Lies, damn lies and the FDA

Options
CharlesScott78
CharlesScott78 Posts: 203 Member
in Food and Nutrition
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.

j5l3qs26n09e.gif

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. :smile:
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
«134567

Replies

  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,372 Member
    Options
    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 :(
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    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 :p

    Yeah, I use Pam probably once or twice a week and still just use 1-2 cans a year.
  • CyberTone
    CyberTone Posts: 7,337 Member
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    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/181962665
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    chocolate_owl wrote: »
    TR0berts 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.)

    :astonished: Whoa
  • jessef593
    jessef593 Posts: 2,272 Member
    Options
    Why would you put that much of an artificial substance into your body per day?
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,725 Member
    Options
    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???
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,134 Member
    Options
    jessef593 wrote: »
    Why would you put that much of an artificial substance into your body per day?

    Because it tastes good? I used to eat sticks of Blue Bonnet margarine as a kid, 1-2 a week. Guess I wasn't getting enough fat from my "junk" food diet.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    Options
    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?
  • CyberTone
    CyberTone Posts: 7,337 Member
    edited December 2016
    Options
    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


    kesk7bqvu8c6.jpg

Categories