INFORMATION AND SERVICES FOR FOOD BUSINESSES

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

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

100. The label for a raw (“sprouted & uncooked”) cookie product carries a mountain of nutritional claims about the benefits of sprouting and eating raw foods, including claims of “increased nutrition” and that one ingredient contains “most essential vitamins, minerals…”
This product has no Nutrition Facts label, so there is no proof of the claims. This is illegal in the US, and not a very good way to get credibility for a product, regardless of its merits. If the product truly has exceptional nutrition value, that information should be shared with customers in a standardized way that can be compared with other products. As for the ingredient that contains “most…vitamins, minerals, etc.,” that’s nothing unusual (although the implication is otherwise), because many foods contain most vitamins and minerals, only not in significant amounts. There is a reason for having labeling laws!
99. The Nutrition Facts label for a “low carb” dessert product shows 43 calories and 4 carbohydrates per serving.
One of Palate Works’ readers sent this product to a lab for analysis. The lab results show 184 calories and 38 g carbohydrate per serving. “Low carbohydrate” is a claim which is not authorized by the FDA, and it should be a warning sign to consumers that the Nutrition Facts label data for such products is highly suspect.
98. A Sunday newsmagazine nutrition column in July 2001 stated that “bottled teas…lack antioxidants.”
According to lab results from an analysis of bottled teas in 2000, at least three bottled green teas (from brewed green tea) have comparable or higher levels of the antioxidant EGCG in an 8 oz. serving as a cup of brewed green tea (steeping time not given, however).
97. A food news Web site has a news item on the nutritional benefits of chocolate as promoted by a dietitian in Australia. Reference is made to the “nutritional benefits” of “eating 50 g of chocolate every day;” that chocolate has a “30% fat content;” that chocolate “contain[s] important nutrients;” and that “dark chocolate…contains more flavanoids than a regular cup of tea.”
This is known as creative and possibly misleading use of data. First of all, we are not told what form the chocolate is in – cocoa powder, unsweetened baking chocolate, sweetened milk chocolate bars, semi-sweet bars, etc. Each varies significantly from the others in terms of fat and nutrient content. For example, unsweetened baking chocolate is about 55% fat (by weight, but 96% of calories), a semi-sweet bar is 50% fat, a typical milk chocolate bar is about 32% fat and European-style cocoa is about 10% fat. Mineral content is also all over the map depending on the kind of “chocolate,” with milk chocolate bars being lowest in iron and European-style cocoa being the highest, when comparing equal weight portions. Milk chocolate may be richer in calcium than the darker varieties, but it is still not a very good source of calcium compared to other sources (such as milk, tofu, sardines, broccoli, etc.), especially when you factor in all the fat that must be consumed with that 50 g bar – almost half what is considered a daily maximum. As for the comparison of dark chocolate with a cup of tea, we are not given an amount (or form) of dark chocolate, so the comparison (and any implied health claim) is meaningless.
96. A packaged soup mix of seasonings and cut fresh vegetables comes in two flavors, both labeled “low fat”. The preparation directions on the package call for 2 tablespoons of oil and some water. The nutrition labels show calories from fat in the “as prepared” soups to be 35 for one and 60 for the other soup.
Neither soup is low in fat as prepared and there is no alternative preparation method described that would yield a low fat soup, therefore, these soups cannot be labeled “low fat.” The one showing 60 calories from fat has about 7 g fat (60/9) per serving when prepared, and the one with 35 calories from fat has at least 4 g fat (35/9). A low fat soup can not contain more than 3 g fat per serving.
95. The Web site for a manufacturer of peanut-containing snack foods states that “peanut oil contains 6.3 grams of monounsaturated fat.” No reference is made to the portion size which contains this amount of monounsaturated fat.
This is a frustratingly commonplace error in claims for the nutritional assets of foods. Without a reference to what serving size we are talking about, the 6.3 grams is meaningless. A percentage figure would be fine without a portion size, but that was not provided. They are referring to a 1 tablespoon serving of peanut oil (which is about 49% monounsaturated fat).
94. A supermarket shelf tag promoting cheese made from yogurt boasts that the cheese is better for you because it’s “95% cholesterol-free.”
That would mean a 100 g portion (about 1 oz) would contain 5 grams (5000 mg) of cholesterol! Most cheeses have less than 30 mg of cholesterol per 1 oz serving, depending on the moisture content (a cheese with more moisture/water will naturally have less cholesterol by weight), so the supermarket’s claim is neither boast nor true. Even cheeses highest in cholesterol (about 35 mg per ounce) are not a huge source of cholesterol. It’s the saturated fat that should be watched.
93. A nutrition quiz on a women’s Web site asks which food provides the daily adult requirement for vitamin A, and lists 1/2 cup cooked carrots and 1/2 cup baked sweet potato as two of the possible answers. The answer given is the sweet potatoes (“provides slightly over 950 mcg of the active form of vitamin A”), although elsewhere on the site we are told that 1/2 cup cooked carrots provides 894 micrograms of retinol activity equivalents (RAE).
The latest recommendations for vitamin A intake, when from plant sources, is 900 mcg RAE for men and 700 mcg for women. Due to natural variations in the quantity of beta-carotene (and other plant sources of vitamin A) in carrots, the 894 mcg value per 1/2 cup cooked carrots is for all intents and purposes adequate to provide the daily requirement. But since that 1/2 cup carrots is a smaller (by weight) and lower-calorie portion (35 cal. vs. 170 cal.) than the 1/2 cup sweet potatoes, it is actually a better (more nutritionally economical) source of vitamin A, and certainly not the “loser” the nutrition quiz makes it out to be!
92. The nutrition page for a young women-oriented Web site recommends choosing a fast-food baked potato topped with 1 teaspoon margarine rather than one with broccoli and cheese sauce because the former has fewer calories and less fat.
While the amount of cheese sauce typically poured over a fast-food broccoli-potato does add more calories and fat than 1 tsp. of margarine, we are missing the point here. It’s the broccoli! There is nothing healthy about margarine, but there is a lot that’s healthy about broccoli. Simply scrape off some of that cheese sauce (or ask for it on the side and drizzle 2 tablespoons on top – cheese sauce is a less concentrated source of fat than margarine, so you can use more), and you’ll have about he same calories and fat as the potato with margarine, but with much more vitamin A, vitamin C and fiber – all of which are acutely missing in most fast food. And we think it also will look and taste better than a potato with just margarine on top.
91. A Mexican food company (tortillas, burritos, etc.) claims that its products are endorsed/approved by the American Heart Association.
The American Heart Association “does not endorse companies, products or services, and strictly prohibits any suggestion of endorsement or superiority of one company/product/service over another.” See the AHA policy page at www.americanheart.org/linkpolicy.html.
90. The press release for a new snack crisp/puff describes the product as “healthy.” Two of the flavors have 3g fat or fewer and two have 3.5 g fat per serving. All have 0 g saturated fat and 0 mg cholesterol, but none has at least 10% of the RDI or DRV for fiber, vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium or iron.
Only the two flavors with 3 g fat can be called “low fat,” which is just one criteria for making a “healthy” claim on food products in the U.S., but since those two products have no other “positive” healthy attributes going for them (other than low in fat, saturated fat and cholesterol), they may not use the term “healthy.”
89. A baked goods manufacturer describes its cookies and pies as “healthy,” and points out on its Web site that “no hydrogenated fats or oils,” which appear to be “as bad for your heart as saturated fat,” are used.
What they do use is butter, which is not exactly known for being low in saturated fat. Additionally, the pies have about 11 or 12 grams of fat, 7 of it saturated, per slice, and the cookies have about 10-11 grams of fat, with 4-5 grams from saturated fat, per serving. In order be called “healthy,” these products would need to contain no more than 3 g total fat and 1 g saturated fat, in addition to meeting other criteria.
88. A press release for a ready-to-eat shelled soybean (edamame) product claims that edamame has no saturated fat and is a good source of vitamin A.
All foods that contain fat (including soybeans) contain some saturated fat, and even the reference serving size (85 g) for shelled soybeans contains an amount of saturated fat (0.6 g) that disqualifies it from being called “saturated fat free.” Only foods with less than 0.5 g saturated fat per reference amount may be labeled “saturated fat free” or “contains no saturated fat.” This portion of cooked green soybeans also does not qualify for “good source of vitamin A,” because it has only 3% of the RDI for vitamin A (must be 10% or higher to be a “good source”). The other claims made about the product (“no cholesterol…good source of…calcium and iron”) are true.
87. Many vegetable oils make claims of “no cholesterol” and “low in saturated fat” on their labels.
While no vegetable oils contain cholesterol and many are low in saturated fat, they cannot all make claims to this effect, and if they do they must provide additional information on the label next to the claim in order to be sold in the US. Since all vegetable oils contain more than 13 g total fat per 50 g portion, a claim of “cholesterol free” or “no cholesterol” must be accompanied by a statement indicating total fat content per serving and another statement indicating that cholesterol usually is not present in that particular kind of food (e.g., vegetable oils). Oils containing more than 2 g saturated fat per serving cannot be labeled with cholesterol claims. These include coconut oil, cottonseed oil, palm kernel oil, palm oil, peanut oil and rice bran oil.
Oils containing more than 1 g saturated fat per serving (1 tbsp) cannot be labeled “low in saturated fat.” These include avocado, corn, olive, sesame and soybean oils.
86. A product described on the Web as “carb-less bread…low sodium” lists sodium halfway down in the ingredients list, and under Nutrition Facts shows 9 g carbohydrate and 0 mg sodium per 2 slice serving (1 oz).
This product must have more than 0 mg sodium per 2 slice serving if it has salt added (although we suspect the ingredients label is not properly presented – ingredients should be listed in descending order of predominance by weight, and salt here shows up before half of the flours used). As for calling a food with 9 g carbohydrate (even if 5 g are from fiber) “carb-less” or even “low carb,” see our comments at Blooper # 85 below. The “9 g” of carbohydrate is likely not correct anyway, since this is a flour-based product, with whole wheat flour and rye flour the first (and presumably most predominant) two ingredients. The typical whole wheat bread has anywhere from 12 to 20 g carbohydrate (including fiber) in a 1 oz serving.
85. Various food products now sport “low carb” or “low-carbohydrate” claims.
This claim is not approved by the FDA, has not been defined, and therefore is NOT LEGAL as a nutrient claim on food packaging or in advertising. Such claims often are found on product labels containing nutrition information that has not been professionally prepared and may be incorrect (see Blooper #84).
84. A “low carb” donut product claims 40 calories on its Nutrition Facts label and lists the following as the sources of those calories: 0.55 g fat, 3.06 g total carbohydrate and 1.25 g protein.
Fats provide 9 calories per gram, and carbohydrate and protein each provide 4 calories per gram. Therefore, the total calories should be about 22 if the values for fat, carbohydrate and protein are correct. The whole Nutrition Facts label is invalid if these numbers do not add up. Also, the figures were not properly rounded, arousing additional suspicion about the legitimacy of the nutrition data for this product. We suspect that the actual carbohydrate value is higher than that given on the label.
83. Web sites and health food stores are touting watercress as a “nutritional mega-plant” and claiming it “contains more iron than spinach… more calcium than milk… significant amounts of protein…” or is “rich in …calcium, iron…” etc.
Maybe if you are comparing by the pound, but for a typical serving of watercress (1/2 cup, or about 16 g) compared with a standard serving of these other foods, the claims do not pan out. For example, 1/2 cup of chopped watercress has only 20 mg calcium (2% of the RDI and therefore not even a “good source”) versus 40% of the RDI for calcium in a serving (1 cup) of milk. You would have to eat 10 cups of chopped watercress to get the same amount of calcium as in one cup of milk. Furthermore, a half cup of watercress contains less than 1% of the RDI for iron, less than 1% of the DRV for protein, less than 1% of the RDI for folate, and less than 2% of the DRV for potassium. Moral of story: Beware nutrient claims where foods are compared by weight rather than serving size (and often they won’t even tell you what the comparison parameter is – which is even more suspicious). Note: 1/2 cup of watercress is, however, a good source of vitamin A (16% of the RDI) and vitamin C (12%).
82. A popcorn product states on its Web site that “like other starches, popcorn is … a good source of fiber.” This particular popcorn product shows a fiber content of 2 g per serving on its Nutrition Facts label.
While some popcorn and some starches are good sources of fiber (mostly those from whole grains), most starch-based products actually are not good sources of fiber (e.g., white bread and crackers, most pasta), and this particular popcorn product is no exception. The minimum required fiber content for one serving of popcorn (1 oz or about 3 cups) to be described as “a good source of fiber” is 2.5 grams.
81. A low-fat product described as a “chocolate peanut butter cookie” does not list peanut butter in its ingredients.
This product is mislabeled (and misleadingly labeled). If it contains peanut butter flavor it can be called “peanut butter flavored” cookies, but if it doesn’t contain actual peanut butter it cannot be called peanut butter cookies.
80. The Web site promoting a pumpkin seed product states that one serving (about 1 oz) of the seeds is a “good source” of potassium. The Nutrition Facts label indicates that one serving contains 6% of the DRV for potassium.
To be a “good source,” a food must provide at least 10% of the RDI or DRV (Daily Reference Value) for that nutrient. The DRV for potassium is 3500 mg, therefore a “good source” must contain at least 350 mg of potassium. Pumpkin seeds contain only 229 mg per 1 oz serving. This product also claims to be “very high” in protein at 18% of the DRV for protein. The terms “high,” “rich in” or “excellent source” can only be used for foods providing at least 20% of the RDI or DRV of a nutrient in one serving. Therefore, this product can be called a “good source” of, but not “high in,” protein.
79. The nutrition label for an oatmeal and cashew-based cookie sweetened mostly with maple syrup shows “6.3 g” total fat, 0 g saturated fat, and 5 g dietary fiber (“10% of Daily Value”).
First of all, fat values over 5 g should be rounded to the nearest whole gram, so total fat here should be indicated as “6 g.” Since the main sources of fat in this cookie are oats, cashews and, to a much lesser extent, canola oil, saturated fat cannot be 0 if total fat is 6+ g: about 18% of the fat in oats is saturated; 20% of the fat in cashews is saturated, and 7% of the fat in canola oil is saturated; therefore, even if we use a generously low average of 16% for the saturated fat portion of the 6.3 g total fat, saturated fat in this product would be 1 gram, which cannot be indicated as “0” (only values under 0.5 g can be indicated as 0). As for the 5 g dietary fiber in this product, it should actually be indicated as 20% of the Daily Value (25 g = 100%). The number of errors on this product’s Nutrition Facts label throw the validity of all the values into question.
78. A snack food company describes its pretzel products as “healthy.”
In order to meet the FDA requirements for a claim of “healthy,” a food must, at a minimum, be low in fat, saturated fat and cholesterol (most pretzels meet these 3 criteria easily), may contain no more than 360 mg sodium (some pretzel products do; many don’t), AND it must provide at least 10% of the Daily Value per reference amount of vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein or fiber. There is no pretzel product we know of that meets all these criteria, particularly the last one. If you know of a pretzel that does, let us in on it.
77. The package for an instant miso soup product states that since the product “is a vegetarian soy food, it is totally free from cholesterol and saturated fats…”
This misconception is becoming epidemic! Plant foods certainly contain no cholesterol, but if they have some (ANY) fat, there will be some saturated fat in there, albeit usually less than in fats from non-plant sources (an exception is coconut oil, which is more saturated than many meat fats). We repeat: ALL VEGETABLE FATS CONTAIN SOME SATURATED FATTY ACIDS, and the naturally occurring fat in soybeans is no exception. This particular product has “0 g” saturated fat because there is only 1 g total fat (coming from a very small amount of tofu), so the amount of saturated fat is insignificant at this serving size. A 1/2 cup serving of raw, firm tofu has about 11 g total fat, with 1.6 g of it coming from saturated fat.
76. A frozen venison sausage product advertises itself as “low fat” on the package. The Nutrition Facts label states 9 g fat per link (one serving).
This product is not and cannot legally be called “low fat” in the U.S., because it has more than 3 g fat per serving. While venison is fairly lean, and a 3 oz portion of unprocessed venison may have 3 g fat or less, one serving (as labeled) for this particular product is not low in fat.
75. A Sunday news magazine touts raw, shelled, “ready-to-eat” soybeans as “healthful.”
… if you don’t mind not being able to digest much of the protein these soybeans contain. Edamame, as served in Japan and Japanese restaurants, are green soybeans that have been boiled or steamed first. They are not eaten raw, which appears to be the state the product featured in the magazine is in (the product’s Web site similarly does not indicate any cooking has taken place). Unfortunately, raw green soybeans contain substances (tripsin inhibitors) that inhibit the digestion of some of the soybean’s protein. In addition, the Nutrition Facts information given on the product’s Web site is inaccurate for green soybeans. Fiber and fat would be significantly higher in a 1/2 cup serving than the 1 g and 2.5 g (respectively) stated.
74. A major U.S. health food store’s advertising newsletter states that “spinach contains more protein than most vegetables.”
To begin with, most vegetables are not very good sources of protein, unless you include beans and grains in the list of vegetables. Compared to other green leafy vegetables, spinach is slightly above average (along with turnip greens and collard greens), with about 2-3 g of protein per serving of 1/2 cup cooked leaves. Compared to other garden vegetables (not including beans and corn, which are much higher in protein), spinach is still no superstar – broccoli, brussels sprouts and mixed vegetables (frozen then cooked) have about the same amount of protein. Green peas are higher in protein, with about 4 g per 1/2 cup cooked. Either way, 2-4 grams of protein for one serving is not that much, and the quality of that protein is fairly low. Spinach and other leafy greens have far greater strengths in the water-soluble vitamin category, particularly vitamin C, carotenoids (including beta carotene) and other anti-oxidants.
73. A major dietetic association states in a fact sheet on its Web site that saturated fats “are found in animal foods … and in tropical oils like palm and coconut.” It then states that unsaturated fats “are found in foods from both plant and animal sources.”
Saturated fats also come from both plant and animal sources, and the plant sources are not limited to “tropical oils.” All fat-containing foods contain some saturated fat. In fact, most vegetable oils contain at least 10% saturated fatty acids. And let’s not forget that the many foods containing hydrogenated fats (e.g., margarine, crackers and cookies) contain formerly unsaturated fats that have been converted to what are essentially saturated fats as far as the body and our health are concerned.
72. A weight loss Web site recommends using 3 tablespoons of feta cheese for a “high-calcium” addition to a sandwich.
While 1 oz of most hard-style cheeses contains at least 20% of the US RDI (the requirement for using the terms “high” or “excellent source”) of calcium, 1 oz (about 3 tablespoons) of feta has a higher percentage of water and thus a lower percentage of nutrients, including calcium. One ounce of feta supplies only 14% of the RDI for calcium, and is therefore a “good source” of, but not “high” in, calcium. This amount of feta cheese includes 6 g fat. One and one-half ounces of feta (about 4 1/2 tablespoons) would provide 20% of the RDI for calcium, bringing with it about 9 g fat.
71. A diet Web site quotes a dietitian: “Thai food [in restaurants] is a healthier choice than Chinese, because it uses less fat and larger proportions of vegetables, rice and noodles.”
This is a generalization that in no way applies to all Chinese restaurant food or all Thai restaurant food. In fact, many items on Chinese menus are high in vegetables and fairly low in fat and particularly saturated fat (it all depends on how, what and how much you order – as in any restaurant!). Also, many Thai dishes contain large amounts of coconut milk, which is high in total fat and very high in saturated fat (the category of fats which includes the least healthy of fatty acids). As for rice and noodles, these are a big part of Chinese as well as Thai cuisine, and can easily be ordered in varying amounts. But rice and noodles do not necessarily make a meal more healthy, since they mostly supply carbohydrate (with little fiber or other nutrients). They certainly add to calorie content, and, as with most high-calorie or high-fat foods, too much is not a good thing, particularly when weight loss is the objective.
70. A retailer with a discount and “health foods” slant sells under its own label a tuna burger with a claim (in their advertising circular and on the box) of “low in fat and cholesterol.” The nutrition label shows 23 g fat, 4 g saturated fat and 65 mg cholesterol per serving (one patty).
Based on the Nutrition Facts label, this product is neither low in fat (not even close) nor low in cholesterol. To be low in fat it cannot have more than 3 g fat per serving. To be low in cholesterol it cannot have more than 2 g saturated fat, and cholesterol must be no higher than 20 mg. This is another example of food marketing writers and retailers making the assumption that any fish-based food product is low in fat.
69. A bottled salad dressing with 3 g fat “per serving” carries a “low-fat” claim on its label. The serving size is 1 tablespoon.
The standard reference serving size for salad dressing is 30 g (which is about 1 oz. or 2 tablespoons); therefore, this product is not low-fat by US FDA regulations.
68. A health/nutrition columnist for a national Sunday newsmagazine states that “a chocolate bar’s glycemic index – a measure of ability to drive up blood sugar – is surprisingly low, about like oatmeal’s.”
Any food that is high in fat, protein or fiber will have a low glycemic index, because these components of food take longer to digest than carbohydrates. Oatmeal has a low glycemic index chiefly because of its fiber content; chocolate bars have a low GI because they are high in fat. This hardly puts chocolate on an equal footing with oatmeal in terms of its nutritive value. To reduce the high glycemic index of a carbohydrate food, simply eat it with some fiber, protein, or a SMALL amount of fat. Using the glycemic index as a method of rating the nutritive value of foods is misleading and out of context, not to mention harmful to the health of those who “eat up” this kind of misinformation.
67. A consumer health magazine’s “Health Information Card” on cholesterol recommends eating “low-fat cheese, such as part-skim mozzarella.”
Part-skim mozzarella has about 5 g fat per 1 oz serving (and 3.5 g saturated fat). It is not low in fat (or low in saturated fat, which is of greater significance in respect to cholesterol health) and never has been. Only foods with no more than 3 g of fat per serving* can be designated “low-fat.” (*Main dishes and meals have slightly different requirements. See Blooper #65, below.)
66. A health organization’s Web site provides a collection of recipes (e.g., buttermilk waffles and French toast) that have been “made healthy.” Ingredient lists and nutrition are shown for both the original and modified versions.
Many recipe makeovers such as these reduce fat and calories (mostly by eliminating or reducing butter), but do nothing to increase fiber and/or mineral and vitamin content, which would be easy to do by, for example, substituting some whole grain flour for the white wheat flour used in the original versions. Just because a recipe is low or lower in fat and calories does not guarantee it will be “healthy.” For more information, see the FDA’s page on health claims in food labeling.
