Dispatches from IFT 2014

DSM: Nutrition Facts Panel overhaul could discourage fortification

DSM has filed comments to the FDA over concerns the proposed changes to Nutrition Facts labeling could cause de-fortification of some important micronutrients

Proposals to shift focus to vitamin D, calcium, iron and potassium on the US FDA’s Nutrition Facts Panel make sense, but could remove incentives to fortify with other essential micronutrients, warns DSM.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) filed its proposal to overhaul Nutrition Facts labeling back in February, this year. Proposed changes include removing vitamin A and C as mandatory listed micronutrients and replacing them with vitamin D and potassium on the Nutrition Facts Panel. A review of serving size and a stronger focus on calories and added sugars was also proposed, among other things.

Eric Ciappio, scientific leader at DSM Nutritional Products North America, said these proposed changes to mandatory micronutrient labels was cause for concern.

“By not making it mandatory disclosing some micronutrients, it could advertently lead to an incentive to de-fortify,” he told BakeryandSnacks.com.

“Do I think that the removal of vitamin A and C is 100% appropriate? Yes and no, in that I see the thought process and I guess creating the relative importance with potassium - which has emerged as a really important public health problem. But at the same time, you don’t want to create that disincentive to not fortify. So that becomes a little bit tricky,” he said.

Breakfast cereals and cereal bars remained prime vehicles for vitamin fortification, he said, particularly given consumer expectations on consuming fortified products in the morning.

Let’s hope it doesn’t harm ‘hidden hunger’

DSM had filed comments to the FDA relating to these concerns, he said.

While the main interest of the nutrition label overhaul was to tackle obesity-related concerns, he said the move could “inadvertently dismiss hidden hunger – the differences in micronutrient intakes”.

“Theoretically, if there’s a significant amount of de-fortification, then you can envision a scenario where the prevalence of inadequate intake and subsequently deficiency increases,” he said.

“The hope is that food manufacturers won’t be incentivized to remove them from their products, but only time will tell.”

Don’t forget vitamin E!

While vitamin D and potassium were, of course, important nutrients and ones listed as nutrients of concern by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, he said vitamin E also deserved focus.

“When you look at dietary surveys, routinely the two that always pop out as the most inadequate in terms of intake is vitamin D and vitamin E, without a doubt.”

Asked if vitamin E should have been included on the proposed mandatory nutrients, Ciappio said: “That’s something of a controversial area, I think, among the nutrition community. Do I personally this it should be? Yes. I think vitamin E is something that’s very important and it’s got recognized benefits for the body, for the heart, etc.

“But, at the same time I understand the FDA’s perspective which is there is a very significant public health need for vitamin D (…) But again, from an intake perspective, we all agree that vitamin E is an essential ingredient. It’s essential for the human condition and a major, major swath of the American population isn’t getting enough.”

Still time for comments…

The FDA extended its open comment period on the nutrition labeling overhaul to August 1, 2014, and Ciappio said DSM wanted to submit more, given the extra time.

In addition to comments flagging concerns about unintentionally creating disincentives on fortification, he said DSM also wanted to raise concerns about how changes to serving size would impact the listed percentage of daily intakes on nutrients.

“If you add twice as much volume to a product, or shrink it by as much, then the percentage of daily value is going to change. So, that’s something that needs to be taken into account.”

Changes would impact fortification because absolute and relative quantities would change, he explained.

Related News

Fortification added “noticeably” to intakes of iron and each of the shortfall vitamins identified in 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans reports (vitamins A, C, D and folate) except for vitamin E, and shifted the prevalence of inadequate intakes lower.

Fortification adds ‘noticeably’ to certain nutrient intakes in children; not a panacea: study

Group forms to clarify roles of vitamins and minerals in diet

Group forms to clarify roles of vitamins and minerals in diet

DSM scientific chief: 'Fortification can help fill the gaps in nutrient intake by Americans who choose natural and non-natural products'

DSM: Just because a product is ‘natural’ doesn’t mean it is nutrient rich

Kellogg's Coco Pops bars contain 42% sugar without any clear front-of-pack labels - something Which? says is 'worrying'

Sugary cereal bars better suited to candy aisle, says Which?

Two slices of M&S bread will now contribute a minimum of 15% vitamin D daily requirements

M&S vit D bread is a good public health move, says Leatherhead Food Research

Should the FDA have waited for final Dietary Guidelines ahead of added sugars proposal? The American Bakers Association and Independent Bakers Association think so...

Daily value percentage for added sugars on Nutrition Facts Panel is ‘premature’, say bakers

FDA's current and proposed Nutrition Facts updates, protein content, declared protein, folate, folic acid, added sugar

AHPA to FDA: Clarify protein labeling

Snack Food Association CEO: Members are consistent in saying label changes from pack to shelf will need four to six years - 'and that's if they haven't underestimated'

'We need more time': SFA calls for 4-6 years on Nutrition Facts panel overhaul

The SFA has concerns about the proposal to review serving size based upon what the 'normal' consumer eats, says its CEO

SFA: Nutrition labeling will ‘expose’ snacks but we remain confident

Mark Whalley from Datamonitor says the breakfast cereal sector is considerably ahead of snacks in terms of nutrition

Nutritional snacks? Manufacturers misread consumers, says Datamonitor Consumer

Kohler says there are plenty of opportunities for nanotechnology in bakery

Nanotech is the future for bakery fortification: RNI Conseil

The UK govt has taken time to consider a move to mandatory fortification because of risks associated with over-consumption

Mandatory folic acid flour fortification likely to be approved in 2015

Newly EFSA approved vitamin D baker's yeast could tackle European deficiency, developer Lallemand says

EFSA vitamin D yeast approval to boost baking options

Related Products

See more related products

Submit a comment

Your comment has been saved

Post a comment

Please note that any information that you supply is protected by our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Access to all documents and request for further information are available to all users at no costs, In order to provide you with this free service, William Reed Business Media SAS does share your information with companies that have content on this site. When you access a document or request further information from this site, your information maybe shared with the owners of that document or information.