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
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I was at the grocery store tonight and actually looked at all the tomato pastes and didn't find any labelled no added sugar (some were labelled no salt) and also didn't find any with added sugar. I was at a WF, which may have biased it, but other than the 365 brands the brands there (like Muir Glen) are also at my Jewel (mainstream store). Some of them did have citric acid in addition to tomatoes.
It was at Acme back in 2012. I don't remember the brand but I know I only found two that didn't have it (Hunts and Tuttorosso) when I went back - I know because I was very frustrated and started a thread complaining about it.
Whether that's still the case I don't know. 0 -
rankinsect wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I haven't finished reading so forgive me but...I think the fact that they go so far as to list sugars by several different names on the same list so as to alter the position of sugar on the label
That is actually required by the FDA, and it's because there are many different chemicals that are all sugars. By federal regulation, on an ingredient list "sugar" may only be used to refer to sucrose that comes from a sugar cane or sugar beet. Anything else must specify the exact type of sugar. For example, it would be against regulations to call maltose "sugar" on an ingredient list, although it will be listed under the total grams of sugar on the nutrition summary.
For some people it's vitally important to know exactly which kind of sugar they're digesting. For example, those with galactosemia cannot metabolize any sugar that contains galactose, and the consumption of galactose can lead to profound negative effects including brain damage.
High fructose corn syrup and corn syrup have been shown to be exactly the same thing. Are you suggesting that the sugar lobby (and it is massive and powerful) has no impact on the FDA?0 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »eveandqsmom wrote: »I haven't finished reading so forgive me but...I think the fact that they go so far as to list sugars by several different names on the same list so as to alter the position of sugar on the label
That is actually required by the FDA, and it's because there are many different chemicals that are all sugars. By federal regulation, on an ingredient list "sugar" may only be used to refer to sucrose that comes from a sugar cane or sugar beet. Anything else must specify the exact type of sugar. For example, it would be against regulations to call maltose "sugar" on an ingredient list, although it will be listed under the total grams of sugar on the nutrition summary.
For some people it's vitally important to know exactly which kind of sugar they're digesting. For example, those with galactosemia cannot metabolize any sugar that contains galactose, and the consumption of galactose can lead to profound negative effects including brain damage.
High fructose corn syrup and corn syrup have been shown to be exactly the same thing. Are you suggesting that the sugar lobby (and it is massive and powerful) has no impact on the FDA?
http://www.thekitchn.com/corn-syrup-vs-highfructose-corn-syrup-there-is-a-difference-1968192 -
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.
It is always on the nutritional label too.1 -
Manufacturers attempt to "hide" sugar by calling it something else on the ingredient list. The most extravagant I can recall is "Evaporated cane juice".0
-
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Manufacturers attempt to "hide" sugar by calling it something else on the ingredient list. The most extravagant I can recall is "Evaporated cane juice".
And you wouldn't know that evaporated cane juice is sugar? If not, then we have an education problem, not a labeling problem.10 -
stevencloser wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I think about it from a logical perspective. For instance, there are some foods like ketchup that at one point I didn't think of as having added sugar, but yet it's there. I would consider it "hidden" in that sense. Whereas, it's common knowledge that a normal cookie contains added sugar.lemurcat12 wrote: »I've yet to hear about a food that surprised me with the added sugar (even apart from reading labels, which I do carefully).I agree with Sabine. The sugar isn't hidden. You just have to know what to look for in the ingredients list.
I don't really like the idea of "hidden" sugars because in most cases it sounds way more sinister than I think the reality of the situation is. It's not a bunch of dastardly super villains rubbing their hands together as they pour a vat of sugar into the city's water supply. But to play devil's advocate, I had no idea there was sugar in McDonald's French fries until I saw that movie. They're a salty, supposed-to-be-crunchy snack, pretty much as far apart from sugar as I could imagine. And there's no ingredients list.
There's sugar in McDonald's french fries?
ETA: yep! lookie there! http://www.livestrong.com/article/1002598-whats-really-inside-those-mcdonalds-french-fries/
Their nutrition facts say 0 for small, medium and large. So less than 5 grams.
No wait that was for calories.
How little of something has to be in it so they can say 0?
In less silly labelling regimes the sugar per 100g of product has to be shown down to 0 1.
There is a little glucose in potato and early season potatos for McD fries have a bit added to give the same browning reaction as later crops when the inherent sugar is higher.0 -
VioletRojo wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Manufacturers attempt to "hide" sugar by calling it something else on the ingredient list. The most extravagant I can recall is "Evaporated cane juice".
And you wouldn't know that evaporated cane juice is sugar? If not, then we have an education problem, not a labeling problem.
