BACKGROUND 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. OBJECTIVE 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. DESIGN 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. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Label and laboratory values and their ratio for each composite, for each of the four nutrients (sodium, total fat, total sugars, and saturated fat). STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED 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. RESULTS 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%). CONCLUSIONS 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.

中文翻译：

---

美国流行的含钠食品的标签和实验室钠值比较

背景营养标签是消费者和支持公共卫生战略的重要工具。最近公布的美国食品标签和实验室钠值的比较，以及不同品牌类型（国家或自有标签）或来源（商店或餐厅 [快餐和坐下]）的差异是不可用的。目的 目的是比较流行的含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，并检查是否存在品牌类型和来源的差异。设计 2010 年至 2014 年，美国农业部营养数据实验室在全国范围内收集了 125 种食物的 3,432 个样本，将同一食物的一个或多个样本（以下简称复合物）合并，并对其进行化学分析。对于这项比较事后分析，营养数据实验室将 114 种食物的 1,390 种复合材料（由一种或多种相同食物样品组成）的实验室值与相应的标签或网站（餐厅）营养值联系起来。主要结果测量 标签和实验室值及其对每种复合物、四种营养素（钠、总脂肪、总糖和饱和脂肪）中的每一种的比率。执行的统计分析营养数据实验室分析确定了每种复合材料的实验室值与标签值的比率，并将它们分为六组：≥141%、121% 至 140%、101% 至 120%、81% 至 100%、61%至 80%，且≤60%。对于钠，营养数据实验室分析确定了按食物、食物类别、品牌类型和来源划分的比率分布。结果对于钠，5% 的复合材料的实验室与标签值的比率 >120%，14% 的比率≤​​80%。22% 的自有品牌品牌组合的比率≤80%，而全国品牌的这一比例为 12%。只有 3% 的商店复合材料的比率大于 120%，而餐厅复合材料的比率为 11%。与快餐店 (9%) 相比，坐式餐厅 (37%) 的比率≤​​80% 更为普遍。结论 本研究表明，抽样的大多数标签和实验室值一致，标签值的申报不足是有限的。然而，有一些分歧。通过实验室分析定期监测食品的营养成分，确定食品标签的有效性，并有助于识别标签和实验室值不能很好比较的食品和食品类别，