Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Nutrition Labels and Hidden Sugars
Replies
-
tjjalmeida wrote: »When I hear "Hidden sugars" I immediately think about the fact that there are so many different names that they call sugar on labels. So if you look at the ingredients and are searching for the word sugar, you will probably miss it! That's what frustrates me, it feels like the food industry is trying to "hide" the fact that they loaded the food with sugar. They other thing I learned and something I avoid entirely is anything that is "Fat Free" or "Low fat" because when they take the fat out of foods, it doesn't taste as good so they replace it with added sugar!!
I look for natural foods that use honey or Agave as sweetners and if I'm going to by yogurt or cottage cheese, I avoid the fat free or low fat options.
Sugar isn't just sugar though. It's not an industry creation, that's just how various sugars are categorised. Now, some corporations or manufacturers may use these terms with public ignorance in mind but that's the problem, not the labelling.1 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Along with the McDonald's fries, a better example from what I gave would be Jamaican beef patties. I occasionally eat a store-bought variety of this food. There is sugar added (7 grams of sugar is listed for a 5oz patty). However, the patty does not taste sweet at all.
I'm not surprised by that. My brother's ex, who is Vietnamese, taught me a whole bunch of Vietnamese recipes, including spring rolls, meatballs, minced pork salads etc and they ALL have sugar added to the meat mixture. It's really not an unusual ingredient in what you would consider to be "savoury" meat foods. Just not one you'd think of if you didn't make those things yourself.
I think the "surprise" about sugar in foods is related to the decline in cooking skills. Sugar is a flavor enhancer - just like salt. It is used in a lot of savory dishes to bring out different flavors, enhance browning or change texture. Even if you have never added plain sugar to a savory dish, I'll bet you've added something like soy, worcestershire or teriyaki sauces or ketchup. All of which have sugar.
Now, is it overused in processed foods? Absolutely. But that's because people like it. If they like it, they buy it. If they buy it, then manufacturers will make it. If we don't buy it any more. They quit making it. That's how this whole system works.
I wish some people would spend the time they use complaining about the evil food companies "hiding" sugar in foods to watch a few episodes of Good Eats or America's Test Kitchen and see the science behind cooking and how the most humble ingredients and simple techniques majorly impact the flavor and texture of food.
That theory of "if people stop buying it..." is a good theory. But, in Australia for example, the major supermarket chains appear to be significantly reducing the availability of non-store branded products. The consequence is that there really is no choice. Of that's full of sugar, bad luck, there's no viable alternative.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Low fat dairy tends to have high %sugar because taking the fat out increased the concentration of the natural sugars left behind.
Unsweetened yoghurt tends to be 4-6% carbohydrate while 0-10% fat.
Not really. I did a comparison from the USDA. There's no real difference.
Plain nonfat greek has about 59 calories in 100 g, with 10 g protein and 3.24 g sugar.
Plain from whole milk has about 97 calories in 100 g, with 9 g protein and 4 g sugar.
Don't know why the sugar number goes up -- maybe they end up taking out a bit of sugar too. The nonfat has more water.
Actual greek yoghurt 10% fat 4.2 sugar 3.4 protein. Just off the label.
The USDA stuff looks like whey is back mixed into it or something. Compare protein/sugar ratio of milk.
So I stand by what I said with a wider range and more words - the sugar content varies independent of fat in the range 3-6 % with fat in the range 0-10% in actual products on sale. This isn't because sugar is added but because fat is being added or removed as is protein in variable proportions.
The USDA numbers are consistent with Fage. Taking the numbers from the Fage nutrition labels:
The non low fat version sold here is 200 g, 190 calories, 18 g protein, 8 g sugar.
The 2% is 200 g, 150 calories, 20 g protein, 8 g sugar.
The non fat is smaller by weight (same size container), so 170 g, 100 calories, 18 g protein, 7 g sugar. Even if you converted it to 200 g, you'd get 8.2 g of sugar (which would be 8 on the label here), so no more than in the whole milk variety.0 -
VioletRojo wrote: »I don't understand how the sugar can be hidden if it's listed on the ingredient label. Either the sugar occurs naturally in the food, or it's added. If it's added, it'll be on the ingredient label.
Yes, it's on the ingredient label, but that doesn't tell how much of the listed carbohydrates are from added sugars, so that's the difference on the new labels.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »I disagree that there's hidden sugars. I'm really not sure who this is aimed at and it feels a lot like the "calories from fat" logic, or lack thereof.
You mean who the thread is aimed at, or the change in the nutrition labels?
If the former, I mostly am curious about why people feel sugar is hidden. @eveandqsmom gave a good example of why she believes it is.
@eveandqsmom Thanks for taking the time to respond!
The change in nutrition labels - I apologize for not being clear.
