The Most Useless Part of a Food Label

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.

You Ask, I Answer: Calorie Discrepancies on Food Labels

Why does the nutritional information on labels of the (seemingly) same product, but from different companies, have different data?

The one that I noticed today was when I bought Hodgson Mill's oatbran. It says 40 grams has 120 calories, but Mother's oat bran says 40g is 150 calories. Shouldn't these be the same?

They both state that the only ingredient in the box is oat bran.

Another example (that got me started on this) was canned black beans.

Again, the serving side listed on the can is always approximately the same (I've even checked the weight, not just the half cup measurement) and the calories listed can range from 90 to 130, depending on the brand.

Do you know why this is?

I understand that companies have some fudge-room for their nutritionals, but these examples seem like there shouldn't be that much of a difference.

-- Michelle Pope
(location withheld)

Ah, welcome to the twisted maze that is calorie labeling!

This is an excellent question, as it gives significant insight into labeling laws and regulations.

Come on in and sit a spell, though, because this can be initially confusing to the untrained eye.

First of all, remember that calorie figures higher than 50 can be rounded off to the nearest 10-calorie increment.

In other words, if a serving of cereal adds up to 134 calories, it can legally be displayed on the label as 130.

Similarly, a serving containing 156 calories is often shown as 160 calories for simplicity's sake.

Now we get to the more complicated issues.

Although you often see references to carbohydrates containing 4 calories per gram, they technically contain 3.6 calories per gram.

The "4 calories per gram" figure is commonly used -- and referred to everywhere, including this blog -- in order to facilitate in-your-head multiplication and estimation.

Additionally, since protein technically provides 4.2 calories per gram, the logic is that by portraying both those nutrients as containing 4 calories per gram, final estimates are very close to actual totals.

That said, some companies arrive at their calorie totals by allocating 4 calories to each gram of carbohydrate in their food, while others -- and this is completely legal, by the way -- allocate 3.6 calories per gram.

On top of that, all macronutrient figures are rounded off. In other words, a serving of food containing 29.5 grams of carbohydrates shows up as containing 30.

So, company #1 may choose to keep it simple and multiply that rounded figure (30 grams) by the rounded-up "calories per gram" figure (4 calories per gram) and come up with 120 calories.

Meanwhile, company #2 can instead opt to multiply the technical figures (29.5 grams of carbohydrate x 3.6 calories per gram) for a grand total of 106 calories!

Then we have the issue of fiber, which comes into play with both of your food examples.

If food companies choose to, they may leave out grams of carbohydrates from insoluble fibers in their final calculations.

Taking all that into consideration, you can see why the same amount of the same food does not always yield the same food label.

Bursting The Bubble

Here's a twist on labeling issues -- sparkling wines masquerading as champagne.

"In December 2006, Congress passed legislation banning the future misuse of 16 wine place names, including Champagne. While that was a step in the right direction, the legislation did not address the grandfathering of labels currently misusing Champagne’s name and that of 15 other international wine regions," the Office of Champagne explains in their official press release.

As a supporter of stricter regulations on food labeling, I empathize.

My most pressing food labeling issue? Trans fats.

Rather than allowing foods containing less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving to be advertised as "0 grams of trans fat," I propose they be labeled as "less than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving" and, below that, include the following statement: "NOT a trans fat-free food."

Gets the message across more clearly, don't you think?

You Ask, I Answer: Serving Sizes

I looked at the nutrition label for Jif To Go and I am extremely confused.

The label lists two serving sizes.

One is for the whole cup, [which contains] 390 calories.

The [other serving size is for] "1/2 cup (32g)" which has 190 calories.

Okay, fine. But then I look at the regular standard jar of Jif peanut butter, and its label says:"2 Tablespoons(32g)=190 calories."

[What I can't understand] is how, according to these two labels, a half cup of peanut butter weighs as much as two tablespoons?

-- Corey Clark
(location withheld)

Ah, good ol' serving size puzzles.

Let's work this one out.

The "1 cup" mentioned on the Jif-to-Go food label is not a literal 1 cup measurement, but rather refers to container (AKA "cup") of Jif-to-Go, which contains four tablespoons of peanut butter.

In other words, one Jif to Go cup (notice my wording -- it is very different from saying "a cup of Jif To Go") contains a quarter cup of peanut butter.

Therefore, half a container of Jif To Go offers the standard two-tablespoon serving you see on peanut butter jars.

Dizzy yet?

You Ask, I Answer: Lollipops/Calorie Labeling

I know lollipops are pure sugar, but how many calories are in the average lollipop?

I guess [I'm mostly asking about] Blowpops and Tootsie Pops.

-- Angela Wilphit
(Location withheld)

Although lollipops only contain carbohydrates (they are free of fats and protein), they are not 100% sugar.

Blow Pops, for instance, contain 13 grams of sugar, but 17 grams of carbohydrate (the remaining four grams come from cornstarch.)

Let's answer your actual question, though.

Each gram of carbohydrate contains four calories, so some simple math (17 x 4) tells us that these lollipops provide 68 calories.

Not bad at all, considering that in the time it takes most people to finish a lollipop, they could have very well eaten 300 calories' worth of Skittles.

Here is where it gets interesting.

Since the Food & Drug Administration allows food companies to round calorie values, the Blow Pop nutrition facts label displays sixty calories per lollipop.

Mind you, the rules specifically mandate that food items with calorie values of fifty or higher express that number "to the nearest 10 calorie increment."

So, in reality, that nutrition label should be listing SEVENTY calories per lollipop!

You Ask, I Answer: "No Salt Added"

I bought some soup [labeled] "No Salt Added."

[The nutrition label on the back] says each serving (there are two in each can) has 25 milligrams of sodium.

Shouldn't it be zero milligrams since there's no salt added?

-- Rebecca Alpert
(city withheld), GA

Welcome to the confusing world of food labeling.

For starters, many people mistakenly interchange the terms "salt" and "sodium," even though they mean different things.

Sodium is a mineral. Salt is the combination of sodium and chloride (approximately 40% sodium and 60% chloride).

If you're talking numbers, this means that one gram (1,000 milligrams) of salt contains 400 milligrams of sodium and 600 milligrams of chloride.

A lot of people get confused when they read some literature calling for no more than 5 grams of salt a day, while other materials make reference to 2,400 milligrams of sodium.

Five grams of salt amount to roughly 2,000 milligrams of sodium (40 percent of 5,000), NOT 5,000 milligrams.

As for "no salt added" items containing sodium -- they are technically telling the truth.

"No salt added" simply means that sodium chloride is not tacked on. Ingredients naturally containing sodium can be included in these products.

Remember, many foods naturally contain tiny amounts of sodium. A cup of raw broccoli, for instance, provides 30 milligrams.

From a legal standpoint, products with a "no salt added" claim are required to also print "not a sodium-free food" in the front of their packaging (although this is usually done in tiny print.)

Considering that most soups pack in as much as 700 milligrams of sodium per serving, 25 milligrams is certainly very low!

You Ask, I Answer: Food Labeling/Marinades

Having just tossed a jar of marinated mushrooms with shrimp for dinner, I wonder [the following:]

Does the "10 calories per serving" [figure] include both the marinade and the mushrooms, or just the mushrooms?

Would the answer be the same for all marinated foods and fruits in juice/syrup?

-- Luis [last name unknown]
Fort Knox, KY

Whatever caloric -- and nutrient -- values appear on a food label apply to the sum of every ingredient in that product.

Unless the label has two separate columns (say, one labeled "mushrooms" and another titled "mushrooms and marinade"), you can assume the provided figures apply to both the mushrooms and the marinade.

Since these mushrooms clock in at just 10 calories per serving, I am assuming the marinade is fat-free and made up mostly of vinegar and spices.

Anyway, the same principle applies to fruits canned in heavy syrup -- the values on that label are very different from those of peaches packed in water.

You often see the two-column food label with:

Cereal (one column lists values for the cereal, the other figures in a certain amount of non-fat milk)

Quick-cooking grains with accompanying flavor pouches (one column lists values for the grain, the other -- usually VERY high in sodium -- provides nutrition information once the flavor packet is factored in.)

And, most recently, with...

Some 20 ounce soda bottles and "single portion" chips (one column lists "a serving," the other lists values for the entire container.)

Not The Whole Truth

When it comes to determining whether a particular brand of sliced bread, crackers, or cereal is 100% whole grain or not, the popular recommendation is to look at the ingredient list.

If "whole wheat flour" appears as the first ingredient, the advice goes, you are dealing with a whole grain product.

Although this is both true and accurate (and I myself have given such a recommendation), food companies are starting to wise up.

They know consumers are seeking whole grain foods, but they want to continue using refined white flour.

Their solution? Confuse, confuse, and confuse some more!

There are now plenty of products on store shelves marketed as "whole wheat" that are not 100% whole grain, but rather a mix of whole wheat flour and white flour.

A look at the ingredient list reveals that while "whole wheat flour" is listed as the first ingredient, "unbleached enriched flour" (AKA white flour) is second or third.

A true whole grain product ONLY contains whole wheat (or any other grain) flour. Don't accept cheap knock-offs!

A quick way to spot the tricksters? Any product that states it is "made with whole grains" is usually a combination of refined and whole grain flours.

As you know, I am a big fan of the Whole Grains Council's stamp system.

This particular portion of their website lists brands displaying their stamp (a "100%" stamp is a guarantee that you are getting a true-to-form whole grain food.)

Definitely worth bookmarking!

You Ask, I Answer: Monoglycerides & Diglycerides

What are monoglycerides and diglycerides?

I've seen them on food labels but don't know what they are or why they are in some foods.

-- Lisa (last name withheld)
Brooklyn, NY

Ah, yes. Nothing makes you want to reach for a dictionary more than reading a food label.

Monoglycerides and diglycerides are related to triglycerides (three fatty acid molecules bound to a glycerol molecule) -- the basic unit of all dietary fats.

They consist of either one or two fatty acid molecules bound to a glycerol molecule and are mainly used as emulsifiers, thickeners, and binders in a variety of different foods.

Although they can be obtained from triglycerides, they are very easy to create synthetically.

"Non-natural" peanut butters, for instance, contain mono and/or diglycerides in order to prevent the oil from separating from the more paste-like crushed peanuts.

You will also often see them present in margarines and low-fat butter replacements.

They pose no health risks -- or benefits.

You Ask, I Answer: Calorie Posting

Andy, I love to cook. I think I am speaking for most chefs and those that love to cook, we are not specifically thinking of calories when we create a dish!

Therefore, I must HEARTILY DISAGREE on your stance on the Food Network and other places that don't offer calorie counts.

I don't want, nor need, the government to step in and force laws on poor, creative chefs who are cooking dishes from their cultures and hearts. Where is people's sense of self-responsibility?

I'm not an idiot. There are plenty of recipes that I've looked up on the Food Network site that I KNOW are going to be fattening.

I don't like the thought of government going so far as to overstep their boundaries in the guise of "protecting Americans from themselves!" You are going up a slippery slope indeed. Where does it all end? People have to be responsible for their own health and what they put in their mouths.

BTW, it's the FOOD Network, not the HEALTH Network.

Paula Deen is a Southern cook, Ina Garten is not tiny and neither is Guy! I don't watch any of them for low fat recipes, I have my Weight Watchers cook book for that.

I love watching Paula Deen and all the butter she puts in her recipes. I might use that recipe for a special occasion AS IS butter and all, I might try to make it lower in fat or I might just enjoy watching her make something so decadant!

Please, don't take the joy out of cooking with this idea of forcing calorie counts on everyone! Let common sense prevail!

-- Laura Lafata
Miami Beach, FL

It appears that the main point behind my video was misinterpreted.

I am not asking for any interference. I am not telling anyone at the Food Network to decrease butter in recipes butter or replace heavy cream with skim milk.

Similarly, I am not asking Paula Deen or Barefoot Contessa to "do their part" for health and wellness by offering lower-fat recipes.

All I am saying is, “cook whatever and however you want, but inform people of caloric content.”

I do not want heart disease warnings alongside recipes, nor do I want television chefs to follow guidelines like “include at least one whole grain in every dish."

Each chef is master of their culinary domain, and they should exercise complete freedom in their kitchen.

Deep fry a stick of butter for all I care, just let people know how many calories there are in it.

Laura, it appears you are a health conscious person. Therefore, I have no doubt you are good at spotting high-calorie dishes and knowing what constitutes a "splurge."

Not everyone has that knowledge, though.

I can’t tell you how many times, when giving a nutrition workshop, I have had people ask me what the word “calories” on a food label means.

There I was talking about the benefits of whole grains and someone asks me what number they should pay more attention to -- calories or protein. Eek!

I have taught several workshops on making smarter choices at fast food restaurants.

Whenever I do one of these, I ask attendants to guess the number of calories in a large Big Mac meal.

The average response is says 800 calories -- 640 fewer calories than the correct answer!

It is very easy for people who are informed about nutrition to think the rest of the world is.

Guess what? As th above examples show, many people are completely in the dark -- even those who think they aren't!

This is why, as a future dietitian, I find the posting of calories to be helpful. A lot of people I have spoken to were surprised to find out that a low-fat muffin at Starbucks contains a mere 40 calories less than a full-fat one, for instance.

Posting calorie information does not take away personal choice. It simply allows consumers to make more informed decisions.

On another note, it saddens me that many chefs scoff at the idea of “healthy cooking” or making meatless dishes.

Many of this country's most famous chefs erroneously think there is no such thing as "vegan cuisine," and that asking for a sauce on the side ranks up there with double homicide.

I have shared many highly nutritious delicious recipes on this blog that even the unhealthiest of eaters have loved. It's the least I can do to dispel the myth that healthy eating consists of steamed carrots sprayed with PAM.

I do not expect Paula Deen to start counting calories, but why not provide that information for people looking to lose weight who would never even consider that one of her “individual” chicken pot pies packs in almost a day’s worth of calories?

Armed with this information, viewers can make a variety of choices -- have the recipe "as is," save the potpies for special occassions (rather than twice a week), make smaller potpies (thereby reducing calories), or find creative ways to cut down on calories by toying around with ingredients.

Healthy eating is obviously an uphill climb for many; why not give them a little boost?

Nutrition Highs and Lows

People regularly throw out the terms “low-fat”, “low-carb”, “high fiber” and “reduced sugar” liberally -- and often times inaccurately.

Although the terms “high” and “low”can be subjective (a 15-story building in Manhattan is relatively low compared to the surrounding skyscrapers), they are mostly defined by clear-cut boundaries in the world of nutrition.

When in doubt, here is a handy guide.

If you’re talking fats, a “very low fat diet” gets no more than 15 percent of total calories from fat.

A traditional low-fat diet, meanwhile, consists of no more than 30 percent of calories from fat.

Keep in mind this is a rather wide spectrum.

In reality, 16 to 25 percent is truly considered “low fat”. By the time you get to the 25 – 30 percent range, you are crossing into more moderate territory.

Hence, the latest mainstream recommendations for 30 – 35 percent of calories from fat can not be casted off as “low-fat” dogma.

The heart-healthy Mediterranean Diet, for instance -- which no one would ever describe as “low fat” due to the prevalence of olive oil, nuts, and fatty fish -- consists of approximately 30 - 35 percent of calories from fat.

It is worth pointing out that the Mediterranean Diet is high in monounsaturated fat and very low in saturated fats.

Mainstream dietitians have no qualms in recommending daily intake of heart-healthy foods like almonds, walnuts, olive oil, salmon, avocado, and flaxseed.

Although there is no true definition of what a “low carb” diet is, two numbers keep popping up in the literature.

Many clinical research trials define “low carb” as no more than 60 grams of carbohydrates per day.

More intense low-carb advocates, however, bring the number down to no more than 30 grams a day (as much as one large apple or one standard slice of bread.)

Food labels also have to abide by certain protocols (established by the Food & Drug Association) to make “high” and “low” claims.

In order for a product to be labeled “low fat”, for instance, it must contain no more than 3 grams of fat per serving.

The term “reduced calories” can only be used on a product that provides at least 25 percent fewer calories than the regular variety.

Similarly, any product describing itself as "reduced" sugar must offer at least 25 percent less sugar than the regular variety.

The statement “high in fiber” may only be used on products offering at least 5 grams of fiber per serving.

As for the term “good source of fiber” – you need at least 2.9 grams per serving to qualify.

Lastly, another interesting one: “light” can be used to describe a product that offers either at least 50% less fat, 33% less calories, or 50% less sodium than the regular variety

In The News: Which (Antibiotic) Came First? The (One Fed To The) Chicken Or The (One Injected Into) The Egg?

Ready for a real doozy from the world of chicken raising, antibiotic feeds, and USDA policies?

Alright, buckle up!

It was reported earlier this week that Judge Richard D. Bennett of the United States District Court in Baltimore ordered chicken giant Tyson to pull all advertisements from their "chickens raised without antibiotics that impact antibiotic resistance in humans" campaign by no later than May 18.

Mind you, this campaign was originally billed as “chickens raised without antibiotics.” The United States Department of Agriculture happily gave it the green light.

Until, that is, they went back and realized they had made a boo boo.

Turns out Tyson includes antibiotic compounds known as ionophores in their chicken feed.

Ionophores are commonly fed to chickens mainly as protection from a parasitic intestinal condition known as coccidiosis, as well as to help them gain weight.

The USDA quickly drafted a letter to Tyson, notifying them that their “no antibiotics added” claim wasn’t entirely true. Consequently, they were asked to remove it from all packaging.

Tyson rebutted by arguing that ionophores are classified by the Food & Drug Administration as antimicrobials, not antibiotics.

Well, not quite. Although the FDA recognizes that ionophores have antimicrobial properties, they are technically antibiotics when used as part of chicken feeds.

Tyson additionally claimed that ionophores are not a concern since they do not impact antibiotic resistance in humans, nor are they used in human drugs.

After this back and forth, the claim was changed to “chickens raised without antibiotics that impact antibiotic resistance in humans.”

If you’re wondering why the use for such convoluted language, it’s simple.

Tyson, like many other chicken companies, injects chicken eggs with antibiotics approximately 2 days before they hatch.

Ergo, by using the word “raised,” they only advertise what happens with the chicken after it is born.

Largely due to pressure from Tyson's competitors (which claim Tyson is misleading consumers), this updated claim is now being axed.

This specific case doesn't so much revolve around the “rights” and “wrongs” of including ionophores in chickenfeed, but the idea of misleading advertising and technicalities.

It is worth pointing out that as a result of increasing consumer need for antibiotic-free food, chicken farmers are considering viable alternatives, including vaccination against a variety of illnesses.

What do you think? Was Tyson misleading? Do you specifically seek out antibiotic-free poultry?

Survey Results: Food Labels

Thank you for participating in the Small Bites reader survey on the impact of food labels.

When asked if food labels influence food purchases, seventy percent of readers answered "yes", fifteen percent responded "sometimes," and fourteen percent said "no."

This is especially interesting in light of the National Restaurant Association's claims that there is no consumer demand, or need, for calorie labeling on fast food menus.

You Ask, I Answer: Ideal Food Label Values

I would LOVE to see you make more recommendations like this one [you made about pasta sauce]:

"Choose ones offering no more than 4 grams of sugar and 350 milligrams of sodium per half cup serving."

Any similar guidelines for mixed nuts/trail mixes, peanut butters, canned tuna, salsa, and chicken/vegetable paste to make stock?

-- Antonella Montagna
Key Largo, FL

I was initially going to answer this question like I would any other, but then a better idea came to mind -- turn this request into a new section of the blog!

Tonight, I will launch "Perfect Pickings," which will help you navigate the nutrition labels and ingredient listings of various products to make the best choices.

Stay tuned.

You Ask, I Answer: Cereal

I have a cereal question for you.

I'm thinking about switching from Cheerios to Kashi Heart to Heart, but am wondering what's "best."

Basically, I can eat close to twice the amount of Cheerios for the same amount of calories in Heart to Heart.

I understand the fiber amount is different, but Heart to Heart also has more sugar.

If I'm doubling the serving of fiber in cheerios, that's pretty darn close to the single serving of Heart to Heart, right?

I'm thinking in terms of volume here… getting more bang for my buck...does this make sense? So what's the dealbreaker here?

Do you think it boils down to personal preference or is there an actual more healthful choice in this situation?

-- Ali
Hillsboro, OR

Your question demonstrates why food label comparisons are not always as equal as we might think.

If you look at the label on a box of Cheerios, you will read that one serving provides 75 calories, whereas one serving of Kashi Heart to Heart contains 110 calories.

“Easy,” you might think. "The Cheerios are way lower in calories than Heart to Heart."

Not so fast.

A serving of Cheerios (3/4 of a cup) weigh 0.7 ounces, whereas a serving of Kashi Heart to Heart (also ¾ of a cup) register as 1.2 ounces on the scale.

In other words, Heart to Heart is a denser cereal than Cheerios.

So, to truly determine how they compare, we need to look at what happens on an ounce by ounce basis.

Do that, and the results are quite different.

An ounce of Cheerios (1 cup) provides 100 calories, 2 grams of fat, 190 milligrams of sodium, 3 grams of fiber, 1 gram of sugar, 100 milligrams of calcium (that’s 10 percent of a day’s worth before you pour any milk!), and 170 milligrams of potassium.

An ounce of Kashi Heart to Heart (approximately 3/5 of a cup) clocks in at 95 calories, 1.3 grams of fat, 77 milligrams of sodium, 4.3 grams of fiber, 4.3 grams of sugar, 0 milligrams of calcium, and 86.1 milligrams of potassium.

So, yes, you can eat “twice the amount” of Cheerios in terms of cups (a cup and a half of Cheerios adds up to 150 calories, while that same amount of Kashi Heart to Heart clocks in at 220 calories), but ounce by ounce, the difference is minimal.

Bottom line: if you like the taste of Cheerios, you’re not missing out on anything by sticking with them.

In The News: Frankenmilk

Scandal is a-brewin' in Ohio and Utah.

Ohio has decided to go against the Food & Drug Administration policy on synthetic hormone label claims and mandate that dairy products sold in that state cannot mention being synthetic-hormone free.

Utah, meanwhile, is looking into similar restrictions.

Both of these policies concern rBGH -- recombinant bovine growth hormone, also known as rBST, or recombinant bovine somatotropin -- an artificial form of naturally-occuring bovine growth hormone.

This synthetic compound is injected into dairy cows to significantly increase milk production.

It's equivalent to an alien race coming down to Earth, enslaving humans, and injecting men with an ultra powerful dose of synthetic testosterone in order for them to lift heavier weights and work harder.

It is a purely business and money-motivated decision. The more milk you have, the more you can sell, and the more money that goes into your pocket.

The Food & Drug Administration approved rBGH (it was declared "safe for use") in 1993.

Agrobusiness giant Monsanto immediately began producing and selling it by the bucketloads.

Controversy has always surrounded rBGH, mainly because several medical trials have linked it to a higher risk of developing certain tumors and cancers.

Monsanto and rBGH gained notoriety in the mid 90's after a Tampa Fox affiliate pulled a story on the possible health dangers of rBGH consumption after much pressure from Monsanto.

And it's not just humans who can be negatively affected.

Cows receiving rBGH injections often get sick (cows treated with rBGH have significantly higher risks of developing udder infections than those not treated with the drug).

In turn, they are fed antibiotics -- another undesirable component in milk.

It is not surprising, then, that rBGH is banned from all dairy products in Europe and Canada.

It frustrates me that consumers in some states are being forbidden the right to know what is in some of the foods they buy.

I never agreed with the use of rBGH but thought that if it is included in any product, we should be made aware of its presence.

What's most interesting about this whole story is that the FDA is in a unique position. They permit the use of rBGH in milk, but only if there is full disclosure.

Honesty policy or good old ass covering?

You Ask, I Answer: Raw Chicken Food Labels

When you buy a package of uncooked chicken breasts, it has the calorie amount for four ounces of chicken. Is this cooked or uncooked chicken?

-- Suzanna (via the blog)

The nutrition information listed on raw chicken breasts is for the uncooked product.

This is where consumers have to do some extra math.

Even though you are buying a four ounce chicken breast, you are eating less -- approximately two and a half or three ounces -- due to water lost during the cooking process.

This isn't so much the United States Department of Agriculture being misleading as much as it is them being unable to guess how people will be cooking their raw chicken.

Not only does the final weight of a chicken breast vary on cooking times and methods, so does the caloric content.

