Coming Soon? FDA Plans Nutrition Label Upgrades

UPDATE: It appears the information source for this piece was badly misquoted, and there is no change currently in planning by the FDA. Bummer. Still, read below and write the FDA to tell them this is what we want!!! (thanks Joanna)

We’ve lamented often on the poor usability of nutrition fact labels on foods. The whole purpose of this blog is to help people decode nutrition labels. We’ve even made some suggestions for the FDA to rectify the situation. Now Marion Nestle reports that the FDA is planning several improvements:

  • A daily value for added sugars.
  • Calorie information in a larger size font; calories listed for the entire package (in addition to single servings) when its contents are expected to be eaten by one person at one time.
  • Graphic revisions to make ingredient labels easier to read.
  • The percent of key ingredients in parentheses after the ingredient name.
  • Warnings about the dangers of caffeine.
  • A final definition for the term “natural.”

What you need to know:

This is great news, assuming the changes will actually be implemented sometime this decade. Here’s what the changes mean:

1. A daily value for added sugars. Right now, when you look at the “sugars” entry in the nutrition facts panel, all you’ll see is a count of sugar grams. You have no way to know if the sugar is from natural sources (fruit mostly) or added (table sugar, high fructose corn syrup, honey). By adding an entry for added sugars and also indicating a daily recommended maximum consumption level, people will better understand that a Snickers bar and a Coke pretty much cover their added sugar intake for the day.
2. Improved Calorie information. People see 100 calories on the nutrition facts panel and get all giddy. They don’t realize that the serving size for those 100 calories is only one half or one third of the contents of the package or bottle. They get cheated into consuming twice or three times the calories they thought they would.

3. Graphic revisions. Hoping this includes getting rid of INGREDIENT LISTS IN ALL CAPITALS.

4. The percent of key ingredients. A label for a cereal would reading:  Sugar (42%),  Corn Flour (30%), Wheat Flour (12%), Whole Oat Flour (10%),… would better help you realize what you’re putting in your child’s bowl every morning.

5. Warnings about the dangers of caffeine. This is important for energy drinks with outrageous amounts of caffeine.

6. A final definition for the term “natural.” Currently the FDA has no defintion for natural. Manufacturers use the term loosely to envelope questionable products in a robe of health they don’t necessarily deserve.
What to do at the supermarket:

Until the FDA’s plans end up on that load of bread you’re holding in your hands, you’ll need to work a bit harder to decode the nutrition labels and ingredient lists. We’re here to help. Got questions: let us know.

Get Fooducated

  • http://www.margaritastewart.blogspot.com Shannon Dillman

    This is amazing news. I hope it happens fast! Marion Nestle is wonderful. I love her books!
    No more thinking your candy bar has half the calories it does, because some people don’t realize it says serves two!

  • http://www.theomep.com Wet Wolf

    I believe you guys spend far too much time dissecting food labels and not enough time informing the clueless masses on simply making smart food choices.

    “Wait a minute! Isn’t reading a food label part of making a smart food choice?”

    Not so much. The best foods don’t need labels.

    Choose foods that you don’t need a food label for.
    Apple, blueberries, yams, chicken breast, brown eggs, bag of spinach, tomatos.

  • http://landanimal.wordpress.com Joanna @ landanimal.wordpress.com

    Supposedly this was all misquotation/bad information.

    http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/09/forget-previous-post-thats-not-what-happened/

    It’s a shame. There are some good ideas here.

  • Marylou Hansen

    No#4 would rock my world. I know the ingredients are listed in order of highest to lowest volume BUT #4 would be SO helpful. No#1 is essential! Manufacturers really mess with folks that are unawarians and don’t know how to read the nutritional info.. It is easy to assume that if you are buying a can of pop or a candy bar or small bag of chips it is ONE serving… that just annoys me to no end!! I scour the ingredients info on every packaged food I buy and if it doesn’t meet my health considerations it doesn’t get purchased.. gawd forbid these manufacturers be proactive and detail the nutritional info before being forced to by law.. after all they charge an arm and a leg for their products!!! I’ve gotten so fed up with trying to decipher the labels I buy almost ALL fresh and non-processed foods these days.. to my health!!!!!

  • Annette Jacobson

    I appreciate all of your excellent observations.
    But it’s not clear whether the FDA plans to make changes or not. My suggestions: I, for one, would like to be told that if food has been irradiated, that it be marked as such on the packaging. Also I would like to know if the FDA decides to allow GMO salmon (awful thought) that that be indicated on the packaging. Removing choice from an informed public doesn’t coinside with a democratic society that I used to think we were.

  • AF

    @Wet Wolf
    well said

  • http://www.betterschoolfood.org Dr. Susan Rubin

    Sadly, the “nutrition information” box will always be confusing because that is the way the food industry wants it to be. They’ve got the clout in the USDA and the FDA because we’ve got huge conflicts of interest in these agencies.
    I agree with the Wet Wolf. Your best bet will always be the real foods that don’t need labels. Preferably grown close to home.

  • http://www.feedyourheaddiet.com Ken Leebow

    Are they still going to be able to perpetrate the trans fat lie … http://bit.ly/ccOz6o

  • http://quipstravailsandbraisedoxtails.blogspot.com/ Michele Hays

    We need a listing of added SWEETENERS, not added sugars. Savvy food companies have come up with all kinds of ways to sidestep the sugar issue, from adding concentrated refined apple juice (after all, isn’t corn syrup just concentrated refined corn juice?) to adding sugar alcohols which sweeten but show up under carbs or under a separate line – but which still add calories. In addition, ingredients added as sweeteners need to be aggregated into one ingredient – otherwise they show up in varying small amounts all over the ingredients list instead of being first where they should be. See http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/beforeafterlabel.pdf

  • http://www.UrbanOrganicGardener.com Mike Lieberman

    Agree with WetWolf, but most others don’t. That’s why food labels are needed. Most people think that food comes in pretty boxes and packaging. We’ve become pretty disconnected.

    Gonna be interesting to see if any of this comes to fruition?

  • A. Johnson

    If you want all-natural, avoid buying things that require a box or a label. Buy local, or grow your own stuff. Otherwise know that you are running a risk. I think this is a good thought, but if more people would use common sense and take responsibility for what they are putting in their bodies rather than saying, “nobody told me…” then you only have yourself to blame!

    This is truly a reflection of our society, that relies on the government to protect them from everything. It is your responsibility what you put in to your mouth! :)