short answer: NOT accurate enough.

It’s bad enough nutrition labels are hard to understand. But even if you are able to read a label without referring to an encyclopedia or a dietitian, you may not be getting the right information.

The FDA allows a discrepancy of up to 20% in nutrient values. This means that a 100 calorie snack could actually be 80 calories or 120 calories. Which error do you think is more common?

The amount of fat may be stated as 1 gram per serving size of 20 grams, but with 1.2 grams per 20 gram “suggested” serving and a real serving size of 30 grams, you’ll actually be getting 1.8 grams of fat.

Aside from the allowable errors, manufacturers stray even further in their mistakes. Especially smaller regional brands that may not have the infrastructure that bigger firms do. Check this post on ThatsFit to read some examples or watch through the clip above (6 minutes).

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA), the British parallel of the FDA, commissioned a group to recommend an optimal front of pack nutrition labeling system. There are several schemes currently in effect, which causes great confusion amongst shoppers.

The results of the group’s work are not surprising. They recommend that a system based on the FSA developed Traffic Light system be chosen. We agree. Read why… Read more…

The new year has ushered in a blizzard of new food labeling systems aimed at helping consumers make healthier choices at the supermarket. This week it is Supervalu, which kicked off nutritionIQ at its California Albertsons stores.

The color-coded, easy-to-spot shelf tags, or cards, are supposed to aid shoppers in choosing low fat, high fiber and other good foods. From the SuperValu press release:

The program covers 11 different nutrient claims in seven categories with the shelf tags color-coded as follows:
• excellent or good source of fiber are denoted by orange tags,
• excellent or good source of calcium by blue tags,
• excellent or good source of protein by yellow tags,
• low or healthier level of sodium by dark green tags,
• low calorie by a purple tag,
• low saturated fat by a red tag and
• whole grains by a dark orange tag.

read the full press release…

It seems that in the last few months, simplifying food labels has become a must for all grocery chains and manufacturers. NuVal, GDA, Nutritional Spotlight, and Smart Choices are recent examples. For more details, read our history of product nutrition labeling. While easy to understand nutrition information is to be commended, consumers may become befuddled by the tower of nutritional babel.

The new system has been developed in cooperation with Joslin Clinic, part of an academic medical center affiliated with Harvard Medical School.

What you need to know:

Supervalu should be commended for taking this first step, showcasing the more nutritious foods in the supermarket. But will they also place signs on foods that are really not nutritious? Don’t hold your breath.

As a supermarket that needs to sell more, not less products, don’t expect Albertson’s to post NutritionIQ signage with negative nutritional information. In fact, Supervalu does not even plan to apply the benchmarks to snacks or beverages, where there is no chance to find nutrition.

What to do at the supermarket:

Although nutritionIQ tags simplify things for shoppers, always check the nutrition label as well to learn about the nutrients to limit. Many times low-fat means high in sugar. But the tag won’t necessarily tell you that.

In general, it’s best to select products with short ingredient lists. Unprocessed foods are easy to find at the supermarket. Just stick to the perimeter of the store, where you will find fresh fruit and vegetables, whole grains, low fat dairy and low fat cuts of meat.

Don’t be let simplifications created by the supermarket or a munufacturer catch you off guard. Remember, they want you to buy more, not less.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

flickr photo credit: gotplaid?

“Zero Trans fat”. “No added sugar”. “May reduce the risk of heart disease!”.

We’ve all seen these claims on food packaging and in commercials. Are such products really healthy for us? Or can items labeled healthy by their marketers actually cause us to eat more poorly?  According to a recent New York Times article entitled “Health Halo Can Hide the Calories”, food health claims mask what’s really inside:

the trans-fat-free label on the crackers seemed to imbue them with a health halo that magically subtracted calories from the … meal

…all of us, even professional dieticians, make systematic mistakes when estimating how many calories are on a plate. Experiments showed that putting a “low fat” label on food caused everyone, especially overweight people, to underestimate its calories, to eat bigger helpings and to indulge in other foods.

Read the article…

So finally we get an answer to the nagging question:

Why, as Americans have paid more and more attention to eating healthily, have we kept getting fatter and fatter?

Possible answer: Because we are getting our health recommendations from the wrong sources.

What you need to know:

Health Claims were introduced to packaged foods in the early 1990’s, at the same time Nutrition labeling became mandatory. It was a compromise between the FDA and the food industry that feared full disclosure of nutrition information and ingredients would scare consumers away from certain foods. With health claims, manufacturers now had a chance to show off the positive aspects of their products on the front of package, while delegating the negatives to the side panel. You can always find something positive to say about a food, even junk food. Cola has no fat, vegetable oils contain no cholesterol, and a steak has no carbs. Does that make them a health food?

The “No Cholesterol” which appeared and still does on vegetable oils. Cholesterol is a fatty substance found only in products derived from animals. So obviously none will appear in Mazola. Still, each tablespoon  contains over 120 calories. Never seen a health claim talking about those calories, have you?

Just like newspaper headlines are used to entice readers to pick up a paper, health claims help convince consumers to add more packaged foods to the shopping cart. In a way, the health claims diminished the value of the nutrition label. They are printed in large bold letters, and are very easy to understand. No wonder people are paying attention.

What to do at the supermarket:

Do yourself a favor and ignore front of package health claims. To know what’s really going on, look straight for the side panel with the nutrition label and the ingredient list. And when you do have a craving for a snack, choose the tastiest one, without remorse. (Watch the portion size, though). Just don’t be fooled into believing your candy bar is  a health food because now it boasts zero trans fat.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription