CSPI Urges Crackdown on Carb Claims

CSPI Supports Food Industry’s Request for FDA Action

For Immediate Release: February 2, 2004



The proliferation of carbohydrate claims on food labels and menus should spur the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to define "low-carb" and other carbohydrate claims, according to the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

While labeling rules exist for nutrient claims like "reduced fat" and "low-calorie," the FDA never defined "low-carb," "reduced carb," or "carb-free," which makes those claims illegal. But in recent weeks, manufacturers have started to flood supermarket shelves with foods that make implied low-carb claims like "carb smart," "carb aware," and "carb sense." Today the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) asked the agency to provide guidance to food companies on low- carb claims.

CSPI agreed with the Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) that the FDA needs to set official "low-carb" levels. However, CSPI called on the FDA to:

• Regulate implied low-carb claims. The FDA should regulate claims like "carb counting," "carb fit," and "carb options" as though they were "low carb" or "reduced carb" claims.

"Consumers clearly buy those foods because they expect to get fewer carbs," according to CSPI nutrition director Bonnie Liebman. "If the FDA defines only 'low carb' claims, it will spin its wheels regulating a claim that few companies bother to use."

• Prohibit "net carb" claims. Manufacturers get "net carbs" or "impact carbs" by subtracting fiber, sugar alcohols, and other carbs that supposedly have "minimal impact on blood sugar."

"Is a carb that doesn’t raise blood sugar no longer a carb?" asks Liebman. "Should a company have to test a food to make sure that it doesn’t boost bloods sugar? The FDA should answer those questions and require all packages to follow the same rules. What if companies started deducting fats that don't raise blood cholesterol to get 'net fats,' or forms of sodium that don’t raise blood pressure to get 'net sodium'? The Nutrition Facts panel would become a zoo of competing numbers that would confuse and, in some cases, mislead the public."

• Require the words "not a low-calorie food" next to carb claims. Labels should alert consumers that foods with claims like "carb options" and "carb fit" are not low in calories (unless the food meets the FDA's definition of "low-calorie"). The FDA now requires a "not a low-calorie food" disclosure on foods that make "no sugar added" claims.

"Consumers need to know that 'minimal impact on your blood sugar' does not necessarily mean 'minimal impact on your hips,'" cautioned Liebman. "People assume that they can't gain weight on foods with claims like 'carb aware' and 'carb smart,' just as they assumed that 'fat- free' on the package meant 'fat-free' on your waist. It's a huge leap of faith to assume that the calories in a lower-carb food don't count."

CSPI suggested that a low-carb food should have no more than six grams of carbohydrates per serving and that the term "reduced-carbohydrate" be permitted for foods that have at least a 25 percent fewer carbohydrates.

"With two out of three American adults overweight and obesity rates surging in children and teens, the nation can't afford to let this carbohydrate craze add even more pounds to our bellies and backsides,"said Liebman.


http://www.cspinet.org/new/200402021.html

I hope the FDA gets moving on this and that Canada follows.

Why bother? I turn the product over and read the details. I can look at the calorie count for myself and I know how to do simple addition and subtraction of carbs, dietary fiber and alcohol sugars.

The CPSI's agenda has always been pushing a no-fat, high-carb diet on everyone and penalize anyone eating any other way.

"Why bother? I turn the product over and read the details. I can look at the calorie count for myself and I know how to do simple addition and subtraction of carbs, dietary fiber and alcohol sugars."

But not everyone knows to check the details, Nancy. And some folks are going to have heard a few things about low carbing, and not realize that eating a "low carb" in addition to their usual diet is only going to make things worse, weigh-wise.

You can't legislate good sense for people. I suppose you could make them sign a disclaimer if they buy a lowcarb product that they've read one of the popular lowcarb diet books and agree to follow it religiously.

Let them deal with their problems, or not, however they wish. Meanwhile passing laws that puts such a burden on food providers will just be a barrier to them providing lower carb foods for the rest of us.

I agree with having sugar alcohols, dietary fiber and total carbs stated on the back label, and a warning about sugar alcohols and the gastro effects. But anything other than that is just needless fussing.

Look at all the crap on cigarette packages. People still smoke.

I sure don't agree with this!! Stop counting the "net" carbs and a whole lot of food you can eat on induction and stay within the 20 carb limit is greatly reduced or gone!

I could somewhat agree with them counting the absorbable "non-effective" carbs such as Sugar Alcohols. But, why on Earth would anyone consider Fiber the same as other Carbs ??? Fiber is not absorbed and doesn't affect insulin/blood sugar*. It is deducted precisely because it has NO EFFECT*. I think 90% of folks are smart enough to turn the package over and read the label. Pretty much everyone knows "Net Carbs" and Total Carbs are not the same thing.

*The very small number of folks who believe the Hellier's (?) claim that Fiber can cause insulin release [along with pretty much anything that tastes good] should be the exact folks who would know to turn over a package and read the label.

OBTW...what are the "...other carbs that supposedly have "minimal impact on blood sugar", anyway? The only thing I ever substract is fiber!

I think they may be referring to glycerin.

No I agree with them. The average person doesn't even bother to turn over the package to read the label. They just go on the "low-carb" label or XX net carbs. It's deliberately misleading. How many people will scarf down a ton of these products and find they aren't loosing weight but won't understand why. They will probably just conclude low-carb doesn't work. If you know what you are doing then you can decide for yourself that sugar alcohols doesn't affect your weight loss and make your own calculations. This makes more sense. At least you aren't being sucked in by some manufacturer's claim.

The only thing I disagree with is their decision to exclude fiber, since it truely isn't digested. Every else should be included in the carb count. Informed people can decide for themselves.

They're not going to lose weight anyway regardless of whether the label says low-carb, low-fat or whatever if they don't take some care over what they shovel into their face.

And if the CSPI is behind it, it's not good. They're the ones that were lobbying for fat tax a few years back.

After reading the posts on this board for months, I think the average person who is serious about a LC WOE is aware and does take care over what they "shovel into their face". That's a rather harsh statement. The ones who will have a problem are the "newbies" who don't have the advantage of the experience of LC'ing for months and are making their way through a lot of misinformation and confusing information about food products on the market. It took me time, and I'll bet it has taken most of the folks on this board time, to get accustomed to looking for the hidden carbs on food lables. I see no reason to eliminate the term "net carbs" when subtracting fiber. A lot of people have no problem with sugar alcohols and don't see the need to eliminate that, either. While I'm not a proponent of the rash of LC products that have suddenly hit the market, it does make LC'ing a lot easier for a lot of people.

I don't like the CSPI any more than the next person, but that doesn't mean they're not capable of saying something intelligent. I still think the guidelines are a good idea. It's helpful for those following low fat, and I think it'll be helpful to us. Sure I read the label, but there's no excuse for companies to deliberately mislabel their products to try to dupe me in the process.

I don't like the 'net carbs' claim because of the sugar alcohols. There's disagreement on whether you can subtract the entire amount. As long as the carb count is broken down, let us do our own math according to our LC plans.

Whoa. Let's stop a moment and reflect upon what we're discussing here.

I'm all for having an "informed opinion". That way, people of different knowledge bases can choose for themselves. I still smoke. I'm just stupid and addicted. I admit it. But many, many folks have quit based on their knowledge about the dangers. Not that I'm advocating for the skull and crossbones approach.

I see no reason not to mandate that manufacturers limit themselves to putting the ingredients on their labels. Then those of us who are familiar with the "rules" can choose to subtract fiber and sugar alcohols if we wish. But I have a hard time believing that the average overweight Joe on the street who has heard on the nightly news about how great low carbing is, really has a clue about maltitol, sucrolose, and fiber,etc. Not to mention fructose.

So I think there should be some regulations on labeling things "low carb". Especially when some of the restaurant chains are calling certain items low carb when they are 17 to 21 grams of carbs "low carb". Lower carb, yes, but not for me. On the other hand, I do appreciate them letting us know what the carb count is.

My primary objection to this article is the use of the prejudicial phrase "craze".

But I would like to see some sort of uniform guidelines established .

Kay

I don't think you're following the context of the postings. Someone was objecting to me objecting to a group, famous for promoting their low-fat, high-carb agenda, from lobbying the government to regulate products that are "low carb". Their reasoning on why it should be regulated was because there are people who won't closely read the labels and will rationalize that if it is "low carb" it will help them lose weight and their failures will blacken the eye of all low carb dieters.

However my philosophy is that you can't legislate common sense. If someone abuses anything or eats low carb products and high carb stuff, they're in for some serious weight gain and they've only got their own ignorance to blame.

The folks who take the time to understand the diet, read labels and make good decisions were not the ones I was commenting on. Anyone else, if there even are people like that out there, deciding that low-carb products means fat-burning or low-calorie, well they need more education on the diet than they will get from a product label.

Who wants the government telling us what to eat? Personally, I don't like a politically driven body who gets their contributions for their campaigns from big agra business, big food producers and all the other large corporations, to make that decision for me. Look how stupid that whole food pyramid ended up being.

I want the information about carbs, fiber and alcohol sugars on the label. But I don't see the need for the government to make low carb food makers jump through hoops no one else has to.