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.
- 159. An article on a major news media Web site attributes historically poor sales of whole-grain products to their “relatively bland taste compared with refined-grain products.” FEB. 2005
- Actually, it’s refined-grain products that lack flavor and texture, because, by definition, they are made from flour that has had much of the flavor and texture-contributing parts of the grain removed! This is just another example of “in-grained” stereotypes about healthier foods. Refined-grain products often have been jazzed up with lots of additives (mostly sugar, salt and fat) to give taste and mouth-feel; it is not the flour that is giving the taste. Whole grain flours come with much more flavor, texture and even naturally-occurring fats (not to mention greater and more balanced nutrition), so there is much less need for added flavorings, etc.
- 158. A food article in a major metropolitan newspaper states that FDA “regulates only nutritional claims that draw an explicit connection between a particular product and a specific disease” and that “more general claims that an ingredient is healthful…” are not subject to FDA approval. JAN. 2005
- Not true. First, claims relating to disease are considered health claims (not “nutritional claims,” which are more accurately called “nutrient content claims” and pertain to the level of a nutrient in a food). Second, implied health claims are regulated. Third, the term “healthy”, “healthful”, etc. is regulated -- foods must meet certain criteria to use the term (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/flg-6-2.html -- see question #43).
- 157. A major food manufacturer is touting its revised breakfast cereals, saying all the products are now “made with whole grain” and all will now be “either a 'good’ or 'excellent’ source of whole grain.” JAN. 2005
- The key word here is “with”. Many products of various types are made “with” whole grains, meaning they contain some whole grain ingredients. This does not mean they use only whole grains (although that may be the intended message), and such is the case with these products, which never claim to use only whole grains for all the grain-based ingredients. While the first ingredient may be a whole grain ingredient, it is often corn (particularly in the case of children’s cereals), which is not very well endowed with nutrients (including fiber), and the second and third ingredients are often sugars and/or refined grains (often comprising close to 1/2 total calories). The marketing is misleading by implying that these cereals are healthier, when most still are low in fiber (less than 2.5 g per serving) and high in sugar. Unfortunately, they can legally call the cereals “healthy” due to low fat content and vitamin fortification.
- The FDA-approved health claim this company uses states: “Diets rich in whole grain foods and other plant foods and low in total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol may reduce the risk of heart disease and some cancers.” This claim was written by them and defined by them to include the criteria that a qualifying product “contains 51% whole grain ingredient(s) or more by weight per reference amount…” This allows a 30 g serving of cereal with only 1.7 g fiber to qualify as “whole grain” (and many of these “improved” cereals still don’t meet that criteria) -- 1/3 less than the criteria for “good source of fiber.” As for the claims that their products are now either a “good or excellent source of whole grain,” there is no such good/excellent “source” definition for whole grain. Granted, using more whole grain is a step in the right direction, but the hype for these products is overstated (there are many cereals by other manufacturers that contain more whole grain, less sugar, less salt and more fiber).
- 156. A firm that advises grocery retailers on how to draw more health-conscious customers warns against “confusion caused by conflicting information” about nutrition. DEC. 2004
- In a news release, this firm suggests helping consumers by drawing attention to products such as a cereal claiming 1,000 mg of omega-3 [fatty acids]. Too bad they don’t point out that the source of omega-3 fatty acids in this cereal is whole flax seed, which is a poor dietary source of omega-3s. One of the reasons is that the whole seeds (containing the beneficial oil) mostly pass through the digestive system unabsorbed. Ground flax seed is a better source (although it is not shelf-stable and tends to be out of the question for use in non-refrigerated products). See also Blooper #154.
- FYI: Flax seed oil is amber, not clear, as many in the sports world (reporters and players) seem to believe.
- 155. A major online news/search company’s article about schools’ efforts to combat obesity lists peanuts as an example of “the least nutritious foods” and fruit bars and sunflower kernels as examples of “the most nutritious foods.” These food categories are part of a software program that is supposed to help schools and students choose better snacks from vending machines.
- Peanuts are at least as nutritious as sunflower kernels (both have similar fat profiles and contain protein and important minerals) and in many cases more nutritious than “fruit bars” (which can be all kinds of things, including slabs of not-so-nutritious processed dried fruit that is mostly full of sugar).
- 154. A food industry newsletter states that “major sources” of DHA and EPA (long chain omega-3 fatty acids) are “fish, flaxseed, canola oil, nuts and avocados.”
- Fatty fish are, but the others are not. The plant sources sited contain the short-chain ALA (alpha-linolenic acid) omega-3 fatty acid, which is poorly converted by the body to the more beneficial DHA and EPA.
- 153. Two new vegetable oils (one from sunflower seeds, one from soybeans) with claims of “no trans fatty acids” have been “created” for use in snack food products.
- Vegetable oils never have contained trans fatty acids. The hydrogenation process, which changes the chemical structure and physical properties of fatty acids, is what creates trans fats in vegetable oils. It is done to produce a more shelf-stable product/ingredient and/or one with properties similar to those typical of naturally more saturated animal fats (e.g., butter).
- The push to remove trans fats from food products (now that the adverse health effects are well established) has been challenging to manufacturers who want to maintain certain textural and stability characteristics in their products. One approach has been to genetically engineer seeds/beans so that their oils are lower in the less stable fatty acids. Unfortunately, these tend to be the omega-3 fatty acids, which are already too low in our diets (proportionally to the over-consumed omega-6s, which will now be even higher in these foods).
- 152. A potato chip product containing both sweet potatoes and white potatoes shows vitamin A content for a 1 oz serving as 0% of the Daily Value.
- The same manufacturer makes a chip product with 100% sweet potatoes, and that one shows 80% DV for vitamin A. The product with half sweet potatoes shows incorrect vitamin A content. Actual vitamin A should be fairly significant (probably 30-40% DV), because sweet potatoes are an excellent source of vitamin A.
- Blooper B: This chip shows vitamin C content at 25% DV. None of their other chip products contain even close to this much vitamin C, despite the fact that many of them contain the same kind of potatoes. This is another error. While raw potatoes may be fairly high in vitamin C, once they are cooked (i.e., exposed to heat, air, etc.) much of the vitamin C is destroyed. No other potato chip on the market contains this much vitamin C, regardless of the kind of potato used.
- 151. A metropolitan area newspaper announced that a major donut maker is developing a “low sugar” donut. The article also described it as a “low calorie” donut.
- First of all, there is no such thing as “low-sugar” anything because the term has no definition and is not authorized for use in labeling or advertising of food products in the U.S. The only claims allowed relating to sugar content are “sugar-free”, which may be used for products that contain less than 0.5 g sugars per serving, and “reduced/less sugar”, which may be used for products with at least 25% less sugars than an appropriate reference food (e.g., the manufacturer’s original recipe).
- “Low calorie” is an entirely different term, and does not apply to all sugar-free or reduced-sugar foods (in fact, most are not). Such products generally may not contain more than 40 calories per reference amount (standard, defined serving). For a baked good, such as a donut, with most of its calories coming from fat (regardless of sugar content), this low of a caloric level is virtually impossible to attain.
- 150. A major newswire states that a large winemaker has declared its new 2 carb wines to be “the first introduction of low-carb wines” in the US. Both the red and white contain 2 grams of carbohydrate (after the scientifically and legally required rounding of their figures) per 5 oz serving.
- This is the same average carbohydrate content for any dry white wine; 3 grams is the average for most dry reds. These “low carb” wines are not the first to do anything except take advantage of the new (interim) regulations allowing alcohol beverages with 7 g carbohydrate or less to be labeled as “low carb.” Just about all spirits, dry wines and light beers already fall into this category (alcohol contains substantial calories but very little carbohydrate).
- 149. A magazine promoting health/natural foods products declares cantaloupe, honeydew, almonds, walnuts and pecans “low in carbs,” and watermelon, cashews and soy milk “high in carbs.”
- Since there is no actual definition for a “low carbohydrate” food, all we can do is compare foods using same portion sizes. Grams of carbohydrate in 100 g portions (about 2/3 cup diced) of honeydew, cantaloupe and watermelon are 9, 8 and 7.5 respectively. All have 1/2 to 1 gram of fiber for this serving size. Since watermelon has slightly more water in that 100 g, you could also compare by percentage of total calories coming from carbohydrate. But even by this comparison all are similar -- close to 90% (although each could vary a fair amount depending on how ripe the fruit is). Thus, none of these melons is significantly higher in carbohydrate than the others (and if anything, watermelon is slightly lower). However, all differ in other nutrients, with watermelon being by far the best source of lycopene.
- The “low in carbs” nuts listed by the magazine have carbohydrate contents from 4 to 6 grams per 1 oz serving. Cashews have about 7.5 g -- not much higher, and no reason to shun this nut which is a good source of iron (10% of the Daily Value in 1 oz).
