Lies, damn lies and the FDA
Options
CharlesScott78
Posts: 203 Member
This was something I learned the hard way back in the day. Now granted, this is really on the margins of weight loss - but I think it illustrates how calories can slip in without us being aware.
Now, I know artificial sweeteners are not everyone's thing. However, if you use them, it sure looks good when you look at the nutrition label and calories equal a big fat Zero. I mean, it does not get better than zero right? I looked at all of them and for me the risk / reward for Splenda seems to be good for me. I would put it in oatmeal, in coffee - and man, do I like my coffee sweet. I would put 4 or 5 packets. Back in the day, I might drink 3 or 4 cups per day. As far as sweeteners go, I could easily use 25 packets per day. Well no problem right? 0 X 25 = 0. Well, in the real world yes, but the US Government = not so much. From the folks that bring you $800.00 toilet seats comes the rules for labeling. There are two main areas where you know, you are not paranoid if they actually are out to get you.
First up, Nutritionally insignificant.
Guess what? The chemical in Splenda (sucralose) that sweetens really does have zero calories, but it is so powerful, if you had pure powdered splenda it would be too small to package. No worries, they use bulking agents to make it come out to about a packet full. Each packet actually has about 4 calories. Virtually all of Splenda's caloric content derives from the dextrose or highly fluffed maltodextrin "bulking agents" that give Splenda its volume. Oops, there is 80 calories per day I did not count on. Not earth shattering by any means, but if you are trying to have a 500 calorie a day deficit, well you are off by almost 20% right there.
The partner in crime to go along with the Nutritionally Insignificant rule is the ability for manufacturers to set the reference serving size. I save my next bit of distance for Pam Cooking Spray.
PAM is a well known ConAgra brand of Cooking Sprays (oil + mister) that can be used instead of cooking oil or butter. By spraying, you get better coverage of a frying pan or salad, while limiting the amount of oil used.
Each can of PAM has 526 servings. Each serving is a quick "1/3 second spray". Yes, if you squint and read the label the manufacture set the serving size to 1/3 of a second. I wonder why they did not say a 1 second spray. Well, not really, I know why. The same reason search as you will on the can, you will not see that the entire can has 1,262 calories. Zero calories sounds a lot better than 7 per second. There are 2.4 calories in a 0.266gr serving of PAM Cooking Spray, NOT zero.
But, according to FDA nutrition labeling regulations, amounts less than 5 calories may be expressed as zero. If the serving size would have been a "1 second spray" then the calories would add up to 7, and the nutrition label would have had to show 7 calories.
Likewise with the "zero" fat content. The FDA: "If the serving contains less than 0.5 gram, the content shall be expressed as zero."
A nice little loophole.
Caveat emptor!
I wish everyone the very best.
Charles
Now, I know artificial sweeteners are not everyone's thing. However, if you use them, it sure looks good when you look at the nutrition label and calories equal a big fat Zero. I mean, it does not get better than zero right? I looked at all of them and for me the risk / reward for Splenda seems to be good for me. I would put it in oatmeal, in coffee - and man, do I like my coffee sweet. I would put 4 or 5 packets. Back in the day, I might drink 3 or 4 cups per day. As far as sweeteners go, I could easily use 25 packets per day. Well no problem right? 0 X 25 = 0. Well, in the real world yes, but the US Government = not so much. From the folks that bring you $800.00 toilet seats comes the rules for labeling. There are two main areas where you know, you are not paranoid if they actually are out to get you.
First up, Nutritionally insignificant.
L31. What are insignificant amounts of nutrients?
Answer: These are the amounts that are permitted to be shown as zero on the Nutrition Facts label (e.g., less than 5 calories may be expressed as 0 calories)
Guess what? The chemical in Splenda (sucralose) that sweetens really does have zero calories, but it is so powerful, if you had pure powdered splenda it would be too small to package. No worries, they use bulking agents to make it come out to about a packet full. Each packet actually has about 4 calories. Virtually all of Splenda's caloric content derives from the dextrose or highly fluffed maltodextrin "bulking agents" that give Splenda its volume. Oops, there is 80 calories per day I did not count on. Not earth shattering by any means, but if you are trying to have a 500 calorie a day deficit, well you are off by almost 20% right there.
The partner in crime to go along with the Nutritionally Insignificant rule is the ability for manufacturers to set the reference serving size. I save my next bit of distance for Pam Cooking Spray.
