Carbohydrates - Better Nutritional Labeling and Education

The popularity of low-carb diets, followed by the need for marketers to differentiate their products, has resulted in a drive to reconsider the definition of carbohydrates on the food label. Although "low carb," "reduced carb" and "net carb" have been very evident on the supermarket shelf, these nutrient claims were never defined as a part of the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA). At that time, there was little consumer interest in carbohydrate claims, and this type of claim was rarely made.

All of this has changed in the past several years, as evidenced by the Calorie Control Council 2004 National Consumer Survey. This survey has been conducted by Booth Research Services, Atlanta, for over 20 years, and involves over 1,200 interviews of adults living in the United States, age 18 and over. It found that usage of low-calorie, reduced-sugar and sugar-free foods and beverages is reported by 84% of all respondents surveyed, higher than any previous level. Carbohydrate content was considered a factor in food and beverage purchase by 38% of survey respondents. The survey also reported that "the percentage of dieters following a restrictive weight-loss diet (such as Atkins, The Zone and South Beach) has almost doubled over the past four years -- from 11% in 2000 to 20% today."

Many in the food industry can remember that "zero-carbohydrate" products started to appear in 2000 and 2001 -- at first, some companies subtracted dietary fiber, sugar alcohols and glycerin from total carbohydrates in the Nutrition Facts panel, reporting no carbohydrates. FDA reacted rapidly with warning letters to inform companies that these ingredients are, in fact, carbohydrates. This led to the birth of "net carb," "net effective carb" and similar terms as a way of defining carbohydrates that have a marked influence on blood glucose.

"Net carbs" are usually calculated by subtracting dietary fiber, sugar alcohols and other carbohydrates with minimal impact on blood sugar from total carbohydrates. This, of course, is not permitted within the nutrient-content label. Also, if claims regarding carbohydrates are made, the amounts of dietary fiber, sugar alcohols, sugars and other carbohydrates must be clearly broken out below total carbohydrates.

FDA has sent numerous warning letters over the last few years to inform companies that specific carbohydrate nutrient claims, such as "reduced carbohydrate," "low carbohydrate" or "__% less than regular orange juice," constitute misbranding. In March 2004, FDA issued a press release to state that they had received industry petitions asking for definition of terms to characterize carbohydrate nutrient-content claims, including "low," "reduced" and "free." According to the release, FDA intends to initiate rulemaking proceedings to define nutrient-content claims and provide guidance on use of the term "net" relative to carbohydrate content. It has been suggested that these next steps will become public as soon as Sept. 2004, with implementation by the summer of 2005.

Meanwhile, industry labels have skated around nutrient-content claims by using legal claims that do not implicitly characterize the level of carbohydrates and is not false or misleading. Examples of this are "__ grams of carbohydrate" and "for a low-carb lifestyle," as well as product names reflecting carbs in some way as long as the names are not false or misleading. Manufacturers also continue to use the term "net carbs" -- and to a lesser extent, "effective carbs" and "net impact carbs" -- as long as they provide a clear definition.

USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) issued a written statement of interim policy on carbohydrate labeling in Dec. 2003. This interim statement does not allow "low carbohydrate," "lower carbohydrate" or "carb free" and does not allow statements that imply a low level of carbohydrates or statements that place significance on a specific level of carbohydrates. It does allow statements, such as "carb conscious" or "carb wise," and does not object to "net carbs," "effective carbs" or "net impact carbs" when these are used in a manner that is not misleading. This also appears to be FDA's stance, although not in a formal, written statement. Copies of warning letters are on FDA's website, and these give some indication of what terms it allows. However, the agency has not released any formal statements on net carbs or similar terms.

The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issued a ruling on April 7, 2004, on "Caloric and Carbohydrate Representations in the Labeling and Advertising of Wine, Distilled Spirits and Malt Beverages." In this ruling, TTB allows "low carb" or "low carbohydrate" if the standard serving size of "12 fl. oz. for malt beverages, 5 fl. oz. for wine, and 1.5 fl. oz. for distilled spirits" contains less than 7 grams of carbohydrates. Products containing more than 7 grams of carbohydrates can be labeled as "reduced," "lower" and "fewer" if the product is lower in carbohydrates than the regular version made by that alcoholic beverage producer. The terms "net carbohydrate" and "effective carbohydrate" are not currently permitted.

FDA has received three detailed industry petitions recommending changes to carbohydrate terms. On Dec. 1, 2003, Kraft Foods North America, Northfield, IL, requested definitions for "carbohydrate free," "low carbohydrate," "reduced carbohydrate," "less carbohydrate," "excellent source" and "good source." On Jan. 22, 2004, ConAgra Foods, Inc., Omaha, NE, asked for definition of "free," "low," "good source" and "excellent source," with clarification for "reduced" and "less." It also asked that, until FDA arrives at a final definition of "net carbohydrates," these products should carry a disclaimer of "not a low caloric food," and calculations for their "net" number should be clearly represented on the label.

On Feb. 2, 2004, the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA), Washington, D.C., asked for approval of four nutrient descriptors -- "free," "low," "excellent" and "good," as well as clarification of relative and modified claims. Also on Feb. 2, 2004, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, D.C., agreed with the GMA petition, but asked for further regulation of low-carb claims and prohibition of net-carb claims. National Starch and Chemical Company, Bridgewater, NJ, has also submitted a citizen's petition to FDA requesting the modification of carbohydrate labeling so consumers can make better-educated food choices. These petitions are available on FDA's website.

On March 12, 2004, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tommy Thompson announced a comprehensive strategy for combating the epidemic of obesity, with a focus on "calories count." Why? A study recently released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded that poor diet and inactivity caused an estimated 400,000 deaths in 2000, and will soon be the leading preventable cause of death among Americans.

The report released by FDA details a multi-point program to increase educational points through health claims, dietary guidance statements, re-evaluation of serving sizes, encouragement of product reformulation to promote healthier products, and to promote better health communication through restaurants, to name a few. Part of this strategy was to define terms relative to carbohydrates, but another part was to evaluate how the "Nutritional Facts" panel on food labels could be revised to "highlight the critical role calories play in consumers' diets," according to the report.

As part of these evaluations, consumers and product developers also need to reflect on the Dietary Reference Intakes established by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine (IOM). This report notes that adults should get 45% to 65% of their calories from carbohydrates, 20 to 35% from fat, and 10 to 35% from protein. Another relevant number is the recommended intake for total fiber -- 38 grams/day for men aged 50 and younger and 25 grams/day for women. This range is only slightly lower for adults over the age of 50.

At times, it seems that we notice the importance of different parts of the diet in shifts -- fat, then fiber, now carbohydrates. Keeping the recommendations of the IOM in mind, food product developers and suppliers should be able to work together toward increasing fiber in the diet by balancing the taste and texture positives and negatives of soluble and insoluble fibers with sucrose and sugar alcohols to create healthy, balanced foods with lower calories. Through a balanced use of available ingredients, manufacturers can achieve lowered calories, increased fiber, decreased glycemic impact, and good flavor and texture. As FDA now emphasizes the importance of calories and exercise, we should also emphasize the importance of balancing diet with exercise.

Ronald C. Deis, Ph.D., is the vice president of applications development and technical service at SPI Polyols, Inc., New Castle, DE. Deis has 20 years of experience in the food industry, both in food ingredients (starches, polyols, high-potency sweeteners, bulking agents) and in consumer-product companies (cookies, crackers, soups, sauces). He has been a short-course speaker (polyols, fat replacers) and a freelance writer on a number of food-science-related subjects in food journals, and has contributed chapters on sweeteners and fat replacers for several books.

Back to top