The difficulty in all of these labeling initiatives is that nutrition and healthy eating ISN'T simple. It's complicated stuff that isn't easily distilled down to green/yellow/red light or natural = good, artificial = bad. And that's not even addressing the fact that what's "healthy" is a target that's constantly in motion. Remember when beef tallow for french fries was phased out in favor of "healthier" hydrogenated oils?

I'm not suggesting that more helpful labeling isn't an admirable goal, I'm just suggesting that it's still simplyt information that needs to be put into context by the consumer. There is no label, generalization or rule of thumb that will allow you to turn off your brain, and I think it's important that people be encouraged to think rather than obey rules of thumb.

Okay, "Don't Drink Bleach" is probably a pretty good rule of thumb. But you take my meaning.

Reply

Thanks Nicole,
As a mother, I wish the U.S. would adopt a similar labeling.

Ideally, the foods we serve our children should not require labels, and are found in the periphery of the grocery store. We know that serving them five to nine servings of fruits and vegetables per day halves their later risk of developing cancer.

But, for parents in a hurry, which many are especially if they shop with children, this provides a quick way to assess a food product!

Lynne Eldridge M.D.
Author, "Avoiding Cancer One Day At A Time"
http://www.avoidcancernow.com

Reply