Low-Carb Bread Claims Don't Pan Out In Lab Test
 

Low-carb bread claims don't pan out in lab test, grocers say


04/11/04


BOULE L4 Boule: Mislabeling could be bad for diabetics. This column has zero carbs.

Which is more than can be said of some commercial "low-carb" products. In a country filled with people who've recently taken up carb unloading, it's only natural that grocery stores have begun to fill shelves with products that claim to have fewer carbohydrates.

But do they? Can carb counts on packages be trusted?

Not always.

Oregonians Lois Kaplan and Bo Bodenschatz, who own LoBo's Low Carb World in Salem, have proof.

Lois and Bo, who are married retirees, opened their grocery store last year after a lot of research and preparation. From the start, they saw the store as a way to help people improve their health through low-carb eating. Lois lowered her cholesterol from a dangerous to a healthy level eating low-carb foods. And Bo, who was diagnosed with diabetes 11 years ago, was able to stop twice-daily insulin injections after a few months of eating a low-carb diet.

At their store the two spend a lot of time explaining low-carb programs. "We know many of our customers by name," Lois says. "We'll walk through the store with them."

Breads, in particular, are hard items for some people on low-carb diets to give up. So Bo and Lois have spent much of their nine months of operation looking for palatable breads with reduced carbohydrate counts. About six months ago, a distributor recommended breads with the Low Carb Emporium label.

"They tasted very good, especially for low-carb," Lois says. The label said the bread had 1 net gram of carbohydrate per slice, a very low amount. Customers of LoBo's snapped up the Low Carb Emporium bread, bagels and other bakery products.

And some stopped losing weight. "That made us suspicious," Lois says. Bo adds, "It just tasted too good to be low-carb. That was a red flag."

So the couple contacted Low Carb Emporium and asked for laboratory proof that the claims on the label were correct. They waited. They called. They e-mailed. They faxed. They got promises, but no report.

Bo and Lois had heard rumors that the Low Carb Emporium bread was much higher in carbohydrates than the label claims. "We read an article on the Internet that said the carb count was more like 14 or 15 net grams of carbs per ounce," Lois says. "That was horrifying to us. It's a huge difference, especially if you're a diabetic."

After weeks of requests, they still hadn't received any lab reports from Low Carb Emporium. So they pulled all the bread from their shelves and pursued their question with their distributor in Nevada, where Low Carb Emporium is headquartered. "I said if we didn't get answers from him, I didn't know what else to do other than to contact the FDA," Lois says.

That got an immediate response from Carol Shaw at Low Carb Emporium, Lois says. "She was very hostile. . . . She said to quit badgering . . ., that they did not like the threat. I told her it was not a threat, we were just trying to get answers."

Soon after, Low Carb Emporium announced it had changed its formula and its carbohydrate claims. Sure enough, new loaves were wrapped in labels that said the bread had a net carbohydrate count of four grams per ounce of bread mix. What did that mean, the couple wondered? How much bread mix was in a slice of bread?

"It became obvious the only way we could . . . tell our customers it was really low-carb and OK to eat, was to have our own analysis done," Lois says.

So a few weeks ago Bo took one of the new loaves of Low Carb Emporium bread to the Food Products Laboratory in Portland. Two weeks later they had their results: the bread had nearly 15 net grams of carbs per slice, more than triple what the package claimed.

"If you're diabetic and you're eating this bread and you don't realize the carb count is three times what the label says it is," Lois says, "you're asking for a real health problem."

In a phone interview from Nevada last week, Lori Smith, owner of Low Carb Emporium, dismissed the lab results Lois and Bo got. "This was politics," she said. "These results came from a competitor." But LoBo's is a store, not a competitor.

"We don't manufacture the bread," Lori then said. "We just put our labels on them and distribute them."

Lori would not give the name or phone number of the company that makes the bread and provides the carbohydrate claims on the labels. "I promised them I would not do that. They're being bothered a lot about this," Lori said.

Lori Smith, Bo and Lois, grocery consortiums and consumer groups all agree: The FDA should establish regulations for carbohydrate content claims. The FDA has rules for claims about fat content, fiber content, calcium content. But not carbohydrates.

It is against the law, however, to make false claims on packaging.

In January, a former health food executive from Kentucky was sent to federal prison with a 15-month sentence for sticking low-fat labels on high-fat doughnuts and shipping them to health food stores across the nation.

Lois and Bo say they aren't interested in a lawsuit or in getting anyone in trouble with the law.

They just want accurate information on food labels. "We believe the bread is mislabeled," Lois says. "If it is, we're concerned people will eat the bread and before long they could have a serious health problem."

Last week Bo and Lois sent a letter and a copy of their lab results to the other low-carb stores in the area, "so we can help them protect their customers," Bo says.

So far their investigation into Low Carb Emporium products has cost Lois and Bo over $1,500 in lab costs and wasted merchandise they pulled from their shelves. Bo doesn't mind. "I think anyone with a business that can affect people's health should have as much concern for the public's health as they do for their own business interests," Bo says.

