J Acad Nutr Diet. 2019 Feb;119(2):293-300.e17. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2018.08.155. Epub 2018 Nov 13.
Nutrition labels are important tools for consumers and for supporting public health strategies. Recent, published comparison of label and laboratory sodium values for US foods, and differences by brand type (national or private-label) or source (store or restaurant [fast-food and sit-down]) is unavailable.
The objective was to compare label and laboratory values for sodium and related nutrients (ie, total sugars, total fat, and saturated fat) in popular, sodium-contributing foods, and examine whether there are differences by brand type, and source.
During 2010 to 2014, the Nutrient Data Laboratory of the US Department of Agriculture collected 3,432 samples nationwide of 125 foods, combined one or more samples of the same food (henceforth referred to as composites), and chemically analyzed them. For this comparative post hoc analysis, the Nutrient Data Laboratory linked laboratory values for 1,390 composites (consisting of one or more samples of the same food) of 114 foods to corresponding label or website (restaurant) nutrient values.
Label and laboratory values and their ratio for each composite, for each of the four nutrients (sodium, total fat, total sugars, and saturated fat).
Nutrient Data Laboratory analysis determined the ratio of laboratory to label value for each composite, and categorized them into six groups: ≥141%, 121% to 140%, 101% to 120%, 81% to 100%, 61% to 80%, and ≤60%. For sodium, the Nutrient Data Laboratory analysis determined the distribution of the ratios by food, food category, brand type, and source.
For sodium, 5% of the composites had ratios of laboratory to label values >120% and 14% had ratios ≤80%. Twenty-two percent of private-label brand composites had ratios ≤80%, compared with 12% of national brands. Only 3% of store composites had ratios >120% compared with 11% of restaurant composites. Ratios ≤80% were more prevalent among sit-down restaurants (37%) compared with fast-food restaurants (9%).
This study shows that a majority of label and laboratory values sampled agree and underdeclaration of label values is limited. However, there is some disagreement. Periodic monitoring of the nutrient content of foods through laboratory analyses establishes validity of the food labels and helps identify foods and food categories where the label and laboratory values do not compare well, and hence may need laboratory analyses to support accuracy of food composition data.
营养标签是消费者和支持公共卫生策略的重要工具。最近，发表了对美国食品标签和实验室钠值的比较，以及品牌类型（国家或自有品牌）或来源（商店或餐馆[快餐和坐式]）的差异，但没有相关信息。
本研究旨在比较流行的高钠食品中钠和相关营养素（即总糖、总脂肪和饱和脂肪）的标签和实验室值，并检查品牌类型和来源是否存在差异。
2010 年至 2014 年，美国农业部营养数据实验室在全国范围内采集了 125 种食品的 3432 个样本，将同一食品的一个或多个样本进行组合，并对其进行化学分析。在这项事后比较分析中，营养数据实验室将 114 种食品的 1390 种复合食品（由一种或多种相同食品的样本组成）的实验室值与相应的标签或网站（餐馆）营养值进行了关联。
每种复合食品的四种营养素（钠、总脂肪、总糖和饱和脂肪）的标签和实验室值及其比值。
营养数据实验室分析确定了每个复合食品的实验室与标签值的比值，并将其分为六组：≥141%、121%至 140%、101%至 120%、81%至 100%、61%至 80%和≤60%。对于钠，营养数据实验室分析还确定了按食品、食品类别、品牌类型和来源分布的比值分布。
对于钠，5%的复合食品的实验室与标签值的比值>120%，14%的复合食品的比值≤80%。自有品牌复合食品中，22%的比值≤80%，而全国性品牌的这一比例为 12%。只有 3%的商店复合食品的比值>120%，而餐馆复合食品的这一比例为 11%。与快餐店（9%）相比，坐式餐厅（37%）的比值≤80%更为普遍。
本研究表明，大多数标签和实验室值是一致的，且标签值的低估是有限的。然而，还是存在一些差异。通过实验室分析定期监测食品的营养成分，可以确定食品标签的有效性，并有助于确定标签和实验室值不一致的食品和食品类别，因此需要实验室分析来支持食品成分数据的准确性。
