FTC Staff Comment Before the Food and Drug Administration Concerning Nutrient Claims

BEFORE THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
In the Matter of
Request for Comments on Nutrient Content Claims
General Principles; Health Claims, General Requirements and
Other Specific Requirements for Individual Health Claims;
Reopening of the Comment Period
Docket Nos. 1994P-0390 and 1995P- 0241
Comments of the Staff of
the Bureau of Consumer Protection,
the Bureau of Economics
and the Offce of Policy Planning
of the Federal Trade Commission
July 27, 2004*
*These comments represent the views of the staff of the Bureau of Consumer
Protection, the Bureau of Economics, and the Offce of Policy Planning of the
Federal Trade Commission. They do not necessarily represent the views of
the Federal Trade Commission or any individual Commissioner. The
Commission has, however, voted to authorize the staff to submit these
comments.

I. Introduction
The Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) share the
goals of helping consumers make informed dietary choices and of promoting competition among
manufacturers to develop and market healthier food products. As part of its Consumer Health
Information for Better Nutrition Initiative, the FDA recently reopened the comment period for its
proposed rule concerning certain nutrient content and health claims in food labeling. I Among
other things, the FDA is seeking comment on whether: (1) health claims should be permitted for
some foods that do not meet the minimum nutrition contribution requirement; (2) health claims
should be permitted with a disclosure about disqualifyng nutrients rather than banned entirely
based on the amount of these nutrients; and (3) nutrient content claims should be allowed with
unapproved synonyms in lieu of FDA-defined terms.
Based on its experience in encouraging truthful and non-misleading information
including health claims, to consumers, the staff of the Federal Trade Commission s Bureau of
Consumer Protection, Bureau of Economics, and Offce of Policy Planning (FTC staff)
recommends that the FDA:
. Allow health claims if a food meets a "nutrient density" standard as an alternative to
having a specified minimum amount of the nutrient. In addition, permit on a case-by-case
basis health claims for foods that meet neither a minimum nutrient contribution
requirement nor a nutrient density standard if such claims would inform consumers of
healthier substitutes for foods in their diets.
69 Fed. Reg. 24 541 (May 2004).
A nutrient density standard generally measures the beneficial nutrients in a food
relative to its caloric content.

. If consumer research demonstrates that a health claim on a label for a food with a
problematic nutrient leads consumers to take away an implied claim that the food is
healthful in all respects, then the FDA should consider mandating the use of disclosures
to address any such implied claim consistent with the results of consumer research on
ways to provide qualifying information that prevents consumers from being misled.
. Allow the use of truthful, non-misleading synonyms for FDA-defined terms in nutrient
content claims.
The FTC staff encourages the FDA to consider revising its regulations to adopt these
changes, because they likely would aid consumers in making better-informed purchasing
decisions about foods and encourage food companies to develop and market healthier foods.
Helping consumers to select foods that make a healthful contribution to overall diets would aid in
addressing the national obesity problem. We also encourage the FDA to continue to create
solicit, and analyze consumer research as part of its evaluation of the costs and benefits of
changes to its food labeling regulations.
II. FTC Experience
The FTC enforces Section 5 ofthe Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), which
broadly prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce. "3 In addition
Section 12 ofthe FTC Act more specifically prohibits the dissemination of false advertisements
for foods, drugs, devices, services, or cosmetics.4 Essentially, the FTC' s mission is to protect
15 U.S. C. 945.
15 U.S. C. 9 52. The FDA and the FTC generally share jursdiction over
prescription drug advertising, although the FDA exercises primary responsibility for such
advertising pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the two agencies. Working
Agreement Between FTC and Food and Drug Administration, 4 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) 851 .

