FDA Approves new label highlighting added sugar & calories

AlabasterVerve

May 20, 2016

The FDA today finalized the new Nutrition Facts label for packaged foods to reflect new scientific information, including the link between diet and chronic diseases such as obesity and heart disease. The new label will make it easier for consumers to make better informed food choices.



FDA: Changes to the Nutrition Facts Label
Media: The FDA just made the most significant changes to the nutrition label in years

viren19890

I wonder if third world countries like Canada will get this in next 10-15 years.


Although we are stricter than FDA which is such a relief (YAY! Canada) but changes come here slooooooowly.

AlabasterVerve

The Sugar Association responds with concerns this change will prevent Americans from getting healthier...

Source

CooCooPuff

The potassium will be nice for the posters that always ask about it

stevencloser

Well, they're sortof right in that the DV for added sugar is only based on "uhh, sugar is bad for your teeth and it has calories".

AlabasterVerve

Yeah, I like the change in nutrients too. You'd have to go out of your way to be deficient in vitamin A & C these days so this is a nice change.

AlabasterVerve

stevencloser wrote: »

Well, they're sortof right in that the DV for added sugar is only based on "uhh, sugar is bad for your teeth and it has calories".

Here's the FDA's reasoning, which seems sensible and a good enough reason for the change to me:

3. Why must “added sugars” now be included?

The scientific evidence underlying the 2010 and the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans support reducing caloric intake from added sugars; and expert groups such as the American Heart Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Institute of Medicine and the World Health Organization also recommend decreasing intake of added sugars.

In addition, it is difficult to meet nutrient needs while staying within calorie requirements if you consume more than 10 percent of your total daily calories from added sugars. On average, Americans get about 13 percent of their total calories from added sugars, with the major sources being sugar-sweetened beverages (including soft drinks, fruit drinks, coffee and tea, sport and energy drinks, and alcoholic beverages) and snacks and sweets (including grain-based desserts, dairy desserts, candies, sugars, jams, syrups, and sweet toppings).

The FDA recognizes that added sugars can be a part of a healthy dietary pattern. But if consumed in excess, it becomes more difficult to also eat foods with enough dietary fiber and essential vitamins and minerals and still stay within calorie limits. The updates to the label will help increase consumer awareness of the quantity of added sugars in foods. Consumers may or may not decide to reduce the consumption of certain foods with added sugars, based on their individual needs or preferences.
The final rule requires “Includes X g Added Sugars” to be included under “Total Sugars” to help consumers understand how much sugar has been added to the product.

Source

stevencloser

I once calculated how many calories absolutely minimum you'd need to get to minimum macronutrient values for fat and protein, and it's 800-ish for 60 grams of protein and fats each which would be minimums for a sedentary 150 pound guy. Let's say another 300 calories of mixed vegetables (which depending on the vegetables can be a ton of food) for micronutrients and you're still left with almost 50% of the 2000 kcal the daily values are based on after meeting your absolute minimum needs.
Not saying it's easy eating in a way to specifically target the essential nutrients without getting any extra non-essential, but that number does seem a bit of an asspull.

I don't have a problem with adding the added sugar to the calorie counts, it's just... kinda silly because if someone is already paying attention to their intakes, knowing how much of the sugar in it was added sugar is much less useful because they're likely already having a good diet in the first place and rather care about the other macros than how much of the sugar they've eaten was inherent or not. Also obviously no chemical difference between inherent and added sucrose, but that's another can of worms.

yarwell

At least we can be assured there's no way of checking the "added sugars" in a laboratory.

MelaniaTrump

Anyone know the date of this change?

CooCooPuff

JanetYellen wrote: »

Anyone know the date of this change?

It says July 2018

nvmomketo

Looks good. I'd love to see that up here in Canada too.

whmscll

Manufacturers have two years from today to change to the new labels. Smaller companies get an additional year.

yarwell

nvmomketo wrote: »

Looks good. I'd love to see that up here in Canada too.

Didn't they choose to have a DV of 100g for total sugars and restructure ingredients lists to group anything sugary ? http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2015/2015-06-13/html/reg1-eng.php Don't think it's enacted yet.

EddieP50

I like this for the added sugar. Even if you are staying within your daily calorie goal if you choose products with less or no added sugar then you will have more calories for the day.

Anaris2014

I am struggling to understand the significance of "added sugars" in the nutritional break down of a product. Now total sugars, that makes sense and can be compared to the RDI and so forth.

However if Product A and B have a similar (total) sugar content, but, as a result of the processing one "adds more sugar" than the other, why should that one product be "named and shamed"? Surely the thing that really matters is the total amount of sugar in the end product. Why should (for example) a soft drink with 12g of sugar be required to advertise it's added sugar while a fruit juice with the same amount of sugar appears to be "healthier"?



