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.
We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

Nutrition Labels and Hidden Sugars

124

Replies

  • Posts: 256 Member
    tjjalmeida wrote: »
    When I hear "Hidden sugars" I immediately think about the fact that there are so many different names that they call sugar on labels. So if you look at the ingredients and are searching for the word sugar, you will probably miss it! That's what frustrates me, it feels like the food industry is trying to "hide" the fact that they loaded the food with sugar. They other thing I learned and something I avoid entirely is anything that is "Fat Free" or "Low fat" because when they take the fat out of foods, it doesn't taste as good so they replace it with added sugar!!
    I look for natural foods that use honey or Agave as sweetners and if I'm going to by yogurt or cottage cheese, I avoid the fat free or low fat options.

    Sugar isn't just sugar though. It's not an industry creation, that's just how various sugars are categorised. Now, some corporations or manufacturers may use these terms with public ignorance in mind but that's the problem, not the labelling.
  • Posts: 138 Member
    JenHuedy wrote: »

    I think the "surprise" about sugar in foods is related to the decline in cooking skills. Sugar is a flavor enhancer - just like salt. It is used in a lot of savory dishes to bring out different flavors, enhance browning or change texture. Even if you have never added plain sugar to a savory dish, I'll bet you've added something like soy, worcestershire or teriyaki sauces or ketchup. All of which have sugar.

    Now, is it overused in processed foods? Absolutely. But that's because people like it. If they like it, they buy it. If they buy it, then manufacturers will make it. If we don't buy it any more. They quit making it. That's how this whole system works.

    I wish some people would spend the time they use complaining about the evil food companies "hiding" sugar in foods to watch a few episodes of Good Eats or America's Test Kitchen and see the science behind cooking and how the most humble ingredients and simple techniques majorly impact the flavor and texture of food.

    That theory of "if people stop buying it..." is a good theory. But, in Australia for example, the major supermarket chains appear to be significantly reducing the availability of non-store branded products. The consequence is that there really is no choice. Of that's full of sugar, bad luck, there's no viable alternative.

  • Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited May 2016
    yarwell wrote: »

    Actual greek yoghurt 10% fat 4.2 sugar 3.4 protein. Just off the label.

    The USDA stuff looks like whey is back mixed into it or something. Compare protein/sugar ratio of milk.

    So I stand by what I said with a wider range and more words - the sugar content varies independent of fat in the range 3-6 % with fat in the range 0-10% in actual products on sale. This isn't because sugar is added but because fat is being added or removed as is protein in variable proportions.

    The USDA numbers are consistent with Fage. Taking the numbers from the Fage nutrition labels:

    The non low fat version sold here is 200 g, 190 calories, 18 g protein, 8 g sugar.
    The 2% is 200 g, 150 calories, 20 g protein, 8 g sugar.
    The non fat is smaller by weight (same size container), so 170 g, 100 calories, 18 g protein, 7 g sugar. Even if you converted it to 200 g, you'd get 8.2 g of sugar (which would be 8 on the label here), so no more than in the whole milk variety.
  • Posts: 515 Member
    VioletRojo wrote: »
    I don't understand how the sugar can be hidden if it's listed on the ingredient label. Either the sugar occurs naturally in the food, or it's added. If it's added, it'll be on the ingredient label.

    Yes, it's on the ingredient label, but that doesn't tell how much of the listed carbohydrates are from added sugars, so that's the difference on the new labels.
  • Posts: 1,282 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »

    Oh dear lord you uttered the name of she who should not be named. What plague have you now wrought upon us?

    At least I'm not the one posting actual conspiracy theories right now! ;)

    But yes, I'll take full responsibility for any curse or plague that is wrought upon us.
  • Posts: 2,171 Member
    Evaporated sugar cane juice is not sugar, per se; that is, it is not pure sucrose.

    It looks like this:
    m9un4q5a6t59.jpg (credit ER & Jenny)'

    When sugar is extracted (milled) from cane plants, it requires a 2-crystallization process to get to the final product of pure sucrose.

    vg69ymk9riz0.jpg

    Sugar cane juice has a concentrated amount of sugar in comparison to the raw plant, but it is quite different than pure sugar chemically.

    The labelling of foods require the actual food ingredients, not a common shorthand for them, be used.
  • Posts: 14,776 Member
    This is an old case, but it's new to me. Apparently several lawsuits have been filed regarding the use of "evaporated can juice" on labels.

    http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Regulation/Chobani-finally-prevails-in-evaporated-cane-juice-lawsuit-but-other-firms-still-being-targeted
  • Posts: 30,886 Member
    One of them was mentioned in my NPR link above.
  • Posts: 14,776 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    One of them was mentioned in my NPR link above.

    Thanks, @lemurcat12. I've been lurking the discussion but obviously hadn't been following it too closely. Figured this was the better place to post this link rather than starting a new thread. I'll just let myself out again.

  • Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited May 2016

    Thanks, @lemurcat12. I've been lurking the discussion but obviously hadn't been following it too closely. Figured this was the better place to post this link rather than starting a new thread. I'll just let myself out again.

    Your link probably has more information; I wasn't suggesting that you shouldn't have linked!

    Edit: In fact, it has a lot more information, such as the resolution of the Chobani case mentioned in my link.
  • Posts: 1,649 Member
    ... and I don't worry about eating a small amount of sugar. But god damn I was surprised to learn it's there, and apparently so was everyone else judging from the responses.

    I'm even more surprised (and angry) to learn that the stupid things aren't vegetarian.

  • Posts: 14,776 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    Your link probably has more information; I wasn't suggesting that you shouldn't have linked!

