I can get all the sugar and carbs my body needs from veggies and fruits. I get guidelines from how my body responds to what I give it. I value physical evidence over organizational theory. I think the world would be in much better shape if we quit overthinking and got back to basics.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16
I was so disappointed to read that manufacturers would be given 2 years to switch to the new labels.... assuming the changes are approved.
I'm with Becky on this one-- and I think she chose some very good examples. Raisin Bran. Bran sounds good. And nothing wrong with raisins. Those are generally just dried grapes, no sugar added. But looking at that nutrition label as it is now.... no way to tell how much sugar is the naturally occuring -ose in the raisins, and how much is added sugar that I don't want. So skip buying Raisin Bran, because I can't tell.
It's all fine and good for WHO or the USDA or whoever-all wants to, to give us a guideline on how much added sugar we shouldn't be eating. But at the same time, give us a way to figure it out already.
Ruth in Cookeville, TN Central Time Zone
Promise me you'll always remember: You're braver than you believe, and stronger than you seem, and smarter than you think - Christopher Robin to Pooh
And it's not just added versus natural. Some products and databases break things down into sucrose, fructose, glucose, etc, while others just say "sugars." In order to make a computer program that could deal with that, it would have to be programmed to recognize all the different names sugar can go by and add them all up.
That doesn't happen with things like manganese-- it's either in the database or it isn't. There's no special programming necessary for the other nutrients.
If the new labels are approved (and that's not a sure thing because there are elected morons out there who will oppose ANYTHING that their opposition favors), manufacturers will be given about two years to phase them in. Look for the whole system to be ready in early 2017.
I will share a couple examples of the current difficulty with the sugar listing on a food label. If you purchase a carton of yogurt---how much of the sugar amount listed on the label comes from the natural sugar in the milk vs the added sugar to sweeten it??
If you purchase a box of raisin bran cereal; how much of the sugar listed comes naturally in the raisins (a fruit) vs the amount added to sweeten the cereal.
In chocolate milk--how much of the sugar listed is from the chocolate syrup vs the natural milk sugar.
If you buy canned peaches in syrup, how much of the sugar listed is found naturally in the fruit vs that which is added from the sweet syrup
"However" there is good news a coming! The FDA is working on a new nutrition label---and my best educated guess is that the sugar listing on the food label will change to reflect ONLY added sugar sources. Then the sugar listing will be a helpful component to the consumer!! YEAH!
I agree - I'd like to be able to track it too, in some manner or another. But although I don't recall the specific reasoning described, I understand that it's not likely to happen here. I'm not convinced that's apathy, it sounded like a procedural thing that made it pretty much impossible - or at the very least so inaccurate as to be a waste of programming. I'm disappointed. I wish we could track it, too.
...the problem with people these days is they've forgotten we're really just animals ... (attributation forgotten)
We did not create the web of life; we are but a strand in it. ~attributed to Chief Seattle
We don't have souls. We ARE souls. We have bodies. ~C.S. Lewis
I read that article today and I agree with everything you say here. There would be a lot of value in tracking sugar consumption as it is a pretty solid indicator as to the nutritional value of one's diet - and far more of a valuable stat than manganese intake (good luck finding that on any label ever).
Especially as new evidence emerges as to how harmful sugar is, and the WHO specifically giving a numerical target to stay within - I really wish we could track intake here.
Do something everyday that your future self will thank you for.
current weight: 179.8
Fitness Minutes: (37,547)
2,253 3/6/14 5:45 P
I have read the "ask the experts" article regarding why we aren't allowed to add Sugar as a nutrient to track. However, I was wondering if there is ever going to be a review of this. Yesterday, the WHO released new guidelines for sugar consumption. They stated only 5% of our calories should come from sugars.. "That includes sugars added to foods and those present in honey, syrups and fruit juices, but not those occurring naturally in fruits."
I don't think it would be that difficult to subtract sugars you ate in the form of fruit from all the other grams of sugar consumed. Just my two cents. In addition, a lot of other nutrients we are "allowed" to track are not on every food label and also have added vs. natural components, such as Potassium and Fiber. Not all food labels have potassium, calcium, or iron content, so it's hard to know how much we're really getting, but it's one of those things we are dinged for being out of range. It would just be nice to track sugar too, and I think it would be a real eye-opener for some people!!
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.