In the 1940s when President Roosevelt introduced the RDA, or the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) model, America’s focus on nutritious eating began to receive nationwide attention. Taking on the form of a pyramid in the 1980’s (which is why it’s typically called the food pyramid), this model has gone through many changes since its beginning more than 60 years ago[i].
This change and evolution of the RDA model is, in many respects, a positive step. It just goes to indicate that just as America’s data on diet and nutrition is dynamically changing, so too are its numerous models and guides that influences their eating habits. In fact, the USDA itself has decided to replace the term and now refers to “RDI’s” (“Reference Daily Intake”) as an alternative of RDA’s.
However, undermining some of this constructive change is the fact that many Individuals are increasingly confused over what, how, and when to eat. A survey conducted by the USDA in 1996 verified this fact when 40% of respondents agreed strongly with the assertion that “there are so many suggestions about healthy methods to eat, it’s hard to know what to believe”[ii]
The concept of the Daily Value, or “DV” is one of the most serious examples of this rising dietary confusion . The DV which was launched by the USDA in the 1990s, is a numerical reference for various diets whose purpose was to enable individuals to make wholesome eating selections [iii].
The philosophical concept behind the DV, which is expressed as a percentage, is that it offers a vital piece of information. The DV informs consumers how much of a nutrient they are getting from a particular food item. For instance, it will be easier for consumers to keep track of how much fat they’re consuming throughout the day if the DV label on the can of beans says that it has “10% of the DV for fat.”
However, one doesn’t need to be a mathematician or a dietician to see that the above idea begs a significant question: is this10% of the DV for fat “good” or is it “unhealthy”?. To put it simply, the consumer needs to be guided if he has to select this specific source of fat because it is a source for good fat or should he stay away from it for the opposite reason?
This is the question that has provided fuel for much of the confusion among the health-conscious consumers. It has prompted particular anxiety among those who are wisely ensuring that they eat the recommended daily allowance for protein.
You can not underestimate the importance of protein in a diet. It isn’t simply an essential macronutrient for athletes, such as bodybuilders and runners. Protein is critical for life itself, no matter mobility or athleticism. Among other important functions, protein maintains and repairs muscle tissue, aids digestion, regulates chemicals, manages hormones, and produces enzymes [iv]. A dangerous lack of protein, in extreme cases, is the cause of a condition referred to as Kwashiorkor, where the body cannibalizes itself [2].
Trying to find the appropriate quantity of protein – as expressed in terms of DV% — has been a difficult challenge for many eaters. Unfortunately, as a result of this confusion, some consumers haven’t been eating high quality protein. This is as a result of the DV number is simply not sufficient info upon which they can make healthy protein eating decisions.
The Reference Daily Intake or the RDI is actually missing from the DV equation. A protein RDI of 50 grams per day is generally used. Consumers can take the number of total grams of protein in a product, and divide it by this RDI for protein to determine what the “optimum” DV number should be.
For instance, a product which has 25 grams of protein, when you divide it with an RDI of 50 grams per day, would have an “optimum” DV of 50%. Thus, the DV of 50% should appear on the product’s label. If the number is lower than 50%, the consumers immediately know that it isn’t an optimum source of protein.
Finding high quality sources for important micronutrients like protein (among others) is a challenge that should not be difficult, but it is, because some food makers don’t want to educate consumers on how to determine high quality from low quality. This is particularly tragic in the health and nutrition food industry since you would anticipate manufacturers to go all-out for high quality nutrition. Unfortunately, this isn’t normally the case.
However, you should not despair because of this. Rather, its just as much motive to support corporations that are making the effort to make sure that their products replicate only high quality DV ranges, and a concurrent effort to educate the general public on methods to determine optimum DV.
[1] The intent of the DV concept, according to the FDA, is not to dictate to people how much they should be eating. It is not to be concluded from this instance that the eater can eat 10 cans of beans to achieve the “100% of the recommended fat intake per day”. The DV is meant as a reference number only and never as a recommendation. The RDA/RDI has a direct correlation on the consumption per day, which we will be discussing later on.
[2] Kwashiorkor is more frequent among developing countries, though there have been some reported instances in the U.S. as well.
References
[i] Source: “Food Pyramid History”. http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Fall02/Greene/history.htm
[ii] Source: America’s Eating Habits: Changes and Consequences. USDA. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib750/
[iii] Source “Daily Values Encourage Healthy Eating”. FDA. http://www.fda.gov/fdac/special/foodlabel/dvs.html
[iv] Source: “The Importance of Protein”. OhioHealth. http://www.ohiohealth.com/facilities/mcconnell/weightmanage/details/protein.html
Protica Research (Protica, Inc.) specializes in the development of Capsulized Foods. Protica manufactures Profect, IsoMetric, Pediagro, Fruitasia and over 100 other brands, including Medicare-approved, whey liquid protein for renal care patients. You can learn more at Protica Research – Copyright