Get an fda-compliant nutrition facts panel for your snack

Build My Label

---

The problem, in your words

You have a good product, a bag, a buyer at a regional chain asking for "your nutritionals," a co-packer who needs artwork by Friday, and an Amazon listing you're afraid to touch. Somewhere in there you have to produce a panel, and the quotes you've been given run from $195 to $1,609. Then there's the part nobody warned you about: your 2.5 oz bag needs a different panel structure than your 1 oz bag, and it isn't because the numbers doubled.

Dual-column labeling: the rule that catches snack brands

From 21 CFR 101.9(b)(12):

Products that are packaged and sold individually and that contain at least 200 percent and up to and including 300 percent of the applicable reference amount must provide an additional column within the Nutrition Facts label that lists the quantitative amounts and percent Daily Values for the entire package, as well as a column listing the quantitative amounts and percent Daily Values for a serving that is less than the entire package.

The reference amount, the RACC, comes from 21 CFR 101.12, not from you. For chips, pretzels, popcorn, extruded snacks, fruit and vegetable-based snacks and grain-based snack mixes it's 30 g.

Now run the same chip across four pack sizes:

The 2.5 oz bag is the trap, and 2 to 3 ounces is exactly where snack brands land their hero SKU. Sellers look at it, think "that's about two servings," divide by two, print one column, and ship. It's wrong, and missing dual-column on multi-serving products is a documented Amazon suppression trigger.

Note what else that table shows: going bigger takes you back out of the band. The 8 oz share bag is over 300%, nobody's expected to eat it in one occasion, and it returns to a single column. Brands assume the rule scales with size. It doesn't. It's a window, and the window is the size of a snack bag. Fixing it isn't an image edit either — both columns have to be computed, rounded and laid out to spec, which means regenerating the panel.

Retail placement makes the panel a gate

You're the segment most likely to be chasing shelf space, and in retail the panel stops being a compliance question and becomes a vendor onboarding requirement. Category buyers, distributor portals and broker packets want the same set before you get a PO: spec sheet, ingredient statement, allergen declaration, net weight, case dimensions, UPC, and the panel. Not "before launch." Now, in the form.

Two consequences. Your timeline is set by the slowest input — an extension lab quotes 2 to 4 weeks, so if your buyer meeting is in nine days that's not a pricing problem, it's a lost window. And every SKU and every pack size needs its own panel: four flavors across three pack sizes is twelve panels, three of which may be dual-column.

Worth knowing too: wholesale into retail is one of the standard conditions that ends a cottage food exemption. Those laws are almost universally direct-to-consumer only. The exemption you relied on at the farmers market doesn't follow you onto the shelf.

"High protein" and "low sugar" are what void your exemption

Snack packaging is where nutrient content claims live: front of bag, big type, whole brand built on it. Under 21 CFR 101.9(j)(18) the FDA small business exemption does not apply to any product bearing a nutrient content claim, health claim, or other nutrition information — on the label, in labeling, or in advertising. Your Amazon bullets count. Your website counts.

"High protein" is defined at 21 CFR 101.54: 20% or more of the Daily Value per RACC. A protein claim also pulls in 101.9(c)(7)(i), which then requires a %DV for protein calculated on a protein-quality-corrected basis rather than raw grams. Plant-protein snacks regularly find the corrected figure lands under 20% and the claim they built the bag around isn't available.

"Low sugar" is worse, because it isn't a defined claim at all. FDA defines "low" for calories, fat, saturated fat, sodium and cholesterol at 21 CFR 101.60–101.62, and defines sugar claims — "sugar free," "no added sugars," "reduced sugar" — at 101.60(c). There is no "low sugar." Under 21 CFR 101.13(b) you may only characterize a nutrient level using terms the regulations define. So "low sugar" on a bag is both an unauthorized claim and nutrition information that voids your exemption.

One more that bites snacks specifically: for any "low" claim, if the RACC is 30 g or less — yours is — the food must also meet the limit per 50 g, not just per serving. That makes "low sodium" and "low fat" harder to earn than the per-serving number suggests. Full breakdown: "high protein" just voided your FDA exemption.

What the alternatives cost

Read the UGA line again: +$40 per size. Three pack sizes is three charges, because each is a separate panel and one of them is dual-column.

Then the number that actually decides it: revisions. Snack brands reformulate more than almost anyone — a seasoning supplier swap, an oil change for shelf life, cutting sodium 15% to make a claim work. Recipe Cost Calculator markets against exactly this pain, quoting external lab analysis at $50–$300 per recipe, per revision. Here a reformulation is a re-run. Unlimited on subscription, 90 days of edits on the one-time.

How it works

1. Get the recipe in. Type it, paste it from a spreadsheet, or photograph your batch sheet and let us read it. Cups, tablespoons, ounces and scoops convert to FDA units without you doing the math.
2. Tell us the pack size. We compare net weight to the RACC for your category and tell you whether you're in the 200%–300% band.
3. We build the panel: RACC-derived serving size, FDA rounding, allergen declaration by either legal method, and dual columns automatically when the rule applies.
4. Download PNG, PDF and SVG at print resolution for your co-packer. 90 days of edits on the one-time; unlimited on any subscription.

The four questions everyone asks

"Is a database-calculated panel actually legal?" Yes. FDA's guidance is that the source of the data used to calculate label values is the manufacturer's prerogative. You're responsible for the accuracy of the values, not for a particular method of getting there. Lab analysis earns its cost defending a borderline nutrient content claim, a live question for a brand chasing "high protein": do you have to send your food to a lab?

"Do I even need a label?" Maybe not yet. Direct-to-consumer under a cottage food exemption, no claims, under the small business thresholds, off marketplaces — you may be fine, and we'd rather say so than sell you something. But snack brands trip the conditions faster than any other category: retail, Amazon and front-of-bag claims each end the exemption on their own. Check your case: do I need a nutrition facts label.

"What if I get it wrong?" The four places snack panels fail are serving size, rounding, dual-column detection and formatting. The tool handles all four. See nutrition label rounding rules and why design-tool labels fail FDA spec.

"What if my recipe changes?" Regenerate it. Unlimited revisions on any subscription; 90 days of edits on the $39 one-time.

Social proof

[PLACEHOLDER: retail/brand logo wall or verified review block. Do not populate with invented names, quotes, or statistics.]

Pricing

Annual billing saves two months. One SKU, one pack size, stable recipe: buy the $39. A line with multiple flavors and sizes: Starter, because you're generating a dozen panels before you ship anything.

Build the panel

Recipe and pack size in, an FDA-compliant Nutrition Facts panel out, dual columns included when the rule applies.

Build My Label