Instead of including all those small numbers that list out servings, calories and the mix of fat, sugar and fiber, the new label offers a big green check if it’s a “smart choice” for you, plus calories per serving and number of servings per package.

The goal is to provide easy-to-understand, at-a-glance guidance for consumers who want to make better choices in the grocery aisle.

To qualify for the Smart Choice label, products cannot exceed certain levels of fat, cholesterol, sugar and sodium and must provide nutrients such as calcium, fiber and vitamin C. Healthy foods, such as fruits and vegetables and low-fat dairy, also comply. Consumers don’t need to know all the background information, though. They just need to know the checkmark means good for you.

It’s a nice idea, but I’ll bet my retirement that the average American will still eat too many fries and not enough broccoli.

The problem with the American diet isn’t that we don’t know that fried onion rings and chocolate milkshakes are inherently unhealthful. The problem is we don’t care enough to make the healthful choice nine times out of 10.

The food that isn’t good for us tastes better than the food that is. It’s cheaper, easier to fix (microwavable) and we believe (erroneously, perhaps) that most future medical problems will be solved with a pill or surgery.

The real problem, in my opinion, is we too often view prevention (like moderation) as a good but impractical idea for our too-busy, I-don’t-have-time-to-cook-right lives. And while the new label may help steer a few people from potato chips to apples, it won’t do much in the overall campaign to change in America’s eating habits. We need to rethink our attitude about food to do that.

Chili and cinnamon rolls. It was my favorite school lunch back in the day (way, way back in the day), and I’ve found myself referencing that vaunted school meal experience quite often lately. Why, I’m not sure.

Maybe it’s the time of year – after all, ‘tis the season for kids to head back to school.

Or maybe it’s some subconscious desire to return to a simpler time amid all the chaos of the modern world circa 2009.

Whatever it is, it got me thinking about school lunches – and I realized that, 25-plus years removed from my high school cafeteria, I have no idea what’s going on these days with school lunches. Turns out a lot’s happening with school lunches right now.

An article in The New York Times this week paints a picture of the school lunch undergoing massive transformation – a meal and food production system where local foods made from scratch using fresh ingredients are starting to gain favor.

A show of hands: Who thought you’d ever hear the words local foods, made from scratch and fresh ingredients in connection with school lunches? Anyone … Anyone? Bueller?

Maybe the biggest surprise of all is that this evolution is being driven by the federal government – specifically, the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Whodathunkit?

As quoted in the Times piece: “The window’s open,” said Kathleen Merrigan, the deputy secretary of agriculture. “We are in the zone when a whole lot of exciting ideas are being put on the table. I have been working in the field of sustainable agriculture and nutrition all my professional life, and I really have never seen such opportunity before.”

Turns out the USDA has some VIP cheerleaders in the form of President and Mrs. Obama, who each have championed school nutrition through actions as diverse as authorizing additional federal funding for nutrition programs (the President) and talking frequently to children’s groups about the importance of healthy eating (Mrs. Obama).

I can’t help but think: If we really could get kids to eat better, the long-term results would reduce some of the very strains we see playing out now with our national healthcare system.

So, yes, count me as an enthusiastic supporter of more healthful school lunches. Turkey chili and low-fat cinnamon rolls, anyone?

Deron Johnson is a member of the R+K Food team, which offers food manufacturers and marketers a fresh perspective and measureable communications solutions that work today yet are flexible enough to endure. And he’s curious – what was your favorite school lunch back (maybe even way back) in the day? Weigh in below ….

Is moderation marketable? As someone who loves to eat, and who fulfills this passion by enjoying a little bit of all kinds of food, this question often is on my mind.

So where does moderation fit in today’s food marketing world? Is there room among the better-for-you, convenient and/or low-fat yet tasty messages? Perhaps as part of the “locally grown” trend?

And what consumer segment is interested in moderation? The dieter who’s sick of yo-yoing? What about the on-the-go mom? This month’s issue of Real Simple touts the benefits of eating several mini meals throughout the day (vs. three squares). Seems mini meals are inherently moderately portioned—and more doable than even a 30-minute meal for a mom who’s racing from school to soccer to PTA. What about the exploding Baby Boomer generation that’s living longer and doing more?

Something tells me there’s an untapped market here. Who’s ready and able to tap into it? Is moderation the right message for food companies? Or, is it a better fit for the diet industry? What about ingredient companies that are thinking up new ways to create satisfying foods every day?

What do you think? I think I’m going to continue mulling this over a peach and handful of almonds.

Laura Schmidt is a member of the R+K Food team, which offers food manufacturers and marketers a fresh perspective and measureable communications solutions.