Lies nutrition labels tell us that we believe..

rickloving
rickloving Posts: 90 Member
edited November 15 in Food and Nutrition
Food labels tell us “Zero Calorie” and “Calorie Free”, “Low Fat” and “No Fat” but it isn’t the truth.
The food label guidelines allow for a lot of misinformation, here is what you can really expect…

When a nutrition label says…Calorie Free, Zero Calories, No Calories, Without Calories, Trivial Source of Calories, Negligible Source of Calories, Dietary Insignificant Source of Calories it means that the food you are eating can contain “less than 5 calories per serving” and qualify for the Zero calorie indicator.

This means when you are spraying your 20 squirts of ZERO calorie spray butter on your steamed broccoli, you could be eating a hidden 99.9 calories each time you use it.

How about FAT, when a label says Fat Free, Zero Fat, No Fat, Without Fat, Trivial Source of Fat, Negligible Source of Fat, Dietary Insignificant Source of Fat it means that the food you are eating can contain “less than .5 grams of fat per serving” and qualify for the Zero FAT indicator.

So that bottle of FAT FREE dressing with a TBS serving size and you use 6 TBS for your salad, just netted you 2.99 grams of FAT at an extra 9 calories per gram.

What about sugar.. Sugar Free, Zero Sugar, No Sugar, Without Sugar, Trivial Source of Sugar, Negligible Source of Sugar, Dietarily Insignificant Source of Sugar all means that the food you are eating can contain “less than .5 grams of sugar per serving” and qualify for the Zero Sugar indicator.

The smaller the “serving” size and larger number of servings per container allow food manufacturers to hide a lot of information on the food label.
Don’t even get me started on the single wrapped “bar” that is 2 servings per package…that’s like saying half a cookie is a serving….

Rant over....

Rick Loving

Replies

  • HumboldtFred
    HumboldtFred Posts: 159 Member
    If you know about this stuff, how is it hidden...............................
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    If you use enough of that stuff to make the calories matter, you've got other problems than the calories.
  • brewingPHX
    brewingPHX Posts: 284 Member
    1155825236.gif
  • aishlynn
    aishlynn Posts: 181 Member
    Well, I think this is interesting. TFS :)
  • jessicapk
    jessicapk Posts: 574 Member
    Sometimes we over think things and the simplest answer is really the best. The FDA lets those guys "hide" that information for the simple reason that it really is negligible. I do agree that eating half a bottle of dressing might make a big difference to your diet but who does that? Even people I know who drown their salads wouldn't make enough of a difference with that small amount of calories. There is a margin of error in everything. Some are up and some are down. The beauty of it is that it tends to average out. Anyway, if you're eating enough of anything that's fat free and should have fat, your problem is that you don't have taste buds. Have you ever eaten fat free salad dressing? Yikes!
  • shmulyeng
    shmulyeng Posts: 472 Member
    rickloving wrote: »
    The smaller the “serving” size and larger number of servings per container allow food manufacturers to hide a lot of information on the food label.
    Don’t even get me started on the single wrapped “bar” that is 2 servings per package…that’s like saying half a cookie is a serving….

    These last couple of deceptions are going away now. The guidelines were changed and they're not allowed to list individual size containers as more than one serving. They're also not allowed to list the same item with different size servings even if it's sold in larger containers. If you noticed, the serving size of soda now matches the size of a can even if it's in a bottle.
  • Chezzie84
    Chezzie84 Posts: 873 Member
    This is why in the UK the nutrition label also states the calories, fat, sugar not just by serving but by 100g or 100ml. This way it is not really hidden.
  • shmulyeng
    shmulyeng Posts: 472 Member
    Chezzie84 wrote: »
    This is why in the UK the nutrition label also states the calories, fat, sugar not just by serving but by 100g or 100ml. This way it is not really hidden.
    Is it "also"? Most European labels I've seen only have it per 100g. Which has it's own set of problems.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    shmulyeng wrote: »
    Chezzie84 wrote: »
    This is why in the UK the nutrition label also states the calories, fat, sugar not just by serving but by 100g or 100ml. This way it is not really hidden.
    Is it "also"? Most European labels I've seen only have it per 100g. Which has it's own set of problems.

    Over here, some things have both, some things only per 100g. What problems would that be though? It's a lot easier to compare two similar things nutrient-wise.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories