Carbohydrate Claims Can Mislead Consumers, Study Finds

[HuckleB]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100907071239.htm

"Food manufacturers advertise a variety of foods on grocery store shelves by using nutrient claims on the front of packaging. A study in the September/October issue of the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior evaluates how consumers are interpreting certain carbohydrate-related content claims and the effects of claims on consumer perceptions of food products. Findings from this study reveal that consumers misinterpret low carbohydrate claims to have health benefits and weight loss qualities beyond their nutrition facts.

In the early 2000s, low-carbohydrate claims gained huge popularity in response to such books as Dr. Atkin's New Diet Revolution and The South Beach Diet. In a study published in AC Nielsen Consumer Insights, it was noted that there was a 516% sales increase in low-carbohydrate food products from 2001 to 2005 showing that front of package claims can play a large part in consumer decisions.

Existing research suggests that consumers are less likely to turn to the back of a package to look at the Nutrition Facts panel when there is a claim on the front of the package. In the new study, researchers at the United States Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition sought to determine whether low-carbohydrate claims might lead consumers to perceive products to have benefits that are not necessarily related to being low in carbohydrate. Using an online questionnaire, 4,320 consumer panelists rated products for their perceived healthfulness, helpfulness for weight management, and caloric content based on front-of-package-only conditions (nutrition claims versus no nutrition claims) and availability of Nutrition Facts panels.

This study documents that in the absence of Nutrition Facts panels, "low-carbohydrate claims led to more favorable perceptions about products' helpfulness for weight management, healthfulness, and caloric content. Because an individual packaged food product's usefulness for weight management as part of an overall diet, its healthfulness, and total calorie content are not dependent solely on the amount of total carbohydrate it contains, the study demonstrated that consumers could misattribute benefits to products that claim to be low in carbohydrate."

..."

------------------------------------------------------------------


The follow up study probably should be about the drive to advertise "No HFCS!" Two questions to start with: Do people who purchase products labeled "No HFCS!" get any health benefits? Do people who purchase products labeled "No HFCS!" decrease or increase their simple sugar intake?

:hi:

[dkf]

1. Heck you need a program with all nutritional info to figure out what is what.

[supernova]

2. My rule of thumb

All this proves is you MUST read the nutrition label. The real estate on the front of the package belongs to the marketers who can tell you anything. In fact, I work very hard to make marketing irrelevant to my choices.

My rule of thumb is that a food must have digestible carbs in the single digits, preferably 6 or below. Closer to 10 and I'm much more likely to put it down. Over ten and in the teens, forget it. It does tend to whittle down what is available to me in the market. ;-) Makes food shopping so much easier.

[grasswire]

3. yeah I read the carb count on everything I buy

Since I was diagnosed type 2 diabetic and learned the hard lesson that carbs are my enemy. It is terribly difficult to feel good about my diet most days. If I were only cooking for myself it would be easier, cuz I could just have an omelet for supper and be happy. But I cook for others as well, who are not carb restricted and want the usual liberty to enjoy pastas and potatoes.

I read every package.

[supernova]

4. Aww, I feel for ya

having to cook for people who aren't on the same meal plan as you.

I have a hard time because my SO, who is obese, is still in denial about what is safe for him to eat. The NP told him to lose weight on his last visit at the beginning of Sept. But, and I could strangle her :P *, she told him he could still have his weekend to eat whatever he wants. So of course, he fills up on ice cream, pasta, cake. He's making better choices, but not enough to move the scale yet.

*sigh* And it's very hard for me to abstain from all that. I usually wind up eating way more than I do during the week alone. I'm trying to get him to change his diet, but it's a tough slog. I almost hope that she will read him the riot act when he goes back in Dec.

[BadgerKid]

5. But net carbs is just a matter of amount served.

So that one-twelfth of a cup of ice cream should be OK ;)

[supernova]

6. Well yes

I meant per serving

:crazy:

[BadgerKid]

7. What's in a serving? Really.

1. The quoted number of servings per container generally does NOT agree with what you get when weighing out the food. My experience.

2. the government allows values to be rounded off. If the manufacturer is trying to be carb conscious, it's likely that the number of grams per serving size is rounded down, so there could be up to an addition 0.5 grams of unlisted carb content per serving. The more manufactured food items on a person's table, the greater the potential for lurking carbs. I'd bet most people would easily make up for the 4-gram difference you mentioned in your post.

3. Re-reading your post, I think you're concerned about sugars and starches. Maybe you're trying to keep the glycemic load of your food low....perhaps due to blood sugar issues.

Anyway, been there, done that myself. Kudos to you for having found a system that works!

[supernova]

8. Yes, sugars

and simple starches is what I tend to focus on, then total calories. IOW, I eleminate most foods that are quick-acting sugars in the bloodstream.

And you're right about manufacturers playing fast and loose with what's a "serving." I have found some companies getting better. Most crackers and chips now are measured out in x chips/crackers per serving, instead of a weight, say 100 grams. It makes much more sense from a diet pov to keep up with how many of an item rather than how much of an item. I can say I ate 10 chips, and that's an easy way to keep up with it. But it's a lot harder to weight everything out on a scale, which I also do sometimes.

edit: My original point still is true here. I look for very few carbs in any given recipe. That means I don't eat a who lot of flour or flour based products, no rice, no barley, no rye. Very few potatoes, maybe 2x/week. I will sometimes eat quinoa. I eat legumes, low GI veggies, nuts, fruits, and lean proteins for the most part.

[wuvuj]

9. Natural Solutions for Losing Weight

http://www.anh-usa.org/natural-solutions-for-losing-weight/

The research behind natural approaches to weight loss is getting better and better.

Your integrative healthcare practitioner is the right person to ask for advice about losing either weight or fat or both and thereby improving health. But all who have lost weight successfully point to four critical elements, and there are lots of new developments:


* proper hydration at the right time;

* diet and nutrition (making healthy food choices);

* exercise (integrating physical activity into your lifestyle);

* taking supplements to correct imbalances (especially important: a lot of new developments here).

[wuvuj]

10. Fact is...

...that if you are reading the labels on a box or package...you are buying processed food.

Processed food is designed to be addictive. If it's good tasting pap...you'll eat lots of it and buy some more?

I'd like to see a glycemic rating on all foods...and GMO labeling.