Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 39
2
Overview
In the early 1970s the federal government took the first steps to establish the
current framework for the nutrition labeling of foods used in the United States.
In a series of regulations the Food and Drug Administration (ADA) expanded the
information that manufacturers were required to include about the composition
of foods and standardized the format in which this information was to appear.
The most significant of these regulations dealt with nutrition labeling. For most
packaged food products under its jurisdiction, FDA allowed information about
the nutrient content of a food to be provided voluntarily. When it was provided,
however, this information had to appear in a standard format. Nutrition labeling
was mandatory for any food to which a nutrient was added or for which a
nutrition claim was made. FDA officials encouraged manufacturers to provide
nutrition information even when it was not required.
At the same time, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposed
nutrition labeling regulations for meat and poultry products in a form very
close to those of FDA. Although these regulations were not adopted, USDA
issued policy guidance on nutrition labeling and encouraged manufacturers to
use nutrition information on Heir products. By 1990 over 60 percent of the
sales of FDA-regulated packaged foods sold in the United States bore nutrition
labeling. Over 35 percent of the packaged foods regulated by the Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) of USDA provided nutrition labeling.
The labeling reforms adopted in the early 1970s, of which nutrition labeling
was a - , represented a fundamental shift in regulatory philosophy. Until that
time Me federal government had sought to regulate food quality chiefly through
restrictions on He composition of foods, many of which were exempted from
39
OCR for page 40
40
N~WTION DIG
full ingredient labeling. Under the new regimen, EDA and USDA began to rely
on consumer choice by allowing manufacturers to provide information on the
composition and nutritional quality of the foods they purchased Considered
from the perspective of 1990, however, the changes adopted over 15 years
ago seem modest. Mods subject to ADA food standards remain exempt from
full ingredient labeling. Nutrition labeling was mandatory only on relatively
few foods. In addition, the information that was required did not cover many
important components. Thus, it is no surprise that 17 years later the food labeling
regimen established in 1973 seems both incomplete and outlaw.
Appreciation of the deficiencies of current labeling of the nutrient content
of foods began to emerge in the 1980s. Two related developments demonstrated
that food labels should be reformed. The most important development was the
expanding knowledge of the relationship among diet, nutrition, and long-term
health. By the 1980s the results of scientific investigation had convincingly
demonstrated important linkages between the dietary habits of Americans and
the prevalence of chronic diseases, most notably, cardiovascular disease, cancer,
stroke, diabetes, and obesity. The central message of these findings was that,
in broad terms, Americans' diets were not deficient in essential nutrients but,
rather, provided excessive amounts of calories, fat, cholesterol, and sodium.
Confronted with an abundant and varied food supply Americans have found it
easy to make unwise choices.
The second development can be viewed as a logical response to reports
of scientific research on the relationship between nutrition and chronic disease.
With the accumulating knowledge about these relationships, many Americans
became increasingly attentive to choices among foods. Predictably, food pro-
ducers responded to this interest by reformulating foods, creating new products,
and aggressively promoting those products whose composition could be said to
reflect this new learning about nutrition and health. No examples need to be
cited to support the conclusion that good nutrition and disease avoidance had
become central themes of food marketing in the United States by 1990.
In this environment, the current rules governing food labeling are seriously
out of date. The labels of many packaged foods provide no nutrition information.
No form of nutrition labeling is required for major segments of the food supply,
including produce, meats, poultry, seafood, and foods served in restaurants.
Advertising and label claims of nutritional value or the ability of foods to prevent
disease have proliferated with seemingly little control. Moreover, the information
required on those foods that do bear nutrition labeling is incomplete and
misfocused. Under the current system the presence and levels of micronutrients
are emphasized; disclosure of cholesterol and fiber content is not required; and
information about levels, sources, and types of fat is incomplete. It is not difficult
to understand why some critics charge that the federal government has ignored
major segments of the food supply, been concerned with the wrong nutrients,
and tolerated nutrition claims in advertising and labeling of pacl~ged foods that
OCR for page 41
OVERVIEW
41
are, at best, confusing and, at worst, deceptive economically and potentially
harmful.
In He 15 years since FDA's regulations were adopted, concerns have
been raised repeatedly about whether those requirements were too modest and
should be updated in light of both the increasing use of nutrition labeling
by manufacturers and growing consumer interest in the nutritional quality
of their foods. Most notably, in 1978 and 1979, the U.S. DeparUnent of
Heals, Education, and Welfare, USDA, and the Federal Made Commission
(E;TC) held hearings and examined possible changes in many areas of food
labeling regulation. Dunng He same period, bills have been introduced in He
U.S. Congress to overhaul both USDA's and FDA's food labeling regulations;
despite vigorous efforts to achieve consensus on needed reform, none had
been enacted by the end of the 1980s. In addidon, many private organizations,
including heals, consumer, and some producer groups, put forward improved
labeling approaches.
FORMATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE
NUTRITION COMPONENTS OF FOOD LABELING
The 1980s witnessed both the expanded use of He current nutrition labeling
system and a growing consensus on the relationship between diet and chronic
disease. This was exemplified by the release of two landmark reports on nutrition
and health: one by the Public Health Service, The Surgeon General's Report
on Nutrition and Health (DHHS, 1988), and the other by the National Research
Council ARCS, Diet and Health: implications for Reducing Chronic Disease
Risk ARC, 1989a). According to these two reports, diet plays a role in 5 of 10
leading causes of death among Americans. Health conditions that are affected
by diet include heart disease (the leading cause of death), cancers (second
leading caused, strokes (third leading caused, diabetes (seventh leading caused,
and atherosclerosis (tenth leading cause).
The release of those two reports and He growing recognition of the
need for food label reform prompted the Public Health Service (PHS) of the
U.S. De~ranent of Health and Human Services and USDA's FSIS to request, in
1989, that the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine conduct a
study of nutrition labeling. The Board assembled the Committee on the Nutrition
Components of Food Labeling, which consisted of 14 members representing the
fields of analytical chemistry, dietetics, food marketing, food science, nutrition
and biomedical sciences, nutrition education, and regulatory law. The Committee
was charged to:
assess the implications for nutrition labeling of current lmowledge on
nutrition and health,
determine He most appropriate content and format for food labels by
OCR for page 42
42
NEGATION LABELING
taking into account the scientific data base as well as the best means
to communicate the information to the public,
examine the implications of the labeling proposals for current legisla-
tion and regulatory statutes governing ingredient and nutrition labeling,
and
propose policy options for modifying current legislative and regulatory
directives (PHS contract 282-89-0022).
In responding to this charge, the Committee first reviewed the recommen-
dations of recent reports concerned with nutrition, dietary consumption, and
health as the scientific basis for reform. After examining the implications of the
recommendations for nutrition labeling, it then evaluated the current information
on food labels, the nutrition information that needed to be added and deleted,
and the availability of valid and reliable analytical methods for use in providing
information for nutrition labeling. The Committee also discussed how nutrient
information should be displayed in terms of serving size, the listing of required
core and optional nutrients and ingredient information, and label format. Finally,
the Committee evaluated the use and appropriate definitions for quantitative and
other descriptors of nutrient content.
While addressing the tasks in their charge, the Committee tried to weigh the
various factors in addition to the scientific consensus that influence labeling re-
form, including current legal authority, existing label coverage, criticism leveled
against existing food labels, current dietary consumption patterns, marketing
forces, consumer understanding and use of food labels, the forces operating in
the world market, the need for consumer testing of formats, the knowledge base
of some consumers about the current system, and consumer education that would
be needed if labels are to be changed significantly. Following the development of
recommendations for food label reform, the Committee examined these options
in light of the existing regulatory authority of FDA and USDA and considered
the benefits and liabilities of specific legislation mandating nutrition labeling.
In the process of its deliberations and final recommendations, the Committee
gleaned valuable information and insights from a variety of sources, including
agency officials, witnesses at a public meeting held on December 4, 1989, and
invited participants at workshops on the following subjects: label content, le-
gal authority, consumer understanding and use of labels, label formats, and the
marketing aspects of label information.
RELEVANT STUDIES ON NUTRITION,
DIETARY CONSUMPTION, AND HEALTH
Several studies that have examined the scientific evidence on the relation-
ship between diet and disease formed the basis for the Committee's assessment
of the kinds of information about nutrient content that food labels should pro-
OCR for page 43
OVERVIEW
43
vice. The Committee accepted the central findings from these reports without
independently assessing their correctness. This approach was dictated by the lim-
ited time available for completing the report, but it was independently justified
by the broad acceptance of these findings within the scientific community. The
Committee also recognized the evolving character of the scientific understanding
of the relationship between diet and chronic disease and, therefore, sought to
make its recommendations in light of the changes in scientific knowledge likely
to occur in the next decade.
The Surgeon General's report made a number of recommendations for
change in the eating habits of Americans, including:
reduced consumption of fat (especially saturated fat) and cholesterol;
achievement and maintenance of a desirable body weight;
increased consumption of complex carbohydrates and fiber,
reduced intake of sodium;
increased intake of calcium by women of childbearing age;
adequate iron consumption by children, adolescents, and women of
childbearing age;
reduced amount and frequency of consumption of sugar by children;
and
addition of optimal levels of fluoride to community water systems to
prevent tooth decay (DHHS, 1988~.
The NRC Diet and Health report made more specific recommendations for
the quantities of venous dietary constituents that Americans should consume.
The report recommended that U.S. consumers should:
reduce total fat to 30 percent or less of calories, reduce saturated fatty
acid intake to less than 10 percent of calories, and reduce intake of
cholesterol to less than 300 mg daily;
limit total daily intake of salt (sodium chlorides to 6 g or less;
maintain protein intake at moderate levels;
balance food intake and physical activity to maintain appropriate body
weight;
maintain adequate calcium intake; and
maintain an optimal intake of fluoride (NRC, 1989a).
The report also described the types and amounts of foods to be consumed to
achieve these recommendations.
In the fall of 1989 the tenth edition of Recommended Dietary Allowances
(RDA) was released by the Food and Nutrition Board ARC, 1989b). As
with previous editions, the 1989 RDA updated the standards by which dietary
consumption patterns were to be judged for adequacy.
Sevem1 other reports on dietary intake, disease prevention, and the food
supply complete the core of the scientific data base on which the Committee
OCR for page 44
44
NOTATION LABELING
relied. The earliest one was Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer MARC, 1982), which
offered interim dietary recommendations based on the knowledge at that time.
The recommendation most relevant to the Committee's task was the suggestion
that the consumption of both saturate and unsaid fats should be reduced
in the average diet of Americans. The report suggested that an approIxiate and
practical target was to reduce intake of total fat to 30 percent of total calories.
Designing Foods: Animal Product Options in the Marketplace was con-
cerned with changing the food products available to consumers. The report made
a number of dietary recommendations, including:
caloric intake to match individual needs;
no more that 30 percent of calories from fat, 10 percent from sa~a~
fatty acids, 10 percent from polyunsa~a=1 fatty acids, and 10 percent
from monounsatura~ fatty acids;
no more than 300 mg of cholesterol per day; and
calcium and iron in keeping with the RDAs for age and sex (NRC,
1988).
The second report on U.S. dietary consumption and nutrition status, Nu-
trition Monitoring in the United States (LSRO, EASES, 1989), confirmed the
findings of its predecessor concerning the nutritional problems and health impli-
cations for U.S. consumers. The Expert Panel on Nutrition Monitoring reported
evidence of changes in eating patterns consistent with recommendations for the
avoidance of too much fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and for the consump-
tion of adequate amounts of starch and dietary fiber. Available data on dietary
and nutritional status with respect to individual food components, however, did
not indicate that there had been substantial dietary changes since the first re-
port in 1986. According to the 1989 report, the principal nutrition-related health
problems experienced by many Americans continue to be related to the over-
consumption of some nutrients and food components, particularly food energy
(calories), fat, saturated fatty acids, cholesterol, sodium, and alcohol. Further-
more, although the supply of nutrients is generally adequate, there is evidence
of inadequate individual dietary intake or imp nutritional status in some
subgroups of the population with respect to iron; calcium; folate; zinc; and
vitamins A, C, and B6.
ROLE OF FOOD LABELS IN IMPLEMENTING
DIETARY CHANGES
The Committee believes that the reports of the Surgeon General and the
NRC send a clear message Hat dietary changes can materially reduce the
prevalence of major diseases. The Committee further believes that consumers
can improve their own health and reduce their long-term risk of disease by being
more careful in the food choices Hat they make. Better food labels can play a
OCR for page 45
OVERVIEW
45
central role in facilitating such choices. These reports indicate that consumers
need to alter their current dietary consumption patterns. The similarity and
complementary nature of the recommendations of the two reports provide a
strong basis on which government and the private sector can design dietary
guidance, programs, and services. A host of activities can be envisioned to
promote dietary change; however, food labels are only one part of the larger
effort
The Surgeon General's report outlined the activities that could lead to
consumer implementation of its recommendations. The report urged that the
general public be educated about dietary choices and adequate physical activity
conducive to prevention and control of certain chronic diseases. The report
stated that food manufacturers can improve the quality of Americans' diets
by increasing the availability of padatable, easily prepared food products that
will help consumers follow the dietary principles it set forth. The specific
recommendations relevant to food labeling included
-
More information should be provided by manufacturers to consumers
on the composition of food products, including total fat, saturated
and unsaturated fatty acids, cholesterol, calories, carbohy~es, added
sugars, fiber, sodium, iron, folate, and complete, explicit ingredient
contents.
Information should be straightforward, efficient, and effective.
Health claims, if allowed' should be informative, scientific, and non-
misleading.
Health warnings on alcoholic beverage containers should warn about
the hazards associated with alcohol consumption during pregnancy
(DHHS, 1988~.
The NRC Diet and Health report concluded that several sectors of society
need to collaborate in the effort to implement dietary changes. Although the
report did not provide specific recommendations for food labeling, it reviewed
a number of issues that have implications for Label reform, including serving
size, macronutrient quantification, label format, food safety information, product
development, and educational aspects of dietary change.
In 1973, when FDA established the current food labeling system, the seventh
edition of the RDA (NRC, 1968) was the basis for establishing guidelines for
the nutrition labeling of foods in the form of the U.S. Recommended Daily
Allowances ~J.S. RDA). The U.S. RDAs were, in general, set by taking the
highest value of an RDA for a given nutrient, regardless of the age and sex
group, and making it the standard for that nutrient. The tend edition of the
RDA provides a basis for changing the U.S. RDAs if they are to remain the
standard for nutrition labeling, even if some other choice of name is to be used.
Designing Foods ARC, 1988) made a number of specific recommendations
for food labeling. The report recommended Hat regulations should not restrict
OCR for page 46
46
NUTS DIG
truthful information at the point of purchase or on food product packaging.
USDA should restrict use of the descriptors light, lite, or lean to products in the
form that would be presented to the retail consumer, so that use of descriptive
terminology on foods sold at the retail level should require some objective
standard for the food itself. It recommended that point-of-purchase programs be
developed to supplement and support information provided on the label. Finally,
the report recommended that shards be set to govern serving size.
PURPOSES, CHARACTERISTICS, AND AUDIENCES
OF NUTRITION LABELING
Any effort to improve the nutrition content information on food labels must
begin with a set of assumptions about the purpose labels should serve and the
audiences that they should be designed to inform and assist food selection.
According to the agencies, the purpose of food labeling is to enable consumers
to select and use products that meet their individual needs and preferences.
To achieve this purpose, labeling must provide sufficient information to enable
the public to identify foods and their characteristics, including ingredients
and nutritional value. Effective labeling must present the information so that
consumers can understand and use it in deciding what foods to buy. The
agencies' guiding principles in recommending specific changes have been public
health importance, the consumer's right to know, and economic protection (44
Fed. Reg. 75,992-76,020, Dec. 21, 1979~.
These goals for labeling by no means exhaust the purposes of food labels.
The relevant laws administered by FDA and USDA impose additional, explicit
requirements for the content of food labels, which manufacturers are not free to
ignore. These requirements include the name of the food, the disclosure of the
quantity of contents, and the name and place of business of the manufacturer
or distributor. In addition, most foods must bear a list of their ingredients.
These requirements, together with demands for nutrition information, may
compete with the manufacturer's own objectives for the label, which can be
summarized as the desire to make the product appealing to consumers by
depiction and description. Even if there were no tension among these objectives,
space limitations on many food labels would necessitate compromise.
The Committee's focus was on label information about nutrient content, and
it developed its own list of the purposes of nutrition labeling which formed one
premise for this report. The Committee believes that nutrition Labeling should:
provide consumers with nutrition information about the food product,
enable consumers to compare the nutritional quality of products from
the same food group,
enable consumers to choose among products from different food groups
on the basis of nutritional quality,
OCR for page 47
OVERVIEW
47
prevent or reduce consumer deception by providing information about
the nutrient composition of the product, and
provide incentives to improve food products by requiring manufacturers
to describe fully the ingredients and nutrient value of their products.
Other characteristics of food labels can affect the extent to which any of
these varied and sometimes competing informational objectives are achieved.
These features include legibility, which is a function not only of type size
but also of typography, background, and color; understandability of terms and
illustrations; consistency among products and between agencies; and uniformity
over time and across political boundaries.
The Committee discussed the audiences for which nutrition labeling is
important. One very important group that nutrition labels should serve is the
large number of consumers with special dietary requirements as the result of
diagnosed health conditions. Members of this group have been instructed to
moderate or change their diets in some way, such as to avoid salt, reduce calories,
or change fat and cholesterol intake. These consumers realize that they have a
health problem that can be helped by making dietary changes.
A second audience that is large, but perhaps less critical, consists of
those consumers whose interest in nutrition and improved diets is largely self-
generated These consumers are already aware of dietary factors that have an
impact on long-term health and wish to be provided with more useful information
on the nutritional quality of food products. This group wants more and better
information on food labels to enable them to select their foods wisely. For
this group improved labels will serve an educative function; in truth, they are
already educated and simply want better information so that they can put their
knowledge to use.
A third, even larger, group consists of consumers who do not now pay
attention to nutrition labels. This potentially vast audience could make use of
better labels if they were educated to know why it was important to make dietary
changes and how food labels can be useful in making these changes. Major
educational efforts, in addition to changes in food labels, will be required to
reach this new audience.
FOOD LABELS, LABELING, AND ADVERTISING
From the outset, the Committee faced a need to define its jurisdiction.
Manufacturers and sellers provide information about their food products to
consumers by several different means, including, but not limited to, what is
thought of as the label—the printed material that is affixed to or that is part of
the package. They use a wide variety of off-package textual and graphic materials
displayed at the point of purchase or, more accurately, at the point of selection.
In the merchandising trade these materials have a variety of titles, such as "shelf
OCR for page 48
48
NUTRITION DIG
talkers" and "coupon pads." Manufacturers and sellers also rely heavily on
media advertising which consumers usually encounter away from the locations at
which food is sold, such as on television and in newspapers and magazines. All
these potential sources of information about the nutritional content and quality of
foods are, in theory, subject to federal regulation. Manufacturers and sellers use
them to describe and promote the nutritional characteristics of their products.
In addition, consumers have access to several other sources of information
about diet and foods, including books and articles, a growing number of health-
focused newsletters, special media reports, regular health segments on television
and radio, and formal and informal classes. These sources are to be distinguished,
however, from information that originates with manufacturers or sellers of foods,
which has special legal status, because their designers have an obvious interest
in influencing consumer decisions about which foods to buy.
Federal law divides commercially inspired information into three categories
for regulatory purposes. Food labels comprise the first category, and it is this
category with which the Committee was chiefly concerned. Many foods are sold
without conventional labels, however; and most foods that do bear labels are
displayed in conjunction with additional graphic or textual material, which falls
within the category of labeling as similarly defined by the laws administered
by FDA and USDA. In technical terms, labeling is the broader category, for it
also comprehends labels, as the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act definition
reveals: "The term 'labeling' means all labels and other written, printed, or
graphic matters (1) upon any article or any of its containers or wrappers, or
(2) accompanying such article" (21 USC § 1.3~. The courts have interpreted
accompanying expansively, which means that FDA and USDA are, in theory,
empowered to regulate the contents of off-package material that describe and
promote foods.
While the Committee has focused primarily on the nutritional content
and format of food labels, it has also been concerned with food labeling for
several reasons. The sponsoring agencies have jurisdiction over labeling, not just
labels, and as the Committee's title indicates, they asked for advice regarding
the nutrition components of food labeling. More, the Committee was
interested in the quality of nutrition information provided in conjunction with
the sale of foods that do not bear conventional labels produce, meats and
poultry, and foods provided by food service establishments, such as restaurants.
Some of the Committee's recommendations contemplate action by FDA and
USDA to regulate the content of labeling for such foods.
Neither FDA nor USDA has jurisdiction over manufacturer- or seller-
initiated advertising, which is the province of FIC at the federal level. However,
the Committee is aware Hat much of the public interest in nutrition and messages
about foods is focused on and stimulated by advertising. The proliferation of
so-called health claims for food products is, in part, a response to, as well as
an effort to exploit, the scientific findings about diet and health Hat led to the
OCR for page 49
OVEWIEW
49
Committee's creation and precipitated the current congressional interest in food
labeling. The Committee has not, however, studied either the content of food
advertising or the manner of its regulation, and because of time constraints, there
is relatively little discussion in this report about heals claims. Furthermore, the
study's sponsors made clear that they did not expect the Committee to address
the issues surrounding health claims.
