INFORMATION AND SERVICES FOR FOOD BUSINESSES

Food/Nutrition Bloopers from Restaurants,
Food Companies, Web sites and NEWS Media

The following are actual quotes or observations. The latest entries are at the top; our comments are in italics. Some of these errors/misinformation have been subsequently corrected by their source and some have not.

216. A Web article on little-known facts about nutrition labels states that sulfites don’t need to be declared in a product’s ingredients. FEBRUARY 2010
Not exactly. A sulfiting agent that “has no technical effect in that food will be considered to be present in an insignificant amount only if no detectable amount of the agent is present in the finished food. A detectable amount of sulfiting agent is 10 parts per million or more of the sulfite in the finished food” (pursuant to 21CFR101.100 of U.S. food labeling regulations; emphasis added). Wines, beers and spirits containing 10 ppm or more of sulfites also must declare them. Note: 10 ppm is very small. Naturally-occurring sulfites in grapes cause most wines to have at least 10 ppm even when sulfites are not added. Sulfites in food products range up to 6000 ppm.
215. A nutrition consultant/chef’s recipe for macaroni & cheese is described as “light and healthy” in a news article. JANUARY 2010
This recipe uses very small portions to keep the calories down (only ½ cup cooked pasta per serving), but still uses plenty of cheese and whole milk in the sauce. According to our analysis, the result is a mac & cheese with 18 g fat (1/3 of the Daily Value/max), including 10 g saturated fat (1/2 the Daily Value/max) for something with only about 1/5 your daily calories and very little fiber (unless you substitute whole grain pasta). If this were served in a restaurant, it could not be described as “healthy” (a regulated claim), due to the high fat and saturated fat content. There are many ways to lower the fat and increase the nutrient value of this recipe (using some or all whole grain pasta, lower-fat milk and less or reduced-fat cheese; adding vegetables, etc.).
214. The Nutrition Facts for a sweetened, dried cherry product shows 0 mg potassium and 10 g fiber. DECEMBER 2009
Both amounts are way off. All fruits and vegetables contain a fair amount of potassium (there’s about 400 mg in a portion of raw cherries with the same calories as the ¼ cup serving of dried, sweetened sour cherries, and drying doesn’t reduce potassium), so potassium should be at least 300 mg. As for fiber, it should be half the amount stated or less. A similar-calorie portion of raw sour cherries has only about 4.5 g of fiber, and that’s without all the added sugar in the dried cherries taking up space and calories.
213. In a newspaper opinion piece, a former judge in California states that California’s menu labeling law goes into effect in 2011. NOVEMBER 2009
The first phase of the law went into effect in July 2009. See also, Fact Sheet.
212. A blog states that all food and beverage products, including bottled water, must have a nutrition label. OCTOBER 2009
This is incorrect. The US FDA allows various exemptions from nutrition labeling. One is a small business exemption, and another is for foods and beverages with no nutritional value, such as plain bottled water. But any exemption is waived when a nutrient or health claim (e.g., “low sodium”) is made -- a Nutrition Facts panel is required to substantiate the claim.
211. A food and health blog states that food companies alter serving sizes to control the information on Nutrition Facts labels. SEPTEMBER 2009
This generally does not happen, and is not legal. U.S. food labeling regulations spell out serving sizes in 21 CFR section 101.12. When a packaged product contains other than one serving, the way to determine the number of servings is also spelled out (21 CFR 101.9(b)(8)). There is a good reason for using consistent serving sizes for all similar foods – it allows easy comparison of similar foods from a nutrition standpoint. It is also necessary when nutrition or health claims are made for a food. If a company wants to amend the established serving size for a particular food, they must petition FDA with lots of paperwork.
210. In an online news article a dieting chef recommends making sandwiches on flatbread rather than regular bread to reduce carbohydrates. AUGUST 2009
Just because something takes up less space doesn’t mean it has fewer calories or carbohydrates. Equal weight portions of pita, for example, and French bread have almost identical calorie and carbohydrate content (56 g carbohydrate per 100 g bread). This is because both are made mostly of flour and water. The only thing that would change the percentage of calories coming from carbohydrate would be use of whole grains (adds more fiber and protein, which would be replacing some digestible carbohydrate), or adding fat (which makes the bread heavier, increasing the percentage of calories from fat and decreasing that from carbs, but this would also increase total calories on a weight basis). A better “diet trick” is to simply use smaller pieces of bread, whether flat or not, and make sure they contain whole grains (and of course cut back on spreads and fatty meats/cheese, which also will decrease sodium significantly).
209. A nut and grain bar with 11 g sugar is promoted as “low in sugar.” JULY 2009
There are a few issues here. First of all, there is no definition for “low in sugar” in food labeling, and therefore this claim is not permitted. And since the product contains honey (it’s the second ingredient), it cannot claim “no added sugar.” White table sugar is not the only source of the class of carbohydrates called “sugars” (others include honey, agave syrup, barley malt, molasses, juice concentrate, etc.). One of the reasons there is no “low in sugar” claim is because there is nothing fundamentally wrong with sugar – it’s what the body needs for energy and it is in many whole foods such as milk, vegetables and fruit (where 90+% of calories can come from sugars), all of which provide other nutrients at the same time. Of course, as with fat and protein, too much is not a good thing, since excess calories, from any source, will lead to weight gain.
