Nutrition Labeling

On March 30,1972 the Federal Register (37F.R. 6493) announced the Food and Drug Administration's proposed regulation on nutrition labeling. In July, under the auspices of the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences, a small ad hoc group, composed of members of the Board, representatives of the food industry, and several governmental agencies, as well as others with competence in the area of food, nutrition, and/or consumer affairs, was assembled to discuss the proposed regulation. No formal report was prepared, but the Chairman of the group submitted a report to the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration which represented the sense of the meeting.
Reprinted immediately below are three parts of the proposed regulation that are discussed by the ad hoc group in its report. A slightly modified version of the report itself follows.     

Obstacles to Nutrition Labeling in Restaurants

Objective This study determined the major obstacles that foodservices face regarding nutrition labeling.Design Survey questionnaire was conducted in May 1994. In addition to demographic questions, the directors were asked questions addressing willingness, current practices, and perceived obstacles related to nutrition labeling.Subjects/setting Sixty-eight research and development directors of the largest foodservice corporations as shown in Restaurants &. Institutions magazine's list of the top 400 largest foodservices (July 1993).Statistical analyses performed P tests were used to determine significance within a group for the number of foodservices that were currently using nutrition labeling, perceived impact of nutrition labeling on sales, and perceived responsibility to add nutrition labels. Regression analysis was used to determine the importance of factors on willingness to label.Results Response rate was 45.3%. Most companies were neutral about their willingness to use nutrition labeling. Two thirds of the respondents were not currently using nutrition labels. Only one third thought that it was the foodservice's responsibility to provide such information. Several companies perceived that nutrition labeling would have a potentially negative effect on annual sales volume. Major obstacles were identified as menu or personnel related, rather than cost related. Menu-related obstacles included too many menu variations, limited space on the menu for labeling, and loss of flexibility in changing the menu. Personnel-related obstacles included difficulty in training employees to implement nutrition labeling, and not enough time for foodservice personnel to implement nutrition labeling.Applications Numerous opportunities will be created for dietetics professionals in helping foodservices overcome these menu- or personnel-related obstacles. J Am Diet Assoc. 1997; 97:157–161.     

Supplementing National Menu Labeling

The US Food and Drug Administration’s forthcoming national menu labeling regulations are designed to help curb the national obesity epidemic by requiring calorie counts on restaurants’ menus. However, posted calories can be easily ignored or misunderstood by consumers and fail to accurately describe the healthiness of foods. We propose supplemental models that include nutritional information (e.g., fat, salt, sugar) or specific guidance (e.g., “heart-healthy” graphics). The goal is to empower restaurant patrons with better data to make healthier choices, and ultimately to reduce obesity prevalence.Forthcoming national menu labeling regulations from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)1 will equip Americans with new information to help guide their menu choices when they eat out. Based on requirements already in place in New York City (2008); Seattle–King County, Washington (2009); California (2009); Massachusetts (2009); and other jurisdictions, the FDA’s regulations will require chain restaurants nationwide to post caloric information on menus and menu boards. Although some restaurants already voluntarily provide such information via printed or electronic media, many of these resources are confusing, inaccessible, and largely ineffective.2 Lacking data at the point of sale in most cases, Americans largely order “in the dark” without actual knowledge of the calorie content or other nutritional facts about their restaurant meals.The overriding public health goal of menu labeling is to help people make healthier choices, consume fewer calories, lower their weights, and improve their health outcomes. Combined with increased physical activity and other measures, reductions in daily caloric intake are a central strategy in addressing the obesity epidemic nationally. Posting calories on restaurant offerings, much like those provided on packaged foods since 1968,3,4 may lead restaurant patrons to choose lower-calorie foods. Some data suggest that current menu labeling positively alters consumer habits and vendor practices. A New York City study in 2007, for example, found that Subway restaurant patrons who saw posted calorie information purchased on average 52 fewer calories per order than those who did not.5 Calorie postings on menus may also increase transparency and heighten restaurants’ accountability for the foods they serve.6 Not surprisingly, menu labeling has strong support from federal, state, and local public health advocates. Even the National Restaurant Association and many larger restaurants endorse forthcoming federal requirements, although largely because of the regulations’ preemptive effect on divergent state and local menu-labeling practices.7In principle, national menu labeling should work. In reality, however, it may not. Americans’ appetite for fast food coupled with sophisticated industry practices to design and market inexpensive, oversized portions loaded with unhealthy fats, salt, and sugars may undermine its positive effects. Lacking necessary data to make informed decisions against a constant marketing barrage of oversized, cheap, and easy restaurant meals, many individuals may still consume far more calories than they intend when they eat out. Some research suggests that menu labeling may have only limited effects on consumers’ behaviors, especially among adolescent or lower-income consumers who comprise a large part of the fast food market and tend to order on the basis of taste and price, not calories.8 Consumers may simply look past or ignore calorie information or fail to understand the nutritional meaning of calorie data. Within a social and economic environment that increasingly promotes the consumption of unhealthy foods, providing restaurant patrons with enhanced information to make nutritional decisions is paramount.     

