By Amina Khan, LA Times
January 11, 2010
Dieters, beware: Food and restaurant labels might be sabotaging your calorie-counting efforts.
So found a study published in the current edition of the Journal of the American Dietetic Assn. Researchers from Tufts University took commercially prepared foods -- both prepackaged and from restaurants -- and analyzed them using a bomb calorimeter. The measured energy values of 10 frozen meals purchased from supermarkets averaged 8% more than originally stated, and foods from 29 restaurants (both fast-food and sit-down venues) were on average 18% more than reported.
That hidden -- and unwelcome -- extra can fool dieters who don't have the time to cook their own meals into thinking they're cutting their caloric intake.
It certainly undermined the efforts of Susan B. Roberts, lead author on the study. The Energy Metabolism Laboratory director said she originally conceived of the idea for the experiment after designing two diets -- one that required home-cooked meals and another that did not. Roberts tested the diets out on herself, and her frustration quickly began to mount. In her home-cooked meal diet, she had lost weight consistently and on target. The no-cook regimen, however, was another matter.
"I wasn't losing any weight," Roberts said in an interview. "This was ridiculous. I came into the lab one day and thought, something's not adding up -- I think there's more calories in these foods than there should be."
Roberts put her theory to the test. The results?
A Lean Cuisine shrimp and angel hair pasta label says it's 220 calories (which works out to 250 calories of gross energy, the study calculates). The Tufts team pegged gross energy at 319. Denny's dry toast lists 92 calories. Instead, it let off a whopping 283 calories.
The discrepancies were a little less extreme than those in the Pirate's Booty scandal back in 2002, when a suspicious Good Housekeeping employee tested the apparently low-fat snack (label: 2.5 grams of fat) and found it had 8.5 grams, more than three times the stated amount. And to be fair, some foods came in under caloric value (a serving of Domino's thin crust cheese pizza had 141 calories, 33% less than expected).
But why did most foods seem to err in excess? Roberts said it was likely because "package manufacturers are just playing it safe."
"The FDA regulations are much more punitive, much more stringent on underproviding than overproviding," the scientist said. "It's an old-style mentality: 'People need to be given what they pay for.' "
Roberts' advice to dieters? Don't starve yourself -- just know what you put into your body. "If you want to lose 10 pounds, you can do it with food. Food is the best way. But by eating at home, you'll have a much easier time."
In any case, if you're eating at a place where "dry toast" earns you 283 calories, you're probably not on the low-calorie bandwagon to begin with.
Parents Misled by Food Labels
Nine out of 10 mothers questioned in a British Heart Foundation (BHF) survey misunderstood the nutrition information on children's foods.The BHF says mothers believe claims such as "a source of calcium, iron and six vitamins" mean a product is likely to be healthy.
A "mish mash" of different food labeling styles is fueling confusion among shoppers, it added. But manufacturers insisted their nutritional labeling was clear. The research was carried out on 1454 parents aged between 16-64 years old with kids aged 15 or under through an online survey. It found that 76% of mothers questioned believed that "wholegrain" means the product is likely to be healthy. However, the BHF said that - for example - Nestle's Honey Shreddies, which claim to be wholegrain and to "keep your heart healthy and maintain a healthy body", contain more sugar [13.6g] than a ring doughnut [9.2g] in an average serving. Kellogg's Coco Pops cereal and milk bars are labeled as "a source of calcium, iron and six vitamins" and 63% of mothers in the survey thought they were healthy.
The BHF said that for every 100g they were higher in saturated fat and sugar than the average chocolate cake. The Natural Confectionery Company Jelly Snakes which are made by Cadbury's contain more calories gram for gram than black treacle, the BHF said.
Almost three in five respondents believed that the phrase "no artificial flavorings, no artificial colorings" indicated a healthy treat. The questionnaire found that 84% of them wanted a single, front-of-pack food labeling scheme. Peter Hollins, BHF chief executive, said: "Mums are having the wool pulled over their eyes by food manufacturers. "Smoke and mirror tactics means that foods targeted at children and high in fat, salt and sugar are being disguised with partial health claims suggesting they are a healthy choice. "Regularly eating these types of foods could have serious implications for kids' future health."
A single unified labeling system for food is needed because it the "mish mash" of the different systems serves only to confuse shoppers, he added. "It's time for food companies to stop making excuses, support one system and ensure shoppers are given 'at a glance' information about the foods they're giving their kids." A spokesman for the Natural Confectionery Company said: "All we claim is that the sweets contain no artificial colors and flavors - which is true - so we're not sure why this should confuse anybody. "All nutritional information is clearly labeled on the bag." And a spokesman for Kellogg's responded: "A Kellogg's Coco Pops Cereal and Milk bar actually contains less than two teaspoons of sugar per bar and has half the calories (84) and far less fat than a chocolate bar. "Parents understand this because we give them the information they need, through our front-of-pack labelling, to make similar comparisons." Julian Hunt, of the Food and Drink Federation, has complained that the BHF did not share its research with them: "The truth is that the food industry takes its responsibilities seriously. "That's why our members are leading the world when it comes to ensuring that food recipes meet the demands of mums and their families - whether that's through the use of natural ingredients; reducing the amount of salt, fat or sugar used; or fortifying products with nutritionally-vital vitamins, minerals and micro-nutrients. "The nutrition claims identified by BHF are not 'partial health claims' - they are approved under the EU Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation, which is setting a strict legal framework for all claims on food packs. "To claim otherwise is being completely disingenuous - or shows that the BHF is deliberately trying to mislead both mums and journalists at what is a very busy time for all of us."
Steve - that is exactly what we we are claiming Mr Hunt. And the same thing happens in the U.S.