Grilling does not add extra calories, but sauteeing chicken breast in a tablespoon of olive oil adds an additional 120.

You "Ask", I Answer: Overall Nutritional Quality Index

As a consumer I can see immediate applications for this [new scoring system].

It would help me tremendously to see an easy to read label that ranks foods faster than I can read the labels.

See a "1" and you can avoid those foods, especially the sneaky ones (such as cereal, which can be billed entirely as healthy even though some have so much sugar).

It won't make me skip label reading entirely, but they would help to make faster decisions.

The most important application, however, is to have a VISUAL reminder of what you are about to purchase- something that not everyone thinks of when buying.

If you find yourself always snacking on trailmix, for example, because it's "healthy" and all of a sudden it gets slapped with a "2" or a "3"- well, it might just make you think twice about getting that again, won't it?

-- AMR
(via the blog)

I concur with you that the ONQI has the potential to make healthy shopping easier -- and faster -- for some people.

Let's, however, take your trail mix example further, as it is a pefect example of a controversial item.

Yes, trail mix is calorically dense due to the presence of nuts. And, on a food label, its sugar content would rival that of a chocolate bar.

However, we are talking about an item that offers heart-healthy fats, naturally-occurring sugars, protein, fiber, vitamin E, and magnesium.

Hence, those calories values differ greatly from similar ones found in a Crunch bar (which contains a generous share of saturated fat and added sugars).

Although one of my favorite mantras is "sugar is sugar is sugar" (meaning that whether in a piece of fruit or made in a lab, heavily processed, or made from organic cane juice crystals, it adds up to 4 calories per gram), the difference with naturally-occurring sugars (found in fruits, vegetables, and dairy) is that they are present in foods that offer nutrients (vitamins, minerals, and in many cases, fiber).

It would be helpful if foods had brief explanations as to why they received their respective scores (i.e.: "50% of the daily saturated fat limit" or "8 teaspoons of added sugar per serving.")

I would hate for people to be dissuaded from learning the skill of reading a food label or an ingredient list simply because this ranking would do that for them.

The other issue with these rankings is that they can sometimes split hairs unnecessarily. For instance, do we really need to start debating whether an orange is "healthier" than an apple?

We'll see how the public reacts once it is implemented.

In The News: New Nutrition Labels

Get ready for the Overall Nutritional Quality Index, coming to some supermarkets near you in 2008!

This new labeling system, developed by a panel of leading nutritionists (including Yale's Dr. David Katz, who I interviewed for this blog) scores foods from 1 to 100 (1 being absolute junk, 100 being perfection) based on several different factors.

I applaud the motives behind this initiative (helping consumers quickly identify healthy foods), but a few questions come to mind.

First -- does this address the issue at hand?

Most people know the basics -- that fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes are healthy.

Similarly, I don't think anyone considers Doritos, Coke, Haagen Dazs, and Oreos to be staples of a nutritious diet. Whether they choose to ignore that and snack on Ruffles and Pepsi every day because "they taste good" is a separate topic.

I don't think too many people will be surprised to learn that raisins score higher than M&M's, or that Trix and Grapenuts are several numbers apart.

Are consumers not buying healthy foods due to a lack of knowledge on their behalf, or the vastly different marketing budgets of food companies? After all, Nabisco certainly has more money to throw around for a cookie advertising campaign than the Avocado Board.

Additionally, many healthy snack options are developed by smaller companies who are more concerned with getting their products on store shelves than on an American Idol commercial break.

Many people who would love the taste of a nutritious product like Lara bars have no idea they exist. No wonder -- when was the last time you saw a magazine or television ad for one?

My main hope is that this system stays far away from the glycemic index. After all, if you swear by that ranking, ice cream is a better choice than a potato!

I'm also curious to know how the issue of vitamins and minerals will be dealt with. Will a processed food like a Luna Bar injected with synthetic vitamins and minerals score just as high as an orange or apple (which, despite lacking added sugar or sodium, offer a lower variety of nutrients?)

I'm looking forward to seeing how ONQI resonates with the public. If anything, I love the discourse it will bring up, and I sincerely appreciate the desire to make shopping for healthy foods that much easier.