Changes to the Nutrition Facts label

Changes to the Nutrition Facts label

I don’t think we have a thread for this yet. Nothing earth-shattering, but the new label does look better to me:

A couple articles about it:

I wonder, in a product like Soylent, are all the sugars considered “added sugars”? I would assume so, but I’ve only just glanced at the new label, so I haven’t read all the new changes in-depth yet. I’m also pleased to see that potassium is now required on the label; that omission made no sense to me.

I also had to pull out this super-high-quality comment from the WaPo article on added sugars:

It is not a ‘win’ in the slightest. It is a loss for those who do not give a damned about ‘additional sugar’ in things like myself.
Why do I not give a damned? Because I know that we have been eating these massive amounts of sugar for YEARS and it was only RECENTLY that obesity started being a problem.
At about the same exact time we did a little something called adding sugar SUBSTITUTES to our diets.
Some of which have been proven to cause weight gain and diabetes in mice.

The best part: Why do I not give a damned?



  1. “Calories from fat” is history…

  2. In the example, 8g of fat has gone from 12% to 10% rda whereas 37g of carbs has gone from 12% to 13% and 4g of dietary fiber has gone from 16% to 14%

  3. How do you get from 1g sugars to 12g?!?!? If 10g was “added sugar” how did this not show up in the old label???


I assumed the label was for demonstrative purposes and does not actually represent a real product. I don’t know why they didn’t match the sugar quantities but they did match everything else (other than “close enough for government work”).


That’s what the article pointed out that the label previously only required them to put in the natural sugar content before the food was produced and packaged but not the additional sugars added by the manufacturer.

“This change will allow consumers to tell the difference between sugars added during processing versus sugars that come naturally, such as in fresh fruits and dairy, she added”.

“Specifically, the industry was content that the label did not reveal the amount of “added sugars” in a product – the sugar content not present before the food was produced and packaged – or how much of these added sugars people should consume daily.”

I also found this removal interesting…not sure why that would be removed.

Ok… Still that seems like an astounding oversight on the prior labels that “added sugars” NOT be counted in “sugars”. I do recall all the “added sugar” controversies over the last year or two… So on older labels that included “added sugars” it was done so voluntarily?

She’s referring to the separate listing for added sugars under total sugars. Added sugar was always listed under sugars on the old label, but it didn’t differentiate between added and natural sugars. For example, if a can of soda had 56 g of sugars before, it will now say 56 g of total sugars, and under that it will say 56 g are added sugars, whereas an apple would say 19 g of sugars before, it will now say 19 g of total sugars, but it won’t list any added sugars unless it’s candy-coated or something.

1 Like

I totally agree, I know I always assumed “Sugars” listed on the label meant ALL sugars not just natural sugar in my opinion that is massive DECEPTION…no surprise obesity and diabetes are such a problem I’m completely baffled by this

1 Like

So just for fun I tried extrapolating that out and adding protein to reach a 2000kcal assumed daily intake…
The old label produced 62/30/8 CFP macros
The new label produced 57/36/7 CFP macros
Seems low for protein (35-40g/day?)

Also interesting that the new recommendation seems to imply a daily intake of 30g dietary fiber. 2000kcal of 1.5 has 12g. I guess it’s a topic for a different thread but sometimes I worry my gut bacteria gets lazy on Soylent leaving me less prepared for muggle food…

For more than two decades, the label had gone unchanged, which, for the most part, food manufacturers seemed to like. Specifically, the industry was content that the label did not reveal the amount of “added sugars” in a product – the sugar content not present before the food was produced and packaged – or how much of these added sugars people should consume daily.

I could be wrong but my interpretation of the comment I bolded along with the sample label comparison makes me think I am correct. That’s why the old label shows only 1g of sugar compared to the new label showing 12g.

Again, this is just my opinion.

Added sugars were already included in sugars (and included in the total calorie count). The quote is referring to the addition of a subheading for added sugars, which were previously “hidden” only in the sense that they were not explicitly called out as they will be in the future.

As an example, here is the current Nutrition Facts for a can of Coca-Cola from their website:

All of the sugar has been added (as High Fructose Corn Syrup). The only sugar-difference going forward is that sugars will be renamed total sugars (still 39 g) and underneath it will say that it includes 39 g added sugars.

If added sugars were “hidden” in the way you are suggesting, a normal can of Coca-Cola would have said 0 g of sugars (because it’s all added).


Ok thank you for clarifying…I apologize for the confusion.


Gonna ask the controversial question now: is there really any difference between sugar already in something and sugar being added?


For “constructed” foods like Soylent, I think by definition all the sugar will be added (but we’ll see?). So added sugars aren’t necessarily bad, but I’d wager that Soylent is probably an outlier in that regard. As for regular food, maybe it’s not a strict rule, but in general the added sugar is just empty calories. Coca-Cola, for instance, will give you energy and hydration but not much else, and the quality of that energy is pretty poor, or at least rough on your body. An apple, on the other hand, also has fiber and at least trace amounts of protein, fat, and some vitamins and minerals. In practice added sugars should usually be avoided whereas naturally occurring sugars are more likely to be in nutritious foods.

I think the more information the better, but I know the average person doesn’t want to be inundated with a giant label containing every vitamin and mineral. Added sugars seem like a worthwhile thing to point out to the average consumer; I’m glad for the change.

1 Like

I think most foods are “constructed” foods really though? Anything with more than one ingredient? Is there that much a difference between the way multiple ingredients make up Soylent vs. something like instant flavored oatmeal? I think both of those would qualify as “constructed” foods.

Good question. From the body’s perspective I would guess no… Perhaps it’s just a way of shaming manufactures who are adding empty calories.

From a health perspective perhaps total sugars - dietary fiber might be most useful.


I don’t know about “most” foods being constructed in the same way Soylent is (obviously any whole food is not), but obviously many other foods are comprised of disparate ingredients; I never said otherwise.

As far as added sugars, I’m sure the instant flavored oatmeal would also need to list its sugars in the same added sugars category (plain oatmeal has so little natural sugar that it would be rounded down to 0 g, I believe).