Nutrition Labeling Issues and Directions for the 1990s (1990) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
7. Presentation of Nutrition Information on Food Labels
7. Presentation of Nutrition Information on Food Labels
Pages 203-278
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 203... ...
REFERENCE UNITS FOR DECLARING NUTRIENT CONTENT (SERVING SIZE) In assessing the adequacy of current food labels, the element of serving size affects the usability of all other label components.
|
From page 204... ...
FDA has further specified that servings and portions must be expressed in terms of common household measuring units or other easily identifiable units such as cups, tablespoons, ounces, or slices. Disparities in Serving Sizes Sewing size is provided as a tool for consumers and users of dietary guidance information, nutrient composition data bases, food consumption research, and on food Labels.
|
From page 205... ...
In the late 1980s, USDA developed and published a food guidance system, using both a menu planning strategy and commonly used food guides that did specify serving sizes (Cronin et al., 1987~. The pattern for daily food choices recommended consumption of 6 to 11 servings of grains, breads, and cereals; 2 servings of milk, cheese, and yoglrt; 2 to 3 servings of meat, poultry, fish, and eggs; 3 to 5 servings of vegetables; 2 to 4 servings of fruits; and moderate amounts of fats, sweets, and alcohol.
|
From page 206... ...
1985. Typical serving sizes: Implications for c Not specified.
|
From page 207... ...
Report of the Committee on Diet and Health, Food and Nutrition Board, Lists for Menu Planning. American Diabetes Association and Me American Dietetic Association, Guidelines.
|
From page 208... ...
4~. Serving Size Reported by Consumers Data bases containing food consumption data taken from national surveys are another source of typical serving sizes.
|
From page 209... ...
Unlit juices, breads, and cereals were frequently consumed in larger amounts than expected, whereas quantities of raw vegetables, meat, fish, and poultry varied widely. Typical serving sizes of breads and cereals were usually twice the size found in earlier recommendations (2 slices versus 1 slice)
|
From page 210... ...
When nutrition labeling was first introduced in 1973, it was left to industry to adopt reasonable serving sizes (21 CF1< § lOl.9(b3~1~. After the nutrition TABS 7-2 Serving Sizes Currently Used on Food Labels (Selected sample of commonly used products Food Item ServingslPackage Serving Size or Container Breads Bread, white 2 slices (2 oz)
|
From page 211... ...
labeling regulations were implemented, FDA conducted an informal survey of product labels that provided nutrition information. The results of that survey indicated ~at, in many cases, serving sizes were not reasonable or uniform within a product class (39 Fed.
|
From page 212... ...
FDA believed that declaration of the nutrition content in terms of a usual seeing of each different food product would be more flexible and more meaningful to consumers so that they could relate the label information to individual intakes. This rationale may still be valid, but it has allowed manufacturers to vary serving size declarations over time and manipulate label claims on the basis of per seeing nutrient contents.
|
From page 213... ...
moved toward smaller declared serving sizes in the period from 1977 to 1986 (Heimbach et al., 19903. The information contained in Table 7-2 dramatizes the considerable variability in serving size information on food labels, even for foods within the same product categories.
|
From page 214... ...
This preference was based on the belief that it would be less useful to consumers to have the nutrient content of all products calculated against a standard weight, which would often be larger or smaller than a usual serving. Committee Recommendations The main purpose of stating serving size on the food label is to provide a reference unit for the presentation of the nutrient composition about a product.
|
From page 215... ...
since serving size-based information will be more valuable for consumers if it applies to broad categories of food. The Committee favors fewer, rather than more, categories so that nutrition information can readily be used by consumers for product comparisons and reference purposes.
|
From page 216... ...
U.S. RECOMMENDED DIETARY ALLOWANCES The first explicit, comprehensive effort to establish national dietary recommendations occurred in 1941.
|
From page 217... ...
Except for infant, baby, and junior-~e foods for which special regulations apply, adult U.S. RDA values are used as the basis for the percentage reporting of protein, vitamins, and minerals listed on food labels.
|
From page 218... ...
RDA Male Female Required nutrients on current nutrition information panel Protein (g) Vitamin A (RE)
|
From page 219... ...
There are special labeling requirements for infant, baby, and junior-type food (21 CFR § lOl.9(h)
|
From page 220... ...
RDA in food labeling.
|
From page 221... ...
~. FDA policies for shelf labeling allow a food to be characterized as an excellent source of a vitamin or mineral if a serving contains 40 percent or more of the U.S.
|
From page 222... ...
222 NUTRITION LABELING TABLE 74 Nutrients Contained in a Standard Sewing of Selected Foodsa Ranked by Decreasing Percentage of the 1989 RDAb Food Nutrient Percent RDA Very good source of (greater than 20 percent of standard) Beef liver, pan-fried, medium (3 oz)
|
From page 223... ...
A food that contained less than 2 percent of the dietary standard for any nutrient would not be required, or allowed, to list any vitamins or minerals on the nutrition information panel that were not present at a level above 2 percent of the dietary standard. These would appear on the nu~idon information panel following the macronutrient listing as follows ~ O A very good source (over 20% [standard]
|
From page 224... ...
· Use of the descriptive terms on the nutrition information panel would require that micronitrients meet the following or similar criteria: use of very good source of must provide, in a seeing, more than 20 percent of the dietary standard for a given vitamin or mineral; use of good source of must provide, in a seeing, 11 to 20 percent of the dietary standard for a given nutrient; use of contains must provide, in a seeing, between 2 and 10 percent of the dietary standard for any nutrient; and a manufacturer would not be required or allowed to declare any nutrient present at less than 2 percent of the dietary standard. INGREDIENT LABELING One important source of information for consumers about the composition of packaged foods is the statement of ingredients that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act)
|
From page 225... ...
In the Committee's view, FDA is to be commended for seeking to enlarge the share of foods that bear full ingredient labeling, but the statutory procedure that has made this slow and painstaking effort necessary is an anachronism that should be changed. The majority of packaged foods are not covered by standards of identity; accordingly, all of their ingredients must be declared on the food label.
|
From page 226... ...
Neither FDA nor USDA generally requires that food labels disclose the proportions or relative quantities of individual ingredients, beyond the information Hat the consumer can infer from the sequence in which ingredients are listed. In some cases, FDA has adopted regulations requiring Cat the amount of characterizing ingredient in a food be declared as part of the product name (e.g., Peanut Spread Containing 45 Percent Peanuts)
|
From page 227... ...
The Committee takes no position on these proposals, which may or may not be justified in terms of protecting consumer economic interests. The Committee has not been persuaded that, if the ingredients of all processed foods were listed and full nutrition information were required, the costs of percentage ingredient labeling would be worth its possible contribution to consumer assessment of the nutrient content of foods.
|
From page 228... ...
FDA's enforcement of these food standards discourages the marketing of substitutes for the standardized products containing reduced levels of fat or other less desirable constituents; (3) current labeling requirements for standardized foods under the FD&C Act fail to require a full listing of ingredients, a criticism dealt with in the previous section.
|
From page 229... ...
PRESENTATION OF NUTRITION INFORMATION ON FOOD Labels 229 complete. One notorious proceeding, to set a standard for peanut butter, took over a decade.
|
From page 230... ...
The majority of FDA regulations, which resolve issues of great moment and that govern commercial practices of profound significance to consumers and producers, are promulgated through informal rulemaking. Section 701(e)
|
From page 231... ...
· Congress should eliminate the exemption from full ingredient labeling for standardized foods. PRINCIPAL DISPLAY PANEL DESCRIPI ORS Food labels have probably always been used to promote as well as to describe foods.
|
From page 232... ...
On the other hand, the potential for confusion, exaggeration, and outright deception has prompted some to argue that nutrient descriptors should be forbidden. The problem stems in part from failures in the system for regulating food labels and has several facets.
|
From page 233... ...
The following pages describe the regulatory policies of FDA and USDA, and Table 7-5 details the agencies' key definitions for descriptors. Current Regulation of Descriptors Caloric Content and Bocly Weigh' In 1978, FDA issued a final rule that regulates label statements relating to usefulness in reducing or maintaining caloric intake or body weight The general requirement ensures that nutrition labeling must appear on any food that carries a caloric-related claim.
|
From page 234... ...
234 Hi ·e a If ·O .= ~ v v o ·O ·t ~ ~ ~ ~ c a ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S.;~; 82 i~ 2=C5 2 2 5 ,Y~ ~ ~ ~ _ T.E2 a88 e S 5 5 05 , E E S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O 5 2 5 S b 2 .' is ~ O O O S a 2.' S ~ 2C,,~ ~ ~ 8 ° 8 ° ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ 3 .~ ~= EZRA ~ ~ - 31 ° O.n {s o 5 2 ° -A O
|
From page 235... ...
235 o C _ or Ct Cal ~ C ~ o ~ o ~ ~ o .= o ~ o 3 .¢ .5 ~ ~ TIC ~ o a ~ ~ o o o ~ 8 00 ~ Rae 00 ~ ~ e-e z z z ~ z S S o ~ ~ ~ o C ~ ·, c ~ ~ ~ y o ° ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ 5 §' ~ ~ ~ i '' ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ == ~ c 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ·5 ~§ ~ o ,~, S ,~ E!
|
From page 236... ...
236 ·= v a, a, ·t ·~ U ·~ ~ ~ es ~ ·~ ~ Z Cal 4 u a c a, 00 ·5 g ·—E Al D~, ~ s 32 Al ·- L)
|
From page 237... ...
