Subscribe to The Tonic
Let’s start with the obvious: the old rules regulating the word “healthy” on food packaging were comically outdated.
Foods like salmon and avocados—nutritional powerhouses by most standards—couldn’t sport the “healthy” label under the original guidelines. Meanwhile, fortified sugary cereals and white bread? They made the cut.
Thankfully, the FDA’s new definition brings some sanity back into the equation, allowing nutrient-dense options like nuts, eggs, and lentils to claim their rightful place in the “healthy” club. Progress, right?
Ehh. Well, sort of.
While it’s nice to see a few decades of nutrition science finally acknowledged, the FDA’s shiny new rules aren’t exactly revolutionary.” Yes, the updated standards are more sensible.
Yes, they might nudge a few consumers toward better choices, but let’s keep things in perspective. The “healthy” label currently appears on only about 5% of packaged foods. The FDA’s own estimates suggest this revision will influence the shopping habits of, at most, 0.4% of Americans. Compare that to the nearly 70% of U.S. adults who are either obese or overweight, and yeah… that’s...not great.
The real kicker? The agency projects this change will bring an annual public health benefit of $46 million—a drop in the ocean compared to the $1 trillion we spend each year managing diet-related diseases like diabetes and heart disease.
That’s not to say it’s worthless, but calling this a meaningful step in the fight against chronic illness feels overly generous.
While clearer labels are helpful, they are not a substitute for real systemic change. America’s diet-related health crisis won’t be solved by tweaking marketing claims on a handful of products. We need bolder moves: mandatory front-of-package labeling, limits on harmful additives, subsidies for healthy foods, and better access to nutrition education.
Critics are also quick to point out that the new rules could actually backfire for some families. Stricter caps on added sugars mean many flavored yogurts and milks—a go-to for kids—will no longer qualify as “healthy.” And with products needing to reformulate or rebrand to meet the updated standards, there’s a risk of fewer affordable, nutrient-dense options on grocery store shelves.
So, where does this leave us? The FDA’s update isn’t nothing, but it’s far from enough.
It’s like finally fixing a leaky faucet in a house with a flooded basement. Sure, it’s better than ignoring the problem altogether, but it doesn’t address the scope of the crisis we’re facing.
The key takeaway? Real progress will take more than a new label definition. While the FDA pats itself on the back, we must keep pushing for meaningful change—changes that make healthy eating accessible for everyone, not just the few who can afford to navigate the maze of modern food marketing.
Is there hope that things will change? With RFK Jr. and others like Casey and Callie Means bringing the conversation to the forefront of public discourse, there might just be a chance over the coming years. Only time will tell!
Enjoyed the article? Subscribe.
Comentarios