PAM is a well known ConAgra brand of Cooking Sprays (oil + mister) that can be used instead of cooking oil or butter. By spraying, you get better coverage of a frying pan or salad, while limiting the amount of oil used.
Each can of PAM has 526 servings. Each serving is a quick "1/3 second spray". Yes, if you squint and read the label the manufacture set the serving size to 1/3 of a second. I wonder why they did not say a 1 second spray. Well, not really, I know why. The same reason search as you will on the can, you will not see that the entire can has 1,262 calories. Zero calories sounds a lot better than 7 per second. There are 2.4 calories in a 0.266gr serving of PAM Cooking Spray, NOT zero.
But, according to FDA nutrition labeling regulations, amounts less than 5 calories may be expressed as zero. If the serving size would have been a "1 second spray" then the calories would add up to 7, and the nutrition label would have had to show 7 calories.
Likewise with the "zero" fat content. The FDA: "If the serving contains less than 0.5 gram, the content shall be expressed as zero."
A nice little loophole.
Caveat emptor!
I wish everyone the very best.
Charles
22
Replies
-
You may want to sit down before you read this one:By law, the nutrition labels are allowed to be inaccurate by +/- 20%.24
-
It's neither a loophole nor a caveat. It's convenience. Using 25 packets of splenda isn't exactly normal usage any more than using enough pam spray you could paint a wall with it.
It's the equivalent of saying "Oh those liars told me salad was low in calories so I ate 10 pounds of salad and now half my calories for the day are gone."31 -
That 3-4 Calories from a packet of Splenda and the 7 Calories from the PAM aren't your (not necessarily your, general your) problems.10
-
On what planet is 25 packets of Splenda a day considered normal consumption? And a can of PAM lasts my family of 5 months, so not too worried about my spray times13
-
It only really annoys me when I try to bake with splenda or something and that I can't find the correct nutrition information for 100g... which is actually hard to find on MFP3
-
crzycatlady1 wrote: »On what planet is 25 packets of Splenda a day considered normal consumption? And a can of PAM lasts my family of 5 months, so not too worried about my spray times
Yeah, I use Pam probably once or twice a week and still just use 1-2 cans a year.0 -
That 3-4 Calories from a packet of Splenda and the 7 Calories from the PAM aren't your (not necessarily your, general your) problems.
Granted - I am not in anyway saying that would keep me from losing weight - I was making just making a comment on how little things can add up over time even food logging. I even put in the first lines Now granted, this is really on the margins of weight loss - but I think it illustrates how calories can slip in without us being aware. I just found it to be one of life's little absurdities.8 -
It only really annoys me when I try to bake with splenda or something and that I can't find the correct nutrition information for 100g... which is actually hard to find on MFP
I while ago I created a generic entry per 100 grams from the USDA National Nutrient Database and shared it. It's no longer in My Foods list, so someone edited it and that user is now the owner. It appears to be correct, still.
Search for "sweetener sucralose granulated compare" and it will bring up...
Sweetener, Sucralose & Maltodextrin, Granulated Equivalent, Compare to Splenda
Here is the direct link to the item.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/update_nutrition_facts/1819626654 -
That 3-4 Calories from a packet of Splenda and the 7 Calories from the PAM aren't your (not necessarily your, general your) problems.
They are the problems of a few *special* people:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/parkay-spray-lawsuit_n_2956709.html
“For example, a contributor to (a) website ... writes, ‘I could not figure out why I simply could not lose hardly even a pound, even though I was working out hard ... and monitoring calories ... for a couple of years,’” the lawsuit relays. “Well ... I was also literally taking the top of the ‘fat and calorie free butter’ spray and pouring it on all my carefully steamed veggies when I found out that a bottle of that stuff is 90 fat grams. I was going through two bottles a week, and working out and getting fat and unhealthy.”
(But yeah, not relevant for 99.999999% of the dieters in the world.)7 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »That 3-4 Calories from a packet of Splenda and the 7 Calories from the PAM aren't your (not necessarily your, general your) problems.
They are the problems of a few *special* people:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/26/parkay-spray-lawsuit_n_2956709.html
“For example, a contributor to (a) website ... writes, ‘I could not figure out why I simply could not lose hardly even a pound, even though I was working out hard ... and monitoring calories ... for a couple of years,’” the lawsuit relays. “Well ... I was also literally taking the top of the ‘fat and calorie free butter’ spray and pouring it on all my carefully steamed veggies when I found out that a bottle of that stuff is 90 fat grams. I was going through two bottles a week, and working out and getting fat and unhealthy.”