consumer sovereignty by addressing practices that impede consumers ' ability to exercise
informed choice in the marketplace.
One of the FTC' s primary responsibilities is to bring law enforcement actions against
deceptive practices in national advertising. The FTC considers the prevention of deceptive
health-related advertising claims to be a high priority. The Commission has taken action against
numerous deceptive health-related claims for foods, drugs, dietary supplements, and medical
devices. Through these law enforcement activities and through research conducted in support of
its mission, the FTC has developed expertise in analyzing the role of advertising in conveying
health-related information to consumers.
In addition to its law enforcement experience, the FTC staff also has examined the effect
of governent regulation on the health-related information that consumers receive. Food labels
can provide valuable information about the nature and effect of nutrients. Labeling information
is critically important, because consumers receive it close to their actual purchase decision
concerning a particular product. We welcome this opportunity to provide views on some of the
food labeling issues on which the FDA is seeking public comment.
(1971).
5 See, e. P. Ippolito & J. Pappalardo Advertising Nutrition Health: Evidence
from Food Advertising 1977-1997 (2002); P. Ippolito & A. Mathios Information and Advertising
Policy: A Study ofF at and Cholesterol Consumption in the United States, 1977-1990 (1996); J.
Calfee & J. Pappalardo How Should Health Claims for Foods Be Regulated? An Economic
Perspective (1989); A. Masson & R. Steiner Generic Substitution and Prescription Drug Prices:
Economic Effects of State Drug Product Selection Laws (1985).
According to a 1996 survey of 4 200 food shoppers , 70% of brand purchase
decisions are made in the store, the point at which consumers are directly exposed to label
information. Point of Purchasing Advertising Institute, 1996 POPAI Consumer Buying Habits
Study 8 (1996).

III. Minimum Nutrient Contribution Requirement
A. Background
Under FDA regulations, a health claim is a representation describing the relationship
between a substance or nutrient and a disease or health-related condition.7 For instance, a food
marketer could state "diets low in sodium may reduce the risk of high blood pressure, a disease
associated with many factors" on the label of an appropriate low sodium food. Another example
is that a food marketer could state "development of cancer depends on many factors.
A diet low in total fat may reduce the risk of certain cancers" on the label of an appropriate low
fat food.
The FDA, however, prohibits marketers from making a health claim on a food label
unless the food contains a meaningful amount of an important nutrient. Specifically, a marketer
can make a health claim for a food only if, prior to fortification 1O it contains 10 percent or more
ofthe reference daily intake (RDI) or daily value (DV) for vitamin A, vitamin C , iron, calcium
protein, or fiber per reference amount customarily consumed (RACC). ll The "minimum nutrient
21 C.F. R. 9 101.14(a)(1).
21 C.F. R. 9 101.74(e).
21 C. R. 9 101.73(e).
10 If food marketers could meet the minimum nutrient contribution requirement
through fortification, it would give them an incentive to fortify foods just to make health claims.
Because excessive amounts of some ofthese nutrients in the diet may create health risks, the
FDA did not want to encourage food marketers to over-fortify the United States s food supply.
60 Fed. Reg. 66 206 at 66 212.
11 21 C. R. 9 101.14(e)(6). The DV or DRV for a nutrient is the daily
recommended amount of that nutrient a person should eat in a day, calculated based on a 2000-
calorie diet. 21 C.F.R. 99 101.9(c)(7)(iii) and (c)(9). Similarly, the RDI for a vitamin or mineral
is the recommended amount of these substances that a person should eat in a day, calculated

contribution requirement"12 was an attempt to limit health claims to only so-called "healthy
foods " which the original regulations define as foods that contain a significant amount of one of
these important nutrients.
FDA found, however, that the minimum nutrient contribution requirement may have
had the unintended effect of barng health claims for some foods that could help consumers
maintain a balanced and healthful diet. 14 Many frits and vegetables , as well as certain whole
grain products, did not satisfy the standard despite making a healthful contribution to the overall
diet. The minimum nutrient contribution requirement, for example, generally precludes the FDA
from approving health claims for caned vegetables with no salt added, peaches in light syrp, as
well as frozen vegetables in sauce.
Recognizing that its minimum contribution requirement could preclude health claims for
some foods that can significantly contribute to a healthy diet, the FDA proposed to exempt
certain specific types of foods from the minimum nutrient contribution requirement. In 1995, the
agency proposed amending its regulations to exempt: (1) frit and vegetable products composed
solely of frits and vegetables; (2) whole grain products that conform to a standard of identity;
and (3) bread that conforms to a standard of identity15 for enrched bread , but contains whole
based on a 2000-calorie diet. 21 C.F.R.. 99 101.9(c)(8)(i) through (iv). The RACC is an FDA--
specified quantity of food customarily consumed that is used to determine serving size. 21
R. 99 101.9(b)(2) and 101.12(b) .
69 Fed. Reg. at 24 543.
Id. , citing 60 Fed. Reg. 66 206 at 66 213.
Id. , citing 60 Fed. Reg. 66 206 at 66 212.
15 A standard of identity defines the criteria that must be met for a food to be
described as a particular food, its name, and the ingredients that must be used, or may be used, in

