The site uses cookies that you may not want. Continued use means acceptance. For more information see our privacy policy.

FDA’s Proposed Nutritional Labeling

A look at the FDA’s proposed changes to nutrition labels.

The FDA has proposed new regulations for food labeling and determining portion size. While giving clearer information to consumers is a good first step, when will they finally ban flavored food? Just kidding (also, in solid or liquid form which both pose real dangers (e.g., choking and drowning); also, kidding).

The proposal seems good for as far as it does go (see Federal Register: for publication on 3 March 2014: Food Labelings: Revision to the Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels to download the PDF; the serving-size proposal is a separate document and proposal (both proposals have some information combined at FDA: Press Announcements: 27 February 2014: FDA proposes updates to Nutrition Facts label on food packages)). One missing feature would be something to improve digital access to nutritional information and ingredient listings for foods.

There are, apparently, mobile applications that can do optical character recognition (OCR) to import nutrition facts, but something more universal might help both improve adoption of digitally tracking food and of the use of better physical-to-digital handling in wider industries. Also, using a digital format could keep the printed version succinct while possibly expanding manufacturers’ participation in the publishing of voluntary data.

Also noteworthy is that at-present the regulations do not require a specific font. Quoting from the proposal (pp. 251-252):

In addition, we are requesting comments on […] requiring the use of a specific font.

It also mentions (pp. 274-275) that the current regulations “[…] specify […] that the type style should be a ‘single easy-to-read type style’ but no specific type style is required. However, […] we urge that certain type styles […] be used” with a parenthetical: “i.e., Helvetica Black, Helvetica Regular, Franklin Gothic Heavy.”

Although I’ve never seen a Nutrition Facts panel in Comic Sans, I do wonder if font variability exists and how much it affects the use of OCR. Also, certain format variations (there are a number of them, even for existing labels) may make OCR very hard, including lack of opaque background (e.g., on foods wrapped in clear plastics), deforming packaging (again, most likely thin plastics).

Digitally available nutrition information could eventually lead to much simpler printed information. Some countries employ much simpler labels, usually in the form of five pips with specific data such as caloric content, fat, sodium, etc. This takes up less space than the FDA’s tabular design, integrates with packaging better, and comes across as gentler, less authoritarian.

They could also go further by setting requirements for display of the information digitally. Junk food would be required to display in Comic Sans, while organic vegan baby food would be required to display in a blackletter.

No more calories from fat, not even voluntarily. But it’s not that simple. They still allow calories from saturated fat voluntarily and it says they considered making that mandatory.

They stuck to a reference diet of 2,000 calories. Again, importing the information to a digital system would allow recalculation based on an individual’s dietary need. The printed label should be basic, but the digital display could be very much tailored to the reader. Digitizing the ingredients would also make it much easier for those with allergies and sensitivities to avoid problem foods.

On the whole it is very good to see this vital service get a reroll. The only real danger is that this step in the right direction will end up being followed by such a long pause that we won’t have readily-digitized, expanded information available on foods until around 2034.

Eating the Future

Overview of some of the places the future of food may be heading.

It used to be that in the future we would all eat seaweed. So I hear, anyway, that was the grand prediction from popular science and the like in, say, the 1970s. I’ve still not eaten any seaweed.

These days we are seeing some new shifts in potential future foods. It’s important to note first that:

  1. Some other people do actually eat seaweed today
  2. Our diets have shifted even if not as radically as some past predictions suggested they would

Regarding [2], as an economy grows the people eat more animal flesh, for example. There’s also soda and other luxuries of the sort. But our diets have also changed without us changing them directly. Farming methods, crop selections, shipping methods, subsidies, regulations, and other factors have put different foods in our mouths without any change on our end.

One alternative to seaweed may be vat-grown animal flesh. Fake in the sense that it won’t be obtained through slaughter, it will be composed out of real animal cells, grown in vats in very different farms resembling labs more than anything to do with Old MacDonald

…And on that farm’s sanitized stainless steel work counter he had a centrifuge, with a whirrrrrrr here and a whirrrrrrr there, here a…

There was recently a non-event where some beta-quality lab burgers were served up. Of course, it will take time for acceptance of this food, and equally long to bring production quantity and quality forth.

Insects also have the buzz lately as a potential food source for our future. They’ve been eaten as long as humans have been around (both intentionally and unintentionally, of course).

The only real reason you aren’t eating bugs this very moment is that some people think they are gross. Go figure, when these same people may enjoy any number of foods you and I find downright horrid. Still, lots of people have stories about the time they tried chocolate covered ants or some such.

It seems likely that tiny creatures may crawl into our mouths in the future.

And Soylent, named after the film, Soylent Green. Actual Soylent is a so-called food substitute. Of course, it’s food, which does make a fine substitute for itself.

It’s a powder of various nutrients and so forth, meant to constitute a meal. It is mixed with water to produce a drinkable meal.

The basic idea comes from our pets which subsist on small pellets of homogeneous food without complaint for their whole lives. If they can do it, who could possibly think that human biology is so special to preclude an equivalent?

If made to cost very little, and be palatable, and safe to rely on, Soylent or something like it could do major damage to hunger, while improving efficiency.

It could theoretically help diminish obesity, food waste issues, and even ease losses from damaged crops (if they still contain respectable levels of extractable nutrients, but merely fall short on saleability) too.

Who knows where this product will end up, or others like it. As a side dish? As an ingredient in other preparations? The future of eating has many options.

The fast food connoisseur of the future’s order: “I’ll have a vat burger, medium french fried grasshoppers, and a Bloomberg* of Soyda**.”

* Bloomberg means the largest beverage size available.
** Soyda is a Soylent-based soda substitute.