高职院校医学生营养标签认知度调查

摘要:目的　了解高职院校医学生对营养标签的认知情况,为健康教育提供依据。方法　多阶段随机整群抽取某市665名高职医学生进行问卷调查。结果　营养标签基础知识得分情况:及格率15.8%;女生高于男生;高年级高于低年级;护理、口腔专业高于康复专业的学生,差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;年龄、体重指数（BMI）与营养标签基础知识得分在统计学上均存在正相关（r＝0.116,P＝0.003;r＝0.140,P＝0.000）。56.2%的学生不知道营养标签;90.4%的学生想利用营养标签选择健康食品。结论　高职院校医学生营养标签基础知识及格率较低,但学习营养标签的意愿较高,需要针对性的进行健康教育。     

Derivation Of Daily Values Used For Nutrition Labeling

Daily Values (DVs) are the daily dietary intake standards used for nutrition labeling. Information on the derivation of DVs is important for dietetics professionals and nutrition educators who use DVs to educate and instruct patients and students about diet planning and evaluation and about adherence to modified diets. The first daily intake standards for nutrition labeling were established in 1973 and were referred to as the US Recommended Daily Allowances (US RDAs). They were based on the 1968 Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) developed by the National Academy of Sciences. These intake standards were mandatory for 8 and optional for 12 food components on nutrition labels. Regulations revising the daily intake standards for nutrition labeling were published in 1993. The new standards included Reference Daily Intakes (RDIs) for 19 food components and Daily Reference Values (DRVs) for 8 food components. The RDIs were based on the 1973 US RDAs, and the DRVs were based on consensus recommendations. On the nutrition label, the RDIs and DRVs are referred to as DVs. Percent DVs are mandatory on nutrition labels for 10 food components and optional for 16 food components. In 1995, DVs were established by regulation for 6 additional food components; these DVs are optional for nutrition labels. The DVs established in 1995 were based on information from the 1980 and 1989 revisions of the RDAs and Estimated Safe and Adequate Daily Dietary Intakes. Currently, percent DVs are mandatory on nutrition labels for 10 food components and optional for 22. Optional percent DVs become mandatory if claims are made about the food components or if the food components are added to the food through fortification or as food additives. J Am Diet Assoc. 1997;97:1407-1412.     

National Nutrition Month hotline

A full assessment of the efficacy of this project would require advance publicity, complete staffing, and a larger sample group. Yet, enthusiasm from both consumers and professionals was overwhelming, and many suggested that the hotline should be conducted year-round. From the data compiled and from the many positive responses received, it can be concluded that the National Nutrition Month hotline proved to be a unique, useful, and effective means of communicating nutrition information to the public.     

National Nutrition Monitoring System

This issue contains three articles and two related reports on the National Nutrition Monitoring System (NNMS), an umbrella designation for a variety of activities carried out primarily by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Uses of NNMS data are legion; some examples are provided. Full exploitation of NNMS data has been hampered by lack of coordination, delays in processing, and limited understanding on the part of the nutrition community. There has been recent progress in coordinating NNMS activities. Improved understanding among members of the nutrition community will require continued educational efforts.