It's worth nothing that, on that site, the example goes from saying 1g of sugar to 12g of sugar - is this just blatant dishonesty or were companies allowed to lie about the amount of sugar? This seems unlikely. It seems that this is a false example meant to make it appear to be necessary. It's worth noting that the calories don't change despite increasing total sugars to 12 times the original value.

chimaerandi

The whole "Calories from fat" thing came in when fat was the STUDIES SHOW!! Booegeyman, so I'm not too terrifically surprised that 'added sugars' is the one now. It's not gonna change my use of the labels, which is pretty much for calories.

I do think it's hilarious that the new example suddenly magically gained a bunch of sugar grams.

Francl27

I actually kinda like it. Will be useful on days when I want to avoid refined sugars.

Kinda wondering why they got rid of half the vitamins though.

Anaris2014 wrote: »

I am struggling to understand the significance of "added sugars" in the nutritional break down of a product. Now total sugars, that makes sense and can be compared to the RDI and so forth.

However if Product A and B have a similar (total) sugar content, but, as a result of the processing one "adds more sugar" than the other, why should that one product be "named and shamed"? Surely the thing that really matters is the total amount of sugar in the end product. Why should (for example) a soft drink with 12g of sugar be required to advertise it's added sugar while a fruit juice with the same amount of sugar appears to be "healthier"?



It's worth nothing that, on that site, the example goes from saying 1g of sugar to 12g of sugar - is this just blatant dishonesty or were companies allowed to lie about the amount of sugar? This seems unlikely. It seems that this is a false example meant to make it appear to be necessary. It's worth noting that the calories don't change despite increasing total sugars to 12 times the original value.

Well, sugar is sugar. But my body won't react the same way to fruit sugar than to refined sugar, so yeah, it can useful.

CooCooPuff

They replaced Vitamin A and C because it's rarer to be deficient in either.

Anaris2014

Francl27 wrote: »

I actually kinda like it. Will be useful on days when I want to avoid refined sugars.

Kinda wondering why they got rid of half the vitamins though.

Anaris2014 wrote: »

I am struggling to understand the significance of "added sugars" in the nutritional break down of a product. Now total sugars, that makes sense and can be compared to the RDI and so forth.

However if Product A and B have a similar (total) sugar content, but, as a result of the processing one "adds more sugar" than the other, why should that one product be "named and shamed"? Surely the thing that really matters is the total amount of sugar in the end product. Why should (for example) a soft drink with 12g of sugar be required to advertise it's added sugar while a fruit juice with the same amount of sugar appears to be "healthier"?



It's worth nothing that, on that site, the example goes from saying 1g of sugar to 12g of sugar - is this just blatant dishonesty or were companies allowed to lie about the amount of sugar? This seems unlikely. It seems that this is a false example meant to make it appear to be necessary. It's worth noting that the calories don't change despite increasing total sugars to 12 times the original value.

Well, sugar is sugar. But my body won't react the same way to fruit sugar than to refined sugar, so yeah, it can useful.

I wasn't aware of that. I understood from the things that I have read that your body will react to 10g of sugar exactly the same way, regardless of its source (assuming that the dietary context is the same). This seems to make sense because digestion is based on the chemical breakdown of a carbohydrate, and that reaction is the same regardless of the origin of that carbohydrate. The total amount of calories consumed from sugars (in total) seems to be the relevant consideration. I can appreciate that it may be the case that 10g of "added" sugar is somehow chemically different to 10g of "sugars", bot that doesn't appear to be the case (if they are different then perhaps measuring in grams is not a helpful tool and that should be changed).

I appreciate that an Orange Juice is going to make you more full than the soft drink with a comparable amount of sugar (because of fibre and other nutrients), but that other information is also on the label. It appears that sugar in fresh orange juice and reconstituted orange juice would, assuming that all other nutrients are equalised, have the same dietary effect regardless of whether it was added or naturally occurring.

lemurcat12

Anaris2014 wrote: »

I am struggling to understand the significance of "added sugars" in the nutritional break down of a product. Now total sugars, that makes sense and can be compared to the RDI and so forth.

Part of it is that there's no RDI for total sugar in the US. There's a new one for added sugar.

However if Product A and B have a similar (total) sugar content, but, as a result of the processing one "adds more sugar" than the other, why should that one product be "named and shamed"? Surely the thing that really matters is the total amount of sugar in the end product. Why should (for example) a soft drink with 12g of sugar be required to advertise it's added sugar while a fruit juice with the same amount of sugar appears to be "healthier"?

It helps if people want to understand the source of the sugars in the product. If some brand of orange juice also includes some added sugar, some people will want to know. And yes, it's apparent from the ingredients list now, but that makes it easier and you can see how much).

Agree that it's silly they changed the amount of sugar on the label in the example.

Also agree that the effect of the sugar depends on what else it's eaten with (fiber or whatever). I do see a difference between sugar that is there because the product is made with fruit, veg, or dairy (as those calories typically come with micronutrients) and some that's there because it's added. I'm not going to avoid all added sugar (it certainly tastes good in a dessert), but I see no drawbacks to making the information about added sugar available.

stevencloser

Francl27 wrote: »

I actually kinda like it. Will be useful on days when I want to avoid refined sugars.

Kinda wondering why they got rid of half the vitamins though.

Anaris2014 wrote: »

I am struggling to understand the significance of "added sugars" in the nutritional break down of a product. Now total sugars, that makes sense and can be compared to the RDI and so forth.

However if Product A and B have a similar (total) sugar content, but, as a result of the processing one "adds more sugar" than the other, why should that one product be "named and shamed"? Surely the thing that really matters is the total amount of sugar in the end product. Why should (for example) a soft drink with 12g of sugar be required to advertise it's added sugar while a fruit juice with the same amount of sugar appears to be "healthier"?



It's worth nothing that, on that site, the example goes from saying 1g of sugar to 12g of sugar - is this just blatant dishonesty or were companies allowed to lie about the amount of sugar? This seems unlikely. It seems that this is a false example meant to make it appear to be necessary. It's worth noting that the calories don't change despite increasing total sugars to 12 times the original value.

Well, sugar is sugar. But my body won't react the same way to fruit sugar than to refined sugar, so yeah, it can useful.

Will it in the same context? If a yogurt for example has 50% of its sugar from fruits and fruit juice/pulp added and the other half added sugar, and another yogurt has all of it from the added fruits and fruit juice/pulp, at the same amounts of all nutrients including fiber, the one with added sugar has a different effect on you?

yarwell

Anaris2014 wrote: »

It's worth nothing that, on that site, the example goes from saying 1g of sugar to 12g of sugar - is this just blatant dishonesty or were companies allowed to lie about the amount of sugar? This seems unlikely. It seems that this is a false example meant to make it appear to be necessary. It's worth noting that the calories don't change despite increasing total sugars to 12 times the original value.

I thought it was two different products, but I agree with you it looks like some hack made up a sugar number to illustrate the change.

yarwell

Here's the honest one that somehow got changed :-



presumably because there were no added sugars to illustrate ;-)

jtakushi

I'm hoping My Fitness Pal will update their food tracking templates to reflect this change in 2018. I'm really happy the FDA required this shift.

whmscll

I love that they now list added sugars. If I am comparing products at the store, this makes it MUCH easier for me to choose the product I prefer. Which is usually going to be the one with less added sugar. Because I just don't need a ton of extra sugar (or salt, or preservatives or whatever), added to my food by somebody else. Knowledge is power.

RhapsodyWinters

I was about to make a post about this, unsure if people even knew the changes were coming. Good thing I searched to see if a thread already existed. Companies have until July 26, 2018 to comply. Foods imported into the US will also have to comply to the changes.

Also, I'm not seeing anyone pointing out the changes to serving sizes as well.

A 12oz can of soda will count as 1 serving. An 8 oz glass bottle of soda will be 1 serving. A 24oz bottle of soda will also be 1 serving.

I like this. They're also changing things like serving sizes on ice cream. I hope they make the changes to popcorn as well. I just had some that said a serving size was 2 Tbsp unpopped and I was like ".........uh.....do you expect me to pop 2 Tbsp separately from the package? Because that would be suicide". I just had to guestimate how many calories I used popped. It states in here that some serving sizes will increase, and others will decrease. By law, it has to be based off of what people typically eat. Not some magic number nutritionists provide.

AJF230

What about people that have the gene that "makes them eat the whole go&&amn bag" ? (as per the Onion)

MiamiSeoul

This is good, but there still needs to be more consistency between like goods. I hate when I pick up two cans of something and one thing quotes nutritional info for the can and the other is quoting for 3/4 the can!

The_Enginerd

RhapsodyWinters wrote: »

I was about to make a post about this, unsure if people even knew the changes were coming. Good thing I searched to see if a thread already existed. Companies have until July 26, 2018 to comply. Foods imported into the US will also have to comply to the changes.

Also, I'm not seeing anyone pointing out the changes to serving sizes as well.

A 12oz can of soda will count as 1 serving. An 8 oz glass bottle of soda will be 1 serving. A 24oz bottle of soda will also be 1 serving.

I like this. They're also changing things like serving sizes on ice cream. I hope they make the changes to popcorn as well. I just had some that said a serving size was 2 Tbsp unpopped and I was like ".........uh.....do you expect me to pop 2 Tbsp separately from the package? Because that would be suicide". I just had to guestimate how many calories I used popped. It states in here that some serving sizes will increase, and others will decrease. By law, it has to be based off of what people typically eat. Not some magic number nutritionists provide.

I'm not a huge fan of the serving size changes given how skewed our views of serving sizes are. Maybe it should be based on what serving size would typical fit within a well balanced diet of the assumed 2000 calorie/day diet.

mph323

I think the serving size change could be really useful for items (especially candy) where the calories and nutrition values reflect 2 servings per package rather than the 1 serving that makes sense with a single package. i've been caught that way a few times thinking I'm only eating 150 calories when in reality'm eating 300.