From the perspective of cooks, eaters, and grocery shoppers, what would an ideal food label look like? What would be helpful to know about a given packaged food that we can't determine right now from the current labels? Here's what Mark Bittman thinks:
In a recent column for The New York Times Mark Bittman says that making choices purely based on dietary guidelines isn't good enough.
We need to consider the well-being of the earth (and all that that means, like climate, and soil, water and air quality), the people who grow and prepare our food, the animals we eat, the overall wholesomeness of the food -- what you might call its "foodness" (once the word "natural" might have served, but that's been completely co-opted), as opposed to its fakeness. ("Foodness" is a tricky, perhaps even silly word, but it expresses what it should. Think about the spectrum from fruit to Froot Loops or from chicken to Chicken McNuggets and you understand it.) These are considerations that even the organic label fails to take into account.
So, as a creative exercise in "what could be," Bittman worked with Werner Design Werks of St. Paul to devise a food label that tells the story of a packaged food in three key elements: Nutrition, Foodness, and Wellness. Each label would provide the food with an overall score between 1 and 15 and a color code. Green codes with an 11-15 point score can be eaten freely, while red codes with 0-5 points should be eaten rarely or never.
Read more about the thinking behind the label and each part at the article below.
→ Read More: My Dream Food Label | The New York Times
Related: What Does a Gram of Sugar, Salt, or Fat Really Look Like? We Show You!
(Images: Illustrations and labels by Werner Design Werks for The New York Times)
How To Cook Fluffy, Tasty Quinoa
Perfect Summer Cocktail Recipe: Honey Bourbon Lemonade
Good Food to Share 
The Big Book of Small, Cool Spaces 
Apartment Therapy Presents 
The Eight-Step Home Cure 
Elizabeth Apron fro...
100 DIY Ideas for the 3-Day Weekend
Danielle's Charming, Classic Walk-Up
Why would organic tomato sauce score perfectly on welfare? It's organic, so it takes more resources to produce than normal. Also, refrigerating it would consume even more power.
Youngfrey's comment makes me thing the anti-organic conspiracy is real.
I like the idea of having a welfare rating, but I think it's overly simplistic to assume that consumers would be happy with having nutrition facts limited to a 0-5 rating with no additional information. From the perspective of just looking at the label, we don't even know how they're computing the nutrition rating, which means it's open to being interpreted by some instituting organization saying what's "good" or "bad" for you. I normally fall a little closer to the nanny state side of food policy/regulation, but even I think that's ridiculous.
Just because plenty of people never read the nutrition label doesn't mean that plenty more don't rely on the specialized information it provides to do what's best for them.
No, this is too cutesy, and just doesn't work. Foodness? Give me a break.
People who are interested in their food's nutrition aren't going to be satisfied with a rating from 1 to 5 and a little traffic light colour scheme, which are calculated in some opaque way. Give us numbers and ingredients. Those who aren't interested in the nutritional information aren't going to suddenly take an interest because their Doritos only have 1 Foodness point.
sherrme, thanks for saying what I was trying to say in a sassier, more consise way. I totally agree.
@alicelost - I don't think this label replaces the nutrition label (at least, I hope not!), but designed to be a simplified version on the front of the label, instead of the back.
By law, Bittman's label couldn't replace the existing nutrition label because, among other things, it doesn't list ingredients.
From what I understand of the science:
It takes more energy to get to the table
It has no better nutritional value than ordinary food
It uses just as much if not more pesticides and fertilizers that are just as bad for people.
Organic food in grocery stores is mostly made by the same "factory farms" that make "non-organic" food.
So it's worse for the environment, no better for people, costs more, and benefits the same organizations that it's proponents tend to oppose. I wouldn't think you'd need a conspiracy to oppose Organic food.
Considering that the general population is probably not as informed about food and nutrients as those who read this blog, I think this labeling system is great. Most people don't know what 80% of the "ingredients" are on the current label, not to mention the % of daily values are based on a 2000kg male.
There might not be enough specific information on here for me, but overall I think this is a great alternative to the current Nutrition Label.
While I like the idea, and indeed it may be an "ideal" label, I think the problem is that it is subjective. Who would decide the nutrition level of my full-fat cheese versus a low-fat cheese? Because I'm sure we've all got different opinions on what makes a healthy diet.
Nope.
For nutrition, I rather like what we've got because, like @TODDLESS says, all consumer can make an informed judgment about whether that food works for them. But I LOVE the idea of having a "welfare" rating. Concern for agricultural workers (and other workers) is one of the main reasons I eat as organic as I can (which, right now, is a strategically-chosen 50% of my diet). I would love to be able to support producers that treat their workers right.