FDA Approves new label highlighting added sugar & calories

Options
AlabasterVerve
AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
edited May 2016 in Food and Nutrition
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.

s80trj5cx7xf.png

FDA: Changes to the Nutrition Facts Label
Media: The FDA just made the most significant changes to the nutrition label in years
«1

Replies

  • viren19890
    viren19890 Posts: 778 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    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
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    The Sugar Association responds with concerns this change will prevent Americans from getting healthier...

    Source

    t443860fl2wh.png
  • AlabasterVerve
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    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
    AlabasterVerve Posts: 3,171 Member
    Options
    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
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    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
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    At least we can be assured there's no way of checking the "added sugars" in a laboratory.
  • MelaniaTrump
    MelaniaTrump Posts: 2,694 Member
    Options
    Anyone know the date of this change?
  • CooCooPuff
    CooCooPuff Posts: 4,374 Member
    Options
    JanetYellen wrote: »
    Anyone know the date of this change?
    It says July 2018

  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    Looks good. I'd love to see that up here in Canada too.
  • whmscll
    whmscll Posts: 2,254 Member
    Options
    Manufacturers have two years from today to change to the new labels. Smaller companies get an additional year.
  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    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
    EddieP50 Posts: 192 Member
    Options
    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
    Anaris2014 Posts: 138 Member
    Options
    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"?

    ucm501515.png

    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
    chimaerandi Posts: 153 Member
    Options
    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
    Francl27 Posts: 26,372 Member
    Options
    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"?

    ucm501515.png

    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
    CooCooPuff Posts: 4,374 Member
    Options
    They replaced Vitamin A and C because it's rarer to be deficient in either.
  • Anaris2014
    Anaris2014 Posts: 138 Member
    Options
    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"?

    ucm501515.png

    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
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    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.

Categories