I pity the fool who trusts what food packaging says!

The fancily-named Institute of Medicine of the National Academies has released a not-so-fancily-named report called Examination of Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems and Symbols that suggests ways food manufacturers can work together to make packaging more accurate and less confusing. Cuz that's totally gonna happen.

Nutrition rating systems and symbols on the fronts of food packaging would be most useful to shoppers if they highlighted four nutrients of greatest concern – calories, saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium – says a new report from the Institute of Medicine. These food components are routinely overconsumed and associated most strongly with diet-related health problems affecting many Americans, including obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer.

Given the limited space on package fronts and the information already available in the Nutrition Facts panel on the backs of all products, it would not be crucial for these rating systems and symbols to focus on other components, such as cholesterol, fiber, added sugars, or vitamins, concluded the committee that wrote the report.

Just to be clear on what's going on here, the Nutrition Facts you find on the back or side of the package is regulated by the FDA, but that glossy, high-impact real estate on the front of the box is unregulated - almost 100% wild west. This report makes the mistake of assuming that General Mills, ConAgra, or Kellogg's, with their "Heart Healthy" doodads and "Nutrition Highlights" panels are doing anything more than hyping a bunch of dietary buzzwords. They don't want to inform, they want to suck you in.

Food packaging is the advertiser's last billboard before getting to the actual food. Asking them to voluntarily make it uniform and simple is naive. They might as well ask sociopaths to please steer away from random murders or to suggest that online daters mention on their Match.com profile that they drive by their ex-boyfriend's home a dozen times daily. (I'm not saying this is actually happening to me, but you know who you are. Please stop.)

Fortunately, the Institute's follow-up study might put a little bite behind the bark.

The committee will next review research on how consumers understand and use different types of nutritional information and issue a second report recommending ways to optimize the usefulness of front-of-package nutrition rating systems and symbols. This report will also include the committee's assessment of the pros and cons of having a single, standardized front-label food guidance system that is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.

Unless the federal government gets in there and starts swingin', food package fronts are a lost cause. If people are foolish enough to believe what they read there, it's Darwinism in action, in my opinion. You want to know what's in your food, expend the 5 calories it'll take you to pick up the box and read the Nutrition Facts on the back. Even those could use a serious reboot, but you'll at least get a rough idea. If you don't know how, here's an article written by a super-smart (ass) guy that should help you out.