Food labels are misleading and calories

“Companies are trying to change the position of the line always processed foods as nutritious and healthy to portray healthy ingredients on the front of packages, but not really put the ingredients in significant amounts in the table,” Bruce Silverglade Center for Science in the (CSPI) public interest director of legal affairs said.

FDA is too slack

The National Food Processors Association said it opposes the new labeling requirements and that the FDA already requires food labels with enough information for consumers to make informed decisions. The FDA has already claimed the authority to take action against misleading labels.

The CSPI wants the FDA to ensure that food companies accurately portray packages, and expand food labels for ingredients labels are easy to read.

Under current government regulations vaguely written, CSPI says that makes being creative with the front of packages, the use of vague words and suggestive images that may have little relation to what is inside the box or bottle.

“The front of the panel is more of a wakeup call for a consumer and most likely used for marketing purposes than it would be for the inclusion of ingredients or give information about nutrition,” said Lisa Katic, Grocery Manufacturers Association from America. However, consumers tend to look only at the front of the packaging and ignore nutrition labels on the back. Although nutrition labels are more strictly regulated, they are also more difficult to decipher, the CSPI argues.

Much also confusion abounds by the term organic . We see it everywhere now marketing and advertising agencies have led us to believe that this term is synonymous with “healthy.”

Another major problem is grain. The food industry is incompatible food classification as “whole grain” and, in many cases, misleading consumers according to a study by the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) researchers.

“In the US, food ingredient information is written for regulators and scientists, not the average consumer,” said Anne Munoz-Furlong, founder and CEO of the advocacy group nonprofit Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Network (FAAN) .

Do you know what is ammonium caseinate? What lactalbumin, or casein? These elements, all derived from milk, often appear on lists of food ingredients – if consumed -. could endanger the health of Americans allergic to milk

processed foods make you fatter

Food processing includes cooking, mix and mash, or use instead of refined flour unrefined. It can be done by the food industry before buying, or at home when preparing a meal.

Its effects can be large. If you eat your raw food, which tend to lose weight. If you eat the same food cooked, they tend to gain weight. Same calories, different results.

For our ancestors, that could have meant the difference between life and death. Hundreds of thousands of years ago when early humans learned to cook they were able to access more energy in everything they ate.

The extra energy it possible to develop large brains, have babies traveling faster and more efficiently. Uncooked, it would not be human.

more processed foods are digested more complete

Animal experiments show that treatment affects gain calories if the energy source is carbohydrates proteins or lipids (fats and oils). In all cases, more processed foods give a room more energy.

Take carbohydrates, which provide more than half of the calories in the world. Their energy is often packaged in starch grains, dense packages mainly glucose digested in the small intestine.

If you eat a food rich in raw starch until half of the starch grains pass through the small intestine undigested entirely. The body obtains two-thirds or less of total calories available in the food. The remainder could be used by bacteria in the colon, or may be passed out as a whole.

Even among cooked food, digestibility varies. The starch is made more resistant to digestion when allowed to cool and sit after being cooked as it crystallizes in structures that digestive enzymes can not easily break down.

So rancid foods like cooked days old, spaghetti or cold toast, will give fewer calories than the same foods they eat hot, although technically contain the same amount of stored energy.

softer foods are saving calories

Highly processed foods are not only easier to digest; they tend to be softer, requiring the body to expend less energy during digestion. Researchers fed rats two types of laboratory chow. One type was solid granules, the type of laboratory animals is usually granted. The only other difference was more air containing: were as breakfast cereals inflated.

Rats fed solid granules and bulging weight ate the same food and the same number of counted calories and exercising the same amount as the other. But the rats that ate the swollen granules became heavier and had 30% more body fat than their counterparts who eat regular food.

The reason why inflation pellets-eaters gained more power is that their intestines do not have to work so hard: swollen granules take less physical effort to break down. When rats eat, your body temperature rises due to the work of digestion.

A meal of swollen granules leads to a lower increase in body temperature the same meal of solid granules. Because the swollen granules require less energy to digest, leading to greater weight gain and more fat.

Our bodies function the same way. They do less work by eating foods that have been softened by cooking, puree or aerated. Think about that when you sit down to a festive meal or dinner in a fine restaurant.

Our favorite foods are prepared with so much love that melt in the mouth and slide down the throat barely need to chew. It is no wonder that we worship. Our preference is the natural way to keep as much as possible of these precious calories.

Why food labels do not tell the whole history

Unfortunately, Of course, in the supercharged populations and today underexercised form of nature is not the best way. If we lose weight we must challenge our instinctual desires.

We must reject the soft white bread for whole wheat bread raw, processed cheese for natural cheese, cooked vegetables for raw vegetables.

And for this it would be much easier if our food labels gave us some tips on the amount of calories you save by eating less processed foods. Why are our nutrition advisers of silence on the subject?

For decades there have been calls distinguished by committees and to reform our system of counting calories institutions. However, demands for change have failed. The problem is the lack of information.

The researchers find it difficult to predict accurately how many extra calories you win when food is more highly processed. Instead, they find easy to show that if a food is digested completely, a specific number of calories will occur.

Therefore, our food labeling faces a choice between two systems, neither of which is satisfactory. The first gives a precise number of calories, but does not account for the known effects of food processing, and therefore mis-measured what our bodies are actually in the food collection. The second would take into account food processing, but without any precise figures.

Faced with this difficult decision, all countries have chosen to ignore the effect of processing and the result is that consumers are confused. Labels provide a number that probably overestimates the calories available in unprocessed food.

Food labels ignore the costs of losses in the digestive process the bacteria and digest energy expended. Costs are lower for processed products, so that the amount of overestimation on their labels is lower.

By Karen Foster preventing disease ; | References: Harvard ; LiveScience ; ABCNews ;
“Food labels are misleading and calories ” is replublished article from