.

Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label:
Proposed Rules

Agata Dabrowska
Analyst in Health Policy
September 23, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43733

c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

Summary
High rates of obesity and chronic diseases have prompted federal, state, and local initiatives such
as exercise promotion, nutrition education, and food labeling. Nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults are
overweight or obese, suggesting that consumers need to be more aware of their calorie intake.
Labeling of the nutritional content of foods has been recommended by researchers and policy
makers as a tool to address the obesity epidemic.
National survey data indicate that the frequency of food label use among consumers has increased
in the past decade; however, despite widespread use, certain elements of the Nutrition Facts label
are outdated and confusing to consumers. Consumer research highlights the importance of salient
and easy-to-understand nutrition information. The purpose of the Nutrition Facts label as a public
health tool is to provide consumers with nutrition information that may help them make more
informed food choices. Mandating declaration of certain nutrition information on the label may
also prompt food manufacturers to reformulate products to make them healthier and more
attractive to consumers. Increasing awareness about the nutritional content of various foods may
promote healthier eating behaviors among consumers, resulting in lower calorie intake and, over
time, decreasing rates of overweight and obesity.
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) of 1938 authorizes the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to regulate labeling of most food products other than meat and poultry. The
Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990 amended the FFDCA to require that most
foods, with the exception of meat and poultry, bear nutrition content labels. Since its introduction
in 1993, the Nutrition Facts label has undergone few changes, while nutrition science and public
health research have changed significantly.
To ensure that the Nutrition Facts label remains scientifically valid and helpful to consumers, the
FDA is proposing to update the label. In March 2014, FDA published two proposed rules that
would amend previous labeling regulations. The first rule addresses which nutrients must be
included on the label, the recommended intake of these nutrients, and the format in which the
information is to be displayed. More specifically, the proposed changes include but are not
limited to
• required information about “added sugars,”
• removal of “Calories from Fat,”
• required declaration of potassium and vitamin D,
• updated Daily Values for certain nutrients, and
• changed label design.
The second rule proposes to change serving sizes to more accurately reflect actual food
consumption behavior in the United States. The comment period on the proposed rules ended on
August 2, 2014, and the FDA is currently finalizing the rules.
The estimated annual health care costs of obesity-related illness are $190.2 billion, or almost 21%
of annual medical spending in the United States. Congress and the Obama Administration have
shown a strong interest in developing policies to reverse the trend of rising obesity rates. The
Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (P.L. 111-296) addresses several nutrition-related concerns, and
Section 4205 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, P.L. 111-148, as amended)
Congressional Research Service
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

required FDA to promulgate regulations for labeling of foods sold in some chain restaurants and
vending machines (see CRS Report R42825, Nutrition Labeling of Restaurant Menus). Congress,
consumers, food industry representatives, and federal regulators all have a stake in nutrition
labeling. This report provides a brief overview of the proposed changes to the Nutrition Facts
label, as well as the public health significance of these changes.


Congressional Research Service
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Background on Obesity and Nutrient Intake ................................................................................... 3
FDA Authority to Regulate Nutrition Labeling ............................................................................... 4
Proposed Rules ................................................................................................................................ 5
Selected Aspects of Proposed Rule 1 ........................................................................................ 6
Require Information About “Added Sugars” ...................................................................... 6
Remove “Calories from Fat” ............................................................................................... 7
Require Declaration of Potassium and Vitamin D, Permit Vitamins A and C ..................... 8
Update Reference Values for Certain Nutrients ................................................................ 10
Update Units of Measure ................................................................................................... 13
Update Labeling of Foods for Infants, Young Children, and Pregnant or Lactating
Women ........................................................................................................................... 15
Changes to Label Design ................................................................................................... 16
Selected Aspects of Proposed Rule 2 ...................................................................................... 18
Changes to the RACCs ...................................................................................................... 18
Changes to Single-Serving Sizes ....................................................................................... 19
Use of Dual Column Labeling .......................................................................................... 19
Compliance, Costs, and Considerations ........................................................................................ 21
Compliance Timeframes .......................................................................................................... 21
Costs and Benefits ................................................................................................................... 21
Considerations ......................................................................................................................... 22

Figures
Figure 1. Basic Format of the Nutrition Label ................................................................................. 2
Figure 2. Label Format .................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 3. Dual Column Format ...................................................................................................... 20

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 23

Congressional Research Service
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

Introduction
Nutrition labeling of foods first became a topic of discussion at the 1969 White House
Conference on Food, Nutrition and Health.1 Various recommendations intended to combat hunger
in America were proposed, including providing nutrition information on food labels to inform
consumers about the nutrient content of the food they were eating. In the 1970s, a voluntary
nutrition labeling program was established by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)2 and the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)3 under their respective statutes; however, the
nutrition label formats slightly differed between the two agencies, making comparisons among
food products difficult. Despite some interagency consideration of whether the nutrition labels
needed to be updated, actions on any food labeling reform stalled. In 1988, the Surgeon General’s
report on Nutrition and Health4 was published, citing mounting evidence that dietary changes
could reduce the incidence of certain chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.
In 1989, the launch of an Institute of Medicine (IOM) study provided an assessment of the
implications of nutrition and health knowledge for food labeling, and laid out a roadmap for
modifying ingredient and nutrition labeling policy.5 That same year, the Nutrition Labeling and
Education Act (NLEA) was introduced, and then signed into law on November 8, 1990 (P.L. 105-
535). The Act granted FDA explicit authority to require nutrition labeling on most food packages
and included provisions addressing nutrition labeling regulations, nutrient content and health
claims, and uniform nutrition labeling. In 1992, FDA proposed a format for nutrition labeling,
which is still being used today (see Figure 1).


1 White House Conference on Food, Nutrition and Health, Final Report, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970, p.
341.
2 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Food and Drug Administration, Regulation for the Enforcement
of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, Federal Register, vol. 38, no.
13, Jan. 19, 1973, pp. 2124-2137 and no. 49, Mar. 14, 1973, pp. 6950-6964.
3 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, FSIS Standards and Labeling Policy Book,
1986, p.172.
4 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, The Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition
and Health
, DHHS (PHS) Pub. No 88-50210, 1988, p. 727.
5 Institute of Medicine, Nutrition Labeling: Issues and Directions for 1990s, Donna V. Porter and Robert O. Earl, eds.
National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1990, p. 355.
Congressional Research Service
1
c11173008


.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

Figure 1. Basic Format of the Nutrition Label

Source: 21 C.F.R. 101.9(d)(12).
Since the implementation of the NLEA, consumers have become increasingly more aware of the
Nutrition Facts label. National survey data indicates that the frequency of food label use among
consumers has increased in the past decade. The FDA’s Health and Diet Surveys found that the
percentage of consumers reporting that they “often” read a food label the first time they purchase
a food product rose from 44% in 2002 to 54% in 2008.6, 7, 8 The National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES)9 reported a similar increase, with the percentage of working age

