Understanding Nutrition Labels:

its Significance and Use

Denniese C. Sy, RND, MSPH
Regional Conference of Nutritionist-Dietitians in Calabarzon
Lima Park Hotel, Batangas
July 29, 2019
 “In a hurry”
“Not interested” “Too lazy to read”

“Difficult to understand”

“Too busy”
“Lacks time”
“It depends on the type of food”

“Familiar already with products”

“Price is more important”

 OUTLINE:
I. Introduction VI. Effects of Nutrition Label Use
II. Significance in Public Health VII. Types of Nutrition Labels
III. Brief History VIII. Nutrition Labeling in the
IV. Regulatory Status Philippines
V. Use of Nutrition Label IX. Understanding Nutrition Labels
I. INTRODUCTION
Food labelling
- “any written, printed or Nutrition label
graphic matter that is -section of information on a
present on the label,
food label that specifically
accompanies the food, or is
displayed near the food, declares nutrient content.
including that for the
purpose of promoting its
sale or disposal.”
- World Health Organization
(WHO)

Source: N Koen, R Blaauw, E Wentzel-Viljoen .(2016). Food and nutrition labelling: the past, present and the way forward, South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition,29:1, 13-21
Neal B. et al., 2017. Effects of Different Types of Front-of-Pack Labelling Information on the Healthiness of Food Purchases – A randomised Controlled Trial. Nutrients 9,1284.
II. SIGNIFICANCE IN PUBLIC HEALTH
 II. Significance in Public Health
• Non-communicable diseases → leading causes of death globally
• Nearly 80% of NCD deaths → low- and middle-income countries

•Leading NCD risk factors

• Raised blood pressure (13%)
• Tobacco use (9%)
• Raised blood glucose (6%)
• Physical inactivity (6%)
• Overweight and obesity (5%) → At least 2.8 million people
die/ year as a result of being overweight

Source: N Koen, R Blaauw, E Wentzel-Viljoen .(2016). Food and nutrition labelling: the past, present and the way forward, South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition,29:1, 13-21
 II. Significance in Public Health
• Overweight and obesity:
• 44% of diabetes mellitus burden
• 23% of ischaemic heart disease burden
• 7%-41% of cancer burden

• Rapid increase in processed and convenience foods’ consumption

→ Influence the risk of developing NCDs

Source: N Koen, R Blaauw, E Wentzel-Viljoen .(2016). Food and nutrition labelling: the past, present and the way forward, South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition,29:1, 13-21
 II. Significance in Public Health

• In the Philippines, among adults aged 20 years and over:

• Prevalence of overweight/obesity : 16.6% (1993) to 31.1% (2013)
• Prevalence of high fasting blood glucose (FBG): 3.4% (2003) to 5.6% (2013)
• Borderline to high total cholesterol levels – 47.2%
• Borderline to high LDL cholesterol - 47.5%
• Low HDL cholesterol – 71%
• Borderline to very high triglyceride level - 38.7%

Source: FNRI-DOST. [Link] Nutrition Facts and Figures 2013. 8th National Nutrition Survey Overview.
 II. Significance in Public Health
Table 1. “Best Buy” Interventions
• Epidemic of NCDs can be reversed through
modest investment

• Raising awareness and promotion of healthy

diets
• provide adequate nutrition information
through food labelling to help consumers make
the right food choices.

• Nutrition Label – included in the

recommendations by WHO to provide assistance
to the public in selecting healthier food choices

Source: N Koen, R Blaauw, E Wentzel-Viljoen .(2016). Food and nutrition labelling: the past, present and the way forward, South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition,29:1, 13-21
WHO. 2011. From Burden to “Best Buys”: Reducing the economic impact of non-communicable diseases in low- and middle- income countries. World Economic Forum: Switzerland
 II. Significance in Public Health
Nutrition label
• endorse healthy choices of foods
• better quality of eating habits
• encourage reformulation of products
• improve the average quality of food purchase
• has a vital role in decision-making of consumers
• assist in monitoring nutrient and energy intake

Source:
Koen N, Blaauw R, Wentzel-Viljoen E.2016. Food and nutrition labelling: the past, present and the way forward, South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition,29:1, 13-21
Neal B. et al., 2017. Effects of Different Types of Front-of-Pack Labelling Information on the Healthiness of Food Purchases – A randomised Controlled Trial. Nutrients 9,1284
Azman N, Sahak SZ. [Link] Label and Consumer Buying Decision: A Preliminary Review. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 130: 490–498
III. BRIEF HISTORY
 Year Milestone

