• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Food Labels Are Permitted To Be Misleading Per The Fed.

rhinefire

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
10,388
Reaction score
3,002
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Most Americans take the calorie, fat and sugar counts on food packages as fact, give or take a few calories. What few realize, however, is that it is legal for the counts on many foods to be off by 20%, meaning snacks labeled as having 100 calories may in fact have 120.
This is thanks to FDA rules for calories, fats and sugars: The government’s nutrition labeling manual notes that “the ratio between the amount obtained by laboratory analysis and the amount declared on the product label in the Nutrition Facts panel must be 120% or less.”
And since the government requires packaged foods to have at least 99% of the weight declared on the box, Roberts says, manufacturers almost have to put more in the package than is stated on the label. (This also protects consumers from getting shortchanged.)
Research shows that the calorie counts on packaged foods are frequently wrong. A study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association found that the calorie content on frozen food labels was an average of 8% higher than the label claimed.
All of this could be problematic for the millions of dieters who count calories, fat grams or their foods’ sugar content: Even if you’re vigilant, you could still be eating too much of them -- though, in this case, the effect is likely most noticeable on single-serving items.
The FDA notes that its regulations “help ensure that nutrition labeling values are accurate” but that sometimes precise values are “impractical.”
Vitamin and mineral content can be 20% lower than what’s on the label
Like calorie counts, it is perfectly acceptable for vitamin levels to be off —significantly off — which means you might be getting less of the vitamins and minerals than is stated on the label.
The FDA rule says vitamins and minerals that naturally occur in food “must be present at 80% or more of the value declared on the label.” (Vitamins and minerals that are added to food, however, have to be exactly what’s claimed on the label.)
That means if a food’s label states an item has 60 mg of vitamin C in it, it’s only required to have 48 mg. If you were depending on that food for your daily dose, that could mean falling short. (That, by the way, is approximately 90 mg for men aged 18 and over and 75 mg for women).
“The nutrient content of a food can vary based on several factors such as weather conditions, soil type, and the processing that a food undergoes,” the FDA notes, and “other compliance factors include the variability generally recognized for the analytical method used and the reasonable excesses and deficiencies of declared amounts acceptable within current good manufacturing practice.”

What's 20% give or take??!!
 
I've always considered calorie counts (and other counts) to be approximations. Sure, 20% seems excessive, but I don't think gnats-ass accuracy is remotely realistic, either.

Especially with restaurant menu nutritional information, considering there is still human variances in preparing food.
 
Back
Top Bottom