Don't believe everything you read. . .
On May 8, 1994, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration began requiring all
food items packaged for retail sale in the U.S. be labeled to extensively
illustrate in grams and milligrams the nutritional content of the food within.
There is little disagreement that this was a positive and necessary step,
but there's also little doubt that reporting errors are common and problematic.
It's a bit worse for those of us who are counting carbohydrates because the
number needs to be precise for us. Since many low-carbers need to keep
their daily count as low as 20 grams per day (at times even less), obviously
every gram counts. So a product that list 135 calories when they meant 139
calories isn't going to break anyone's calorie-based diet, but a product that
lists at 1 gram of carbohydrate when they meant 5 grams, is a big problem.
At 1 gram, you might feel comfortable having 4-6 portions, thinking you're
getting 4-6 grams, but what if 6 portions gets you 30 grams because of a
labeling error? Even worse, when a company realizes their mistake, if it's
what the FDA considers to be a non-volatile issue, they are allowed to not
only leave the erroneous products on the shelf, but can use up their existing
supply of labels. An error in, say, Saturated Fat count is considered a
dangerous ommission to the FDA, but carbs are considered harmless. In fact,
when components of food are analyzed to determine values, they accurately assess
protein and fat, then water content. What's left is assumed to be carbohydrate
and that's how it's labeled. It's called calculating "by difference."
Barbara at Expert Foods has done an in-depth FAQ on nutrition labels that explains it all
better than we can here, so for further information, consult her terrific FAQ.
Be a Label Detective. . .
Be a careful reader. Read all of the label. Many times the truth can
be found in either the total calorie count, or in the list of ingredients.
Here is a perfect example: Several times now visitors have written to me to
tell me how much they enjoy those "delicate little Kedem Tea Biscuits." They go on to tell me how they're
only 1 gram of carbs per each 2 cookies and they enjoy having them every day now.
One look at the label lets you know there's a big error there, but many people simply
pick up a product and check the carb counts. And even more frightening, some
of the low-carb vendors are now carrying these Tea Biscuits and selling them to you,
the consumer. I'm sure they're very tasty little things. But, they are anything
but low-carb... Let's take a look at the ingredients (this is identical
for both their "regular" and their "vanilla" varieties):
Wheat flour, sugar, vegetable shortening, baking powder, salt, artificial flavors.
Okay, see that? First ingredient — flour (pure carbohydrate). Second ingredient —
sugar. Yep, plain white sugar. Do I need to say this is pure carbohydrate? Then, for good
measure, it's followed up by its only other significant ingredient — shortening. Trans
fats — the most dangerous kind. So we are expected to believe because a label
prints a "1 gram" next to carb count on the label that a product that is 3/4 pure
carbohydrate and 1/4 trans fats is an acceptable low-carb snack? I have to say the
exact same ingredients are found in garden variety sandwich cookies. And in Twinkies,
as a matter of fact. A quick look at the Kedem Tea Biscuit label shows the following:
N u t r i t i o n F a c t s
Serving Size: 2 Biscuits
Calories: 22
Total Fat: 1g
Total Carbohydrate: 1g
Sugar: 2.5g
Protein: .4g
Can we see the problem here? First, how can there be only 1 gram of carbs when there's
2.5 grams of sugar alone? And the sugar count is not including the white flour in
the ingredients. If the calorie count is correct, and the fat grams are correct,
there are at least 3 and maybe 4 times more carbs than the label says. Add to
that, they're the worst kind of carbs. Not the healthy kind you get from
nutrient packed veggies, but the junk carbs that heighten cravings, cause stalls,
and got you here in the first place. A look at their Sugarfree Biscuits
reveals even more. The ingredients are the same except sugar is traded for
maltitol syrup (a sugar alcohol), yet the panel says the same number of cookies
is 10 carbs, not 1 carb. So that's 10 times as high a count. And I
suspect these little biscuits masquerading as "low-carb" carry a similar
carb count.
I wrote the company and they acknowledged the label is in error on that point
and when they next create new labels (I haven't a clue when that will be), it will
be corrected. How often is this happening? More often than you think...
Here's another example... Take Murray Sugar Free Cookies... Unfortunately, many low-carb sites
are selling these and we can't figure why. Let's look at their label (the Chocolate
variety in this case, though they are all similar) to see why we feel that way:
N u t r i t i o n F a c t s
Serving Size: 3 Cookies
Calories: 120
Total Fat: 6g
Total Carbohydrate: 19g
Dietary Fiber: 1g
Sugar Alcohols: 5g
Protein: 2g
Now, at first glance, it appears these are surely lower in carbs than most treats
in the grocery, so perhaps they can be had in a low-carb diet? First, let's
talk logistics — at 18 grams for 3 cookies (after fiber) that's 6 grams per cookie
and you'll want more than one. And no matter what some vendors tell you, sugar
alcohols cannot be "written off" entirely. They metabolize more slowly and incompletely
(hence their unpleasant effects in the bathroom), but they still metabolize as a
carbohydrate. However, the disturbing part of THIS product isn't the nutrition
panel, OR the serving sizes — it's the INGREDIENTS. Look:
- ENRICHED WHEAT FLOUR (This is plain bleached white flour, folks. The body sees
it just like sugar.)