Investigations across the nation have uncovered other cases of false carbohydrate claims on store merchandise and in restaurant food. So people following a low carbohydrate diet would be wise to remember the advice dispensed by their grandmothers -- the same grandmothers who used to bake cookies and make cinnamon toast for their visiting grandchildren: If something seems to be too good to be true, it probably is.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oreg...12040160450.xml

Unless the manufacturer is also misrepresenting the calorie counts (as well as fat and protein counts) on the label, there is also another way to check whether the carb count is accurate or not...do the math!
If the total calories from the reported carb, fat and protein counts don't add up to the reported total calorie count, something's fishy in Denmark. :rolleyes:

I once picked up a package of bread that claimed to be "low-carb" and looked at the label. First ingredient on the list was white flour.

Conclusion: ignore the claims and read the label

Speaking of that I saw some "Low-Carb" Spaghetti yesterday at Super Wal-Mart. It said on the front: 5g Effective/Net/or something of that nature Carbs. So, I flipped it over. First ingredient was White Flour (Enriched Semolina,) followed by Fiber Blend and Sorbitol. I looked at the nutrition label and it read 41g Total and 2g Fiber. But, then off to the side it says 41g Total - 37g "Controlled Carbs." But, they don't say what a controlled carb is. If there's only 2g of Fiber, and Sorbitol appears further down the list than the Fiber, so there has to be <2g of it. I couldn't find anything else other than the Fiber, Sorbitol, and White Flour that contains Carbs. I added up the Calories, and came out to 38g Net Carbs. So, that means they're deducting WHITE FLOUR and calling its carbs "Controlled." If you followed that logic, all spaghetti could be considered "Low-Carb," as well as all Bread, and for that matter ANYTHING.

I think my bread is ok. First clue is, it doesn't taste like normal bread. :p I'll have to figure it out though. I doesn't contain any wheat flour, so thats probably a good sign. For me its the things that holds the inside of my sandwich in.

Speaking of that I saw some "Low-Carb" Spaghetti yesterday at Super Wal-Mart. It said on the front: 5g Effective/Net/or something of that nature Carbs.

There is a new low carb pasta called Dreamfield's that supposedly uses a special process that creates a fiber coating over the pasta that keeps you from digesting most of the carbs. In other words, according to them the "digestible carb" count isn't just subtracting the fiber grams, but their "unique" process of coating the pasta with fiber reduces the amount of carbs actually digested. The penne pasta, for example, lists 42 total grams per serving, 37 of which are supposedly undigestible, leaving 5 net carbs. It doesn't contain soy, and supposedly tastes just like regular pasta. I have read posts from low carbers who are raving about it, and claim it didn't create cravings, let them stay in ketosis, etc. The Dreamfield's website says they are getting a patent for the process they use to make the pasta. It also says they did human testing on the product and that their pasta does not significantly raise blood glucose levels. I'm not sure if I can post their website here, but if interested you can do a search for dreamfields foods. Here is some info from their website:

DREAMFIELDS pasta is lower in digestible carbohydrates. What that means is that while the total number of carbohydrates is the same as typical pasta, our unique blend of dietary fibers and proteins protects all but about 5 grams of these carbohydrates from being digested. These protected, or "controlled," carbohydrates pass to the colon where they provide the health benefits of fiber.

Most low carb pastas are made using what is a called a dilution process where they remove semolina flour and add different fillers that do not contain significant amounts of digestible carbohydrates. In some cases, these fillers make up 70-80% of the low carb pasta formula. The fillers include ingredients such as soy, wheat protein isolates and certain fibers, and they can have a negative impact on taste, texture, color and cooking performance when compared to standard pasta. In contrast, DREAMFIELDS pasta has largely the same level of durum semolina as traditional pastas, with a low level of our unique blend of fibers and proteins—no soy fillers. Our special recipe means fewer carbohydrates get digested that will increase blood glucose response. So you get the authentic taste and texture you expect from pasta, but with only 5 grams of digestible carbs.

Linda

Something about fiber coating just sounds fishy to me.

Sounds like BS to me. Pasta made from durum flour has a fairly low glycemic index, that might be why some low-carbers tolerate it.

Unfortunately, given the unclear and inconsistent US food labeling system, this simple method does not always work. Calorie counts generated in a laboratory are usually obtained by burning a sample of a food in a bomb calorimeter and measuring the heat generated. However, not everything that burns to produce heat in the lab is digested by the body. For example, fiber can burn to produce calories in a bomb calorimeter, but is not generally digested by the body. Some food labels therefore subtract the calories from fiber, but other include them (in which case the actual calorie count the food generates in our body is less than the label). Surprisingly, there is no FDA standard in the US that specifies how fiber and other undigested calories should be considered when making a food label. A search of the FDA regulations for labeling as given on their website shows a glaring absence of this and the FAQ page of the USDA Nutrient Database even states that the 4-9-4 method of calorie calculation for entries in their database may include OR exclude fiber. The same would be true of other low digestability sources of carbohydrates, such as synergistic blends found in products like Dreamfields pasta.

There's an interesting (if somewhat hostile and off-topic) archived thread on this board that talks about US food labeling with regard to calories and fiber:

http://forum.lowcarber.org/archive/index.php/t-66690

A poster named Areiel called the US FDA in an attempt to solve the issue of whether undigested or low digested substances like fiber appeared in calorie counts on labels. Here's what she posted:



It settles things basically by saying things are not settled as far as US food labels are concerned. This issue, and the ability to use simple math calculations to look for "hidden carbs", is going to be even more complicated by ingredient blends that have synergistic effects to lower digestable carbs. That is, for products such as Dreamfields pasta or possibily some low carbs breads. (Note here that I have no idea whether the bread discussed in the article at the start of this thread is low carb or not; I'm just saying that this whole issues of digestibility and calories and labeling is not simple.)

By the way, I'm a type 2 diabetic. I've had Dreamfields pasta three times--including for lunch today. It has a minimal effect on my blood sugar and it appears that, at least in my body, a serving does have only about 5 g digestible carbs. However, I can't say that everyone's body reacts the same way, just as different people have different reactions to sugar alcohols.

I'm curious about the Dreamfields pasta as well. Maybe since it's made in North Dakota, I'll just go knock on the door? :)

I wonder how much mislabelling is a happening now, 4 years since this article was printed.

Does anyone have any experience with blatant misrepresentation on labels.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

This is the reason that oopsies are so popular (yes! I said oopsies! in yet another thread!). They're egg and cream cheese, they serve the function of bread, and they taste better than low carb bread anyway.

Yes I do! I've started a small collection of labels that are fishy. I'll start with fish. :) :
Trader Joe's "Smoked Herring" (comes in a flat can) has an ingredient label that reads "smoked herring, salt". But when you open the can, it is obviously packed in oil. My guess is that it is soybean oil, but since it is not identified on the label, it could be anything.
Another is Trader Joe's sprouted multi-grain bread (no wheat). The calorie counts don't add up and I don't think such a think slice of bread could have only 4 net grams of carb.
Another is Campbell's soups. I keep a couple of cans on hand just in case one of us gets sick when our kids are sick. Those labels never seem to add up.

I'll have to check my label collection & see if there's more. The hiding of trans fats seems to be the more popular issue these days.

I've had experience with incorrect carb counts on salsa which I've mentioned in another thread. The carbs listed were lower than the sugars. In this case I think it was just a mistake with the numbers transposed but it still annoyed me.

I wodner how Trader Joe's gets away without listing the oil in the label. I thought they had to list all the ingredients.

I really don't trust any of that stuff. There is some (relatively) low carb bread that isn't marketed as such. It's marketed as "light" and it's okay a couple times a week. I think it's got 40 calories and 7 net per slice, so I tend to eat it sparingly.

Wow this is an old thread......

I ran across a label that didn't make sense recently, on shredded dried coconut. I had been buying unsweetened organic shredded coconut that claims (per 3 Tbsp/15 gram serving) 4 grams of carb and 2 fiber. It is pretty finely shredded. The ingredients list says "organic coconut, shredded and dehydrated". That's it. I spotted another brand at the same store that was more coarsly shredded and I thought it would be better for macaroons etc but when I read the label it said (I don't remember portion size) 8 grams of carb and 1 fiber. The ingredients also just listed dehydrated coconut. It doesn't make sense. How could it be so different when there is just coconut in it. I could see a difference in fat content if they removed coconut oil or something but how could the carbs/fiber ratio vary? So, even though I wanted coarser coconut I couldn't bring myself to buy it.

[quote by Carolyn] " I've had Dreamfields pasta three times--including for lunch today. It has a minimal effect on my blood sugar ..."

I have used Dreamfields Penne 3 times as well, and it doesn't raise my blood sugar either, but I have been careful to take small portions anyway, just in case. I made mac & cheese with it a couple of weeks ago, something I figured I'd never be able to eat again. As a side dish for me with a protein, it was fine. I know for a fact that if I had used regular pasta my sugar would have soared. Yesterday I used the penne for a cold pasta salad - same thing. I have eaten around 3/4 of a cup of it twice now, no problem.

Whenever I eat something that I think might be a problem, I test at 1 hour, 2 hours, and 3 hours. So far I haven't seen an appreciable rise at any of those times. Since I have done this a few times with Dreamfields, I didn't bother tonight (strips are pricy!) but before dinner I was at 97 mg/dl and at 2 hours 101 mg/dl. Can't complain.

One thing I have noticed about Dreamfields is that when I drain it in a collander, there is none of that starchy junk clinging to the strainer afterwards. You always get that with regular pasta, but with Dreamfields, the collander is clean, not sticky or starchy at all. So there may be something to it.