1941 - Foods with information on the calorie or sodium content were considered by the Food and Drug
1966 Administration (FDA) to be for “special dietary use”
1969 White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health recommended that FDA consider the
development of a system for identifying the nutritional qualities of food
1972 FDA proposed regulations that specified a format to provide nutrition information on packaged
labels; developed a working draft of various approaches to nutrition labeling
1973 Final rule establishing rules for voluntary nutrition labeling of packaged foods (except mandatory
when nutrient claims are made or nutrients added) and U.S. Recommended Daily Allowances
(U.S. RDAs) to be used as a reference standard

Source: IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2010. Examination of Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems and Symbols: Phase I Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press
 Year Milestones
1978 FDA, USDA, and the Federal Trade Commission held hearings in 1978 to gather information on
food labeling issues and suggestions on how to make improvements.
The Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health and the National Research Council’s
report Diet and Health: Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease Risk
1990 July – FDA published proposed rules for the mandatory nutrition labeling of almost all packaged
foods
November - Passage of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990
1993 Mandated nutrition labeling in the form of a Nutrition Facts Panel on most packaged foods
2003 Final rule requiring the addition of trans fatty acids to nutrition labeling
2007 Advance notice of proposed rulemaking to request comments on establishing new reference
values

Source: IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2010. Examination of Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems and Symbols: Phase I Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press
IV. REGULATORY STATUS
• Based in statutory regulations, countries can be classified into two
categories:

Mandatory Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Columbia, Ecuador,

European Union member states, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Israel,
Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Paraguay, South Korea, Taiwan, United
States and Uruguay
Voluntary Gulf Cooperation Council countries, Japan, Kenya, Mauritius, Nigeria,
Singapore, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey and Venezuela

Source: Hawkes C. 2004. Nutrition labels and health claims: the global regulatory environment. WHO: France
• In terms of nutrients that must be included in nutrition facts table:
• Nutrients that must be declared at all times
• Nutrients that must be declared when a claim is made about a specific nutrient
• Nutrients that can be declared on a voluntary basis

• Use of Reference Unit

• Per 100 g/ 100 ml
• Per serving
• Per recommended daily amount

Source: Hawkes C. 2004. Nutrition labels and health claims: the global regulatory environment. WHO: France
V. USE OF NUTRITION LABELS
 V. Use of Nutrition Labels
• Numerous studies have looked into the prevalence of nutrition label use around the
world.
• 82% in New Zealand, 52% in Canada, 47% in European Union and 75% in USA
• 40.5% in Lesotho, 48% in South Africa, 55% in Chile, 58.5% in Trinidad and 63.2% in the
United Arab Emirates
• In Italy – 26% read nutrition label regularly
• Read label more frequently → children foods, cookies and snacks, fruit juices or soft drinks and
cereals
• In China – 28.7% ‘always’ read nutrition label, 59.2% ‘sometimes’
• Milk, infant food, biscuits/bread → most frequently read labels

Source:
Campos S, Doxey J, Hammond D. 2011. Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: a systematic review. Public Health Nutrition 14(8):1496-1506
Bonsmann SS, Wills JM. 2012. Nutrition Labeling to Prevent Obesity: Reviewing the Evidence from Europe. Curr Obes Rep 1:134-140
Mandle J, et al. 2015. Nutrition labelling: a review of research on consumer an industry response in the global south. Global Health Action 8:25912
Annunziata A, Vecchio R. 2012. Factors affecting use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels: evidences from consumers. Agricultural Economics Review 12(2):104-116
Song J, et al., 2015. The understanding, attitude and use of nutrition label among consumers. Nutricion Hospitalaria 31(6):2703-2710
 A. Factors Associated with the Use of
Nutrition Labels
a. Socio-Demographic Factors
• Gender → females are more likely to use nutrition labels
• Age → varying results
• Civil status → married consumers are more likely to use nutrition label
• Education → individuals with higher education levels were more likely to use
nutrition labels.
• Employment and income → mixed results

Source:
Aygen FG. 2012. Determinants of Nutrition Label Use among Turkish Consumers. Vol.2 No.7
Campos S, Doxey J, Hammond D. 2011. Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: a systematic review. Public Health Nutrition 14(8):1496-1506
Cowburn G, Stockley L. 2004. Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a systematic review. Public Health Nutrition (1):21-28
Drichoutis AC, Lazaridis P, Nayga [Link]. 2006. Consumers’ Use of Nutritional Labels: a Review of Research Studies and Issues. Academy of Marketing Science Review. No.9
Mandle J, et al. 2015. Nutrition labelling: a review of research on consumer and industry response in the global south. Global Health Action 8:25912
 A. Factors Associated with the Use of
Nutrition Labels
b. Health-related Factors
• Those who use labels have nutritional concerns which may consist of:
• Specific dietary needs,
• Weight control, or
• Disease diagnosis
• BMI → mixed results.
• Nutrition knowledge → one of the predictors of nutrition label use and is
associated with greater usage
• Label knowledge also have an association with nutrition label use

Source:
Campos S, Doxey J, Hammond D. 2011. Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: a systematic review. Public Health Nutrition 14(8):1496-1506
Mandle J, et al. 2015. Nutrition labelling: a review of research on consumer and industry response in the global south. Global Health Action 8:25912
Cristoph MJ, An R, Ellison B. 2015. Correlates of nutrition label use among college students and young adults: a review. Public Health Nutrition. 19(12), 2135-2148
 A. Factors Associated with the Use of
Nutrition Labels
c. Lifestyle Factors
• Individuals who use nutrition labels more often → follow healthier eating habits
• Grocery shopping habit → strong predictor of nutrition label use
• Exercising regularly → have an association with nutrition label use.

d. Other Factors
• Looking for specific nutrient information → one of the significant predictors of
frequent nutrition label use.
• sugar, fats, calories, salt or cholesterol

Source:
Campos S, Doxey J, Hammond D. 2011. Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: a systematic review. Public Health Nutrition 14(8):1496-1506
Barreiro-Hurle J, Gracia A and DeMagistris T.2010. Does nutrition information on food products lead to healthier food choices? Food Policy 35:221-229
De Magistris T, Gracia A, Barreiro-Hurle J. 2010. Effects of the nutritional labels use on healthy eating habits in Spain. Agric Econ – Czech 56(11):540-551
Rasberry CN, et al. 2007. Determinants of Nutrition Label Use Among College Students. American Journal of Health Education. 3(2):76-82
VI. EFFECTS OF NUTRITION LABEL USE
 VI. Effects of Nutrition Label Use
• Improved population health outcomes in South Africa, China, India, Mexico,
Russia and Brazil with England as a comparator → several interventions which
include nutrition labeling
• In terms of effects on diet and health behavior:
• There is an association between nutrition label usage and a healthy diet
• Association of label use with health practices
• Healthier purchase intentions and accurate perceptions of nutrition content were
increased

Source:
Mandle J, et al. 2015. Nutrition labelling: a review of research on consumer and industry response in the global south. Global Health Action 8:25912
Koen N, Blaauw R, Wentzel-Viljoen E.2016. Food and nutrition labelling: the past, present and the way forward, South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition,29:1, 13-21
Campos S, Doxey J, Hammond D. 2011. Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: a systematic review. Public Health Nutrition 14(8):1496-1506
Hawkes C. 2004. Nutrition labels and health claims: the global regulatory environment. WHO: France
 VI. Effects of Nutrition Label Use
• Effect of mandatory labeling in US:
• Lower percentage of calories from fat, saturated fat, cholesterol and sodium, and higher
intake of fiber
• Decreased added-sugar density in the diet
• Manufacturers have produced more products with lower amounts of negative nutritional
attributes

Source:
Mandle J, et al. 2015. Nutrition labelling: a review of research on consumer and industry response in the global south. Global Health Action 8:25912
Koen N, Blaauw R, Wentzel-Viljoen E.2016. Food and nutrition labelling: the past, present and the way forward, South African Journal of Clinical Nutrition,29:1, 13-21
Campos S, Doxey J, Hammond D. 2011. Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: a systematic review. Public Health Nutrition 14(8):1496-1506
Hawkes C. 2004. Nutrition labels and health claims: the global regulatory environment. WHO: France
VII. TYPES OF NUTRITION LABELS
Two General Types of Nutrition Labels:
[Link] Facts Table or Nutrition Facts Panel or Nutrition Information Panel
• Boxed table which contains the list of nutrients contained in the food with their amount
and is commonly found on the back or side part of food packages
[Link] Nutrition Labeling or Front-of-Pack (FOP) Label
• graphical format, commonly found on the front of the package or elsewhere in the field of
vision

Source: FAO. 2010. Innovations in food labelling. Woodhead Publishing Ltd: India
Front-of-pack (FOP) labeling
• a complementary system to nutrition information panel
• simplification of nutrition information
• increase distinction on front of packages
• goal of a front-of-pack (FOP) label → increase the proportion of consumers who
readily notice, understand, and use the available information for more nutritious
choices

Source:
Kleef EV, et al. 2007. Consumer preferences for front-of-pack calories labelling. Public Health Nutrition 11(2):203-213
Kelly B, et al. 2009. Consumer testing of the acceptability and effectiveness of front-of-pack food labelling systems for the Australian grocery market. Health Promotion International.
Talati Z, et al. 2017. The impact of interpretive and reductive front-of-pack labels on food choice and willingness to pay. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 14:171
IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2010. Examination of Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems and Symbols: Phase I Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press
 Categories of Front-of-Pack (FOP) Labels

Nutrient-Specific Summary Indicator Food Group Information

Systems with symbols that Systems with a single symbol, Systems in which symbols are
display the amount per serving icon, or score that provides awarded to a food product
of select nutrients from the summary information about the based on presence of a food
Nutrition Facts panel on the nutrient content of a product. group or food ingredient.
front of the food package or
use symbols based on claim
criteria.

