"Added sugar" definition is souring the labels of natural sweeteners

Saccharine

Back in March 2018, we covered recent changes by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to nutrition facts labels, the first major overhaul in years.

The FDA touted the changes as beneficial enhancements that provide necessary guidance for consumers in a rapidly evolving nutrition landscape and an effort to avoid misinterpretation of the different types of sugar that may be added to various products such as juices. But one set of proposed changes – draft guidance regarding "added" and "natural" sugar – received withering commentary from the public at large.

Categorical Imperative

The controversy stems from the treatment of sweet, natural foods, like maple syrup and honey, which are added to other dishes. The new rules set aside a line item on the label under "Total Carbohydrates" for "Added Sugars." Added sugars, according to the FDA, are "sugars that are either added during the processing of foods, or are packaged as such. The term includes free sugars (free mono- and disaccharides), [and] sugars from syrups and honey ... "

Fine, but what if you're a maple syrup farmer or a honey harvester? Your product is the only sugar in your package. How do you label the sugar content?

The FDA ruled that even though these products may be all natural, producers are required to list the contents as added sugars on the label. In order to clarify that the products are nonetheless natural, the administration opted to require a visual element – – to the added-sugar line item that redirects consumers to explanatory "contextual information." For example, " All these sugars are naturally occurring in honey."

The Takeaway

This approach was not well-received.

The FDA's open comment period, which began in March, yielded over one thousand comments, the majority of which were negative. The tactics employed by the commentators were characteristic of online comments-section discourse, ranging from the rational and balanced – "I am entirely in favor of accurate labeling, and I don't disagree that many Americans consume too much sugar. But let's not resort to inaccurate and misleading labeling to counter it." ­to the emotional – "It is absurd to add this statement to honey! If this is what the FDA wants on the label of my honey please explain the process I need to go through to add sugar to honey! And each FDA board member voting on this needs to spend a day with a beekeeper extracting and bottling said honey!!!"

There also was the arch and disdainful – "Einstein was right. ... The most abundant element is hydrogen ... followed by stupidity. You lot illustrate this perfectly."­ – and the conspiratorial – "I smell a rat. To force maple syrup and honey makers to in effect lie to the public about the sugar content of their products seems to me to be a nefarious scheme to lower the profit margins of said makers. In fact, the plot stinks to high heaven!"

Whether the variety of negative comments received by this proposed guidance will encourage the FDA to consider revising its approach remains to be seen.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.