FDA's Slick Math

[johnnymk]

In our (math) book, two plus two still equals four. However, the Food and Drug Administration would probably disagree. After all, according to their own calculations, ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ + ½ = 0.

Lately, you might have noticed flashy labels touting "Zero Trans Fats!" on bags of potato chips, crackers and other snack foods. While that sounds like an honorable attempt of the food industry to get rid of ingredients that clog your arteries and are dangerous to your heart health, it's really more like a scam... and the FDA is in on it.

Because zero doesn't really mean zero. Under FDA regulations, "if the serving contains less than 0.5 gram [of trans fat], the content, when declared, shall be expressed as zero."

Of course the pivotal word here is "serving."

An 11-ounce bag of potato chips contains 11 servings. That means it's perfectly legal for the entire bag to contain more than 5 grams of trans fat--which the Institute of Medicine has declared unsafe in any amount.

How do you know it's in there, though? Simple: Search the ingredients list for "hydrogenated" or "partially hydrogenated" oil or "shortening." The higher up in the list, the greater the amount.

A typical example: According to its "Nutrition Facts" label, an 11-ounce bag of Lay's Cheddar and Sour Cream potato chips has 0 grams of trans fat. The ingredients list, however, shows "Partially Hydrogenated Soybean and/or Cottonseed Oil." Duh.

But even companies that really have eliminated trans fat from their snack foods, often have replaced them with saturated fats. In other words: The fact that a snack food doesn't contain trans fat doesn't mean you should eat as much of it as you want--or even eat it at all.

Who We Are
What We Now Know is published by Casey Research, LLC, with contributions from a wide-ranging and well-connected network of researchers, authors, scientists, political analysts, investment experts, and technologists known to Doug Casey and his team to be reliable sources with something interesting to share.

[LegendKiller]

Wow, interesting. I have seen a lot of these adverts lately and was wondering what was up with it.

[guiseppewv]

I noticed in the past that different foods claimed "less than X grams of fat per serving" then I looked at the nutrition label and found out that they actually had a good deal of fat but that it was split into many servings. I even noticed that the same food item would say "now 50% less fat per serving" when comparing their previous version of a product. When, in fact, all they did was double the number of servings (i.e. cut the serving size in half) in a bag/can/box/etc...

[InfiniteNothing]

I've noticed this too. Too many products say zero transfat and you see that partially hydrogenated vegi oil is in there.

[Memo]

Pretty shady. Surprised the FDA hasn't done anything about this. Though, I guess, as you say, they are in on it.

[esme]

how about those new "baked" chips ....has anyone tried those??

[Memo]

how about those new "baked" chips ....has anyone tried those??

Those have been out for several years. I actually prefer them to regular chips in both taste and texture.

[Jeffbx]

I always got a kick out of the spray-on oil (like Pam). The serving size is so small that they can label it as zero calories & zero fat:


Nutrition Facts:
Serving Size about 1/3 second spray (.266g)
Servings per container about 378
Calories 0
Fat Cal. 0

But it's a can full of OIL, for crying out loud!

[zippyjuan]

Again, check the serving size. For the Pam to make the claim, you have to use a spray for 1/3 of a second. How do you do that? The I Can't Believe It's Not Butter spray is another. They say it is fat free, but there are oils in the ingredients. Women snap it up like crazy, but how much are they using? I think you are allowed to use 1 1/8 sprays (pumps) to stay below the 0.5 grams of fat. How do you get 1/8 of a spray? BUt if people are using less of it than they would say butter, it is better. If you read the label on lite butters and margerines, the first ingredient is water- the rest is the same as the regular version. If you use the same amount as you would otherwise, you will be getting less fat. If they are using it more, then it is not necessarily better. Another article: http://www.philkaplan.com/thefitnesstruth/fat-free.htm

Fitness Truth Behind "Fat-Free" Labeled Foods
You'd think if it says "Fat-Free" on the label, that would mean the contents of the labeled container are . . . well . . . free of fat. It makes sense, doesn't it? Actually, in the wonderful world of food labels, very little makes sense. If you want to learn to truly eat supportively, it's imperative that you become a bit of a label reading detective.

Let's look at a few products to illustrate how the deception can take place.

1. Fat-Free Non-Stick Cooking Spray
This is the one I love to hold up at seminars. The lie is so blatant its comical . . . or . . . in my opinion . . . criminal. I hold up a can of Mazola Non-Stick cooking spray. It says right on the can, "for calorie-free fat-free cooking." I point out how the nutrition label says there are 0 calories in a serving and of course 0 grams of fat. I then read aloud the ingredients. The only significant ingredient is liquid corn oil. I hold up a container of Mazola Liquid Corn Oil. We see a very different nutrition label. This one says 120 calories per serving, 120 calories from fat! It's not only not Fat-Free, it's 100% Fat! Here's how they get away with it . . .

The FDA labeling law says that if there's less than 1/2 gram of fat in a serving, a food can be labeled "Fat-Free." The catch is, nobody regulates what the food companies refer to as a serving size. If you look at the spray can, it refers to a serving as .2 grams. That's 2/10 of a gram. Is there less than 1/2 a gram of fat in .2 grams of fat? Of course! There's less than 1/2 a gram of anything in .2 grams. To show you how absurd that referenced serving size is, .2 grams would equal 1/3 of one second of spray! It's complete and total deception that allows pure fat to be labeled "Fat-Free."

2. Fat-Free Butter Substitutes
There are many butter substitutes claiming to be "better than butter." As an example . . . I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! It says "fat-free" all over it. You know what to do. Go right to the ingredients. Hydrogenated oil. That's fat. Pure fat. Better check out the FDA regulated nutrition label. 5 calories per serving. How many calories from fat? 5! Another example of the reliability of our friends at the FDA in delivering "truth in labeling." I Can't Believe It's Not Butter . . . but it is FAT! As a matter of fact, from a health standpoint, hydrogenated fats are more harmful than the saturated fats butter would provide. That doesn't make butter a good choice, but if you're trading it for something that contains just as much fat but gets its fat from a source that can cause cell damage . . . I'd have to say butter's better.

3. 97% Fat-Free
OK. These products don't say "fat-free." They simply claim to be mostly fat-free. Pick up some ground turkey that blares out on the front of its packaging, 97% Fat-Free. Turn the container over and compare the number of calories per serving (145) to the number of calories from fat (70). You don't have to be a mathematical wizard to determine that nearly half of the calories in this 97% Fat-Free labeled food come from fat!

Here's how they get away with that little trick. If I were to eat a stick of butter (which I won't do), I'd of course be getting 100% of my calories from fat. If I'd drink some water with it, I'd still be getting 100% of my calories from fat, since water doesn't have any caloric value. If, therefore, I were to create a solution, 50% butter, 50% water, I'd have a solution that gets 100% of its calories from fat. If, however, I were going to be a creative food labeler, I could put a label on this product that says "50% fat-free." Since, judging by volume, most of what's in that turkey package is water, they are misleading you by giving you a percentage of the "volume" that is fat free rather than a percentage of calories. Always ignore the big print on the front. Look at the calories per serving and the calories from fat. You can't be sure you'll find accuracy, but your more likely to come closer to the truth than you will when reading the "% Fat Free" announcement that helps to sell the product.

This technique, by the way, is used to sell 2% milk as 98% Fat Free. Check out the calories per serving and the calories from fat. You're in for an eye-opening surprise.

4. Fat-Free Cookies, Cakes, Pastries, and Ice-Cream
Snackwell cookies anyone? For years weight conscious Americans sought out the words "Fat-Free" as buying signals for snack foods that they believed were going to help them in their quest for leanness. Many of those foods contained fat, which shouldn't surprise you at this point, but even if the fat was negligible, there was another ingredient that was going to cripple their ability to shed fat. Sugar. In most cases, snack foods contain sugar as their primary ingredient. Find out how [ Sugar ] affects fat release and you'll probably pass on the next box of Snackwell cookies you come across if fat loss is a goal.




The other big thing now is carbs. Lots of people are counting them. But they are not all created equal. Complex carbs are important for slow release of their energy to sustain the body. Simple carbs like sugars are more often the culprit for people with a weight problem. They stimulate more up and down blood sugar levels and more insulin production which causes the body to store more fat.

[Houdini]

I've noticed this too. Too many products say zero transfat and you see that partially hydrogenated vegi oil is in there.

Heh...maybe it's all "sig fat." :)

[InfiniteNothing]

Nerd.

I looked it up and there are new processes out there. You might be right... but I doubt it.

Increasing the pressure at which an oil is hydrogenated reduces trans fat formation. Researchers at the United States Department of Agriculture applied 1400 kPa (200 psi) of pressure to soybean oil in a 2-litre vessel while heating it to between 140°C and 170°C. In a standard 140 kPa (20 psi) process of hydrogenation, the result is about 39.7% trans fat by weight compared to 16.6 to 17.9% using the high pressure method.
Blended with pure soybean oil, the high pressure processed oil produced margarine containing 5 to 6% trans fat which could qualify for a label of zero grams of trans fat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat

[welfareloser]

well, to be fair... it's not necessarily shady, so much as lazy/behind the times.

if we're talking about just fat, for example, less than half a gram getting rounded down to 0 isntead of up to 1 isn't a big deal... it's just not significant, because fat is a perfectly reasonable thing to be eating.

this whole trans fat thing... trans fats aren't good in any amount, so any amount, no matter how small, *is* significant. the original FDA rules simply aren't set up to deal with that situation.

[Dem0072]

You know... I sometimes reach the conclusion that the FDA and Medial "Ministry" preaching good health, often forgets the fact we're human and we all die.

In my personal opinion enjoying a good meal thats non-psycho analyzed and doesn't have a creepy team of medical engineers in white labcoats hovering around my plate like im a rat in a cage, is more rewarding then having to go and spend the better part of entire classes in school just to learn whats "best" to eat.

In the 50's it was simple... eat your carrots... eat your peas... drink the milk, make sure you eat the beef, good for proteine, and the garlic & parsley mashed potatos are just good eatin'.

I just find it a bit of a phobia, and rediculous that every element on my dinner plate deserves my own bodily signatured scientific formula.

[InfiniteNothing]

Some of us want our Oreos but not the transfat

[Dem0072]

Oreos are "thee cookie", however try white chocolate macadamia nut cookies when theyre warm & chewy.

[InfiniteNothing]

Sure, as long as you don't use shortening. Transfat sneaks into all sorts of products. Though, I believe Oreos are fine now thanks to public awareness.

[guiseppewv]

well, to be fair... it's not necessarily shady, so much as lazy/behind the times.

if we're talking about just fat, for example, less than half a gram getting rounded down to 0 isntead of up to 1 isn't a big deal... it's just not significant, because fat is a perfectly reasonable thing to be eating.

this whole trans fat thing... trans fats aren't good in any amount, so any amount, no matter how small, *is* significant. the original FDA rules simply aren't set up to deal with that situation.


It is shady. When you shrink the amount in a serving anything can be fat free. As the article in zippy's post said: a .2 gram serving of anything contains less than .5 grams of fat - duh - so if you have .2 grams of lard that is a fat free serving. That is shady.

[ialsohaveadream]

It is shady. When you shrink the amount in a serving anything can be fat free. As the article in zippy's post said: a .2 gram serving of anything contains less than .5 grams of fat - duh - so if you have .2 grams of lard that is a fat free serving. That is shady.
Right, but the FDA didn't change their rules to make the practice shady...they just kept the rules they've had for years, and food manufacturers are exploiting them.

Either way, I've always looked at the ingredients list. They've finally started taking them out of almost all cereals (which is good, because that had been limiting the varieties I'd eat :)), and as someone mentioned, baked chips generally don't have partially hydrogenated oils.

[guiseppewv]

Right, but the FDA didn't change their rules to make the practice shady...they just kept the rules they've had for years, and food manufacturers are exploiting them.

Either way, I've always looked at the ingredients list. They've finally started taking them out of almost all cereals (which is good, because that had been limiting the varieties I'd eat :)), and as someone mentioned, baked chips generally don't have partially hydrogenated oils.

I agree that the FDA should do something about it. I don't think this makes it any less shady.

I, also, look at the ingredients and I look at the nutritional info b/c you have to figure things out on your own sometimes.

[welfareloser]

Right, but the FDA didn't change their rules to make the practice shady...they just kept the rules they've had for years, and food manufacturers are exploiting them.

:stupid:

eaxactly. food manufacturers manipulating serving sizes to be able to round down is shady - they've been doing it for years and anyone with an iq over 80 and an eye for nutrition management knows to figure out how many servings you're consuming. again, when we're just talking about fat in general, it's not a huge deal, as everybody needs fat anyway. now that we're quantifiying something that has been identified as "evil in any amount," it is a big deal. it's not shady on the FDA's part, unless and until, now that this new problem has presented itself, they do nothing to change the rules.

[Houdini]

Nerd.

I looked it up and there are new processes out there. You might be right... but I doubt it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat

I figured you'd pick up on that, chemistry guy.

Though it's the only way I can think of hydrogenated stuff not being trans. :shrug:


It is shady. When you shrink the amount in a serving anything can be fat free. As the article in zippy's post said: a .2 gram serving of anything contains less than .5 grams of fat - duh - so if you have .2 grams of lard that is a fat free serving. That is shady.

Yes, but .2 gm of fat is really nothing significant. It's a ridiiculously LOW amount for a serving. :shrug:

[zippyjuan]

If you are watching your sodium intake, you also need to read the labels carefully. I have seen some items (like chili) where the "low sodium" one actually has more salt than other versions! Not sure how that works. SOups usually have alot in them. It can raise your blood pressure which is why you feel warm after eating it.

[guiseppewv]

I figured you'd pick up on that, chemistry guy.

Though it's the only way I can think of hydrogenated stuff not being trans. :shrug:



Yes, but .2 gm of fat is really nothing significant. It's a ridiiculously LOW amount for a serving. :shrug:

You are missing the point. What I am saying is that you reduce the size of a serving to .2 grams then you are never going to have to report any calories or fat in the serving. So, if you want to say that there are no calories in a bag of pork rinds, reduce the serving size to 1 rind, now you can say that your pork rinds are a low calorie, fat-free, food.....which is BS.