Re: Net/Total Carbs Labeling Faisco-US

Thought I'd share this informative response on this topic that I got
elsewhere from someone who prefers to reamin anonymous--

"I think I have the answer to this. You probably won't like it, but I
think I can explain it. Also, at the end, I'll state what I think how
a person should handle this.

"If you want to know the detailed answer you need to refer to the
following two documents:

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/Y5022E/y5022e00.htm#Contents 

"Which has the brief title of "FOA Food and Nutrition Paper 77, Food
Energy - methods of analysis and conversion factors, Report of a
Techncial Worshop, Rome, 3-6 December 2002, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2003"

"Also, refer to the following:

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/CFR101-9.HTML

"Which is "Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Volume 2, Revised as
of April 2, 2002, From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO
Acces, Cite: 21CRF101.0, Pages 19-47"

"The first document deals with exactly the methods used to determine
the composition of foods, both historically and current practice and
makes recommendations for going forward.

"The second document deals with Food Labeling (Part 101) and Nutrition
labeling of food (sec. 101.9). Note that this is from the CFR (Code
of Federal Regulations) which means that is has the force of federal
law behind it.

"Since few will want to wade the above docs, I'll summarize as best I
can.

"- There are many methods to detemine the composition of food. The
history of this is extensive and has changed little over time as it's
a complex measurement. More modern analytic methods are being phased
in slowly and the FDA and other international food databases are being
updated. The FDA food database is almost universally recgonized as
the most accurate and up to date. There is also an organization under
the UN called INFOODS (International Network Of Food Data Systems)
that is charged with coming up with standardized systems. The
takeaway from this is that the determination of food composition is
complex and can change slightly with the methods used.

"- The US Federal Government allows actually allows 5 separate methods
of caloric determination and food composition. They also specifically
allow discretion for food producers to include or not include fiber in
their total calorie value calculation. They also have very specific
rules for rounding and when talking about small amounts of content, as
fiber normally is, this can also skew the totals. The takeaway from
this is that in the US, fiber may or may not be included in the
calorie totals, hence carb totals. This isn't evil, it's just the
consequence of the complexity of determining food composition.
"- There's also quite a bit of evidence that fiber DOES have a caloric
component and cannot be thought of as completely indigestible. The
first paper I cited states that soluble fiber should be considered to
have 4 calories per gram and that insoluble fiber should be considered
to have 2 calories for gram. There are way more details than I've
just stated and there are actually ranges depending upon fiber type,
but they suggest those figures as good averages. The takeaway here is
that fiber DOES have caloric and carbhydrate content and CAN affect
metabolism.

"- The FDA has filed numerous cases against a very broad range of food
producers for false and misleading claims regarding carb content. The
basis of most of these cases are around the 'low carb', 'limited
carb', 'no carb' , etc, etc, etc claims made without factual basis.

"So, I guess my conclusion is that the most conservative approach,
meaning that you'll almost always NOT over do your carb intake is to
take the total carb count and NOT subtract the fiber.

"Over time it appears that eventually food counts and labeling around
the world will change to be more consistent, but that process will be
extremely long. It also appears that food information will become
more exact as the more exact testing methods are applied to more and
more foods. It also appears, that it least in my opinion, lots of
current 'low carb' labeling is flat out misleading and in many cases
actually is illegal. ....Hence as always, caveat emptor."

My reaction to all this is about the same as when I found out there
are different charts and formulas out there comparing HbA1c to average
blood sugar. If I look at one chart, my average blood sugar is 100,
but another chart tells me 90 and a third one says 80. I have come to
understand that the charts are an approximation comparing different
measures, but I'd like to find more accuracy in the world whenever
possible.

Especially in this case where we in the US been told for years by
CDEs, dieticians, and diabetes authorities to subtract fiber from
total carbs to get net carbs. So for years I have been eating a number
of net carbs that is different from what I thought I was eating--in a
random way. Maybe some of those diabetes demons and random glucose
levels have a logical explanation!

I know that for some people calories are an issue, but for me that is
minor. Grams of carbs are more important from a diabetes perspective
than a relatively small difference in calories. Perhaps there was some
wisdom in the advice not to subtract fiber unless it was more than 5
grams.. but not really because of the random aspect of it. Some
manufacturers label one way, some label another way.

So from now on I will try combining the 5 gram rule with the advice
above. For the most part I will disregard fiber, and base my portion
size on the listed total carbs. But if the fiber is more than 5 grams,
I will calculate the calories to see if they have already subtracted
it from total carbs, and if they haven't then I will. That works for
me for 2 reasons--I have a high innate aptitude for arithmetic and I
am not using insulin.

But I especially feel sorry for insulin dependent diabetics who are
not good at arithmetic. Caveat emptor, buyer beware, is always good
advice, but when our health depends so much on it, labeling
regulations should be more precise. Especially when we have been told
that our labeling in the US is figured one way and it turns out that
it is really much more random in a way that can affect blood sugar
levels.

Morris




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Daily Carb Load
    ... You don't have to do it, but the more fiber a food has, the less metabolic impact because at least half of the fiber isn't digested and doesn't budge your bg. ... Some folks eat much higher fat percentages to avoid stimulating insulin, which both protein and carbs do. ... I've built up a big custom database over the years of stuff I use, like that soybean pasta, low carb pitas, etc. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: Daily Carb Load
    ... You don't have to do it, but the more fiber a food has, the less metabolic impact because at least half of the fiber isn't digested and doesn't budge your bg. ... Some folks eat much higher fat percentages to avoid stimulating insulin, which both protein and carbs do. ... I've built up a big custom database over the years of stuff I use, like that soybean pasta, low carb pitas, etc. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: That Fiber Connection
    ... carb counts IF the food item contains MORE than 5g of fiber in a serving. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: label reading problem
    ... I just looked at my jams, and their calorie/carb numbers match up, one ... If so the fiber would be included in the ... carb total, but since it is indigestible, does not add into calories. ... The British system of not including fiber in the total carb count maeks ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: Food Calorie question
    ... > reaction in an insulated Calorimeter was how the Calories in food were ... but I would not get fat by eating hay.. ... Cellulose is "fiber" We do not convert fiber to storable/usable energy, ...
    (sci.chem)
Loading