No Truth in Advertising: Foods Touted as Healthy for Kids Overwhelmingly Aren't

Anyone who is hip to food companies' marketing jive shouldn't be surprised when their promotional claims are found to be misleading, or downright wrong. So it's no real shock that a recent report by the California-based Prevention Institute found that big food companies use front-of-package labeling to claim healthy benefits on kid's food, even when none are present.

The report, "Claiming Health: Front-of-Package Labeling of Children's Food", examines 58 products that companies claim to be their healthiest for kids. All the products were drawn from an industry-created program -- the "Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative" -- that ensures certain nutritional standards are met (all developed by industry). Manufacturers agree to limit their advertising to kids under 12 by using products only from this list.

All the items in the report had some  type of "healthier-for-you" claim on the front of the package. Products included everything from Campbell's Chicken Alphabet Soup and Fruit Roll-Ups to Lucky Charms cereal.

The researchers compared the products against the US Dietary Guidelines and criteria from the National Academy of Science, both of which are fairly lenient. For instance, products can have up to 25 percent of calories from added sugar and up to 480 mg of sodium per serving.

But still, 84 percent of the products didn't meet the nutrient criteria.

Over half were high in sugar and low in fiber. Of the cereals in question, 93 precent were high in sugar, and 60 percent were low in fiber. None of the cereals meet one or more of the nutritional requirement. Ninety percent of the snack products contained added sugar and 95 percent of all the products contained added sweeteners.

It's hard to even imagine how some of these products carry any health claims at all --- Reese's Puffs cereal or neon-colored "fruit" chews.  Perhaps most disturbing, these are the products that are supposed to be better for kids than the standard offerings.

As the researchers note in the report, "some food and beverage manufacturers have promoted front-of-package labels as an innovative approach to healthier choices, but serious concerns exist over the potential for these symbols to confuse or mislead consumers, and encourage the purchase of unhealthful items."

It's not the first time front-of-packaging labels and health claims have come under fire. Meant to inform consumers, most nutritional marketing does just the opposite. There's a slew of competing symbols, labels and check marks that have been developed by food manufacturers to sell their goods, without little to no oversight.

The report recommends that the FDA come up with a clear, concise and single label so that consumers aren't bogged down by the competing claims.  And a recent report by the Institute of Medicine says that the most useful information for consumers should give the entire lineup -- on the front of a package -- of four key nutrients:  calories, sodium, saturated fat and trans fats.

However, because the ultimate outcome won't address the numerous health claims made by food companies (only the little logos they come up with), it won't address the entire problem. It will still leave the nutrient claims unregulated, and companies will still be able to tout their nutritional benefits in words and banners. That means that Trix may still be able to splash "whole grains and calcium guaranteed" across their cereal box, and Apple Jacks can claim that it's a good source of fiber.

Any proposed nutritional labeling requirements will get the food industry in a huff, but it's clear that when left to their own devices, they are out deceive. Though a unified and rigorous method of front-of-package labeling might help up the standards for what can be considered "better-for-you", all health claims should face critique before being unleashed to the public.

Sign this petition letting the FDA know that you want an end to food marketer's deceitful health claims.

Photo credit: Drpoulette