What’s the most important nutritional information on food packaging? For most consumers, it’s saturated fat, total fat, sugar, and sodium.

However, there’s a fair number of researchers who conclude that current labeling schemes — which include percentages and recommended daily allowances (or in the case of Britain and its Commonwealth, the guidance daily amount) — confuse many consumers. In fact, the European Union is contemplating a mandatory uniform labeling system that would simplify (hopefully) distinctions about the nutritional value of food products.

Among the coding protocols being considered is traffic light labeling where items such as saturated fat, sugar, total fat, and sodium are color coded — with green representing the most healthy quantities.

A recent Australian study suggests that traffic light labeling might be the most effective method, confirming what another study in the United Kingdom concluded. The system, however, does have its critics, who say it’s overly simplistic.

In the Australian study, featured in the current issue of Health Promotion International, 790 consumers were asked to compare mock packaging schemes for breakfast cereals, savory snacks, and frozen lasagna. In addition to the traffic labeling scheme, consumers were asked to look at monochromatic and color-coded versions of the percentage of daily allowances. One variation of the traffic light scheme was tested in which the product was given an overall color-coded rating in addition to the color ratings for the key nutrients.

One of the major critiques of the traffic light scheme is that some products would be labeled as being potentially problematic and unjustifiably so. The researchers note, for example, that “many cheeses would be labelled with red or amber lights for total fat, saturated fat and sodium, yet consumers are encouraged to choose dairy products because of other nutritional benefits.”

The researchers note that consumers consistently reported they were less likely to purchase products with red or yellow classifications. They write: “If consumers played out such intentions in the marketplace, or if manufacturers anticipated this impact on purchase decisions, compulsory TL (traffic light) labelling could provide impetus for food manufacturers to improve the nutritional profile of their products in order to achieve a more favourable TL rating.”

There is no consensus on this whatsoever. The German food industry is strongly opposed to a traffic light scheme which is being championed, especially in Britain. A recent study by the European Food Information Council, involving 17,300 consumers in six countries, showed that while color-coded schemes provide a high level of awareness they are open to misinterpretation. Consumers tended to exaggerate the red signals as indicators to avoid eating a particular product.

Food labeling protocols are multiplying as well in the United States. NuVal, GDA, Nutritional Spotlight, and Smart Choices are just among the most recent entries. The Albertson’s/Supervalu grocery store chain has instituted a color-coding scheme as well — nutritionIQ. Developed in conjunction with the Joslin Clinic of the Harvard Medical School, the protocol is used to identify products that meet baseline criteria for good nutrition and which are further evaluated to identify their top one or two benefits among seven categories: fiber, calcium, whole grains, protein, low sodium, low saturated fat, and low calories. Color-coded bar labels are placed on store shelves to alert customers to particular products. The system should be in all Albertson’s stores by the end of the year.

In Europe, the battle over food labeling is intense. In fact, the debate will hardly be settled before the next round of European Parliament elections this summer.

This is as much about marketing as anything else, although one can readily see the merits of a simple color-coding scheme. All of this underscores something far more fundamental and well stated by Marion Nestle, the author of Food Politics:

“Now, the Strategic Alliance, the component of the Oakland-based Prevention Institute devoted to ‘promoting healthy food and activity environments,’ has produced a working definition of a healthful food. Its report, Setting the Record Straight: Nutritionists Define Healthful Food, applies three principles: Healthful food should be (1) wholesome, (2) produced in ways that are good for people, animals, and natural resources, and (3) available, accessible, and affordable.

“This is a food system definition that makes scoring systems unnecessary. ‘Wholesome,’ says this document, means foods that are minimally processed, full of naturally occurring nutrients, produced without added hormones or antibiotics, and processed without artificial colors, flavors, or unnecessary preservatives.

“I wonder how many of those highly processed products in supermarket center aisles can meet this definition?”