nutrition labels

[darkoshi]

Starting in the last 4 years or so, the requirements for food nutrition labels in the U.S. have changed:
4 Major Changes Are Coming To Food Nutrition Labels (May 2016)
Changes to the Nutrition Facts Label: What Parents Need to Know (April 2020)

The Nutrition Facts Label: Its History, Purpose and Updates (March 2020)

There are four vitamins and minerals that are required to be listed on every updated Nutrition Facts label: vitamin D, calcium, iron and potassium. While calcium and iron were also required before the latest update, vitamin D and potassium are new to the list, replacing vitamins A and C. The swap was made because Americans get enough vitamin A and C in their diet but fall short on vitamin D and potassium.

So Vitamin A and C are usually no longer listed, which I did not realize. But what about all the other vitamins and minerals? I seem to recall that labels used to list many other vitamins and minerals too, didn't they? Now they hardly ever do.

There have been multiple times over the last few years where I've looked at the nutrition label on some product that I'd expect to be healthy, such as vegetables or fruit, and have thought to myself, "According to this it has basically no vitamins or minerals at all, so it must not be that healthy after all. Fruit and vegetables are overrated."

I wonder if other people have had that reaction too.


Update, 2021/01/23: I didn't think to mention it before, but it was a false expectation of mine which caused that reaction. I expected that if a product had a measurable amount of certain vitamins or minerals, that those amounts would normally be listed on the label. I thought they would only be omitted when they weren't present at more than trace levels.

Comments

[darkoshi]

I mostly use the numbers on the labels for comparison purposes between different items, rather than trying to make sure what I eat adds up to 100% of everything. (I take vitamins anyway, to be on the safe side.) But you're right, the %s listed are generalizations, and not to be taken as specific to individuals.

That is another difference in current labels versus the ones I remember from the past: The old ones used to mention RDA, or Percent of Recommended Daily Allowance, while the new ones mention DV or % Daily Value. I'd thought it was simply a new term for the same thing... which based on the following I think it is, but it's also more complicated than that:
https://blog.watson-inc.com/marketing/rda-vs.-rdi-vs.-dv-how-are-they-different

I did a search to find examples of food labels from the 1970s and 1980s to compare against my memories, but not many of the results indicate a specific time period and also have legible images of the nutrition facts section.

[lhexan]

The gist of it seems to be: the RDA is the scientific consensus, the RDI is what's given in legislation/regulation, and the DV encompasses stuff that doesn't have an RDA, like fiber and fat. *smiles* Thanks for the link.

The next time I see a doctor I plan to ask whether there's a good way to check for vitamin deficiencies, without having a specific one in mind. So far I've found a half-dozen different deficiencies that list "fatigue" as a symptom. But if I tried supplements for all of them my kidneys and liver would not appreciate the burden. :p