Source: IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2010. Examination of Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems and Symbols: Phase I Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press
 Development of Front-of-Pack (FOP) Labels
1989 Sweden developed its Keyhole symbol for voluntary use by food manufacturers which has expanded to
Denmark and Norway
1991 The Tick Programme was developed in Australia and New Zealand with goal of improving public health
1995 The American Heart Association (AHA) introduced its Heart Check program although it started its effort in 1987 through
its Heart Guide program in nutrition labeling
1999 Canada’s Heart and Stroke Foundation developed the Health Check program which aimed to assist in determining
healthy food choices to have an overall healthy diet
2002 Wegmans supermarkets developed their Wellness keys were based on nutrient content and health claims placed on
products by FDA and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2004 PepsiCo developed their Smart Spot
2005 Kraft Foods developed their Sensible Solution
2006 Guiding Star system was the first algorithm-based summary system developed by Hannaford Supermarkets through a
scientific advisory panel
2007 NuVal Nutritional Scoring System was developed
2008- Other FOP systems were then developed such as Start Making Choices, Healthy Ideas and Smart Choices Program
2009
Source: IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2010. Examination of Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems and Symbols: Phase I Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press
 Development of Front-of-Pack (FOP) Labels
In the International Scene

1993 Foods high in salt in Finland were implemented to have mandatory display of warning labels

1998 Healthier Choice symbol was implemented in Singapore which was extended to hawkers and foodservice operators in 2003

2006 Netherlands was the first country to introduce the Choices logo

2007 Followed by Belgium; Thailand made Guidelines Daily Amount and warning label mandatory for five categories of snack foods, and
introduced a voluntary logo for products with 25% less salt, sugar or saturated fat
2011 Voluntary traffic light labeling on children’s food products for total sugars, fat, sat. fat and sodium was implemented in South Korea

2012 Chile approved the Chilean Law of Food Labeling and Advertising to require warning labels for products high in salt, sugar, fat and energy

2013 Voluntary traffic light labeling for energy, fat, saturated fat and sugar was introduced in U.K., the Choices Programme logo in all countries
in Europe was approved and mandatory warning labels on foods high in sugar, salt and fat was proposed in Indonesia
2014 Voluntary Health Star Ratings system was introduced in Australia and New Zealand

2015 Refreshed Healthier Choice symbol based on revised nutrient guidelines was launched in Singapore and Guideline Daily Amounts was
required in Mexico to be displayed on the front of all packages
2016 Mandatory warning labels came into effect in Chile, warning labels for sodium, total sugar and saturated fat was proposed in Israel,
consultation for proposed warning labels for sugar, saturated fat and sodium was held in Canada and voluntary Healthier Choices logo was
introduced in Thailand
2017 Brunei and Malaysia both introduced voluntary Healthier Choice logo while France implemented voluntary NutriScore labeling system

Source: IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2010. Examination of Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems and Symbols: Phase I Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press
Impacts and Effectiveness of Front-of-Pack Labels

• FOP labels increased the attention to overall nutrition information

• Positive effect on food consumption
• In Singapore, the ‘Healthier Choices’ logo may have an association with a healthier diet
• The Choices labeling system could have broad impacts on health due to reductions in
consumption of saturated fats, sodium and sugars in seven countries of varying levels of
income.

• Multiple-Traffic Light label → FOP label which best helps consumers assess a
product’s healthfulness; preferred by consumers

