Hark — what's this? Another sign that federal health regulators, after an eight-year hiatus, have wriggled out of the bed of those they were supposed to be regulating?

So it would appear: The federal Food and Drug Administration, just last year so cuddly with the food industry that salmonella seemed more common than salmon, has not only begun taking its inspection duties more seriously; it also has awakened from a long slumber on the nutrition front.

Long content to let marketers of sugar and, worse, high-fructose corn syrup, peddle nonsense about how good high quantities of the junk is for growing bodies, the FDA recently roused itself over "Smart Choice."

The term, to most of us, implies that food bearing such a label is better for us than, well, the kind that doesn't proclaim itself smart. It's been showing up for years on slightly lighter-sugar cookies, candy and such, often as not ignoring the carb content or leaving that to the standard nutrition information on the side of the package.

But in recent months, successors to the Mad Men mentality tried making it sound as if the FDA declared not-so-smart stuff nutritionally meritorious. Their pitch was that shoppers are far too busy to read all those government-mandated charts — so to spare 'em the hassle, we'll just shout in print that they're "Smart Choices."

How many of today's heads-up consumers would that fool? Hard to say — but if we can keep 'em from getting a glimpse of the carb lineup, or from seeing whether sugar or high-fructose corn syrup heads the list of ingredients, our stuff is halfway into the shopping cart ...

The "Smart Choice" label — a green one, claro, containing a reassuring check mark — would make sense, if consumers could come to trust it. And, as the Los Angeles Times commented, broccoli and brown rice don't need such a tag.

But food bearing one had better be better — or there goes the company's credibility, along with the FDA's if government approval is implied. Project Smart Choice also had roped in, among others, the American Dietetic Association and some faculty from Tufts University. Both bailed out of the campaign's Web site.

Then the FDA stepped in, Commissioner Margaret Hamburg noting that some products landing the label and its check mark were "almost 50 percent sugar." She threatened federal action against anybody misleading consumers — and quickly called for rules applying to the labels.

Some company execs were quick to realize that the campaign might flop; enthusiasm for it is fading — as well it should, at least until someone comes up with a credible version ...