Michael McBurney, PhD, FACN, DSM Nutritional Products03.14.14
The Nutrition Facts label was introduced 20 years ago and FDA has recently proposed to update the panel. The goal is to increase consumer understanding of nutrition, update serving sizes and refresh the design. Let’s discuss these in reverse order.
Refreshed Design: Well, there isn’t much room to freshen the design while retaining a black and white box. Maybe changes in font size are considered to be a redesign within a federal bureaucracy but I was hoping for a little more pizzazz. However, design isn’t my forte so let’s move on to discuss serving sizes.
Updated Serving Sizes & Labeling Requirements for Certain Packages: It is tough to fit legible labels on small packages. Not everything has the surface area of a box of ready-to-eat-cereal. There’s just no way around this dilemma when it comes to labeling small packages. Trade-offs will have to be made in space allocations for branding, romance language and labeling. Compromise will be needed to satisfy the requirements of regulators, food manufacturers and consumers.
With respect to serving sizes, it is logical to rationalize food label serving size with the servings customarily consumed in 2014. But in a way, it doesn’t matter. Consumers will always need to calculate the contribution toward the daily requirement. The only other option is an app that scans the bar code.
Increase Consumer Understanding of Nutrition. By increasing the calorie content font size and identifying the number of servings per container, the FDA is placing a much greater emphasis on calorie counting. For consumers that count calories, this may be helpful.
The Nutrition Facts panel would continue to require “Total Fat,” “Saturated Fat” and “Trans Fat” on the label. The FDA proposes removing “Calories from Fat.” The change reflects emerging consensus that type of fat is more important than the amount.
This may or may not be accurate. We do know that weight loss can be achieved regardless of the percentage of energy derived from fat, protein or carbohydrates. As a source of energy, one expects sugar to be a determinant of body weight but the motivation to label “Added Sugars” separately lies in beliefs around the types of foods and beverages people should consume rather than science of sugar metabolism. Added sugar cannot be analytically determined. Given the FDA proposal last fall to ban eliminate trans fats, it would be forward thinking to propose replacing “Trans Fat” with “Omega-3 Fat”. It would be better to increase consumer understanding of nutrients they should seek (e.g., eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), than ones they should avoid (e.g., Trans Fat).
We also know that inadequate intake of vitamins, minerals, omega-3 fatty acids and dietary fiber is prevalent in America, despite the fact that 69% are overweight or obese. As FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg indicated in the press release, the goal is to incorporate the latest nutrition science to affect serious chronic diseases impacting millions of Americans. Along with reducing overweight and obesity, increasing nutrient intakes (e.g., omega-3 fatty acids, B vitamins, vitamin D and calcium, and lutein and zeaxanthin) so that a greater proportion of the population has optimal nutrient status can save millions in healthcare costs and enhance quality of life.
The FDA is to be commended for its efforts to adapt the Nutrition Facts panel to help people achieve a healthy body weight. However, nutrition labeling is more than counting calories. Nutrition labels help consumers compare products for vitamin and mineral content. We shouldn’t let an obsession with calories, and sources of calories, overwhelm the need for product information on vitamin and minerals that are essential for health and longevity.
Refreshed Design: Well, there isn’t much room to freshen the design while retaining a black and white box. Maybe changes in font size are considered to be a redesign within a federal bureaucracy but I was hoping for a little more pizzazz. However, design isn’t my forte so let’s move on to discuss serving sizes.
Updated Serving Sizes & Labeling Requirements for Certain Packages: It is tough to fit legible labels on small packages. Not everything has the surface area of a box of ready-to-eat-cereal. There’s just no way around this dilemma when it comes to labeling small packages. Trade-offs will have to be made in space allocations for branding, romance language and labeling. Compromise will be needed to satisfy the requirements of regulators, food manufacturers and consumers.
With respect to serving sizes, it is logical to rationalize food label serving size with the servings customarily consumed in 2014. But in a way, it doesn’t matter. Consumers will always need to calculate the contribution toward the daily requirement. The only other option is an app that scans the bar code.
Increase Consumer Understanding of Nutrition. By increasing the calorie content font size and identifying the number of servings per container, the FDA is placing a much greater emphasis on calorie counting. For consumers that count calories, this may be helpful.
The Nutrition Facts panel would continue to require “Total Fat,” “Saturated Fat” and “Trans Fat” on the label. The FDA proposes removing “Calories from Fat.” The change reflects emerging consensus that type of fat is more important than the amount.
This may or may not be accurate. We do know that weight loss can be achieved regardless of the percentage of energy derived from fat, protein or carbohydrates. As a source of energy, one expects sugar to be a determinant of body weight but the motivation to label “Added Sugars” separately lies in beliefs around the types of foods and beverages people should consume rather than science of sugar metabolism. Added sugar cannot be analytically determined. Given the FDA proposal last fall to ban eliminate trans fats, it would be forward thinking to propose replacing “Trans Fat” with “Omega-3 Fat”. It would be better to increase consumer understanding of nutrients they should seek (e.g., eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), than ones they should avoid (e.g., Trans Fat).
We also know that inadequate intake of vitamins, minerals, omega-3 fatty acids and dietary fiber is prevalent in America, despite the fact that 69% are overweight or obese. As FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg indicated in the press release, the goal is to incorporate the latest nutrition science to affect serious chronic diseases impacting millions of Americans. Along with reducing overweight and obesity, increasing nutrient intakes (e.g., omega-3 fatty acids, B vitamins, vitamin D and calcium, and lutein and zeaxanthin) so that a greater proportion of the population has optimal nutrient status can save millions in healthcare costs and enhance quality of life.
The FDA is to be commended for its efforts to adapt the Nutrition Facts panel to help people achieve a healthy body weight. However, nutrition labeling is more than counting calories. Nutrition labels help consumers compare products for vitamin and mineral content. We shouldn’t let an obsession with calories, and sources of calories, overwhelm the need for product information on vitamin and minerals that are essential for health and longevity.
