FDA and low carb

FDA to determine the meaning of "low-carb" label
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/...arb/index.html
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Lauran Neergaard

March 15, 2004 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- Food makers are jockeying for grocery
shelf space in the low-carb craze, touting everything from salad dressing to
ice cream to low-carbohydrate Easter chocolate. Here's the catch: How
companies count carbohydrates varies widely.

While some significantly cut carbohydrates, others promoted as reduced-carb
actually cut only a single gram per serving -- yet cost more -- and some
simply leave ingredients out of their count.

Now the Food and Drug Administration is about to determine just how many
carbohydrates are allowed for a food to advertise itself as low- or
reduced-carb, and exactly how manufacturers should count the grams.

It's an effort to "demystify the current confusion about carbohydrates,"
says FDA Deputy Commissioner Lester Crawford, who expects a substantial
number of products will have to change their labels as a result.

As the FDA deliberates, nutritionists advise consumers to get savvy: Just
because a product touts itself as low or reduced in carbohydrates doesn't
necessarily mean it fits your diet.

Remember the low-fat craze of the early '90s, when cookies and other goodies
were revised to contain fewer grams of fat? Low fat didn't always mean low
calorie, and many people who swarmed back to foods they'd long avoided
regained pounds.

"We're almost seeing the same trend," says Dr. Alice Lichtenstein, a
nutrition specialist at Tufts University. With low-carb diets, "it used to
be you couldn't eat pasta or crunchy snacks, all sorts of things. Now
suddenly there are low-carb versions of anything. ... I suspect what we're
going to see is that the low-carb diets are not going to be as successful as
previously."

Indeed, a consumer advocacy group recently counted calories on some
restaurant chains' low-carb menus, with some surprising results. Consider
Ruby Tuesday's low-carb steak or fajita entrees, with about 1,000 calories,
says the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Or Subway's low-carb
wraps, which had more than 100 extra calories over the chain's famed line of
low-fat subs.

There were some trimmer options. At Subway, ask for a low-fat sub to be
wrapped in a lower-carb tortilla instead of a bun, CSPI advises. Ruby
Tuesday's low-carb fish or grilled chicken were also low in calories, CSPI
found, and the restaurant's new policy of listing calories on the menu
should help consumers decide.

Grocery shelves may be even more confusing, says CSPI nutritionist Bonnie
Liebman, who complains that "this carb craze has been going on for months
now and FDA has been silent."

She points to low-carb ice cream that actually has as much fat and calories
as regular, calling the fat-free version a better treat for most dieters.
Zero-carb salad dressing sits next to the cheaper regular version with its 1
gram of carbs.

Then there are products that list total carbohydrates on the package back as
the law requires -- but different "net carbs" on the front.

What are net carbs? Partly, it means carbohydrates minus insoluble fiber.
Some breads, for instance, cut carbohydrates by increasing fiber content, a
change even low-carb critics praise because most Americans don't eat enough
fiber.

Some companies also replace sugar with the sugar alcohol maltitol and then
don't count the maltitol, arguing it shouldn't count because it has little
impact on blood sugar levels. In a handful of warning letters accusing
companies of misleading carb claims, FDA has insisted maltitol is indeed a
carbohydrate. (Too much also can cause diarrhea and other gastrointestinal
distress in some people.)

"Low carb" or "reduced carb" aren't allowed on food labels until FDA defines
those terms, and the agency has ordered a few companies to quit using them.
The maker of Nature's Own Wheat 'n Fiber bread changed its name from the
original "reduced carbohydrate" last year just before receiving FDA's order;
Pure De-Lite quit calling its dark chocolate bar "low-carb."

Now the Grocery Manufacturers of America, the trade group representing most
major brands, has petitioned FDA to define low-carb as 9 grams of
carbohydrates per 100 grams of food, a typical serving.

It's not endorsing any particular weight-loss plan, but putting carbs on a
level playing field with fat and other ingredients, says GMA nutrition
director Alison Kretser.

The consumer advocacy CSPI wants low-carb defined as 6 grams per serving,
and for "reduced carb" foods to have at least 25 percent fewer carbohydrates
than original versions.

Stay tuned: FDA may decide by summer.


--
Most of us probably aren't in danger of eating too little.

Becky P.

FDA to determine the meaning of "low-carb" label

The FDA is being paid off by the big Pharmaceuticals...they are also being
bought by the big grain producers in this country...they want to make it harder
for us to find low carb foods...if the FDA could ban pork chops and other forms
of low carb foods, they would. They insult our intelligence on a contuing
basis.

PEPPER1960 wrote:
FDA to determine the meaning of "low-carb" label

The FDA is being paid off by the big Pharmaceuticals...they are also
being bought by the big grain producers in this country...they want
to make it harder for us to find low carb foods...if the FDA could
ban pork chops and other forms of low carb foods, they would. They
insult our intelligence on a contuing basis.

Watch, the black helicoptors are going to swoop down at night and inject
your cheese with hidden sugars. I heard they're also paying off the
government to inject high fructose corn syrup directly into the kids veins
in school! Better adjust your foil hat!

Get a grip.

Beef, it's what's for dinner

Tom (finding plenty of low carb foods)

There doesn't have to be black helicopters for this to happen. The
industries that produce these products that are full of carbs are
powerfull. They contribute plenty of money to politicians campaigns
and employ an army of lobbyists. If you think that doesn't result in
policies designed to help them, with concerns for the public coming in
second, you're deluding yourself.

Amen!

What an idiot.

tcmedara wrote:
PEPPER1960 wrote:

FDA to determine the meaning of "low-carb" label

The FDA is being paid off by the big Pharmaceuticals...they are also
being bought by the big grain producers in this country...they want
to make it harder for us to find low carb foods...if the FDA could
ban pork chops and other forms of low carb foods, they would. They
insult our intelligence on a contuing basis.


Watch, the black helicoptors are going to swoop down at night and inject
your cheese with hidden sugars. I heard they're also paying off the
government to inject high fructose corn syrup directly into the kids veins
in school! Better adjust your foil hat!

Get a grip.

Beef, it's what's for dinner

Tom (finding plenty of low carb foods)





-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In om,
Chet Hayes coded for transmition to space:
There doesn't have to be black helicopters for this to happen. The
industries that produce these products that are full of carbs are
powerfull. They contribute plenty of money to politicians campaigns
and employ an army of lobbyists. If you think that doesn't result
in
policies designed to help them, with concerns for the public coming
in
second, you're deluding yourself.

Interesting. You believe the FDA is riddled with influence peddling.
How about the USDA? Change your mind about that?

--
revek
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Ford Prefect, The
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

On 17 Mar 2004 02:02:16 GMT, (PEPPER1960) wrote:

FDA to determine the meaning of "low-carb" label

The FDA is being paid off by the big Pharmaceuticals...they are also being
bought by the big grain producers in this country...they want to make it harder
for us to find low carb foods...if the FDA could ban pork chops and other forms
of low carb foods, they would. They insult our intelligence on a contuing
basis.


http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

---------------------------------
The True Axis of Evil
Bush - Cheney - Ashcroft - Rumsfeld
---------------------------------

JC Der Koenig wrote:
..
:: Ruby Tuesday's low-carb fish or grilled chicken were also low in
:: calories, CSPI found, and the restaurant's new policy of listing
:: calories on the menu should help consumers decide.

Yay. I only get the low-carb fish or grilled chicken -- since I know those
are low in calories. But having the calorie count as well as the carb count
will allow me more options. Good for RT, if true.

"Roger Zoul" wrote in message
...
JC Der Koenig wrote:
.
:: Ruby Tuesday's low-carb fish or grilled chicken were also low in
:: calories, CSPI found, and the restaurant's new policy of listing
:: calories on the menu should help consumers decide.

Yay. I only get the low-carb fish or grilled chicken -- since I know
those
are low in calories. But having the calorie count as well as the carb
count
will allow me more options. Good for RT, if true.



I didn't write that.