Thank you for the excellent video on reading labels - I had no idea of all the loopholes.
Thank you. As I say, the IRS tax code is easier to understand than the FDA Food label.
SactoBob wrote:The same companies "Steel Cut" oats has 0 sat fat, 1 poly, and 1 mono.
Quaker Oats has only 15 calories from fat, .5 each of saturated, poly, and mono.
Since all of these have the same ingredient (Just oats), are these differences significant, and where do they come from? Is it possible that the Oven Toasted Oats where toasted with a little oil, but so little that they don't have to list it as an ingredient.
You will see a lot of this if you look closely.
It is all because of rounding and no, none of it is significant in a product that contains only whole oats. There is a lee way allowed in serving sizes and rounding, so there is no simple one answer and has to do with the product and how they analyzed it or submitted it.
For the record, and not to make things worse, but if you go the USDA SR 20, the standard reference used for nutritional analysis, you will see many of the same discrepancies. They give you some of the justification for the discepeancies herehttp://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=8964
and more specifically here http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/D ... 20_doc.pdf
Not to open another can or worms, but realize that the 4 calorie per gram of carb or protein and the 9 calorie per gram of fat, is not always what they use.
The good news is that this is an incredible database and our food label, in spite of all its flaws, is the best in the world.
The bad news is there are many loopholes and some discrepancies.
What this means to me is that I can use all this info to my benefit to try and make some sense out of what I am buying and what I am eating and what I am getting in from the food, in comparison to what my goals are.
However, I also realize that to try and overly micromanage these issues is futile due to the amount of discrepancies and loopholes.
Of course, we have not even begun to address all the issues that effect each nutrient and the absorption and metabolism of it.
SactoBob wrote:I am being pretty skeptical of everything now, which is a good thing. Thanks
If that is all you got our of my video, then you got the most valuable point.
We have to get back to thinking critically about the information we are presented.
I like to think of myself as a "skeptical believer." I am more than happy to be convinced of anything and to beleive in it. But, at first, I am going to be skeptical and want to be convinced.
Jeff Novick, MS, RD