237 ~ o _ d." -A ~ · o ~~ ~ ~— 86 ~ 3 ~ ~o at o so P
|
From page 238... ...
238 ·e ·e U is ._ U to .O ~ Z _ - ' - ' ~ ~1= c ~ s~ 9 - ~= 2 0 ~ ~ ~ o ° ~ ~ ~ ^ 8 E e A 8 5 E ~ 8 8 E ~ E 5 Z 3 3 - ~ g ·E 8 a E e e ^ · ~ ~ ~ .~ .~ ,~ I ~ `1 ~ 5'= · ~ ~ To E To _ .g E ~ ~ 3 8
|
From page 239... ...
239 ~ 1 ~ zap = s ~ .,{ .
|
From page 240... ...
Such claims trigger a requirement for disclosing limited nutrition information including calones, and protein, carbohydrate, and fat content. Additional statements may be required if necessary for consumer understanding.
|
From page 241... ...
FDA has no regulation for lean claims. Rules defining saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids have existed for some time; the July 1990 tentative final rule defined monounsaturated fatty acids.
|
From page 242... ...
. If ground beef or hamburger is labeled lean or extra lean, the fat content must be reduced by 25 percent from the regulatory standard of 30 percent fat.
|
From page 243... ...
USDA requires the term lite to be explained either adjacent to its use or by an asterisk with an accompanying explanation on the principal display panel or information panel. Quantitative information must be provided about the component along with a qualitative comparison to (1)
|
From page 244... ...
Recently, certain food labels using the descriptorfresh for foods from cooked tomatoes have been challenged by consumer organizations and competing manufacturers; however, the issue has not been resolved Mod Chemical News, 1990~. USDA has no formal policy on organic claims, and it has never approved the use of the term organic on any label (Sally Jones, Standards and Labeling Division, FSIS, USDA, personal communication, 1990~.
|
From page 245... ...
Additionally, FDA specified that sodium content of foods be included in nutrition labeling information whenever it was used on food labels. FDA explained that its goals for this program were to increase the availability of, and make more effective, sodium content labeling, as well as to reduce the amount of sodium added to processed foods, when it was safe and technically possible (47 Pled.
|
From page 246... ...
Otherwise, sodium content information is provided on a voluntary basis. Like FDA, USDA permits manufacturers to provide sodium content information without other nutrition information on foods for special dieted use.
|
From page 247... ...
. FDA Descriptors for Shelf Labeling in Grocery Stores Some retail grocery stores have wanted to provide consumers with pointof-purchase shelf labeling nutrition information.
|
From page 248... ...
Summary of the Current Use of Descriptors It is not easy to summarize the problems associated with the current widespread use of nutrient descriptors on food labels. The variety of terms used makes generalization difficult, and efforts to group the terms into smaller, similar categories is challenging.
|
From page 249... ...
1989. Canada's system of nutrition labeling.
|
From page 250... ...
Stability in meaning is more important than theoretical consistency across nutritional components. It is the Committee's hope that such criteria might provide a general framework for establishing official definitions for quantitative descriptors (sometimes termed nutrient content claims)
|
From page 251... ...
Consistency can be obtained by including under the umbrella of the following criteria all nutrients contained in all food products. This is a reasonable assumption because low sodium, for example, should have the same meaning, whether it is applied to soup, frozen peas, or meat.
|
From page 252... ...
Thus, macronutrient content claims on the principal display panel would be supported by the quantitative values listed on the nutrition information panel. Similarly, the criteria proposed by the Committee for the listing of micronutrients on the nutrition information panel very good source of (greater than 20 percent)
|
From page 253... ...
253 oo m _ i§A ~ ~ ·s .a ~ E S ~3 C) ~ ~ a; _ 3 V a_ ,~ ° ~ V, ~ 3 ~ m _` A z ~ fig S 3 o £ ._ Cot o ._ o flood on 1 U!
|
From page 254... ...
how well each of the three alternative formats was liked. A majority of those surveyed, including consumers representing underprivileged minority groups, seemed to understand the nutrition information regardless of the method used.
|
From page 255... ...
Experience with Other Label Formats Some research has assessed how well the current label format and various alternatives convey nutrition information to consumers. Studies conducted before nutrition labeling was instituted were primarily focused on ascertaining consumers' reactions to the novel concept.
|
From page 256... ...
The objective of label revisions suggested in this report is to provide consumers with the food label information necessary to apply these dietary recommendations to their food purchase and consumption decisions. The Committee's recommendations for information on nutrient content are based on the discussion in Chapter 6.
|
From page 257... ...
A graphic representation would result in a significant expansion of the size of the nutrition information panel, since graphic presentations must be supported by numeric information. As a result, the Me size for the numeric section would be reduced on many products, and the number of products of a size too small to support the revised label would increase the number of products that would be exempt from mandatory labeling.
|
From page 258... ...
Space Requirements Although space limitations should not be decisive when there is a compelling health reason for including information, space is an important consideration in designing any label. Currently, over half of the food packages that bear nutrition labeling confine this information to an area no larger than 2 square inches, which is the average space allotted to the nutrition panel on food packages (FLAPS, 1988~.
|
From page 259... ...
Although familiarity should not prevent beneficial change, neither should this 17-year investment be abandoned lightly. Committee Recommendations A number of recommendations were made in the previous sections and chapters concerning the content and manner by which to better convey nutrition information to consumers on food labels.
|
From page 260... ...
That is, consumers tend to say Hey want more information, regardless of whether Hey are likely to use it. However, unnecessary detail would expand the size of the nutrition information panel and
|
From page 261... ...
Individual protocols to determine how they process the label information can be used. Such protocols to determine cognitive responses to nutrition information have previously been developed and tested (Sims and Shepherd, 1987~.
|
From page 262... ...
incorporating the Committee's mandatory content recommendations. Total dietary fiber is included on the nutrition information panel, but could be exempted for milk products (see Chapter 6)
|
From page 263... ...
3/4 cup (50 9) Servings per container 4 Nutrition Information Per Serving As Packaged As Prepared Calories 190 290 TotalFat 2 9 (18kcal)
|
From page 264... ...
Following that period, the agencies will then be ready to propose the new format. EDUCATING CONSU1VIERS TO USE NUTRITION INFORMATION ON FOOD LABELS Given the current wave of authoritative reports linking diet and chronic disease, coupled with an era of public responsiveness to dietary recommendations, a unique opportunity exists to positively influence the future health of the U.S.
|
From page 265... ...
Although such strategies have grown increasingly sophisticated and behaviorally oriented, they appear to be inefficient and ineffective means of reaching large population groups (Glanz and Mullis, 1988~. The provision of nutrition information on food labels is an interesting amalgam of the environmental and personal strategies.
|
From page 266... ...
Educational approaches make sense only as far as there are environmental resources available to enable the consumer to implement the advice. The challenge is to combine effectively both types of strategies in nutrition labeling programs in order to capitalize on the relative strengths of each approach, with the ultimate goal being to achieve long-lasting positive behavioral changes among consumers.
|
From page 267... ...
Nutrition information on food labels has the unique function of being able to offer something for all: consumers trying to avoid or reduce the percentage of certain elements in their diet (e.g., fat, cholesterol or sodium) or to maximize other elements (e.g.
|
From page 268... ...
The Committee understands that a nutrition labeling program is only one component of a comprehensive education program, but believes that a well-designed nutrition label can help consumers to make informed food choices. However, nutrition information on food labels is just that, an information provision strategy, not an education program.
|
From page 269... ...
COSTS OF NUTRITION LABELING REFORM Any reform of food labeling to provide more complete nutrition information and any expansion of the coverage of current nutrition labeling requirements will impose costs on producers, manufacturers, retailers, and, ultimately, consumers. It is not only the Committee's recommendations that would result in such costs; FDA's recent nutrition labeling proposal and the nutrition labeling legislation currently before Congress would impose similar costs.
|
From page 270... ...
In addition, retail food stores, which under the Committee's proposal would be required to post nutrition information about produce, meat, poultry, and seafood, would incur costs in preparing and maintaining this information. Some costs, however, notably the costs of assembling the information about nutrient content, will be borne by the suppliers of fresh foods.
|
From page 271... ...
If new labels had to be prepared and applied on a schedule that took no account of the normal, commercially driven evolution of food labels, or other government-mandated label changes, the extra cost could be substantial. But labels undergo relatively frequent changes, and FDA customarily establishes a"uniform compliance date" for all required label changes far in advance of the effective date.
|
From page 272... ...
A share of USDAregulated packaged foods now bear nutrition information, and the abbreviated
|
From page 273... ...
Analysis for sodium, calcium, and iron would be an expense only if they were not included in the original analysis. Costs for labeling fresh meat and poultry products would be from printing and maintaining point-of-purchase information in retail food stores, since the data would be taken from existing nutrient data bases.
|
From page 274... ...
1990. Workshop on Label Formats, CNCFL, Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine, April 25, 1990.
|
From page 275... ...
1990. Declared serving sizes of packaged foods, 1977~6.
|
From page 276... ...
1972. Consumer reaction to nutrition information on food product labels.
|
From page 277... ...
1977. The role of nutrition information in national nutrition policy.
|
From page 278... ...
1982. Design and Evaluation of Nutrition Label Formats: Information Kit.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.