# Talk:Nutrition facts label

WikiProject Medicine
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.

## Infobox

I think an infobox should be designed for nutritional information on alot of products available on Wikipedia. Feedback anybody? --Ahmed 18:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

See Template:Nutritional value. --Una Smith (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

## how are they tested?

can someone add information as to how the numbers/quantities are tested? are they done in a FDA-certified lab?

## What is the rest of it?

If the fat, protein, carbohydrates, fibre, sodium, potassium, etc.. (Everything on the label) adds up to waaay less than the total mass of the serving size, what's the rest made of?

Maybe the vitamins and minerals can account for at least part of that. A definitive answer would be much appreciated though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.207.187 (talkcontribs) 06:12, 13 November 2006
One word: Plastics Water. -R. S. Shaw 22:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
If anyone's still interested in this question, is it possible the asker might be reading the % daily value as % of the product? If the question deals with the gram amounts, however, I have no idea. ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Lenoxus " * " 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

## Article title

Anyone else think nutritional facts is a poor title for this article? It sounds like you can get sustenance by consuming these facts (as opposed to those non-nutritional facts). I'd think Nutrition Facts (using the standard U.S. label), or nutrition facts label, or nutritional information panel would all be better alternatives. -R. S. Shaw 22:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The article on Food energy essentially has the same content. Perhaps the two articles could be merged and rewritten. - J Raghu 16:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

## The Canadian entry seems odd to me...

The Canadian entry seems odd to me. Why does it end: " Tyler davidson doesn't like canada". The Canadian Regulations are quite detailed and significantly different from the U.S. Regs. I would like to add more detail to the Canadian and U.S. entries. I work for a company that does Regulatory Review, and creates U.S. & Canadian Nutrition Facts Panels/Tables on-line instantly through an app server. So we can contribute a fair amount of detail. Jherzig 16:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the entry now reads much better. I put in my two cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.179.107 (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

## UK standard formatting

It may not specify thickness of boxes and typefaces and the like (or maybe it does, I haven't read it all), but things like the ordering is, so it is standardised.

Food Labelling Regulations 1996, Schedule 7

It appears that the EU decided in 2011 to arbitrarily reverse this familiar order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.46.19 (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Australia and New Zealand have similar guidelines:

Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (see standard 1.2.8)

--ToobMug 11:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

## Lacks info on "2000 calorie diet"

In the footnotes section of many labels is "Percent Daily Values are based on 2000 calorie diet ...'

There is no mention of how this is determined, or how it relates to different people of different weights and activity levels.

here is a starting point: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/special/foodlabel/dvs.html

That's important. Calories needs are different for people. Small and/or sedentary and/or female people needs less. Larger, athletic, male need more. So since this percentage thing is out of whack for anyone except for a tiny sliver of of people using exactly that average amount, it's all reinterpreted. Why don't they usually put "based on a 2000 calorie diet" on the label itself. I've looked at hundreds here in Canada, as a part of my nutrition class for 40 hours instruction with homework, and almost never seen it or noticed it. I presume it's very much the same case in the US. Nastajus 05:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I did some quick calculations and the average woman in Canada (40 yrs, 5'4", minmal exercise) would have a stable BMI of somewhere between 30-38 (that's barely obese to very morbidly obese) if she were to follow a 2000kcal diet. As a woman this would've been damn nice to know before I got into the habit of following the nutrition info because I can see now that's doing way more harm than good. If they want to show percentages on the nutrition info (which is a nice idea), then they really need to have 2-3 different percentages on there. --24.86.250.212 (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

## Infobox for label

Tada... sort of. see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Template:Nutrition. The only thing is I didn't build in the logic to dynamically add items yet, and the formatting is still a little off. But see this handy web document that gives specifics on formatting. Contact me if anyone updates my template. --RWilliamKing (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

All I know is Wikipedia needs its own Nutrition facts label style template, for e.g., Dioscorea opposita#Nutrition_Information Jidanni (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
See Template:Nutritional value. --Una Smith (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The Canadian section unnecessarily makes comparisons to the United States. This needs to be cleaned up to make it Canadian-centric. NorthernThunder (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved the cleanup tag to the section. SimonTrew (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Are there any special provisions surrounding the reproduction of a nutritional label? In which countries? I ask both out of general interest, and for Wikipedia's own purpose, because adding copies of nutritional labels on the pages relating to specific food products might be a valuable addition to Wikipedia's content. (140.232.0.70 (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC))

## Article name

Seems to me a better name for the article would be Nutritional labeling. (That's the article name I first tried when attempting to find this article.) – RVJ (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

## Looks like fiber is calculated wrong

In the cheerios article, the nutrition information shows 3g of fiber is 1% of the daily fiber, implying the requirement is 300 g. This is off by about a factor of 10. I don't see any place to edit this in the cheerios article, so is this a global problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Nicoson (talkcontribs) 19:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

## Blacklisted Links Found on Nutrition facts label

Triggered by `\bsgs\.com\b` on the local blacklist