65. A major US newspaper’s food section serves up several main dish recipes described as “low-cal” and/or “low-fat” (the predictable, token acknowledgement of healthy eating that we always see around New Years). The recipes included one for beef brisket with 517 calories and 26 g fat, and one for grilled pork loin that contains 387 calories and 23 g fat per serving.
There is still a widespread lack of understanding of the requirements for calling something low-calorie or low-fat in the US, even in the food media, where these two terms are commonly misused. The two recipes mentioned above are immediately disqualified from designation as “low-fat” because they contain more than 30% fat from calories (45% fat in the brisket and 53% in the pork loin). Of the other recipes given, some pass the 30% test, but they still must pass the other half of the “low-fat” test for entrees and main dishes: having no more than 3 g fat per 100 g of the food (a test we did not perform because it requires making each recipe and then weighing the results – something the recipe makers most likely did not do either).
As for “low-calorie,” this is unlikely to be applicable to meat-based entrees and main dishes (even for lean cuts), because the requirements are even tougher than those for low-fat. In fact, many low-fat foods are not low-calorie (e.g., low-fat frozen waffles are not low-calorie, nor is plain turkey or chicken breast meat). For a main dish to be low in calories, it cannot have more than 120 calories per 100 g of the dish (again, the need for a weight of each portion, which was not provided with the recipes), so simply making the portions smaller (which some of these recipes did) does not make something low in calories, because the definition is on a per 100 g basis. Also, just because something is lower in calories relative to something else (the only test that appears to have been applied by this newspaper’s food department) does not make it “low-calorie.” Broth-based soups and dishes containing mostly fruits or vegetables (not grains) are the foods most likely to be low in calories (i.e., they have a greater percentage of water and/or fiber).
64. A listing of healthy food products at a health/beauty Web site describes a dried veggie product as having “all the benefits of veggies.”
There will be some loss of water-soluble vitamins, particularly vitamin C, when going from a fresh to a dried vegetable.
63. The nutrition center for a major health Web site describes its recipe for a shrimp & asparagus dish as “high in fiber.”
Their nutrition information doesn’t give a value for fiber, but we calculate it to be 2 g per stated serving. This is only 8.5% of the US DRV (Daily Reference Value) for fiber and therefore not even a “good” source of this nutrient. To be “high” in fiber, each serving would need to contain at least 5 g of fiber. If you were to substitute brown rice for the white rice in the recipe, fiber would increase to 3.6 g per serving (14% of the DRV), and this dish could then be considered a “good” source of fiber.
62. The nutrition center for a major health website describes its recipe for a low-fat cheesecake as “high in calcium.”
Their nutrition information doesn’t even give a value for calcium, but we calculate it to be 82 mg per stated serving. This is 8% of the RDI for calcium and therefore not even a “good” source of this nutrient. To be “high” in calcium, each serving would need to contain at least 200 mg of calcium. Someone probably assumed that because the recipe uses a lot of cottage cheese it must therefore be high in calcium. See Nutrition Q&A #30 for more on calcium in cottage cheese.
61. A well-known health organization/foundation’s Web site states that the amount of calcium in fortified soy beverages “is not regulated.”
Calcium is one of the nutrients required to be listed on a Nutrition Facts label in the U.S., and any nutrient on this label must be present in the amount stated, within a certain percentage range (for calcium, the product must contain at least 80% of the value stated on the label). So, yes, it is regulated.
60. A Sunday news magazine states that “dried plums [prunes] are rich in fiber and iron.”
For purposes of nutrition labeling and advertising in the U.S.: To be an excellent source of (or “rich in”) a nutrient, a standard serving of the food must provide at least 20% of the RDI or DRV of that nutrient. A serving of prunes is 40 g or about 5 prunes. This amount contains 3 g fiber (12% of the DRV) and 1 mg iron (5.5% of the RDI), making prunes a good (not excellent) source of fiber, but not even a good source of iron (“good” requires 10% or more of the RDI). In addition, what iron is present in prunes is not well absorbed.

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 © 1997-2008, Palate Works