Lies, damn lies and the FDA

Options
12357

Replies

  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,725 Member
    Options
    I don't know how it happened. That's why I don't make claims about how it happened. I think doing so -- especially assertions about people being lied to (which is not true, the ingredients are clearly on the package) and DUPED and such -- is irresponsible and unethical.

    We're clearly down to opinions here, but for once I agree with you on this willful ignorance thing you keep digging in your heels about.

    As for the difference between the products. Look at the liquid goopy oil and pour it out of the bottle. Now put your finger on a spray trigger and press. It's a different deployment mechanism; different product. One which users could certainly fall into operator error pitfalls if they were to leave their finger on too long if they believed what they were told was the calorie and fat content of the product. It would be like replacing regular pop with spritzing pop on your burger, squirting some under your tongue or snorting it up your nose.

    Seems like you're grasping at straws to maintain your notion that if people exist that believed the product Nutrition Facts, the earth must have fallen off its axis, or something. Hey, whatever helps you explain it away and restore your comfort level is good with me :)
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited December 2016
    Options
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    I don't know how it happened. That's why I don't make claims about how it happened. I think doing so -- especially assertions about people being lied to (which is not true, the ingredients are clearly on the package) and DUPED and such -- is irresponsible and unethical.

    We're clearly down to opinions here, but for once I agree with you on this willful ignorance thing you keep digging in your heels about.

    If you know the details, provide them and we can discuss it. It may be that I will agree with the reasoning for the fraction of a second or I might not.
    As for the difference between the products. Look at the liquid goopy oil and pour it out of the bottle. Now put your finger on a spray trigger and press. It's a different deployment mechanism; different product.

    This makes no sense to me. Spray it on your hand, put oil on your hand -- same thing.

    Do what I do and put oil in a spritzer -- different deployment, same product.

    I think you used to think it had no calories (probably because you didn't really think about it) and now feel like you have to defend that as a reasonable belief, but the fact is even if you find it embarrassing to have believed something that many of us find silly, it has no effect on obesity. You didn't respond to that bit at all.
    if people exist that believed the product Nutrition Facts, the earth must have fallen off its axis, or something.

    Here are the nutrition facts -- if you have a .33 of a second spray (.25 g) it's less than 5 and rounds down to 0. That's true. If it was really 0, why specify fraction of a second spray and .25 g? Or are you claiming nutrition facts don't include looking at the serving size? (Serving size for a bottle of oil is 1 TBSP or 28 g, as I mentioned above.)

    Also, you are normally spraying it on the pan -- how much is really going into the food?

    More significantly, the ingredients -- and the front of the bottle, just look at the one I posted -- say it's oil. So how could you believe that in a larger amount it wouldn't have calories? The only way is wishful thinking or self delusion or you somehow ignored that it's oil.

    I think the more likely thing is that lots of people think "oh, olive oil is healthy (even "vegetable oil" sometimes or "fat" in this age of fat good, carbs bad), so it can't make me fat" since lots of people buy into the "calories don't matter" thing (which I also consider a form of self-delusion, btw). But that's going to be the case whether you use a spray bottle or dump on lots of oil from a bottle.
  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,578 Member
    edited December 2016
    Options
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    I don't know how it happened. That's why I don't make claims about how it happened. I think doing so -- especially assertions about people being lied to (which is not true, the ingredients are clearly on the package) and DUPED and such -- is irresponsible and unethical.

    We're clearly down to opinions here, but for once I agree with you on this willful ignorance thing you keep digging in your heels about.

    As for the difference between the products. Look at the liquid goopy oil and pour it out of the bottle. Now put your finger on a spray trigger and press. It's a different deployment mechanism; different product. One which users could certainly fall into operator error pitfalls if they were to leave their finger on too long if they believed what they were told was the calorie and fat content of the product. It would be like replacing regular pop with spritzing pop on your burger, squirting some under your tongue or snorting it up your nose.

    Seems like you're grasping at straws to maintain your notion that if people exist that believed the product Nutrition Facts, the earth must have fallen off its axis, or something. Hey, whatever helps you explain it away and restore your comfort level is good with me :)
    Holy first world problem, Batman!
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Heh.

    (I am going to shut up about it now, though. Really.)
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Options
    pebble4321 wrote: »
    The point of showing cals per 100g is not because 100g is the serving size, most products will show cals per serving as well.
    But having cals per 100g makes it very easy to pick up two products and hold them side by side to see which one has more or less cals, sugar, protein etc.

    I take the point that if you haven't seen that before it could be confusing initially, but once you know there is a consistent block of info across products, it's very handy. For things advertised as "0 calories", I think it's particularly useful because it makes it very clear that there are still calories in that product, just not in their stated serving size.

