Do you find the traditional nutrition label on food packaging a tad confusing? I sometimes do, and I'm an avid nutrition-label-reader. A new system aims to simplify everything with one score.

The NuVal Nutrition Scoring System will debut in a few national supermarkets some time in the near future. The system uses a score called the ONQI (Overall Nutritional Quality Index), which will give each food item a score based on its micro-nutrients, macro-nutrients, and other "nutritional properties". The goal is for the one number to be an overall indicator of the nutritiouness of the food in question.

The score is out of 100, with 100 being the healthiest. The system wants to give consumers a quick overview of healthiness without absolute terms like "good" or "bad". There's no information on which supermarkets will be the first to adopt the sytem, but the website says to look for updates by the beginning of October.

OMG, icanhascheezburger.com is teaming up with Jones Soda! If you don't know about the wildly popular lol cats, you've been buried further under the rock than I have. The trend combines a cute cat image with a funny caption, and its been tremendously popular on the internet.

Now this movement is headed out into the real world as a label on Jones Soda brand drinks. The soda maker approached the website icanhascheezburger.com about using this imagery, and the website agreed. There's also a contest on the website to create more lol cat images specifically to adorn the front of Jones Soda bottles.

Jones Soda is known for its interesting and offbeat labels, as well as for being a higher end soft drink. Now they may be known for bringing an internet trend to the unconnected masses. Don't look now, but Jones Soda is in ur internet, stealin ur trends!

[Via So Good]

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.

Since excluding imported organic products from using the word "organic" is probably not something that is going to happen in the UK any time soon, farmers are still looking for ways to strengthen their appeal with consumers and the position of their products on supermarket shelves. They are now proposing that the country of origin be clearly labeled on all products. Currently, all foods processed in the UK can claim to be "made in the UK," but this labeling scheme would have the country that the ingredients were sourced from identified.

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.

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.

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.

A new poll reveals that 80% of Americans say that they read nutritional labels when they purchase food, but half of those people buy the food no matter what the label says. So, why do they bother reading a label when it's not going to influence their decision to purchase?  "I don't know, force of habit" was one woman's response.

This is surprising because, in the past, other studies have indicated that consumers change their buying habits when confronted with an unhealthy food label.

Of those who do check the labels, they look for things like calories and trans-fats, but not necessarily for overall nutrition. Other things that the survey found are the women are most likely to read a nutrition label, followed by men and then single men, and that women are more likely to place importance on what they read there.

It sounds as though people simply don't know what they're "supposed" to be reading, even though there is no right answer on the label. The information for all the food eaten during the day is what should be taken into account, not just for one product.

 

Even though there has been a lot of press about how trans-fats are bad for you, there are no official recommended limits as so how much you can eat. The FDA's guidelines are something along the lines of a warning that "the less consumed... the better" - but less than what? Is 2 grams that hazardous? 5 grams?

The American Heart Association just released guidelines proposing a specific limit for the amount of trans-fats that you should eat: less than 1% of the total calories consumed in a day. A single fat gram has 9 calories, so for a person on a 2000 calorie/day diet, this guide would suggest eating no more than 2 grams of trans fat per day. The recommendation was made after a panel of doctors and specialists reviewed more than 90 studies relating to the issue

Bearing this new standard in mind, it is important to note that the FDA says that a product with .5 or fewer grams of trans fats can still claim to have 0g per serving - so read the list of ingredients to find out if food is really trans-fat free. And extra half-gram per serving of trans-fat in a favorite treat can add up quickly.

 

Here's a little taste of fruit and vegetable ephemera for all you antique lovers out there. These come from BlueSkySearch.com, a produce industry job resource site. They have page after page of these labels, some weirder than others, as well as a good page of history about them. I'm particularly fond of Cousin Elmer, who likes like he could almost be an R. Crumb creation. Follow the link below for a few others.

 

 

A younger exposure to wine is likely to foster an increase in appreciation of the beverage, so consumers will be looking not only for more wines, but for better wines. The problem is that you have to start somewhere and it can be difficult to know what you're getting by looking at the bottle. One strategy is to only take recommendations from friends and gradually branch out from there. Another is to extensively research each wine before you buy it, consulting the experts and the internet. If you are at the store and want to buy a bottle at that moment, however, you might face an impressive selection without a clue as to what to buy. Which bottle will you reach for?

An article in the New York Times Magazine reported that the sales of a specific sort of wine have reached over $600 million annually. It’s not burgundy, chardonnay or merlot - not specifically, anyway -  that’s selling, but it just might be the wine that you reach for when confronted with too many same-looking options: wines with animals on their labels.

It might seem like a label design would be an unreliable way to select a wine, but a great logo can help cement a good reputation in the mind of the buyer. And things besides wine are selected on their looks every day: book covers, clothing and potential dates. Why should wines stick to plain labels with scripted fonts when a bold design will jump out and grab a consumer's attention? My only question is why an animal label might attract a buyer more than a flashy, non-animal label, all other things being equal.

I've always been told that the flashier a wine bottle's label is, the worse the wine is. With that, here's a bottle with the image from Kiss's 1976 album Destroyer. Inside is a 2004 Alexander Valley Cabernet Sauvignon. There are only 1000 bottles and each retails for $100 via Celebrity Cellars (Sarah Gilbert posted about their Madonna wine a few months back). When was the last time you saw the words "loud, brash," and "unapologetic"  alongside "firm tannins," "notes of cassis," and "a subtle framework of oak" in a wine ad?

Not all organic food is created equal, this an important fact to keep in mind when shopping for healthy food. In an effort to prevent food manufacturers from fraudulently marketing incorrectly labeled food, the USDA has implemented a set of labeling rules to clarify the levels of food purity. They are still somewhat confusing if the consumer is not completely aware of the guidelines for the various levels. The following rules are for foods containing more than one ingredient, such as cereal:

• 100% Organic- means that every ingredient in the product was raised and harvested in an organic environment as approved and certified by the USDA.
• Organic- means that 70 to 95 percent of all the ingredients have been raised in a USDA approved manner
• Any product containing ingredients with less than a 70 percent organic content can separately list each ingredient that falls into the USDA organic category, but the product may not display a label claiming the product as organic.

For foods containing one ingredient, such as milk, eggs or fruit, an official USDA Organic label is displayed on the package or the fruit.

On its way to the Senate, after getting approved by the house, is a bill that would require all states to have uniform food labeling laws. In addition to the standard information that is nationally regulated, like calories, fat and trans-fats, states can currently pass laws to require food produced in their state to have additional information on the packaging. Uncommon allergens, potentially toxic substances and various food additives are commonly required to be revealed in this way.

Food producers and grocers support the bill because they would have a standard set of expectations to meet, but some consumers are unhappy that some information currently on their state's food labels will be removed. Opponents of the bill say that it will affect as many as 200 state laws across the country. While an amendment has already been added to keep mercury warnings in place, there are 16 states that have shellfish regulations and Arkansas and Illinois have egg-safety laws, none of which would still be required. On the surface, it seems to be a certainty that any regulations stripped from the states will be reinstated at a later time, but going through the federal process is likely to take longer and face more opposition from large lobbies than with in-state legislation. Some warnings may not make it back onto labels for a number of years, if ever, even though consumers in some states will find themselves with new warnings on their packaging.

There is no widely accepted definition of the word "natural" as far as the Food and Drug Administration is concerned. Many products use the term in their marketing but contain synthetic ingredients and the vast majority of people would support an  official definition. Smaller majorities favored basing the definition on the amount of processing that a product undergoes or how exactly the raw material is altered. The Sugar Association has been lobbying the FDA to adopt an official standard - such as the USDA has for beef and poultry - for some time to try and prevent manufactured sugar substitutes, like Splenda, from labeling themselves as a natural product. "Natural" is defined by the USDA as any product "containing no artificial ingredient or added color and [that] is only minimally processed (a process which does not fundamentally alter the raw product)."