In my ideal world, we'd have a population that was aware of the different things that are all sugar (as @rankinsect pointed out, they typically end in -ose) as opposed to what we're going to get which is likely "Added sugar is universally bad! Look! They have to label it now so you know it's bad!" because a lot of people don't seem to have an even basic understanding of this stuff, which is definitely an education failure, IMO.
I hope I'm wrong about that, though.
I don't know if it will make that much of a difference, honestly. The people who are already scared of sugar will continue to be scared of sugar. The people who have no objections to added sugar will eat it anyway. The people who don't read labels will still have no idea.
I see some benefits: people who have to watch out for specific sugars can tell if there's something they should look for at a quick glance, people who are just starting to read labels will have a better idea if sugar is necessary to the product (i.e. you can get pasta sauce with added sugar or without), and some people who don't eat a nutrient-dense diet might be prompted to choose fruit over fruit juice cocktail or question if they should really have those Oreos.
I do agree that we have massively failed with education, and I'm all in favor of throwing many, many more resources into that area.
Hopefully, it won't. I've just seen the power of suggestion from people like the Food Babe in people in my everyday life. I think it has the potential to be more damaging than the anti-fat movement because of the Internet.
I think people will still have to look more closely if there's a certain type of sugar they're trying to avoid, but I kind of doubt that people will start making the choice from fruit juice to fruit. Maybe they will, though.
This is definitely an area where I'd like to be wrong! And I'm delighted about the other additions to the label.
Oh dear lord you uttered the name of she who should not be named. What plague have you now wrought upon us?
At least I'm not the one posting actual conspiracy theories right now!
But yes, I'll take full responsibility for any curse or plague that is wrought upon us.2 -
Evaporated sugar cane juice is not sugar, per se; that is, it is not pure sucrose.
It looks like this:
(credit ER & Jenny)'
When sugar is extracted (milled) from cane plants, it requires a 2-crystallization process to get to the final product of pure sucrose.
Sugar cane juice has a concentrated amount of sugar in comparison to the raw plant, but it is quite different than pure sugar chemically.
The labelling of foods require the actual food ingredients, not a common shorthand for them, be used.3 -
This is an old case, but it's new to me. Apparently several lawsuits have been filed regarding the use of "evaporated can juice" on labels.
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Regulation/Chobani-finally-prevails-in-evaporated-cane-juice-lawsuit-but-other-firms-still-being-targeted0 -
One of them was mentioned in my NPR link above.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »One of them was mentioned in my NPR link above.
Thanks, @lemurcat12. I've been lurking the discussion but obviously hadn't been following it too closely. Figured this was the better place to post this link rather than starting a new thread. I'll just let myself out again.
0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »One of them was mentioned in my NPR link above.
Thanks, @lemurcat12. I've been lurking the discussion but obviously hadn't been following it too closely. Figured this was the better place to post this link rather than starting a new thread. I'll just let myself out again.
Your link probably has more information; I wasn't suggesting that you shouldn't have linked!
Edit: In fact, it has a lot more information, such as the resolution of the Chobani case mentioned in my link.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »... and I don't worry about eating a small amount of sugar. But god damn I was surprised to learn it's there, and apparently so was everyone else judging from the responses.
I'm even more surprised (and angry) to learn that the stupid things aren't vegetarian.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »One of them was mentioned in my NPR link above.
Thanks, @lemurcat12. I've been lurking the discussion but obviously hadn't been following it too closely. Figured this was the better place to post this link rather than starting a new thread. I'll just let myself out again.
Your link probably has more information; I wasn't suggesting that you shouldn't have linked!
Edit: In fact, it has a lot more information, such as the resolution of the Chobani case mentioned in my link.
I think what I find most interesting in these cases is that they're mostly based on that FDA draft guideline that suggests the term is misleading. I don't know enough about the timeline to see if the FDA suggestion appeared before or as a reaction to consumer complaints. It seemed obvious to me that this is sugar, but I'm constantly reminded by stories like these that I'm, apparently, not the average consumer.0 -
From the link I posted: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163098211/evaporated-cane-juice-sugar-in-disguise, it seems like other sugar companies have been complaining about the term (which is used for a specific product):"All sugar is evaporated cane juice," Judy Sanchez, a spokesperson for the U.S. Sugar Corp., says. "They just use that for a natural-sounding name for a product."
Sanchez says all sugar is made by taking the liquid of the sugarcane plant, evaporating it and then putting it in a centrifuge to separate the gooey molasses from the crystallized sucrose. She says the only difference between evaporated cane juice and common white sugar is that the white sugar is stripped of all traces of molasses, while evaporated cane juice still has some little flecks of molasses that give it a darker caramel color.
"It's got negligible amounts of nutrients or anything like that. Healthwise it's not any better or worse for you," Sanchez says.
It makes me wonder if maybe those complaints were what the FDA was responding to, and then the FDA guidance prompted the lawsuits. (Kind of like the fight between sugar companies and HFCS.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I looked it up, since I had the same question. Less than half a gram.