Source:
Bix L, Sundar RP, Bello NM, Peltier C, Weatherspoon LJ, Becker MW. 2015. To see or not to see: Do front-of-pack nutrition labels affect attention to overall nutrition information? PLoS ONE 10(10)
Mandle J, et al. 2015. Nutrition labelling: a review of research on consumer and industry response in the global south. Global Health Action 8:25912
Borgmeier I, Westenhoefer J. 2009. Impact of different food label formats on healthiness evaluation and food choice of consumers: a randomized-controlled study. BMC Public Health 9:184
Hawley KL, et al. 2012. The science on front-of-package food labels. Public Health Nutrition 16(3):430-439
Kelly B, et al. 2009. Consumer testing of the acceptability and effectiveness of front-of-pack food labelling systems for the Australian grocery market. Health Promotion International.
Gorski-Findling MT, et al. 2017. Comparing five front-of-pack nutrition labels’ influence on consumers’ perceptions and purchase intentions. Preventive Medicine
VIII. NUTRITION LABELING IN THE PHILIPPINES
 VIII. Nutrition Labeling in the
Philippines
• Mandatory since 2014
• Tabulated form was given as format in which protein,
carbohydrates (including dietary fiber and sugar), fat
(including saturated fat, trans fat and cholesterol), sodium,
energy value or calories are declared
• Added vitamin A, iron and iodine for products covered by
Food Fortification Program or other vitamins and minerals
will also be included
• The declaration of nutrients can also be expressed either in
unit per serving or % RENI or both

Source:
Department of Health. Administrative Order No. 2014-0030
FDA. 2012. Guidelines on Voluntary Declaration of the Front of Pack Labeling (Energy per Calorie Content) on the Labels of Processed Food Products
FNRI-DOST. [Link] Nutrition Facts and Figures 2013. 8th National Nutrition Survey Overview
 VIII. Nutrition Labeling in the
Philippines
• In 2012, the FDA have published guidelines on voluntary declaration of Front-of-
Pack labeling on the labels of processed food products
• Format was provided specifically for energy per calorie content

• Results of NNS:
• proportion of participants who read labels are less than half only; 35% in 2008 and 41%
in 2013
• In 2013, only 12.3 % read the nutrition facts, while expiration date was the information
often looked into with 70.2%

Source:
Department of Health. Administrative Order No. 2014-0030
FDA. 2012. Guidelines on Voluntary Declaration of the Front of Pack Labeling (Energy per Calorie Content) on the Labels of Processed Food Products
FNRI-DOST. [Link] Nutrition Facts and Figures 2013. 8th National Nutrition Survey Overview
IX. UNDERSTANDING NUTRITION LABELS
 IX. Understanding Nutrition Labels
according to Academy of Nutrition and Dietetitcs
Step 1: Start with the Serving Size

Source: [Link] accessed: 77/24/2019

 IX. Understanding Nutrition Labels
according to Academy of Nutrition and Dietetitcs
Step 2: Check Out the Total Calories

Source: [Link] accessed: 77/24/2019

 IX. Understanding Nutrition Labels
according to Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
Step 3: Let the Percent Daily Values be your Guide
• Low: 5% or less
• High: 20% or more

Source: [Link] accessed: 77/24/2019

 IX. Understanding Nutrition Labels
according to Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

Step 4: Check Out the Nutrition Terms

• Low cholesterol: 20 milligrams or less and 2 grams or less of saturated fat per serving
• Reduced: At least 25 percent less of the specified nutrient or calories than the usual product
• Good source of: Provides at least 10 to 19 percent of the Daily Value of a particular vitamin
or nutrient per serving
• Calorie free: Less than five calories per serving
• Fat free/sugar free: Less than ½ gram of fat or sugar per serving
• Low sodium: 140 milligrams or less of sodium per serving
• High in: Provides 20 percent or more of the Daily Value of a specified nutrient per serving

Source: [Link] accessed: 77/24/2019

 Other Nutrition Terms: (according to American Cancer Society)
• Low fat: 3 g or less per serving
• Low saturated fat: 1 g or less per serving, with not more than 15% of the calories
coming from saturated fat
• Very low sodium: 35 mg or less per serving
• Lean : less than 10 g total fat, 4.5 g or less saturated fat, and less than 95 mg
cholesterol per serving and per 100 g
• Extra lean: less than 5 g fat, less than 2 g saturated fat, and less than 95 mg
cholesterol per serving and per 100g

Source: [Link] accessed: 77/24/2019

 IX. Understanding Nutrition Labels
according to Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

Step 5: Choose Low in Saturated Fat, Added Sugars and Sodium

Step 6: Get Enough Vitamins, Minerals and Fiber

Step 7: Consider the Additional Nutrients

Source: [Link] accessed: 77/24/2019

SHORT EXERCISE:
 Product 1
Serving size: 25 g
1. How many grams of sodium does an Servings per pack: 3
individual get from eating one pack of Amount Per Serving
product 1?
Calories 160 kcal
A. 0.09 g
Total Fat 2.5 g
B. 0.18 g Saturated Fat 1.5 g
C. 0.27 g Sodium 0.09 g
D. 0.36 g Total Carbohydrate 30.0 g
Fiber 0.2 g
Sugar 10.0 g
Total Protein 4.1 g
 Product 1
Serving size: 25 g
2. How many grams of sugar are there in two Servings per pack: 3
servings of Product 1? Amount Per Serving
Calories 160 kcal
A. 10.0 g Total Fat 2.5 g
B. 20.0 g Saturated Fat 1.5 g
C. 30.0 g Sodium 0.09 g
Total Carbohydrate 30.0 g
D. 40.0 g
Fiber 0.2 g
Sugar 10.0 g
Total Protein 4.1 g
 Product 1
Serving size: 25 g
3. Looking at Product 1, how many grams of Servings per pack: 3
fat are there in half of one serving? Amount Per Serving
Calories 160 kcal
A. 0.75 g Total Fat 2.5 g
B. 1.5 g Saturated Fat 1.5 g
C. 1.25 g Sodium 0.09 g
Total Carbohydrate 30.0 g
D. 2.5 g
Fiber 0.2 g
Sugar 10.0 g
Total Protein 4.1 g
 Product 1
Serving size: 25 g
4. Looking at Product 1, how many calories are Servings per pack: 3
there if an individual eat 2 packs of Amount Per Serving
product 1?
Calories 160 kcal
Total Fat 2.5 g
A. 160kcal Saturated Fat 1.5 g
B. 320 kcal Sodium 0.09 g
C. 480 kcal Total Carbohydrate 30.0 g
D. 960 kcal Fiber 0.2 g
Sugar 10.0 g
Total Protein 4.1 g
 Product 1
Serving size: 25 g
5. Looking at Product 1, this product is: Servings per pack: 3
Amount Per Serving

A. Low in Fat Calories 160 kcal

B. Medium in Fat Total Fat 2.5 g

Saturated Fat 1.5 g
C. High in Fat
Sodium 0.09 g
D. Low in cholesterol Total Carbohydrate 30.0 g
Fiber 0.2 g
Sugar 10.0 g
Total Protein 4.1 g
 Product 2 Product 3
6. Looking at Product 2 and 3, Serving size: 100 g Serving size: 100 g
which product do you think Servings per pack: 5 Servings per pack: 5
would be best option for Amount Per Serving Amount Per Serving
someone who was trying to lose Calories 120 kcal
Calories 141 kcal
weight?
Total Fat 7.8 g Total Fat 5.5 g
Saturated Fat 3.4 g Saturated Fat 2.6 g
A. Product 2 Sodium 1.1 g
Sodium 0.4 g
Total Carbohydrate 7.5 g
B. Product 3 Total Carbohydrate 13.9 g
Fiber 0.8 g Fiber 1.4 g
Sugar 1.4 g Sugar 0.7 g
Total Protein 3.7 g Total Protein 10.1 g
 Product 2 Product 3
7. Looking at Product 2 and 3, Serving size: 100 g Serving size: 100 g
which product do you think Servings per pack: 5 Servings per pack: 5
would be best option for Amount Per Serving Amount Per Serving
someone who was trying to Calories 120 kcal
Calories 141 kcal
reduce their risk of high blood
Total Fat 7.8 g Total Fat 5.5 g
pressure?
Saturated Fat 3.4 g Saturated Fat 2.6 g
Sodium 1.1 g
Sodium 0.4 g
A. Product 2 Total Carbohydrate 7.5 g
Total Carbohydrate 13.9 g
B. Product 3 Fiber 0.8 g Fiber 1.4 g
Sugar 1.4 g Sugar 0.7 g
Total Protein 3.7 g Total Protein 10.1 g
 Product 2 Product 3
8. Looking at Product 2 and 3, Serving size: 100 g Serving size: 100 g
which product do you think Servings per pack: 5 Servings per pack: 5
would be best option for Amount Per Serving Amount Per Serving
someone who was trying to Calories 120 kcal
Calories 141 kcal
reduce their fat intake?
Total Fat 7.8 g Total Fat 5.5 g
Saturated Fat 3.4 g Saturated Fat 2.6 g
A. Product 2 Sodium 1.1 g
Sodium 0.4 g
Total Carbohydrate 7.5 g
B. Product 3 Total Carbohydrate 13.9 g
Fiber 0.8 g Fiber 1.4 g
Sugar 1.4 g Sugar 0.7 g
Total Protein 3.7 g Total Protein 10.1 g
 Product 4
Serving size: 50 g
9. Looking at Product 4, this product is: Servings per pack: 2
Amount Per Serving %DV
A. Low in saturated fat Calories 170 kcal
Total Fat 5g 8%
B. Medium in saturated fat
Saturated Fat 1g 5.2%
C. High in saturated fat Sodium 1330mg 55%
Total Carbohydrate 28.0 g 9%

