nutrition labels: pointless, useless, or misleading?

Nutrition labels in the U.S. are to me quite worthless for indicating
the nutrition content of foods.

The Fat portion of the label does not show if the fat contained in the
food is Omega-6 or Omega-3 fat. It makes one think that all fats are
the same. But it is known that omega-3 fats are generally the
healthiest fats. No one can tell if the fat type in the food is the
best kind.

Same with Protein. Some proteins, like animal proteins, are not as
well digested by the body, and are more likely to cause immune
reactions in the body. Other proteins, like egg albumin, are easily
digested, as are bean proteins. The label makes one think that all the
proteins are the same. Some foods also have a greater variety of amino
acids than others, but the nutrition label doesn't show this.

Carbohydrates: Complex carbohydrates are always healthier than simple
carbohydrates. The label notes the sugar content (the simplest
carbohydrates), but it does not note the amount of highly complex
carbohydrates. Eating complex carbohydrates can reduce blood sugar
levels in the blood, compared to eating sugars or simple starches. The
label does not make a distinction between sugars and simple starches.
A simple starch can break down rapidly in the body into sugars, raising
blood sugar. For example, white flour products like white bread have
little sugar in them, but the simple starches in the white bread
rapidly convert to sugar in the body, causing a rapid rise in blood
sugar. This makes diabetes symptoms worse.

Cholesterol: There is no distinction between LDL and HDL cholesterol.
One is good, while the other is bad. You don't know if you are eating
good or bad cholesterol.

Additives, Preservatives, Artificial Dyes, Emulsifiers: The nutrition
label does not note if the food contains these items, which some
suggest are bad for the body. Although, the ingredient list will show
this.

Anti-oxidants: The label says nothing about if there are anti-oxidants
in the food. These nutrients help prevent aging and premature damage to
the body, as well as senility. Apples and Pomegranites have a lot of
anti-oxidants in them, as do stewed tomatos, but the nutrition label
doesn't show this.

Especially pointless about the nutrition label, of course, is that it
lists only a fraction of the vitamins and minerals contained in the
food. For some strange reason, the label focuses almost exclusively on
sodium, potassium, calcium, iron and vitamins A and C. Yet, there are
dozens of vitamins, minerals and other nutrients that are valuable in
the diet. Why are these not noted? You know if you are getting
vitamin C, A, iron and calcium, but you could be totally deficient in
many other nutrients.

Take the nutrient Zinc. It is essential for sperm production. But it
is a relatively rare mineral, found in oysters, pumkin seeds, and a few
other things. If you don't know what has zinc and what doesn't, you
won't be eating much zinc, because not much foods have it. It is well
known that average sperm counts have been dropping in the U.S. This
may be because no one can tell if a food contains zinc or not. The
nutrition label doesn't say anything about Zinc. You literally have to
go the internet and do research about what has zinc and what doesn't,
to have any chance of getting enough of it in your diet. Most
americans don't even understand the nutrition label (not that there is
much worth understanding), let alone are willing to research a nutrient
on the internet.

The effect of this labelling is that it makes the consumer practically
clueless about the nutrition value of the food. To me it is obvious
that the standard nutrition label is essentially worthless. The label
helps to hide the fact that much packaged food sold in the U.S. is of
little nutritional value. It is basically impossible to know how to
eat a balanced diet if you get your nutrition info from the standard
U.S. nutrition label.

On Nov 25, 10:28 am, wrote:
Nutrition labels in the U.S. are to me quite worthless for indicating
the nutrition content of foods.

Its a label .. on a can.. or box .. it can only hold so much info.

No one can tell if the fat type in the food is the best kind.

If you knew anything about good fats you wouldnt be looking for them in
a prepackaged food.

Carbohydrates: Complex carbohydrates are always healthier than simple
carbohydrates.

It lists the sugar and the fiber content... and its in a box .. or
wrapper .. how good can it be for you?

Cholesterol: There is no distinction between LDL and HDL cholesterol.
One is good, while the other is bad. You don't know if you are eating
good or bad cholesterol.

Well maybe you should just eat the stuff that says 'cholesterol free!!'
(ya know products that never hasd cholesterol in them to begin with!!)
or maybe you should just eat more fresh vegetables and fruits.


Additives, Preservatives, Artificial Dyes, Emulsifiers: The nutrition
label does not note if the food contains these items, which some
suggest are bad for the body. Although, the ingredient list will show
this.


Dont eat anything that has ingredients you cant pronounce.
Would it matter really that they were on the label or not?


Anti-oxidants: The label says nothing about if there are anti-oxidants
in the food. These nutrients help prevent aging and premature damage to
the body, as well as senility. Apples and Pomegranites have a lot of
anti-oxidants in them, as do stewed tomatos, but the nutrition label
doesn't show this.

Umm make your own stewed tomatoes and dont buy them in a can?


Especially pointless about the nutrition label, of course, is that it
lists only a fraction of the vitamins and minerals contained in the
food. For some strange reason, the label focuses almost exclusively on
sodium, potassium, calcium, iron and vitamins A and C. Yet, there are
dozens of vitamins, minerals and other nutrients that are valuable in
the diet. Why are these not noted?

Because most people dont care, and of those that mildly do, they only
recognize those few ingredients.

You know if you are getting vitamin C, A, iron and calcium, but you could be totally deficient in
many other nutrients.

Thats what multivitamins are for.

Most americans don't even understand the nutrition label (not that there is
much worth understanding), let alone are willing to research a nutrient
on the internet.

And that in a nutshell, is the answer to your question.
People dont really bother to read labels now (let alone understand the
minimal info on them) why bother with more info?

The effect of this labelling is that it makes the consumer practically
clueless about the nutrition value of the food.

People are clueless because they basically dont care and want to remain
that way.

To me it is obvious that the standard nutrition label is essentially worthless.
The label helps to hide the fact that much packaged food sold in the U.S. is of
little nutritional value. It is basically impossible to know how to
eat a balanced diet if you get your nutrition info from the standard
U.S. nutrition label.

And how does this US labelling compare to worldwide?
I was surprised when visiting Canada that most packaged foods dont even
have the calories on it let alone the ingredients listed.
I can only imagine the rest of the countries.. but then again, they eat
fresh foods over the packaged garbage the US consumes.



joanne

Sure, they'll sell every can with a book explaning in details everything
that is, isn't, couldn't be and most definitively aren't in the product...

Do your homework, stop expecting the world to do your work for you.
Will~

wrote in message
ups.com...
Nutrition labels in the U.S. are to me quite worthless for indicating
the nutrition content of foods.

The Fat portion of the label does not show if the fat contained in the
food is Omega-6 or Omega-3 fat. It makes one think that all fats are
the same. But it is known that omega-3 fats are generally the
healthiest fats. No one can tell if the fat type in the food is the
best kind.

Same with Protein. Some proteins, like animal proteins, are not as
well digested by the body, and are more likely to cause immune
reactions in the body. Other proteins, like egg albumin, are easily
digested, as are bean proteins. The label makes one think that all the
proteins are the same. Some foods also have a greater variety of amino
acids than others, but the nutrition label doesn't show this.

Carbohydrates: Complex carbohydrates are always healthier than simple
carbohydrates. The label notes the sugar content (the simplest
carbohydrates), but it does not note the amount of highly complex
carbohydrates. Eating complex carbohydrates can reduce blood sugar
levels in the blood, compared to eating sugars or simple starches. The
label does not make a distinction between sugars and simple starches.
A simple starch can break down rapidly in the body into sugars, raising
blood sugar. For example, white flour products like white bread have
little sugar in them, but the simple starches in the white bread
rapidly convert to sugar in the body, causing a rapid rise in blood
sugar. This makes diabetes symptoms worse.

Cholesterol: There is no distinction between LDL and HDL cholesterol.
One is good, while the other is bad. You don't know if you are eating
good or bad cholesterol.

Additives, Preservatives, Artificial Dyes, Emulsifiers: The nutrition
label does not note if the food contains these items, which some
suggest are bad for the body. Although, the ingredient list will show
this.

Anti-oxidants: The label says nothing about if there are anti-oxidants
in the food. These nutrients help prevent aging and premature damage to
the body, as well as senility. Apples and Pomegranites have a lot of
anti-oxidants in them, as do stewed tomatos, but the nutrition label
doesn't show this.

Especially pointless about the nutrition label, of course, is that it
lists only a fraction of the vitamins and minerals contained in the
food. For some strange reason, the label focuses almost exclusively on
sodium, potassium, calcium, iron and vitamins A and C. Yet, there are
dozens of vitamins, minerals and other nutrients that are valuable in
the diet. Why are these not noted? You know if you are getting
vitamin C, A, iron and calcium, but you could be totally deficient in
many other nutrients.

Take the nutrient Zinc. It is essential for sperm production. But it
is a relatively rare mineral, found in oysters, pumkin seeds, and a few
other things. If you don't know what has zinc and what doesn't, you
won't be eating much zinc, because not much foods have it. It is well
known that average sperm counts have been dropping in the U.S. This
may be because no one can tell if a food contains zinc or not. The
nutrition label doesn't say anything about Zinc. You literally have to
go the internet and do research about what has zinc and what doesn't,
to have any chance of getting enough of it in your diet. Most
americans don't even understand the nutrition label (not that there is
much worth understanding), let alone are willing to research a nutrient
on the internet.

The effect of this labelling is that it makes the consumer practically
clueless about the nutrition value of the food. To me it is obvious
that the standard nutrition label is essentially worthless. The label
helps to hide the fact that much packaged food sold in the U.S. is of
little nutritional value. It is basically impossible to know how to
eat a balanced diet if you get your nutrition info from the standard
U.S. nutrition label.

wrote:
Nutrition labels in the U.S. are to me quite worthless for indicating
the nutrition content of foods.

The Fat portion of the label does not show if the fat contained in the
food is Omega-6 or Omega-3 fat. It makes one think that all fats are
the same. But it is known that omega-3 fats are generally the
healthiest fats. No one can tell if the fat type in the food is the
best kind.

Same with Protein. Some proteins, like animal proteins, are not as
well digested by the body, and are more likely to cause immune
reactions in the body. Other proteins, like egg albumin, are easily
digested, as are bean proteins. The label makes one think that all the
proteins are the same. Some foods also have a greater variety of amino
acids than others, but the nutrition label doesn't show this.

Carbohydrates: Complex carbohydrates are always healthier than simple
carbohydrates. The label notes the sugar content (the simplest
carbohydrates), but it does not note the amount of highly complex
carbohydrates. Eating complex carbohydrates can reduce blood sugar
levels in the blood, compared to eating sugars or simple starches. The
label does not make a distinction between sugars and simple starches.
A simple starch can break down rapidly in the body into sugars, raising
blood sugar. For example, white flour products like white bread have
little sugar in them, but the simple starches in the white bread
rapidly convert to sugar in the body, causing a rapid rise in blood
sugar. This makes diabetes symptoms worse.

Cholesterol: There is no distinction between LDL and HDL cholesterol.
One is good, while the other is bad. You don't know if you are eating
good or bad cholesterol.

Additives, Preservatives, Artificial Dyes, Emulsifiers: The nutrition
label does not note if the food contains these items, which some
suggest are bad for the body. Although, the ingredient list will show
this.

Anti-oxidants: The label says nothing about if there are anti-oxidants
in the food. These nutrients help prevent aging and premature damage to
the body, as well as senility. Apples and Pomegranites have a lot of
anti-oxidants in them, as do stewed tomatos, but the nutrition label
doesn't show this.

Especially pointless about the nutrition label, of course, is that it
lists only a fraction of the vitamins and minerals contained in the
food. For some strange reason, the label focuses almost exclusively on
sodium, potassium, calcium, iron and vitamins A and C. Yet, there are
dozens of vitamins, minerals and other nutrients that are valuable in
the diet. Why are these not noted? You know if you are getting
vitamin C, A, iron and calcium, but you could be totally deficient in
many other nutrients.

Take the nutrient Zinc. It is essential for sperm production. But it
is a relatively rare mineral, found in oysters, pumkin seeds, and a few
other things. If you don't know what has zinc and what doesn't, you
won't be eating much zinc, because not much foods have it. It is well
known that average sperm counts have been dropping in the U.S. This
may be because no one can tell if a food contains zinc or not. The
nutrition label doesn't say anything about Zinc. You literally have to
go the internet and do research about what has zinc and what doesn't,
to have any chance of getting enough of it in your diet. Most
americans don't even understand the nutrition label (not that there is
much worth understanding), let alone are willing to research a nutrient
on the internet.

The effect of this labelling is that it makes the consumer practically
clueless about the nutrition value of the food. To me it is obvious
that the standard nutrition label is essentially worthless. The label
helps to hide the fact that much packaged food sold in the U.S. is of
little nutritional value. It is basically impossible to know how to
eat a balanced diet if you get your nutrition info from the standard
U.S. nutrition label.

Right. The label that always gets my goat is the 100% whole wheat
label. That only means there is some 100% whole wheat in the product,
along with lots of other stuff that is not necessarily healthy. I have
found when shopping for cereal, reach high or reach low. That's where
the good stuff is. The sugared cereal is within reach of the kids. The
whole grain foods and by that I mean 100% whole grain with nothing else
are rolled oats, shredded wheat, and the puffed rice, wheat and corn
that Walmart places so high, I can barely reach it. Oats are on the
bottom shelf. Capn Crunch is right there ready to jump into your cart.
dkw

On 25 Nov 2006 12:06:43 -0800, "joanne" wrote:

And how does this US labelling compare to worldwide?
I was surprised when visiting Canada that most packaged foods dont even
have the calories on it let alone the ingredients listed.
I can only imagine the rest of the countries.. but then again, they eat
fresh foods over the packaged garbage the US consumes.

I don't know how many centuries ago you visited Canada, but
nutritional and ingredients regulations for packaged foods are quite
strict these days.

Read this:

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/...ide/toce.shtml


Jo Anne (a different Jo Anne from the one quoted)

"Jo Anne Slaven" wrote in message
...
On 25 Nov 2006 12:06:43 -0800, "joanne" wrote:


Jo Anne (a different Jo Anne from the one quoted)

That's good. It would be kind of strange if you were arguing with yourself
online. chuckle

I'm 32 years old, from Canada and don't remember EVER seeing packaged foods
without the calories count on them... other than the "artisan" stuff..
Will!

"Jo Anne Slaven" wrote in message
...
On 25 Nov 2006 12:06:43 -0800, "joanne" wrote:

And how does this US labelling compare to worldwide?
I was surprised when visiting Canada that most packaged foods dont even
have the calories on it let alone the ingredients listed.
I can only imagine the rest of the countries.. but then again, they eat
fresh foods over the packaged garbage the US consumes.

I don't know how many centuries ago you visited Canada, but
nutritional and ingredients regulations for packaged foods are quite
strict these days.

Read this:

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/...ide/toce.shtml


Jo Anne (a different Jo Anne from the one quoted)

I've done that actually.. and not deliberately..

Will~ who'll argue with anybody!


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Jo Anne Slaven" wrote in message
...
On 25 Nov 2006 12:06:43 -0800, "joanne" wrote:


Jo Anne (a different Jo Anne from the one quoted)

That's good. It would be kind of strange if you were arguing with
yourself online. chuckle

wrote:
wrote:

Right. The label that always gets my goat is the 100% whole wheat
label. That only means there is some 100% whole wheat in the product,
along with lots of other stuff that is not necessarily healthy. I have
found when shopping for cereal, reach high or reach low. That's where
the good stuff is. The sugared cereal is within reach of the kids. The
whole grain foods and by that I mean 100% whole grain with nothing else
are rolled oats, shredded wheat, and the puffed rice, wheat and corn
that Walmart places so high, I can barely reach it. Oats are on the
bottom shelf. Capn Crunch is right there ready to jump into your cart.
dkw

And they pay good money to have those premium spots. It's the same
reason that confectionary and coffee are almost always in the same
aisle, why bread and milk are usually as far away from the front door
as possible, and mhy they have the temptations at the check-outs while
you are waiting.

Chris

wrote:
Nutrition labels in the U.S. are to me quite worthless for indicating
the nutrition content of foods.

They're imperfect, but not worthless. I wish they contained more info.

It makes one think that all fats are the same.

I disagree. Food labels are required to itemize how many trans fats and
saturated fats are in each serving. That's a clear indication that not
all fats are the same, and consumers can eliminate the worst fats from
their diets.

The Fat portion of the label does not show if the fat contained in the
food is Omega-6 or Omega-3 fat.

They also don't routinely list the amount of mono-unsaturated vs
poly-unsaturated fats, or which omega-3 acids each food contains (EPA
vs DHA vs ALA).

No one can tell if the fat type in the food is the best kind.

I can for many of my foods. Eggland's Best contains 100mg of omega-3
(ALA) per egg. Ground flax seed contains 2600mg of omega-3 (ALA) per
serving. Fish Oil contains 500mg of omega-3 (EPA & DHA) per tablet.

I know how much mono-unsaturated fat is in almonds using Fit Day and
Calorie King. My Olive Oil and Quaker's Lower Sugar Oatmeal lists that
info on their labels. My Kashi bars list how much soluble and insoluble
fiber is in each serving.

I wish all my food were labeled better. For now, my approach is to buy
more foods that have details labels and assume anything they hide is
bad news. Eg, if they list the types of fibers but don't list the types
of fats I assume the hidden fat is all poly-unsaturated omega-6.