Finally You Can See How Much Added Sugar Is Hidden in Your Food

[ailsagirl]

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/05/new-food-labels-will-show-added-sugar

[-none]

1. They need to do the same thing for salt.

[ErikJ]

5. Thats sodium.

And pretty hard to hide sodium in the labelling as sodium is sodium.

[Gore1FL]

13. Where is the sodium added line? nt

[ErikJ]

17. Doesnt matter.

Whether its added or natural. The sodium sensitive people know exactly how much sodium theyre sposed to be getting per day. If the sodium is too high they know to avoid it if they care about their health.
Sugars are much trickier because they are different kinds. And naturally occurring shouldnt be a problem unless its very naturally sweet, but the added is usually where the damage comes from.

[Gore1FL]

39. Add sodium would be worth noting, I would think.

I find it difficult to believe that corn syrup is healthy when still part of corn, but not so when added elsewhere.

[Shandris]

2. A very good step in the right direction, although I would recommend having as few labelled...

...foods as humanly possible given one's life/time requirements and obligations. But very, very good to see more, easily digestible information (as opposed to the sugar itself, which is not so easily digested ).

[tkmorris]

23. I am baffled by this post

You seem to be suggesting that FEWER labels would be desirable, because too many labels is a drain on one's time. I don't see that making any sense at all. The more the merrier I say, as more complete information is always preferable. No one is forced to read them. If it is too much of a bother for some folks to read them, well, they don't really have to do they?

I apologize if I misunderstood you somehow.

[TalkingDog]

25. I got the gist of it.

My sister in law taught the nephews, at a very young age, that if the label had more than 5 ingredients, they couldn't buy it.

Fewer labels (probably) equals less prepackaged food.

Which I can fully agree with.

[Shandris]

26. I'm sorry. It sounded better in my head, I suppose. I meant fresh fruits and vegetables, where...

...there would be no need for a label. I guess it wasn't as clear as I thought.

No, I'm absolutely not against labelling foods, not a bit. I'm against people eating so many processed foods, that's all.

No apology needed, all is well.

[metroins]

29. I understood it

I agree with it, but unfortunately don't live that way.

I need to make more foods to go with me for traveling.

[Major Nikon]

42. "processed" is a term that has little meaning

If you slice up a vegetable, you are processing it. If you cook anything, you are processing it. If you add an ingredient to anything else, you are processing it. Unless you are buying meat whole and alive, it's been processed, and if not it almost certainly will need to be processed.

Some forms of processing are inconsequential, and some are not. To try to incorporate such a thing into a label would be misleading at best.

[haikugal]

46. Processed means plenty if you don't buy any. If it's whole when you buy it any processing done is

by you, so it's not processed when in the store. Pretty simple concept.

Any time you do your own cooking you're eating a more healthful diet.

Labels are very important for a variety of reasons and don't have a down side. We need to know what is in our food..be it frozen or packaged.

[Major Nikon]

48. It's pretty simple not to buy processed food

Just buy nothing but whole fresh fruits and vegetables. Virtually everything else is processed in one way or another.

I don't agree with "Any time you do your own cooking you're eating a more healthful diet." If you want to know what's in your food, read the labels. There's lots of great information there.

[haikugal]

59. If your buying whole foods basically cooking for yourself the only things you have to worry

about are sauces, milks, butters etc.....I think you understand. I know what's in my food and unless I'm prepared to do everything myself I can't control what's in it but I should at least be able to get a general if not specific idea with labeling. Right?

[Major Nikon]

62. I wouldn't agree with much of that

Regardless of how much processing you do at home or use products where that's already done you have no more or less need to worry about the nutrition you are getting.

[haikugal]

63. Nutrition?? I can control much of that. However I don't work full time with a family to feed. That's

another thing and much easier to use preprepared foods to put a tasty meal on the table in quick time. Better that than fast food but unless there is money and time to prepare ahead of time it isn't easy to eat well. Poverty changes the equation again.

