Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition Blog

Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition

The Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition Blog is the place for conversation and discussion about topics related to sports and sports fitness, general fitness, bodybuilding, nutrition, weight loss, and human health. Here, you'll find everything from nutritional information and advice about healthy eating to training and exercise tips for improving your overall well-being.

Previous in Blog: January is National Oatmeal Month   Next in Blog: No More Toasted Bread For You!
Close
Close
Close
2 comments

The Hidden Flaws of Nutrition Labels (Part 2)

Posted January 27, 2010 12:00 AM by Jaxy

While there are some flaws that are noticeable and can be easily-identified on nutrition labels (see Part 1), there are even more hidden flaws that you wouldn't otherwise notice. Sometimes it is because the manufacturers are trying to be deceptive and make you think something isn't as bad for you as it really is, and sometimes it is caused by rounding.

Zero Does Not Always Mean Zero

One of the biggest flaws with food labeling is if an amount it less than .5g, it is allowed to state 0g on the label. For example, manufacturers can manipulate serving sizes so that they include just under a gram of trans fat, making it legal for them to label the product 0g for trans fat. Because the serving sizes are smaller, you usually eat more than one serving per sitting, which would result in just less than 1g of trans fat if you eat two servings. This brings me to the next issue…

Serving Sizes Are Too Small

I was once browsing the frozen pizza section of my local grocery store while trying to pick a sensible pizza for a quick meal. I checked the labels and noticed that one pizza was coming in at a low of just over 300 calories. When I looked at the serving size, I knew why; a medium sized pizza had a serving size of 1/6th of a pizza.

Serving sizes are reduced to toddler-sized portions in order to make the food seem less unhealthy. This misleads the customer into thinking there are less calories, sugar, fat, etcetera, than there really is.

Added Sugars versus Natural Sugars

The total sugar content in a serving is listed in the ingredients, but there is no indication as to whether the sugar occurs naturally, is added, or both. The way they contribute to caloric content is the same, but there is a bigger difference in regards to nutrition. The benefit of fruits containing natural sugars is the amount of additional vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, fiber, and antioxidants they offer. Added sugars contain no health benefits and are truly empty calories. Consumers have no idea how much sugar in their foods is natural or added.

What other problems do you see with nutrition labels? Can you think of other improvements that can be made to labels? What do you think of the suggested improvements Fooducate suggests?

For those who desire more information about what labels don't tell you and how to determine fact from fiction on the box, see this link.

Resources:

http://www.fooducate.com/blog/2009/12/07/the-fda-wants-you-help-improve-nutrition-labeling/

Reply

Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.
Anonymous Poster
#1

Re: The Hidden Flaws of Nutrition Labels (Part 2)

01/28/2010 7:29 AM

Everybody knows that E's are bad. Look on the American labels, how many times have you seen the ingredients shown to be Es? Sure, they indicate that they contain monosodium glutamate, for instance, but does anybody know that it is an E?

Reply
Guru
Hobbies - CNC - New Member Popular Science - Biology - New Member Hobbies - Musician - New Member

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 3524
Good Answers: 146
#2

Re: The Hidden Flaws of Nutrition Labels (Part 2)

01/29/2010 4:30 PM

Great blog, I hear you.

It happens I want to avoid trans fats, so I read food labels. I also happen to be fond of chocolate. There are only a few bars available that don't have measureable trans fat, but some months ago, they introduced these "thin" versions of the old standby's - labeled as zero trans fats.

I admit it, my love of the chocs was enough to make me stupid at first. I thought they were bringing in a new recipe in a new package. I bought some of the new "thin" ones. For several weeks I kept watch over the regular size packages, waiting for the new stock to come in where they had dropped the trans fat... and when that didn't happen, I realized I'd been had. It's not too hard to figure that you eat two of those "thin" ones to get the bang of a regular bar. Hell, eat half a dozen if you want, if they're trans fat free... uh. Half the portion to label zero .. and stick the consumer with all of the trans fat. Talk about sneaky.

__________________
incus opella
Reply
Reply to Blog Entry 2 comments
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Previous in Blog: January is National Oatmeal Month   Next in Blog: No More Toasted Bread For You!
You might be interested in: Label Applicators, Label and Nameplate Services

Advertisement