6 Food and Drug Administration, 2002 Health and Diet Survey: Topline Frequency Report. November 2007.
http:www.fda.gov/food/foodscienceresearch/consumerbehaviorresearch/ucm202786.htm.
7 Food and Drug Administration, Health and Diet Survey: Dietary Guidelines Supplement-Report Findings
(2004&2005),
January 2008, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/
ConsumerResearch/UCM080413.pdf.
8 Food and Drug Administration, 2008 Health and Diet Survey: Topline Frequencies, January 1, 2010.
http://www.fda.gov/food/foodscienceresearch/consumerbehaviorresearch/ucm193895.htm.
9 The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is a program conducted as a series of surveys
focusing on various population groups or health topics. NHANES is administered by the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC), and its findings are used to determine the prevalence of major diseases and risk factors for
diseases. NHANES data is also used to assess nutritional status and its association with health and disease.
Congressional Research Service
2
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

adults that reported using the Nutrition Facts label “always” or “most of the time” when shopping
for food increased to 42% in 2009-2010 from 34% in 2007-2008. Among older adults the
percentage increased to 57% from 51%.10
However, consumer research data also suggests that despite reported widespread use of food
labels, certain elements of the Nutrition Facts label may need improvement. Among these
elements causing confusion is the percent daily value (%DV) declaration, with the majority of
consumers being unable to identify what that number means.11
The FDA is proposing to revise the Nutrition Facts label to both provide updated nutrition
information and improve how that nutrition information is presented to consumers. The proposed
changes reflect current public health concerns in the United States (i.e., growing rates of obesity
and chronic disease) and correspond to new information on consumer behavior and consumption
patterns.
This report describes the FDA’s two proposed rules to update the Nutrition Facts label in order to
provide consumers with more up-to-date nutrition information. The first rule reflects the changes
in nutrition science and public health research, specifically addressing modifications to which
nutrients must be listed on the label, as well as an updated design to display the new information.
The second rule addresses updates to serving size and labeling requirements for specific package
sizes. This report also discusses some of the concerns raised by industry, policy makers, and the
public.
Background on Obesity and Nutrient Intake
The prevalence of obesity in the United States remains high and although there have been no
significant changes in obesity between 2003-2004 and 2011-2012, one-third of adults and 17% of
children are still obese.12 Chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer, and stroke, which are
associated with obesity, are the leading causes of death and disability in the United States.13 The
2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) cite the role of physical inactivity and calorie
overconsumption as the primary factors contributing to the increased prevalence of overweight
and obesity.14 The DGA are evidence-based recommendations issued jointly by the USDA and
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) every five years. These recommendations are
created by a committee of nationally recognized experts in the field of human nutrition and

10 J Todd, “Changes in Eating Patterns and Diet Quality Among Working-Age Adults, 2005-10, EER-161”,
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; January 2014.
11 L Levy, R Patterson, A Kristal, et al., “How Well Do Consumers Understand Percentage Daily Value on Food
Labels?” American Journal of Health Promotion: AJHP, vol. 14, no. 3, (Jan-Feb 2000), pp. 157-160.
12 C Ogden, M Carroll, and B Kit, et al., “Prevalence of Childhood and Adult Obesity in the United States, 2011-2012,”
JAMA, vol. 311, no. 8 (2014), pp. 806-814.
13 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Chronic Diseases and Health Promotion, http://www.cdc.gov/
chronicdisease/overview/index.htm.
14 U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010 Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, 2010,
7th Ed., Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm.
Congressional Research Service
3
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

chronic disease prevention, and they provide the basis for federal food and nutrition policy, as
well as nutrition education initiatives.15
Research suggests that levels of physical activity have decreased among Americans in the past 20
years. NHANES data indicates that the number of U.S. adult women who reported no physical
activity increased from 19.1% (NHANES-III, 1988-1994) to 51.7% (NHANES, 2009-2010). For
adult men, the number increased from 11.4% to 43.5%.16 Studies also show that the number of
calories consumed by individuals in the United States has increased. According to NHANES data,
the calorie intake of Americans increased from an average of 1,875 calories per day in 1977-1978
to 2,067 per day in 2005-2008, an increase of 10.2%.17 Research also indicates that consumers
often miscalculate the number of calories and the nutrition content of food products that contain
multiple servings per container but are usually consumed in one sitting.18, 19
Despite growing obesity rates and caloric overconsumption, nutrient deficiencies are still
prevalent in many subpopulations. According to the 2010 DGA, dietary intakes of nutrients such
as potassium, dietary fiber, calcium, and vitamin D are low enough to be of public health concern
for children and adults. Less than 2% of American adults get the recommended amount of
potassium,20 and the rate of nutrient deficiencies in the general U.S. population ranges from less
than 1% for folate, vitamin A, and vitamin E to about 10% for vitamin B6, iron, and vitamin D.
The highest rates of vitamin D deficiency (31%) occur in non-Hispanic blacks. The CDC also
reports higher rates of iron deficiency in Mexican-American children aged one to five years
(11%) and in non-Hispanic black (16%) and Mexican-American women (13%) of childbearing
age when compared to other race/ethnic groups.21
FDA Authority to Regulate Nutrition Labeling
The 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)22 authorized the Food and Drug
Administration to regulate food products and their ingredients. In 1990, Congress passed the
Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, which amended the FFDCA to require that all foods, with

15 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Questions and Answers on the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for
Americans
, http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/q-and-a.asp#RP1.
16 U Ladabaum, A Mannalithara, and P Myer, et al., “Obesity, Abdominal Obesity, Physical Activity, and Caloric
Intake in US Adults: 1988 to 2010,” The American Journal of Medicine, vol. 127, no. 8 (August 2014), pp. 717-727.
17 B Lin and R Morrison, “Food and Nutrition Intake Data: Taking a look at the Nutritional Quality of Foods Eaten at
Home and Away from Home,” Amber Waves, Economic Research Service, vol. 10, no. 2 (June 2012).
18 For example, on the Nutrition Facts label for a pint of ice cream, nutrition information is provided for one serving of
the ice cream. There are 4 servings in the whole pint. A pint of ice cream may be consumed in one sitting or multiple
sittings but if consumed in one sitting, consumers may not realize that the nutrition information on the label is only for
a quarter of the pint. If the entire pint is consumed in one sitting, the consumer would need to multiply all of the values
on the Nutrition Facts label by 4 to have the nutrition information for the entire pint.
19 A Lando and S Lo, “Single-Larger-Portion-Size and Dual-Column Nutrition Labeling May Help Consumers Make
More Healthful Food Choices,” Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, vol. 113, no. 2 (February 2013), pp.
241-250.
20 M Cogswell, A Carriquiry, and J Gunn, et al., “Sodium and Potassium Intakes among US Adults: NHANES 2003-
2008,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 96, no. 3 (September 2012), pp. 647-657.
21 U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Second National Report on Biochemical Indicators of Diet and
Nutrition in the U.S. Population 2012.” Atlanta (GA): National Center for Environmental Health; April 2012.
22 P.L. 75-717, as amended.
Congressional Research Service
4
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

certain exceptions, bear nutritional content labels.23 The NLEA gave FDA explicit authority to
require nutrition labeling and control health claims on food labels.
In 1991, FDA issued more than 20 proposals to implement the NLEA and in 1992, FDA issued
several final regulations which became effective in 1993.24 The published regulations addressed
(1) the declaration of nutrients on food labeling, mandatory and voluntary, as well as the format
for declaration; (2) label reference values for declaring the nutrient content of a food; (3) two
types of reference values, Reference Daily Intakes (RDIs) and Daily Reference Values (DRVs),
which are used to declare nutrient contents as percent Daily Values (DVs) on the Nutrition Facts
label; (4) exemptions for specified products; and (5) circumstances for a simplified form of
nutrition labeling.25
The NLEA also authorized the FDA to “establish regulations defining serving size or other unit of
measure.”26 To establish serving sizes, FDA consulted the Nationwide Food Consumption
Surveys (1977-1978 and 1987-1988) and considered three statistical estimates (i.e., mean,
median, and mode) for each food product category. Using this methodology, the FDA established
reference amounts customarily consumed (RACCs)27 and provided a process for manufacturers to
derive serving sizes from the RACCs.28, 29
Since FDA’s issuance of the 1992 regulations, the Nutrition Facts label has undergone few
changes. The recommended daily values (DVs) were last updated in 1995 (60 FR 67164;
December 28, 1995) and the label itself was modified in 2003 when the FDA amended the
labeling regulations to require the declaration of trans-fatty acids. (68 FR 41434; July 11, 2003).
Proposed Rules
In response to new scientific information and a public health profile characterized by growing
rates of obesity and chronic disease, the FDA is proposing two rules to revise the 1993 labeling
regulations. The Nutrition Facts label as a public health tool serves to provide consumers with
nutrition information that may help them make more informed food choices. Mandating
declaration of certain nutrition information on the label may also prompt food manufacturers to
reformulate products to make them healthier and more attractive to consumers.