What are you talking about specifically? You keep changing the goalposts. This isn't a game, people have a right to know what they're eating and feeding their children.

[bemildred]

69. Yes, that's it exactly.

And I lost 60 lbs and a bad case of gout by doing exactly that, plus no meat or yeast derivatives. I cook from scratch, it takes time, but I trust the result, and if I have issues, I have some idea where to look. And you lose all the extra sugar and salt, I salt to taste, because I know how much salt there is already. And it tastes a heck of a lot better too. Fresh food is sweet, you don't need to add much.

There is a reason "home cooked" was used to describe the best tasting food.

[Old Crow]

47. This is a non-issue, really.

The relevant term used by nutritionists is highly-processed, not simply processed. The basic idea is that when it comes to food, the less processing the better since highly-processed foods are typically higher in sodium, sugars, and fats and lower in nutrients and fiber, than foods that are closer to their natural states.

It's a rule-of-thumb, no more, but it's an important rule-of-thumb.

Examples:
Baked potato. Minimally processed: high in nutrition, relatively low in fat and sodium (provided the consumer doesn't load it up with butter, sour cream, and salt).
Homemade french fries. Significantly processed: lower in nutrition, higher in fat and sodium.
Store-bought BBQ-flavored potato chips. Highly-processed: low in nutrition, high in fat, sodium, added sugars, and preservatives.

I can't say I've heard of any proposals to indicate the degree of processing into the NFPs (Nutritional Fact Panels) nor do I think it would be good to try. That said, I think everyone should keep in mind that the fewer highly-processed food items in their grocery carts, the better.

[Major Nikon]

52. Nutritionists use both terms interchangeably

Neither is well defined as far as relevance goes. While what you say might be true, terms like "typically" and "rule of thumb" render any labeling effort nonsensical as you indicate.

It's pretty impractical to avoid all processed foods, and it makes much more sense to know what that processing entails and what nutrition you wind up with. Someone who buys more basic ingredients and then adds even more of those things you mentioned isn't doing themselves any favors. If anything they are making it harder to keep track of exactly what they are putting into their bodies.

It would be great to say people are buying baked potatoes in lieu of potato chips and then not adding excessive fat, but reality doesn't always go that way. Just one tablespoon of butter added to a baked potato adds 1/3rd more fat than a single serving bag of those potato chips you mentioned. Just one dash of salt (1/16th of a tsp) adds more sodium. Most are probably going to add more of those quantities. Most commercial potato chips have almost no added sugar or preservatives, so those things are not high to begin with.

[Old Crow]

55. While I agree with much of what you're stating in your last post...

I think you're minimizing the problems with highly-processed foods. It's not just what's added to highly-processed foods--typically fat, sodium, and sugar--but also what's taken away--nutrients and fiber. A baked potato that's been loaded up with sour cream and butter may have a similar amount of fat and sodium to a highly-processed industrial food product, such as potato chips. But it also has more nutrients (particularly if the potato skin is eaten) and more fiber, which can help you feel more full and lessens the risk of overeating.

A major problem with highly-processed foods is that they've been specifically engineered to encourage overeating. They are low in fiber, high in calories, and chock full of mouthfeel and flavoring ingredients that make it difficult to eat a sensible portion. Doritos would be a great example of this. I seldom have heard of anyone eating three or four baked potatoes in one sitting. But I know plenty of people--myself included--who've consumed the equivalent number of calories when they opened up a "Family Size" bag of Doritos, intending to eat just a couple handfuls, and an hour later, were shocked to find themselves looking into an empty bag.

Damn those food engineers!

[Major Nikon]

57. All purpose flour and white rice also takes a lot away

And there's all sorts of processing steps people do at home that take a lot away.

My point with the potato is that it just isn't that hard to add a lot more sodium and fat at home, and one can also disregard portion sizes while cooking at home. Anything that makes food taste better encourages overeating. While low fiber diets are certainly a problem, there isn't a problem in this country with nutrient deficiency. The problem has more to do with an abundance of them.

