Nutritional Labels

[memartha]

I've been thinking about the "Nutrition Facts" labels on boxes, bags etc. of food, and esp. since the Pirate's Booty incident, have been paying close attention to all labels. Have you ever computed the fat/carbo/protein and found your number does not equal what the box says? This bugs me.

For example, on the Kashi Go Lean Crunch box, the Nutrition Facts states one cup has 190 calories and 3 grams of fat, 36 g total carb., and 9 g protein. Well, if carbs. and protein each have 4 calories per gram, that's 180 calories plus 27 calories for the 3 grams of fat (3 x 9 calories per gram of fat = 27) so that's 207 calories for a serving, NOT 190. I have seen even bigger discrepancies, sometimes on products that appear to have been produced outside the US.

Not that I have THAT MUCH time on my hands to worry about such stuff, but it does make you wonder what else isn't exactly correct about food labels. Yeah, it's great that they are there, but how many of them are actually correct???? Thanks for letting me rant! Martha

[wallycat]

The government has weird laws about what has to actually be counted...I did a story on this once and it gives food for thought.
For example, something can be called "fat free" and still contain fat, provided that PER SERVING, there is less than a certain agreed upon amount set by the government.
How many people eat JUST THE SERVING SIZE??? Which means, a fat-free dressing, given enough TBS, could add up to an appreciable amount of fat over time.

[HelenMS]

Kind of like that "zero-calorie" butter spray. I read in Prevention that a bottle actually has 900 calories and 90 grams of fat. However, if you only use three sprays (and who only uses that little?) it's technically zero calories and fat.

[memartha]

I guess... I need to mellow out! I take everything very literally/everything is black or white with me, no gray allowed! From now on, I'll stop calculating and just use my common sense about stuff. Thanks.

[Molli526]

Originally posted by HelenMS
Kind of like that "zero-calorie" butter spray. I read in Prevention that a bottle actually has 900 calories and 90 grams of fat. However, if you only use three sprays (and who only uses that little?) it's technically zero calories and fat.

Please tell me this is not so! OMG!!! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Well, that explains some things. Wow, I douse when I use ICBN Butter Spray. I always thought it was chemicals, not actual butter. WOW! I guess that is what I get. Hmm, always thought I was making a healthier choice.

[Jewel]

Originally posted by Molli526
Hmm, always thought I was making a healthier choice.

Molli, you ARE making a better choice with that spray! :) It's flavor packed so you shouldn't need as much. Work on limiting yourself to 3 or 4 sprays and see if you LIKE the food you're putting it on just as well! If you need more add it, but you probably slather more out of habit than real need for the buttery flavor!

[juliew]

About the nutritional labels... With the example given (Kashi go Lean) this may just be a case where rounding the numbers off is causing the discrepancy. Say for real the carb count is 35.5g (rounds to 36) the protein count is 8.5g (rounds to 9) and the fat content is 2.5g (rounds to 3). This would give you a calorie count of 198.5. Now if the calories per gram for carbs and protein is actually 3.5 (rounds to 4) and calories per fat is actually 8.5 (rounds to 9) and you can use these numbers you can get a calorie count of 173.5. Obviously these are the extreme cases, but there is a lot of error in rounding and this may be part of the discrepency. (it is also how you can get a zero-calorie spray when the whole bottle actually has 900calories in it - make the serving small enough that the calories round down) If I remember correctly from high school chemistry the way food companies actually measure these things is actually more accurate. Of course, there may be companies that lie too!

[Shirley Panek]

I thought I read something in CL once about nutritional info. I thought they said that some things aren't counted into the "full" counts - say, you are marinating some flank steak, instead of counting the total calories, fat, etc. for the whole marinade, the count only what would be absorbed by the meat. That's why counts with MasterCook are sometimes off from those that are printed in the magazine (if you're just typing the recipe in.)

Does that make sense? I swear I am not making this up. Please, someone tell me they remember reading/hearing about this too! ;) :)

[HRJ]

Shirley, I don't remember the article you're talking about, but of course it makes sense!

If you're not eating most of the marinade ingredients, they shouldn't be counted toward the nutro. info. Similarly, if you're cooking with wine in which the alcohol "cooks off" during the preparation process, that would affect the nutro. information too.

About the butter substitutes -- I think you'd have to use an incredible amount of it per serving to equal the amount of fat in real butter -- and, if it's monounsaturated fat or polyunsatured fat, that's better than the saturated fat in butter.

On the other hand, margarine used to be considered a healthier choice than butter, and then we learned about the evil trans-fats. Sometimes it seems like you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. :(

Helene