FDA warned KIND bars to change their label on four of their bars because they weren't as healthy as labels claimed

• FDA sent KIND healthy snacks a warning letter asking them to remove the word "healthy" from four of their bars 

• KIND made claims that their bars were "healthy" "no trans fats" and "plus" without meeting requirements to do so

• FDA said to claim that something is healthy, a food must have no more than 1 gram of saturated fat per serving and contain no more than 15 percent of its calories from saturated fat

The FDA sent KIND Healthy Snacks a warning letter asking them to remove the word healthy from four of their bars since they violated labeling rules by putting the word "healthy" on some of their bars that did not meet healthy standards. The four bars that did not meet healthy requirements were Almond & Apricot, Almond & Coconut, Plus Peanut Butter Dark Chocolate + Protein, and Plus Dark Chocolate Cherry Cashew + Antioxidants. 

The FDA has such strict definitions of nutrition content claims so that any company can't label their food healthy just for marketing purposes. According to the FDA for something to be labeled as healthy a food must have no more than 1 gram of saturated fat per serving and contain no more than 15 percent of its calories from saturated fat. These bars did not meet those requirements  for example the Fruit & Nut Almond & Coconut bar contained 5 grams of saturated fat per 40 grams of the food. 

Kind released a statement saying that they are complying with the FDAs requests and changing their labels but not their recipes. They also wanted their customers to know that there are no quality or safety issues with their products. 


The three sources of this story that I analyzed were from Fox News , npr, and The Huffington Post.  Out of these three sources the best one was Fox News because it was the most factual and the worst was npr since it lacked information. 

The article written by Fox news was broken down into three categories the first was "The FDA's warning letter". They go more in depth than any other source in discussing the requirements that the FDA has for a food to be labeled as healthy. They mention not only about how much saturated fat is needed to be considered healthy but also how much sodium, vitamins, fiber, calcium, iron and protein. They also talk about what is needed to label a food as plus or "+", which is 10 percent more of the daily reference value of certain level of vitamins, minerals and other nutrients, or when its fortified with nutrients. Both the Plus Peanut Butter Dark Chocolate + Protein and Plus Dark Chocolate Cherry Cashew + Antioxidants violate the FDA rules because they are neither fortified or claim to outrank an average snack bar in nutrients but they are both labeled as plus. The second section of their article was "the response from KIND". They talk about KINDs response letter and bring up how KIND stated that nuts, which is a key ingredient in all of their bars, as the source of "nutritious fats that exceed the amount allowed under the FDA's standard." Their third section was "experts weigh in" and they bring in the opinion of experts on what they think of KIND bars. They have quotes from two different professionals, Sara-Jane Bedwell a registered dietitian and Dr. Walter Willet who is chair of the department of nutrition at Harvard. Willet said "It's a bit ridiculous that saturated fat from nuts should be counted against a product, because nuts are about one of the healthiest choices you could possibly make". Bedwell also agrees that nuts are a healthy source of fat although she supports how the FDA regulates how food is marketed. 

I thought that Fox has the best article mostly because of how they broke down the article into different sections since it allowed the reader to skim and see the different parts of the story

without having to read the entire article. The only issues I had with their article was the lack of visuals they had, they only have one photo in the beginning of the article and they could of used a few more. Their headline also was not explanatory, it was "What the FDA's warning to KIND bars really means". Their headline did not mention what the warning FDA gave to KIND was or why they gave the warning. 

I found that The Huffington Post article was very similar to the Fox News one but it was not broken down into sections like Fox News was so that made it more difficult to read. The Huffington Post also included numerous facts about what is required to put healthy on a label as well as what is required to label something as plus. They heavily discuss the health benefits of nuts and why they might be considered unhealthy. They include, unlike any other source, a quote from the VP of communications at KIND who said "Most of the fats in our bars come from nuts and are actually monounsaturated fats (good fats), Nuts do contain a small amount of unsaturated fats. The saturated fats in our bars come from a mix of ingredients nuts, coconut or palm oil." I liked how this source included that quote from KIND because it referenced KIND stating something other than the statement that they released. I also liked how much they talked about  the health benefits of nuts and they brought in a study, for example they stated one that said consumption of nuts is linked to lower rates of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and lower mortality. They also did not have a good explanatory headline, their headline read "Why the FDA action against KIND bar doesn't mean they're unhealthy". This does not explain what action the FDA took against KIND or why they took action at all. 

I thought that the article from npr was the worst out of the three articles I analyzed because of its lack of information. Both the Fox News and The Huffington Post was filled with information about what is considered healthy or plus by the FDA. They also contained facts about the health benefits of nuts. The npr article did not have much information about either of those. They did define what the FDA considers healthy but then they also mentioned how the bars are labeled as plus and they did not define what the FDA requires to be labeled as plus. The majority of the rest of the article discussed Walter Willet and KIND's response to the FDA's letter. Since they heavily discuss the response to the letter they seem biased against the FDA as the article states "The FDA seems to be lagging, in part because the agency doesn't revise its guidelines as frequently". The title was also no explanatory it read "Nut so fast, KIND bar: FDA smacks snacks on health claims". They like the other articles failed to mention what the FDA reported about KIND bars and why they did so. This article also included only one picture at the top of the article of a few bars that had no label so it was unclear if they were KIND bars or not. 

I felt that some things that npr could do for a better article included: 

• Change the title of the article to something that is more explanatory
• Include more statistics and facts about the FDA's guidelines and requirements to be considered "healthy" or "plus"
• Include information about the health benefits of nuts and why they are considered unhealthy 
• Incorporate more visuals or pictures in the article 

While none of the articles I analyzed had a great explanatory headline Fox News and The Huffington Post included much more information about the FDA regulations than npr did. They also included more information about why the KIND bars are considered unhealthy, which is because of all the nuts they contain. Npr did not include that much information about KIND bars itself but more focused on their response to it which made them seem biased against the FDA.