January 11, 2010
Dieters, beware: Food and restaurant labels might be sabotaging your calorie-counting efforts.
So found a study published in the current edition of the Journal of the American Dietetic Assn. Researchers from Tufts University took commercially prepared foods -- both prepackaged and from restaurants -- and analyzed them using a bomb calorimeter. The measured energy values of 10 frozen meals purchased from supermarkets averaged 8% more than originally stated, and foods from 29 restaurants (both fast-food and sit-down venues) were on average 18% more than reported.
That hidden -- and unwelcome -- extra can fool dieters who don't have the time to cook their own meals into thinking they're cutting their caloric intake.
It certainly undermined the efforts of Susan B. Roberts, lead author on the study. The Energy Metabolism Laboratory director said she originally conceived of the idea for the experiment after designing two diets -- one that required home-cooked meals and another that did not. Roberts tested the diets out on herself, and her frustration quickly began to mount. In her home-cooked meal diet, she had lost weight consistently and on target. The no-cook regimen, however, was another matter.
"I wasn't losing any weight," Roberts said in an interview. "This was ridiculous. I came into the lab one day and thought, something's not adding up -- I think there's more calories in these foods than there should be."
Roberts put her theory to the test. The results?
A Lean Cuisine shrimp and angel hair pasta label says it's 220 calories (which works out to 250 calories of gross energy, the study calculates). The Tufts team pegged gross energy at 319. Denny's dry toast lists 92 calories. Instead, it let off a whopping 283 calories.
The discrepancies were a little less extreme than those in the Pirate's Booty scandal back in 2002, when a suspicious Good Housekeeping employee tested the apparently low-fat snack (label: 2.5 grams of fat) and found it had 8.5 grams, more than three times the stated amount. And to be fair, some foods came in under caloric value (a serving of Domino's thin crust cheese pizza had 141 calories, 33% less than expected).
But why did most foods seem to err in excess? Roberts said it was likely because "package manufacturers are just playing it safe."
"The FDA regulations are much more punitive, much more stringent on underproviding than overproviding," the scientist said. "It's an old-style mentality: 'People need to be given what they pay for.' "
Roberts' advice to dieters? Don't starve yourself -- just know what you put into your body. "If you want to lose 10 pounds, you can do it with food. Food is the best way. But by eating at home, you'll have a much easier time."
In any case, if you're eating at a place where "dry toast" earns you 283 calories, you're probably not on the low-calorie bandwagon to begin with.
Parents Misled by Food Labels
Nine out of 10 mothers questioned in a British Heart Foundation (BHF) survey misunderstood the nutrition information on children's foods.The BHF says mothers believe claims such as "a source of calcium, iron and six vitamins" mean a product is likely to be healthy.
A "mish mash" of different food labeling styles is fueling confusion among shoppers, it added. But manufacturers insisted their nutritional labeling was clear. The research was carried out on 1454 parents aged between 16-64 years old with kids aged 15 or under through an online survey. It found that 76% of mothers questioned believed that "wholegrain" means the product is likely to be healthy. However, the BHF said that - for example - Nestle's Honey Shreddies, which claim to be wholegrain and to "keep your heart healthy and maintain a healthy body", contain more sugar [13.6g] than a ring doughnut [9.2g] in an average serving. Kellogg's Coco Pops cereal and milk bars are labeled as "a source of calcium, iron and six vitamins" and 63% of mothers in the survey thought they were healthy.
The BHF said that for every 100g they were higher in saturated fat and sugar than the average chocolate cake. The Natural Confectionery Company Jelly Snakes which are made by Cadbury's contain more calories gram for gram than black treacle, the BHF said.
Almost three in five respondents believed that the phrase "no artificial flavorings, no artificial colorings" indicated a healthy treat. The questionnaire found that 84% of them wanted a single, front-of-pack food labeling scheme. Peter Hollins, BHF chief executive, said: "Mums are having the wool pulled over their eyes by food manufacturers. "Smoke and mirror tactics means that foods targeted at children and high in fat, salt and sugar are being disguised with partial health claims suggesting they are a healthy choice. "Regularly eating these types of foods could have serious implications for kids' future health."
A single unified labeling system for food is needed because it the "mish mash" of the different systems serves only to confuse shoppers, he added. "It's time for food companies to stop making excuses, support one system and ensure shoppers are given 'at a glance' information about the foods they're giving their kids." A spokesman for the Natural Confectionery Company said: "All we claim is that the sweets contain no artificial colors and flavors - which is true - so we're not sure why this should confuse anybody. "All nutritional information is clearly labeled on the bag." And a spokesman for Kellogg's responded: "A Kellogg's Coco Pops Cereal and Milk bar actually contains less than two teaspoons of sugar per bar and has half the calories (84) and far less fat than a chocolate bar. "Parents understand this because we give them the information they need, through our front-of-pack labelling, to make similar comparisons." Julian Hunt, of the Food and Drink Federation, has complained that the BHF did not share its research with them: "The truth is that the food industry takes its responsibilities seriously. "That's why our members are leading the world when it comes to ensuring that food recipes meet the demands of mums and their families - whether that's through the use of natural ingredients; reducing the amount of salt, fat or sugar used; or fortifying products with nutritionally-vital vitamins, minerals and micro-nutrients. "The nutrition claims identified by BHF are not 'partial health claims' - they are approved under the EU Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation, which is setting a strict legal framework for all claims on food packs. "To claim otherwise is being completely disingenuous - or shows that the BHF is deliberately trying to mislead both mums and journalists at what is a very busy time for all of us."
Steve - that is exactly what we we are claiming Mr Hunt. And the same thing happens in the U.S.
No comments:
Post a Comment