Guiding principles were recently suggested for revising the Daily Values (DVs) used for nutrition labels on foods and dietary supplements. These principles incorporate the new Dietary Reference Intakes, which are nutrient standards issued between 1997 and 2005 by the Institute of Medicine. Most of the principles are likely to lead to a more accurate basis for the DVs. However, the recommendation to use the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) rather than the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) should be reconsidered. Traditional public health messages to American and Canadian consumers have focused on nutrient intake levels with a high probability of being adequate. The RDA, with a 98% probability of adequacy, is designed to be the target nutrient intake for individuals; in contrast, the EAR has only a 50% probability of adequacy. Three considerations should lead to a preference for using the RDA rather than the EAR for the DVs: 1) consumers are likely to expect that a product (or a diet) with 100% of the DV has a high probability of nutrient adequacy; 2) use of the RDA for the DV will be consistent with other types of dietary guidance, such as the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 and US food guides; and 3) use of the RDA as a standard for nutrient intake, rather than the EAR, has a potential benefit (a higher prevalence of adequate intakes) that exceeds potential risk (a higher prevalence of excessive intakes).