Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


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!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Tue, Oct-24-17, 08:09
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 11,361
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default Study finds shortcomings in Canadian regulations governing use of sugar claims

Quote:
Consumers believe products with "no added sugar" claims are healthier and lower in calories. But is there evidence to support this belief? In a new study published in Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, researchers at the University of Toronto report that prepackaged food and beverages labelled with claims such as "no added sugar" or "reduced in sugar" can have lower sugar levels than products without sugar claims but may not have notable reductions in calories and some can contain amounts of sugar considered in "excess" by the World Health Organization.

Are Canadian consumers being misinformed by sugar claims?

Jodi Bernstein, lead author of the study and PhD student in the Department of Nutritional Sciences, says there is "misalignment" among consumer perceptions, how regulations define "added sugar," and the relative amount of free sugar in products -- that is, sugar no longer in its naturally occurring state such as the juice from an orange versus an orange in its whole-fruit form.

Under the current Canadian Food and Drug Regulations, labelling on food products must "be accurate, truthful and not misleading." However, under these same regulations fruit juice -- a significant source of free sugar -- is commonly considered a fruit ingredient, not a sweetener. Fruit drinks, or products with fruit juice, can still carry a "no sugar added" claim even if they contain excess free sugar. Bernstein was surprised that 15 of the 16 fruit preserves and all 234 fruit juices and juice drinks with "no sugar added" claims, had excess free sugar.

Using data from the University of Toronto's Food Label Information Program (FLIP), the researchers determined the differences in calories and nutrients of Canadian prepackaged foods and beverages with and without sugar claims. Overall healthfulness of the products was scored based on nutrients to avoid -- calories, saturated fat, sodium, sugar -- and nutrients and components encouraged for consumption -- fibre, protein, fruits, vegetables, legumes, and nuts.

Over 3000 products including puddings, yogurts, cereals, fruit drinks, salad dressings, and sweet condiments (fruit preserves and syrups) were evaluated; 635 products had at least one sugar claim. Products with sugar claims had better healthfulness scores than similar products without claims but nearly half of these products still contained excess free sugar.

Bernstein advocates for changes to the current nutrient labelling guidelines. "Stricter criteria" are needed, she says. Bernstein and her colleagues propose sugar reduction or no added sugar claims should only be on products "with calorie reductions and without excessive free sugar content," and that meet an overall "healthy" criteria.

"This research is particularly well-timed given the emergence of dietary guidelines suggesting the need to limit free sugar intakes and the increased interest in reducing sugar consumption among Canadians," the authors say.

Last year Health Canada released its Healthy Eating Strategy to "engage the public and stakeholders to seek feedback and input on a proposed front of package labelling approach aimed at helping Canadians make healthier and more informed choices, particularly on sugars, sodium and saturated fats."


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...71023094401.htm

I guess I agree on the one, but not on the other. Labeling something with concentrated grape juice in it as low in added sugars is like labeling coffee as low in added caffeine. The complaint that labeling something low in sugar says nothing about the calories it contains--well, yes, it doesn't. But do we care? Avocadoes aren't low in calories, either. Neither are pecans. If these are foods you will binge on, maybe avoid them. But they aren't bad because they're calorically dense, they're bad because you tend to eat more than you need of them, if they're a problem food for you. Calorie dense foods like peanuts and other nuts are why I don't have a six-pack. Calorie dense foods like coconut oil and heavy cream are what keeps me from going all the way back to a keg.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Tue, Oct-24-17, 09:50
Merpig's Avatar
Merpig Merpig is offline
Posts: 6,106
 
Plan: IF/Fung IDM/Potato Hack?
Stats: 375/272.6/175 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: NE Florida
Default

Yeah, they are on a good track, but still in that CICO mindset. Canít seem to get away from that, can we?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:46.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.