• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Sugar lobby on DEFCON 1: FDA proposes new sugar label rules #110

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

American Eskimo

Banned
Is it happening?

Sixty-five grams of added sugar. That's how much you'll find in a 20-ounce bottle of Coca-Cola.

But can you picture 65 grams? It's about 16 teaspoons worth of the sweet stuff.

The Food and Drug Administration wants to make it easier for Americans to track how much added sugars we're getting in the foods and beverages we choose.

So, in addition to a proposed requirement to list amounts of added sugars on the Nutrition Facts panels, the FDA is now proposing that companies declare a daily percent value, too.

What this means is that, instead of just listing the 65 grams of added sugar in that Coke, soda companies would be required to list that it represents 130 percent of the recommended daily intake. In other words, that one bottle contains more added sugar than you should be eating in an entire day.

The percent value would be based on the recommendation that added sugars should not exceed 10 percent of total calories. In a 2,000-calorie-a-day diet, that works out to a daily maximum of about 12 teaspoons.

Added sugars include include all the sweeteners that food companies put into their products. That limit does not include sugar from fruits and other foods that are naturally sweet.

In announcing the new proposal, the FDA says it has a responsibility to give Americans the information they need to make informed decisions.

"For the past decade, consumers have been advised to reduce their intake of added sugars, and the proposed percent daily value for added sugars on the Nutrition Facts label is intended to help consumers follow that advice," wrote Susan Mayne, director of the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, in a release announcing the proposal.

When sugar is added to foods and beverages to sweeten them up, it adds lots of calories without providing nutrients.

And as we've reported, over the last several year, evidence has been mounting that consuming too much sugar can increase the risk of Type 2 diabetes and heart disease.

The FDA proposal expands on changes recommended in 2014, when the FDA laid out a template for a new overhauled Nutrition Fact panel.

The FDA will take public comment on the new proposal for 75 days, and the agency says it "will consider comments on the original and this supplemental proposed rule before issuing a final rule."

It's likely the agency will hear from food companies. The Sugar Association has already weighed in, questioning whether the move to limit added sugars to no more than 10 percent of daily calories is backed by adequate science.
Click to expand...
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...more-hidden-sugar-fda-proposes-new-label-rule

fda_custom-2fc563ff5cc025163f42e16a2b1f485ea136b7e0-s1100-c85.jpg
Click to expand...

Left: The current Nutrition Facts panel on foods. Right: The label changes that the FDA proposed in 2014 would list added sugars. Now the FDA wants the label to list the percent daily value, too.

Its insane that everything gets a % except sugar (and protein? I guess thats more sex dependent?)

12g, 72g, 21.27g means nothing to the average person.

120%? Thats information.

Edit: Woops, title error :(
 
M

Matt_

World's #1 One Direction Fan: Everyone else in the room can see it, everyone else but you~~~
Should just adopt the Uk system
traffic_light_label_01.gif


Find it really odd you guys have an added sugar section too
 
A

American Eskimo

Banned
Matt_ said:
Should just adopt the Uk system
traffic_light_label_01.gif


Find it really odd you guys have an added sugar section too
Click to expand...

The added sugars are proposed. In the image above, left is what exists, right is what was proposed. The new % for sugars is to be added to the proposed image on the right

Also, the american labels round everything and then theres a 20% error allowance.

So something containing 1.4g could be reported as 1.2 grams and then labeled as 1 gram
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
The recommended daily intake should be 0.

Also, is "added sugar" strictly defined? How?
 
M

Matt_

World's #1 One Direction Fan: Everyone else in the room can see it, everyone else but you~~~
Soka said:
Why is it odd?
Click to expand...

Why does it matter if the sugar is added or not? Sugar is sugar not matter where it comes from, just adds to the confusion
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
Matt_ said:
Why does it matter if the sugar is added or not? Sugar is sugar not matter where it comes from, just adds to the confusion
Click to expand...

This is why I want to see the definition.

I mean, a piece of fruit is generally fine, but as soon as soon as that turns into fruit juice, you're in trouble.

I imagine the sugar from the fruit in fruit juice will not be considered added sugar, so your point would certainly stand in that situation.

It's murky, though, so they should just set an RDA for total sugar, added or not. Either way, 10% of your total calories is a ridiculously high amount, and that's only talking about "added sugars."
 
H

hockeypuck

Member
Matt_ said:
Should just adopt the Uk system
traffic_light_label_01.gif
Click to expand...
This is the best food label I've seen. Not only are absolutes and percentages given, but they're color-coded and marked with simple "Low, med, high" markers. The current FDA labels are too complex for the average American.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
hockeypuck said:
This is the best food label I've seen. Not only are absolutes and percentages given, but they're color-coded and marked with simple "Low, med, high" markers. The current FDA labels are too complex for the average American.
Click to expand...

Fuck that. Better to have full disclosure than that nonsense (assuming there isn't another part of the label that actually lists the various macros, micros, and ingredients).

Doesn't even list Carbohydrate or Protein. It's worthless (not to mention that they seem to be OK with people consuming 100g of sugar per day).

neogaffer1 said:
i thought you meant just sugar in general
Click to expand...

Well, I do, but it's a bit too extreme to tell people to avoid all sources of sugar (including fruit), so a focus on the "added" variety is a good start for most.
 
G

Gentleman Jack

Member
Zefah said:
This is why I want to see the definition.
Click to expand...

was pretty easy to google

b. Proposed Definition—The term “added sugars” is not defined in FDA regulations. Given our tentative conclusion to require mandatory declaration of “added sugars” on the Nutrition Facts label, we are proposing to define added sugars. In proposed § 101.9(c)(6)(iii), we are proposing to define “added sugars” as sugars that are either added during the processing of foods, or are packaged as such, and include sugars (free, mono- and disaccharides), syrups, naturally occurring sugars that are isolated from a whole food and concentrated so that sugar is the primary component (e.g., fruit juice concentrates), and other caloric sweeteners. This would include single ingredient foods such as individually packaged table sugar. Sugar alcohols are not considered to be added sugars. Names for added sugars include: Brown sugar, corn sweetener, corn syrup, dextrose, fructose, fruit juice concentrates, glucose, high-fructose corn syrup, honey, invert sugar, lactose, maltose, malt sugar, molasses, raw sugar, turbinado, sugar, trehalose, and sucrose. This proposed definition of added sugars includes what CSPI described as “added sugars” in the 2013 CSPI petition.
Click to expand...

I get that an RDA% of Added Sugar alone doesn't mean much when it can be but a fraction of the total sugar a serving of processed food provides, but maybe it'll encourage food manufacturers to start promoting more lower sugar products.
 
D

DashReindeer

Lead Community Manager, Outpost Games
Matt_ said:
Why does it matter if the sugar is added or not? Sugar is sugar not matter where it comes from, just adds to the confusion
Click to expand...

Are you from the corn lobby or something? This is completely false. All sugar is in fact not created equal.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
I thought the "HFCS BAD! CANE SUGAR GOOD!" people had more or less died out around these parts. I guess not.
 
M

MightyHedgehog

Member
Instead of just metric values and easily forgotten or ignored percentages of daily value, in parentheses, they should flat out tell how many teaspoons of sugar that is as that immediately makes more visual sense to people when and if they read the labels. We're talking about America, man, where we mostly know the imperial system...no one can be safely expected to understand the fucking metric system here. Maybe additionally go with the color-coded 'low-med-high' descriptions that the above UK labels do.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
MightyHedgehog said:
Instead of just metric values and easily forgotten or ignored percentages of daily value, in parentheses, they should flat out tell how many teaspoons of sugar that is as that immediately makes more visual sense to people when and if they read the labels. Maybe additionally go with the color-coded 'low-med-high' descriptions that the above UK labels do.
Click to expand...

Just telling people teaspoons doesn't really help either since people don't really know how many teaspoons they should eat.

Showing it as a percent shows "110% of my sugar. Wow, that's a lot of sugar!"
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
But it's not necessarily "teaspoons of sugar." You could make an equivalency, but I don't see how that's better than just disclosing the actual amount.
 
M

MightyHedgehog

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
Just telling people teaspoons doesn't really help either since people don't really know how many teaspoons they should eat.

Showing it as a percent shows "110% of my sugar. Wow, that's a lot of sugar!"
Click to expand...

It's easier to visualize that amount for us simpleton Americans. I mean, what sounds more excessive, sixteen teaspoons or sixty-five grams? They can always include the percentages and what are considered healthy daily limits.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
joelseph said:
Nice to see both sides coming out to the battlefield.
Click to expand...

What meaningful difference do you think there is between HFCS and typical sucrose in terms of how they are metabolized and what effects they have on human health?
 
D

Dennis

Banned
Should adopt European standards and report everything per 100 gram instead of that unscientific, random "servings" nonsense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Satya Nadella: Annual letter to stockholders. Content on new platforms will continue
3 4 5 6 7
349
16K
solidus12 replied
Court rules Subway sandwiches too sugary to meet legal definition of ‘bread’
2
72
4K
Slings and Arrows replied
Death of the Calorie - The Economist
8
1K
betrayal replied
  • Locked
Pfizer’s Covid Vaccine Over 90% Effective, applying for FDA authorization later this month
2
67
8K
TaylorSwiftFan replied
  • Locked
Welcome to Your Bland New World of Consumer Capitalism
Opinion
25
7K
Mossybrew replied
Top Bottom