The "traffic-light" nutrition labels unveiled by the British Food Standards agency may not be popular with the food manufacturers and supermarkets, who are uncomfortable with the black and white (or red, yellow/orange and green) separation of "good" and "bad" foods, but consumers love them. The labeling system uses the three traffic light colors to distinguish between high, medium and low levels of fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt in food. The labels are very simple in design and it is easy to tell at a glance what the nutritional profile of a food is.

Out of all the supporters the system, parents are some of the biggest fans. Almost 80% of all parents would prefer if food manufacturers used the "traffic light" labels. They take very little time to read and, unlike the more detailed labels that use the Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) system, no "real world" translation of the information presented is necessary. On top of that, even small children can get the hang of the color-coded system very quickly, which helps to teach them about nutrition, as well as to make taking them along to the store much easier.

Energy Fiend has a great caffeine content database that can give you the exact amount of caffeine in just about any drink you could want to know about. It is a great resource because, although drinks containing caffeine make it clear in the ingredients list, they don't list the actual amount of caffeine that they contain. Coca-Cola, perhaps taking a cue from E.F. is hoping to make getting this information easier for consumers by adding labels to all of their products indicating their exact caffeine content.

Such labels are already found on Enviga (8.33 mg/oz.) and Full Throttle (8.81 mg/oz.) and Coca-Cola Classic (2.83mg/oz.) cans will have it by May, with the rest of the beverage lineup - including Diet Coke (3.75mg/oz.) to follow over the rest of the year, though the labels will not be put onto the bottles and cans of Coca-Cola products sold outside of the US.

For comparison, drip coffee (black) has 18.13mg caffeine/oz., Red Bull has 9.64mg/oz. and regular black tea has 5.88mg/oz.

The real motivation behind it is that foods sourced from elsewhere have less traceability than UK-based products, as manufacturing and processing standards may be lower elsewhere. A move like this would potentially increase the trust that consumers have in UK-made products, where the processing standards are known, and as a result, support UK-based farmers.

There are federal regulations in place that dictate how terms like "fat free," "low fat," "reduced fat" and "light," among others, can be used with regard to food. Fat free foods, for example, must contain less than .5 grams of fat per serving. It may seem like there is enough definition in this area of food labeling already, but a new label is catching on rapidly: the "lean" label.

For a long time, the "lean" label has been applied only to USDA certified meats that have less than 8 grams of total fat per serving, and no more than 3.5 mg of saturated fats. A recent ruling change means that the term can now be applied to packaged foods, putting it in direct competition with "fat free" and other existing labels for the consumer's attention at the grocery store.

Do consumers really need another way to describe the fat content of, say, frozen pizza? It would probably be too much to as that they just start printing the fat content right on the front of the box.

The New Year is always full of possibilities. There are meals to be eaten, recipes to try and, of course, a slew of new food trends that will shape the way we eat and what food issues will be at the forefront of the news. Of all the trends that seemed to be pushing towards the forefront in recent months, these are some of those that look like they're about to have a breakout year.

Single Origin Chocolates - Dark chocolate was the hot item last year, but more companies, including Hershey's, are introducing and promoting single origin chocolates with cocoa beans from one country - or even one plantation - for their unique flavor profiles.

Healthy Soft Drinks - Jones Soda has eliminated high fructose corn syrup from their recipes. Enviga has been fairly successful so far, thanks to the large amount of publicity that it has received, and Diet Coke Plus will be coming to stores in a few months. Look for other soda companies to follow suit.

Healthy Food Labels - Hannaford supermarket introduced a labeling scheme of their own to direct shoppers to healthier foods and the traffic light system was a success in the UK. Don't be surprised to see more obvious messages about what is and is not good for you.

To counteract this, more stores and bottle shops have been using special pricing to try to get consumers to buy certain brands. 33% of shoppers say that "they would be encouraged to go for a good 'offer' on a brand of beer that was not their first choice," almost double the percentage from last year. As a result, beer is sold in increasingly larger packaging, and although the bottles are smaller, to give the impression of value. The same applies to wine, where consumers look for promotions and money-off deals when making their purchases.

Animal welfare is clearly a hot topic in the supermarket these days, as anyone can see just by taking a look at all the different types of labels and certifications that are meant to convince us that the animals we are eating led full, happy lives before they became dinner. The current list includes labels such as "free farmed," "certified humane," "cage free" and "free range," among others. Whole Foods is adding a new term to this group: animal compassionate.

"Animal compassionate" sets some of the following standards of care for animals: "Castration of sheep prohibited; electric prod on beef cattle permitted in emergencies; tail docking of pigs not allowed."

But in the end, these labels - many of which are developed by animal welfare groups or, as in this case, the stores that carry the products - are really just another security blanket for consumers who like the idea of an animal playing in a field and looking happy. It makes them feel good, like they're doing the right thing from the animal's perspective. It might also confuse consumers, many of whom already have difficulty choosing between organic, hormone/antibiotic free and grass fed animals.

Sell by, best by, and use by are all labels that we commonly see on foods in the grocery store. They are on just about anything that is packaged, from milk and bagged produce to cookies and soda. Is there really a difference between the terms, and if so, what is it?

BusinessWeek actually has some of the answers for us. A "sell by" date is one that indicates to a store how long the product should be offered for sale, although such a product will almost always be good for at least a few days beyond that date. A "best by" date means that the flavor or texture of a food will begin to decline at that point. The "use by" date is the real expiration date. Beyond it, there is no guarantee that the food will be fresh and tasty or that it will retain all of the nutrients that it started out with. The overall quality of the product can begin to decrease and you're probably better of just starting again with a fresh bottle/can/bag.

