Proposed Changes to Nutrition Facts Labels

For those questions and discussions on the McDougall program that don’t seem to fit in any other forum.

Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, John McDougall, carolve, Heather McDougall

Proposed Changes to Nutrition Facts Labels

Postby SweetPea » Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:08 am

Sugar Tops Fat in U.S. Push for Healthier Food Labels BloombergBusinessweek News

FDA News Release with image of sample label

The proposed food labels would now include added sugars.

Calories from fat would be removed (total fat, saturated fat, and trans fat will still be included) "because research shows the type of fat is more important than the amount."

Also, the vitamin C and vitamin A nutrient content would be dropped from the labels and replaced with vitamin D and potassium (vitamins A and C could still be voluntarily included).

Additionally, the daily sodium recommendation would be lowered to 2,300 from 2,400 mg.

The public can comment for 90 days. :)
~♥~ It's never too late to go after what you want. ~♥~
SweetPea
 
Posts: 799
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:31 pm

Re: Proposed Changes to Nutrition Facts Labels

Postby eXtremE » Thu Feb 27, 2014 7:51 pm

I think this is good. Isn't Mrs. Obama involved? I heard these changes will not take place until 2 years from now. I have not looked at the links yets..just going by what I heard listening to the radio today.
On 7/8/2013, I decided to change my diet to a "mostly" WFPB diet. I have always been somewhat lean and muscular due to being a lifelong exerciser. Change in diet due to feeling crummy all the time despite a healthy outward appearance. Image
User avatar
eXtremE
 
Posts: 3525
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 5:05 am

Re: Proposed Changes to Nutrition Facts Labels

Postby petero » Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:51 pm

This sucks, actually. Not that I actually have anything against labelling Added Sugar, but it seems they're emphasizing sugar instead of fat. Because, you know, fat doesn't make you fat. The 'Calories From Fat' was the most immediately useful thing on the label for people who are still buying packaged foods.

Is there a fat lobby I can blame for this?

Otherwise, it's just a cosmetic change IMO. Now you're more likely to figure out that that package of Oreos is more than one serving, I suppose, but I was already reading that. It's just a do-nothing PR stunt from the White House. They really need to indicate the macronutrient percentages of the food, not that stupid DV%.
It's easy to be a naive idealist. It's easy to be a cynical realist. It's quite another thing to have no illusions and still hold the inner flame. -- Marie-Louise von Franz
User avatar
petero
 
Posts: 839
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:45 am
Location: Gatlinburg, TN

Re: Proposed Changes to Nutrition Facts Labels

Postby f1jim » Thu Feb 27, 2014 9:16 pm

I agree we lost an important number in "calories from fat." I am glad to see some sanity in serving size/servings in package.
I have my doubts just how many people really know how to make sense of the numbers. Most go to the chart listing % of daily values and take that as important. I am a firm believer that Jeff Novicks label reading talk should be required to graduate from high school.
f1jim
While adopting this diet and lifestyle program I have reversed my heart disease, high cholesterol, hypertension, and lost 54 lbs. You can follow my story at https://www.drmcdougall.com/james-brown/
User avatar
f1jim
 
Posts: 11349
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Pacifica, CA

Re: Proposed Changes to Nutrition Facts Labels

Postby Katydid » Fri Feb 28, 2014 7:57 am

Well, since I needed a calculator to determine percentage of calories from fat anyway (as opposed to the useless %DV) I'll just have to add the extra step of multiplying grams of fat by 9. Good thing I have a calculator on my iPhone - and that I buy virtually no processed foods. :D
Kate
This diet can save your life - it saved mine! Read my story at:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/stars/cathy_stewart.htm
User avatar
Katydid
 
Posts: 4686
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 8:30 am
Location: Marysville, Mi.

Re: Proposed Changes to Nutrition Facts Labels

Postby astronaut23 » Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:43 am

The good thing about eating a whole foods plant based diet is that most of the stuff I'm eating doesn't have or need a label.

And what little bit of stuff I don't get from the fresh produce section of the store whether its canned beans or stuff from the freezer section like frozen veggies or frozen berries to put in my oatmeal the main thing I read the label for is the ingredients list to make sure I recognize everything in it as a food…..no chemical names I can't pronounce much less know what they are and no oils….:D

It amazes me that people eat "food" that contains a list of ingredients a mile long that I have no idea what the chemicals are. Yeah I ate the processed food diet too for 35 years of my life. People just eat food and don't think about what they are eating. If they actually read the ingredients maybe they would switch to eating real foods.
Last edited by astronaut23 on Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
astronaut23
 

Re: Proposed Changes to Nutrition Facts Labels

Postby ETeSelle » Fri Feb 28, 2014 9:49 am

I'm with astronaut. I eat as much stuff as possible that doesn't have a label. The things I eat that DO have labels are pretty much the same things all the time (no-salt-added beans and tomatoes; McDougall soups). So the label change is pretty meaningless for me b/c I didn't really have much of an opportunity to use them anyway!

Perhaps they will help other people, but I doubt it. If someone is gonna eat a candy bar or Hamburger Helper, knowing how many calories are in it is unlikely to change their plans.
Elizabeth
Weight now: 124 (20.0 BMI)
Weight in 2010: 207 (33.4 BMI)
Star McDougaller Story
Testimonial thread

Trust me on this: One day you'll wake up and realize that it no longer feels like "being strict." It just feels GOOD. :)
User avatar
ETeSelle
 
Posts: 6507
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:09 pm
Location: Middle TN

Re: Proposed Changes to Nutrition Facts Labels

Postby JeffN » Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:02 am

Katydid wrote: I'll just have to add the extra step of multiplying grams of fat by 9.