208. A sign posted over fresh produce at a major natural foods chain states that white corn is a good source of vitamin C and is very low in cholesterol. JUNE 2009
Corn is more than “very low in cholesterol” -- it has zero, just like all plant foods. And with only 5 mg vitamin C per 85 g serving (cooked), it is not a good source. A good source would have at least 6 mg vitamin C, which many other fruits and vegetables easily exceed. Aside from some fiber and 12% of the DV for thiamin, white corn is not much of a nutrition powerhouse.
207. An online listing of nutrition info for restaurants shows a steakhouse burger as having 392 calories per 1/2 serving, 405 calories from fat, 0 grams saturated fat and 0 grams protein. MAY 2009
Ooops. It is impossible to have more calories from fat than there are total calories, impossible for a meat burger to have 0 g protein, and with a whopping 45 grams of fat, it will contain quite a bit of saturated fat. Apparently, some of the data is for ½ serving, some is for a whole burger, and some is simply missing (but shown as “0”). We have found many such errors in online listings of restaurant nutrition information, as well as a lack of ingredient listings, weights of the servings, and sources of the data, which make it impossible to even guess at the accuracy (when the numbers aren’t flagrantly off as in this case, even though no one seems to have noticed after more than a month).
206. A newspaper article and editorial cite the cost for nutrition analysis per restaurant menu item at up to $5,000, based on restaurant group estimates. APRIL 2009
It is also possible to pay $1000 for a hamburger, but that is not the going/ typical rate. We don’t know of any nutrition analysis that costs more than $900 per menu item, and that is for chemical analysis (where a lab analyzes an actual sample of each dish), which is not usually necessary. Most menu items can be analyzed with database software, and the price to have a reputable service do this ranges from about $50 to $200, depending on number and complexity of ingredients and bulk discounts for large menus. See our Food Startup/Tune-up Kit for some of the do-it-yourself options, in addition to our in-house service at Palate Works.
205. A restaurant press release mentions “low-calorie oatmeal” when discussing menu nutrition. MARCH 2009
A bowl of oatmeal (one cup cooked is the FDA-defined serving size) has 165 calories even before any sweetener or toppings are added. To qualify as “low calorie” a serving of food must have no more than 40 calories. Just because a food is relatively healthy or a good source of nutrients (oatmeal is a good source of fiber and iron) does not mean it is low in calories. Very few foods are actually low in calories. Those that are tend to be high in water (and therefore not “caloric-dense”), including most vegetables and some fruits, but never grains, which by definition are mostly starch, not water. The easiest way to lower the calories of any food is to lower the portion size, but to make a “low calorie” claim, the data must be given for a standard/regulation serving size so that everything is compared using the same guidelines. For oatmeal, that portion size must be one cup cooked, therefore oatmeal is never “low in calories.”
204. A licensed dietitian/nutritionist writing for a newspaper states that FTC, not FDA, controls nutrition labeling issues. FEBRUARY 2009
Actually, FTC has “primary responsibility for regulating food advertising, while FDA has ... primary responsibility for regulating food labeling.” (See FTC and FDA links.)
203. An article by a dietitian in a major women’s magazine lists 10 nutritious foods with “relatively few calories.” JANUARY 2009
The first food, almonds, are, like most nuts, fairly high in fat by weight and therefore are definitely not low in calories. Also listed is olive oil, which, like all oils, is 100% fat and thus is as high in caloric density as you can get in a food. These two foods offer nutritional advantages, but they are not low in calories.
202. A “nutrition expert” interviewed by a news station selects “best bets” in fast food for healthier options. DECEMBER 2008
Just because a small sandwich with fries has fewer calories than a larger sandwich (with fresh veggies, instead of fries), does not mean it is healthier, despite what this “nutrition expert” says. A calorie count is a function of portion size. It does not tell how much protein, fiber and other beneficial nutrients are in one menu item compared to another. Calories can be reduced simply by eating less of a food (e.g., cutting a sandwich in half will reduce its calories by half). The news piece (and expert) also made the mistake of thinking there is a significant difference between 710 and 770 calories for a sandwich. That 8% difference is much smaller than the 20% margin of error allowed for restaurant nutrition info (meaning the 710-calorie sandwich legally could have 852 calories, and the 770 one might have only 616 calories). And then there is the whole accuracy issue. Depending on the method of analysis used, who is making the sandwich (how much mayo, etc. is applied), and many other factors, the same sandwich can have either 710 or 770 calories. It is more important to compare multiple nutrients when judging the healthfulness of a food or menu item (on a per calorie basis, if possible), and then eat an amount that provides appropriate calories for your needs (no law requires that you eat the whole thing).
201. A list of “worst ‘healthy’ foods” includes yogurt with fruit on the bottom. NOVEMBER 2008
If choosing between yogurt with fruit on the bottom and one with the fruit pre-mixed (“Swiss style”), the one with fruit on the bottom is much better. There is no requirement to use ALL the fruit sitting at the bottom. It is optional, and easy, to stir up only a small amount (or none) and leave the rest at the bottom, thereby limiting sugar content to 10 g or less for a healthy cup of yogurt when no fresh fruit is available. It is also possible to add your own toppings, such as ground flax seed, to increase the balance of nutrients. This should be obvious. Also, this list of “worst healthy foods” often does not compare “apples to apples,” but foods that are inherently not comparable to begin with, rather than offering options that are similar but better. For example: A cheese omelet is recommended over a bagel with cream cheese, rather than suggesting a whole grain bagel lightly spread with reduced fat or whipped cream cheese (or a thin spread of nut butter) and topped with sliced fruit. This would be lower in calories, total fat and saturated fat (and higher in fiber and other nutrients) than a typical omelet made with butter and cheese. The list authors also state that margarine was created to offer an alternative to butter without all the saturated fat. Actually, it was created over 100 years ago for its long shelf-life and cheaper price. We didn’t know about the health effects of saturated fat then. Butter was a luxury item, not a health concern.
200. A list of top foods in a major financial newspaper describes pears as “low in calories.” OCTOBER 2008
To be “low in calories” a food can have no more than 40 calories per reference amount, which is one small-to-medium pear (almost 6 oz), a portion that contains about 100 calories. Any ripe fruit will be sweet, and that sweetness comes from sugar, which provides plenty of calories. Very few fruits are technically “low in calories” for that reason. Asian pears, which are less sweet and contain more water, are close. Most vegetables (not including root vegetables and tubers), however, are low in calories, because they are mostly water and not very sweet. Examples are cucumber, celery, leafy greens, and even tomatoes. But just because a fruit is not low in calories does not mean it isn’t healthy and full of other nutrients (vitamins, potassium, fiber, etc). In fact, some very sweet fruits, such as strawberries, are among the most nutritious foods around.
199. A baked apple pie sold at health food stores shows 160% DV for vitamin C on the nutrition panel for one slice. SEPTEMBER 2008
The only ingredient listed for these pies that contains vitamin C is apples. Apples are not a good source of vitamin C, and when cooked they contain almost none (most of the vitamin C is destroyed by the heat of cooking). It is impossible for this product to contain 160% of the DV for vitamin C (approx. 96 mg) in one small slice of pie. Even a fresh navel orange, which is an excellent source of vitamin C, doesn’t have that much vitamin C. This error is most likely due to someone using nutrition software who is unfamiliar with the nutrition content of foods and/or with the effects of cooking and processing on nutrients.
198. A newspaper article about a ban on trans fat in restaurants tells of a restaurateur planning to switch to a soybean oil that he was told will be “cholesterol free” and “trans fat free.” AUGUST 2008
All soybean oils (and all real vegetable-derived oils, for that matter) are naturally cholesterol-free; only animal fats can contain cholesterol, so restaurants should not be impressed by claims of “cholesterol-free” vegetable oils. As for trans fat, that also is absent from all true cooking oils, unless the oil has been partially hydrogenated, in which case it is no longer an “oil,” because it is now, by definition, partially solid (whether like shortening/margarine or a thick, creamy semi-liquid). When partially hydrogenated fat is heated, it changes to a liquid state, but is still not really an “oil,” because the test is whether it is liquid at room temperature. Note that the term “trans fat free” is not allowed in food labeling in the U.S. “No trans fat,” and “0 grams trans fat” are acceptable.
197. A health magazine article by a dietitian/MPH and reprinted on a major online news site states that certain foods are “belly flattening.” JULY 2008
As any nutrition/health professional should know, there is no such thing as a food that makes you (or your belly) thin, and any claim otherwise is irresponsible and misleading. There are, of course, foods that have better nutrition content (better fats, more fiber, more vitamins and minerals, etc.), but in terms of keeping weight off, the only “secret” is to keep caloric intake at or below energy expenditure. In other words, eat less and/or exercise more. Foods that come in smaller portions can help in that regard, but reading the “number of servings per package” is just as good, if you limit what you eat to one serving, and it can be done with any food.
The article also makes various unsubstantiated claims for various food products – claims that would be illegal on food packages: “anti-aging,” “brain boosting,” etc. In addition, the author uses criteria for “heart healthy” that are not in conformance with those established by FDA (i.e., the ones that must be used for labeling food products). For example, rather than limiting saturated fat to “3 grams or less” per serving, the established limit for a “heart healthy” food is 1 gram (in addition to other criteria for “low saturated fat”).
196. The package of a grain product claims the product is high in fiber, two amino acids, vitamin E, etc. MAY 2008
Whenever a nutrient claim is made for a food product sold in the U.S., the claim 1) must be one that is allowed under FDA regulations, 2) it must be true for one defined serving of the product, and 3) all the nutrients mentioned must be declared on the nutrition label. This particular product shows fiber on its nutrition panel, but at 1.5 grams it is not “high” in fiber (it would need to have at least 5 g). There is no way to know if the other nutrients claimed as being “high” in the product really are, because no data is given for those nutrients. In addition, there is no established Daily Reference Value (DRV) or Reference Daily Intake (RDI) for individual amino acids for purposes of food labeling, so claims of a “high” level of any amino acid cannot be made either way.
195. A newspaper article states that some replacements for trans fats, such as peanut oil, contain lots of saturated fats, and might be just as bad for health. The article also quotes a nurse practitioner saying that good alternatives include soybean, corn, safflower and sunflower oils, in addition to canola and olive oil. APRIL 2008
Peanut oil is 17% saturated fat – not much more than soybean and corn (14% and 13%), but another figure to compare is the ratio of monounsaturated to polyunsaturated fat, with a higher ratio being better. Peanut oil is 2:1 (similar to canola oil), which trumps safflower (1:6), sunflower (1:3), corn and soybean (both about 1:2.5).
194. An online article in a major financial newspaper describes a reformulated, "healthy" canned soup product as “low-sodium.” MARCH 2008
This soup contains 470 mg sodium per serving, so it does not qualify for the “low-sodium” claim, which has a 140 mg limit. Just because a food qualifies for the “healthy” nutrient content claim (see FDA criteria here), does not mean it is low in sodium. The maximum sodium allowed for “healthy” is much higher -- 480 mg.
193. A news article states that flaxseed is a better source of omega-3 fats than fish. JANUARY 2008
Certain seeds and nuts (such as flax) may contain more omega-3 fatty acids proportionally by weight than even fatty fish such as salmon, but this is misleading, and not only because of the higher water content of fish (which makes comparisons by weight irrelevant). More importantly, fatty fish contain different omega-3 fats (DHA and EPA) that are more effective (compared to alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), the omega-3 fat found in plant sources) in reducing inflammation and providing other health benefits. This is why FDA authorized a qualified health claim for foods that contain EPA and DHA omega-3 fats (from fish sources), but not for those containing plant sources of omega-3. Although ALA is converted to DHA and EPA in the body, it is thought to be an inefficient process, producing insignificant DHA and EPA. And while flaxseed is still a valuable food (good source of fiber, etc.), many products contain it in the form of whole seeds, which are more likely to pass through the body without providing much benefit. Ground seed is much more nutritionally beneficial than the whole seed.
192. An “energy” supplement drink containing acai and other fruit purees claims “high levels of omega fatty-acids, iron” and protein. DECEMBER 2007
The Supplement/Nutrition Facts panel for this product shows 5 mg omega 3 fatty-acids, 4% of the Daily Value (DV) for iron, and no protein. Clearly, this product is not high in iron or protein (both would need to provide at least 10% of the DV), and to imply that 5 mg omega 3 is high is misleading (not to mention illegal), because it is actually very low. If the supplement had 500 mg, then it might be more impressive, although it still couldn’t be described as a “good source” or “high in” omega 3 fatty-acids, since no Daily Value has been established to set the 100% (basically a recommended daily) level. Note also that claims that a fruit is high in antioxidants often only apply to the fresh fruit, not the processed juice or puree that is being sold/advertised (processing and even transportation time greatly reduce antioxidant content). This is a common form of false advertising. If the nutrition label doesn't show a vitamin A or C value of at least 10% DV, then the product is NOT legally a "good source" of antioxidants (for "high" it would need to be at least 20% of DV).
191. A health & fitness blog states that butter legally could be called “low fat” just by specifying a very small serving size, because FDA rules do not define serving sizes. NOVEMBER 2007
The labeling law does in fact define serving sizes, aka “reference amounts customarily consumed per eating occasion.” They vary from food to food. For example, each of these is one serving: 8 fl oz (240 ml) of juice, a 40 g brownie, 55 g of dry plain pasta, and 1 Tbsp of butter (which contains about 12 g fat – not even close to being low in fat). For the complete list, see section 101.12 of the food labeling law. For more information (including when it is OK for a serving size to be bigger, but never smaller, than the reference amount), see this FDA q&a.
190. The Web site for an agave sweetener states that it is an FDA violation to claim a product is “low glycemic” when it isn’t. OCTOBER 2007
Actually, it is a violation to label a food “low glycemic” whether the food is or isn’t, because there is no legally accepted definition for “low glycemic” in food labeling (not to mention scientific agreement on the health benefits), and food labeling claims regarding glycemic index value are not allowed on packaging or in advertising (including on Web sites). For more on the glycemic index controversy, see this American Dietetic Association article.
189. A health/cooking magazine describes broccoli as a "very good source of protein." SEPTEMBER 2007
"Very good source" is not a defined nutrient claim, but let's assume it would mean a better source than "good source," which can be used to describe a food that contains at least 10% of the Daily Value for that nutrient. For protein, that would be 5 grams (10% of 50 g) in an 85 g serving (FDA-defined serving). Broccoli, however, only contains about 2.4 grams of protein per serving -- hardly a good source, much less a "very good source" of protein.
188. A health/nutrition blog states that nutrition labels must list the percentage of a food’s calories coming from fat, sugar, protein and carbohydrates. AUGUST 2007
The percentages given on a nutrition label have nothing to do with calories. Rather, they represent the percentage of the Daily Value for that nutrient that is supplied by one serving of the food in a 2,000 calorie diet (considered average for an active adult). For instance, the Daily Value for fat intake (basically a recommended maximum) in a 2,000 calorie diet is 65 grams. Thus, a food with 6 grams of fat has 9% of the DV for fat. Percentage of calories from fat in this example (where total calories are 150) would be 36%, but this is not required on the nutrition label.
187. A news article states numerous nutrition claims about a dried berry from China (goji berry, aka wolfberry). JULY 2007
The article repeats the product’s press release without checking any facts or realizing that comparisons are being made between dried food (the berries) and fresh, raw foods (which obviously have their nutrient content diluted with water, as would fresh wolfberries). It states that the berries have “more” (no quantity or serving size given, which would be necessary to make a true comparison) iron than spinach and more beta carotene than carrots (not to mention the part about them being “one of the most powerful antioxidants” -- see Blooper #178). Nutrition Facts on packages of the berries do not support the claims, many of which are not permitted in labeling of products for sale in the U.S. Additionally, the bright red color of the dried berries indicates that a sulfiting agent was likely used in processing, but the packaging makes no mention of this.
Many Web sites tout this berry, and most give misleading, if not illegal, claims for its health properties, and site scientific studies as “proof.” Our reading of many of these studies failed to locate proof for the claims, other than inferring general connections that could be true for many other foods. Like any berry, wolfberries will be high in antioxidants such as vitamin C (although dried forms have much less than fresh), but not significantly more so than other, much cheaper fruits.
186. A news article states that until recently trans fat was considered a healthier alternative to saturated fats. JUNE 2007
Just because margarine companies were promoting their products (made with trans fat) for decades as “healthier” than butter does not mean it was true. In fact, many nutrition scientists knew at least by the early 80s that trans fatty acids behave like saturates, and by the early 90s that they raise LDL cholesterol and probably lower HDL (“good cholesterol”), making them worse than most saturated fats.
Note that there are no nutrient content claims permitted for trans fat per FDA, so “trans fat free” is not allowed on foods or in their advertising (Fed. Register July 11, 2003), but “0 g trans fat” and “no trans fat” are OK, because they are considered merely quantitative statements, although anything containing less than 0.5 g trans fat per (often unrealistically small) serving qualifies as “0.”
185. A newspaper review of healthier snacks describes various chips as “low-fat,” high in fiber, and made with trans fat-free oils. MAY 2007
Only one of the three brands reviewed for the article actually has a low-fat version (containing 3 g fat), although it is inadequately described as “lower-fat,” and the one touted as “high in fiber” is not – it has only 3 grams per serving, which qualifies as only a “good source” of fiber pursuant to FDA labeling regulations. Chips would need to have at least 5 g fiber to be labeled as “high in fiber.” None of the products qualifies for the term “healthy,” including the one that is low in fat. As for the trans fat-free oils… none of the chips ever had trans fat (same as most tortilla chips). Compared to some other chips, these are better, but they should be described with appropriate, not misleading, terms.
184. A dietitian quoted in an online news article says that nutrition and health claims on food packages are not regulated. APRIL 2007
The FDA regulates and defines all health and nutrition claims and implied claims on food products. Any claim that is not defined or authorized (e.g., “low carb” or “high in omega-3”) is not allowed on food packages or in advertising (meaning product Web sites also must use proper labeling terms/claims). See FDA’s overview of the categories of claims that can be used for food products, and the linked pages for more details. Claims on restaurant menus must meet the same definitions/criteria, but enforcement is generally through local health departments.
183. A 2.2 oz, 293 calorie packaged cookie advertises “high fiber” on the package and “excellent source of omega 3” on the Web site. MARCH 2006
This is a big cookie, and for labeling purposes should really be 2 servings rather than one (see 21 CFR Sec. 101.12, Table 2, showing one serving of a cookie to be 30 g), which would more than cut in half the 3 g of fiber stated on the Nutrition Facts label (only available on the Web site). The resulting fiber content is not enough to claim “high fiber.” The omega 3 claim is not allowed because that nutrient does not currently have a daily reference value (DV) established for nutrition labeling (see http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/flg-7a.html for a list of nutrients with established DVs). As for the “293” calories, this value is not rounded pursuant to labeling regulations (it should be 300), which is a tip-off that the label was unprofessionally created, and therefore all of the data and claims are suspect. The product is, however, good tasting and a nutritional improvement over other manufactured cookies.
182. A medical doctor/reporter on cable news states that soft drinks (sodas) are high in sodium. FEBRUARY 2007
Most sodas (including diet sodas) contain between 30 and 50 mg sodium per 12 oz can – about the same as in most fruit juice beverages. A cup (8 oz) of milk contains 160 mg sodium. FDA defines “low in sodium” for a beverage as no more than 140 mg sodium. Clearly, soda is very low in sodium. Of course, that does not make it “healthy.”
181. A can of store brand minestrone soup shows 0% vitamin A and 15% vitamin C. The first ingredient listed (after water) is carrots. JANUARY 2007
This is a good example of nutrition labeling not being reviewed by someone with knowledge of nutrition. Carrots are high in vitamin A, so this soup (assuming the ingredient list is correct, with items listed in descending order of predominance) most likely provides at least 10% of the Daily Value (DV) for vitamin A. And since the soup has been cooked prior to canning, most, if not all, of the vitamin C would be destroyed. We’re betting that someone flipped the data for vitamin A and vitamin C! As always, don’t assume nutrition values are correct.
180. A chocolate bar containing plant sterol esters is promoted as being good for heart health. The bar contains 3.5 g saturated fat per serving. DECEMBER 2006
Any food product using the FDA-authorized health claim for plant sterol/stanol esters must meet certain criteria, one of which is that it be low in saturated fat (no more than 1 g per serving). This product does not meet that criteria, and also fails to properly phrase the claim on packaging and in advertising pursuant to CFR 101.83 (see list of authorized health claims, including for plant esters -- 12th one down).
179. An article in a health magazine states that evaporated cane juice is healthier than regular sugar, and recommends a fruit-flavored candy product because it is sweetened with cane juice, which, it is implied, will not cause “insulin spikes.” NOVEMBER 2006
Evaporated cane juice is still sugar. It has insignificant amounts of minerals (which are processed out during production of granulated sugar), leaving it with just calories in terms of nutrition – no different than granulated cane or beet sugar. In addition, the candy product recommended in the article has no fat, but gets all its calories from sugar, with no fiber or protein to slow/reduce the body’s glycemic response (i.e., “insulin spike”). A better fruit-based snack would be something like a dried fruit bar (e.g., www.bearfruitbar.com), where whole dried fruit (rather than just concentrate/flavoring) is used and no additional sugar is needed. Dried fruit contains fiber, which helps slow the glycemic response.
178. An online food & beverage news article states that a drink made with acai berries has more antioxidants than any similar beverage, and quotes the manufacturer as saying that the acai berry has more antioxidants than any other fruit on earth. OCTOBER 2006
Every month another food (usually a berry or fruit) is tested for antioxidants and often declared to have more than any other food. Most plant foods are naturally high in antioxidants, so we are in no danger of lacking such nutrients if we eat a variety of fruits and vegetables. But the antioxidant content of every natural food that grows on the planet has not been tested (it requires an expensive lab test), so claiming that something is the “highest” is misleading without stating that it is the highest “of those tested so far.” And this is assuming that the quantities compared are the same (e.g., “100 g of fresh fruit,” rather than dried or frozen), which they often aren’t. As for nutrition claims about antioxidant content, a food can only be declared “high in” (or an “excellent source of”) the two antioxidants required on the Nutrition Facts label – that means vitamin C and vitamin A, and the food must have at least 20% of the DV (for at least one of the vitamins) to make the claim. A potentially bigger issue is whether more antioxidants is always better. The jury is still out on whether antioxidants help combat existing cancers, because studies have shown an excess can do the opposite, the theory being that cancer cells may depend on antioxidants to thwart the body’s natural mechanisms to kill faulty cells.
Other facts: When a fruit is made into a juice, nutrient content (including antioxidants, and especially vitamin C) can fall significantly, due to processing, exposure to air, etc., not to mention addition of water and other ingredients, which dilute the nutrient density. A processed (i.e., packaged, transported, etc.) product will have fewer nutrients than the original fruit, so a nutrition claim for the fruit will generally not be true of the juice. It is also misleading to state (as the acai berry promoters love to do) that any one food will supply all the nutrients you need. This might be true of mother’s milk for an infant, but that’s the only case where this is true of a food. Just because a food contains a variety of vitamins and nutrients does not mean they are present in sufficient quantities or proportions to sustain life. Eating a variety of foods is the only way to get all the nutrients we need from real foods.
177. The Web site for a nutrition labeling firm states that USDA nutrition label approval could take two months and FDA approval 6 months. SEPTEMBER 2006
It is FDA, not USDA, that regulates nutrition labeling (except for nutrition labeling of raw meat & poultry products, which currently is voluntary), and neither agency requires prior “approval” of nutrition information before a food product is put on the market. Don’t be fooled into paying extra for having your nutrition label submitted to USDA – they don’t want or require it.
176. A “whole wheat” cracker shows less than 1 g fiber on the Nutrition Facts panel. The first ingredient is whole wheat flour; the second is enriched wheat flour. AUGUST 2006
"Enriched wheat flour" is refined flour, not whole grain, so this product is not 100% whole wheat, and according to FDA should not be called “whole wheat” or “whole grain.” Looking at the fiber content tells the same story. Fifteen grams of whole wheat flour (half the weight of one serving of these crackers) has almost 2 g fiber, so the crackers aren’t even half whole wheat flour by weight.
175. A dried fruit bar that weighs 25 grams is labeled as having 18 g of fiber and 6 g sugars. The ingredients (which by law must be listed in descending order of predominance) are apple puree, apple concentrate, another fruit concentrate, and a proprietary fruit extract. JULY 2006
Since the first three ingredients (which, by definition, make up the majority of the bar's weight) have at the most a total of 3 g fiber and are high in sugar (much more than 6 g) and water, it is mathematically and nutritionally impossible for one bar to have anywhere near 18 g fiber. Even if they had no water content (which would make them so dry as to be almost inedible), there still would not be room for that much fiber in these 25 g bars.
174. A new popcorn snack is labeled and advertised as “low in fat and calories” and as a “healthy snack.” JUNE 2006
The Nutrition Facts panel for this product shows 5 g fat and 130 calories per serving. Because one serving has more than 3 g fat and more than 40 calories, the product is neither low in fat nor low in calories (pursuant to FDA regulations). And because the term “healthy” can only be used for products that are low in fat (among other criteria), this product does not qualify for that claim either.
173. A major UK grocery chain spokesman is quoted saying, “heart disease … is primarily caused by bad diets with food too high in cholesterol which clog the arteries.” MAY 2006
Dietary cholesterol and the cholesterol in your arteries are not exactly the same thing, and diets high in the former do not directly cause an increase in the latter. Dietary fats (specifically saturated and trans fats) are a greater risk factor for heart disease, because they increase the amount of LDL cholesterol in the blood, which is known to form cholesterol deposits (plaques) in the arteries that can eventually block blood flow. Lack of fiber in the diet allows this condition to progress even faster (as does lack of exercise and other lifestyle habits).
172. Major newspapers reported that a new variety of soybean being grown in the U.S. produces a “healthier” oil. The new beans contain 1-3% linolenic acid, rather than the 7% found in regular soybeans. APRIL 2006
Lower linolenic acid soybeans may result in an oil that is more resistant to going rancid (and therefore can be used instead of hydrogenated/trans fats in some foods that are designed for longer shelf-life), but linolenic acid is a beneficial omega-3 fatty acid that is already too low in the average diet compared to linoleic acid (an omega-6 fatty acid). These low-linolenic acid oils (made by genetic engineering) will only further reduce the ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids in the diet. Sacrificing nutrition for shelf-life does not make this oil “healthier.”
171. A beverage containing acai berries is marketed as having the same essential fatty acids (EFAs) as in fish. MARCH 2006
The number of unsubstantiated (and illegal) health and nutrition claims being made by manufacturers of products containing the acai berry is huge (and is being widely parroted by a gullible media). We’ll address only one here – that juice made from the acai berry is a good source of the omega-3 fatty acids found in fish and provides the potential heart health benefits of those fatty acids. See Blooper #165 for another example.
First of all, FDA has approved a “qualified health claim” for food products with omega-3 fatty acids, but they “must contain both EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids” (which, technically, are not essential fatty acids). These are not the same as the omega-3 fatty acids found in plant foods, including (in fairly insignificant amounts) in the acai berry. In addition, even if the acai products did contain these fatty acids, a disclaimer would be required to “qualify” the fact that the claim is based on “supportive but not conclusive research to show that these fatty acids are beneficial in reducing the risk of coronary heart disease.” No such disclaimer appears in the marketing or labeling of the juice product (which can’t use the claim anyway).
170. A new line of “100% whole grain” cookie dough is being touted as “super-healthy.” The cookie dough, sold in two flavors to the food service market, is further described in press releases as “two of the most…nutritious products to ever hit the market.” A nutrition facts panel at the manufacturer’s Web site shows one serving of the chocolate chip version to contain 13 g fat and 5 g saturated fat. JANUARY 2006
In order to describe or label a food product as “healthy” in the U.S., the product must meet certain nutrition criteria. One requirement is that each serving contain no more than 3 g fat. Another is that each serving contain no more than one gram of saturated fat. Clearly, this product cannot be described or advertised as “healthy,” regardless of its whole grain and fiber content. It can, however, be described as a “good source of fiber” due to a stated fiber content of 3 g per serving (although an additional statement would be required in this case to point out the high fat and saturated fat content).
169. A weekly supermarket circular recommends (for eating light during the holidays) a crab meat and hazelnut salad over fresh salad greens; that it’s “just over 300 calories.” DECEMBER 2005
There is no recipe given for such a salad, but it is possible to make one with anywhere from 100 calories to 1000+ calories depending on how much crab, hazelnuts and oil are used. All three ingredients contain significant calories, and the nuts and oil are particularly concentrated sources of calories due to their high fat content. Even a small handful of nuts or couple tablespoons of oil, added to just 3 oz of cooked crab meat will bring you over 300 calories. Quantity of ingredients determines caloric content as much as what those ingredients are.
168. A weekly magazine states that too many of our calories “come from fat… and sodium” NOVEMBER 2005
They probably mean “come from foods that are high in fat, etc.” Sodium does not provide any calories, because it is a mineral, not an energy-containing molecule such as fat or carbohydrate.
167. An “all natural bakery,” whose products can be found in natural foods stores, labels its packaged muffins “no sugar added.” OCTOBER 2005
The first listed ingredient (and therefore the most predominant by weight) in these muffins is chicory syrup, which is a sweetener. A common misconception among consumers and manufacturers is that “no added sugar” can be used for any product that contains no white/refined sugar. U.S. labeling law does not define “no added sugar” this way. The term “sugar” encompasses many kinds of caloric sweeteners (“all free mono- and disaccharides”), which include honey and syrups such as chicory syrup. Additionally, use of “any other ingredient that contains sugars that functionally substitute for added sugars” would preclude use of the phrase “no added sugar.” Clearly, these muffins do contain added sugars, because chicory syrup is a “sugar” and it is functioning as a sugar/sweetener. And even if the product did not contain “added sugars,” in order to use the claim, it would need to include a statement that the food is not “low calorie” or “calorie reduced” (unless it truly is… see Blooper 151). (21 CFR 101.60(c)(2))
Additional notes on this product: A claim of “no trans fat” is made, when only the statement “0 g trans fat” is allowed by law. The shelf life date (a little over one week) is too long for a fresh, unpreserved, highly sweetened and moist bakery product (i.e., it’s a veritable bacteria/mold magnet).
166. A package of fruit turnovers baked locally and sold at a grocery store is labeled “trans fat free.” No nutrition information is provided. SEPTEMBER 2005
While this baking company may qualify for a small business exemption from providing Nutrition Facts on their products, that exemption is revoked when any nutrition or health claims are made, such as a claim pertaining to trans fat content. This product should have Nutrition Facts on its package. Additionally, “trans fat free” is not permitted, because it has not been defined. The phrase “0 trans fat” (giving simply a quantitative statement) is permitted.
165. An online news article for food retailers describes the acai berry (grown in Brazil) as having “more protein than an average egg” in addition to a host of “vitamins, minerals and essential fatty acids busting from each berry.” AUGUST 2005
Nowhere is a quantity of acai berry mentioned for this comparison with eggs, so the comparison has no meaning or validity. If we compare them by weight (100 g acai berry puree and 100 g raw chicken egg), eggs are actually much higher in protein – 13 g versus 2 g (the figure given for protein by a company that markets acai berry products). As for all the vitamins, minerals, etc. claimed, the acai berry may indeed contain these nutrients, but “contain” only means there is a measurable amount – not a large or significant amount. All berries contain some vitamins and minerals, and many are high in antioxidants, but acai is no better a source than many other berries. What acai does seem to be an unusually significant source of (for a fruit) is fatty acids – but mostly the omega 6 and omega 9 fatty acids that are not lacking in our diets.
164. A newspaper article about the advertising of “better-for-you” processed foods describes a new breakfast cereal with 2 g fiber and 6 g protein as “high in fiber and protein.” JULY 2005
In order to be “high in,” “rich in” or “an excellent source of” a nutrient, the food must contain at least 20% of the Daily Value (DV) for that nutrient in one serving (21 CFR 101.54). This particular product’s Nutrition Facts label shows only 10% of the DV for fiber and protein. It is therefore not “high in” those nutrients, but simply a “good source.” There are many cereals that are a much better source of fiber. Those with 5 g fiber are considered “high in” or “an excellent source of” fiber.
163. In many states, concern over childhood obesity and poor nutrition has prompted legislation restricting sales of food in schools. One state assembly recently approved a ban on foods that list sugar as the first ingredient and snacks containing more than 8 g fat. JUNE 2005
Improving the nutrition of food choices for students is a worthwhile goal, but legislating strict quantitative cut-offs will not necessarily result in healthier foods. In the example above, a food that lists flour first, then 3 different kinds of sugar, most likely has more sugar than flour, but still will be deemed acceptable. It is crucial to understand how the ingredient labeling rules work before making blanket restrictions. As for banning snacks with more than 8 grams of fat per serving, that will eliminate nut mixes, which provide “good” fats, as well as protein, fiber and minerals important in a healthy, balanced diet. It will, though, allow reduced fat chips, which provide fewer significant nutrients.
162. A men’s fitness magazine recently rated convenience foods for nutrition and taste. Their top picks were supposedly examples of “out with the trans fats…in with the good fats…and complex carbohydrates.” MAY 2005
At least two crackers and one cookie on the magazine’s “Best Foods” list contain trans fats. Apparently they were looking for the Nutrition Facts label to point this out. Since product labels are not required to declare trans fat content until Jan. 2006 (and none of the three mentioned had this info on their labels yet), they should have looked at the ingredients list and noticed that all contain partially hydrogenated oils (which are trans fats) as major ingredients. The three “winners” also are low in fiber (evidence that whole grains are not high on the ingredients list, if at all), and one of the crackers has 350 mg sodium, which is very high for a small, one ounce, serving. So much for their “panel of nutritionists.”
161. A pasteurized, bottled pomegranate juice blend shows 25% of our Daily Value for vitamin C on its Nutrition Facts label. APRIL 2005
While freshly pressed pomegranate (and many other fruits/berries) may be a good (or excellent) source of vitamin C (for a few hours after pressing, anyway), pasteurization, processing and exposure to air will greatly reduce the active vitamin C content. This product probably has 4% DV (or less) vitamin C remaining in one serving. Beware of nutrition labels that reflect not what’s in the package but what was in the original ingredients (before processing, cooking, etc.) -- a common problem with fruit-based food products and beverages.
160. A professor of nutrition was quoted in a major newspaper saying that “when it comes to healthy eating, the key issue is calories;” that if two products have the same number of calories, there isn’t much difference in them nutritionally. MARCH 2005
If this were the case, then a 100 calorie serving of broccoli would be no better for you than a 100 calorie portion of cookies. Quality does count. All foods have calories, so it is important to choose those that provide more beneficial nutrients for the calories consumed. Of course, if all you are interested in is weight loss or gain, then calories are more important, but healthy eating is about much more than consuming an appropriate quantity of calories.

Prior Bloopers: bloopers 140 through 159.

Send us your favorite nutrition bloopers! You may “name names” (of products, publications, etc.), but we will not identify these names on the Bloopers Page.


home consulting services food startup/tune-up kit food biz/nutrition links food/nutrition bloopers about us/contact

Copyright © 1997-2010, Palate Works