unclear on the concept

[ilanarama]

So I'm having some chips and salsa, and I notice on the salsa label: "LOW CARB"

So I look at the nutritional info label, and I see that a serving (2 tbsp) of this salsa (505 chunky medium hot, in case you're curious) has 0g fat, 0g protein, and 2g carbohydrate.

Er - that's 100% CARB.

By this logic anything is low-carb, as long as you eat a sufficiently small portion.

Comments

[boutell.livejournal.com]

Why yes, and have you noticed sugar is FAT FREE now?

[laurelwood.livejournal.com]

This reminds me of the old days when fat was the bad guy, and olives were labeled as having "only one gram of fat per olive!". And what's the calorie count for an olive? Yep, you guessed it- 9 calories, which, of course, made it 100% fat. But hey, as long as you stopped at just one...

My favorite low-carb "WTF?" bit of advertising is 0-calorie diet soda. Oy.

[(Anonymous)]

Grow some fruit on your trees, some vegetables in your garden, use an arrow to kill an elk and a .30-06 to kill your scale. Then forget about this codswallop.

[saramwrap.livejournal.com]

Ah, the magnificence of product labeling. I remember the first time I saw an expose on what manufacturers could legally label "low fat," "light" (which IIRC is regulated differently than "lite"), "fat free" (which is different from "no fat"), etc. Amazing and frightening stuff! Those words are meaningless, overall.

I frequently snack on roasted seaweed snacks that are just seaweed, sesame oil, and salt. By labeling standards, they're low-cal, low-carb, and low-fat. If I look at it rationally, they're really quite terrible for me -- the major contributing ingredients are salt and fat. But I can devour an entire package for a couple dozen calories, and the gram counts on anything are negligible. I really have to get into the marketing of this stuff -- Atkins-heads would lap this stuff right up if I found the right label and advertising!

[bridebrooke.livejournal.com]

By this logic anything is low-carb, as long as you eat a sufficiently small portion.

It is only as logical as "truth in advertising" is true.

It is amazing how fast the entire food industry changed with the low-carb/Atkins fad. It is the only thing you see when you go to the grocery store and so many restaurants chains have altered their menus. Makes my head spin.

[chakaal.livejournal.com]

Yes. A sufficiently small portion of anything is low carb, low fat and all that. That's why they've had to make manufacturers re-define "serving" to more closely match the consumer perception of a serving. On the one hand that's bull, because people who can read really ought to look at what they are eating and those who cannot are unpersuasible via the medium of a label.

Advertising is way different from information - just know that someone's trying to trick you into buying and therefore you should look for the trick in the treat.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

I believe they can do that because the government (FDA, whatever) hasn't defined what a normal carb per serving is, so anyone can call anything low carb. (The same thing held true for "low fat", back when that had been all the rage.)

I think I'm going to start calling myself low carb! ...no, wait, with all those Atkins folks around, that might not be too safe.

Truth in labels

[(Anonymous)]

Too many labels just gull the gullible. Read the small print.

Today the US president promised to reduce the US deficit by half in 5 years.But in fact the current deficit is the largest ever (over 400 B$). Someone pointed out on TV that by projections made 5 years ago, this year was to have a 200 B$ surplus.