grain products not permitted under that standard. Some ofthese products, including frozen or
caned fruits and vegetables with the same nutritional profile as raw frits and vegetables
curently may be labeled with certain health claims under subsequent FDA regulations defining
those health claims. Even with such an exemption, the minimum nutrient contribution
requirement would continue to prevent health claims for some foods that can contribute to a
healthy diet. These include frit and vegetable products with added oils, sodium, sauces, syrps
or other ingredients, as well as breakfast cereals and other foods with high grain content.
Accordingly, the FDA requested comment in 1995 as to whether it should modify its regulations
to exempt these additional types of products from the minimum nutrient contribution
requirement.
B. Proposed Alternative Nutrient Density Approach
The FDA now seeks comment on whether it should use an alternative nutrient density
approach that woul also allow health claims for more foods that do not meet the minimum
nutrient contribution requirement. 19 Specifically, the FDA now proposes the following nutrient
density standard: health claims could be approved if the percentage of the DV or RDI of vitamin
, vitamin A, calcium, iron, protein, or fiber per RACC in a food is equal to or greater than its
the manufacture of the food. See 21 US. C. 9341; 21 C. R. 9 130.3; see also 21 C. R. 136. 115
(standard of identity for enrched bread).
60 Fed. Reg. at 60 214.
69 Fed. Reg. at 24 543 citing 60 Fed. Reg. at 66 214.
Id.
19 The language that the FDA would permit to be used in a particular health claim
would be identical regardless of whether the food was eligible for that claim under a minimum
nutrient contribution standard or a nutrient density standard.

percent caloric contrbution per RACC, based on a 2 000-calorie per day diet. For instance
the FDA could approve a health claim for a food that has 100 calories per serving and 8% of
one s daily amount of Vitamin C, because the food accounts for a greater proportion (8%) of the
daily requirement of Vitamin C than it does for the total daily amount of calories (5%).
The FTC staff supports a nutrient density standard as an alternative means of satisfying
the minimum nutrient contribution requirement. Food marketers would no longer be precluded
from providing information on how many processed frits and vegetables can be used to improve
the healthfulness of consumer diets. Frozen vegetables in some sauces or canned frit in light
syrup, for example, can contribute to a healthier diet, and a nutrient density standard would
permit health claims for many of these relatively nutrient-rich foods?1 On the other hand, a
nutrient density standard would continue to prohibit health claims for relatively nutrient-poor
foods, such as candy or soft drinks?2
Moreover, a nutrient density standard would permit some health claims that promote
substitution to healthier foods. Many low-fat or fat-free products may be beneficial if consumers
substitute them for similar products that are higher in fat and calories. The minimum nutrient
contribution requirement, however, would preclude health claims for some of these low-fat or
69 Fed. Reg. at 24 543.
21 For example, a serving of canned peaches in light syrp has 3% of the calories
6% of the Vitamin A, and 8% of the Vitamin C recommended per day. A health claim for these
canned peaches might be "You know reducing saturated fat in your diet is important to heart
health. Instead of peach pie for dessert,. try Brand X' s delicious cling peaches in light syrp.
Delicious and hear healthy, too.
22 A serving of jelly beans, for instance, contrbutes about 7. 5% of the calories in a
000 calorie per day diet, but provides none of the six nutrients used to measure nutritional
value.