23 P.L. 101-535, 104 Stat. 2353.
24 F Scarbrough, “Food Labeling,” in Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, ed. Catharine Ross, Benjamin
Caballero, Robert Cousins, Katherine Tucker, Thomas Ziegler, 11th ed. (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2014), pp.
1490-1492.
25 Food and Drug Administration, “Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Label; Proposed
Rule,” 79 Federal Register, 11883 March 3, 2014.
26 P.L. 101-535, §2(b)(1)(B); 21 U.S.C. §343 note.
27 Reference amounts customarily consumed (RACCs) reflect the amount of food or drink that would typically be
consumed per eating occasion. RACCs are calculated for persons four years of age or older.
28 21 C.F.R. §101.9(b)(1).) defines “serving size” to refer to the amount of food customarily consumed per eating
occasion by persons four years of age or older, which is expressed in a common household measure that is appropriate
to the food.
29 F Scarbrough, “Chapter 107: Food Labeling,” in Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, ed. Catharine Ross,
Benjamin Caballero, Robert Cousins, Katherine Tucker, Thomas Ziegler, 11th ed. (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins,
2014), pp. 1490-1492.
Congressional Research Service
5
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

For the purpose of this report, the rule “Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement
Facts Label”30 will be referred to as the first rule or rule 1. The rule “Serving Sizes of Foods that
can Reasonably be Consumed at One-Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling, Updating,
Modifying, and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed; Serving Size
for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendments”31 will be referred to as the second rule or rule 2.
Selected Aspects of Proposed Rule 132
The following sections present the changes proposed as part of the first rule. These updates
specifically address changes to the label’s required nutrients and the label’s design. While some
changes seem relatively non-controversial, others have generated debate. This section discusses
major changes and flags stakeholder concerns.
Require Information About “Added Sugars”
The first proposed rule includes a provision mandating an “added sugars” line on the Nutrition
Facts label. “Sugars” are defined as the number of grams of sugar in a serving of a food item.
This includes the sum of all monosaccharides (i.e., glucose, fructose, galactose) and disaccharides
(i.e., sucrose, lactose, and maltose).33 This designation includes both those sugars naturally
occurring in foods such as fruit (fructose) or milk products (lactose), as well as those added
during the production process to items such as soda or other sweetened beverages, cereals, and
candy. Under current regulations, manufacturers are required to declare on the label the amount of
sugar in a food item. However, manufacturers do not have to differentiate between naturally
occurring sugar and added sugar. Artificial sweeteners and sugar alcohols that are added to a food
are not included in the “Sugars” designation; they are required to be labeled in the ingredients
statement but not on the Nutrition Facts label itself.
A key recommendation of the 2010 DGA is to reduce the intake of calories from added sugars, as
studies show that diets high in added sugars can decrease the intake of nutrient-rich foods and
increase overall calorie intake.34 The American Heart Association estimates that Americans
consumed an average of more than 22 teaspoons of added sugar per day from 2001 to 2004.35 The

30 Food and Drug Administration, “Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Label; Proposed
Rule,” 79 Federal Register 11883, March 3, 2014.
31 Food and Drug Administration, “Serving Sizes of Foods that can Reasonably be Consumed at One-Eating Occasion;
Dual-Column Labeling; Updating, Modifying, and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed;
Serving Size for Breath Mints, and Technical Amendments; Proposed Rule,” 79 Federal Register, 11990, March 3,
2014.
32 Please note that the recordkeeping requirements for compliance are not discussed in this report. In brief, certain
circumstances require manufacturers to make and keep records sufficient to verify the label declaration for the amount
of added sugars, dietary fiber, soluble fiber, insoluble fiber, vitamin E, and folate/folic acid in products. The
manufacturer would then have to provide these records upon request by FDA.
33 21 C.F.R. §101.9 (c)(6)(ii).
34 U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2010 Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, 2010,
7th Ed., Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm.
35 R Johnson, L Appel, and M Brands, et al., “Dietary Sugars Intake and Cardiovascular Health: A Scientific Statement
From the American Heart Association.” Circulation, vol. 120, no. 11 (September 2009), pp. 1011-1020.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/120/11/1011.full.
Congressional Research Service
6
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

average American consumes 16% of their total daily calories from added sugars,36 and added
sugars contribute extra calories to a diet, which may lead to weight gain and obesity.37 A
declaration of added sugars on the Nutrition Facts label would let consumers know how much
sugar has been added to the product beyond the naturally occurring sweetener, and requiring
manufacturers to disclose the amount of added sugar in a food item may also change how much
sweetener they add to their products.
Some call FDA’s proposal a good start but say more needs to be done. The inclusion of the added
sugars label on the Nutrition Facts panel has received support from several public health and
nutrition stakeholders.38 However, some groups also recommend that FDA establish a
recommended daily value for sugar (see “Update Reference Values for Certain Nutrients”), which
would give consumers a daily target or upper limit. Groups have also suggested that it may be
appropriate to use a more common metric of sugar such as the number of teaspoons as opposed to
grams.39
The food industry, on the other hand, is divided on the proposed mandatory “added sugars”
declaration. Some groups are questioning the FDA’s statutory authority under the FFDCA, stating
that the agency may only require the labeling of sugar if it will help consumers maintain healthy
dietary practices.40 Members of certain food industry groups also argue that there is a lack of
evidence to justify a label that distinguishes between naturally occurring and added sugars
because sugar is sugar.41 Other industry groups support the proposed added sugars declaration,
but oppose the establishment of a daily value, asserting there is insufficient evidence to establish
one.42
Remove “Calories from Fat”
The second provision of the first rule proposes to remove “Calories from Fat” from the Nutrition
Facts label. Currently, manufacturers are required to declare the amounts of “Total Fat,” “Calories
from Fat, “Saturated Fat,” and “Trans fat.” However, evidence suggests that the type of fat is
more important than total fat intake in regard to chronic disease risk.43

36 R Ervin, B Kit, and M Carroll, et al., “Consumption of added sugar among U.S. children and adolescents, 2005–
2008,” NCHS data brief, no 87. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2012.
37 Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies, “Examination of Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems
and Symbols: Phase I Report”, Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2010.
38 Letter from Elliott M. Antman, President, American Heart Association, to Food and Drug Administration, July 22,
2014. Letter from Shereen Arent, Executive Vice President Government Affairs & Advocacy, American Diabetes
Association, to Philip Spiller, Acting Director, Center for Food and Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug
Administration, June 4, 2014. Letter from Environmental Working Group, to Food and Drug Administration, June 30,
2014.
39 Letter from Elliot M. Antman, President, American Heart Association, to Food and Drug Administration, July 22,
2014.
40 See http://insidehealthpolicy.com/wlf-gma-added-sugar-req-nutrition-labels-violates-first-amendment.
41 See http://insidehealthpolicy.com/wlf-gma-added-sugar-req-nutrition-labels-violates-first-amendment.
42 Letter from Timothy A. Morck, Vice President, Scientific and Regulatory Affairs, Nestle, to Food and Drug
Administration, August 1, 2014, http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2012-N-1210-0481.
43 Food and Drug Administration, “Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Label; Proposed
Rule,” 79 Federal Register 11891, March 3, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
7
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