- Soy milk varies in carbohydrate content depending on how much, if any, sweetener is added. Sweetened varieties can contain 7 to 12 g carbs per 8 oz serving; unsweetened varieties range from 1 to 4 g -- hardly “high in carbs” (especially when a serving of melon can contain up to 9 g carbs and still be described as “low carb” in the same magazine side-bar.) Hmm…maybe someone’s brain wasn’t getting enough glucose or iron to do simple math.
- 148. A soybean coffee substitute makes numerous claims on its Web site and in press releases as to nutrition benefits, including the following: “The soybean contains 10 times the amount of protein found in animal milk…The fat…in soybeans is…about 80% unsaturated or linoleic acid which is an Omega-3 fatty acid…” and a Nutrition Facts label showing, among other things, carbohydrate content of 0 g and fiber content of 6 g.
- The first statement is misleading and the other two are incorrect. They are comparing dry soybeans with ready-to-eat beverages (milk), meat and cheese, all of which naturally contain water, which dilutes all nutrition values. Raw/dried soybeans should not be compared to equal weights of edible, high moisture foods. Once you cook or otherwise process soybeans into a food or beverage product, it too becomes higher in moisture content and therefore a less dense source of protein, etc. In fact, this soybean coffee beverage is made by pouring boiling water over ground, roasted soybeans. Even if there were 13 g protein coming through in a one cup serving as they claim (very unlikely), this is only 1.2 times more protein than in a glass of milk (rather than 10 times). The nutrition of the roasted soybeans is not the same as that of the beverage brewed from them -- most of the soybean solids stay in the filter, just like with real coffee.
- The fat in roasted soybeans is about 86% unsaturated (total of all non-saturated fatty acids), but only 6% of total fat is from linolenic acid, which is an omega-3 fat (linoleic acid is not an omega-3). Soybeans are much higher in linoleic acid, an omega-6 fat, which is not lacking in our diet and in fact usually present in excess.
- As for carbohydrate content, fiber must be counted as carbohydrate in nutrition labels, so if there are 6 g fiber there must be AT LEAST 6 g carbohydrate. Zero carbohydrate is not an option if there is any fiber present. Also, since soybeans contain only slightly less carbohydrate than protein, it is highly unlikely that 13 g protein will wash out of the ground, roasted beans and into the cup of brew but none of the carbohydrate. Someone has put the cart (product) before the horse (actual nutrition content) here, and it is running over many gullible consumers and PR people in the process (although probably not in that order).
- 147. A news article states that a particular beer (on the market since 2002) was the “first low-carbohydrate beer.” The beer’s labeling states it has 2.6 g carbohydrate.
- Before April 2004 this was moot, because there was no definition for “low-carbohydrate” (which now is temporarily defined in the U.S., for alcohol beverages only, as products with no more than 7 g carbohydrate per serving). It has, however, been legal since at least 1980 to compare alcohol beverages and show which is RELATIVELY higher or lower in a particular nutrient. But due to the lack of precision possible in these figures, 3.2 is really 3, as is 2.6 (they are all averages of many product samples that can vary by at least .5 g), so a product with 2.6 carbs is the same as one with 3.2 carbs. Since there have been lite (a legal, defined term) beers on the market for many years with 3.2 g carbohydrate, these are in fact just as low in carbohydrate as those claiming 2.6 g. In addition, federal (U.S.) labeling regulations for beer allow for up to 20% difference between stated and actual content. Therefore, a product with 2.6 g carbohydrate can have up to 3.1 g and still be labeled as 2.6 g., and one with 3.2 g can be lower “within a reasonable range” (including 2.6 g) or up to 3.8 g. Bottom line: Lite beers (many of which have been out for 20 years) were the first to fit the new (and first and only) “low carb” definition.
- Then there’s the issue of whether your body even notices a difference of one or two grams of carbohydrate anyway -- it is insignificant.
- FYI: Neither lite beers, nor those describing themselves as “low-carbohydrate” are low in calories. A low-calorie product, according to the FDA, can have no more than 40 calories per serving. Lite/“low-carb” brews are all around 90-100 calories.
- 146. The ingredients for a “healthy” crab cake product lists “cracker crumbs, mayonnaise, margarine…” and the nutrition label shows 4 g fat per serving.
