"Sugars" in UK food labelling (M&S)

[MrsA2]

I recently bought some flatbread crackers from M&S as they looked quite good carb-wise but I've noticed something about the labelling.
On the front "sugars" per slice is shown as 0.4
BUT on the back on the official nutritional label carbs are 5.2 per slice, quite a difference.
I can't see any added sugar in the ingredients, so where do these "sugars" come from?
Also if I were having to dose insulin by carb counting, what would I count, the 5.2 or the 0.4?
I believe its the former, and if so is it not misleading to show "sugars" on the front in this way?

Your comments appreciated

 

[NicoleC1971]

I recently bought some flatbread crackers from M&S as they looked quite good carb-wise but I've noticed something about the labelling.
On the front "sugars" per slice is shown as 0.4
BUT on the back on the official nutritional label carbs are 5.2 per slice, quite a difference.
I can't see any added sugar in the ingredients, so where do these "sugars" come from?
Also if I were having to dose insulin by carb counting, what would I count, the 5.2 or the 0.4?
I believe its the former, and if so is it not misleading to show "sugars" on the front in this way?

Your comments appreciated

View attachment 55761 View attachment 55763

You would dose for 5.2g as all that carb turn into sugars in any case.
I can't work out where the tiddly amount of sugar comes from other than the mention of 'malted' barley perhaps?
Hope that confirms your suspicions. The food label at the back is the real data as the stuff front of pack is just marketing normally! e.g. low or no added sugar when it is actually mainly carbohydrate is a classic IMO and not helpful to diabetics.

 

[Grant_Vicat]

I recently bought some flatbread crackers from M&S as they looked quite good carb-wise but I've noticed something about the labelling.
On the front "sugars" per slice is shown as 0.4
BUT on the back on the official nutritional label carbs are 5.2 per slice, quite a difference.
I can't see any added sugar in the ingredients, so where do these "sugars" come from?
Also if I were having to dose insulin by carb counting, what would I count, the 5.2 or the 0.4?
I believe its the former, and if so is it not misleading to show "sugars" on the front in this way?

Your comments appreciated

View attachment 55761 View attachment 55763

The main culprit is wheat and barley which are carbs. They probably do only have 0.4 g of actual sugar, but since the whole thing becomes blood glucose plus minimal excess undigestable elements they should be classed as 5.2 in your case! Sorry, there was no other response when I clicked this!

 

[AshrafUM920]

I recently bought some flatbread crackers from M&S as they looked quite good carb-wise but I've noticed something about the labelling.
On the front "sugars" per slice is shown as 0.4
BUT on the back on the official nutritional label carbs are 5.2 per slice, quite a difference.
I can't see any added sugar in the ingredients, so where do these "sugars" come from?
Also if I were having to dose insulin by carb counting, what would I count, the 5.2 or the 0.4?
I believe its the former, and if so is it not misleading to show "sugars" on the front in this way?

Your comments appreciated

View attachment 55761 View attachment 55763

I tend to ignore the "of which sugars" and just look at the carbohydrate -so, 5.2g per 17.5g is not bad

 

[Antje77]

Also if I were having to dose insulin by carb counting, what would I count, the 5.2 or the 0.4?
I believe its the former, and if so is it not misleading to show "sugars" on the front in this way?

What the people above said, and no, it's not misleading.
All sugars are carbs but not all carbs are sugars.

 

[MrsA2]

My suspicions of M&S were raised when their current Tom Kerridge recipes were released. They don't show carbs, only "sugars" but they don't explain what "sugars" are. Of course all the recipes have considerable carbs in, but I still think they should be made to show carbs, not "sugars" as I don't know what they mean by this term.
If M&S is moving to this terminology who else may follow?

 

[lovinglife]

I have one of these occasionally- usually broken up for cheese and biscuits and they don’t raise my BS - I eat less than 20g carb a day. I never read the front blurb on stuff always go right to the nutrition label, that’s where the real info is

 

[zand]

It isn't only M&S, that's the way most (all?) companies do it. I don't have many carby things in the house but the 2 things I have checked in my cupboard ( custard powder and gravy powder) are labelled in the same way. Most people only care about sugars. The government tell us sugar is bad. They don't mention carbs.

 

[Antje77]

My suspicions of M&S were raised when their current Tom Kerridge recipes were released. They don't show carbs, only "sugars" but they don't explain what "sugars" are. Of course all the recipes have considerable carbs in, but I still think they should be made to show carbs, not "sugars" as I don't know what they mean by this term.
If M&S is moving to this terminology who else may follow?

There's a big difference between recipes and store bought products.
Products by law have to be labeled with the nutritional info.
Recipes do not. You can work them out from the ingredients.
All brands have been advertising with 'low or no sugars' shouty at the front of packages for decades.
We do our dosing from the back of packages, where the nutritional information is.

 

[Rokaab]

If M&S is moving to this terminology who else may follow?

As said most have shown carbs on the back and 'of which sugars' on the back as well for donkeys years - what they choose to show on the front I've never bothered looking at cos its never been the useful stuff for myself (its what the current health people think is useful for the most people - but that doesn't mean everyone).
I've had to look at the carbs on the back rather than anything else for a long long long time now (multiple decades).

 

[MrsA2]

Well I did a lot more reading of fronts of packets in the supermarket today, and yes, many more were quoting "sugars" than I had noted before.
Maybe it's a positive that I buy so few processed foods these days that I hadn't spotted this before
Of course most had "sugars" that were much closer to the carb values quotes. These flatbread must remain unusual

Thanks for your input everyone

 

[david4503]

Can anyone explain what the advantage might be to any of us in separating out amount of sugar from total carbohydrates in labeling? I’m used to seeing packaging touting low sugar or no sugar but not the potentially confusing and misleading way of listing nutritional information shown in the OP. I’d guess the explanation has more to do with people who don’t like or want to avoid sugar.

 

[RoughcutAU]

While only listing the “sugar” content on the front of packaging might not be particularly useful for some people if you really want to drill down to the “nitty gritty” it does serve a purpose. Not all carbs are created equal hence the glycaemic index. There is a big difference between eating something with 15 grams of carbs in it that are made up of things other then sugar then eating 15 grams of carbs thats mainly sugar. Hence eating lollies and not a slice of bread for a hypo treatment.

 

[david4503]

Let me put it this way. Food packaging is heavy, heavy marketing. Saying low sugar or no sugar, however you do it, is going to encourage a certain kind of customer to pick your product off the shelf. On the practical side, knowing the sugar content is not going to help a non-diabetic much. Food producers mainly use other, cheaper sweeteners, like corn syrup, anyway. For a diabetic, most processed foods don’t have enough actual sugar to be a big factor. Again, they’re using other sweeteners or fat for flavor, so you really need to be looking at total calories right off the bat.

Also, the sugars in most processed food are not only minimal these days, they’re also the slower-acting kind. Even a chocolate bar will take a lot longer to raise your blood sugar than a glass of orange juice. Anyway, I think food labeling is a jungle and people need either a good compass or a personal guide. I understand where the OP is coming from.

 

[bulkbiker]

I recently bought some flatbread crackers from M&S as they looked quite good carb-wise but I've noticed something about the labelling.
On the front "sugars" per slice is shown as 0.4
BUT on the back on the official nutritional label carbs are 5.2 per slice, quite a difference.
I can't see any added sugar in the ingredients, so where do these "sugars" come from?
Also if I were having to dose insulin by carb counting, what would I count, the 5.2 or the 0.4?
I believe its the former, and if so is it not misleading to show "sugars" on the front in this way?

Your comments appreciated

View attachment 55761 View attachment 55763

They are still almost 30% carbs..which would be a huge red flag for me.

 

[lovinglife]

They are still almost 30% carbs..which would be a huge red flag for me.

Yes that’s true, but they are very seedy and one piece is very filling and the nutritional value of the fibre and protein along with the carbs are very close to the keto crackers I used to make (obviously they have wheat and bran in them so are not strictly keto), but with some cheese and celery one cracker is a very satiating meal. I do appreciate you are full on carnivore so I understand they wouldn’t be your choice, I tolerate them extremely well as part of a meal

 

[Oldvatr]

I recently bought some flatbread crackers from M&S as they looked quite good carb-wise but I've noticed something about the labelling.
On the front "sugars" per slice is shown as 0.4
BUT on the back on the official nutritional label carbs are 5.2 per slice, quite a difference.
I can't see any added sugar in the ingredients, so where do these "sugars" come from?
Also if I were having to dose insulin by carb counting, what would I count, the 5.2 or the 0.4?
I believe its the former, and if so is it not misleading to show "sugars" on the front in this way?

Your comments appreciated

View attachment 55761 View attachment 55763

Interesting. Not suitable for those allergic to milk, egg , or soya, None of these are listed as ingredients. But Flour Treatment Agent is -eh? Wot, no e numbers? That's Brexit for you.

 

[lovinglife]

Interesting. Not suitable for those allergic to milk, egg , or soya, None of these are listed as ingredients. But Flour Treatment Agent is -eh? Wot, no e numbers? That's Brexit for you.

Maybe they can’t guarantee they haven’t been made in an area free from emboldened allergens. Maybe no E numbers because there isn’t any? They have to be listed if they’re in there. Flour Treatment Agent is the ascorbic acid (vitamin C)

 

[Oldvatr]

Maybe they can’t guarantee they haven’t been made in an area free from emboldened allergens. Maybe no E numbers because there isn’t any? They have to be listed if they’re in there. Flour Treatment Agent is the ascorbic acid (vitamin C)

Ascorbic acid when added is either E 300, E301 or E 302. We must hterfore presume the area was free of nut traces.

 

[HSSS]

Can anyone explain what the advantage might be to any of us in separating out amount of sugar from total carbohydrates in labeling? I’m used to seeing packaging touting low sugar or no sugar but not the potentially confusing and misleading way of listing nutritional information shown in the OP. I’d guess the explanation has more to do with people who don’t like or want to avoid sugar.

Well the U.K. don’t list total carbs, we separate out fibre already on all labels, as do most of Europe, Australia and new Zealand to name a few. We use what the USA term net carbs but don’t bother using the word net.
So we already differentiate the various types of carbs by doing that. (The fact that they pass through rather than digest is a good argument why it’s done).

For most diabetics the main valuable figure is (net) carbs. But the media and mainstream like to focus on sugar as the only baddie to health and ignore the fact the rest of the (net) carbs also turn into the same glucose actual sugar does. I guess for a fast acting hypo treatment the simply sugar figure would be useful. Can’t think of any other real reason.

the front of packet info is marketing and “health promotion” designed to help people make quick good choices whilst shopping. I find it confusing and misleading too.