That was my thought. Here's an article on it:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163098211/evaporated-cane-juice-sugar-in-disguise
I never get why people are willing to make claims in lawsuits that make them appear to be complete idiots, but so be it. There are worse examples.
I do think trying to distinguish between cane sugar and evaporated can juice was just as ridiculous.0 -
My perspective is a bit different as I'm diabetic (type 2). I pay attention to carbohydrate totals and look for sugar alcohols(which I avoid because they can wreak havoc on my gastro system). That's the end of my worries about it. If it fits my macros and carb servings for a meal, I'm eating it. It's going to be like sodium, once you start paying attention to it you will think the world has gone crazy because it's in the damnest places.
Have the powers that be set an amount of added sugar we should be limited to ?2 -
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.1 -
eveandqsmom wrote: »I haven't finished reading so forgive me but...I think the fact that they go so far as to list sugars by several different names on the same list so as to alter the position of sugar on the label
The Canadians proposed grouping the sugary things into a single category to fix this aspect.
Ingredients lists tell us what the product is made from, so honey and cane sugar are logically separate. Personally I would like to know if "honey sweetened xxxxx" uses 20g of cane sugar and 2 g of honey rather than just 22g of "sugarandhoney" (tm).
Nutritional labels tell us the analysis of the product, cutting across the ingredients.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »I think about it from a logical perspective. For instance, there are some foods like ketchup that at one point I didn't think of as having added sugar, but yet it's there. I would consider it "hidden" in that sense. Whereas, it's common knowledge that a normal cookie contains added sugar.lemurcat12 wrote: »I've yet to hear about a food that surprised me with the added sugar (even apart from reading labels, which I do carefully).I agree with Sabine. The sugar isn't hidden. You just have to know what to look for in the ingredients list.
I don't really like the idea of "hidden" sugars because in most cases it sounds way more sinister than I think the reality of the situation is. It's not a bunch of dastardly super villains rubbing their hands together as they pour a vat of sugar into the city's water supply. But to play devil's advocate, I had no idea there was sugar in McDonald's French fries until I saw that movie. They're a salty, supposed-to-be-crunchy snack, pretty much as far apart from sugar as I could imagine. And there's no ingredients list.
There's sugar in McDonald's french fries?
ETA: yep! lookie there! http://www.livestrong.com/article/1002598-whats-really-inside-those-mcdonalds-french-fries/
Their nutrition facts say 0 for small, medium and large. So less than 5 grams.
No wait that was for calories.
How little of something has to be in it so they can say 0?
In less silly labelling regimes the sugar per 100g of product has to be shown down to 0 1.
There is a little glucose in potato and early season potatos for McD fries have a bit added to give the same browning reaction as later crops when the inherent sugar is higher.
(Sorry, I just had to!
) 3 -
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.
8 -
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.0 -
shinycrazy wrote: »My perspective is a bit different as I'm diabetic (type 2). I pay attention to carbohydrate totals and look for sugar alcohols(which I avoid because they can wreak havoc on my gastro system). That's the end of my worries about it. If it fits my macros and carb servings for a meal, I'm eating it. It's going to be like sodium, once you start paying attention to it you will think the world has gone crazy because it's in the damnest places.
Have the powers that be set an amount of added sugar we should be limited to ?
The WHO recommends no more than 10% of your daily calorie intake from added sugars. The AHA suggests a daily added sugar intake of no more 100 calories (25g) for women and 150 calories (38g) for men.0 -
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.
Exactly. A balance of sweet, salty, sour, and umami can make all the difference between an OK dish and an AMAZING dish. Maybe not for everything, but that balance of flavors is key to many recipes.1 -
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.
Hi tjjalmeida, thanks for contributing to the discussion!
Your point about sugar having different names has been addressed earlier in this thread.
As for preferring honey over sugar: http://www.thekitchn.com/honey-no-healthier-than-corn-syrup-says-honey-funded-study-223752
Edited because I didn't mean to sound brusque.0 -
tjjalmeida wrote: »I look for natural foods that use honey or Agave as sweetners
So you actually seek out hidden sugars ?
Agave syrup vs cane sugar would be an interesting trial.0 -
tjjalmeida wrote: »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!!
Not necessarily. For example, low fat and skim dairy (cottage cheese and greek yogurt, definitely not cheese) is probably by far the most common such product I purchase, and plain dairy has no sugar added. It has sugar naturally, whether it's low fat or not. Flavored kinds will often have added sugar, but that's pretty hard to miss.
Similarly, fat is removed from lean ground beef and skinless, boneless chicken breast. While I prefer my chicken with its skin, sugar is not added to these products.2 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yeah, I'm seeing it more and more in tortillas.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Hidden? No. Unknown to some folks, and unknown for some foods, perhaps. My local mexican joint recently swapped lard for HFCS. Do most patrons know that the sugar content of the tortilla probably doubled or tripled? Probably not. Do they know that the glycemic load of their tortilla probably doubled? I doubt it.
I think "hidden" is the wrong word. Added sugar. That said, I'll be curious to see MFP posts when the label thing launches. I predict some folks WILL be surprised about the added sugar content of some foods. Who know though.
Good point. I was thinking more in terms of food that comes with a nutrition label. But that's interesting that they'd swap lard for HFCS.
But yeah, good point about foods with and without nutrition labels.
I wouldn't think that lard and HFCS are things that could just be swapped without it being obvious in regards to taste/texture.. don't they do completely different things in terms of the recipe?0 -
mskessler89 wrote: »shinycrazy wrote: »My perspective is a bit different as I'm diabetic (type 2). I pay attention to carbohydrate totals and look for sugar alcohols(which I avoid because they can wreak havoc on my gastro system). That's the end of my worries about it. If it fits my macros and carb servings for a meal, I'm eating it. It's going to be like sodium, once you start paying attention to it you will think the world has gone crazy because it's in the damnest places.
Have the powers that be set an amount of added sugar we should be limited to ?
The WHO recommends no more than 10% of your daily calorie intake from added sugars. The AHA suggests a daily added sugar intake of no more 100 calories (25g) for women and 150 calories (38g) for men.
To add to this, current (new) US Dietary Guidelines also say 10%, which I think is related to this change. The new labels will give percentage of that recommended limit calculated for a 2000 calorie diet.
(I personally think proportion of diet makes more sense than the AHA's set numbers.)0 -
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.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »shinycrazy wrote: »My perspective is a bit different as I'm diabetic (type 2). I pay attention to carbohydrate totals and look for sugar alcohols(which I avoid because they can wreak havoc on my gastro system). That's the end of my worries about it. If it fits my macros and carb servings for a meal, I'm eating it. It's going to be like sodium, once you start paying attention to it you will think the world has gone crazy because it's in the damnest places.
Have the powers that be set an amount of added sugar we should be limited to ?
The WHO recommends no more than 10% of your daily calorie intake from added sugars. The AHA suggests a daily added sugar intake of no more 100 calories (25g) for women and 150 calories (38g) for men.
To add to this, current (new) US Dietary Guidelines also say 10%, which I think is related to this change. The new labels will give percentage of that recommended limit calculated for a 2000 calorie diet.
(I personally think proportion of diet makes more sense than the AHA's set numbers.)
Me too. 100 calories is a very different % of intake for someone who maintains on 1500 calories and someone who maintains on 2500, and it's lower than 10% for both.0 -
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.
Also, even if that did happen, which I used to assume would, and sugar content went up a bit by volume, vs merely percentage of total calories, it would not support the assertion frequently made that more sugar is added (see the post I was responding to). The only sugar is the sugar in the yogurt naturally.0 -
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.
I'll raise you some episodes of Unwrapped or similar shows. People don't appreciate that the choice of ingredients isn't just about taste and texture, it's also about 'how do I best get the finished product I want using the manufacturing equipment I have'. Often companies have to use a sugar product with specific characteristics (taste profile, viscosity at particular temperatures, etc), so that's what they choose.
1 -
I agree as well.mskessler89 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »shinycrazy wrote: »My perspective is a bit different as I'm diabetic (type 2). I pay attention to carbohydrate totals and look for sugar alcohols(which I avoid because they can wreak havoc on my gastro system). That's the end of my worries about it. If it fits my macros and carb servings for a meal, I'm eating it. It's going to be like sodium, once you start paying attention to it you will think the world has gone crazy because it's in the damnest places.
Have the powers that be set an amount of added sugar we should be limited to ?
The WHO recommends no more than 10% of your daily calorie intake from added sugars. The AHA suggests a daily added sugar intake of no more 100 calories (25g) for women and 150 calories (38g) for men.
To add to this, current (new) US Dietary Guidelines also say 10%, which I think is related to this change. The new labels will give percentage of that recommended limit calculated for a 2000 calorie diet.
(I personally think proportion of diet makes more sense than the AHA's set numbers.)
Me too. 100 calories is a very different % of intake for someone who maintains on 1500 calories and someone who maintains on 2500, and it's lower than 10% for both.
0 -
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.0 -
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?5 -
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.
0 -
I think the solution is to remove all detail from food labelling and have a serious of emoticons. A smiley face next to each description. Lots of sugar?
High fat? 
Added Kale 
Etc. 5
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