SP has a statement that they won't do that for now because there is no way to distinguish between the amount of sugar in processed foods that is inherent to the main ingredients, and the amount that is added. For instance, take tomato sauce -- that might be 25 g sugar per serving, but you can't know how much is from the tomatoes and how much is added. Without that knowledge, knowing the total amount of sugar you've eaten is less helpful.
That's my understanding of it anyway; probably one of the SP reps will be along to explain it better.
(If I were them I'd also be concerned that some people would wind up rejecting unquestionably healthy foods because they contain sugar and would not want to encourage that. I can only imagine the piles of questions that would come in here: "I want to have a couple servings of broccoli, but it has 6g of sugar! Should I still eat it?" Yes, yes you should. Etc. But that's just me and it's still a shame.)
If you are in the US, there is currently a proposed change to the requirements for nutrition labels to break down not just sugar itself, but also *added sugar*, which I think would be wonderful. If this goes through (I don't think it's planned to take effect for another year or two), then I would expect SP would also change its policy, though of course I can't be sure. I'd love for people to add their voice to getting this label change through if they are interested in nutrition and getting crap added sugar out of foods, because it is sure to face huge amounts of negative pressure from food and agricultural lobbies. Call your reps, etc.
Height 5'8 1/2"
5K 4/21/11: 31:55
|60 Maintenance Weeks