- PARTIALLY HYDROGENATED VEGETABLE SHORTENING (These are dangerous trans-fats. Expect
weight stalls and raised triglyceride levels when you eat hydrogenated oils.)
- SORBITOL and LACTITOL (Sugar Alcohols — see comments above.)
- POLYDEXTROSE
- COCOA
- CORN STARCH
- MALTODEXTRIN
- BAKING SODA
- WHEY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE
- ASPARTAME (We don't recommend anything with aspartame in it — especially
baked goods where heating makes aspartame break down into a dangerous substance.)
- CHOCOLATE LIQUOR
- ACESULFAME POTASSIUM
Ingredients numbers 1, 2, and 10 have no place in a healthful low-carb diet. And they
need 6 sweeteners?? Some of their varieties use even MORE sweeteners.
But let's say you're at maintenance (or on a more liberal plan) and can handle
a few more carbs than an Atkins or Protein Power plan. Is there a more HEALTHY
sugar free cookie that doesn't present these hazards? Yes, there is... though no
low-carb merchant I know sells them. They are Joseph's Sugar Free
Cookies.
Their Peanut Butter cookies
contain 13 carbs for 2 cookies (not taking off for fiber or maltitol) but their ingredients
are much healthier. Here they are: Unbleached, unbromated wheat flour, maltitol,
peanut flour, canola oil, egg whites, peanuts, peanut butter, baking soda, and
baking powder (aluminum free). If you're going to have an occasional treat-cookie,
this is the one to have.
Their Lemon, Pecan Shortbread, or Coconut varieties
are great crumbled and mixed with almond flour and melted butter to make a pie crust.
Yet no low-carb vendor offers these. We always assumed it was because they were too
high in carbs, but if so, then why the Murray? (We should note the Joseph's cookies
are QUITE large — much bigger than the Murray.)
C'mon... be smart... Nothing that starts with flour and sugar is going
to be appropriate for low carbing.
03/10/02 — ADDENDUM:
Recently, we've received many letters from visitors
who have asked about a product called
Manny's Tortillas:
(also known as "Tortillas de Harina" distributed
by Mexican Accent, New Berlin, Wisconsin.) It seems that many low carbers have
been eating them (some 4 and 5 of them a day!) because their nutrition panel shows
them to contain only 1 gram of carbohydrate (and according to the panel, it's all
fiber.) Of course, once again, they talk about how delicious they are...
Well, you
might have guessed that if I'm talking about them here, there must be a catch, right?
Yes, it's a known labeling error. But let's take a look at that label and see why
it should have been obvious to you, the consumer. First, the nutrition panel:
N u t r i t i o n F a c t s
Serving Size: 1 Tortilla
Calories: 70
Calories from fat: 10
Total Fat: 1g
Saturated Fat: 0 g
Cholesterol: 0g
Sodium: 110mg
Total Carbohydrate: 1g
Dietary Fiber: 1g
Sugars: 0g
Protein: 1g
Now unless these are made with magic, those numbers cannot be right... With
1 gram of fat, 1 gram of protein, and 1 gram of carbs, these must be made of
fairy dust. Well... maybe not. Let's look at the real ingredients:
Enriched flour (bleached wheat flour, malted barley flour,
niacin, reduced iron, thiamine mononitrate, riboflavin aand folic acid),
water, hydrogenated soybean and cottonseed oils, leavening agent (bicabonate
of soda, cornstarch, sodium, aluminum sulfate, momocalcium phosphate), salt,
fumeric acid, potassium sorbate and sodium propionate to retard mold and
conditioner (soy flour, calcium sulfate and sorbic acid.)
Okay, so they're made almost entirely of white flour with some trans fat (hydrogenated
oil) mixed in. If calories are correct (and these are low compared to other brands
with identical ingredients) these tortillas are at least 14 grams of carbohydrate
apiece! So if you'd been eating 4 a day, thinking they were less than a gram of
carbs each, you were getting 64 carbs JUST FROM THE TORTILLAS in your diet.
Put your Ellery Queen hat on and be
a label detective when you shop. Remember, nothing with its primary ingredient
being flour can be appropriate for your new way of life!
|