Dietary fats are categorized as saturated, trans,44 monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fatty
acids, with most American consuming too much saturated and trans fat and not enough
unsaturated fat.45 In general, animal sources tend to provide a greater proportion of saturated fat,
and plant sources tend to provide more of the mono- and polyunsaturated fats. Over the years,
evidence has suggested that a higher intake of saturated fat is associated with greater risk of
cardiovascular disease, and recommendations have been to reduce intake of saturated fats and
replace them with monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Specifically, the DGA
recommend that Americans consume less than 10% of calories from saturated fat, and lowering
that number to 7% of calories may further reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.46 However, it
is worth noting that some recent studies have found evidence against the association between
saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease risk.47 Meanwhile, the evidence against trans fat
intake remains strong, with studies reporting an strong association between trans fatty acid intake
and cardiovascular disease risk. Furthermore, an IOM review suggests there is insufficient
evidence to set a level of intake that would pose no adverse health effects and at this time,48 the
recommendation is for Americans to keep their intake of trans fatty acids as low as possible.49
FDA consumer research also indicates that removal of the declaration of “Calories from Fat” has
no effect on consumers’ ability to judge the healthfulness of a product. Thus, FDA would
continue to require “Total Fat,” “Saturated Fat,” and “Trans Fat” on the label, but not “Calories
from Fat.” No substantive comments for or against this proposal have been identified.
Require Declaration of Potassium and Vitamin D, Permit Vitamins A and C
As part of the first rule, FDA is also proposing to update the nutrients that are required to be listed
on the Nutrition Facts label. The current Nutrition Facts label regulations mandate the declaration
of vitamins A and C, as well as calcium and iron. FDA states that these four nutrients were
considered to be “of public health significance” based on their inadequate intakes among specific
segments of the U.S. population at the time the regulations were established.50

44 Trans fatty acids are a type of unsaturated fat but they are structurally different from mono and polyunsaturated fats.
45 U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010 Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, 2010,
7th Ed., Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm.
46 U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2010 Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, 2010,
7th Ed., Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm.
47 R Chowdhury, S Warnakula, and S Kunustor, et al., “Association of Dietary, Circulating, and Supplement Fatty
Acids with Coronary Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 160, no. 6
(2014), pp. 398-406.
48 Institute of Medicine (IOM), “Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids,
Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients), Chapter 8: Dietary Fats: Total Fat and Fatty Acids”,
Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2002.
49 U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2010 Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, 2010,
7th Ed., Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm.
50 Food and Drug Administration, “Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Label; Proposed
Rule,” 79 Federal Register 11918, March 3, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
8
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

However, more recent data has informed the FDA proposal to update the list of vitamins and
minerals that must be included on the Nutrition Facts label.51, 52 To determine whether a non-
statutory53 nutrient should be a mandatory or voluntary declaration, two factors are considered:
existence of quantitative intake recommendations and public health significance.54 Based on
consideration of these factors, the FDA is proposing to require the declaration of potassium and
vitamin D, and to permit, rather than require, the declaration of vitamins A and C. Calcium and
iron continue to be considered nutrients of public health significance so there will be no change to
their mandatory labeling.
FDA analysis demonstrates that while American consumers get adequate amounts of vitamins A
and C, potassium and vitamin D have been identified as nutrients of concern for certain
subpopulations. Vitamin D plays an important role in bone health and NHANES biomarker
data,55 as well as the high prevalence of osteoporosis and osteopenia among the U.S. population,56
suggest inadequate dietary intake. Potassium is also considered a nutrient of public health
significance as it plays an important role in blood pressure regulation, and data indicates both a
low likelihood of potassium adequacy and a high prevalence of hypertension in the U.S.
population.57
The FDA proposal to include vitamin D on the list of mandatory nutrients has generated some
debate. Vitamin D is a hormone synthesized by the body in response to sunlight exposure, and
some experts question the efficacy of orally consumed vitamin D.58 There is also concern that
mandating vitamin D disclosure will encourage mass fortification, as vitamin D is naturally found
in few foods. This also raises questions about the potential for overconsumption and toxicity, as
vitamin D is a fat-soluble hormone that can be stored in fat tissue long-term.59

51 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2005) “Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, 2005”.
6th Edition, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
52 U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010 “Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, 2010”,
7th Ed., Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm.
53 For purposes of the proposed rule, FDA considers the nutrients that are not statutorily required but subject to FDA
discretion under §403(q)(2)(A) of the FFDCA as “non-statutory nutrients” to distinguish from those nutrients that are
explicitly required by the statute.
54 Public heath significance refers to two elements: (1) whether there is evidence of a relationship between the nutrient
and a chronic disease, health-related condition, or health-related physiological endpoint and (2) whether there is
evidence of a problem with the intake of a nutrient and evidence of the prevalence of the chronic disease related to it.
55 Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies, “Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D”,
Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.
56 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Bone Health and Osteoporosis: A Report of the Surgeon General”,
October 14, 2004.
57 Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies, “Dietary Reference Intakes for Water, Potassium, Sodium,
Chloride, and Sulfate, Chapter 5: Potassium”, Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2005. pp. 186-268. U.S.
Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010 “Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, 2010”,
7th Ed., Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm.
58 Letter from Marion Nestle, Professor, New York University, to Food and Drug Administration, July 17, 2014.
59 G Jones, “Chapter 18: Vitamin D,” in Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, ed. A. Catharine Ross, Benjamin
Caballero, Robert Cousins, Katherine Tucker, Thomas Ziegler, 11th ed. (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2014), pp.
279-291.
Congressional Research Service
9
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

In addition, there is also concern about the proposal to permit rather than require declaration of
vitamins A and C. Although overt deficiency of these two nutrients is not common among the
U.S. population, inadequate intake of these nutrients remains a concern.60
Update Reference Values for Certain Nutrients
The FDA is also proposing to update the recommended Daily Values (DVs) for certain nutrients
to help consumers understand how these nutrients fit into the context of a daily diet.61 The DV or
%DV indicates to consumers how much of the recommended intake of a nutrient is provided by a
certain food. The text box below explains how DVs are determined.
Reference Values
There are two sets of reference values for reporting nutrients on the Nutrition Facts label: Daily Reference Values
(DRVs) and Reference Daily Intakes (RDIs). To limit consumer confusion, a single term, Daily Value (DV), is used to
designate both the DRVs and the RDIs.
Daily Reference Values (DRVs) were developed to inform consumers about the maximum intake of a nutrient
and are provided for total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, total carbohydrates, dietary fiber, sodium, and protein; DRVs
are established for adults and children four years and older.
Reference Daily Intakes (RDIs) were developed to help consumers meet a nutrient requirement or daily
minimum. RDIs are provided for vitamins and minerals, as wel as for protein for children under the age of four and
pregnant and lactating women.
The DRVs and RDIs are determined using Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs):
The Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) is the basis for the RDI. The RDAs are intake goals referring to the
average daily nutrient intake level sufficient to meet the nutrient requirement of nearly al (97%-98%) individuals in a
particular life stage and gender group. The RDA is set using the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR).
The Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) is the average daily nutrient intake level that is estimated to meet
the requirements of half of the healthy individuals in a particular life stage and gender group.
An Adequate Intake (AI) is established when there is insufficient evidence to develop an RDA and is set at a level
assumed to ensure nutritional adequacy. It is used to establish the RDI in the absence of an RDA.
The Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) is the maximum daily intake that is unlikely to cause adverse health
effects. The UL is not intended to be a recommended level of intake.
Sources: C Lewis and L Meyers, “Chapter 106: Dietary Reference Intakes," in Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease,
ed. A. Catharine Ross, Benjamin Caballero, Robert Cousins, Katherine Tucker, Thomas Ziegler, 11th ed. (Lippincott
Wil iams & Wilkins, 2014), pp. 1480-1489. Food and Drug Administration, “Guidance for Industry: A Food Labeling
Guide (14. Appendix F: Calculate the Percent Daily Value for the Appropriate Nutrients), January 2013.
Since the implementation of the NLEA, new reports from the IOM and the 2010 DGA have
updated the quantitative intake recommendations of certain nutrients. The FDA is proposing to
update the reference values used in the declaration of %DV on the Nutrition Facts label so that it
is consistent with the new data. These updated reference values have been proposed for several
nutrients including sodium, dietary fiber, and potassium, which are required to be declared on the