Fiber 2g 8%
Sugar 3g
Total Protein 3g
 Product 5
Serving size: 200 mL
10. Looking at Product 5, this product is: Servings per container: 1
Amount Per Serving %DV
Calories 132 kcal 6%
A. Very Low in sodium Total Fat 4.4 g
B. Low in sodium Saturated Fat 2.8 g
Trans Fat 0.16 g
C. High in sodium Sodium 118 mg
Total Carbohydrate 19 g
Sugar 14.4 g
Total Protein 4g
Calcium 224.7 mg 22%

Vit. C 32.3 mg 72%

11. A product is low in cholesterol if it has:

A. 30 milligrams or less and 3 grams or less of saturated fat per serving

B. 20 milligrams or less and 2 grams or less of saturated fat per serving
C. 10 milligrams or less and 1 grams or less of saturated fat per serving
D. 5 milligrams or less and 0.5 grams or less of saturated fat per serving
12. True or False. Calorie free products have less than five calories per serving
13. A product is a “Good source of” a nutrient if it:
A. Provides at least 40 to 49 percent of Daily Value of a particular vitamin or
nutrient per serving
B. Provides at least 30 to 39 percent of Daily Value of a particular vitamin or
nutrient per serving
C. Provides at least 20 to 29 percent of Daily Value of a particular vitamin or
nutrient per serving
D. Provides at least 10 to 19 percent of Daily Value of a particular vitamin or
nutrient per serving
14. True or False. A product is “High in” a vitamin or nutrient if it provides 30
percent or more of the Daily Value of a specified nutrient per serving
15. A product is fat free/ sugar free if it has:
A. Less than 1 gram of fat or sugar per serving
B. Less than 0.75 gram of fat or sugar per serving
C. Less than 0.5 gram of fat or sugar per serving
D. Less than 0.25 gram of fat or sugar per serving
ANSWER KEYS:
 Product 1
Serving size: 25 g
1. How many grams of sodium does an Servings per pack: 3
individual get from eating one pack of Amount Per Serving
product 1?
Calories 160 kcal
A. 0.09 g
Total Fat 2.5 g
B. 0.18 g Saturated Fat 1.5 g
C. 0.27 g Sodium 0.09 g
D. 0.36 g Total Carbohydrate 30.0 g
Fiber 0.2 g
Answer: C. Sugar 10.0 g
Total Protein 4.1 g
 Product 1
Serving size: 25 g
2. How many grams of sugar are there in two Servings per pack: 3
servings of Product 1? Amount Per Serving
Calories 160 kcal
A. 10.0 g Total Fat 2.5 g
B. 20.0 g Saturated Fat 1.5 g
C. 30.0 g Sodium 0.09 g
Total Carbohydrate 30.0 g
D. 40.0 g
Fiber 0.2 g
Answer: B. Sugar 10.0 g
Total Protein 4.1 g
 Product 1
Serving size: 25 g
3. Looking at Product 1, how many grams of Servings per pack: 3
fat are there in half of one serving? Amount Per Serving
Calories 160 kcal
A. 0.75 g Total Fat 2.5 g
B. 1.5 g Saturated Fat 1.5 g
C. 1.25 g Sodium 0.09 g
Total Carbohydrate 30.0 g
D. 2.5 g
Fiber 0.2 g
Answer: C. Sugar 10.0 g
Total Protein 4.1 g
 Product 1
Serving size: 25 g
4. Looking at Product 1, how many calories are Servings per pack: 3
there if an individual eat 2 packs of Amount Per Serving
product 1?
Calories 160 kcal
Total Fat 2.5 g
A. 160kcal Saturated Fat 1.5 g
B. 320 kcal Sodium 0.09 g
C. 480 kcal Total Carbohydrate 30.0 g
D. 960 kcal Fiber 0.2 g
Sugar 10.0 g
Answer: D. Total Protein 4.1 g
 Product 1
Serving size: 25 g
5. Looking at Product 1, this product is: Servings per pack: 3
Amount Per Serving

