Although food labels provide a significant amount of information that can help us compare the nutrient composition of different products, there is one part of these labels I pay absolutely no attention to -- and I suggest you do the same.The "waste of space" culprit? "Calories from fat."
Not only is that figure useless, it also ends up confusing most consumers.
The only thing "calories from fat" tells you is how many of a given product's total calories per serving come from fat. Why does that matter?
This, by the way, is no secret formula. You can determine that yourself simply by multiplying the fat grams on a food label by 9 (remember, there are 9 calories in one gram of fat).
Similarly, to estimate the amount of calories from protein, multiply the grams of protein in a serving of a given product by 4.
My main issue with "calories from fat" is that it is clearly a remnant from the early 1990s "low-fat" craze.
Allow me to illustrate the inefficacy of "calories from fat."
A two-tablespoon serving of peanut butter, for example, contains 200 calories, of which 140 are from fat.
A bag of Skittles from a vending machine packs in 250 calories, of which 22.5 are from fat.
Do you see, then, how "calories from fat" is absolutely meaningless?
I say it's time to revise the food label. Drop 'calories from fat', differentiate between naturally-occurring and "added" sugars, and substitute Vitamin A (a mandatory micronutrient on food labels practically no one is deficient in) with a nutrient people should be more aware of, like potassium.
Posts
6 comments:
Agreed! I would love to see potassium on the food label. Would make things so much easier for my renal patients.
I am sorry, but there is absolutely no physiological reason what-so-ever to distingush added versus naturally occuring sugars on a food label. The body sees no difference between the added sucrose in yogurt compared to the naturally occuring sucrose in a banana. They are they same chemically and are treated by the body in exactly the same manner. The nutritional value of foods with sugars can be very different, but the sugars themselves are not different. In fact, I think your idea would confuse consumers MORE. Would a person with diabetes be more likely to think that they can drink unlimited quantities of organge juice simply because the sugars are naturally-occuring and therefore must be 'healthy'? In fact, for labelling purposes, total carbohydrate and fibre are the only values needed on the nutrition panel within the carbohyrate 'umbrella'. The sugars value is useless information.
People with diabetes need to understand that all carbohydrates are broken down into blood glucose (with the exception of fibre and other monosaccharides such as fructose) and that sugars are simply a component of carbohydrate. They are not unique independent of total carbohydrate.
Have you ever actually read the DRI report on carbohydrates? This is basic reading for a dietetics student...I am surprised at your lack of knowledge of sugars.
what about the consume no more than 30% of your calories from fat thing? All the recipes in Cooking Light are based on that idea. You hit a nerve with this one, because I do pay attention to that and never gave it a second thought.
I have to disagree with this post. Calories from fat can be helpful for a quick and easy wat to help people identify items with approx 30% fat by multiplying cal from fat by 3 and comparing to total calories. I do see your point - that we should concentrate on types of fat, not just total fat or percentage of fat, but often this is the quick and easy trick that patients will actually do to control their fat intake in frozen meals, cookies, etc. Of course, then you have to educate them on what foods this should apply to so that they allow exceptions for foods high in heart healthy fats. In the real world of nutrion counseling situations, this number can be quite useful for people who need to watch their fat but are not willing to further explore the label - unfortunately this is the case for many people.
KH,
"I am sorry, but there is absolutely no physiological reason what-so-ever to distingush added versus naturally occuring sugars on a food label. The body sees no difference between the added sucrose in yogurt compared to the naturally occuring sucrose in a banana."
When did I ever argue that the body processes the sugar in a banana (which is fructose, by the way, not sucrose) differently from added sugar in a yogurt?
My suggestion for differentiating these sugars is so people can realize that a cup of plain yogurt (containing approximately 12 grams of naturally occurring sugars) is very different from a fruit candy offering 12 grams of added sugar.
Remember, naturally occurring sugars come with the package (meaning that along with those sugars you are getting vitamins, minerals, and, in some cases, phytonutrients). Added sugars, meanwhile, contribute NOTHING but calories.
THAT is an important distinction.
"In fact, I think your idea would confuse consumers MORE. Would a person with diabetes be more likely to think that they can drink unlimited quantities of organge juice simply because the sugars are naturally-occuring and therefore must be 'healthy'?"
When did I ever talk about the food label in relation to people living with diabetes? Furthermore, diabetes patients are taught that sugar is sugar, regardless of whether it comes in the form of honey, table sugar, or orange juice. I don't understand what, exactly, you are trying to argue here.
"The sugars value is useless information."
Not at all. Again, added sugars are EMPTY calories. When I see trail mixes containing raisins that, according to the label, are just as sugary as a cereal drowned in sugar, I don't think it tells a nutritionally accurate tale.
"Have you ever actually read the DRI report on carbohydrates? This is basic reading for a dietetics student...I am surprised at your lack of knowledge of sugars."
I have, but what does it have to do with this post? I am not arguing that naturally occurring sugars "do not count" or "are not caloric." All I am calling for is for a division of naturally-occurring vs. added sugars on a package so people can understand that Total with added raisins is NOT "just as sugary" as Lucky Charms.
Anonymous -- "no more than 30% of calories from fat"? Hmmm... I'm not too crazy about it.
Some Mediterranean diets go as high up as 35 or 40% and they are doing just fine.
The important thing is to make sure most of these fats come from healthy sources (ie: nuts, avocados, olive oil, fatty fish, etc.)
Post a Comment