FNB advisory committee recommends new standards for calculating Daily Values.

A Federal advisory committee to the Food & Nutrition Board (FNB) at the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recently released a report discussing, among other issues, the need to adjust the percent Daily Values (DVs) of nutrients that appear in the Nutrition Facts box as well as Supplement Facts box on products. According to the committee, there was a need to change the way DVs are calculated so that consumers could compare products more easily and make more informed choices based on the latest science. In addition, it said, adjusting the DV levels is necessary because they currently overstate the needs of over 95% of the population. "Reference values should be relevant for healthy individuals ages 4 and older, excluding pregnant or lactating women. Daily Reference Intakes (DRIs) for this base population consist of data for 13 distinct life stages, but it would be impractical to provide DVs for each subgroup on nutrition labels," the committee explained. "The most scientifically valid approach to combining the multiple figures is to apply the statistical technique of 'weighting,' which uses U.S. or Canadian census data to determine the proportions of each subgroup in the overall national population, and gives the largest subgroups the most weight when formulating DVs." The report also said that the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR), weighted by population, should be the basis for DVs whenever possible and if an EAR cannot be identified for a given nutrient, population-weighted Adequate Intakes should serve as the basis for percent DVs.

Taking issue with these recommendations was the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), who said these recommendations will change the DVs to reflect the needs of an average person, rather than meeting the needs of almost everyone. "For example, the proposed DV for vitamin D (280 IU) would be one-third less than the current DV and half what seniors need (600 IU); the proposed DV for iron (6 mg) would be only one-third of the current DV (18 mg) and of what women of childbearing age need and the DVs for folate, calcium, magnesium, vitamin K and most other nutrients would also drop," said CSPI, adding, "A young woman who eats a cereal fortified with 100% of the DV for most vitamins and minerals would actually get only one-third of the iron and half of the folic acid she needs." CSPI said if FDA accepts the committee's advice, companies will likely reduce the amounts of vitamins and minerals they add to foods and supplements.

Also commenting on these recent developments was John Hathcock, PhD, vice president of scientific and international affairs. Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), Washington, D.C. "This report represents recommendations that the government is likely to use as a scientific basis for its rulemaking process to come up with new regulations regarding daily reference values," he said. "FDA is not required to take this literally and can, if it chooses to do so, dismiss the recommendations from this committee. However, FDA will most likely take these recommendations very seriously and from a proposed rule." Dr. Hathcock said that DVs should not be targeting what the average among us needs, but rather nutrient levels that are sufficiently above average and which almost everyone in the population can be confident is sufficient for them. "To calculate reference values in this way is a disservice to public health," he said.

So why would the government adjust how it calculates these reference values? Dr. Hathcock said there are a couple of reasons. "First, they misunderstood what this all adds up to and second, it makes government sponsored feeding programs (i.e., school lunch programs) less expensive because they can use products that are less nutrient-rich," he said. "However, I doubt the economics of this was the driving force behind these new recommendations. I think this was a misguided attempt to be 'efficient' and make sure that people do not consume more than what they need."