Food engineers also make food a lot more convenient. Processed foods, regardless of how you characterize them, just aren't going away. This isn't the 1950's where you have a person that stays at home all day and has more time to cook. People are going to seek out ingredients that save them time. That's why reading labels is so important.

[pangaia]

3. Perhaps an equally misleading number on many of those lables

is serving size.

Things like ( just making this up for now) CHEERIOS-- 110 Calories....
Serving size 1/8 of a cup.

[yeoman6987]

30. I think serving size needs to be updated with reality

It is ridiculous what the government considers serving size. Nobody uses exactly the serving size given or we'd all starve.

[Major Nikon]

44. I use single servings of things most of the time

In many cases, single servings of things is actually too much in a meal when served with other things.

For instance, a single serving of oatmeal is 1/2 cup unprepared. This makes a decent sized bowl once prepared which is quite enough if that's all I'm having, but too much if my breakfast includes other things like meat, fruit, and/or yogurt.

Digital scales are quite cheap and make scaling things up and down very simple.

[jmowreader]

54. "The government" doesn't set serving sizes

And sometimes those "serving sizes" are pretty damn stupid. Case in point - a can of Coca-Cola. For a very long time, the Coca-Cola Company said a "serving" of Coke was eight ounces. Which is great until you consider the only place you're going to drink Coke by the "official serving" is on an airliner. I believe they've corrected it so now a can of Coke is a single serving.

[JimDandy]

4. More transparency is always better

in elections, government and food labels.

[ErikJ]

6. I'm sure the Republicans would love to abolish all labeling of food

and consumer items. To help out their corp buddies.

[Old Crow]

8. Sad to say, the way our democracy has been hijacked...

... many, if not most, Democrats in Washington would also love to abolish all labeling of food.

We've entered the Corporatocracy phase of government, and until Citizens United is repealed and some important reforms of election funding occur, I see little hope of us returning to anything resembling a goverment that acts in the best interests of the majority of the citizens.

[ErikJ]

7. They should make it all in bold including ingredients

so you dont have to wear your reading glasses to read them.

[bemildred]

9. Just don't eat factory food. nt

[Old Crow]

15. Hmmmmm.

I don't think it's realistic to expect families never to buy spaghetti sauce, salad dressing, peanut butter, jam, bread, crackers, or soy milk. All of those everyday products can have widely varying nutritional profiles, including added sugars, and all of which will carry this new nutrition info labeling.

[bemildred]

16. Labelling is good, cooking it yourself is better.

You don't have to get rigid about it, I don't, but I always take the chance when I can.

[Urchin]

36. Not always

Some tomato sauces have no added sugar of any kind (sugar includes corn syrup, cane juice, and a whole bunch of other chemically sounding stuff which is really sugar and without artificial sweeteners, too. There are also salad dressings that are free of added sugars and also free of artificial sweeteners. There's also bread that is free of added sugar (although I suspect bread and potatoes are as bad as sugar because the carbohydrates in bread and potatoes turns to sugar soon as you start to eat them). I know this because I read labels: anything with sugar does not go into my cart. Period. I've totally avoided sugar for more than ten years.
And while I'm at it, dairy products are probably bad for you and I suspect soy may also be unhealthy, but that last I haven't really researched.

[Old Crow]

40. I think you're making my point, actually.

My point was that items just about any family is going to buy--such as bread and pasta sauce--vary widely in nutritional profiles: most have added sugars, some don't; some have a LOT of added sugars, some have relatively few. The only way you're going to know what's in them is by checking the Nutritional Fact Panel (aka, NFP) and ingredients list. That's why I think the revised NFPs are great news.

[ProfessorGAC]

65. You Do Realize That Folks, Just Like Us. . .

. . .work in those factories, right?

Your solution would hurt a lot of people.

