Many people don't have the
reading and math skills to correctly interpret
the nutrition labels on food packages, a new
study finds.
People need to be better educated about how
to read food labels, but labels also need to
be redesigned to deliver the information in
a way that is easier to understand, the researchers
said.
The report was published in the November
issue of the American Journal of Preventive
Medicine.
"Even though most people told us that
they read food labels on a regular basis,
people have a hard time understanding food
labels," said study author Dr. Russell
L. Rothman, an assistant professor at the
Center for Health Services Research at Vanderbilt
University. "Food labels are pretty complex
pieces of information, particularly the nutrition
panel on the side of the food label."
In the study, researchers surveyed 200 primary-care
patients. The participants, who came from
a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds,
were given standardized reading and math tests.
They were also given a nutrition label survey,
which asked them to interpret food labels.
It also measured their comprehension of food
nutrition labels.
Participants were asked to choose which of
two foods had more or less of a certain nutrient.
Half of the questions used products clearly
labeled as "reduced carb," "low
carb," or designed for "a low-carb
diet."
Among the participants, 68 percent had some
college education, and 77 percent had at least
ninth-grade level literacy skills. However,
63 percent had less than ninth-grade math
skills. Most participants said they used food
labels and found them easy to understand,
the researchers report.
"However, we found that a lot of people
have a hard time understanding the label and
make mistakes when trying to interpret the
label," Rothman said. "This can
lead to people grossly overestimating or underestimating
how much they are taking in of certain nutrients."
Overall, patients correctly answered 69 percent
of the nutrition survey questions, Rothman's
team found. But, only 32 percent could correctly
calculate the amount of carbohydrates consumed
in a 20-ounce bottle of soda that had 2.5
servings in the bottle. Only 60 percent could
calculate the number of carbohydrates consumed
if they ate half a bagel when the serving
size was a whole bagel.
In addition, only 22 percent could figure
out the amount of net carbohydrates in two
slices of low-carb bread, and only 23 percent
could determine the amount of net carbohydrates
in a serving of low-carb spaghetti.
The reasons most people gave for these misunderstandings
were that they did not understand the serving
size information; they were confused by extraneous
material on the label, and they calculated
incorrectly.
Doctors, dietitians and other health-care
providers should do a better job of explaining
food labels to their patients, Rothman said.
Food manufacturers and the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration should also
work to make food labels easier to understand,
he added.
"The labels are pretty dense,"
Rothman said. "There are opportunities
to make them a little easier for people to
understand." Serving sizes should be
made clearer, and extraneous information should
be removed from the label, he said.
These changes and others would make things
more understandable, especially for people
who are on a particular diet, Rothman noted.
"If you really have a hard time understanding
the labels, let your doctor know and he can
help you by suggesting ways to eat that don't
require you to understand all the information
on the label," he said.
One expert thinks that the way nutrition
facts are conveyed to consumers needs to be
revamped.
"Interpretation of nutrition labels
requires both reading and math skills, and
the combination is in short supply,"
said Dr. David L. Katz, director of the Prevention
Research Center at Yale University School
of Medicine. "The questions posed to
the participants in the study could be directly
answered from information on the label itself,
by anyone knowing how to find it," he
added.
However, the question consumers truly need
to answer is whether a product is good for
their family, Katz said. "This question
cannot be answered by anyone relying on the
nutrition facts panel. So even intelligent,
committed people can be mislead by marketing
claims on the package," he said.
"We need an objective assessment of
the overall nutritional quality of foods,"
Katz said. "We need that translated into
simple, interpretable-at-a-glance symbols
on the front of every packaged food. And we
need it applied to chain restaurant meals,
too."
