Don't trust the labels

StacySkinny
StacySkinny Posts: 984 Member
edited October 2024 in Food and Nutrition
... at least the front of them.

I drink one can of Pepsi every two weeks (two cans a month). Yesterday was my Pepsi day. So I grabbed a can at the store and and my boyfriend said "Well, *I* am going to pick a healthier drink". So he grabbed a "All Natural Snapple". My boyfriend thought he was being smart and wanted to show me that he has stronger will-power than me by picking a "healthy" drink. lol He had been talking about how he was craving Pepsi since we hadn't had it in quite a while, but he wanted to show me that HE was going to pick the "healthy" option.

We sit down to drink our drinks and he keeps eyeing my Pepsi wistfully. I pick up his Snapple to take a look and see how much worse my drink was compared to his. We where both surprised to find that the Snapple had 40 more calories, 5g more carbs, and 4g more sugar. To be fair, the Snapple contained 4 more oz than the can of soda, but even given that, the numbers where surprising. The second ingredient listed was sugar. It's no wonder so many people have trouble losing weight, they often think they're making a healthier choice but in the end are getting more cals, carbs, and sugar than if they had just picked what they where craving in the first place.

Personally, I don't buy anything these days without reading the nutrition label. My boyfriend, on the other hand, glances at the front but rarely turns it over. He was lulled into a false sense of security with the front of the label proudly proclaiming "Naturally Flavored" "All Natural" "Made from the Best Stuff on Earth". It taught him a lesson in learning to read the BACK of the labels too. lol

People who stand around in the grocery store reading the nutrition labels used to make me chuckle, now I'm a proud label reader too - especially the back of the label. In my opinion, it's a little crazy NOT to be a label reader. Knowing what I NOW know about how bad some foods are for you, I wouldn't dream of going back to being a non-label-reader. You have to know what you're putting into your body. I don't always make the best food choices, but at least now I KNOW what I'm putting into my body. And that makes it MUCH easier for me to, more often than not, make better choices.

Replies

  • HonkyTonks
    HonkyTonks Posts: 1,193 Member
    Great post - not sure when I started doing this, reading the labels intently - but you will often find me in a supermarket reading the backs of the labels of so many different things trying to make an informed choice and what I will eat. I have learnt that things labelled 'all natural' or 'low fat' sometimes can still be high in carbohydrate/sugar & calories. Another tricky thing to check is serving size. The label might say "only 47 calories a serve" and then you read the Nutritional guide and it says there are 4 servings in a packet. It's sad the way food companies can be so misleading and that many people are blindly accepting of the packaging.
  • Mindful_Trent
    Mindful_Trent Posts: 3,954 Member
    Great post! I learned awhile ago to read the ingredients FIRST, the nutrition info SECOND and to not even bother paying attention to words like "healthy", "diet", "natural" or other things like that on the labels. The only label like that which is regulated is "Organic" - that is the only one I'll pay attention to, but even then, I'll look at the ingredients and nutrition info first.
  • StacySkinny
    StacySkinny Posts: 984 Member
    ..Another tricky thing to check is serving size. The label might say "only 47 calories a serve" and then you read the Nutritional guide and it says there are 4 servings in a packet. It's sad the way food companies can be so misleading and that many people are blindly accepting of the packaging.

    I totally agree! I'm often surprised to find a bottle or package of something that most people would assume is one serving, only to find out it contains multiple "servings". Who's going to drink 1/3 of a bottle of juice then put the rest back for a later time? Not many. lol
  • CaptainGordo
    CaptainGordo Posts: 4,437 Member
    A drink can be "Naturally Flavored", "All Natural", "Made from the Best Stuff on Earth" and still have more calories and sugar than a soft drink.

    You didn't specify which Snapple variety he chose, so I picked one from their website: Peach Tea.

    Ingredients: FILTERED WATER, SUGAR, CITRIC ACID, TEA, NATURAL FLAVORS.

    Nothing misleading. Lots of folks just don't realize that "natural" doesn't mean "low calorie".
  • kaetra
    kaetra Posts: 442 Member
    Snapple vs. Pepsi. Pepsi wins!
  • MacMadame
    MacMadame Posts: 1,893 Member
    Another things to keep in mind:

    FDA lets companies say something is 0 calories if it has less than 5 calories per serving. So a lot of zero calorie drinks has calories! Not a ton but it can add up. For example Vitamin Water Zero says 0 calories per serving in the US. But a serving isn't a bottle. It's 8 oz! There are actually about 4 calories per 8 oz. (This is an estimate based on a few things including how the drink is labeled in other countries and the sugar gram count.) So a bottle -- which is what most of us think of as a serving -- actually has about 10 calories!

    I believe you are allowed to say something has 0 g of fat or 0 g of sugar if the amount is less than a certain amount too. But I'd have to look that up to be sure.
  • chevy88grl
    chevy88grl Posts: 3,937 Member
    I used to always laugh at the people standing in the aisles reading away at labels. Now? Well, now I am one of those people. While on this journey, I've found that I am highly sensitive to high fructose corn syrup - it makes me have stomach issues, a headache and VERY bloated. I read labels and do everything in my power to avoid consuming this since I know it makes me sick.

    A lot of "healthy" foods aren't all that healthy for you. Definitely read the labels and really see what you're eating. It's amazing to me when something deemed "healthy" is actually worse for you than something "normal".

    I try and avoid processed foods (like frozen tv dinners), but I admit that after a long day at work - I don't want to cook anything nor do I want to wait for anything to cook. So, I often turn to these as a quick and easy meal. For a long time, I refused to eat any of the "normal" brands because I was convinced they weren't as good for me as Lean Cuisine or Healthy Choice.

    Imagine my shock when I picked up a Stouffer's tv dinner and found it to have less calories, less saturated fat, less sugars and more protein than the healthier Lean Cuisine had.
  • LMHinson15
    LMHinson15 Posts: 201 Member
    I have to giggle to myself when I find myself standing in aisle comparing labels... but it's worth the time. I actually KNOW what I'm eating when I eat it! It's a good feeling. Sometimes I still eat the junk, but KNOWING that's what it is makes it easier to really limit what I splurge on!
  • XXXMinnieXXX
    XXXMinnieXXX Posts: 3,459 Member
    I know, I've learnt so much reading labels, its amazing! I find lots of things especially I've found rice or risotto say per 100g, so I think that's great, but its cooked weight which is about 4x more very naughty. Also lots more servings in things that anyone even a sparrow would eat... Easy to be tricked. You really have to be on the ball x
  • taramaureen
    taramaureen Posts: 569 Member
    Well yeah LOL... "natural", "low fat", and other buzz words like that does not mean nutritionally sound.
  • agthorn
    agthorn Posts: 1,844 Member
    ..Another tricky thing to check is serving size. The label might say "only 47 calories a serve" and then you read the Nutritional guide and it says there are 4 servings in a packet. It's sad the way food companies can be so misleading and that many people are blindly accepting of the packaging.

    I totally agree! I'm often surprised to find a bottle or package of something that most people would assume is one serving, only to find out it contains multiple "servings". Who's going to drink 1/3 of a bottle of juice then put the rest back for a later time? Not many. lol
    I think the worst example for this is Marie Calender pot pies. The box says "2 servings" - WTH?? Anything that comes in its own plate should be labeled as a serving. Who eats half of a pot pie??
  • Articeluvsmemphis
    Articeluvsmemphis Posts: 1,987 Member
    Though I feel a little silly, I will read labels till I'm blue in the face. not only labels but now I am an ingredient freak. as soon as I see something I Know is bad, nitrate/nitrite/mechanically separated (but I love aspartame, :grumble: ) then it gets put back down. ironically and not to my surprise those foods cost less (ones with the fillers)
  • lorac321
    lorac321 Posts: 614 Member
    I'm a label reader now. My husband hates to come to the store with me because it takes so much longer. For me the time is worth it.
  • StacySkinny
    StacySkinny Posts: 984 Member
    ..Another tricky thing to check is serving size. The label might say "only 47 calories a serve" and then you read the Nutritional guide and it says there are 4 servings in a packet. It's sad the way food companies can be so misleading and that many people are blindly accepting of the packaging.

    I totally agree! I'm often surprised to find a bottle or package of something that most people would assume is one serving, only to find out it contains multiple "servings". Who's going to drink 1/3 of a bottle of juice then put the rest back for a later time? Not many. lol
    I think the worst example for this is Marie Calender pot pies. The box says "2 servings" - WTH?? Anything that comes in its own plate should be labeled as a serving. Who eats half of a pot pie??

    That's crazy, you're right, most people would assume it's a single serving. I think that brand was listed on an article for one of the worst pot pies you can eat too. I think it has over a thousand calories, about 70 g of fat, and more than an entire days worth of sodium. Ugh
  • taramaureen
    taramaureen Posts: 569 Member
    ..Another tricky thing to check is serving size. The label might say "only 47 calories a serve" and then you read the Nutritional guide and it says there are 4 servings in a packet. It's sad the way food companies can be so misleading and that many people are blindly accepting of the packaging.

    I totally agree! I'm often surprised to find a bottle or package of something that most people would assume is one serving, only to find out it contains multiple "servings". Who's going to drink 1/3 of a bottle of juice then put the rest back for a later time? Not many. lol
    I think the worst example for this is Marie Calender pot pies. The box says "2 servings" - WTH?? Anything that comes in its own plate should be labeled as a serving. Who eats half of a pot pie??


    That's how it is with Amy's Organics Cheese Enchilladas. There are 2 in there but one plate, but it's 2 servings. So I always kinda budget extra cals for those when I have them knowing it's double the calories.
  • LuckyLeprechaun
    LuckyLeprechaun Posts: 6,294 Member
    I know, I've learnt so much reading labels, its amazing! I find lots of things especially I've found rice or risotto say per 100g, so I think that's great, but its cooked weight which is about 4x more very naughty. Also lots more servings in things that anyone even a sparrow would eat... Easy to be tricked. You really have to be on the ball x

    just wanted to say, I think you're confused, because rice and pasta and other things which puff up when cooked are supposed to be measured or weighed when dry. Of course they absorb a bunch of water, but that doesn't change the caloric content.
  • auntiebabs
    auntiebabs Posts: 1,754 Member
    knowledge is power, baby!

    Yep, I don't *always* make the *best* choices. But life is about priorities and trade offs, knowing you what you are putting into your body is key. Tracking accurately, also key. Then I can see cause and effect clearly and modify my actions or not... it's my choice.
  • ShadowSoldier23
    ShadowSoldier23 Posts: 321 Member
    Though I feel a little silly, I will read labels till I'm blue in the face. not only labels but now I am an ingredient freak. as soon as I see something I Know is bad, nitrate/nitrite/mechanically separated (but I love aspartame, :grumble: ) then it gets put back down. ironically and not to my surprise those foods cost less (ones with the fillers)

    I agree. I really don't feel like all the extra chemicals and preservatives are the best for our bodies. I can imagine that is one reason people feel so crappy after eating highly processed foods. As much as I love to eat some of those chemical laden foods, I try to stay away from them. I've gotten really bad about reading ingredients, it takes forever to shop now. But it makes me feel better about my choices.
  • StacySkinny
    StacySkinny Posts: 984 Member
    ..I've gotten really bad about reading ingredients, it takes forever to shop now. But it makes me feel better about my choices.

    hahah I'm the same way. It gets a lot faster though, if you buy a lot of the same foods every week. :) But anytime we want to try something new I'm comparing all the different brands and varieties of it. It takes a bit longer but, like you said, it's totally worth it!
  • CannibalisticVegetarian
    CannibalisticVegetarian Posts: 1,255 Member
    Awesome post! I was bad about reading the labels until I'd picked up a few of the, 'Eat This, Not That' books. I forget what I was eating at the time---I think it was a granola bar that claimed to be so healthy and natural.. but the book informed me that my so called 'healthy' snack contained about as much sugar as an entire Snicker's bar.

    So yeah, definitely picked up the fine art of label reading before chomping down.
  • KayteeBear
    KayteeBear Posts: 1,007 Member
    I've read the ingredient list and nutrition info for a long time. I started doing that as a teenager (how I found out which yogurts were good and which were disgusting. Some yogurts were TWICE the calories with the second ingredient sugar...they tasted gross once i stopped eating those kinds)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories