718si
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,146
Whether friends, Romans, or countrymen, you see Daily Values (DV) listed on food and supplement labels every day. But just what do those “daily values” mean? The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is recommending that the DV now be calculated based on the Estimated Average Requirement (the EAR) of an individual in the population. Although the FDA's intention was to help make DV more understandable and accurate for the general populace, I believe that the EAR calculation can actually be misleading, and potentially dangerous.
Truth in Labeling? How DV Works
Currently, the FDA requires that food labels state the content of certain nutrients in a food and the percent of the “daily value” for that nutrient. The DV is intended to help consumers both understand the relative significance of nutritional information in the context of a total daily diet, and to compare nutritional values among different foods.
Naturally, it is almost impossible to know the true nutritional requirement for any one individual. Therefore, the recommended nutritional intake is established using a “population coverage” approach; meaning that over 90% of the population will have sufficient amounts of a nutrient if people achieve their DV for that nutrient. For the most part, the DV of a nutrient is based on Recommended Daily Allowances (RDAs) established by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine in 1968.
The population coverage approach to setting a daily value uses the scientific data gathered on the nutritional needs of many different developmental groups – adults, children, infants, pregnant and lactating women. The RDA was established using the highest nutrient value from the most vulnerable or high-risk group to serve as the reference value. Although this is conservative, it is designed to assure that the population would have adequate nutrient intake.
Although these RDAs have been modified several times based on the most recent scientific data available, the DV on food labels has not been updated. So the proposed change to how the DVs for nutrients are calculated would be a welcome update to the science of nutrition.
However, the FDA is also proposing to change the way these daily values are calculated, which would not be such a good idea.
Is EAR a good idea?
As I mentioned before, the FDA is recommending that the DV be based on the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) of an individual in the population. The EAR represents the best estimate of the actual individual's nutrient requirement. From a scientific standpoint, basing the DV on an EAR makes a lot of sense, but it ignores the 30+ years of prior nutritional labeling.
Consumers have been trained over the years that they should strive to get 100% of the daily value of all nutrients in their diet. The switch to a DV based on an EAR would set the benchmark at a value which would be sufficient for only half of the population. If you were in the half of the population that needed more than the EAR value, getting 100% of the DV would not be enough.
In practical terms, foods would appear to be more nutritious using an EAR calculation rather than the population approach. With this change, most foods would almost double their labeled nutrient values without any actual change in the nutrient content of the food. Although it might make you feel better about eating that bag of chips, your body won't be fooled. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. However, this change doesn't smell right to me.
**broken link removed**
Truth in Labeling? How DV Works
Currently, the FDA requires that food labels state the content of certain nutrients in a food and the percent of the “daily value” for that nutrient. The DV is intended to help consumers both understand the relative significance of nutritional information in the context of a total daily diet, and to compare nutritional values among different foods.
Naturally, it is almost impossible to know the true nutritional requirement for any one individual. Therefore, the recommended nutritional intake is established using a “population coverage” approach; meaning that over 90% of the population will have sufficient amounts of a nutrient if people achieve their DV for that nutrient. For the most part, the DV of a nutrient is based on Recommended Daily Allowances (RDAs) established by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine in 1968.
The population coverage approach to setting a daily value uses the scientific data gathered on the nutritional needs of many different developmental groups – adults, children, infants, pregnant and lactating women. The RDA was established using the highest nutrient value from the most vulnerable or high-risk group to serve as the reference value. Although this is conservative, it is designed to assure that the population would have adequate nutrient intake.
Although these RDAs have been modified several times based on the most recent scientific data available, the DV on food labels has not been updated. So the proposed change to how the DVs for nutrients are calculated would be a welcome update to the science of nutrition.
However, the FDA is also proposing to change the way these daily values are calculated, which would not be such a good idea.
Is EAR a good idea?
As I mentioned before, the FDA is recommending that the DV be based on the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) of an individual in the population. The EAR represents the best estimate of the actual individual's nutrient requirement. From a scientific standpoint, basing the DV on an EAR makes a lot of sense, but it ignores the 30+ years of prior nutritional labeling.
Consumers have been trained over the years that they should strive to get 100% of the daily value of all nutrients in their diet. The switch to a DV based on an EAR would set the benchmark at a value which would be sufficient for only half of the population. If you were in the half of the population that needed more than the EAR value, getting 100% of the DV would not be enough.
In practical terms, foods would appear to be more nutritious using an EAR calculation rather than the population approach. With this change, most foods would almost double their labeled nutrient values without any actual change in the nutrient content of the food. Although it might make you feel better about eating that bag of chips, your body won't be fooled. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. However, this change doesn't smell right to me.
**broken link removed**