The best strategy is to buy foods in small batches so you don't have to worry about expiration dates of any sort coming on too quickly, but keep the dates in mind as you shop for reference points, and choose products with further dates if you know you're not going to be consuming everything you buy in a short period of time.

You have probably seen cartons of eggs in the store from "free range" or "cage free" hens, but what about all those other eggs on the shelves? At stores like Wild Oats and Whole Foods, only cage-less eggs are sold, but by some estimates, the eggs from caged hens in an ordinary grocery store could be more than 80% of those on the shelves. Eggs from caged hens are not labeled in any particular way, leaving consumers with the impression that the eggs have a blank slate. In other words, if it doesn't clearly state the eggs' origin, consumers aren't going to spend too much time thinking about it even if they don't support caging chickens.

At least, this is the theory put forward by Washington DC council member Jim Graham, who is proposing a law that would require supermarkets to display signs stating that "Eggs may be from caged hens" on displays of eggs not labeled otherwise. He says that this would increase consumer awareness for the issue, which is receiving more and more attention from animal rights groups, as well as individuals who are "interested in protecting animals"

In contrast to American consumers, who regularly request that the nutritional information be presented in the absolute simplest form possible, European consumers are now saying that they would prefer to have the calories in foods on their nutritional labels. The reason for this is not that they have some deeper understanding of nutrition than Americans, but that energy-based labeling is the most widely understood system and that many consumers would like to see an EU-wide system that does not vary from place to place. The US system seems to be their model, with the most recent drive being for foods to have "front-of-pack and back-of-pack nutrition labeling, based on a uniform list of nutrients, nutrition information per serving and the introduction of Guideline Daily Amounts (GDAs)." Once a standard is in place, then simplifications can be made or additional labeling systems added, but you can't simplify what isn't there, so shoppers will have to wait for a basic system first.

The traffic light labeling system, which clearly indicates whether foods have high, low or medium levels of fats, sugar and salt, has enjoyed good success with consumers in England and is even being adopted in other parts of the world. Some supermarkets have expressed displeasure over the system, but now five major food manufacturers are launching their own campaign to try to bring it down.

Critics of the GDA plan say that percentages are too confusing for the average consumer and that they need the black and white (or red and green) of the traffic system to help them make food choices. A trial run should help determine wither the GDA will catch on.

I know that there were more than a few people who found the labels "good source of whole grains" and "excellent source of whole gains" to be confusing and that the FDA has been working on developing a better definition of the term for some time now. The FDA has worked out a new system of classification based on the number of grams of whole grains in a food and has eliminated any good/excellent designations. The new labels are an eye-catching black and gold and clearly state the number of grams of whole grains per serving, as well as the recommended daily amount of 48grams, as suggested by MyPyramid. This eliminates any guess work - though it does call for a little bit of math - on the part of the consumer.

Products must be authorized to use the stamp, getting approval from the FDA or the UDSA, depending on what type of food the item is, since the two groups regulate different commodities. The USDA covers meat, dairy and eggs and the stamp is approved for use on those products, as well as the grains and other foods that the FDA regulates, if they contain whole grains.

So far, more than 800 products are approved. You can see a full list here or, of course, keep an eye out for the labels while you shop.

No additives, no hormones. no chemicals... do these phrases mean what you think they mean? The Diet Detective has a little guide to help you figure out what these designations mean, and it isn't always what you think.

• No antibiotics - Some antibiotics are given to treat sick animals, and given to the whole herd when one animal is ill. The "subtheraputic" use of drugs to boost animal growth is the main concern here, and labeling usually differentiates between the two. Organic farmers cannot use any animal for organic products that has been treated with antibiotics, so they are simple separated from the herd if they must be treated.
• No chemicals - This label means nothing (or anything at all), since there is no USDA or FDA definition of the term.
• No additives - There are 2,800 potential additives for meat in the US and the labeling applies to what was added to the meat, such as colorings and flavorings - not what was fed to the animal in the first place.
• No hormones - Hormones are not allowed in the production of pork and poultry. Period. Cows can be given hormones to speed their growth, though, so if the label specifies that "No hormones [were] administered," the cow probably lived a healthy and natural life.

The Detective notes that because the regulations are in place, doesn't mean that they are always followed. In many cases, there is little in the way of follow-up to prove that all producers are living up to their labels. Many suppliers, however, do live up to the standards set by law, if not to a higher standard of their own. Labeling may not be fail-safe, but it's still more reliable than the alternatives of no labels or completely unsanctioned ones.

After its launch at the end of last year in the UK, the voluntary traffic light labeling system seemed to be a success. The labels use an easy-to-read, color-coded system to indicate that a product has a high, low or medium level of fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt. The premise behind the label is that it eliminates the time and hassle of label-reading, not to mention the stigma of "diet" foods, or being on a diet, which is a concern to some. Consumers learn that greens are good for everyday and the reds are fine once in a while.

Now, Australia is probably going to give the labels a go. They are hoping that, just like in Britain, consumers will opt for healthier foods over less healthy choices with more regularity. Surveys show that 9 out of 10 consumer find the system clear and easy to use, enabling 97% of consumers to make the better nutritional choice when comparing foods with the labels.

In the meantime, the British government is considering making the labeling system mandatory in the hopes of helping consumers further. Could the US be the next country to try the system?