I like to think of myself as a fairly educated shopper when it comes to understanding nutrition labels at the grocery store (because I read so much about it) but I still find myself getting confused or overwhelmed sometimes when trying to keep everything straight. "Make sure there are no trans fats and not too much added sugar or artificial preservatives, go for organic as much as possible, how much fiber is considered enough in a serving? And what does 'low-fat' really mean? ... " The list goes on and the makers of food nutrition labels are looking to capitalize on that mess as best they can. See the gallery below for nine of the most common ways food labels try to mislead and confuse us all.

Which ones are the toughest for you to deal with?

Source

It's the age-old game of marketing: much of it promises something it will never deliver. All those tasty pictures on the boxes of frozen foods are just as bad a culprit as anything. Can you really expect restaurant-quality food in a frozen box that costs $3 to $4?

Looking at this gallery, some frozen food customers loved the taste and feel of some prepackaged frozen foods while some products were totally shunned. Some brands that I've studied include Marie Callender's, Boston Market and Night Hawk. My experience with each was unique, as these brands looked decent after cooking (microwaving), but did not compare to a freshly-prepared meal.

My "worst" list includes brands like Banquet and Hungry Jack, both of which I found disgusting. But, being cheaper in price, you get what you pay for when you're selecting items from the frozen food cases at your local grocer.

What's your experience with frozen foods? For what you pay and the convenience you receive, are you regularly satisfied with them? Which brands are your favorites?

Source

If you were to find out how many calories was in that alcoholic beverage, would you be apt to drink less than you currently do? If you're into dieting and watching your caloric intake, probably yes.

The labeling of sugar, calories and preservatives is absent in beer and wines here in the U.S. If many of us were to know what we were drinking, we'd probably cut back a bit. That is, if we were concerned about weight gain.

In an April 2007 survey, 75 percent of respondents said that they wanted to see both ingredients and nutritional information displayed on alcoholic beverage packaging. Would you?

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

Almonds are delicious and nutritious. If you can find the raw kind (not subject to irradiation), the healthy effect of these excellent nuts can be had while your taste buds get a treat.

In a unique study, a group of women were given a daily diet that included about 350 calories of almonds a day for nearly two-and-a-half months. Another group were given a customary diet for the same period, minus the almonds.

Result? The group that consumed almonds daily did not gain weight at all during the period in addition to having a good dose of vitamin E and magnesium, two components found in ample supply inside almonds. The fiber in the almonds was also found to actually block absorption of some of the fats almonds contain as well. Odd but true.

Source

Perhaps the purveyors of sugary food are trying to make a stab at actually providing consumers with easy-to-use nutritional information. At least, that is what I see with the latest press from Kelloggs.

One of the most popular breakfast cereal brands will unleash a new "Nutrition at a Glance" label on its cereal boxes this fall. The new label was designed to give consumers easier ways to measure nutrition information outside of the easily-manipulated "Nutrition Facts" that can relay unrealistic serving sizes to make products appear healthier than they really are.

The first products from Kellogg's will include its "ready-to-eat" packages of cereal, and the new nutrition banners will include calorie, fat, sugar and sodium content in addition to RDA information compared to what an adult would eat in terms of mineral amounts. I have to give Kellogg's credit here. This is a great first step and others should replicate it soon.

Source

Are those helpful (and tricky) "Nutrition Facts" labels headed to an alcoholic container near you? Possibly, if the U.S. Treasury Department gets its way. It's interesting here that the U.S. Treasury Department is the organization considering this, and not a food-related federal department.

That federal department is considering a new rule that would require companies to put content, serving sizes and related nutrition information on alcoholic drink packaging.

Since drinks from beer to wine to spirits do contain calories and do have an affect on the human body (duh!), this makes sense I believe. Are you for it? Do you really want to know how many calories are in those beer bottles?

Source

Made with whole grain. You can take a trip down nearly any aisle in the grocery store and see this phrase splashed upon unlikely products like sugary cereals, white bread, and chocolate-coated cereal bars. Or how about a package of licorice that's labeled "Cholesterol free?" Call me crazy, but I don't think licorice ever contained cholesterol, did it?

As health becomes more of a focus in the face of the obesity epidemic, food manufacturers are starting to get on board with healthier products. Some are also making tricky nutritional claims (like cholesterol free licorice) that are true statements, but can trick a consumer into thinking they're getting something better for their health when all they're really getting is junk. General Mills, Kellogg, and Pepsi-Co are just a few of the companies that are producing healthier versions of popular products and/or adding new healthier products to their line-up. But are these products truly healthy? It takes a savvy consumer to know the difference.

Take the box of Cocoa Puffs sitting in my cupboard (I know, I know... it's terrible. I bought them as a special treat for my son.) The front of the box has a label that says "with whole grain" -- is it true? Yes, the first ingredient on the label is "Corn (Whole Grain Corn, Meal)." But I don't know how many whole grains there actually are per serving; it's safe to say there isn't the 51% per serving required for it to be considered a good source of whole grain. That's why the label says "with" in small letters and " whole grain" in a bigger font -- "with" is one tiny little preposition that can cause a big mess of confusion. The box also has an icon of a running kid with the words "12 Vitamins and Minerals," an icon of a glass of milk saying "Good Source of Calcium," and an icon showing its 110 calories per serving. All true statements. What they don't advertise on the front of the box is the 12 grams of sugar per serving. So is this box of Cocoa Puffs healthy? Absolutely not. The only thing it's healthier than is the former version of Cocoa Puffs that General Mills used to manufacture.

Source

Do you believe the details that are found on the "nutrition facts" labels on the foods you buy? I've been a little skeptical for a while, as manufacturers routinely change "serving size" suggestions on packages to claim that servings (the size of a walnut) have low fat and calories. Who eats meals the size of a walnut?

Anyway, a Canadian researcher has discovered that, in fact, nutrition labels are often inaccurate. His research included items like baby biscuits, breakfast waffles, pancake mix and chicken fingers. That's a pretty decent cross section of foods, right?

Canadian law even allows for a 20% discrepancy between reality and facts on nutrition labeling, something I find appalling. 20 percent? That is way over the line (5 percent should be maximum). As always, if you're interested in your own health, proper research into your diet and nutrition is all that will help you. Sounding cynical? I am -- and I'm not even in Canada.

Source

I don't read nutrition labels as often as I should, but when it comes to small treats like cookies or candy, I'm awful about it. Mostly, because -- while I may have read the package's label at the store -- I never think about how many calories are in a single cookie. Why would I? It's just one, right?

Ahem. Well, here's a cookie that would fix that problem -- immediately. This bad boy weighs in at 2.1 ounces, is packed with 260 calories, and tells you right on the front -- in edible ink.

Friendly for your diet? Sure. But not for your wallet, unfortunately. Because each confection is considered conceptual art as well as a tantalizing treat, they're $25 for two. Ouch.

Maybe I'll go back to blissful ignorance.

Source

Looks like the European Union is embarking on a two-year plan to best decide how to label foods from a "front of pack" perspective that will ensure customers really see what is inside all those foods they are buying and eating.

This would be a great move for the U.S. food industry as well, as marketers have taken over food packaging with bright, vibrant colors in many cases and advertising bullet points that are just slightly believable and at worst very misleading. Just moving the label to the front of packaging would be a great first step -- even a less-informative version.

Want to have a wake-up call the next time you are at the grocery store? Shop for your favorite foods and compare each using the "Nutrition Facts" label on each on. Compare serving size, ingredients, calories and saturated fat levels.

Source

Not everyone looks at nutrition labels, but expert consensus is: you should.

That's why the Food and Drug Administration has launched two websites to help people better understand nutrition labels. One site, Making Calories Count, takes the user through exercises to help plan a healthful diet while managing calorie intake.

This is a great idea, but the implementation is awful. The site's design is not only a visual abomination, but it's so difficult to navigate that it's more work to figure out how to use the "Training Modules" than it was to understand the nutrition labels in the first place.

But maybe I'm just dumb. Did you visit the site? What did you think?

Source

Are you puzzled by the "Nutrition Info" labels now required on almost all processed and organic foods? Sometimes I am, although I've made it a habit to research about 70 to 80 ingredients and chemicals founds in the foods I purchase to know exactly what I am eating. Since I only drink water -- and the occasional social drink -- it's all about food for me.

I'm not alone -- being confused about food labels, that is. Well, I was confused until doing my own research years ago, and it continues today when I find I am not knowledgeable about a certain ingredient in something I am consuming. For example, most nutritionists know that Monosodium Glutamate -- or MSG -- is a perfect flavor enhancer, but is also known to be an endocrine system disruptor.

It's amazing to me that an ingredient like this is still legal to be put into foods, but it is. Yet, seeing "MSG" on a label means very little to millions of consumers who cannot understand what they are reading. Now, although this source article speaks specifically about the breakdown of fat, sugar, carbohydrates and calories on food labels, the ingredients is an area of the food label that is much more important if you ask me.

Source