Nutrition Labeling Inconsistencies, FDA & USDA Breaking The Law Consistently

Food Fight #38

HHS-FDA & Nutrition Labeling

Although the FDA uses the word “nutrition” liberally, we now know the words “nutrition” and “nutrients” are absent in its definition of food. It makes governmental sense for the FDA to regulate nutrition labeling. The general public relies on these package labels to make healthier food choices. The FDA is an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

One of the main pieces of information on nutrition labels is the Percent Daily Value (%DV). The %DV is based on the Daily Value of “vitamins and minerals which are essential in human nutrition.” The FDA still uses 1968 nutrition values for the Daily Values.

The FDA issued a notice in 2007 soliciting comments from industry and the public as to whether it should use updated nutrient values. Still no resolution four years later just more notices to collect information and public comment. See Food Labeling: Revision of Reference Values and Mandatory Nutrients

On February 13, 2012, HHS-FDA issued this update:

“FDA is proposing to amend labeling regulations for conventional foods and dietary supplements to provide updated nutrition information on the label... ...the Agency intends to: (1) Provide updated Daily Reference values (DRVs) and Reference Daily Intake values (RDIs) that are based on the latest scientific evidence from consensus reports, such as the Institute of Medicine Dietary Reference Intakes [DRIs]...”

This sounds good but the history of proposals and the several year delay in initiating the Proposed Rule doesn't bode well for a speedy resolution.

USDA-FSIS & Nutrition Labeling

Though the FDA oversees nutrition labeling for most foods, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) regulates meat, meat substitutes, products with certain levels of meat and egg products (not eggs in the shell). FSIS is an agency of the the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

USDA still uses 1968 nutrition values since according to them on June 11, 2012:

DRI’s are not being used and are not being considered. The nutrition regulations use RDI’s and there are no current plans to change the regulations.

As one agency within USDA ignores the new DRIs, another agency within USDA, the Food and Nutrition Service will be using DRIs in administering the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program beginning with the 2012-2013 school year as follows: "The primary benefit of this rule is to align the regulations with the requirements placed on schools under NSLA [National School Lunch Act] to ensure that meals are consistent with the goals of the most recent Dietary Guidelines and the Dietary Reference Intakes."

It has only been since March 1, 2012 that the USDA-FSIS started requiring nutrition labels on certain raw meats. Most nutrition labeling was required in the early nineties for the FDA.

Bottom Line - Nutrition Facts Are Not Fact-Based

“Any Federal agency that proposes to issue any dietary guidance for the general population or identified population subgroups shall submit the text of such guidance to the Secretaries[USDA and HHS acting jointly] for a sixty-day review period.”

Based on this requirement, USDA, HHS and their agencies are supposed to know what the other is doing in terms of dietary guidance but this is not evident in their policymaking.

Furthermore, “the Secretaries shall review and approve or disapprove such guidance to assure that the guidance either is consistent with the “Dietary Guidelines for Americans” or that the guidance is based on medical or new scientific knowledge which is determined to be valid by the Secretaries.”

It is not possible for RDIs to be valid if DRIs are based on the most current scientific research. Technically USDA and HHS could claim they are not “proposing to issue guidance” just simply implementing what was finalized years ago. If so, this is like stuffing their core mission in the tiniest of unintended loopholes from over 30 years ago. It is like saying we go by the letter of the law not the spirit or intent.

The nutrient values the FDA and FSIS use are out of sync with the 2005 and 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans which are jointly issued by HHS and USDA, their own Departments.

According to Dr. Robert Post of the USDA Center For Nutrition Policy And Promotion, The 2010 Dietary Guidelines establish the scientific and policy basis for all Federal nutrition programs...including labeling.
“All federally-issued dietary guidance for the general public is required by law to be consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.”

HHS-FDA and USDA-FSIS are breaking the law by continuing to use nutrient values on nutrition labeling inconsistent with the Dietary Guidelines. The FDA is also inconsistent with its own mission to “help the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to maintain and improve their health.” The FDA is inconsistent with the mission of HHS, “the principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans.” The USDA is inconsistent with its own mission to provide leadership on food...based on...the best available science... The FDA and USDA are inconsistent with the mission of the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) of which both are components.

USPHS mission is supposed to be:

a. Rapid and effective response to public health needs
b. Leadership and excellence in public health practices
c. Advancement of public health science

Adding To The Bottom Line - More Inconsistencies

In addition to the above inadequacies of nutrition labeling, a March 2010 report by the Center For Science In The Public Interest identified these issues (paraphrased):

Serving sizes are based on data 20-30 years old. We eat bigger portions than those on labels.
Claims such ast “0 g trans fat” sometimes might instead be high in saturated fat and/or cholesterol.
Made with whole wheat or other grain might not be 100% whole wheat or grain.
Amount of caffeine is not required to be disclosed.
Amount of added sugars per serving is not disclosed.
Not all foods claiming fiber contain the kind of fiber that produces health benefits.
Fat free or low fat might not be low in sugar.
The American Heart Association “heart-check” symbol on products doesn't guarantee it's low in sugar. Aw sugar!

I further suggest changing nutrition labeling regulations to require notifying consumers if food contains items that have been genetically modified (GMO). Consumers should also be notified if the food or seeds used to grow the food has come in contact with toxins.

By law:

“...nutrition labeling regulations promulgated by the FDA in 1973 required that both positive and negative aspects of the nutrient content of food appear on the label.”

“The current Nutrition Facts box that appears on food labels was conceived as an important public health tool to reduce diet-related disease.” Turns out, it is not as factual as it should be or legally supposed to be.

Rather than read about what's good on nutrition labels and worry about its accuracy, it seems much easier to just eat the goodness that is fresh whole foods and keep “labels off the table.”