Lies, damn lies and the FDA
Options
Replies
-
pebble4321 wrote: »
I like this label, except the kJ part, but only because I'm used to calories.0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »pebble4321 wrote: »
I like this label, except the kJ part, but only because I'm used to calories.
Same
0 -
pebble4321 wrote: »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.)
Even here, though, like products normally have similar serving sizes, or do for the kinds of products I buy. When I compare across oatmeals the servings sizes are the same. A Quest bar and a Think Thin bar are both 60 g (just checked online). Serving size for ice cream varies by gram, but is all .5 cup, stuff like that. I think people in other countries imagine that it's harder in the US than it is.
I do 100% agree (with the OP) that serving sizes like 5.5 servings per package are annoying and confusing.
I like the way the UK label does the 100 g/ml thing better than the one you posted, but I'm sure I could get used to that too. What I'd be opposed to is having ONLY the 100 g measure.0 -
Yeah, that wouldn't be useful. I don't think anyone is pushing for that.lemurcat12 wrote: »I like the way the UK label does the 100 g/ml thing better than the one you posted, but I'm sure I could get used to that too. What I'd be opposed to is having ONLY the 100 g measure.
0 -
pebble4321 wrote: »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.)
But in that case, isn't a per-bar comparison more useful anyway? I mean, if one bar was 35 grams and the other was 40, regardless of which you buy he's likely to eat the full bar as one serving.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »pebble4321 wrote: »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.)
But in that case, isn't a per-bar comparison more useful anyway? I mean, if one bar was 35 grams and the other was 40, regardless of which you buy he's likely to eat the full bar as one serving.
Not necessarily.. some of the bars are getting smaller and smaller in terms of serving size, so he might eat two of one brand and one of another. I take your point though, in this example, serving size is important. He's keen to keep his overall sugar numbers low though as he is pre-diabetic, so seeing the proportionate amount of sugar is handy. It's also an eye opener when you compare across brands, some have much much higher levels and I find it much simpler to just go straight to the 100g column and not have to check whether one serving size is 28g and another one is 34g and then do maths in my head to compare.
I like it for all kinds of products, but then I'm one of those people that you see in the supermarket aisles reading the back of all the packages 2 -
I read nutrition labels carefully, but that's why I find the current system perfectly satisfactory. I also just don't buy a lot of things with a lot of ingredients, I guess, so maybe I'm coming at this differently. With ice cream (my main indulgence food) I do look at how large the serving is in grams when looking at how caloric it is, but I do that anyway, without the 100 g option.
However, if we did change I'd probably like the 100 g thing (especially if it didn't clutter up everything) once I got used to it, though. That's how I normally am about change.0 -
-
lemurcat12 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.
I don't. For me though, just like the scam/woo guys, if a company does something highly questionable, I'm gonna very comfortably judge that action without necessarily hearing their spin on why they did it.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.
Yeah, I'm not embarrassed. I don't defend it as a reasonable belief. I mean, it's clearly wrong. I've attempted to explain how I arrived at my conclusion and a few other users have done the same.
I've repeatedly addressed the effect on obesity?
1. The product may not have "made" anyone fat, but could reduce the effectiveness of their attempts to resolve that situation and lose weight.
2. Consumers spraying way too much product could inadvertently use much more of their "0 calorie fat free" spray than they should.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.
By Nutrition Facts I meant the numbers in the federally mandated box that all say zero. The Details of your deduction that the product indeed has calories are pretty actually great. But since they couldn't install one of you in every kitchen we settled for the Nutrition Facts box instead 1 -
rainbowbow wrote: »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".
Yes I bought a HUGE protein bar that was only 140 calories, WOW! They had this in big letters on the front, too. Got to eating and there were two bars per package. I don't recall how great it tasted but that was the first and last time I bought it.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
Holy first world problem, Batman!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
First world resident, guilty as charged!!!2 -
lemurcat12 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.
I don't. For me though, just like the scam/woo guys, if a company does something highly questionable, I'm gonna very comfortably judge that action without necessarily hearing their spin on why they did it.
It doesn't seem to me "very questionable," though, especially now that I know the US isn't the only place to define a spray as a quick burst of a fraction of a second. I would be interested in the history, sure. I suspect the original intent may have been for spray cans to be used to spray in such a way (although of course the companies benefit if they don't and just overpay for a tiny amount of oil used up quickly). The claim that everything is intended to mislead (DUPE) people into thinking the oil has no calories in any amount is not consistent with the fact that many or most of the spray cans have OLIVE OIL or the like on front much bigger than any claims about calories. They don't seem to be trying to pretend they are different products or not oil, and I really think we can assume that a reasonable person not engaged in self-delusion knows that oil has calories and that 0 relates to the tiny amount used (the ingredient panel also says 470 servings or some such). Also, again, the FDA is providing the number, and apparently the spray time in the UK is similar, so this blaming of the US gov't (which was part of the original claim I objected to) at least has to extend to the UK. Special relationship and all, I guess. The UK version seems to say 1 calorie per spray, true, which wouldn't make much difference IMO (see, e.g., just one calorie ads for diet soda).
As for the more important point -- this has 0 to do with the obesity rate in the US or (for that matter) the UK -- I don't think your reasoning on the effect on obesity address at all the points I made upthread (such as about the fact most don't log, lack of influence on most logging, and similarity to coffee) so we are just repeating ourselves at this point.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't. For me though, just like the scam/woo guys, if a company does something highly questionable, I'm gonna very comfortably judge that action without necessarily hearing their spin on why they did it.
It doesn't seem to me "very questionable," though, especially now that I know the US isn't the only place to define a spray as a quick burst of a fraction of a second. I would be interested in the history, sure. I suspect the original intent may have been for spray cans to be used to spray in such a way (although of course the companies benefit if they don't and just overpay for a tiny amount of oil used up quickly). The claim that everything is intended to mislead (DUPE) people into thinking the oil has no calories in any amount is not consistent with the fact that many or most of the spray cans have OLIVE OIL or the like on front much bigger than any claims about calories. They don't seem to be trying to pretend they are different products or not oil, and I really think we can assume that a reasonable person not engaged in self-delusion knows that oil has calories and that 0 relates to the tiny amount used (the ingredient panel also says 470 servings or some such). Also, again, the FDA is providing the number, and apparently the spray time in the UK is similar, so this blaming of the US gov't (which was part of the original claim I objected to) at least has to extend to the UK. Special relationship and all, I guess. The UK version seems to say 1 calorie per spray, true, which wouldn't make much difference IMO (see, e.g., just one calorie ads for diet soda).
As for the more important point -- this has 0 to do with the obesity rate in the US or (for that matter) the UK -- I don't think your reasoning on the effect on obesity address at all the points I made upthread (such as about the fact most don't log, lack of influence on most logging, and similarity to coffee) so we are just repeating ourselves at this point.
I don't think it is a scam or attempt to dupe people, it is marketing pure and simple. It is done to drive sales. As obesity has skyrocketed - nutritional value is more and more on consumer's minds. Why else would a food that is made of sugar add in huge letters on the front of the package "Fat Free"?0 -
CharlesScott78 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't. For me though, just like the scam/woo guys, if a company does something highly questionable, I'm gonna very comfortably judge that action without necessarily hearing their spin on why they did it.
It doesn't seem to me "very questionable," though, especially now that I know the US isn't the only place to define a spray as a quick burst of a fraction of a second. I would be interested in the history, sure. I suspect the original intent may have been for spray cans to be used to spray in such a way (although of course the companies benefit if they don't and just overpay for a tiny amount of oil used up quickly). The claim that everything is intended to mislead (DUPE) people into thinking the oil has no calories in any amount is not consistent with the fact that many or most of the spray cans have OLIVE OIL or the like on front much bigger than any claims about calories. They don't seem to be trying to pretend they are different products or not oil, and I really think we can assume that a reasonable person not engaged in self-delusion knows that oil has calories and that 0 relates to the tiny amount used (the ingredient panel also says 470 servings or some such). Also, again, the FDA is providing the number, and apparently the spray time in the UK is similar, so this blaming of the US gov't (which was part of the original claim I objected to) at least has to extend to the UK. Special relationship and all, I guess. The UK version seems to say 1 calorie per spray, true, which wouldn't make much difference IMO (see, e.g., just one calorie ads for diet soda).
As for the more important point -- this has 0 to do with the obesity rate in the US or (for that matter) the UK -- I don't think your reasoning on the effect on obesity address at all the points I made upthread (such as about the fact most don't log, lack of influence on most logging, and similarity to coffee) so we are just repeating ourselves at this point.
I don't think it is a scam or attempt to dupe people, it is marketing pure and simple. It is done to drive sales. As obesity has skyrocketed - nutritional value is more and more on consumer's minds. Why else would a food that is made of sugar add in huge letters on the front of the package "Fat Free"?
Yeah, agree with you, although that silliness started even before we were so fat.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 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.
I don't. For me though, just like the scam/woo guys, if a company does something highly questionable, I'm gonna very comfortably judge that action without necessarily hearing their spin on why they did it.
It doesn't seem to me "very questionable," though, especially now that I know the US isn't the only place to define a spray as a quick burst of a fraction of a second. I would be interested in the history, sure. I suspect the original intent may have been for spray cans to be used to spray in such a way (although of course the companies benefit if they don't and just overpay for a tiny amount of oil used up quickly). The claim that everything is intended to mislead (DUPE) people into thinking the oil has no calories in any amount is not consistent with the fact that many or most of the spray cans have OLIVE OIL or the like on front much bigger than any claims about calories. They don't seem to be trying to pretend they are different products or not oil, and I really think we can assume that a reasonable person not engaged in self-delusion knows that oil has calories and that 0 relates to the tiny amount used (the ingredient panel also says 470 servings or some such). Also, again, the FDA is providing the number, and apparently the spray time in the UK is similar, so this blaming of the US gov't (which was part of the original claim I objected to) at least has to extend to the UK. Special relationship and all, I guess. The UK version seems to say 1 calorie per spray, true, which wouldn't make much difference IMO (see, e.g., just one calorie ads for diet soda).
As for the more important point -- this has 0 to do with the obesity rate in the US or (for that matter) the UK -- I don't think your reasoning on the effect on obesity address at all the points I made upthread (such as about the fact most don't log, lack of influence on most logging, and similarity to coffee) so we are just repeating ourselves at this point.
I would say the idea that 20-25% of people independently evaluating a piece of information, and arriving at much the same conclusion are unreasonable and engaging in self delusion seems to me to be just that. A more sensible explanation IMO is that the information is not presented as effectively as it could be.
The U.K. Is just one country. On this very topic and also others, users have boasted about how sprays sold in their country supply more detailed calorie information on the product.
"Most don't log" was addressed in a response to another user where I pointed out that these misleading bits of info could actually affect non-loggers as well, like who attempt to modify their weight by making what they think are lower calorie substitutions, that turn out not to quite be the case. You don't have to find my arguments particularly convincing, but I find your claims that I haven't addressed those topics to be a bit strange.2 -
"Most don't log" was addressed in a response to another user where I pointed out that these misleading bits of info could actually affect non-loggers as well, like who attempt to modify their weight by making what they think are lower calorie substitutions, that turn out not to quite be the case. You don't have to find my arguments particularly convincing, but I find your claims that I haven't addressed those topics to be a bit strange.
But that's the part that (as I pointed out) is least convincing. Just as someone might switch from a Starbucks frappe to adding some skim milk or a little sugar (saving lots of calories) or switch from higher fat cuts of meat to lower ones (usually helpful although IMO can be taken to extremes and I'm not pushing a low fat diet) or various other things (many of which may not be helpful which is why this approach often does not work), someone could switch from adding lots of butter to an olive oil spray (and again many of these products have the fact they are OIL prominent and don't market the ingredient panel stuff at all, like the one I posted and the various TJ branded ones -- just checked those too). I happen to think that someone used to using a TBSP (or more, it's estimated) of oil or butter who subs a spray likely is saving a bunch of calories and that it's not really 0 (or 1 or 5, like it says on some of the UK brands, or 7, like it would be for a second long spray) doesn't change that, any more than someone who drops cream from their coffee and goes to black is off-track just because the coffee has 5-15 calories on its own.0 -
Here's an example of this dreadful marketing, from TJ's: http://www.traderjoes.com/fearless-flyer/article/157
"Here's a convenient, great-tasting way to keep foods from sticking to cookware and add a bit of flavor, without adding too many extra calories. Trader Joe's Cooking Sprays, available in both Extra Virgin Olive Oil and Expeller Pressed Canola Oil are flavorful, free of cholesterol and artificial flavors, colors or preservatives. The most common use, of course, is as a non-stick agent. A quick spray on a skillet, grill or even a spatula will keep your food from sticking. They can also be used to enhance flavor. Spray on garlic bread, steamed or grilled veggies, pasta or even salads – it's an easy way to add a light touch of oil."
And the bottles (similar to the one I showed above):
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »"Most don't log" was addressed in a response to another user where I pointed out that these misleading bits of info could actually affect non-loggers as well, like who attempt to modify their weight by making what they think are lower calorie substitutions, that turn out not to quite be the case. You don't have to find my arguments particularly convincing, but I find your claims that I haven't addressed those topics to be a bit strange.
But that's the part that (as I pointed out) is least convincing. Just as someone might switch from a Starbucks frappe to adding some skim milk or a little sugar (saving lots of calories) or switch from higher fat cuts of meat to lower ones (usually helpful although IMO can be taken to extremes and I'm not pushing a low fat diet) or various other things (many of which may not be helpful which is why this approach often does not work), someone could switch from adding lots of butter to an olive oil spray (and again many of these products have the fact they are OIL prominent and don't market the ingredient panel stuff at all, like the one I posted and the various TJ branded ones -- just checked those too). I happen to think that someone used to using a TBSP (or more, it's estimated) of oil or butter who subs a spray likely is saving a bunch of calories and that it's not really 0 (or 1 or 5, like it says on some of the UK brands, or 7, like it would be for a second long spray) doesn't change that, any more than someone who drops cream from their coffee and goes to black is off-track just because the coffee has 5-15 calories on its own.
It would be a small amount of calories if everyone used the serving size that you think is appropriate. As has been previously discussed, not everyone uses a quick spray.
My version of "dreadful marketing" has more to do with "idiotic" "calorie free! Fat free!" claims, and zeros across the federally mandated Nutrition panel block, which does have the result of people who believe that information purchasing the product in higher quantities than they otherwise would have.0 -
No, you are missing the point. Even if you assume people use a much higher serving size than is labeled on the package (1 or 2 seconds or the 5-6 sprays the UK product suggests for a pan) vs. the size that rounds down to 0 it's still a calorie saving.
Just look at the amount on a pan when sprayed (in any kind of normal way) vs. poured from a bottle or when a TBSP of butter is melted. If you spray it on food compare the amount to adding oil to a bowl and mixing vegetables around in it (another common practice it replaces).0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »Am I the only one here not shocked when i found out this information?
I'm not shocked, either. Add to the label inaccuracies inaccuracies in measurement, inaccuracies in your food scale, inaccuracies in your bathroom scale -- then ask yourself why so many people on MFP agonize over getting the numbers "exactly right". It's all just an approximation so why sweat the small stuff?3
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
- 390 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