Dietary Reference Intakes for food labeling

¹ From Nutrition Impact, LLC, Battle Creek, MI (VF), and Dairy Management, Inc, Rosemont, IL (GM).

² Presented at the ASNS/ASCN Public Information Committee Symposium "Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) for Food Labeling," held in San Diego, CA, 4 April 2005.

³ Address reprint requests to VL Fulgoni III, Nutrition Impact, LL, 9725 D Drive North, Battle Creek, MI 49014. E-mail: vic3rd{at}aol.com.

ABSTRACT

The annual American Society for Nutritional Sciences/American Society for Clinical Nutrition Public Information Committee symposium for 2005 titled "Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) for Food Labeling" served as a platform to address the use of DRIs in food labeling, a change that could affect the processing of foods and supplements and the nutrient intakes of consumers. Speakers from science, industry, trade organizations, and the government came together to provide critical thinking about the most appropriate DRI values to use in food labeling. The proceedings of the symposium cover consumer perspectives on food labels, the regulatory process for revising labeling relative to the DRIs, the food industry's perspective on the use of the new DRIs in food labeling, and differing opinions on whether to use Recommended Dietary Allowances or Estimated Average Requirements to set Daily Values.

Key Words: Dietary Reference Intakes • DRIs • Recommended Dietary Allowances • RDAs • Estimated Average Requirements • EARs • food labeling • micronutrients

The crisis of obesity in the United States has heightened the importance of the food label as a vehicle for dietary guidance and education. An integral component of the blueprint for a healthier United States (1), the label is in the process of review and revision by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Making it a more effective way to deliver weight-related dietary messages is a priority goal of the Obesity Working Group (2) appointed by FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan in 2004 (1).

Improvements in nutrition labeling could make small but important contributions toward creating a point-of-purchase environment more conducive to the selection of healthy foods (3). According to survey data, 83% of consumers always or sometimes checked the Nutrition Facts panel when buying foods for the first time. Nearly one-half did so to purchase healthy foods for their families; close to one-quarter did so to lose weight (4).

Although reported use of nutrition labels is high, more objective measures indicate that actual use of nutrition labeling during food purchases may be far lower (3). Survey findings indicate that consumers are very aware of information on nutrition labels. However, the awareness does not necessarily translate into use (4). Surveys also reveal considerable confusion over conflicting dietary advice from the media and other sources and frequent misunderstanding of the meaning of the daily value column that shows how each nutrient fits into a healthy diet (2, 5-7) .

Nutrition labels around the world face challenges similar to those seen in the United States. Data indicate that in Europeans, the ability to accurately interpret the nutrition label declines as the complexity of the task increases (3). Baines and Lata (8) report that Australian consumers might have difficulties assessing the overall nutrient composition of a food and judging the relative differences between nutrients.

For consumers to benefit from food labeling provisions, they need to be able to understand and interpret the food labeling information. The addition of interpretational aids like verbal descriptors and recommended reference values has been found to help European shoppers compare products and assess the nutrient contributions of specific foods to the overall diet (3). In the United States and Canada, the scientific basis for future nutrition labels (9) has been updated to help consumers compare products more easily and make informed food choices.

Current Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) present the latest scientific information on how much of which nutrients people need to consume regularly to maintain good health and prevent chronic disease. Developed since the mid-1990s by US and Canadian nutritional scientists, the DRIs refer collectively to 4 categories of nutrient-based dietary reference values based on a thorough review of the most recent laboratory and clinical evidence.

The Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) is the intake level that best represents the distribution of nutrient requirements in a population. The EAR for a nutrient is used as the basis for developing a Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for that nutrient. When scientific evidence is insufficient to estimate an EAR, and therefore set an RDA, Adequate Intakes (AIs) are formulated on the basis of diets known to be nutritionally adequate for the US and Canadian populations. Another set of values called Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (ULs) identifies the highest average daily intake likely to pose no risk of adverse health effects. On the whole, DRIs are designed for individuals in the United States and Canada who are healthy and free of specific diseases or conditions that may alter their nutritional requirements.

The DRI's offer 10 guiding principles (9) for incorporating current scientific information into nutrition labeling and 6 principles to guide "discretionary fortification," which is the voluntary addition of nutrients to food by manufacturers. Recommended principles cover topics ranging from the designated order of the 13 nutrients (eg, total fat, sodium, vitamin A) that must currently be listed in Nutrition Facts panels to how, whenever possible, percentage Daily Values for each nutrient should be based on population-weighted EARs or AIs.

Assumptions, rationales, and recommendations for using the DRIs as the basis for food label reference values are complex and, in some cases, controversial. Scientists, food manufacturers, and policymakers face many technical challenges in the assessment and use of the proposed DRI approach. We organized this symposium to provide a forum for critical thinking and discussion of the many issues involved in updating the nutrition label.

One of our objectives was to offer a balanced analysis of topics related to the use of DRIs in food labeling. Another was to bridge the gap between a wealth of knowledge in nutrition science and a lack of solid scientific evidence on issues of food labeling and the obesity epidemic. Toward those ends, we brought together experts with diverse viewpoints and insights on DRIs and food labels and their impact on government, science, food processing, and consumer behavior. In doing so, we hoped to spark debate, advance public health, and promote a synergy of energy in the fight against obesity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Rita Buckley for editorial assistance in the preparation of the supplement manuscripts.

VF and GM were responsible for the conception, research, and design of this article. Both authors contributed to its drafting and revision and vouch for its contents. The authors had no conflicts of interest to report.

REFERENCES