It's used as a browning agent, not really part of the fries. Although there is likely a little residual.
http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/22/macdonalds-has-finally-revealed-how-it-makes-french-fries-5031511/0 -
I don't think there's actually "hidden" sugar. If you're looking for it, you can generally find it. In the ingredient list, sugar is anything ending with the letters "ose."
I didn't see it mentioned, but this week the FDA announced new food labeling that will show "added sugar." It will also address more realistic portion sizes, etc. Here's a link for anyone who would like to read more and see how the new label and old label stacks up: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htm1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »I disagree that there's hidden sugars. I'm really not sure who this is aimed at and it feels a lot like the "calories from fat" logic, or lack thereof.
You mean who the thread is aimed at, or the change in the nutrition labels?
If the former, I mostly am curious about why people feel sugar is hidden. @eveandqsmom gave a good example of why she believes it is.
@eveandqsmom Thanks for taking the time to respond!
The change in nutrition labels - I apologize for not being clear.
In my ideal world, we'd have a population that was aware of the different things that are all sugar (as @rankinsect pointed out, they typically end in -ose) as opposed to what we're going to get which is likely "Added sugar is universally bad! Look! They have to label it now so you know it's bad!" because a lot of people don't seem to have an even basic understanding of this stuff, which is definitely an education failure, IMO.
I hope I'm wrong about that, though.
I don't know if it will make that much of a difference, honestly. The people who are already scared of sugar will continue to be scared of sugar. The people who have no objections to added sugar will eat it anyway. The people who don't read labels will still have no idea.
I see some benefits: people who have to watch out for specific sugars can tell if there's something they should look for at a quick glance, people who are just starting to read labels will have a better idea if sugar is necessary to the product (i.e. you can get pasta sauce with added sugar or without), and some people who don't eat a nutrient-dense diet might be prompted to choose fruit over fruit juice cocktail or question if they should really have those Oreos.
I do agree that we have massively failed with education, and I'm all in favor of throwing many, many more resources into that area.
Hopefully, it won't. I've just seen the power of suggestion from people like the Food Babe in people in my everyday life. I think it has the potential to be more damaging than the anti-fat movement because of the Internet.
I think people will still have to look more closely if there's a certain type of sugar they're trying to avoid, but I kind of doubt that people will start making the choice from fruit juice to fruit. Maybe they will, though.
This is definitely an area where I'd like to be wrong! And I'm delighted about the other additions to the label.
Oh dear lord you uttered the name of she who should not be named. What plague have you now wrought upon us?
I thought "she who should not be named" was one of the 475 names of sugar.3 -
If your food grows on a plant, it's probably ok to eat. If your food is made in a plant, it's more than likely NOT going to be good for you.0
-
-
Wat.1
-
This content has been removed.
-
I don't really buy into the hidden sugar on packaged foods.
It's there, you just have to read it. If a person is unsure of an ingredient, they could do a quick search and figure it out
My son wanted a box of these mini chocolate chip cookies. He carried the box around the store hoping that I would agree.
I pulled the cart to the side and asked him " how many cookies are in one serving?"
He answered "4 small cookies"
I went on asking him more questions and he was able to answer each question, like how much sugar is in each serving? Is there any protein?
My son is 11. So if he could figure it out, I'm almost certain that most adults could if they really wanted to.
( I did buy him the mini cookies anyway because in my house , we use moderation not deprivation. The mini cookies ended up tasting terrible like cardboard. He agreed that there was better tasting treats for 149 calories and that one homemade cookie would've tasted better then four tiny mini cookies)2 -
-
-
This content has been removed.
-
GuitarJerry wrote: »One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that sugar is a preservative.
I learned this in one of my MBA classes on entrepreneurship. One of the students had started a small company making crackers. He brought in some samples for us to try, he was also sharing his business model for us to critique. Most of us were surprised by the sweetness of the crackers and didn't care for them because they almost tasted more like a cookie. This was a bootstrap business, and he mentioned that he didn't want to use preservatives, but that sugar is a natural preservative. And, since he was very small and didn't move product quickly, shelf life was important.
There isn't a huge point here other than the fact that I found it interesting that sugar can be used as a preservative and might explain some of the reason it is used in so many packaged foods. Even in ones where it seems like sugar should not be part of the recipe.
Sugar is a preservative in high concentration and a mold/bacteria promotor in lower concentrations. The student was justifying the use of sugar incorrectly (it isn't an antibacterial in crackers/cookies)- unless those cookies were REALLY sweet. The real anti-spoilage effect in pastries, cookies, etc. is more related to preventing staleness as sugar retains moistness.1 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Mmmmmmm, foxglove.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
-
Indeed...WinoGelato wrote: »
2 -
If your food grows on a plant, it's probably ok to eat. If your food is made in a plant, it's more than likely NOT going to be good for you.
3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions