Food Labels: Inaccurate

I think their results are pretty much what has been found in the USA also. For what it's worth, I deal with this by eating fresh unprocessed foods for the most part. It seems to me that many of the foods they tested would be on the 'avoid' list for most healthy people.

Dr.J said:
For what it's worth, I deal with this by eating fresh unprocessed foods for the most part.[...]

But how accurate are calorie counts for non-processed foods? Anyone know?

How do you find out ig what you buy is truthfull other than pay to get it tested?

Val

How dare these people. Now There's just breaking news that there are now products containing partially hydrogenated oils that arn't on the ingredients list.

A New study just came in and it ain't good. One Nabisko's buscuits have said on the front of the label: 0 grams trans fats, and when I read the ingredients list, I did not find any word called: "Hydrogenated", or even "Partially Hydrogenated oils". It contained 6 grams of fat, only 2 of which is saturated, 0 grams of trans fats, 2 polyunsaturated, and 4 monounsaturated fats. It did contain this: "Vegtable oil (Palm and/or Soybeam). A Test has been done and here's something shocking: Partially hydrogenated soybean and canola oil has been found, and it revealed that the product contain 7 grams of fat, 1 of it saturated. But it contained 4 grams of trans fats, 1 gram of polyunsaturated fats and 1 gram of monounsaturated fats. HOW COULD THIS BE!?

It's No Wander there are companies that are cutting corners trying to make money. But I call this finding in one word: Disgusting.

It's time for tough laws. Not only banning trans fats, but they need to prove it. If they been found using partially hydrogenated oils and not putting them on the ingredients list.

And if you think that 1 gram of saturated fat is just as bad as 1 gram of trans fat, well think again. If, gram for gram, trans fats are far worse than saturated fats, then I think that it's better off now that the country needs to do a complete ban on this poison fat so that we can start our road back to a healthy nation like it has been 100 years ago. Trans fats are far worse than saturated fats, because they, gram for gram, do a whole lot more damage than saturated fats, and unlike saturated fats, trans fats linger in your body for a long time. It's now wander that we should view trans fats like arsenic and we must remove them from our food supply.

Now, if you want to make mashed potatoes or pie, use butter or blend margarines (Smart balance or Promise) instead of the regular trans fatty margarines like parkay or country crock. Also, use whipped cream or all-natural cool-whip instead of the regular cool-whip.

And I have another warning to give to all of you. Splenda is actually 99% sugar and only 1% sucralose. Believe me, Artificial sweeteners are just as bad if not worse than regular tabletop sugar. So as Aspartame and Saccharin.

But My advice is to still read the labels. If you find any word on the ingredients that said: Hydrogenated, Shortening (either it doesn't display the oils or it does say hydrogenated in the parentesis), avoid that food and look elsewhere.

I'm surprised the problem is so wide-spread. How can people make informed choices?

For a while I have thought that food labels were inaccurate.

When people count calories and actually think that they consummed 1052 or 1346 or 858 calories I laugh! I just usually always think the calories are off by 100 or so. Also, if people would just eat SMALLER portions, they would not need to obsess over calories.

Nice Girl, I agree with you there. The only way in which i find calorie counting helpful is if you determine at first you are eating 2,500 and drop 500 from that, even if the first 2,500 turned out to be 2,000 or 3,000, that will help. But knowing the exact value would be extremely hard to do. It can be done, if you weigh every single thing you eat and record it immediately, but it is not a realistic thing to do everyday.

That is why I say that what you eat matters more than how much you eat - of course, provided you're not stuffing your face.

James said:
And I have another warning to give to all of you. Splenda is actually 99% sugar and only 1% sucralose. Believe me, Artificial sweeteners are just as bad if not worse than regular tabletop sugar. So as Aspartame and Saccharin.[...]

Um, I highly doubt that. The ingredients on the package do not list sugar (sucrose) as an ingredient. As far as I know, food companies can't lie about ingredients on the packages. They can however, "fudge" the data on the nutritional facts: if something has fewer than 0.5 grams trans fat per serving, they can say it has "Zero grams Trans Fat!". Similarly, if a product has fewer than 5 calories per serving, they can say it has "Zero Calories".

Spectra, thanks for being the voice of reason. I love these conspiracy theories... yes, the US government wants everyone to consume sugar when they think they are consuming sweetener, as part of a plan to keep the money spent on emergency health care for the obese as high as possible. I mean, what is the logics behind this "Splenda is sugar" theory anyway?

If splenda is sugar then why does it taste so terrible? It does not agree with my taste buds at all! I don't see how people can eat that stuff, it's so bitter!

The deal with Splenda is that it is essentially a sugar molecule that has had the hydroxyl groups replaced with chlorine molecules. By doing this, your taste buds recognize the basic structure as "sweet" like sugar, but your digestive enzymes can't fit its structure to break it down for glycolysis. Therefore, it passes (unchanged/undigested) into your intestines and out of your body. Some people get diarrhea from it, but overall, the side effects are very slight. So yeah, it's MADE from sugar, but it is NOT sugar.