Food labelling

[graj0]

This is sort of related to the thread about health warnings for carbs.

I actually got round to watching "Fed Up" which basically shows how the first dietary guidelines issued by the U.S. government 30 years ago overlooked the role of dietary sugar in increasing risks of obesity, diabetes, and associated ill-health outcomes, particularly in children. (Says Wikipedia).

The one thing that stuck in my mind was how in the US they don't have to put anything in the % Daily Value (Based on 2,000 calorie intake) for sugar. A result of lobbying.

I wondered what we did in the UK, not easy to check when we don't do processed food, but I found a packet of Ryvita or something similar. We now use Reference Intake, replacing Guideline Daily Amounts. RI values are based on an average-sized woman doing an average amount of physical activity. This is to reduce the risk of people with lower energy requirements eating too much, as well as to provide clear and consistent information on labels.

I question the last statement and I wonder what average means. The reference Intake also refers to 2,000 calories per day as the average calorie intake for our average sized woman. I bet there's a lot of men and women who might find 2,000 calories too much. Maybe not so useful after all, but only my opinion.

 

[Yorksman]

Good points.

 

[Celeriac]

Calories were invented by a Frenchman to show how much energy it took to heat a specified amount of water to a specified temperature. It was never designed to compare the energy values of different foods consumed by humans. No exerise bike can tell you that you burned 140 calories accurately, since our metabolisms are different.

A calorie is not a calorie, otherwise people on low carb diets would all get fatter.

I wouldn't let a morsel of American food past my lips unless it was organic, as their lack of food labelling is truly frightening.

 

[TorqPenderloin]

A calorie is not a calorie, otherwise people on low carb diets would all get fatter.

A calorie is a calorie just like a meter is a meter. It's a basic unit of measurement. There is also a perfectly logical (and scientific) explanation as to why low carb diets are effective beyond simple calorie counting.

You're certainly entitled to your own opinon about American food. However, as an American myself, it's the "Organic" foods around here that scare me more.

No sarcasm intended: how would you suggest we measure our body's energy consumption and exertion?

 

[graj0]

I initially mentioned calories because that's what's on the packet as it were. If you were to Google nutritional information the panel that comes up on the right hand side is in the US format, without the % DV for sugar. As a UK diabetic I'm not going to worry about it, I avoid sugar anyway.

This is what is says on the panel:-

*Per cent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet. Your daily values may be higher or lower depending on your calorie needs.

I'd be hard pushed to see any great differences between food labeling standards in the US and the UK and in the year that I spent living in the US, I'd say the standard of the food itself was very high indeed. The choice and quality of fruit and vegetables in the Safeway and Walmart that I went to was impressive.

Calories may not be the best way of measuring food intake against calories burned, just the best we've got, unless you like Weightwatchers' points which would keep you off anything with fat in.