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.

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.