June 27, 2014 - Blogs
The food and beverage industry is poised to shift into high gear once the new Nutrition Facts label goes into effect. And one of the most contentious and yet-to-be-resolved issues is the proposal to create a new line listing the amount of added sugars. It was certainly a lively discussion point as the FDA hosted a Nutrition Food Label public meeting on June 26.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed rules aimed at updating nutrition information and serving size requirements on the Nutrition and Supplement Facts labels. One portion of the meeting featured a panel of experts and stakeholders comprised of: Donna M. Garren, PhD, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs American Frozen Food Institute, Frank Hu, MD, Professor of Nutrition and Epidemiology, Harvard Medical School, Michael Jacobson, PhD, executive director, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Pepin Tuma, Esq., director of regulatory affairs, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND). (I suggest looking each panel member up to determine which belong in the stakeholder column, and which in the expert.)
In general, the group agreed to disagree. All were amenable to adding nutrients of public health significance (potassium and Vitamin D) and making vitamin A and C labeling voluntary. All generally saw the need to revise serving sizes although not necessarily which ones and how and thought the change in the way the Daily Value is to be presented is confusing.
But when it came to the proposal to add a line on the Nutrition Facts, the panel was all over the map:
Hu: Yes, citing research that indicates added sugar is associated with adverse health effects and empty calories.
Jacobsen: Yes, but wants no total sugar listing because he said most naturally occurring sugars are “inoccuous," but the label should also designate sugars from juice as these are unhealthful.
Garren: No, given there is no physiological distinction between added and intrinsic sugar. (Hu disagreed explaining sugars in whole fruits are absorbed more slowly—as if sugars are never added to foods that contain other macronutrients including fiber or their source is the reason for nutritional distinction). She also noted, in terms of enforcement that no reliable analytical methods exist to differentiate between added and intrinsic sugars.
Pepin: Yes, but total sugars should be included along with the added level, as excessive sugar consumption is to be avoided. However, AND is struggling with having insufficient data to set a DRI for sugars.
In the Q&A later in the meeting, some of the audience added comments. Unsurprisingly the representative from the sugar industry was against the addition of an added sugars line.
But ultimately nothing has been settled. The final FDA panel at the meeting noted that the agency would be conducted consumer research on the added sugars notation, as well as what will be included in and the proposed footnote section. Still, there was a consensus that the education portion of the NLEA needed to be stepped up, not only for sugar nutrition, but for the Nutrition Facts label and nutrition in genera so the public could make best use of all of the label information.
In closing one of the FDA representatives thanked everyone for their thoughts but stressed that the agency considers submitted comments the most useful for establishing the final rules. For those who want to contribute to the discussion and the policy, August 1, 2014 is the closing date to submit either electronic or written comments to FDA’s Division of Dockets Management. For the Nutrition Facts Label Proposed Rule, see Docket No. FDA-2012-N-12105. For the Serving Size Proposed Rule, see Docket No. FDA-2004-N-02586.
-Lynn A. Kuntz
The food and beverage industry is poised to shift into high gear once the new Nutrition Facts label goes into effect. And one of the most contentious and yet-to-be-resolved issues is the proposal to create a new line listing the amount of added sugars. It was certainly a lively discussion point as the FDA hosted a Nutrition Food Label public meeting on June 26.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed rules aimed at updating nutrition information and serving size requirements on the Nutrition and Supplement Facts labels. One portion of the meeting featured a panel of experts and stakeholders comprised of: Donna M. Garren, PhD, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs American Frozen Food Institute, Frank Hu, MD, Professor of Nutrition and Epidemiology, Harvard Medical School, Michael Jacobson, PhD, executive director, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Pepin Tuma, Esq., director of regulatory affairs, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND). (I suggest looking each panel member up to determine which belong in the stakeholder column, and which in the expert.)
In general, the group agreed to disagree. All were amenable to adding nutrients of public health significance (potassium and Vitamin D) and making vitamin A and C labeling voluntary. All generally saw the need to revise serving sizes although not necessarily which ones and how and thought the change in the way the Daily Value is to be presented is confusing.
But when it came to the proposal to add a line on the Nutrition Facts, the panel was all over the map:
Hu: Yes, citing research that indicates added sugar is associated with adverse health effects and empty calories.
Jacobsen: Yes, but wants no total sugar listing because he said most naturally occurring sugars are “inoccuous," but the label should also designate sugars from juice as these are unhealthful.
Garren: No, given there is no physiological distinction between added and intrinsic sugar. (Hu disagreed explaining sugars in whole fruits are absorbed more slowly—as if sugars are never added to foods that contain other macronutrients including fiber or their source is the reason for nutritional distinction). She also noted, in terms of enforcement that no reliable analytical methods exist to differentiate between added and intrinsic sugars.
Pepin: Yes, but total sugars should be included along with the added level, as excessive sugar consumption is to be avoided. However, AND is struggling with having insufficient data to set a DRI for sugars.
In the Q&A later in the meeting, some of the audience added comments. Unsurprisingly the representative from the sugar industry was against the addition of an added sugars line.
But ultimately nothing has been settled. The final FDA panel at the meeting noted that the agency would be conducted consumer research on the added sugars notation, as well as what will be included in and the proposed footnote section. Still, there was a consensus that the education portion of the NLEA needed to be stepped up, not only for sugar nutrition, but for the Nutrition Facts label and nutrition in genera so the public could make best use of all of the label information.
In closing one of the FDA representatives thanked everyone for their thoughts but stressed that the agency considers submitted comments the most useful for establishing the final rules. For those who want to contribute to the discussion and the policy, August 1, 2014 is the closing date to submit either electronic or written comments to FDA’s Division of Dockets Management. For the Nutrition Facts Label Proposed Rule, see Docket No. FDA-2012-N-12105. For the Serving Size Proposed Rule, see Docket No. FDA-2004-N-02586.
-Lynn A. Kuntz
No comments:
Post a Comment