A. Low in Fat Calories 160 kcal

B. Medium in Fat Total Fat 2.5 g

Saturated Fat 1.5 g
C. High in Fat
Sodium 0.09 g
D. Low in cholesterol Total Carbohydrate 30.0 g
Fiber 0.2 g
Answer: A. Sugar 10.0 g
Total Protein 4.1 g
 Product 2 Product 3
6. Looking at Product 2 and 3, Serving size: 100 g Serving size: 100 g
which product do you think Servings per pack: 5 Servings per pack: 5
would be best option for Amount Per Serving Amount Per Serving
someone who was trying to lose Calories 120 kcal
Calories 141 kcal
weight?
Total Fat 7.8 g Total Fat 5.5 g
Saturated Fat 3.4 g Saturated Fat 2.6 g
A. Product 2 Sodium 1.1 g
Sodium 0.4 g
Total Carbohydrate 7.5 g
B. Product 3 Total Carbohydrate 13.9 g
Fiber 0.8 g Fiber 1.4 g
Sugar 1.4 g Sugar 0.7 g
Total Protein 3.7 g Total Protein 10.1 g
Answer: B.
 Product 2 Product 3
7. Looking at Product 2 and 3, Serving size: 100 g Serving size: 100 g
which product do you think Servings per pack: 5 Servings per pack: 5
would be best option for Amount Per Serving Amount Per Serving
someone who was trying to Calories 120 kcal
Calories 141 kcal
reduce their risk of high blood
Total Fat 7.8 g Total Fat 5.5 g
pressure?
Saturated Fat 3.4 g Saturated Fat 2.6 g
Sodium 1.1 g
Sodium 0.4 g
A. Product 2 Total Carbohydrate 7.5 g
Total Carbohydrate 13.9 g
B. Product 3 Fiber 0.8 g Fiber 1.4 g
Sugar 1.4 g Sugar 0.7 g
Total Protein 3.7 g Total Protein 10.1 g
Answer: A.
 Product 2 Product 3
8. Looking at Product 2 and 3, Serving size: 100 g Serving size: 100 g
which product do you think Servings per pack: 5 Servings per pack: 5
would be best option for Amount Per Serving Amount Per Serving
someone who was trying to Calories 120 kcal
Calories 141 kcal
reduce their fat intake?
Total Fat 7.8 g Total Fat 5.5 g
Saturated Fat 3.4 g Saturated Fat 2.6 g
A. Product 2 Sodium 1.1 g
Sodium 0.4 g
Total Carbohydrate 7.5 g
B. Product 3 Total Carbohydrate 13.9 g
Fiber 0.8 g Fiber 1.4 g
Sugar 1.4 g Sugar 0.7 g
Total Protein 3.7 g Total Protein 10.1 g
Answer: B.
 Product 4
Serving size: 50 g
9. Looking at Product 4, this product is: Servings per pack: 2
Amount Per Serving %DV
A. Low in saturated fat Calories 170 kcal
Total Fat 5g 8%
B. Medium in saturated fat
Saturated Fat 1g 5.2%
C. High in saturated fat Sodium 1330mg 55%
Total Carbohydrate 28.0 g 9%

Fiber 2g 8%
Sugar 3g
Answer: A. Total Protein 3g
 Product 5
Serving size: 200 mL
10. Looking at Product 5, this product is: Servings per container: 1
Amount Per Serving %DV
Calories 132 kcal 6%
A. Very Low in sodium Total Fat 4.4 g
B. Low in sodium Saturated Fat 2.8 g
Trans Fat 0.16 g
C. High in sodium Sodium 118 mg
Total Carbohydrate 19 g
Sugar 14.4 g
Total Protein 4g
Answer: B. Calcium 224.7 mg 22%

Vit. C 32.3 mg 72%

11. A product is low in cholesterol if it has:

A. 30 milligrams or less and 3 grams or less of saturated fat per serving

B. 20 milligrams or less and 2 grams or less of saturated fat per serving
C. 10 milligrams or less and 1 grams or less of saturated fat per serving
D. 5 milligrams or less and 0.5 grams or less of saturated fat per serving

Answer: B.
12. True or False. Calorie free products has less than five calories per serving

Answer: TRUE
13. A product is a “Good source of” a nutrient if it:
A. Provides at least 40 to 49 percent of Daily Value of a particular vitamin or
nutrient per serving
B. Provides at least 30 to 39 percent of Daily Value of a particular vitamin or
nutrient per serving
C. Provides at least 20 to 29 percent of Daily Value of a particular vitamin or
nutrient per serving
D. Provides at least 10 to 19 percent of Daily Value of a particular vitamin or
nutrient per serving

Answer: D.
14. True or False. A product is “High in” a vitamin or nutrient if it provides 30
percent or more of the Daily Value of a specified nutrient per serving

Answer: FALSE
15. A product is fat free/ sugar free if it has:
A. Less than 1 gram of fat or sugar per serving
B. Less than 0.75 gram of fat or sugar per serving
C. Less than 0.5 gram of fat or sugar per serving
D. Less than 0.25 gram of fat or sugar per serving

Answer: C.
-Thank you-