FDA proposes change to nutrition labels

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced today that it is looking to change the nutrition facts labels that appear on packaged foods.  The proposed labels would reflect the latest scientific information, including the link between diet and chronic diseases such as obesity and heart disease. The new label also would replace out-of-date serving sizes to better align with how much people really eat, and it would feature a fresh design to highlight key parts of the label such as calories and serving sizes.

Some other proposed changes to the label include:

  • Requiring information about the amount of “added sugars” in a food product. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans states that intake of added sugar is too high in the U.S. population and should be reduced. The FDA proposes to include “added sugars” on the label to help consumers know how much sugar has been added to the product.
  • Updating serving size requirements to reflect the amounts people currently eat. What and how much people eat and drink has changed since the serving sizes were first put in place in 1994. By law, serving sizes must be based on what people actually eat, not on what people “should” be eating. Present calorie and nutrition information for the whole package of certain food products that could be consumed in one sitting.
  • Presenting “dual column” labels to indicate both “per serving” and “per package” calorie and nutrition information for larger packages that could be consumed in one sitting or multiple sittings.
  • While continuing to require “Total Fat,” “Saturated Fat,” and “Trans Fat” on the label, “Calories from Fat” would be removed because research shows the type of fat is more important than the amount.

The proposed updates reflect new dietary recommendations, consensus reports, and national survey data, such as the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, nutrient intake recommendations from the Institute of Medicine, and intake data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

The changes proposed today affect all packaged foods except certain meat, poultry and processed egg products, which are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service. The agency is accepting public comment on the proposed changes for 90 days.


Categories: nutrition
Amanda Cuda

2 Responses

  1. Michael says:

    If she REALLY cared about the issue which she CLAIMS she does, she would have her husband issue an executive order prohibiting the use of “food stamps” for the purchase of the foods she believes to be so toxic to the “minority” community [what does that mean?]; and preventing the “minority” food stamp recipients (who actually have debit cards) from cashing their debit cards in any ATM and buying junk food, cigarettes, liquor, drugs, and anything else they may desire. She would rather attack McDonald’s for establishing their “unhealthy restaurants” in “minority” communities where the unfortunate “food stamp mothers” just don’t have the time or energy to cook a proper meal for their children. Oh, please … I am not as stupid as you think.

  2. Primal Mike says:

    While continuing to require “Total Fat,” “Saturated Fat,” and “Trans Fat” on the label, “Calories from Fat” would be removed because research shows the type of fat is more important than the amount.

    That’s absurd. To remove information because it is deemed less important is ridiculous. Apparently, these labels are being changed because people can’t figure out the existing label. C’mon, the information isn’t changing that much. Taking off one number, bolding another, and moving the percentage column to the left, doesn’t make the label any less confusing. Certainly not enough so that people are going to say, “hey, this is sooo much easier to understand!”

    My guess is these same people will now asume none of the calories are from fat, because they don’t see that number anymore.