fat-free foods, because they have less than 10% of any important nutrient. By contrast, a nutrient
density standard in many cases would allow such health claims.
The FTC staff believes that adopting a nutrient density standard as an alternative in
addition to the minimum nutrent contribution requirement would result in consumers ' receiving
information that can assist them in making better-informed dietary decisions. The Commission
staff therefore concludes that adopting such a standard would be useful.
C. Case-by-Case Allowance of Health Claims
The FTC staff believes that the FDA should allow health claims, on a case-by-case basis
for products that would meet neither the minimum contribution requirement nor a nutrient
density standard if the FDA determines the information can help consumers constrct better
diets. The diets of consumers are composed of a variety of different foods, with consumers
making numerous decisions as to what foods to include or not include in their diets. Consumers
often make choices as to whether to substitute one food for another in their diet. To enable
consumers to make such substitutions, it is critical that they receive information as to the relative
attributes and health consequences of consuming different foods. Such information empowers
consumers to replace some ofthe foods in their diet with healthier alternatives, including lower
calorie options.
. The FTC staff thus encourages the FDA to consider allowing health claims for foods that
would not be eligible to make such claims if it would provide consumers with information that
would assist them in including more healthy foods in their diets. For example, many fat-free

lower-calorie salad dressings would not be eligible for an obesity-related health claim based on
either a minimum contribution requirement or a nutrient density standard. Nonetheless
consumers could be encouraged to substitute a fat-free, lower-calorie salad dressing for a regular
salad dressing if the FDA were to allow an obesity-related health claim on the label for the fat-
free, lower-calorie salad dressing. Permitting truthful, non-misleading health claims in such
circumstances may encourage food marketers to develop and market healthier foods to
consumers.
D. Recommendation
In summar, the FTC staff supports the FDA' s proposal to use a nutrient density standard
as an additional alternative to a minimum nutrient contribution requirement, so that consumers
can receive truthful and non-misleading health information about more foods. In addition, the
FTC staff recommends that the FDA adopt a rule stating that it will approve health claims for
foods that do not meet either the minimum nutrient contribution requirement or a nutrient density
standard if the FDA determines these claims would provide consumers with truthful, non-
2J In a prior comment, the FTC staff suggested that the FDA consider approving or
allowing a health claim linking calories, obesity, and obesity-related diseases. See Comments of
the Staff of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, the Bureau of Economics, and the Offce of
Policy Planning of the Federal Trade Commission before the Department of Health and Human
Services, Food and Drug Administration In the Matter of Obesity Working Group; Public
Workshop: Exploring the Link Between Weight Management and Food Labels and Packaging,
Dkt. No. 2003N-0338 (Dec. 12 , 2003) ("Obesity Comment"). Ifthe FDA approves an obesity-
related health claim, it will specify at that time the language that can be used in the claim.
24 Foods that contain small amounts of vitamins or fiber but are not considered good
sources of such nutrients under the minimum nutrient contribution requirement may contribute
significant amounts of such vitamins or fibers to an individual's diet if these foods are eaten
often. It may be useful in the future for the FDA to evaluate what types of health claims are
made under the proposed nutrient density standard and whether such claims are helping
consumers to choose healthier diets.

misleading information that would assist them in selecting healthier foods.
IV. Use of Disclosures Rather Than Disqualifying Amounts
A. Current Disqualifying Amounts Standard
As discussed above, the FDA permits health claims for foods that describe the
relationship between a substance or nutrient in a food and a particular disease or health
condition. If a food contains a nutrient or substance that reduces the risk of a particular disease
or health condition, the FDA generally will allow a health claim for that food. The FDA
however, will not permit a health claim for a food that has other problematic nutrients in two
circumstances.
First, the FDA wil not allow a health claim if the net health effect of a food is not a
reduction in the risk of a paricular disease. Food marketers, for example, generally can make the
claim that foods high in calcium may lower one s risk of osteoporosis. Nevertheless, a health
claim for such a food is not permitted if the food contains more phosphorous than calcium on a
weight-per-weight basis 25 because phosphorous may affect the osteoporosis-risk reduction
benefits of the calcium.
Second, even if the net health effect of the nutrients in a food is a reduction in the risk of
a particular disease or health condition, the FDA will not permit a health claim if the food
contains more than the prescribed amount of certain problematic nutrients. Specifically, a food
marketer generally cannot make health claims for a food that contains more than 13 g fat, 4 g
saturated fat, 60 mg cholesterol, or 480 mg of sodium per serving or reference amount
21 C. R. 9 101.72(c)(2)(ii).

customarily consumed?6 Even though these problematic nutrients do not necessarily obviate the
reduction in the risk ofthe specific disease or health condition that would be the subject of the
health claim, the FDA has used these "disqualifying levels" to preclude health claims because
these other nutri nts create an increased risk of other diseases in the general population.
Among other things, the FDA requests comment on whether a disclosure of disqualifying
nutrients in connection with a health claim would be preferable to prohibiting health claims
entirely based on the presence of these nutrents.28 The FDA also requests comment and seeks
scientific and consumer research on the effectiveness of such disclosures (through appropriate
referral statements) in assisting consumers to construct healthy diets?9 FTC staff address these
two issues below.
B. Implied Claims About Problematic Nutrients from Health Claim on Label
An initial question for the FDA to address is what, if any, implied claims consumers take
away from a health claim on the label of a food that contains a problematic nutrient that exceeds
the disqualifying amount of that nutrient. For example, assume that a marketer of a food high in
calcium and sodium makes the health claim on the food label that "foods rich in calcium reduce
one s risk of osteoporosis." If consumers take away from this health claim an implied claim that
21 C. R. 9 101.14(a)(4).
58 Fed. Reg. 2,489 (1993) (Statement of Basis and Purpose).
28 In 1995 , the FDA rejected a proposal to allow health claims for foods that exceed
the disqualifying levels so long as the presence of problematic nutrient amounts are disclosed.
69 Fed. Reg. at 24 544.
29 In paricular, the FDA seeks comments on a health claim on the principal display
panel that is accompanied by a statement referrng consumers to the Nutrition Facts Panel for
more information about a problematic nutrient.

the food is healthy in all respects (including its sodium content), then a disclosure may be needed
to prevent this implied claim from misleading consumers. If consumers do not take away such
an implied claim, then no disclosure is needed to prevent consumers from being misled.
The FTC's Policy Statement on Food Advertising recognizes that there may be
circumstances in which consumers take away an implied claim about a problematic nutrient from
a health claim in an advertisement, and, therefore, the marketers making such a claim must
disclose information about the nutrient in the ad to prevent deception.30 First, if a
food marketer makes a health claim and a problematic nutrient is "closely related to the subject
health claim " consumers might take away the misleading impression from the ad that the food
does not present any related health risks" unless the food marketer also discloses the "presence
and significance" of the problematic nutrient. For instance, a claim in an advertisement that a
food low in saturated fat and trans fat will reduce one s risk of heart disease would be deceptive
if the food marketer failed to disclose that the food contained so much sodium that it might
increase the risk of heart disease.
Second, even if a problematic nutrient "does not bear directly on the health condition that
is the subject of the health claim " in some contexts consumers might take away the misleading
impression that "the food is healthful in all respects."32 In such cases, the food marketer "may
need to include a disclosure that conveys the presence and significance" of the problematic
30 See Federal Trade Commission Enforcement Policy Statement on Food
Advertising at 21-23 (May 1994) ("Policy Statement on Food Advertising
Policy Statement on Food Advertising at 22.
Id. at 23.

nutrient. For example, a food marketer s claim that a food high in calcium would reduce the risk
of osteoporosis might create the impression that the advertised food does not create an increased
risk of other diseases or health conditions. If so, and the food increases the risk of cardiovascular
disease because it is high in saturated fat, the food marketer would have to disclose the presence
and significance of the saturated fat to prevent deception.
The FTC staff has not tested in what contexts, if any, consumers take away an implied
claim that a food is healthful in all respects from health claims on labels of foods with a
problematic nutrient. We therefore recommend that the FDA consider conducting consumer
research to determine in what contexts consumers take away such an implied claim. In the
absence of such an implied claim, as discussed above, there is no need for the FDA to mandate a
disclosure on the label about a problematic nutrient to prevent deception.
C. Preference for Disclosure Over Outright Ban of Health Claims
If consumer research does not demonstrate an implied claim, as discussed above, there is
no need for the FDA to mandate a disclosure on the label about a problematic nutrient to prevent
deception. If consumer research shows that a health claim on a label for a food with a
33 In the context of advertising, an FTC Staff study using experimental techniques
did not find significant evidence that the use of health claims in ads raised consumer perceptions
of the overall healthiness of the advertised food or inappropriately shaped consumers
assessments of problematic nutrients, compared to their perceptions based on nutrient content
claims alone or a control ad with no nutrition-related claim. See D. Murphy, et al. , Generic Copy
Test of Food Health Claims in Advertising, Joint Staff Report of the Bureaus of Economics and
Consumer Protection Federal Trade Commission 21-25 (1998).
34 This comment does not address other reasons that the FDA may decide to require
a disclosure, such as to encourage consumers to eat healthier foods or help them construct
healthier diets. The comment also does not address whether such disclosures would survive a
First Amendment challenge.

problematic nutrient leads consumers to take away the implied claim that the food is healthful in
all respects, there are two possible alternatives. One alternative is for the FDA to impose an
outright ban on the health claim. The other alternative is to require an appropriate disclosure.
FTC staff believes that the FDA should consider mandating the use of disclosures consistent with
the results of consumer research on ways to provide information that qualifies any such implied
claims to prevent consumers from being misled.
Allowing health claims with an appropriate disclosure of problematic nutrients - instead
of an outright prohibition on health claims based on the presence of those nutrients - is
consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence. The First Amendment embodies a "preference
for disclosure over outright suppression" as the method of advancing the governent'
substantial interest in preventing false or misleading commercial speech. The governent
disregard( s J a far less restrictive means" of a vancing its interest "where it chooses a policy of
suppression over disclosure -- at least where there is no showing that disclosure would not
suffice to cure misleadingness."36 Thus, the First Amendment likely precludes the FDA from
banning health claims for foods that exceed disqualifying amounts of nutrients unless disclosures
about these nutrients would not be effective in preventing deception.
35 Pearsonv. Shalala 164 F. 3d 650 656 (D. C. Cir. 1999); see also Whitaker v.
Thompson 248 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D. C. 2002).
36 Pearson 164 F. 3d at 658; see Thompson v. Western States Medical Center, 535
US. 357 358 (2002) (governent bans on commercial speech are more extensive than necessary
if the governent "could have achieved its interests in a manner that does not restrict speech or
that restricts less speech.
37 The First Amendment requires the FDA to demonstrate that an outrght ban on
health claims for foods with problematic nutrients is not more extensive than necessary in order
to prevent deception, if that is the underlying basis for its ban. See Western States Medical
Center at 358 (governent bans on commercial speech are more extensive than necessary ifthe

Allowing health claims with disclosures related to problematic nutrients to prevent
deception also is consistent with the conclusion that the free flow of truthful and non-misleading
nutrition and health information is critical to consumers and competition.38 For instance , a food
marketer may want to make a comparative health claim for a cooking oil that is low in saturated
fat. The claim might, for example, inform consumers of the heart-health benefits that could be
achieved by using the oil instead of butter, margarine, or other cooking oils that are higher in
saturated fat. Because the cooking oil would exceed disqualifying levels for total fat, such a
heart-health claim currently would be prohibited. If consumers would take away from this heart-
health claim on the label the impression that the oil does not contain a problematic amount of fat
a disclosure related to its fat content would be needed to prevent consumers from being misled.
FTC staff believes it is preferable to allow food marketers to provide consumers with information
about the heart-health benefits of choosing an oil with less saturated fat (with an adequate
governent "could have achieved its interests in a manner that does not restrict speech or that
restricts less speech. Central Hudson Gas Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Servo Comm ' 447 US. 557
566 (1980); see, e. g., Pearson 164 F. 3d at 660-61 ("While we are skeptical that the governent
could demonstrate with empirical evidence that disclaimers. . . would bewilder consumers and
fail to correct for deceptiveness, we do not rule out that possibility. Whitaker 248 F. Supp. 2d
at 9 ("In this case, the Governent has not satisfied its burden - - there is no evidence that the
proposed (anti -oxidant J health claim, if accompanied by a disclaimer, would be deceptive or
unlawfuL"
38
See, e. Obesity Comment at 6- supra note 23; Comments of the Staff of the
Bureau of Economics, the Bureau of Consumer Protection, and the Offce of Policy Planning of
the Federal Trade Commission in The Matter of Request for Comment on First Amendment
Issues Dkt. No. 02N-0209 (2002).
39 Of course, as discussed below, it is important to craft such a disclosure with care
to ensure that it is effectively communicated.

disclosure to correct any misimpression as needed), rather than simply prohibiting such claims
alto gether. 40
D. Effectiveness of Disclosures
Any disclosures about problematic nutrients that the FDA requires on the food label must
be sufficiently clear and prominent to convey qualifying information. To be effective, they must
be both noticed and understood by consumers. The FTC has provided guidance on what
constitutes a clear and prominent disclosure, focusing on specific elements such as clarity of
language, relative type size and proximity to the daim being qualified, and an absence of
contrary claims, inconsistent statements, or other distracting elements. Disclosures do not
always work. Accurate information in the text may not remedy a false headline; fine print
written disclosures may be insuffcient to correct a misleading representation; other practices
may direct attention away from the qualifying disclosures; andpro forma statements or
disclaimers may not cure otherwise deceptive messages or practices.
Although the Commission generally favors disclosures over banning claims as a means of
curing deception, disclosures must be crafted with care. The FTC staff has examined the effcacy
of disclosures in food advertising to qualify nutrient and health claims. A 1998 report on a
generic copy test of various food and dietary supplement advertising claims reveals the
40 In 1990 more than 40 percent of advertising for fats and oils included a heart-
related claim as firms competed to attract consumers to fats with a better fat profile. By 1997
after the NLEA rules were in place with the disqualifying level approach, the health reasons to
choose one fat over another had been completely eliminated from advertising. See Ippolito and
Pappalardo supra n. 5 at 152.
41 Deception Policy Statement, appended to Clifdale Assocs. , Inc. 103 F.T.C. 110
176n. 7(1984)
!d.

challenges associated with crafting disclosures that accurately convey the intended message to
consumers. The test results suggest that consumers may misconstrue some qualifying disclosures
about problematic nutrients to be part of the seller s promotional message, thereby reinforcing
rather than limiting the claim. On the other hand, explicit disclosures concerning the presence
and significance of a problematic nutrient were less likely to be misinterpreted. The results of
this report underscore the importance of consumer research on disclosures to determine whether
consumers take an accurate net impression from proposed qualifying language.
The FDA proposes that a health claim on the principal display panel ofthe food label
accompanied by a statement referrng consumers to the Nutrition Facts Panel elsewhere on the
food label for more information about a problematic nutrient. The purpose of the Nutrient Facts
Panel is to provide consumers with information about the nutrients in foods, so that they can
make better informed choices as to which foods to include in their diet. Allowing the use of
such a referral statement would be consistent with the FDA' s current requirement that nutrient
content claims for a food with a problematic ingredient be accompanied by a similar referral
43 See Murphy et aI. , Generic Copy Test of Food Health Claims in Advertising,
supra n. 33 at 21-25.
44 As research has demonstrated, consumers can use the nutrition information on the
Nutrition Facts Panel to determine and select healthier foods for their diets. See, e. B. Derby
and A. S. Levy, Do Food Labels Work? Gauging the Effectiveness of Food Labels Pre- and
Post-NLEA in Handbook of Marketing Society, Paul N. Bloom and Gregory T. Gundlach
(eds.) (2000); AS. Levy, S. Fein & R. Schucker Performance Characteristics of Seven Nutrition
Label Formats 15 J. Pub. Pol'y & Mktg. 1 (1996).

statement. Consumer research would be useful to determine whether referral statements are
effective in the health claims context.
The FTC staff has not tested the use and effectiveness of such a referral statement or any
other disclosures on the food label in connection with a health claim to correct any
misimpression about a problematic nutrient. We specifically have not tested whether consumers
actually notice and understand the referral statements, including whether the statements
effectively alert consumers to the presence of problematic nutrients and the relevant information
on the Nutrtion Facts Panel.
FTC staff therefore encourages the FDA, industry, and consumer groups to conduct and
consider consumer research on the language and format of varous disclosures about problematic
nutrients to ensure that they are effective in preventing deception. Such research will assist the
FDA in developing a sound empirical basis for its regulatory decisions.
v. Use of Synonyms in Nutrient Content Claims
By regulation implementing the NLEA, the FDA specifically defines express claims
about the level or range of a nutrient in food. Such defined terms include, for example free
reduced " and "good source. " Synonyms for defined terms also are listed in FDA' s regulation
45 21 C. R. 9 101.13(h). For example, if a food with a high sodium level makes a
Low Saturated Fat" claim on the principal display panel, it must state immediately adjacent to
that claim "See Nutrition Information for Sodium Content."

(e. little " and "rich in 46 These "listed" synonyms may be used in place of the defined
term so long as they meet the same requirements for using the relevant defined term.
If a marketer seeks to use an unlisted synonym for a defined term, it first must obtain
FDA approval through a petition process. In 1995 , the National Food Processors Association
proposed that the FDA allow food marketers, without prior approval, to substitute unlisted
synonyms for defined terms. The FDA now seeks comment on whether unlisted synonyms
would be reasonably understandable to consumers and not false or misleading.
In its Policy Statement on Food Advertising, the FTC addressed the use in food ads of
synonyms for defined terms in FDA-approved nutrient content claims. 8 The FTC stated that if
consumers took away from the use of a term in a food ad the same meaning as a defined term in
an FDA-approved nutrient content claim, then the advertised food must meet the standard for the
defined term. For example, ifuse ofthe phrase "packed with" fiber conveys to reasonable
consumers that the food is "high" in fiber, it should meet the FDA' s standard for use of the term
high. " The rationale is that because FDA' s regulations define "high" with respect to fiber
consumers are likely to be misled if a "high fiber" claim is implied by an ad for a food that does
not satisfy that standard.
See, e. 21 C. R. 99 101.54 and 101.56.
See generally 21 C.F.R. 9 101.69.
See Policy Statement on Food Advertising at 6.
Id.

FTC staff recommends that the FDA likewise consider allowing the use of unlisted
synonyms in the labeling context so long as the food satisfies the FDA' s standard for the defined
term.
VI. Conclusion
The staff of the FTC encourages the FDA to examine ways to facilitate the flow of
truthful, non-misleading information in food labeling in a manner that is easy for consumers to
understand. We support the FDA' s ongoing efforts to develop an empirically based approach to
health claims for food products and to assess the costs and benefits of alternatives to the current
regulations ' reliance on potentially over-exclusive minimum and maximum requirements for
making health claims on food labels. Revising its regulations to allow food marketers to provide
greater and more accurate health-related information will assist consumers in selecting from a
wider range of foods as they attempt to construct healthful diets.

Respectfully submitted
J. oward Beales II, Director
omas B. Pahl, Assistant Director, Division of Advertising Practices
Lynda Rozell , Attorney, Division of Advertising Practices
Bureau of Consumer Protection
Luke Froeb , Director
Pauline M. Ippolito, Associate Director
Dennis R. Murphy, Economist
Bureau of Economics
Todd Zywicki , Director
Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Deputy Director
Office of Policy Planning