60 Letter from Simin N. Meydani, D.V.M., Ph.D., American Society for Nutrition President, to Food and Drug
Administration, July 25, 2014.
61 Food and Drug Administration, “Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Label; Proposed
Rule,” 79 Federal Register 11879, March 3, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
10
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

label, as well as vitamin K, chloride, choline, and vitamin B12, which are permitted62 but not
required to be on the label.
Reduce Sodium Limits
The FDA is proposing to reduce the Daily Value (DV) for sodium. Regulations under the NLEA
established the DRV for sodium as 2,400 mg; however, more recent scientific literature and
recommendations from the 2005 and 2010 DGA highlight the need to reconsider this value.63, 64
In accord with the 2005 and 2010 DGA recommendations, FDA is proposing to reduce the DRV
to 2,300 mg. This value is consistent with a 2013 IOM report on sodium intake, which established
the Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) of sodium to be 2,300 mg.65 The IOM report determined
that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that lowering sodium intakes below 2,300 mg will
increase or decrease the risk of cardiovascular disease outcomes or all-cause mortality in the
general U.S. population. Meanwhile, some public health groups propose that 2,300 mg is still too
high and that 1,500 mg would be a more appropriate target level for the general population.66, 67
Increase Dietary Fiber Recommendations
The FDA is also proposing to increase the DRV for dietary fiber intake. Currently, the DRV for
dietary fiber is 25 grams. In 2002, an IOM report set an Adequate Intake (AI) for total fiber of 14
grams per 1,000 calories for total fiber.68 Based on this report, FDA is proposing to increase the
DRV for dietary fiber to 28 grams per day, using a reference calorie intake of 2,000 calories per
day. The declaration of dietary fiber will continue to be mandatory, but a new definition of dietary
fiber would allow only those forms of dietary fiber that the FDA has determined to be of
“physiological benefit” to human health to be included in the amount declared. In the past, food
manufacturers have been permitted to fortify food products with processed fiber.69 However, it
remains unclear whether processed added fiber confers the same health benefits as naturally
occurring sources from fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.70

62 Several essential vitamins and minerals are permitted but do not have to be declared on the Nutrition Facts label:
vitamin E, vitamin K, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, folate, biotin, pantothenic acid, phosphorus,
iodine, magnesium, zinc, selenium, copper, manganese, chromium, molybdenum, and chloride.
63 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2005) “Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, 2005”.
6th Edition, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
64 U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010 “Dietary Guidelines for
Americans, 2010”,
7th Ed., Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm.
65 Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies, Sodium Intake in Populations: Assessment of Evidence,
Washington, DC, 2013, pp. 235-284.
66 Letter from Elliot M. Antman, President, American Heart Association, to Food and Drug Administration, July 22,
2014.
67 Letter from Trust for America’s Health, to Margaret Hamburg, M.D., Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration,
May 23, 2014.
68 Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies. “Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber,
Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (Macronutrients), Chapter 7: Dietary, Functional, and Total
Fiber”, Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2002.
69 Letter from Elliot M. Antman, President, American Heart Association, to Food and Drug Administration, July 22,
2014.
70 U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010 “Dietary Guidelines for
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
11
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

There is some industry concern regarding FDA’s proposal to change the definition of dietary
fiber, as manufacturers may be unclear as to what qualifies as a “physiological benefit."71
Furthermore, some argue that this requirement imposes a pre-authorization72 approach similar to
that required for health claims.73
Increase Potassium
Under current regulations, the DRV for potassium is 3,500 mg. In 2005, IOM established age-
and gender-specific Adequate Intakes (AI s) for potassium based on its beneficial health and
physiologic effects. Because potassium is an essential mineral with available age- and gender-
specific AIs, FDA is proposing to establish an RDI of 4,700 mg based on the AI and in place of
the DRV. Comments have arisen regarding the use of an AI to determine the RDI, particularly if
there is a lack of scientific evidence to establish a Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA), as is
the case with potassium. Some are proposing that if there is insufficient evidence to establish an
RDA, then the current DRV of 3,500 mg should be maintained.74
Establish New Definition for Vitamin K
As for the permitted but not required nutrients, FDA is proposing to set an RDI of 120 mcg for
vitamin K. Currently, there is no specific definition for vitamin K, and the AIs are based on intake
data from NHANES, which specifically represent the intake of vitamin K1 or phylloquinone—the
major form of vitamin K in the diet.75 Foods with the highest phylloquinone content include leafy,
green vegetables such as spinach, kale, and collard greens, as well as fats and oils.76 Because the
established AI for vitamin K is specific to phylloquinone, FDA is proposing to set an RDI of 120
mcg for vitamin K that would pertain only to Vitamin K1. Some comments have been raised
regarding the exclusion of vitamin K2 from nutrition labeling. Other regulatory bodies such as the
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and Health Canada recognize vitamin K2 as contributing

(...continued)
Americans, 2010”, 7th Ed., Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm.
71 Letter from Douglas MacKay, Senior Vice President, and Andrea Wong, Vice President, Scientific & Regulatory
Affairs, Council for Responsible Nutrition, to Food and Drug Administration, August 1, 2014.
72 For the FDA to authorize the use of a health claim, certain criteria must be met. Generally, these health claims must
meet a significant scientific agreement (SSA) standard as determined by the FDA. For more information on the SSA
review process, see U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Guidance for Industry: Evidence-based Review System for the
Scientific Evaluation of Health Claims
, Silver Spring, MD, January 2009, http://www.fda.gov/Food/
GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ucm073332.htm.
73 Letter from Kathryn L. Wiemer, MS, RD, Senior Fellow, General Mills Bell Institute of Health and Nutrition,
August 1, 2014.
74 Letter from Kathryn L. Wiemer, MS, RD, Senior Fellow, General Mills Bell Institute of Health and Nutrition,
August 1, 2014.
75 There are three general form of vitamin K: Phylloquinone, menaquinone, and menadione. The AIs have been
established for phylloquinone which is the major dietary form.
76 J Suttie, “Chapter 20: Vitamin K,” in Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, ed. A. Catharine Ross, Benjamin
Caballero, Robert Cousins, Katherine Tucker, Thomas Ziegler, 11th ed. (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2014), pp.
305-306.
Congressional Research Service
12
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

toward vitamin K adequacy, so some are asking FDA to consider including vitamin K2 in the
declaration of vitamin K.77
Increase Chloride
FDA is also proposing to revise the RDI for chloride to 4,700 mg from the current RDI of 3,400
mg. The RDI for chloride is proportional to the DRV for sodium, as the IOM set AIs and ULs for
chloride on an equimolar basis78 with those of sodium. This is because dietary chloride comes
from sodium, and chloride losses in the body tend to follow sodium. No substantive comments in
opposition of this proposal have been identified.
Establish RDI for Choline
FDA is proposing to set an RDI of 550 mg for choline. Currently, FDA regulations do not
establish a reference value for this nutrient, which is most abundant in foods such as eggs and
liver.79 Based on IOM established age- and gender- specific AIs for choline, FDA is proposing to
establish an RDI. This proposal does not appear to have any substantive concern or opposition.
Reduce Vitamin B12
FDA is proposing to lower the RDI for vitamin B12 from 6 to 2.4 mcg. This value of 2.4 mcg
reflects the RDA established by IOM in 2000. Some concern has been expressed regarding this
proposal. Vitamin B12 is most abundant in animal products including meat, fish, eggs, and milk,
but fortified breakfast cereals are a source as well.80 Concern has been raised that reducing the
RDI may result in lower vitamin B12 fortification which would in turn, lower the amount of
crystalline vitamin B12 in the food and dietary supplement supply.81 This may make it more
difficult for those at risk to achieve adequate intake of this nutrient, particularly vegetarians or
individuals age 50 years and older who already have a reduced capacity to absorb dietary B12.
Update Units of Measure
Vitamins A, D, and E
FDA is proposing to change the units used to declare vitamins A, D and E from International
Units (IUs) to a metric measure. The declaration of vitamin D which will now be mandatory must
appear in micrograms (µg or mcg). Vitamins A and E may be declared voluntarily, but if declared,

77 Letter from Douglas MacKay, Senior Vice President, and Andrea Wong, Vice President, Scientific & Regulatory
Affairs, Council for Responsible Nutrition, to Food and Drug Administration, August 1, 2014.
78 Equimolar refers to substances having an equal number of moles. In chemistry, moles are a unit of measurement used
to express the amount of a substance.
79 S Zeisel, “Chapter 30: Choline,” in Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, ed. A. Catharine Ross, Benjamin
Caballero, Robert Cousins, Katherine Tucker, Thomas Ziegler, 11th ed. (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2014), p. 416.
80 R Carmel, “Chapter 27: Cobalamin (Vitamin B12),” in Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease, ed. A. Catharine
Ross, Benjamin Caballero, Robert Cousins, Katherine Tucker, Thomas Ziegler, 11th ed. (Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins, 2014), pp. 369-386.
81 Letter from Simin N. Meydani, D.V.M., Ph.D., American Society for Nutrition President, to Food and Drug
Administration, July 25, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
13
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

their designated units would be µg Retinol Activity Equivalents (RAE) and milligrams (mg) α-
tocopherol, respectively. No substantive comments opposing this proposal have been identified,
but it has been suggested that education efforts may be necessary to make consumers aware of
these changes.
Folate and Folic Acid
FDA is also proposing to change the units used to declare the amount of total folate on the
Nutrition Facts label. Currently, the RDI for folate is listed in micrograms, and this value
represents both the naturally-occurring food folate, as well as the synthetic folate that has been
added to the food product. In 1992, the United States Public Health Service (USPHS)
recommended that all women capable of becoming pregnant should consume 400 mcg of
synthetic folic acid per day to prevent neural tube defects.82 In 1998, IOM established an RDA of
400 mcg Dietary Folate Equivalents (DFE).83 Although these two values appear to be identical,
they are functionally different. The Dietary Folate Equivalents, as defined by IOM, adjust for the
lower bioavailability of food folate compared with that of synthetic folate.84 Bioavailability refers
to the amount of a substance that is available for use by the target tissue after absorption. The
bioavailability of food folate is almost 50% lower than that of synthetic folate, meaning less of it
is available for use by the body.
Public health stakeholders and manufacturers are concerned that this label change will be
confusing to consumers. Because of the difference in measuring folate in DFEs versus
micrograms, a food product or dietary supplement that stated it contained 100% of the DV of
folate (400 mcg DFE) would not actually contain 100% of the USPHS-recommended level of
folic acid to prevent neural tube defects (400 mcg) because it takes 235 mcg of folic acid to equal
400 mcg DFE.85 FDA adds that consumer education efforts to explain the “equivalents” would be
necessary, but some are still concerned that this change may result in sub-optimal folate intake,
which may impact previous public health efforts to prevent neural tube defects.86
FDA is also proposing to change the terminology used to declare folate on the Nutrition Facts
label. Currently, “folic acid” and “folacin” are synonyms of folate and can be used in declaration.
The proposed rule would eliminate using “folacin” and would require that the term “folate” be
used in labeling of conventional foods, and that the term “folic acid” be used in the labeling of
dietary supplements only. Manufacturers and public health stakeholders are concerned that
removing “folic acid” from the Nutrition Facts label may make it more difficult for women to
recognize which foods contain the recommended 400 mcg of folic acid.87

82 Centers for Disease Control, Recommendations for the use of folic acid to reduce the number of cases of spina bifida
and other neural tube defects, MMWR 1992;41(No. RR-14), http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/
00019479.htm.
83 Institute of Medicine, “Dietary Reference Intakes for Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Vitamin B12,
Pantothenic Acid, Biotin, and Choline”, Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1998.
84 As defined by IOM, mcg DFE= mcg food folate + (1.7x synthetic folic acid).
85 Letter from Annette Dickinson, PhD, Adjunct Professor, University of Minnesota, to Food and Drug Administration,
May 16, 2014.
86 Letter from Emil Wigode, Director of Federal Affairs, March of Dimes, to Margaret Hamburg, Commissioner, Food
and Drug Administration, August 1, 2014.
87 Letter from Annette Dickinson, PhD, Adjunct Professor, University of Minnesota, to Food and Drug Administration,
May 16, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
14
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

Update Labeling of Foods for Infants, Young Children, and Pregnant or
Lactating Women

FDA is reconsidering the labeling requirements of foods, other than infant formula, represented or
purported to be specifically for infants, children under four years of age, and pregnant and
lactating women.
Modifying the Categorization of Children Younger than Four Years of Age
FDA is proposing to modify the current age category of “children less than 4 years” to “infants 7
to 12 months” and “young children 1 through 3 years.” FDA is proposing to change the age
categories so that they are the same as those used by IOM to determine the DRIs.
Mandatory Declaration of Calories and Required Nutrients
FDA is also proposing to require the declaration of calories, total fat, saturated fat, trans fat,
cholesterol, sodium, total carbohydrate, dietary fiber, sugars, and protein on foods represented to
be specifically for infants 7 to 12 months, children one through three years of age, and pregnant
and lactating women. Currently, the labeling requirements for the general population apply to
foods for infants, young children, and pregnant and lactating women, with certain exceptions.
Foods represented as being specifically for infants and children less than four years of age are not
permitted to declare a %DV for total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, potassium, total
carbohydrate, and dietary fiber. Under the proposed rule, FDA would require declarations of
%DV for some of those nutrients, specifically those with established reference values (DRVs or
RDIs). For infants 7 to 12 months, reference values haven been established for total fat, total
carbohydrate, and protein. For children one through three years of age, reference values have
been established for calories, total fat, total carbohydrate, dietary fiber, protein, and sodium. For
pregnant and lactating women, reference values have been established for calories, total fat,
saturated fat, cholesterol, total carbohydrate, sodium, dietary fiber, and protein.
In addition, under current regulations, foods purported to be specifically for infants and children
less than two years of age are not permitted to declare calories from fat, calories from saturated
fat, saturated fat, polyunsaturated fat, monounsaturated fat, and cholesterol. However, consensus
reports provide no recommendations for nutrient guidelines for fatty acids to children younger
than two years of age. There is also no evidence to suggest that infants 7 to 12 months would be
different than children one through three years of age. Thus, under the proposed rule, FDA is
proposing to permit the declaration of calories from saturated fat, and the amount of
polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fat. If finalized, this would be the same as the proposed
voluntary declarations for the general population.
In accord with the nutrients required to be declared on the Nutrition Facts label for the general
population, FDA is also proposing mandatory declaration of added sugar, vitamin D, and
potassium, and permitting rather than requiring declaration of vitamins A and C. In addition,
several essential vitamins and minerals are permitted but do not have to be declared on the
Nutrition facts label: vitamin E, vitamin K, vitamin B6, Vitamin B12, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin,
folate, biotin, pantothenic acid, phosphorus, iodine, magnesium, zinc, selenium, copper,
manganese, chromium, molybdenum, and chloride.
Congressional Research Service
15
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

Comments on the proposed rule have suggested that FDA also establish RDIs for children 4
through 13 years of age, as their nutrition needs may be different than that of adults.88 Others
caution that there is a lack of available empirical research on declaration of saturated fat and
cholesterol for infants and children one through three years of age, recommending FDA not make
any labeling determinations until such research is conducted.89 Public health groups also suggest
FDA work with IOM to establish a DRV for sugar, as sugar consumption among children is
high,90 replacing intake of nutrient-dense foods such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.
Changes to Label Design
In addition to updating the nutrient information on the label, FDA is also proposing the following
changes to the Nutrition Facts label format: (1) Increasing the prominence of calories and serving
size; (2) reversing the order of the “Serving Size” and “Servings Per Container” declarations and
increasing the prominence of “Servings Per Container”; (3) right-justifying the quantitative
amounts declared in “Serving Size Statement”; (4) changing “Amount Per Serving” to “Amount
Per ___” (e.g., Amount Per 1 cup); (5) removing the declaration “Calories from Fat”; (6)
modifying presentation of “%DV”; (7) declaring “Added Sugars”; (8) declaring the absolute
amounts of vitamins and minerals; (9) requiring dual column labeling under specific conditions;
(10) modifying the footnote; (11) requiring that all nutrients be highlighted with some type of
bold or extra bold font; (12) adding a horizontal line below the heading “Nutrition Facts”; and
(13) replacing “Total Carbohydrate” with “Total Carbs.” The changes are displayed in Figure 2.

88 Letter from Douglas MacKay, Senior Vice President, and Andrea Wong, Vice President, Scientific & Regulatory
Affairs, Council for Responsible Nutrition, to Food and Drug Administration, August 1, 2014.
89 Letter from Simin N. Meydani, D.V.M., Ph.D., American Society for Nutrition President, to Food and Drug
Administration, July 25, 2014.
90 Letter from Elliott M. Antman, President, American Heart Association, to Food and Drug Administration, July 22,
2014.
Congressional Research Service
16
c11173008




.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

Figure 2. Label Format
Current vs. Proposed

Source: Food and Drug Administration, “Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Label;
Proposed Rule,” 79 Federal Register, 11974, March 3, 2014.
Notes: For dietary fiber, the “% Daily Value” for the current label (left) is 16%, which is based off the current
DRV of 25g. The “%DV” for the proposed label (right) is based off the proposed DRV of 28g.
Comments have arisen regarding whether 2,000 calories should continue to be used as the reference intake
level. The reference value of 2,000 calories is based on estimated energy requirements (EERs) set by IOM. An
EER is defined as the energy (or calorie) “intake that is predicted to maintain energy balance in a healthy adult of
defined age, gender, weight, height, and level of physical activity consistent with good health” (79 FR 11892).
Thus, the EER varies by characteristics such as gender, weight, height, and level of physical activity, and calorie
needs differ among individuals. The value 2,000 is a reference value rather than a recommendation. The EERs
were also established based on individuals of normal weight, but they may not be relevant to today’s American
population characterized by a high prevalence of obesity and overweight. However, the IOM Labeling
Committee concludes that the 2,000 calorie reference intake level is the best approach, as it would provide
continuity while not encouraging higher calorie consumption.

Congressional Research Service
17
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

Selected Aspects of Proposed Rule 2
The following section presents the changes proposed as part of the rule “Serving Sizes of Foods
that can Reasonably be Consumed at One-Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling, Updating,
Modifying, and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed; Serving Size
for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendments.” This rule specifically addresses modifications to
the serving size requirements to reflect how people eat and drink today. This rule would also
require that certain packaged foods, specifically those that may be consumed in one sitting or
multiple sittings, contain calorie and nutrition information for a single serving, as well as for the
whole package. The comments and concerns regarding the proposed rule are also discussed in
this section.
Changes to the RACCs
As part of the second proposed rule, FDA is proposing to amend the reference amounts
customarily consumed (RACCs). RACCs reflect the amount of food or drink that would typically
be consumed per eating occasion, and they are used to determine serving sizes listed on the
Nutrition Facts label.91 Current serving sizes are based on RACCs that were established in 1993
using 1977-1978 and 1987-1988 food consumption data. However, analysis of more recent data
indicates that the serving sizes people eat and drink today have changed since serving size
requirements were established 20 years ago.92
FDA proposed to revise the previously established RACCs for several food categories including,
but not limited to, beverages, bakery products, desserts, and sugars and sweets. Under the
proposed rule, the RACC for beverages (i.e., “carbonated and noncarbonated beverages, wine
coolers and water” and “coffee or tea, flavored and sweetened”) would be increased from 8 fl. oz.
(240 mL) to 12 fl. oz. (360 mL), and the RACC for bakery products (i.e., “Bagels, toaster
pastries, muffins (excluding English muffins)”) would be increased from 55 g to 100 g to reflect
current consumption patterns.
To determine whether the RACC for a food product should be updated, FDA is proposing to use
food consumption data from NHANES (2003-2008). If the NHANES median consumption data
shows an increase or decrease of at least 25% compared to the RACCs established in 1993, FDA
would update the RACC amount for that food product. In some cases, other factors such as
consistency among products with similar consumption data and similar dietary use or product
characteristics may also be considered.93

91 21 C.F.R. §101.9(b) established procedures for converting RACCs into serving sizes to be displayed on the Nutrition
Facts label.
92 L Young and M Nestle, “Expanding Portion Sizes in the US Marketplace: Implications for Nutrition Counseling,”
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, vol. 103, no. 2 (February 2003), pp. 231-234.
93 Food and Drug Administration, “Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of Foods that can Reasonably be Consumed at One-
Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating, Modifying, and Establishing Certain Reference Amounts
Customarily Consumed; Serving Size for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendments; Proposed Rule,” 79 Federal
Register
11991-11992, March 3, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
18
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

Changes to Single-Serving Sizes
In accord with more recent consumption data, FDA is proposing that a product sold and packaged
individually, containing up to 200% of the RACC, would be considered a single serving. Current
regulations require products packaged and sold individually that contain less than 200% of the
RACC to be labeled as a single-serving container. However, products that have “large” RACCs of
100 g (or 100 mL) or greater, containing between 150% and 200% of the RACC have been
exempt from this requirement and can be labeled as having either one or two servings. These
products have been exempt from the provision because when the RACCs were established, it was
considered unlikely that a person would consume twice the reference amount. However,
consumption patterns have changed and under the proposed rule, this exemption would no longer
be warranted. Thus, to address containers that may be consumed in one sitting, FDA is proposing
to amend the definition of a single-serving container.
Research shows that consumers have trouble accurately determining the calorie and nutrient
content for an entire package when multiple servings are listed. This is particularly true for
packages that may be, and often are, consumed in one sitting. Proponents of the rule suggest that
updating the serving size on the Nutrition Facts label will allow consumers to more easily
calculate the number of calories they are eating. Adjusting the serving size to reflect the amount
consumers typically eat may also make individuals more aware of the nutritional content of what
they are eating without requiring them to measure or calculate totals themselves. However, there
is also concern that increasing the serving size would lead consumers to believe that the larger
portion is the recommended serving size which would in turn result in consumption of bigger
portions and more calories.94 Consumers may not recognize that the serving size is a standard
reference size, as opposed to a recommendation on how much to eat.95
Use of Dual Column Labeling
As part of the second rule, FDA is also proposing to require certain products to include an
additional column on the Nutrition Facts label (see Figure 3). For packages that are larger and
could be consumed in one sitting or multiple sittings, manufacturers would be required to provide
“dual column” labels to indicate both “per serving” and “per package” calorie and nutrient
information. Specifically, FDA is proposing mandatory dual-column labeling for food containers
that contain 200% and up to 400% of the RACC. Products that contain more than 400% of the
RACC would not be required to include a second column, as data shows that products containing
more than four times the RACC are less likely to be consumed in one sitting.96 For example,
under the proposed rule, the new RACC for ice cream would be 1 cup, and a pint of ice cream
contains 2 cups. Two cups is 200% of the 1 cup RACC, so manufacturers would be required to
include a second column displaying the nutrition information for the entire pint of ice cream.
However, a family sized bag of chips would not be required to include a second column, as the

94 Letter from Shereen Arent, Executive Vice President Government Affairs & Advocacy, American Diabetes
Association, to Philip Spiller, Acting Director, Center for Food and Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug
Administration, June 4, 2014.
95 Letter from the Behavioral Science and Regulation Group to the Food and Drug Administration.
96 W Juan, Memorandum to file: “Comparison between the foods consumed in the United States from NHANES 2003-
2008 at the 90th percentile and Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed (RACCs) per eating occasion by general
category and product category,” February 11, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
19
c11173008



.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

whole bag contains more than 400% of the RACC, and consumption data indicates that people
are unlikely to eat such a portion in one sitting.
Consumer research indicates that when dual column labeling is used, more people are able to
correctly identify the number of calories and nutrients per container and per serving of food
compared to the current single-column label.97 Portion sizes of foods purchased at supermarkets,
stores, and restaurants have increased in recent years, and studies show that increases in package
and portion size are related to higher calorie intake among consumers.98 FDA is proposing that
dual-column labeling may help certain consumers recognize the amount of calories and nutrients
in the amount they are consuming or may consume, particularly if they eat the whole package
instead of one serving.
Figure 3. Dual Column Format

Source: Food and Drug Administration, “Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Label;
Proposed Rule,” 79 Federal Register, 11976, March 3, 2014.

97 B Antonuk and L Block, “The Effect of Single Serving Versus Entire Package Nutritional Information on
Consumption Norms and Actual Consumption of a Snack Food,” Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, vol. 38,
no. 6 (Nov/Dec 2006), pp. 365-370.
98 B Wansink and J Kim, “Bad Popcorn in Big Buckets: Portion Size Can Influence Intake as Much as Taste,” Journal
of Nutrition Education and Behavior
, vol. 37, no. 5 (Sept/Oct 2005), pp. 242-245.
Congressional Research Service
20
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

Some have expressed concern that dual-column labeling may clutter the label and lead to
customer confusion. It has also been suggested that the required changes would take up package
space that could be used for nutrition education messages. Others are concerned that these
changes could cost food companies significant amounts of money.99
For those food products that require additional preparation (e.g., macaroni and cheese, pancake
mixes, and pasta), current regulations permit nutrition information for the product to be presented
in two forms, “as purchased” and “as prepared.” Under the proposed rule, for products that
contain at least 200% and up to 400% of the RACC, FDA is proposing that products requiring
further preparation and voluntarily containing the “as purchased” and “as prepared” columns be
exempt from dual column labeling. This exemption would also apply to food products that are
commonly eaten in combination such as cereal and milk.
Compliance, Costs, and Considerations
Compliance Timeframes
A final rule is to be published, but the exact timing is unknown. In the proposed rules, FDA
provides a compliance date two years after the effective rule date. However, industry
representatives expect that a longer timeline of three to five years may be needed for full
compliance.100
Costs and Benefits
The FDA’s Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) points to several elements of cost to
industry for the proposed rules: (1) labeling redesign costs; (2) recordkeeping costs; and (3) food
reformulating costs. Cost estimates for implementation of the label redesign vary widely but
assuming both a two-year compliance timeline and that both rules have the same compliance
dates, the costs of labeling redesign are estimated to be in the range of $1,073 million to $3,083
million, with a mid-range estimate of $1,876 million. Related recordkeeping costs are estimated
to be $28 million at a 3% discount rate and $27 million at a 7% discount rate. FDA estimates the
total costs of reformulating food products to be in the range of $103 million to $905 million, with
a mid-range estimate of $440 million. Although given the increase in cost factors since the
implementation of the NLEA in 1990, as well as the increase in the number of SKUs101 of food
and beverages now on the market and the use of specialized packaging, industry representatives
suggest that the cost will likely be higher than that projected by FDA.102 Industry costs may also
affect market prices, which would then impose costs on consumers as well.

99 Letter from Kathryn L. Wiemer, MS, RD, Senior Fellow, General Mills Bell Institute of Health and Nutrition, to
Food and Drug Administration, August 1, 2014.
100 Letter from Brian Sharoff, President, Private Label Manufacturers Association, to Food and Drug Administration,
April 30, 2014.
101 Stock keeping unit (SKU) refers to a distinct item offered for sale, with attributes that distinguish it from other
items. These attributes include manufacturer, product description, material, size, color, packaging, and warranty terms.
102 Letter from Brian Sharoff, President, Private Label Manufacturers Association, to Food and Drug Administration,
April 30, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
21
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

According to FDA, the goal of the proposed rules is multipronged. The proposed rules would (1)
better align the nutrition information provided on the Nutrition Facts label with more recent data
on consumption patterns and dietary recommendations; (2) improve the content and design of the
Nutrition Facts label to make important information more prominent and easier to understand;
and (3) potentially prompt food manufacturers to reformulate products to maintain health and
nutrient claims. In turn, these changes may positively affect the growing rates of obesity and
chronic diseases and impact the economic burden of obesity and chronic diseases. FDA estimates
that the present value (PV) of the benefits (i.e., decreasing rates of obesity and chronic disease)
associated with the proposed rules for the U.S. population over the next 20 years ranges from
$1.9 billion to $47.1 billion, with a mean estimate of $21.1 billion. Annualized over 20 years,
FDA estimates that the benefits of the proposed rules would equal approximately $2 billion per
year.103
However, the true cost and benefits from the proposed rules are challenging to determine, as
researchers cannot isolate the effect of one intervention on obesity and chronic disease prevalence
rates. It is important to note that the proposal to revise the Nutrition Facts label is just one
approach that has been proposed to address the public health concerns surrounding growing rates
of obesity and chronic disease. But it is not the only approach.
Considerations
Prior to the publication of a final rule, FDA plans to conduct consumer research on several items,
including the proposed revisions to the label format. FDA intends “to evaluate how variations in
the label format may affect consumer understanding and use of the Nutrition Facts label”104 and
then use this research to inform consumer education efforts. Comprehensive consumer education
that teaches individuals how to use the proposed label has been supported by various public
health groups. The current nutrition label requires consumers to have some background
knowledge on healthful and unhealthful nutrients.105 Additional steps toward providing
interpretative information may help consumers make more informed nutrition decisions. Public
health and nutrition stakeholders point to the importance of considering consumer literacy, as
lower health literacy and numeracy skills moderate consumers’ ability to read and understand the
Nutrition Facts label.


103 Food and Drug Administration, “Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) for the Food Labeling: Revision
of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels (Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1210) and Food Labeling: Serving Sizes of
Foods That Can Reasonably Be Consumed At One Eating Occasion; Dual-Column Labeling; Updating, Modifying, and
Establishing Certain
Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed; Serving Size for Breath Mints; and Technical Amendments (Docket No.
FDA-2004-N-0258)”, 2014.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/
LabelingNutrition/UCM385669.pdf.
104 Food and Drug Administration, “Food Labeling: Revision of the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Label; Proposed
Rule,” 79 Federal Register, 11882, March 3, 2014.
105 Letter from Jeanne Blankenship, MS RDN, Vice President, Policy Initiatives and Advocacy, Academy of Nutrition
and Dietetics, and Pepin Andrew Tuma, Esq., Director, Regulatory Affairs, to Margaret Hamburg, Commissioner, Food
and Drug Association, August 2, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
22
c11173008

.
Revision of the Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Rules

Author Contact Information

Agata Dabrowska

Analyst in Health Policy
adabrowska@crs.loc.gov, 7-9455


Congressional Research Service
23
c11173008