Would you like sugar with that label?

Since nutrition labels - on packaged foods and restaurant menus- are my passion, if I did not address today's FDA announcement in my blog post I imagine my readers would worry that something dreadful had happened to me.  I am here, busy, but not too busy to stop to make note of today's announcement.

So YES, I saw the announcement and I think it is a step in the right direction, but I have two big concerns.

1) You still have to pick up the package (and those you want to compare it with) and turn it around to see the info.
2) A proposal is NOT a law, and heck, even if it was, I wouldn't feel that much more encouraged.  Psst... FDA we are still waiting for those restaurant menu label rules.

There are also several things that are good in the proposal.
I love that it includes an Added Sugar amount, and this recent blog post explains why you should be glad, too.  It is also good that the label is going to emphasize, with bold lettering, the calorie amount and make serving sizes more reasonable (hmm, this sounds like the IOM recommendations for a Front of Pack label that never happened).  But wait, I should clarify - reasonable was the wrong word - very wrong word.  I meant realistic.  The new serving sizes will reflect what a person is likely to consume in one sitting, not what is calorically appropriate for them to consume.  Lastly I think it is good that the label will highlight the amount of vitamin D in a serving. Americans don't lack for much in their diets, but most do not get enough vitamin D.

I either agree with or am ambivalent about some of the other changes.  For example, I agree that we don't need to know the percent of calories that come from fat, but do need to know the amount of fat, especially by type i.e., TFA which is harmful and  saturated fat, which might be harmful.  I understand why the FDA suggests keeping the percent daily value, but I hope that in the end they will change what the 'recommended' average daily calorie amount is and emphasize that the average daily calorie amount may or may not be YOUR recommended amount.

Some food manufacturers are upset about the proposal and will fight to keep the changes from happening - they say its too costly, and I say, use some of the marketing money you spend so freely.  Otherwise or nonetheless, expect many of your products to start having less grams of sugar and less calories - YES!

Here is the sample label from the FDA and a link to the press release where this picture was originally posted.

 

Package Labels (the back tells)

   I came upon a bulletin board yesterday,while walking the halls during a class break.  I ended up in the Nutrition area.  The bulletin board was very informative.  I believe its purpose was to offer education or advice on using the nutrition information provided on food packages.  Of course, one of the problems with the information on packages is that it takes a great deal of nutrition knowledge and time to fully process.  These are two things that the general public is short on (time and nutrition knowledge). 

   The part of the bulletin board that caught my attention had to do with one of the front of pack systems used voluntarily by a manufacturer.  It was shown on a product that I love and have shared on the blog;  Blue Bunny sugar free ice cream.  The caption, referring to the FOP information was “the front sells, the back tells.”  On the back of the package is the Nutrition Facts Panel and the ingredients list. These are two things that the Institute of Medicine has determined to be hard for consumers to understand and process (read, put together, use).  I agree.  It is also why a front of pack system could be more useful that the back of the pack.  
   The point that the nutrition students were making on the bulletin board is a very good one (which I will explain in a moment). 

   We need the easier to use Front of Pack system, but we need it with the interpretive and guiding criteria as put forth by the IOM.  You might have forgotten what that was.  I will quickly remind you.  All front of packs (under the standards proposed) must have the calorie information boldly highlighted.  The items that the Dietary Guidelines suggest we limit, i.e., saturated (trans) fats, added sugar and sodium are the criteria on which a product is judged.  A product that is low in any of the three areas will get a star  - for a possible total of 3 stars.

   So the Blue Bunny issue from the nutrition students bulletin board was two fold.  The first was that the serving size highlighted on the package was a ½ cup.  I, too, have said that is unrealistic.  The students calculated the calories, sugar, etc for a 1 cup serving size.  The second problem they highlighted was the “no added sugar” claim.  In fact, they said, it is no added table sugar – sucralose.  

    On the back of the package the students had highlighted words that indicate sugar and sugar alcohol.  I might be able to pick some of them out – I believe “tol” and “ose” are word endings that give  clues.      
   But as the IOM states and I strongly support - YOU (we, the consumer) should not have to figure that out – hence the need for standardized FOP systems.
   YUP – we are still waiting for them!

Fit and Active (fit facts) The Right Front of Pack system?

   One of my classmates was eating a snack the other day and the package caught my attention.  I noticed that it had a front of pack label and that the back of the pack contained an explanation of the label system.  I did not recognize the brand of mini rice cakes.  I thought that the Quaker iced/frosted mini rice cake snacks had a new package and label.  I asked my friend if I could have her empty package.  I know, I am that weird.
   Turns out, the snack cakes were a store brand and the store has implemented this labeling across all its products.  It is from ALDI.  They refer to their scheme or system as Fit Facts.
   I am 100% in favor of a front of pack system or label that highlights nutrients that are important to consider in our diets.  Nutrients that we get too much of and should limit.  The problem is a lack of standardization over which nutrients should be highlighted.  The Institute of Medicine has given us some guidelines but the recommendations have not translated into rules - YET.  I wrote about them here, almost a year ago.
   The ALDI labeling, which you can see below does not make things clear for the shopper.  For example, the rice cakes package I 'borrowed' shows the amount in grams or milligrams(sodium) of four items.  I disagree with the inclusion of total fat because saturated fat is the item to limit and though three of the four show a percent daily value (which is suspect but helpful) the fourth SUGAR has no percent daily value because it has no daily value.  If the FOP system used was the multiple traffic light, the criteria would have each of those items as either red, amber or green. In the rice cake case, the sugar grams are 6.  That seems low right?  It's not.  The total weight of the package is 20grams.  That means that the product is 30% sugar.  The multiple traffic light (MTL) uses red to warn that a product is high in sugar if it contains as little as14% ! It is okay to eat this 90 calories and 6 grams of sugar, just don't tell yourself it is a low sugar product.
   The front of pack systems are needed and they can be helpful but  this label does not make it easy for you to know if something is "healthy."  We should not have to get out our calculators and divide 6 by 20 to get our percent of sugar!

The picture on the bottom left is the Front of Pack system.

 

NonDairy - Good Fat - No Sugar - Low Calories

   In my blog, I am more likely to make food 'group' recommendations than product recommendations - my most well known product rec being  Smuckers All Natural Peanut Butter. 
   Today I will share the labels of two products - two brands, in one category that I do highly recommend.  Almond Milk. There is a continuing controversy over dairy products, esp. milk and if you are not allergic to nuts, this is a fantastic alternative.  It is better for several reasons.
   The reasons are calories, sugar and fat.  Taste may not be among the plus factors, because I am  suggesting the unsweetened versions ONLY.  Please don't go for the sweetened as those just add sugar. However, using the almond milks in recipes, cereal and coffee as opposed to drinking it straight is what I have in mind.  It is really best not to drink our calories anyways.
   Below are two labels.  One brand doesn't break down their fat content but both of them have fat without saturated fat.  Therefore,  the grams are all GOOD fat.  Please understand, there IS good fat and you need it.  These products give you healthy fat with calcium and without sugar.  The calorie content is very low.  The calories are half that of the same serving size of skim milk (90c).  The serving size is NOT small - it is one cup.   BTW, whole milk has ~140 cals, 2% ~ 130s, 1% ~110s.  Full disclosure - almond milk pales in comparison to skim milk with regard to protein.  Still, protein is not one of the nutrients that Americans lack so you'll be fine.

This is Almond Breeze.  It has better amounts of Good Fat. 

This is  Silk Pure Almond - More Expensive but better Calcium Percentage

I use almond milk in my oat bran, my cake and cereal bar recipes, and when I make sugar free instant pudding.