PDA

View Full Version : U.S. regulators weigh food label changes


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



doreen T
Fri, Nov-21-03, 10:37
U.S. regulators weigh food label changes

Last Updated: 2003-11-21 10:12:18 -0400 (Reuters Health)

By Maggie Fox

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials said on Thursday they were considering changing food labeling regulations so consumers can more easily figure out what is in that packet of snacks or soft drink.

At a meeting to discuss the touchy subject of food labeling, consumer groups called for easy-to-read, detailed labels while food manufacturers and others disagreed.

No moves are imminent, but FDA staff plans to report on the issue to the commissioner, Dr. Mark McClellan, by February.

Christine Taylor, director of the FDA's office of nutritional products, labeling and dietary supplements, said one likely change will be to make manufacturers spell out how many calories are in each package, instead of breaking it down into servings and making consumers do the math.

"Part of it, of course, is that packaging has gotten bigger," Taylor said in an interview. She also said the FDA had failed to fully enforce its labeling requirements for the past 10 years.

Susan Cummings of the American Dietetic Association said labels are often misleading.

"In my opinion, the current labels should be modified so that the information provided on single servings such as a bag of chips, cookies, beverages such as soda, reflect the amount in the container," she told the meeting.

WHEN IS A SODA REALLY TWO SODAS?

"It has been my experience that most consumers do not look at the serving size first," Cummings added. "It seems misleading to label a 20-ounce bottle of soda as two to three servings."

Food labels now lay out how many calories there are per serving, how many servings are in the package, how much fat, cholesterol, sodium, carbohydrate, sugar, fiber and protein it contains and details of some key vitamins.

Taylor said researchers now know more about nutrition than they did when the labels were introduced more than a decade ago, and the FDA wants new labels to reflect that.

Some at the meeting complained that the labels are hard to read.

"Consumers shouldn't really have to have a degree in nutrition...or get out a calculator...or put on their reading glasses," said Carol Tucker Foreman of the Consumer Federation of America.

But food manufacturers said the labels contain plenty of information already.

"We need to encourage consumers to look at the serving size and the calories," said Alison Kretser of the Grocery Manufacturers of America.

Some experts said simply changing labels may not affect the growing obesity crisis. More than two thirds of American adults are overweight or obese, raising their risk of heart disease, diabetes, and some cancers.

Brian Wansink, a professor of marketing and nutritional science at the University of Illinois, said consumers ignore labels.

The size of the package has a bigger influence, he said. "People who pour from larger containers eat more than those pouring from small," he said.

He also found people ate more popcorn from larger containers - even when the popcorn was stale.

The FDA is also considering requiring restaurants, particularly chain restaurants with standardized portions and recipes, to more clearly label how many calories and fat are in each serving.

Foreman said her group would welcome that. "You could think, 'well if I am going to have that size hamburger, maybe I should skip the milkshake today,"' she said.


http://www.reutershealth.com/archive/2003/11/21/eline/links/20031121elin012.html

Nebula
Fri, Nov-21-03, 12:04
I don't really care about the number of servings per container. It doesn't take a math genius to figure that out - and anyone who ignores it doesn't *really* care in the first place.

I'm more concerned with things like hidden ingredients and carb counts being completely accurate, to the tenth of a gram, with no automatic deductions to make their products look better. I would prefer to know that there are 12 total carbs and 6 from fiber than seeing 6 total carbs and then 6 for fiber. It needs to be standardized.

catfishghj
Fri, Nov-21-03, 12:09
I would like them to label the trans fats, which I think are the most unhealthy thing in foods we eat.

DebPenny
Fri, Nov-21-03, 15:54
I want tenths! ;)

Samuel
Fri, Nov-21-03, 21:17
We all would like to see small amounts of carbs displayed more accurtely to the tenth of a gram except that this is our problem alone. The FDA still believes that people should eat 300 grams of carbohydrate or more a day so this kind of accuracy is not necessary to them. None of the other numbers on the label which they pay attention too need to be so accurate.

So, forcing food manufacturers to state the amounts per package instead of per serving is what we can hope for.

According to Atkins website, food manufacturers are currently allowed to round 0.99 grams to zero. So, a small milk cream package made of 16 servings could have a label saying that it contains zero carbs while it actually contains near 16. If they are to state the amount per package we would have no such problem.

cc48510
Fri, Nov-21-03, 23:01
There's a number of changes I'd like to see. Among them are tenths for all Macronutrients (Fat, Carbs, Fiber, Sugars, Protein, and Alcohols); Drop Iron from the standard listing of Vitamins/Minerals, and add B1-B3 and B9 instead. Vitamins D and E would also be a good addition. I'd like to see Potassium content listed on all labels, not just some. Poly/Monounsaturated Fat content would be nice on ALL labels. A listing for Trans-Fat content would definitely be helpfull. But, the best thing would be an estimate of the Glycemic Index.

cc48510
Fri, Nov-21-03, 23:22
Here's the label I'd like to see:


Serving Size 1 oz (28.4g)
Servings 3

Kilocalories 100
Glycemic Index 17 ± 5

Total Fat 5.7g
Saturated 1.2g
Trans-Fat 0.1g
Polyunsaturated 0.8g
Monounsaturated 3.6g
Total Carbs 2.1g
Dietary Fiber 1.1g
Sugars 0.5g*
Starches 0.5g*
Protein 5.9g
Total Alcohols 1.3g*
Ethanol 0.0g*
Sugar Alcohols 1.1g*
Glycerine 0.2g*

Vitamin A 5% Vitamin D 2%
Vitamin E 2% Vitamin C 2%
Thiamine 1% Riboflavin 5%
Niacin 9% Folate 8%
Calcium 8% Magnesium 3%
Sodium 100mg Potassium 50mg

Linoleic Acid 0.2g Linolenic Acid 0.4g
CLA 0.1g DHA+EPA 0.2g

Caffeine 25mg* Sucrose 0.1g*
Fructose 0.1g* Lactose 0.2g*
Glucose 0.1g*


*Lines with a star need not be listed if the amount is 0.0...