    Exactly my experience. The other day I looked at two packages of biscuits, one advertised as diet-friendly. The serving size they chose is 1 cookie, to make the calories look prettier. The other package was just regular biscuits. The difference in calories per 100 grams? 15 calories...
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Options
    pebble4321 wrote: »
    The point of showing cals per 100g is not because 100g is the serving size, most products will show cals per serving as well.
    But having cals per 100g makes it very easy to pick up two products and hold them side by side to see which one has more or less cals, sugar, protein etc.

    I take the point that if you haven't seen that before it could be confusing initially, but once you know there is a consistent block of info across products, it's very handy. For things advertised as "0 calories", I think it's particularly useful because it makes it very clear that there are still calories in that product, just not in their stated serving size.

    It is frustrating when trying to compare two products when the serving sizes are different. Particularly if they aren't easily converted, such as 1/3 cup and 1/4 cup.
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    Options
    pebble4321 wrote: »
    The point of showing cals per 100g is not because 100g is the serving size, most products will show cals per serving as well.
    But having cals per 100g makes it very easy to pick up two products and hold them side by side to see which one has more or less cals, sugar, protein etc.

    I take the point that if you haven't seen that before it could be confusing initially, but once you know there is a consistent block of info across products, it's very handy. For things advertised as "0 calories", I think it's particularly useful because it makes it very clear that there are still calories in that product, just not in their stated serving size.

    This was exactly my point. When I said it should say per 100 g of packaging I meant lets do away with the serving size estimations (not based on weight) commonly used in the US.

    I'm sorry, but "about 13 chips" or "1/2 package" or "3 servings per container" just makes *kitten* more confusing.

    I always thought these were necessary for the average individual who didn't have a scale, but having lived in another country where there is ONLY per 100g i can say that it is SO SO SO much better.

    I can pick up two products and see which has more calories. I can easily compare products. No trickery or intentionally deceitful "serving sizes". No guessing. And it is actually waaay easier to estimate how much you're eating!

    Package contains 250g of chips? Thank goodness it's take literally no effort to see how many are in the whole bag.

    In the US with the "33g serving size" or "about 13 chips" it was so much harder.


    This is all anecdotal of course, but damn if I'm not a convert now.
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    Options
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    pebble4321 wrote: »
    The point of showing cals per 100g is not because 100g is the serving size, most products will show cals per serving as well.
    But having cals per 100g makes it very easy to pick up two products and hold them side by side to see which one has more or less cals, sugar, protein etc.

    I take the point that if you haven't seen that before it could be confusing initially, but once you know there is a consistent block of info across products, it's very handy. For things advertised as "0 calories", I think it's particularly useful because it makes it very clear that there are still calories in that product, just not in their stated serving size.

    It is frustrating when trying to compare two products when the serving sizes are different. Particularly if they aren't easily converted, such as 1/3 cup and 1/4 cup.

    Absolutely, it's also frustrating when just shopping in general. Something says "140 cals" on the front, but you get home and that's for 1/4 of the container and the serving size is half a cookie.


    Or it says "50 calories" on the front of the can of Arizona green tea. But wait, there's three servings in the whole can?

    This *kitten* is purposely deceptive and we see it all the time people shocked or confused about "serving sizes".
  • CharlesScott78
    CharlesScott78 Posts: 203 Member
    Options
    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46619166/ns/health-mens_health/t/serving-size-scams-can-make-you-fat/#.WFgwZ1MrKUk

    I will just leave this here with you. I am not a conspiracy nut, I don't think "they" are out to get me. I do work in advertizing and I can tell you for a fact, no fast food place wants to put calorie info. on their menu. It is done to stay within the law, but sell more stuff. I know to look for it. If I pick something up and look at the nutrition label, I look to see how many servings. I have many times picked up something that looked single serving - the soup in the article is a great example and thought - wow, nice calories - then have my eye go to servings and see 2 or 2 1/2. I just wonder who that mythical person is that is cutting the ramen noodle block in half to fix dinner :smile:

    Again, is any of that going to make you overweight? No - does it make it just a little harder - yep. Is it worth the extra effort - yes. Am I going to die if they keep playing with serving sizes and rounding - nope. I love business and I don't want to put a bunch of expensive crappy regulations. I was just making a comment that you need to be mindful when you look at those labels - they can be misleading to the unaware.

    Charles
  • pebble4321
    pebble4321 Posts: 1,132 Member
    Options
    I like it best when packs cover all the bases.
    - Cals/100g is good for comparison, but it doesn't tell me how many cals per serve.
    - cals/ x grams is handy if I'm home and choose to weigh the product.
    - Cals/ number of product (1 bar, 2 biscuits, 12 chips) is great for a quick estimate when I'm out and going to eat something straight away or at the shops when I want to get a feel for how this muesli bar (for example) will fit into my day.
    It's not unusual to see all of this on a single pack, and it works well for me.

