PDA

View Full Version : FDA to Determine What Low-Carb Means


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



nobimbo
Mon, Mar-15-04, 13:40
Posted on Mon, Mar. 15, 2004

FDA to Determine What Low-Carb Means

LAURAN NEERGAARD

Associated Press


WASHINGTON - 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.


http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/health/8192678.htm

JustForFun
Mon, Mar-15-04, 13:51
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/health/8192678.htm

JFF:D

RCFletcher
Mon, Mar-15-04, 13:56
Well it's pretty obvious from this that many people in positions of influence have no idea what low carb means and somehow think low carb should mean lower in calories.

freckles
Mon, Mar-15-04, 14:05
I was kind of excited when I started reading this article thinking..'finally we're going to have some guidelines here that companies can follow.' You know, some of the stuff advertised as lc is really not. But then the article gets all confusing by discussing fat content and calories? I mean who cares? The article isn't about low fat/low cal foods...I just don't get it. Then you get to the end and they start talking how you shouldn't be allowed to deduct sugar alcohols..this is distressing! Apparently we DON'T need the government sticking they're noses in to this lc business. Does this mean companies won't be able to indicate how many carbs come from sugar alcohols? If that's the case then I'm not impressed. Knowing the carbs of sa's HELPS me. All in all not a very positive article for lc food companies at all. :rolleyes:

TarHeel
Mon, Mar-15-04, 14:12
Robert: I didn't read it that way, and thought it sounded like a sensible and non-judgmental approach. Atkins himself said that one needed to start lowering fat and calories as they started moving up the carb ladder in OWL. I'm at that point now.

Which means that I, for one, will welcome restaurants and manufacturers having to list both carb and calories count, and I can tell you that I'm staying away from the Ruby Tuesday fajitas.

And the comments about the ice cream bars did not refer specifically to lc, just said "a better choice for some dieters". As long as they list the sugar alcohols, I can subtract them for myself, and others can count them. Just tell us honestly what is in the product, please!

I fell hook, line, and sinker for the "low fat" labeling on snackwell cookies. (fortunately, I didn't like them much....)

Kay

sixpence
Mon, Mar-15-04, 14:55
I suspect what we're going to see is that the low-carb diets are not going to be as successful as previously."

This writer must read the very forum that we post to!!!! :D

Nancy LC
Mon, Mar-15-04, 16:40
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.


Doofuses! They are claiming low CARB not low CALORIE!

fluffybear
Mon, Mar-15-04, 17:05
While determining just what Low Carb means may be a good thing, I predicted awhile back that I think making low carb junk food, snack food and other highly processed food may be the downfall of real honest to goodness low carbing and eventually low carb may go the same way as the low fat craze.

Anyway here is an article about it:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040315/ap_on_he_me/confusing_carbs_2

JL53563
Mon, Mar-15-04, 17:38
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

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


Doofuses! They are claiming low CARB not low CALORIE!


Just goes to show you how little many people really understand about this subject.

TBoneMitch
Mon, Mar-15-04, 18:00
CSPI=anti fat agenda

Lisa N
Mon, Mar-15-04, 18:26
You know...I agree that some guidelines are needed for the average person who hasn't done their research and isn't into reading labels. I mean...really...is a bagel that contains 20 grams of carb "low carb"? Sure, it's lower than an average bagel, but doesn't fit into a low carb plan for must of us until OWL or even maintainence. And yet manufactures market them today with a bold label on the front proclaiming "low carb".
Personally...I can (and do) read labels and decide for myself whether or not it's low enough for me to incorporate it into my daily menu. I'd like to see truthful labels that aren't trying to hide the true carb count just so they can sell their product to the low carbing masses.
People shouldn't have to have a doctorate degree in abstract math to be able to decide whether or not something is allowed on the eating plan they're on. :rolleyes: