FDA: Nutrition labels getting a makeover
Source: CNN
The Food and Drug Administration is proposing several changes to the nutrition labels you see on packaged foods and beverages. If approved, the new labels would place a bigger emphasis on total calories, added sugars and certain nutrients, such as Vitamin D and potassium.
The FDA is also proposing changes to serving size requirements in an effort to more accurately reflect what people usually eat or drink. For example, if you buy a 20-ounce soda, you're probably not going to stop drinking at the 8-ounce mark. The new rules would require that entire soda bottle to be one serving size -- making calorie counting simpler.
...
The FDA also plans to update the daily values for certain nutrients such as sodium, dietary fiber and Vitamin D. For instance, the daily limit for sodium was 2,400 milligrams. If the new rules take effect, the daily value will be 2,300 milligrams, administration officials said.
Food and beverage companies would also be required to declare the amount of Vitamin D and potassium in a product, as well as calcium and iron. Research shows Americans tend not to consume enough Vitamin D for good bone health. And potassium is essential in keeping your blood pressure in check.
Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/27/health/nutrition-labels-changes/
This will phase in over the next two years, apparently.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Taught my grandson how he has to really read the labels. He would say hey, only 120 calories per serving! I would say yeah, and look how many servings - like you will stop at two cookies or 1/2 cup of ice cream or 10 nuts.
Funny, I remember my rule on cereal was no sugar in the first three or four ingredients. Then it was no HFCS on the list. Now we rarely buy cereal at all. But certainly not the sugar-packed stuff. And I remember laughing at the way a bowl of a sugary cereal was touted as a complete nutritional breakfast - if you added milk and fruit and juice and toast and butter (and perhaps an egg and a multi-vitamin .
Thank goodness the industry has not been able to roll back the requirement that ingredients be listed in order of volume. Yet.
Oh, and are we SURE that vitamin D is not just woo? Or is taking vitamin D in preservative-packed foods blessed by science, but frowned upon as a supplement?
iwillalwayswonderwhy
(2,603 posts)Calorie count was for TWO servings. It was already in a bowl! What?
The best, though, was a packaged muffin. A single muffin. Servings? Two. Right.
mac56
(17,575 posts)Who's coming up with the serving sizes? A serving size of ice cream is a half a cup. What is that? Is that like a joke some guy put on there? "Hey, come here. Look what I put for the serving size. Did Charlie see it? Charlie, come here. Look what I put for the serving size. I just did it as a joke, but it's going out like that."
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)lack of Vitamin D had something to do with Seasonal Affect Disorder. I was startled at the amount of research coming from several different directions. Diabetes researchers were checking the role in controlling blood sugar. Others were checking into immune system functions. And of course, research was being done by the mental health people. Now, when one thing cures everything, my woo radar comes on. It turns out that Vitamin D is actually a hormone, and like other hormones, affects many different systems in the body. Consider the low dosages given when other hormones are supplemented, and you can see why small changes in the amount of Vitamin D can have big effects on the body.
In addition- the general US population is shifting to larger numbers of people with more melanin. This hinders the absorption of sunlight to make Vitamin D. Another hint that Vitamin D supplements had to be raised was the observation of young African American children living in the North diagnosed with rickets.
canoeist52
(2,282 posts)Still a top secret subject.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)There's stuff in your orange juice that's there because it's part of the industrial process (certain lubricants, etc.) not because it was "intended" to be in the juice. As long as it's "generally regarded as safe" (note, not "proven to be safe", just generally regarded as such) and is a standard industry practice, that doesn't need to be listed.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)nutrition labelling to combat obesity to work any better than surgeon general warnings on cigarette packs to defeat cancer and heart disease?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)If it could work that well, I'd be happy.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)and how much is attributable to public education efforts and higher cigarette taxes?
DebJ
(7,699 posts)Especially with things like 'added' sugars being made clear on the label.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)And it might work on things that are on the margin, things people think are not bad for them, but might be with some added 'enhancements' that now might be fully disclosed. But it's not going to make a whit of difference to the purchaser of that box of powdered donuts.
DebJ
(7,699 posts)The media reports (I read several) are saying some people don't get enough potassium and that adequate
potassium intake is needed to help keep blood pressure low, etc. That is true, but I've also read that while
this used to be more widespread, actually, very few people fall into this category today.
But potassium is important for another reason:
-the epidemic of obesity will lead to a diabetes epidemic, unless our population changes (hm)
-the epidemic of diabetes will lead to high blood pressures skyrocketing...along with other reasons for high blood pressure like simply the aging of the Boomers
-high blood pressure / diabetes leads to Chronic Kidney Disease, which may well become epidemic...and cause crushing
medical expenses nationwide, put pressure on the health care system and on costs.
With CKD, the kidneys struggle to balance potassium levels. An out of whack balance with potassium, sodium, and other ions can trigger a heart attack (most CKD patients ultimately die of cardiac complications, NOT from failed kidneys.) When you have CKD, you must RESTRICT your intake of potasium because the kidneys can't eliminate as much of it /as quickly as in a healthy person. The restrictions are severe if you are a tall person: 2400 mg or less per day. That's rather difficult to maintain when you are 6'7" like my husband and have to have at least 2700 calories a day just to maintain a very slim frame. Easier for shorter people who require less calories. ALMOST NO products today provide labelling on potassium. So to keep my husband alive, I have to go online and search the federal database to get some average number of potassium content, and that takes hours and hours most people just don't have. Also, the fed numbers are an average only; different brands of the same product could have double the average or less than the average depending on how they manufacture the item. It's a matter of life and death for my husband.
If we don't change our ways....... and fast, millions of people are going to be needing those potassium numbers.
Oh, and high blood pressure meds, especially the favorite one for CKD patients, lisinopril, make your body retain even more potassium than it does just from the CKD, making this even more difficult to get adequate calories with less than 2400 mg potassium a day.
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)I like the chip/cracker packages that give me serving size in # of chips rather than ounces. I can count fairly well, weight things in my hand, not so much!