Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Food Labeling”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
PubMed2005

Copper absorption from foods labelled intrinsically and extrinsically with Cu-65 stable isotope.

OBJECTIVE: To determine copper absorption from copper containing foods labelled either intrinsically or extrinsically with a highly enriched Cu-65 stable isotope label. DESIGN: A longitudinal cross-over study. SETTING: The study was conducted at the Institute of Food Research, Human Nutrition Unit, Norwich, UK. SUBJECTS: Subjects were recruited locally via advertisements placed around the Norwich Research Park. A total of 10 volunteers (nine female, one male) took part in the study, but not all volunteers completed each of the test meals. INTERVENTIONS: A highly enriched Cu-65 stable isotope label was administered to volunteers in the form of a reference dose or in breakfast test meals consisting of red wine, soya beans, mushrooms or sunflower seeds. Faecal monitoring and mass spectrometry techniques were used to estimate the relative quantities of copper absorbed from the different test meals. RESULTS: True copper absorption from the reference dose (54%) was similar to extrinsically labelled red wine (49%) and intrinsically labelled sunflower seeds (52%), but significantly higher than extrinsically labelled mushrooms (35%), intrinsically (29%) and extrinsically (15%) labelled soya beans and extrinsically labelled sunflower seed (32%) test meals. CONCLUSIONS: The use of Cu-65 extrinsic labels in copper absorption studies requires validation according to the food being examined; intrinsic and extrinsic labelling produced significantly different results for sunflower seeds.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Food labeling: health claims; plant sterol/stanol esters and coronary heart disease. Interim final rule; notice of extension of period for issuance of final rule.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending to July 25, 2001, the period for issuance of a final rule in response to its interim final rule of September 8, 2000, entitled " Food Labeling: Health Claims; Plant Sterol/Stanol Esters and Coronary Heart Disease." FDA's regulations require the agency to issue a notice of such extension if it finds, for cause, that it is unable to issue a final rule within 270 days from the date of publication of the interim final rule. The complexity of the issues raised by the comments to the interim final rule and the lack of agency resources to complete the final rule within the specified 270 days have persuaded the agency of the need to extend the deadline to publish the final rule.

Coronary Disease↗
PubMed1994

The new food label, type of fat, and consumer choice. A pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine how frequently lay consumers evaluate both the front label of a product package and other nutritional information on the back label of the package; whether the nutritional descriptors on the front label that concern fat affect consumer choice; to what degree information on the back label redirects this choice; and how well consumers understand the percent daily value on the new food label. DESIGN: Preliminary cross-sectional survey. SETTING: General community and university setting. PARTICIPANTS: Volunteer sample of 200 men and women. METHODS/RESULTS: Participants were first asked to choose between two fabricated cookie packages, one with a "low fat" and the other with a "no saturated fat" front label. Eighty-four percent of participants made their product choice without turning the package to view the back label. Thirty-six percent chose the product with the low fat front label, while 64% chose the product with the no saturated fat front label. In contrast, when respondents were subsequently presented with two cake products that contained no front-label descriptors (which resulted in 100% of subjects turning the package to view the back label), 53% chose the product with a label indicating 6 g of total fat (none saturated), while 47% chose the product with a label indicating 4 g of total fat (all saturated). Thirty-two of the 94 respondents who chose the no saturated fat cookie (only viewing the front label and giving fat content as the reason for their choice) chose a cake product in which the fat was all saturated, based on back-label nutrition information. Finally, 56% of participants could not accurately use the new percent daily value component to calculate saturated fat content. CONCLUSIONS: The data from this pilot study suggest that consumers make product choices based on only viewing the front-label information; health claims on the front label that are related to fat do affect product choice; a choice made based on the information on the front label is potentially altered once the back label is viewed; and approximately one half of our population could not clearly understand the percent daily value. We conclude that current consumer choice may be overly influenced by industry-directed claims placed on the front of a product package.

Consumer Behavior↗
PubMed2006

Precision in nutritional information declarations on food labels in Australia.

Nutrition labels guide consumers in making their food choice. New requirements for mandatory nutrition labelling have been in force in Australia since late 2002. The present study, analysing 350 samples comprising 70 different products for nutritional compounds declared on the label, is the first larger attempt to quantify the precision in nutrition labelling of food products on the Australian market. A significant discrepancy between actual and declared values was detected with an average variation in precision of -13% to +61% for individual nutritional components. There is no tolerance limit established in the Australian food legislation but a +/- 20% discrepancy is allowed in some countries and others have separate upper and lower limits and allow a maximum discrepancy of -;20% for beneficial nutritional compounds and +20% for unfavourable compounds. Only 16% of the 70 products in the study would fully comply should a leeway of +/-20% be introduced for any nutritional compound on the label. With separate upper and lower limits, 51% of products would fully comply. Compliance improved to 27% and 70% of products, respectively, when excluding variations in minor amounts irrelevant to consumers (counting all variations of less than 1g/100g, or 10kJ/100g for energy and 10mg/100g for sodium, potassium, calcium and cholesterol, as compliant). It is proposed that adoption of an upper and lower tolerance limit, excluding minor amounts, be considered as a way of better assisting the consumer in making relevant comparisons of product nutritional value and that any nutritional component should comply with the limit for the product to comply. Applying such a limit, 30% of products in the survey would not be compliant.

Australia↗
PubMed2000

Food labeling.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Food Labeling↗