Talk:Nutrition facts label

message: 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)
replies: text: See Template:Nutritional value.  --Una Smith (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 13 November 2006
:One word: Plastics  Water. -R. S. Shaw 22:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. \sim Lenoxus " * " 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the rest of it? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Article title

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Canadian entry seems odd to me... 

message: 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
:: see also EC Nutrition Labelling Directive
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)
replies: text: Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (see standard 1.2.8)
--ToobMug 11:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK standard formatting 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lacks info on "2000 calorie diet" 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fair Use/Copyright? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks like fiber is calculated wrong 

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Nutrition facts label which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://newsletter.sgs.com/eNewsletterPro/uploadedimages/000006/sgs-safeguards-19712-eu-updates-nutrition-and-health-claims-regulation-a4-en-12.pdf
*:Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Nutrition facts label]] 

message: It looks like the subsection on the US nutritional label claims that because the old label communicates poorly with certain groups of consumers, the updated label will exacerbate that informational disparity. That seems like a non sequitur, so the argument should be clarified (and cited) or eliminated. 129.93.4.26 (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible improper synthesis flagged 

message: The selection hierarchy also allows the NFT to occupy no more than 15% of the physical package's available display area (ADS), but never to be smaller than a format that would be <=15% of ADS. In practice, determining the ADS of a package, and selecting the appropriate NFT format, can be a detailed calculation.
It must be bad when you're already lost at the first sentence. "... a format that ..." references what, exactly? — MaxEnt 13:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  It must be bad when ... 

message: Would it be appropriate to add a globalize tag () to this article? It could use some more non-Western countries. - Sdkb (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize tag? 

message: I just made two minor edits to the India section, adding the word "to" and changing "tend" to "tended" to make the sentences correct
or more readable. The first sentence looks like it may need to be changed also. The word "notified" seems very incorrect since it is stating that a government body "notified" a Bill/Amendment. The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 actually repealed the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 according to , and I think that is a legitimate source, but I haven't made any cited edits in wikipedia yet. Wcichello (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: India section