Reading food labels has become something of an art form. And even if you really know your stuff, you still have to scrutinize the labels to make sure that healthy-sounding badge on the front really means you're making a healthful choice.

That's about to change. According to Reuters, the FDA is looking into labels like "Smart Choices," which the FDA found was displayed on foods with up to almost 50 percent sugar -- definitely misleading. If the FDA finds that any of the claims violate federal rules, they "will take enforcement action against any egregious examples," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg tells Reuters.

The non-profit Center for Science in the Public Interest points out that simplified front-of-label symbols and nutrition information would greatly enable people to make better choices about their diets. When foods like Cocoa Puffs, Fruit Loops and Fudgsicles have symbols saying they're good choices, one has to wonder what constitutes a bad choice.

Green check mark food labeling is coming to a grocery store near you in 2009. Called the Smart Choices label, this front-of-pack green symbol was created by a diverse coalition to help consumers find healthier choices.

Rolling out mid-2009, here's what that green check mark will mean:

• Total fat less than or equal to 35% of calories
• Saturated fat less than 10%, zero trans fat
• Added sugars less than or equal to 25% of calories
  
• Cholesterol less than or equal to 60 mg per serving; sodium less than or equal to 480 mg per serving
  
• Vitamins/minerals/fiber and healthy food groups are also part of the vetting process.
  
  

The green check mark is riding the wave of greater nutritional accountability these days -- Jacki recently reported That's Fit readers overwhelmingly support menu calorie counts. OK, great. But when's the 'Dumb Choices' red check mark rolling out? Notice the food industry isn't talking about that. Pic via Smart Choices.

Source

Definitely, reading labels can help us steer clear of foods that make us fat, clog our arteries, and cause all sorts of health problems. They can also mislead us. Think about all those low-fat claims you read on food packages. Healthy stuff? Not always. Here, three ways low-fat labels can make us fat.

• We eat more. In one study, people ate 28% more M&Ms when they were labeled low-fat, leading overweight folks to consume nearly 50% more calories. Remember: Calories. Calories. Calories. Just because it's low-fat doesn't mean it's low-calorie.
• We dish out more. People tend to believe that an appropriate serving size for a low-fat food is 25% larger than the full-fat version. There we go, eating more again.
• We stress less. When we see low-fat labels on our foods, our guilt fades away. Hey, guilt isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes, it can help us control our appetites.
  
  

Simply knowing how to read a food label can help you make smart choices and maintain a healthy weight. Want to learn how? Click here for a pretty informative lesson.

Source

Teaching your child to read food labels builds a foundation for better choices as they mature and start grazing the hot lunch line, a friend's pantry or the corner store. I'm not saying kids need to shout out calories and fat before ripping open a granola bar, but label awareness can foster a healthier perspective.

Here's one example: I've been teaching my son to pay attention to 'grams of sugar per serving' on food labels for over a year now. A first grader, his reading skills are taking off and I'm seeing the payoff. Earlier this week he came home and, unsolicited, informed me his carton of white milk has 12 grams of sugar.

Since he's now an all-day schoolkid, we made a deal he brown-bags-it and grabs white milk four days a week, then splurges on hot lunch with chocolate milk the remaining day. Two days ago, after his hot lunch day (pizza, of course), I asked him how many grams of sugar were in the chocolate milk. He was quick to report it had 27 grams of sugar -- yech. He's now looking at chocolate versus white milk through a nutrition-focused filter, putting more value on white milk than he ever did before. Moving along at a first-grade pace, I think the next lesson will be reasonable calorie totals in a snack or a meal, then we'll start chatting about the benefits of fiber. Check out these nutrition education tips for preschool, K-3rd and 4-6th grade, the Nutrition Cafe for kid-friendly nutritional games and the USDA's MyPyramid games 'n tools for 6-11 year olds.

Source

This morning I went to a local farmer's market. There was a new vendor selling all "whole grain" foods. I asked which of their breads were whole wheat and she told me that everything they had was made from whole wheat. I thought that was great, so I picked out a loaf of bread and, as a treat for me and my son, bought a small pack of peanut blossom cookies. I asked the women if even the cookies were whole grain and she again replied that everything on the table was. So imagine my surprise when I get home and read the ingredient list on the cookies -- the first ingredient was "enriched white flour" and that was the only type of flour in there. On one hand, I feel like I was duped. I had been so swayed by their "Whole Grain Bakery" sign and the salesperson's words, that I neglected to read the label for myself. On the other hand, they're cookies -- even with whole-wheat flour they certainly wouldn't have been "healthy." So, live and learn.

The problem I had this morning is a problem we all face every time we shop for food. Sometimes the front of the packaging can be deceiving. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has a list of "food frauds." While I don't know if I'd go so far as to call them frauds (that just seems a bit alarmist and conspiracy-theory-ish to me), the foods they list certainly are misleading. Take Kellogg's Special K Fruit and Yogurt for example: it claims the crunch of whole wheat, the smooth creaminess of yogurt, and the sweet taste of berries. Those statements are all true... but they're misleading. The cereal has more refined rice than whole wheat. The taste of yogurt comes from a sweetened yogurt powder that has been heat treated (killing all beneficial bacteria in the process), and the "berries" are actually dyed and artificially-flavored pieces of apple.

Take a peek at CSPI's list, and then be on the lookout for other foods of this type when you're grocery shopping. Unless you're buying fresh foods in their natural state, you're usually getting a little more than you bargained for. And many foods try to market themselves as healthy when they really aren't.

Source

Life is too short not to be fully "turned on." The Daily Turn On! energizes all aspects of "you." Every Monday The Daily Turn On! with That's Fit Life Fit expert Laura Lewis will provide you with ideas and tips to awaken your mind, your body and your life as you journey through each day of the week! Check in each Monday to get your tip for Turning On every day of your life.

Recently someone asked why, on a 12 ounce can of soda would the label give an ingredient listing for only eight ounces? First of all I congratulate that individual for noticing the discrepancy between the 12 ounces contained in the soda can versus the eight ounces in the nutrient analysis. Honestly, it really angers me to see this type of what I deem as labeling deception. I mean, come on. Would you ever drink just eight ounces out of a twelve ounce can of soda? I don't think so. I even enjoy an occasional Coke every now and then. But when I drink it, I know exactly what I am doing because I always look at the "serving size" of which the amounts listed on the label are referring to. If I drink a 12 ounce can of Coke I am swilling down 144 calories, caffeine and a few other things I choose to ignore during those rare occurences. Honestly, this happens probably every two to three months. However on the days I just want a Coca Cola I am going to drink the entire 12 ounces. Could I leave four ounces in the bottom of the can to save myself 50 calories? No way. Would you?

This week, I want you to "turn on" your observation skills and begin reading labels of foods you consume on a regular basis. Here are a few things to keep in mind:

Marketing vs. Reality. I picked up a bottle of cranberry juice that said "pure juice." Now it's important to me as I often recommend to others that pure cranberry juice, diluted with spring water and a slice of lemon is a good thing to drink in the morning upon rising. I certainly enjoy it. I cannot tell you how many times I have had people buy the wrong juice just because they read the label on the front of the food or beverage and not the actual ingredient listing. What was really in the "pure juice" referenced above? Well, in addition to cranberry juice it contained grape juice, apple juice and other items. Pure cranberry juice is not sweet at all and does not have a big glycemic impact. The pure juice above, if drunk on an empty stomach, could elevate the blood sugar quickly. So do you see what I mean?

Serving Size. On that bag of "healthy chips," what is the serving size? It might suprise you! I am not surprised. If you really knew the entire bag of healthy chips you just bought contained 400 calories instead of the 150 calories listed on the ingredient listing for "one serving" would you buy it anyway? I think not. Unless you have tremendous will power.

Ingredients: What are they? Read all ingredients listed on the label carefully. If an ingredient is "wheat flour" does that mean it is "whole wheat?" No! White flour is made from wheat, it has simply been stripped of it's bran, germ and important natural nutrients. The "wheat flour" may be white flour. Look for the "whole wheat" or other "whole" grains instead. And what about all the rest of those ingredients including food additives? How about Corn Syrup? MSG? Aspartame? The Center for Science in the Public Interest has a great list of food additives. It's a must read if you are even remotely concerned about your health.

This week, Turn On Your "Label Reading" skills and get a reality check. Oh, and please do share what you find!

Source

Source

I've long been a critic of the "Nutrition Facts" labels used on all processed foods sold in the U.S. Too little information is given and the numbers are easily manipulated by manufacturers based on unrealistic proportions.

So, it's a major win to hear that a new system for scoring the nutritional value of foods is set to hit product labels in 2008. Not only will a label change allow consumers to make healthier choices, it will hopefully end ambiguity about what exactly is in all those foods. That is, is the new labeling is done correctly.

the new labeling system, called the Overall Nutritional Quality Index (ONQI), is set to be implemented sometime in 2008. It takes into account a number of factors and should be way more insightful that the bare minimum nutritional information used now on most foods.

Source

In what has been a long time coming, the FDA said last week that it -- finally -- will be reviewing existing rules that govern the use of the "Nutrition Facts" labels sold on all processed and packaged food in the U.S.

I've been a critic of these labels for quite a long time, since the data can be manipulated (serving sizes) and cryptic to the average food shopper. In essence, you may get a small feel from these labels in terms of nutrition content, but in terms of overall nutritious profile, forget it.

The FDA may be considering removing some existing nutrients from the labels as well as reorganizing the way the information is presented. Food manufacturers will then immediately seek ways to get their information on there to may those basically dead foods seem nutritious when, in fact, the opposite is true.

Source

I've never understood how food companies can get away with using the term "all natural" on any processed food that contains so many unnatural ingredients and preservative chemicals. But they do, although there is a constant fight from natural food advocates who chide companies like Kraft and General Mills every single day.

What is the definition of the word "natural" when used on any food product? There is none. You see, the commercial food industry is so lax on any standard that anything can be called, well, anything. Prescription drug products (and OTC drug products) are heavily regulated when it comes to labeling -- why not food products?

Most likely, because cost customers would would have a fit if they knew what they were really eating when consuming that white bread and packaged spray cheese. Nothing is "all natural" unless it was picked from the ground or cut from an animal that had no hormones, chemicals or other substances as part of a product. Unfortunately, almost 100% of the normal American diet does not conform to anything near the literal meaning of "all natural."

Source

Forget the easily-manipulated "Nutrition Facts" labels on food containers. Unless you're prepared to scrutinize and compare most processed and packaged food products every time you eat them, an easier way to judge the nutrition (or lack thereof) should exist.

In Maine, a "gold star" food rating system that was designed to give customers an idea about healthy food products seems to be working as intended.

The supermarket chain Hannaford Bros. came up with the system that ranks foods with a series of stars (one to three of them), so that hurried customers (read: almost all of us) could instantly gauge healthy foods from unhealthy foods. I'd suspect that sugary, artificially colored breakfast cereals received no stars, while whole-grain, uncolored breakfast cereals probably garnered at least one star.

Why don't other grocery chains do something like this?

Source

I get a little peeved when I see food labels that are somehow deceptive -- for example, a food label that has very few calories in a serving but if you look further, you'll find that their definition of a 'serving' is something ridiculously small. But here are some other ways that food manufacturers are deceiving us even further, courtesy of Fitsugar:

• Sugar is generally regarded as a bad ingredient, and on food labels, ingredients are listed from the most prevalent to least prevalent. So in the ingredients label, manufacturers will distribute sugar among several different ingredients so that it doesn't appear in the top three ingredients. How cheeky.
  
• They'll also 'pad' ingredient lists with healthy-sounding things
• They'll hide dangerous ingredients behind innocent-sounding ones
• They can name a food item whatever they want, whether it contains the appropriate ingredients or not. Fitsugar uses as an example Kraft's Guacamole Dip. It has hardly any avocado.
  
• Another reason for listing impossibly small serving sizes: if there's less than 0.5 trans fats in the serving size, they can list it as 0 trans fats.
• Keep in mind that currently there are no regulations ordering food manufacturers to list certain chemical contaminants and toxic substances. Yikes!

Source

Severe food allergies can make it tricky to buy foods with processed ingredients, which is why the FDA requires labeling of foods that contain commonly allergenic foods like nuts. But more and more manufacturers are including "accidental-allergy" warnings on foods that formerly didn't carry labels. These accidental warnings may be tacked on when a food is processed in a plant that also processes other, more allergenic foods. But because there are no guidelines for this kind of labeling, consumers are getting confused, and often not heeding the warnings.

A recent survey found that when consumers read that a product may contain an allergenic ingredient, they avoided it about 88% of the time. But when the label contained an accidental-allergy warning, consumers were more likely to ignore the warning. Though the risk is small, a recent study found that about 7% of foods (and possibly more) contained traces of the foods they were warning against, just because they were processed in the same plant.

The FDA is asking for consumer input and may intervene before the end of the year. Until then, say allergy experts, if your allergy is severe, heed the warning, even if you've eaten the food before.

Source

Here at That's Fit, we often advocate reading food labels to better understand just what's in the food you've chosen to eat. With the recent scare about contaminated foods coming out of China, many people turned to food labels to avoid eating products that may have been imported. But because most foods are not required to put country of origin on their food labels, consumers were still left in the dark.

Current law says that fruit and vegetables, fish, peanuts, and certain cuts of meat must be labeled with country of origin, but until recently, the law wasn't enforced at most meatpacking companies. The bill that required country of origin labeling an all types of meat was delayed until at least 2008, mainly, according to this article, because of Texas senators with strong ties to the beef industry.

But with renewed consumer concern about food safety and with the changing political atmosphere in Washington, those laws are being examined a little more closely and we soon may see the effects on our supermarket shelves. One way to know exactly where your meat is coming from is to buy it from small, local farmers. But if that isn't an option for you, new labeling requirements may help ease your mind about what you're putting on your dinner plate.

Source

It's easy to look at the bottom of a non-food product and find out where it was made, but do you know where your food comes from? Though many companies assemble and distribute processed foods from within the U.S., the ingredients may come from overseas. That's why the recent headlines about manufacturing problems in China have many consumers concerned about the food products they buy.

One health food company thinks it has come up with the answer: a label that declares its products "China-free." The company, Food for Health International, makes nutritional supplements for people and animals. The whole food supplements are made in the United States and contain no raw ingredients from China. The company is hoping the label will ease its customers fears about the possibility of contamination in its products.

Would you like to see a "China-free" labeling system on more products, or do you think it's just another labeling trick to make consumers feel good about the products they're buying? Tell us what you think!

Source

I'm a food label addict. Unless I'm familiar with a product, I don't buy anything without reading the label first. I even have my son reading labels -- "13 grams of sugar, mom! We can't get that!" Packaging claims can be too confusing -- the labels are the most reliable source of information. But the labels themselves can be confusing, too. For example, sometimes serving sizes can be misleading. (Like toaster pastries (which are crap food in any serving size, of course) -- they're packaged two-by-two. But the serving size is one pastry. Who thought that up?) It turns out a lot of us are confused by nutrition labels. A recent survey showed 75% were a bit perplexed by nutrition labels.

Until you get used to reading all the ins and outs of food labels, it's best to simplify things a bit. Basically it's good to keep in mind what you want to avoid and what you want to look for. You want to minimize fats, cholesterol, and sodium and you want to get enough of fiber, vitamins, and minerals.

Source