[bemildred]

66. I should eat crappy food because it gives people jobs?

Maybe they should make good food. It's not that tricky. I'm not cheap about what I eat.

[ProfessorGAC]

67. Who Says It Crappy?

Every processed food is crappy? That seems an enormous leap of logic.

So, now you're willing to hurt other people without any evidence that everything they make is stuff we shouldn't eat?

Doesn't seem very forgiving.

[bemildred]

68. I do. I get to decide that, for myself.

You will note other people on the thread who seem to share similar sentiments.

[TexasBushwhacker]

10. I'm glad they added potassium and Vitamin D

It doesn't do a lot of good to get plenty of calcium if you aren't getting enough Vitamin D. I tend to get low on potassium, so I like that it's been added.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

14. Potassium has been optional on food labels for years

And vitamin D has been listed for year as well.

[Old Crow]

11. This is HUGE news.

I've been watching some documentaries on NetFlix about the sugar industry and sugar's harmful effects. The importance of this labeling change can't be overestimated. Sugar is killing millions of Americans every year in the forms of Type 2 diabetes and other obesity-related diseases. It would have been still better to have Total Carbohydrates, including added sugars, listed first under the calories, but this is an enormous improvement.

[yeoman6987]

31. It would be nice if they would work to find a cure for diabetes

With all the money spent trying to stop it, they could have found a cure. Many are predisposed to diabetes.

[hopemountain]

12. sugar is now added to tortillas and

pizza dough. excessively. it ruins them.

[Old Crow]

19. Agreed. They keep focus-testing the products...

... on "average citizens" whose senses of taste have been skewed by eating overly-sugary foods. So they add sugar to meet the demands of the skewed palates... which further warps the palates of the consumers. It's a never-ending one-way ratchet. In the end, even table salt will be sold mixed in with 80% sugar in order to meet the taste preferences of these focus groups. (That's hyperbole... I think.)

Sugar is addictive: It retrains the brain into desiring more and more, and skewing the palate for what tastes good and what doesn't. This has been known for decades from countless lab-rat studies. Our entire population is behaving like lab rats that can't stop drinking sugar water from the cage dispenser. It's disturbing to watch.

[hopemountain]

24. yes, the sugar is so refined it is

a completely different chemical. and who knows how much sugar substitute (aspartame to enhance the sweet taste) has further contaminated the "sugar" added to foods.

[Old Crow]

28. You make another good point: Artificial sweeteners are a related problem.

Some studies (again, lab-rat studies) have found that artificial sweeteners compound the sugar problem by exciting the brain to prepare for glucose. When that glucose is not delivered into the digestive tract, sugar cravings occur, with the end result being (in lab rats, at least) that the rats given sugar substitutes went on to eat more sugar than the control rats. In other words: Artificial sweeteners may be making people eat more sugary foods, not less. This would help explain why American obesity rates have skyrocketed at the same time that we've been putting more and more artificial sweeteners in our foods.

What an incredible mess this is.

[hopemountain]

32. and it is not likely the effects of

these substances on children (brains, endocrine systems) are even remotely considered for the potential of side effects.

thanks, old crow for your astute postings.

[Urchin]

37. There's even Sugar in Idodized Salt ! !

I'm pretty sure iodized salt has some kind of sugar in it. I suspect they add the sugar to make the iodine stick to the salt crystals or maybe the sugar disguises the taste of the iodine.

[DesertRat]

22. That's very true

The same holds true for many of our breads and rolls. Way too much sugar added.

[7962]

18. Shouldnt be a problem. Let us decide what we want to buy

And if the lower "added sugar" labels start selling more, they'll get the hint.

[DesertRat]

20. It will happen in about two years

I think it's really a great idea. I also LOVE that they will show the calories in larger bold type and show realistic serving sizes.

[petronius]

21. Those two labels are not supposed to be the exact same food item, correct?

Because if they are, where is that added sugar hidden in the original label?

[QED]

27. 4 g of sugar = 1 teaspoon n/t

[hopemountain]

33. which = 16 calories nt

[zentrum]

34. Wow, how does it get

Last edited Sun May 22, 2016, 09:31 PM - Edit history (1)

…from 1g of sugar to 12g total sugars, when very little else has changed?

Were they actually hiding 10grams of "added sugars"? Why isn't there a lawsuit of some kind over deceptive advertising, and fraud?

[Mosby]

35. since the carbs don't change on the two labels

They are changing what they count as sugar. There is no other explanation if the labels are the same item.

[zentrum]

60. Ah—I see.

So the carbs are the sugars. They are listing the same ingredients twice, with different names.

Thanks.

[DawgHouse]

50. It's confusing to me. I guess I need to study up on added sugars!

[zentrum]

61. Look at the post above at Mosby.

He/she explains it.

The carbs and sugars are the same set of ingredients.

[Equinox Moon]

38. What about the GMO's ????

[Old Crow]

43. Monsanto says you aren't allowed to know about those.

So be quiet and just keep shopping, okay?

[Major Nikon]

45. Did you know this product was made by irradiating seeds with ionizing radiation?

[Old Crow]

49. Can't say that I did. What do seeds...

... irradiated or otherwise, have to do with grapefruit juice?

As an aside, I seldom drink fruit juice. It's a terrible fructose burden on the liver. If I want to taste grapefruit, I'll eat the whole fruit, not drink the juice. The same goes for oranges and apples. What many people don't understand is that downing a large glass of orange juice puts about as much fat into your bloodstream as eating a Big Mac once your liver's done processing the tsunami of fructose.

[Major Nikon]

53. The exact same thing seeds have to do with GMO

...or hybridization, or selective breeding, or any other seed development method that was used to create virtually every other fruit or vegetable you eat.

The point here is that many products, almost certainly including many if not most of the grapefruit you eat, were developed with mutation breeding, which involves either irradiating seeds with ionizing radiation or soaking them in highly toxic chemicals in order to produce genetic mutations. There are literally thousands of cultivars produced just that way and you don't know about them because nobody is going to go out of their way to tell you, not because there's some vast conspiracy to withhold that information. Even if you knew that information, there's no one seed development technology that is inherently that much safer than any other. If anything GMO is the safest because fewer genes are being modified and the results are far less random and far more predictable.

[Old Crow]

56. You're losing me here as a receptive audience.

Upthread you seemed to be arguing that there's no reason to prefer less-processed foods over highly-processed foods. Now you're stating that GMO is "the safest" of all crop development methods.

It may be best to agree to disagree at this point

[Major Nikon]

58. I never claimed there was a reason to prefer one over the other

I was referring to the futility of trying to label things as "processed" or not.

It's pretty easy to say GMO is the safest of all other competing methods. Whether you agree with this or not doesn't change the fact that not a single person has ever been sickened because of GMO.

[womanofthehills]

70. You need to choose your organic milks - Organic Valley - not a corporation

[Major Nikon]

72. Do they make grapefruit juice?

[Duval]

41. The only thing left out was Country of Origin.

I really think we, as consumers, need to know this, too. But, it is a good beginning and very important. Thanks for the post, ailsagirl.
Oh, yeah, what about GMO's?

[Dont call me Shirley]

51. I have almost completely given up packaged foods and rarely eat out.

[Equinox Moon]

64. I'm with you

I do my best to buy organic, local and whole foods. I never eat out.
The basics is where it is at.

[womanofthehills]

71. Same with me - I think I have one can in my cabinet

I live way out in the country so I often buy fresh fruit and vegs and freeze them. You can even freeze fresh grapes. All winter long, I grow cherry tomatoes and lettuce in my windows - I live in a solar house so I have lots of sun. I eat organic only esp due to the Roundup in all the food.

Makes grocery shopping a lot easier - just shop on the edges of the store.