    I think what I'm saying is that there isn't one perfect way to present this info, and some companies do it better than others.
    Part of becoming an educated consumer of modern products is learning that the blurb on the front of the box is marketing material, whereas the nutrition panel and ingredient list are where you will find actual information if you choose to look for it.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    pebble4321 wrote: »
    The point of showing cals per 100g is not because 100g is the serving size, most products will show cals per serving as well.
    But having cals per 100g makes it very easy to pick up two products and hold them side by side to see which one has more or less cals, sugar, protein etc.

    Yeah, I understand that, but why would I ever compare a can of tomatoes to some oatmeal to oil? That's why it doesn't feel useful to me -- how we have it it's easy to compare like to like.

    That said, I totally know I don't like it/find it confusing because I'm not used to it and don't like change. I first time I saw it was on a plane to South Africa (maybe KLM? maybe not, don't recall) and some biscuits on the plane had it and that plus KJ being the measure just made me hopelessly confused and annoyed. Probably more the KJ and not being in English!

    My bigger thing is that I don't think for people who don't weigh that knowing the calories per 100 g for something you normally eat in a totally different serving size is helpful, especially since most Americans probably would have no clue how much of something is in 100 g (I know what 56 g of pasta is since that's a normal serving size from a package, but most likely know it from the cup measures, same with oats, etc.). Not against it, again, and I'd probably adjust (and so long as the normal way that I'm used to is on it too), but I just don't think it makes such a difference as you who are used to that way think it might.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Okay, because I can't let this go I'm trying to find an example of spray oil from the UK to compare (I posted the front of one from the US upthread), and found this one, but it doesn't show the label: http://www.dairycrest.co.uk/our-brands/butter-spreads/frylight/faqs.aspx#Q1

    It claims 1 calorie, not 0 (not a meaningful difference, IMO) and recommends 4-6 sprays for a full pan (so about 5 calories). Does anyone have a sample label from it or a similar product to show?
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Okay, because I can't let this go I'm trying to find an example of spray oil from the UK to compare (I posted the front of one from the US upthread), and found this one, but it doesn't show the label: http://www.dairycrest.co.uk/our-brands/butter-spreads/frylight/faqs.aspx#Q1

    It claims 1 calorie, not 0 (not a meaningful difference, IMO) and recommends 4-6 sprays for a full pan (so about 5 calories). Does anyone have a sample label from it or a similar product to show?

    I don't know that particular products, but liquids are often listed by 100 ml, plus by serving size, depending on the product. I found this
    http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=274089279
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited December 2016
    Options
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Okay, because I can't let this go I'm trying to find an example of spray oil from the UK to compare (I posted the front of one from the US upthread), and found this one, but it doesn't show the label: http://www.dairycrest.co.uk/our-brands/butter-spreads/frylight/faqs.aspx#Q1

    It claims 1 calorie, not 0 (not a meaningful difference, IMO) and recommends 4-6 sprays for a full pan (so about 5 calories). Does anyone have a sample label from it or a similar product to show?

    I don't know that particular products, but liquids are often listed by 100 ml, plus by serving size, depending on the product. I found this
    http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=274089279

    Thanks. Here's one comparable to the US one I posted upthread: http://www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=286812356

    You can see the label when you zoom on it.

    That's different than I thought the 100 g (here ml) comparison would be -- from what I remembered seeing it was like an alternative nutrition panel. This is less confusing than what I was imagining and I quite like it, but also IMO easy enough to ignore when the serving size is way off what anyone would use (as here). Interestingly the spray time seems to be even LESS in the UK version, but it is listed as 1 calorie because they apparently don't round down stuff to 0. So 1 vs. 0.
  • pebble4321
    pebble4321 Posts: 1,132 Member
    Options
    Here's an Aussie one for you, they list a serving as 5g, and the energy is in kj, so you divide by four to get a rough conversion to calories:
    vvdtnfuwuj2q.jpg
  • pebble4321
    pebble4321 Posts: 1,132 Member
    Options
    And to your point about comparisons - I'm not going to compare tomatoes to oatmeal, but I would (and have) compared brands of muesli bars to find the one with lowest sugar (as requested by my husband.)
  • pebble4321
    pebble4321 Posts: 1,132 Member
    Options
    e3emfmzfdja6.jpg
  • crzycatlady1
    crzycatlady1 Posts: 1,930 Member
    Options
    paperpudding wrote: »
    I'd go along with the idea that serving sizes should be changed to 1 second, probably

    and would you go along with the idea that all products should be labelled per 100ml/100 g like they are everywhere else?

    Or even per oz or some other easy to compare non-metric measure if you are in imperial system?

    This just seems an infinitely better system to me - not just for sprays of cooking oil but for comparisons of all products and so people do not misled by differing serving sizes

    I think this is a freakin' awesome idea and really wish the labeling would change to this here in the U.S.!

Categories