(But yeah, not relevant for 99.999999% of the dieters in the world.)
Whoa3 -
Why would you put that much of an artificial substance into your body per day?4
-
You'd think it's all about the math, but nope. There's marketing and product sales in there, too. 0 Calories!! Fat free!!! Sure the hell look sexier than the real deal. So who cares if some poor shmo decides to consume "way too much" of those items and stall their own efforts to lose weight or whatever? We've got an obesity crisis in the USA, but screw them. If they'd only consume quantities that are "normal" for me, they wouldn't have any issues, right? RIGHT???2
-
CharlesScott78 wrote: »That 3-4 Calories from a packet of Splenda and the 7 Calories from the PAM aren't your (not necessarily your, general your) problems.
Granted - I am not in anyway saying that would keep me from losing weight - I was making just making a comment on how little things can add up over time even food logging. I even put in the first lines Now granted, this is really on the margins of weight loss - but I think it illustrates how calories can slip in without us being aware. I just found it to be one of life's little absurdities.
Given that this is the main point of your post, I entirely agree with you, and I think there are numerous behavioral things that contribute to an even greater extent to hidden calories entering the diet.7 -
Will once again slip in how much better Australian system is where every item has to give a count per 100g/100ml regardless of the size of the container. It can also give serving size if it wants to but 100g is mandatory.
Pepsi Max for example is not nil calorie - it is 1.6kj per 100ml. Whether I buy it by the large bottle or the mini can - it is still 1.6 kj (about 1/2 calorie) per 100ml.
So, sure, if I drink 4 Litres (!!!) per day I might inadvertently add 20 calories to my day.
1. surely nobody actually drinks 4 L of it per day.
2. surely 20 calories would not derail anyone's weight loss anyway
3. surely nobody's tracking is so tight that a 20 calories discrepancy would matter.
6 -
PS: I do like the cartoon in your OP though5
-
You'd think it's all about the math, but nope. There's marketing and product sales in there, too. 0 Calories!! Fat free!!! Sure the hell look sexier than the real deal. So who cares if some poor shmo decides to consume "way too much" of those items and stall their own efforts to lose weight or whatever? We've got an obesity crisis in the USA, but screw them. If they'd only consume quantities that are "normal" for me, they wouldn't have any issues, right? RIGHT???
Don't blame the cooking spray that clearly says as ingredients "Hey, I'm oil. I only am 0 calories because you're supposed to use a fraction of a gram coming from a single spray". If you choose to use half the bottle, that's your fault for not thinking.6 -
I understand that they don't make that much of a difference, but why not list them properly anyway? Just looked at my diet 7up and it lists 1.502 calories per 100 ml. My sweetener lists 3.36 calories per 1 gram packet. I understand that within normal use they are unlikely to make a difference, but it makes me feel informed. Is it allowed to list anything under 5 as zero purely for marketing purposes?4
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »I understand that they don't make that much of a difference, but why not list them properly anyway? Just looked at my diet 7up and it lists 1.502 calories per 100 ml. My sweetener lists 3.36 calories per 1 gram packet. I understand that within normal use they are unlikely to make a difference, but it makes me feel informed. Is it allowed to list anything under 5 as zero purely for marketing purposes?
The guidelines do not list marketing as a justification. Note that guidance is not regulation; the guidance for rounding rules does not prevent companies from actually providing the exact number, it just permits them to round the number, but if they do, these are the rules.
Some companies may not round down to zero Calories per serving, but I would guess that many companies set a serving size for the specific reason to round down to zero Calories per serving for marketing reasons.
Reference:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm064932.htm
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »You'd think it's all about the math, but nope. There's marketing and product sales in there, too. 0 Calories!! Fat free!!! Sure the hell look sexier than the real deal. So who cares if some poor shmo decides to consume "way too much" of those items and stall their own efforts to lose weight or whatever? We've got an obesity crisis in the USA, but screw them. If they'd only consume quantities that are "normal" for me, they wouldn't have any issues, right? RIGHT???
Don't blame the cooking spray that clearly says as ingredients "Hey, I'm oil. I only am 0 calories because you're supposed to use a fraction of a gram coming from a single spray". If you choose to use half the bottle, that's your fault for not thinking.
Or why not tell me the right calorie information in case I do choose to use half a bottle, or even a couple seconds of spray and not that ridiculous "light perfume spray" serving size? Do you really believe there aren't lobbyists aggressively putting their bottom line over providing information that promotes healthy behaviors? I admire your naïveté.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions