The FDA has sent out warning letters to 17 food manufacturers claiming that certain products violate the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The development follows last October’s statement by FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg urging companies to review their nutrition claims.

Yesterday’s letters serve as a reminder that the agency is serious about holding manufacturers accountable for the promises they make to their customers. The vast majority of companies making health claims have been careful to include studies, research findings and other data supporting their claims on their websites, or otherwise make them available to consumers.

Even so, the FDA is saying companies continue to overreach, or neglect to balance their claims with statements that point out other nutritional aspects that are not so healthy.

For example, many of the manufacturers on this most recent list were cited for making claims such as “0 grams of trans fat” – a statement that, in and of itself, is accurate. However, many of these products contain significant amounts of saturated (bad) fats, or cholesterol, or sodium. FDA regulations state that if these nutritional elements exceed a certain amount, then manufacturers must include an ancillary notice next to any front-panel health declarations that directs the consumer to the Nutrition Facts panel.

There, they’ll see that the product does not have any trans fats as stated but, Wow, it’s loaded with saturated fat, cholesterol or sodium. No thanks, I’ll pass. more

The annual convention of the nation’s independent supermarket operators is being held this week in Las Vegas, and the consumer survey released every year to mark the occasion has some interesting insights into the mind of the whole health shopper.

The poll, conducted by the National Grocers Association and SupermarketGuru.com, devotes an entire section to “Nutritional Concerns,” and that’s where you see just how many of the nearly 2,500 chief household, mostly female shoppers remain committed to eating healthy despite the tough times.

When asked what concerns them most about the foods they eat, the simple “Desire to be healthy/eat what’s good for us” came in first, at 22%, far outpacing the other choices (fat content received 13%).

That desire is apparently translating into action. A full 27% stated their diets are healthy enough. More important, the number of those who admit shortcomings is falling: “Compared with a year ago, when 68% were critical of the foods they eat at home and away from home, this figure improves markedly to 62%,” the report said.

Fruits and vegetables are the most popular ways of improving diet, according to the survey, with 84% of respondents saying so. Less junk food was second (64%) and fewer fried foods was third (63%). more

Dieting is an American way of life. A new survey from Catalina Marketing founds that weight management has a “strong influence” on the grocery purchases of 56% of American shoppers and at least “some influence” on the purchases of another one-third.

Even more striking is the fact that four out of 10 shoppers followed some type of diet in the past year.

Yet, food products promoting themselves as diet-friendly or waistline-smart don’t necessarily fly off the shelves. In large part, that’s because as a group, dieters are a diverse bunch. The study found there are different types of dieters, different goals and different levels of willingness to spend on diet-related products.

For instance, those following name-brand diets or lifestyles spend more than $3,400 on groceries per year, while those who focus simply on low-fat foods, regardless of brand, spend just over $800.

Catalina researchers queried more than 4,000 shoppers and used their answers to create six shopper segments: Low-Fat & Fit, Carb Conscious, Calorie-Conscious, Unconcerned Families, Healthy Habits and Devoted Dieters. Some of the insights for each include:

Low-Fat & Fit (11 million shoppers): This group reports the lowest level of concern managing or losing weight with 41% “very concerned.” Thirty-two percent of this segment says weight-management has a strong influence on the type of groceries they buy. more

A lot is being made of New York City’s move to limit sodium in foods sold in the five boroughs. This latest initiative — the city has already banned trans fats and requires restaurants to post calorie counts — seeks to prod manufacturers and restaurant kitchens to cut back on the salt.

The official goal is to reduce the amount of sodium in packaged food and foodservice by an average of 25% over the next five years. This is only a suggestion. There’s no law or regulation taking effect here. In effect, the city is asking companies to join in a voluntary campaign to reduce the amount of sodium city consumers are taking in.

That’s all good stuff, but published reports point out that the big packaged food companies have been quietly removing sodium from products like soup and prepared foods for some time now. Perhaps the most progressive company on this front has been Campbell Soup Co. ConAgra is also working on it, as is Progresso, Unilever, Sara Lee and other big brand-name food makers.

Have you ever tried a low-sodium version of a product? Did you buy it again? I recall trying a low-salt version of a vegetable juice I really liked, and I thought I was drinking liquid cardboard. What I ended up doing was cutting the regular version with water in the belief that I was at least diluting the sodium content. more

More than 1.5 billion Americans visited food web sites this year. It’s a tremendous number, with huge implications for the food industry. The statistic, from a poll conducted by our friends at Allrecipes.com, notes that these consumers went through 11 billion pages of food-focused content — everything from recipes to discussion boards to coupon offers.

While that’s an impressive (even intimidating) number, the real hook for retailers comes from another stat. The Allrecipes.com survey found that 43% of home cooks with smart phones “used the device while grocery shopping to look up recipes, create grocery lists, conduct price comparisons and look up coupons.” We’ve reported on retailers that have implemented pretty extensive online coupon programs to take advantage of this trend.

To get a glimpse of the extent of consumer use, Allrecipes determined that page views of its site from a mobile device increased five times the rate of other devices — desktop, laptop and the like — in the past 16 months. In November alone, Allrecipes,com received more than 1 million visits from mobile devices. That’s a lot of people on the move, who still need and want access to information and offers.

Against this rose-pixeled picture, however, we have another report indicating that the industry itself has lagged in applying many consumer-friendly concepts to B-to-B applications, frustrating clients and trade customers. Technomic Inc., which tracks foodservice and restaurants, found wide-ranging complaints within the industry centered on the lack of specific product information, organization and assistance on a majority of vendor websites. more

There’s considerable talk about the ways the Food and Drug Administration might change the rules on nutrition labeling. The agency said in October that it would review front-of-pack labels for violations, and there’s good evidence that it will implement a universal system.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest — one of the more vocal critics of the current, disorganized labeling landscape — just weighed in with its recommendations. You’ll recall that back in 1990 the CSPI successfully campaigned for the legislation that brought us Nutrition Facts. Now, the group says, the Facts aren’t as useful as they used to be — food companies have figured out ways to skirt them and mask what’s really in products.

To ensure complete transparency, the CSPI recommends several changes to the Nutrition Facts panel. First off, make the type showing calories and serving size bigger. Second, provide context for servings of fat, sodium, cholesterol and so on by indicating high content percentages in red. And rather than list ingredients by prevalence, separate the major ingredients from the minor ones, and group these together so consumers can see the different types of sugars, oils and so on.

The group also wants the FDA to get stricter on claims like “Strengthens Immunity” and “0 Grams of Trans Fat” that it says can be deceptive. more

There’s a new Food and Drug Administration in town, and its serious about label reform.

This has been apparent for some time now — ever since early this year, when the agency fired a warning shot at General Mills — and we’ve been on the case, covering the issue as its evolved. There’s only so much insight we can offer, however. For the best idea of where things are headed, check out yesterday’s column in The Atlantic’s food section by Michael Taylor, the FDA’s advisor in charge of food safety and nutrition labeling.

In it, Taylor talks about the problems with labeling systems developed by retailers and manufacturers. Companies claim they’re providing helpful guidance and transparency — but to Taylor, it’s all an overload of dubious information.

“Consumer studies show that some people feel these messages are helpful point-of-purchase shortcuts,” he writes. “But many people are overwhelmed by these messages–and skeptical of their legitimacy.” more

From our “What Are They Thinking?” file: Kellogg’s is currently under fire for splashing a huge “Immunity” banner across its best-selling Rice Krispies brand just as parental concern over the H1N1 virus is reaching a feverish pitch.

“Now helps support your child’s immunity,” is the exact phrasing, along with a graphic touting that the cereal’s increased fortification with 25% of the daily values of antioxidants and nutrients like Vitamins A, B, C and E.

This is a cereal that still lists sugar as the second ingredient. Even more of an eyebrow-raiser is Rice Krispies’ companion Cocoa Krispies, which sports the same claim on its box. Cocoa Krispies also contains sugar, high fructose corn syrup and trans-fat, according to the ingredients panel. But ignore that. It’s fortified with vitamins to help ward off the child-killer swine flu.

For its part, Kellogg’s claims the fortification decision was made a year ago, well before the current flu scare. Knowing that recipe tinkering can be an involved process, I can’t quibble with that. However I do recall visiting Unilever’s corporate test kitchen right after the low-carb craze engulfed the country some years ago, when I got to taste low-carb versions of their best-selling salad dressings, mayonnaise and the like.

The executives I met with proudly announced that reformulating the products took the company a matter of weeks. I can’t imagine what’s so complicated about boosting vitamin percentages that it took the food scientists at Kellogg’s a year. more

Three days after the Food and Drug Administration notified the food industry that it would begin reviewing all nutrition labeling programs, the much-maligned Smart Choices program announced it would “voluntarily postpone operations and not encourage wider use of the logo” for the time being.

Critics of Smart Choices, who included Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, said the program’s nutritional criteria was too lenient, allowing products like Froot Loops cereal and the popcorn-based Cracker Jack snack to qualify for the green checkmarked logo.

In a written statement, posted in the media section of the Smart Choices website, Mike Hughes, program chairman and vice president for science and public policy at the Keystone Center, said he welcomes FDA’s interest in developing uniform front-of-package and shelf-labeling criteria.

“The Smart Choices Program shares that exact goal, and was designed to provide a voluntary front-of-package labeling program that could promote informed food choices and help consumers construct healthier diets. We continue to believe the Smart Choices Program is an important step in the right direction,” he wrote.

Smart Choices was unveiled earlier this year by a group that includes the largest U.S. food manufacturers — Kellogg’s, General Mills, Kraft Foods, among others. more

We’ve heard it from others, have said it ourselves and now it seems the Food and Drug Administration is hearing it: It’s time to review nutrition labeling.

Yesterday, the FDA stated as much. Commissioner Margaret Hamburg announced a sweeping initiative that includes the following:

• Reviewing existing labeling programs for violations of federal regulations;

• Drafting a set of nutrition criteria on which all existing and future labeling programs must be based;

• Commissioning an 18-month study to determine how consumers use nutrition labeling programs; and

• Opening a dialogue with the food industry to determine whether a single set of symbols is necessary.

Hamburg must have been getting an earful from critics of the ratings systems and programs currently out on the market, some of which admittedly are sorely lacking in credibility.

“Some nutritionists have questioned whether this information is more marketing-oriented then health-oriented,” she stated. “And judging from some of the labels that we’ve seen, we think that this is a valid concern.” more