This blog explains what companies are legally bound to put on the label, but also where it tends to go wrong. The problems are more or less universal, but in this blog the specific regulations in the USA were taken as a starting point.
Rules of the label game
A product’s
ingredients are listed in descending order of weight, from most to least. Ingredients
that are less than 2% of the weight of a product are exempt from the rule to be
labeled in order of predominance. The manufacturer has the liberty to put these
ingredients in a different order (US Code of Federal Regulations 21 CFR 101.4
and 21 CFR 101.4(2)). This is often mistaken for anything less than 2% of a
product’s weight need not be on the label. However, that does not mean all ingredients have to be accounted for on the label: ‘trade secret’ ingredients
are exempt from the requirements, you can throw in ‘flavoring’ without breaking
it down into ingredients and there’s the omitting ingredients of an
‘insignificant level’. May I ask what is ‘insignificant’ and to whom?
Nutritional value
There are
few exceptions, but a label should also state the nutritional value. These are
percentages on fat, sugar etc. In the US that gets more attention. Here is the
general information by the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Inspections/InspectionGuides/ucm074948.htm. These diet recommendations do not
match a low-carb lifestyle or don’t reveal how many additives it contains and
tell you very little about how healthy a product truly is. 
A product’s
ingredients are listed in descending order of weight, from most to least. Ingredients
that are less than 2% of the weight of a product are exempt from the rule to be
labeled in order of predominance. The manufacturer has the liberty to put these
ingredients in a different order (US Code of Federal Regulations 21 CFR 101.4
and 21 CFR 101.4(2)). This is often mistaken for anything less than 2% of a
product’s weight need not be on the label. However, that does not mean all ingredients have to be accounted for on the label: ‘trade secret’ ingredients
are exempt from the requirements, you can throw in ‘flavoring’ without breaking
it down into ingredients and there’s the omitting ingredients of an
‘insignificant level’. May I ask what is ‘insignificant’ and to whom?Nutritional value
Even if you
single out carbs, you only know so much. Carbs in a product can be labeled as ‘zero’
when there’s less than 0,5 gram of carbs in it. 0,5-0,99 as 1, or less than 1.
Over 1 gram can be rounded to the nearest gram. Also, if a manufacturer makes a
large batch of a product, it’s impossible to analyze each package. The number
of carbs is therefore calculated by difference as they call it. Now every measurement
technique has something called a ‘standard error’. In case of the total
carbohydrates reported may include 5 different standard errors. The effect of
standard error is a problem according to this source where one large number is
subtracted from another. The small number remaining may be very inaccurate. (http://www.expertfoods.com/FAQ/labelvalues.php) This website also provides a very
good example. Heavy cream is supposed to be reported in one tablespoon
servings. It correctly reports carbs as ‘zero’ for 1 tablespoon. A whole cup,
however, contains 6,6 grams of carb.
‘Low-carb’ is a term we use loosely: there is no formal definition at this point. That makes it o.k. to advertise a product as low-carb, even if it isn’t. In labeling, fat and salt are the enemy. According to many critical food bloggers labels are more accurate regarding fat and salt content, not with respect to carbs. Be aware of the magic trick that involves ‘net carb’. ‘Net’ means something was subtracted from the total. So, in plain English not all the carbs from the dry ingredients are listed. Some manufacturers subtract fiber that is believed to not be digested or claim to have a special recipe that will prevent you from digesting all the carb. It’s not allowed, but it does occur. If you are really keen on low-carbing these differences can really mess up a low-carb diet.
The label says one thing, product tests another
So much for what is supposed to be on the label. 100% beef: you know what I’m getting at. The label said 100% beef, but product tests revealed many products also contained horsemeat. The drama in the media was more focused on the type of animal: a horse, which has more of a pet status in our culture. Some reports also expressed concern whether these animals were suitable for human consumption due to medication possibly administered to the horses. To me, the problem is not that the unlisted extra ingredient was horsemeat, aside the risk of contamination with heavy medication, it was the fact that it was unlisted. This is not unique.
Recently a new scandal popped up. Eggs labeled as organic in Germany were not organic after all: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21573158. It was hushed with the explanation they were perfectly good eggs. They better be! A little bit before these cases there was also this issue: pesto that should have contained Grana Padano cheese and olive oil actually contained the cheaper sunflower oil and Latvian cheese. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233064/Supermarket-supplier-fined-25-000-sauces-claimed-included-virgin-olive-oil-Gran-Padano-cheese-turned-contain-cheaper-products.html. To name but a few examples.
Reading labels and relying on labels is challenging at best. Off shelf products are tricky. It’s hardly surprising most low-carb advocates eventually cook a lot of their food, or even all of it, from scratch.
‘Low-carb’ is a term we use loosely: there is no formal definition at this point. That makes it o.k. to advertise a product as low-carb, even if it isn’t. In labeling, fat and salt are the enemy. According to many critical food bloggers labels are more accurate regarding fat and salt content, not with respect to carbs. Be aware of the magic trick that involves ‘net carb’. ‘Net’ means something was subtracted from the total. So, in plain English not all the carbs from the dry ingredients are listed. Some manufacturers subtract fiber that is believed to not be digested or claim to have a special recipe that will prevent you from digesting all the carb. It’s not allowed, but it does occur. If you are really keen on low-carbing these differences can really mess up a low-carb diet.
The label says one thing, product tests another
So much for what is supposed to be on the label. 100% beef: you know what I’m getting at. The label said 100% beef, but product tests revealed many products also contained horsemeat. The drama in the media was more focused on the type of animal: a horse, which has more of a pet status in our culture. Some reports also expressed concern whether these animals were suitable for human consumption due to medication possibly administered to the horses. To me, the problem is not that the unlisted extra ingredient was horsemeat, aside the risk of contamination with heavy medication, it was the fact that it was unlisted. This is not unique.
Recently a new scandal popped up. Eggs labeled as organic in Germany were not organic after all: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21573158. It was hushed with the explanation they were perfectly good eggs. They better be! A little bit before these cases there was also this issue: pesto that should have contained Grana Padano cheese and olive oil actually contained the cheaper sunflower oil and Latvian cheese. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233064/Supermarket-supplier-fined-25-000-sauces-claimed-included-virgin-olive-oil-Gran-Padano-cheese-turned-contain-cheaper-products.html. To name but a few examples.
Reading labels and relying on labels is challenging at best. Off shelf products are tricky. It’s hardly surprising most low-carb advocates eventually cook a lot of their food, or even all of it, from scratch.
No comments:
Post a Comment