- First of all, only products that are low in fat (no more than 3 g total fat per serving for a non-entree/meal item) qualify to use any “healthy” claims. Secondly, the ingredients listing must include all sub-ingredients. Cracker crumbs, mayonnaise and margarine all contain many ingredients themselves, and these must be listed (in parentheses after the ingredient that contains them).
- 145. A grocery chain flyer recommends omitting nuts when baking a “low carb” brownie mix for those who are “concerned about carbohydrate intake”.
- Even if you were to add one cup of almonds or walnuts (which is a fairly large amount for a one-dozen batch) to the mix, the resulting brownies would only have an additional 1-2 grams of carbohydrate, because nuts are not very high in carbohydrate – they get the majority of their calories from fat and, to a lesser extent, protein (depending on the nut). But by omitting nuts you will not only miss out on a nice “crunchy addition,” but a source of protein, good fats, fiber and beneficial minerals as well. In fact, the nuts would be the most nutritious ingredient in the brownies! The rest of it – fake sugars and stripped down soy and wheat – provide little in the way of balanced nutrition.
- 144. A news article quotes a restaurateur who offers spaghetti squash instead of pasta because it is “low-carb” and can “take the place of starches.”
- About 96% of the calories in spaghetti squash come from carbohydrate and 1% come from protein. Spaghetti pasta, however, has only 80% of its calories coming from carbohydrate, but 4% from protein (whole grain pastas have even more protein and also more fiber). Therefore, spaghetti squash has more starch calories than pasta.
- When comparing equal weight portions, however, cooked spaghetti squash contains so much more water (92% by weight vs. 66% water in cooked pasta) that total calories and carbohydrate will be lower than in an equal weight portion of pasta. Fiber is also higher (as a percentage of carbohydrate), making spaghetti squash a good diet food (but not because it is lower in carbohydrate, which it isn’t) and a healthy food in general. It is important to consider the total contents of a food before making simplistic (and “good vs. bad”) comparisons.
- 143. A newswire piece in January of 2004 on “low-carb” beer states that this sector will grow at the expense of the light beer sector.
- Beers labeled “low-carb” are virtually identical to beers labeled “light” except that the former is illegally labeled (up to April of 2004, when a temporary legal definition for “low-carb” alcohol beverages was introduced). “Light” has been allowed for many years to describe a product with 1/3 fewer calories (and almost all beer calories are from carbohydrate) than a comparable product. For the media to report that a nutritionally mislabeled product will do better than a properly labeled product without pointing out that one is illegally labeled and both are almost nutritionally identical is irresponsible and misleading (not to mention potentially damaging to products that are legally labeled and advertised).
- 142. The press release for a brand of avocado oil describes it as a “zero carbohydrate, zero cholesterol avocado oil.”
- Hello! All vegetable and nut/seed oils are free of carbohydrate and cholesterol. By definition, oils are 100% fat! For this reason, they cannot carry claims such as “carbohydrate-free” or “cholesterol-free” without stating that this is generally true of ALL oils.
- 141. A multi-grain bagel product claims 7 g total carbohydrate on its nutrition label. Of that total, 6 g are stated to come from fiber and 1 g from sugars. This would leave 0 g from non-fiber carbohydrate.
- Assuming the ingredient label is correct (i.e., ingredients are properly listed in descending order of predominance), the carbohydrate content for this product can not be correct as stated; it must be higher. The first, fourth, fifth and sixth most predominant ingredients (soy flour, whole wheat flour, wheat gluten and oat bran) all contain significant amounts of non-fiber, non-sugar carbohydrate. Where did it go?
- 140. A new ketchup product declares itself “low-carb” with one gram of carbohydrate per 1 tbsp. serving.
- Assuming there were a definition for the nutrient claim “low-carbohydrate” (there isn’t, and it is an illegal food labeling term in the U.S.), one would expect 4 grams of carbohydrate to qualify for “low,” since so many products calling themselves “low-carb” contain at least that much carbohydrate per serving. A one tbsp. serving of regular ketchup has just 4 g carbohydrate (16 calories – basically an insignificant number of calories out of a typical daily diet of 1600 cal. or more). If you are trying to lose weight, it would make more sense to simply eat less of foods that are higher in calories and low in beneficial nutrients (on a per-serving basis), such as junk foods and carbohydrate-based foods with little or no fiber (0-1 g per serving). For a listing of food products that have been tested for taste and nutrition, go to www.winningfoods.com.
Prior Bloopers: bloopers 101 through 139.
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.