FDA official says agency ‘considering’ requests related to deadline for Nutrition Facts Label changes

FDA considering requests related to deadline for Nutrition Facts Label

FDA is “listening” to requests “on both ends of the spectrum” related to the upcoming deadline for changes to the Nutrition Facts Label currently slated to go into effect next July for large companies and in July 2019 for smaller firms, according to a top FDA executive. 

“With regards to the Nutrition Facts label timeline … we have had requests to extend and we have also had requests not to change it,” Susan Mayne, director of FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, told nutrition policy experts at the Consumer Federation of America’s National Food Policy Conference in Washington, DC, last week.

“So,” she added, “we are listening and we are getting those requests and we are considering them, but that is about all I can say at this moment in time.”

One of the highest profile requests to delay the implementation of the Nutrition Facts Label changes, which includes a larger font for calories and a line calling out added sugars, came from 17 major food and beverage industry trade associations.

In a letter sent to the US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Thomas Price, the trade groups asked the government to delay the deadline for the label changes until May 2021 and suggested that the change might be aligned with biotechnology disclosure labeling, which the US Department of Agriculture is mandated to finish by July 29, 2018. 

Experts caution against linking Nutrition Facts and biotech label changes

Several industry experts at the conference agreed with the request to extend the deadline, but were less confident that tying the Nutrition Facts changes to the biotech disclosure rule is a good idea.

Richard Frank, a founding principal with OFW Law, said he supported pushing back the deadline because label changes are so expensive and it would be onerous on companies to expect them to make the Nutrition Facts label changes and then a few years later add GMO disclosure language to the label once USDA published the related rule.

“I think we should only have one label change because that is a billion dollars per change. Those are dollars that are passed on to consumers who need to buy food. So, if you only have one change it is $1 billion, but if you have two, it is $2 billion,” he said.

That said, he had reservations about tying the two changes together.

“God knows when we will see GMO final regulation. I know Congress set a date, but Congress sets lots of dates and they are not always followed,” he said.

Michael Jacobson, co-founder and President of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, agreed that linking the Nutrition Facts changes to the GMO labeling “means it could languish perhaps forever because we have no idea if GMO labeling is going to happen, or how many years it will take to develop legislation.”

He also suggested that while the timing for the changes to the Nutrition Facts panel would be tight, he believes it is possible – especially given that some companies already have the changes in place.

Former industry veteran Joseph Levitt, a partner at Hogan Lovells, does not see a problem with linking the two changes, as long as it is done in a way that pushes USDA to advance the GMO labeling rather than slow down the FDA labeling changes.

"It is okay to sync them up, but one should not wait for the other. One should be accelerated so the two can come together in a reasonable time because of the cost it generates," he said. But, he also noted, “FDA probably was a little unrealistic when it first set the two-year deadline,” and suggested a delay might be appropriate. 

Mayne did not indicate if or when FDA would comment on the requests. 

Related News

The FoodNavigator-USA 2017 reader survey results

The FoodNavigator-USA reader survey results: ‘We’re in the 3G era... where cost cutting is valued over growth’

Potential for Nutrition Facts label delay should not slow compliance

The potential of a delay to Nutrition Facts label changes should not slow compliance efforts

Obama criticizes efforts to delay Nutrition Facts changes as insulting

Former First Lady Obama criticizes efforts to delay Nutrition Facts changes as insulting to consumers

Picture credit: istockphoto-i_frontier

Will changes to the Nutrition Facts panel lead to a wave of ‘defortification’?

Picture credit: istockphoto/i-frontier

ACI FOOD LAW FORUM: GMO labeling blues, Nutrition Facts delays, daily values and de-fortification, and will the FDA ever nail down natural?

Potential new head of FDA could postpone Nutrition Facts label changes

Potential new head of FDA could postpone Nutrition Facts label changes if confirmed

Source: FDA

The First Lady unveils the new Nutrition Facts Label with added sugars included

Regulatory freeze could change or delay implementation aspects of FSMA, Nutrition Facts rule

Regulatory freeze could change or delay implementation aspects of FSMA, Nutrition Facts rule

Comments (1)

Phyllis Nelson - 17 Apr 2017 | 11:31

Calories per container & Calories per container.

I love adding calories per container! with maybe for items with no more than maybe 4 or 6 servings-? For a 1/2 gallon of ice cream, or a large box of cereal - calories per container would be meaningless.

17-Apr-2017 at 23:31 GMT

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.