I've done a lot of posting in the past about food and beverage labels. The upshot of my messages has generally been that nobody seems to agree on how best to do it. And there is no better proof of that than the reaction to the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) recent front-of-pack labelling proposal. 

The mandate would detail the percent daily value of saturated fat, sodium, and added sugar per serving paired with "interpretive" language qualifying each amount as Low, Medium, or High on the front of the label. FDA believes this will help consumers "quickly and easily identify how foods can be part of a healthy diet." The agency's approach is based upon a literature review, two focus group tests, and a peer-reviewed experimental study that evaluated consumer reactions and responses to a variety of possible schemes.

But nobody besides FDA seems to like the approach. Industry, stakeholders, and public health advocates all argue that failing to include calories among the call outs is a fatal flaw in FDA's scheme. Other nutrition information that is emphasized in other labelling approaches is also missing, making it overly simplistic. Indeed, by focusing on added sugars, FDA's label may actually encourage the use of artificial sweeteners and chemicals that certain stakeholders argue are far worse than sugar – whether natural or added. 

If finalized, FDA would expect companies with more than $10 million in annual food sales comply with the rule within three years. Comments are currently being accepted through May 16. Impacted food and beverage companies should let FDA know what they think.