    Edit: In fact, it has a lot more information, such as the resolution of the Chobani case mentioned in my link.

    I think what I find most interesting in these cases is that they're mostly based on that FDA draft guideline that suggests the term is misleading. I don't know enough about the timeline to see if the FDA suggestion appeared before or as a reaction to consumer complaints. It seemed obvious to me that this is sugar, but I'm constantly reminded by stories like these that I'm, apparently, not the average consumer.
  • Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited May 2016
    From the link I posted: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163098211/evaporated-cane-juice-sugar-in-disguise, it seems like other sugar companies have been complaining about the term (which is used for a specific product):
    "All sugar is evaporated cane juice," Judy Sanchez, a spokesperson for the U.S. Sugar Corp., says. "They just use that for a natural-sounding name for a product."

    Sanchez says all sugar is made by taking the liquid of the sugarcane plant, evaporating it and then putting it in a centrifuge to separate the gooey molasses from the crystallized sucrose. She says the only difference between evaporated cane juice and common white sugar is that the white sugar is stripped of all traces of molasses, while evaporated cane juice still has some little flecks of molasses that give it a darker caramel color.

    "It's got negligible amounts of nutrients or anything like that. Healthwise it's not any better or worse for you," Sanchez says.

    It makes me wonder if maybe those complaints were what the FDA was responding to, and then the FDA guidance prompted the lawsuits. (Kind of like the fight between sugar companies and HFCS.)
  • Posts: 24,208 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I looked it up, since I had the same question. Less than half a gram.

    It's used as a browning agent, not really part of the fries. Although there is likely a little residual.

    http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/22/macdonalds-has-finally-revealed-how-it-makes-french-fries-5031511/
  • Posts: 1 Member
    I don't think there's actually "hidden" sugar. If you're looking for it, you can generally find it. In the ingredient list, sugar is anything ending with the letters "ose."

    I didn't see it mentioned, but this week the FDA announced new food labeling that will show "added sugar." It will also address more realistic portion sizes, etc. Here's a link for anyone who would like to read more and see how the new label and old label stacks up: http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htm
  • Posts: 3,502 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »

    Oh dear lord you uttered the name of she who should not be named. What plague have you now wrought upon us?

    I thought "she who should not be named" was one of the 475 names of sugar.
  • Posts: 72 Member
    If your food grows on a plant, it's probably ok to eat. If your food is made in a plant, it's more than likely NOT going to be good for you.
  • Posts: 256 Member
    traceyc83 wrote: »
    If your food grows on a plant, it's probably ok to eat. If your food is made in a plant, it's more than likely NOT going to be good for you.

    I'm not taking you wild camping.
  • Posts: 8,911 Member
    Wat.
  • This content has been removed.
  • Posts: 7,088 Member
    I don't really buy into the hidden sugar on packaged foods.
    It's there, you just have to read it. If a person is unsure of an ingredient, they could do a quick search and figure it out

    My son wanted a box of these mini chocolate chip cookies. He carried the box around the store hoping that I would agree.
    I pulled the cart to the side and asked him " how many cookies are in one serving?"
    He answered "4 small cookies"
    I went on asking him more questions and he was able to answer each question, like how much sugar is in each serving? Is there any protein?
    My son is 11. So if he could figure it out, I'm almost certain that most adults could if they really wanted to.
    ( I did buy him the mini cookies anyway because in my house , we use moderation not deprivation. The mini cookies ended up tasting terrible like cardboard. He agreed that there was better tasting treats for 149 calories and that one homemade cookie would've tasted better then four tiny mini cookies)
  • Posts: 7,088 Member
    traceyc83 wrote: »
    If your food grows on a plant, it's probably ok to eat. If your food is made in a plant, it's more than likely NOT going to be good for you.

    This is inaccurate
  • Posts: 24,208 Member
    traceyc83 wrote: »
    If your food grows on a plant, it's probably ok to eat. If your food is made in a plant, it's more than likely NOT going to be good for you.

    3575.Jpg
  • Unknown
    edited June 2016
    This content has been removed.
  • Posts: 24,208 Member
    edited June 2016
    One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that sugar is a preservative.

    I learned this in one of my MBA classes on entrepreneurship. One of the students had started a small company making crackers. He brought in some samples for us to try, he was also sharing his business model for us to critique. Most of us were surprised by the sweetness of the crackers and didn't care for them because they almost tasted more like a cookie. This was a bootstrap business, and he mentioned that he didn't want to use preservatives, but that sugar is a natural preservative. And, since he was very small and didn't move product quickly, shelf life was important.

    There isn't a huge point here other than the fact that I found it interesting that sugar can be used as a preservative and might explain some of the reason it is used in so many packaged foods. Even in ones where it seems like sugar should not be part of the recipe.

    Sugar is a preservative in high concentration and a mold/bacteria promotor in lower concentrations. The student was justifying the use of sugar incorrectly (it isn't an antibacterial in crackers/cookies)- unless those cookies were REALLY sweet. The real anti-spoilage effect in pastries, cookies, etc. is more related to preventing staleness as sugar retains moistness.
  • Posts: 242 Member

    3575.Jpg

    Mmmmmmm, foxglove.
  • This content has been removed.
  • Posts: 6,037 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »

    This is great news for the ongoing sugar debate, since sugar comes from plants...
    Indeed...
  • Posts: 1,776 Member
    traceyc83 wrote: »
    If your food grows on a plant, it's probably ok to eat. If your food is made in a plant, it's more than likely NOT going to be good for you.

    3b08b5qk8dvk.jpg
This discussion has been closed.