Although the Committee was content to accept this narrowed charge, it was
not possible to ignore the area of health claims entirely. The growing use of
so-called descriptors, which are verbal attempts to capture and highlight the
distinctive nutritional value of a food, such as fat-free or low in sodium, on
food labels and in labeling proved to be closely rented to what is customarily
regarded as nutrition labeling.
Thus, the Committee's effort to formulate advice on the nutrition compo-
nents of food labeling has taken it beyond the boundaries of the food label
and, in one instance, into the promotional, as distinct from the informational,
facets of food labeling. This should not, however, obscure the central focus of
this report: to assess the content, format, and coverage of the current FDA and
USDA rules for nutrition labeling.
SUMMARY OF REPORT
The report is in two principal parts, in addition to the Summary. The
remainder of Part I provides a comprehensive introduction to the work of the
Committee and the nutrition labeling of food in the United Sties. Chapter 3
recounts the history of nutrition labeling, discusses its key features, and identifies
the central themes in the growing number of proposals for reform and expansion
of the system. Finally, Chapter 4 explores in considerable detail the context
in which reform proposals must be evaluated, including current dietary habits
of Americans, the behavior and incentives of food manufacturers and sellers,
and the increasing internationalization of the food market. It concludes with a
discussion of the important topic of chemical analysis of the nutrient contents
of foods, bow the source of He information to improve food labels and an
important constraint on issues of coverage and content.
Part II sets forth the key findings and recommendations of the Committee.
Chapter 5 discusses the foods to be accompanied by some form of nutrition
labeling, focusing first on packaged foods and then on the important segments
of the food supply that do not now bear conventional labels produce, seafood,
meat and poultry, and foods served in food service settings. Chapter 6 deals with
the desired content of nutrition labeling: the nutrients that should be declared
and the information about them that should be provided in a comprehensive
discussion. Chapter 7 treats the important, but still poorly studied, subject of
label formats: how important nutrition information should be depicted and
conveyed. While the Committee offers several suggestions for the final formags)
OCR for page 50
so
NUTRITION MUNG
that should be chosen by FDA and USDA, the recommendations are guarded
Chapter 7 also considers the issues of serving size, U.S. RDA, descriptors, and
consumer education. Finally, Chapter 8 deals broadly win the implementation
of nutrition labeling and specifically with issues of legal authority. Although it
is not common for the Institute of Medicine to be asked to provide legal advice,
in this instance the Committee's charge included He explicit request to consider
whether FDA and/or USDA could implement the Committee's recommended
reforms using their current statutory authority. And, if the Committee concluded
that there might be advantages in the enactment of new legislation directing and
empowering the agencies to act, the Committee was encouraged to comment on
what such legislation should include. Both of these large issues are addressed.
REFERENCES
DHHS (U.S. Deparunent of Health and Human Services). 1988. The Surgeon General's
Report on Nutrition and Health. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 727
PP
LSRO, FASEB (Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology). 1989. Nutrition Monitoring in the United States: An Update
Report on Nutrition Monitoring. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture
and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Government Printing
Office, Washington, D.C. 408 pp.
NRC (National Research Council). 1968. Recommended Dietary Allowances, 7th ed.
Report of the Subcommittee on the Seventh Edition of the RDAs, Food and Nutrition
Board, Commission on Life Sciences. National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
D.C. 101 pp.
NRC (National Research Council). 1982. Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer. Report of the
Committee on Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer, Assembly of Life Sciences. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 478 pp.
NRC (National Research Council). 1988. Designing Foods: Animal Product Options in
the Marketplace. Report of the Committee on Technological Options to Improve the
Nutritional Attributes of Animal Products, Board on Agriculture. National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C. 367 pp.
NRC (National Research Council). 1989a. Diet and Health: Implications for Reducing
Chronic Disease Risk. Report of the Committee on Diet and Health, Food and Nu-
~ition Board, Commission on Life Sciences. National Academy Press, Washington,
D.C. 749 pp.
NRC (National Research Council). 1989b. Recommended Dietary Allowances, 10th ed.
Report of the Subcommittee on the Tend Edition of the RDAs, Pood and Nutrition
Board, Commission on Life Sciences. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
284 pp.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
food labels