Hi Katy

There is another way to do also, which I have taught in Canada and to those in Europe as they only have grams of fat on their labels also.

There is a direct relationship between "calories per serving" and "grams of fat" and we can just use those instead of multiplying "grams of fat" x 9 (which, as you know, also works).

Here are the numbers, which you can make into a pocket card to carry with you.

The number of the left is "calories per serving" and the number on the right is the guideline for the maximum amount of fat in grams (which would equate to 20% calories from fat)

Calories per serving - Grams of fat
25 calories - < 0.6 gm
50 Calories - < 1.2 gm
75 Calories - < 1.7 gm
100 calories - < 2.2 gm
125 calories - < 2.7 gm
150 Calories - < 3.3 gm
175 Calories - < 3.9 gm
200 calories - < 4.4 gm
225 calories - < 5.0 gm
250 calories - < 5.5 gm
275 calories - < 6.1 gm
300 calories - < 6.7 gm
325 calories - < 7.2 gm
350 calories - < 7.8 gm
325 calories - < 8.3 gm
400 Calories - < 8.9 gm
425 calories - < 9.4 gm
450 calories - <10.0 gm
425 calories - < 10.6 gm
500 calories - < 11.1 gm

Either way is perfectly acceptable and remember, this is only a proposed new label for now. It may be 3-5 years before we see it, if it is passed.

Method 1) - Multiply grams of fat per serving x 9 = calories from fat per serving.

[NOTE: To make it easier, you can multiply the grams of fat by 10 (instead of 9) as most of the numbers are rounded off anyway. If you check a few labels, you will see that because of that, the calories from fat listed on the label is often rounded off to 10x the grams of fat listed on the label. So, using 10 isn't perfect but it is easier and most of the time, works out just fine.]


Method 2) - Use the above chart

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Proposed Changes to Nutrition Facts Labels

Postby NC » Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:46 am

Does anyone know how to comment on the proposed new label? Perhaps there is still time to positively impact what is being proposed.
NC
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 11:33 am
Location: Raleigh, NC

Re: Proposed Changes to Nutrition Facts Labels

Postby SweetPea » Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:49 am

I'm also glad the serving sizes will be more realistic, but am still hoping they will eventually make it much simpler and healthier (and stay consistent and on-point).

To me, it would be interesting to see a nutrition label that gives a simple score, like Weight Watchers has created and like the EWG does for chemicals. On a scale of 0-5, based on criteria such as

Is it whole? Is it a plant? (add points)
Is it full of chemicals? Is it an animal protein? Is it highly processed? Is it high in fat? Is it high in salt/sugar? (deduct points)

...an apple would get a 5.
...a candy bar would get a 0.

I'd also love to see a healthier "My Plate" that emphasizes whole plant foods while further minimizing animal foods and fats. Having dairy subsumed within the "protein" quadrant would help.

Ah, I dream. :)
~♥~ It's never too late to go after what you want. ~♥~
SweetPea
 
Posts: 799
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:31 pm

Re: Proposed Changes to Nutrition Facts Labels

Postby SweetPea » Fri Feb 28, 2014 10:54 am

NC wrote:Does anyone know how to comment on the proposed new label? Perhaps there is still time to positively impact what is being proposed.


From their website:

Public Comment Sought
FDA is dividing the proposed Nutrition Facts label changes into two proposed rules, one that would update the nutrition information based on nutrition science and the label design to help highlight important information. The second covers the changes to serving size requirements and labeling for certain package sizes.
Both are published in the Federal Register for a 90-day comment period; to read them and comment, visit FDA's official docket at www.regulations.gov. FDA proposes that the food industry be given two years to comply after publication of any final rules governing the Nutrition Facts label.

This article appears on FDA's Consumer Updates page, which features the latest on all FDA-regulated products.

Feb. 27, 2014
~♥~ It's never too late to go after what you want. ~♥~
SweetPea
 
Posts: 799
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:31 pm

Re: Proposed Changes to Nutrition Facts Labels

Postby funcrunch » Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:55 pm

The revision to serving sizes is good. The removal of "Calories from Fat" isn't. More "sugar, not fat, causes obesity" nonsense.

The emphasis on Vitamin D over Vitamins A and C is not good either. As McDougall has written about in his newsletter, most people should be getting their Vitamin D from sunshine.

What I'd like to see is a change to the law allowing a product to be called "fat-free" if it has .5 gram or less of fat per serving. That currently allows oil sprays (100% fat) to be listed as "fat-free" (although maybe not with the change to how serving sizes can be listed). The "fat-free" claim is not part of the Nutrition Facts, but many consumers don't look beyond the front of the packaging to determine what to buy.
User avatar
funcrunch
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:41 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Proposed Changes to Nutrition Facts Labels

Postby JeffN » Fri May 20, 2016 11:17 am

Good News, Bad News

The FDA updated the Nutrition Facts label for packaged foods.

The new labels will start appearing on packages by 2018.

- The good news...

the new label will list "added sugars" in grams. You can see my post above in this thread on how to adjust for that.

- The bad news...

they will remove "calories from fat" from the new label so to calculate calories from fat, we will have to multiply the grams of fat by 9. You can see my post above in this thread on how to adjust for that and a chart using just calories and grams of ft.

Here is the press release on it

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/ ... 502182.htm

Here is a graphic of the new label

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/Guida ... 387451.pdf

Image

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am


Return to The Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.