With the plethora of nutrition rating programs now being offered by retailers and manufacturers — including the ill-fated Smart Choices initiative, which sparked an FDA investigation — consumers can’t be blamed for feeling somewhat confused. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) recently stepped into the fray to offer its own take on how to revamp the Nutrition Facts package panels it originally lobbied for two decades ago.

According to the Washington-based nonprofit health advocacy group, symbols should appear on the fronts of packages to give shoppers a quick snapshot of the key nutrients, and the FDA should crack down on misleading claims by manufacturers, such as whether a product really boosts immunity or lowers cholesterol, or how much fiber or whole grains an item actually contains.

Additionally, CSPI’s reworked Nutrition Facts panel places more emphasis on calories, and notes when a food contains high amounts of saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium or added sugars. Only fiber from whole grains, beans, fruits, and vegetables is listed on the organization’s preferred nutrition label.

The group is also in favor of clearly presented ingredient lists, with major ingredients separated from minor ones; manufacturers of foods containing several types of sugars being required to combine them, so that they would show up higher on the list of ingredients; and the disclosing of percentages of key ingredients.

While CPG companies — and many retailers — may not care for CSPI’s admittedly heavy-handed approach casting most food industry players as intentionally deceptive bad guys, many consumers form their opinions from the reports of such advocacy groups, and food companies must take these sources into account as they develop workable solutions, in concert with government and consumer representatives, to cut through all of the competing nutritional information now jostling for attention in the marketplace. While no strategy is guaranteed to please all sides, a good-faith, broad-based effort incorporating the viewpoints of all three camps stands the greatest chance of long-term success.