Why Listing "Sugars" on Nutritional Fact Labeling is Flawed & Should be Changed

I don't know whether you've heard about the proposed changes to nutritional fact labeling on packaged foods. But according to an Associated Press story published in January, the NFL (nutrition facts label) is coming up for its latest review. Apparently, the FDA wants to make the labeling easier for all of us to read and understand.

Well that sounds like a good idea, doesn't it?

But considering the changes the FDA has made in the past, I'm not so sure.

I mean, as of 2006, the FDA has allowed food manufacturers to say their products have zero grams of trans fats just so long as the amount of trans fats per serving is 0.5 grams or less.

Granted, 0.5 is pretty close to zero. Just so long as you're content to round the number down. (I don't know about you, but in school I was always taught to round up any number if it was 5 or over.)

Be that as it may, rounding down to zero doesn't make the 1/2 gram of trans fat (or less) disappear. It's still in there. It didn't evaporate.

So I'm far from enthused when I hear one of the latest proposals for change to the NFL: Listing the different sugar sources under the "Sugars" title on the nutrition facts label.

Because here's the thing: "Sugars" (plural) shouldn't be confused with "sugar" (singular).

Sugar (singular) is that free-flowing crystallized stuff you spooned into your coffee this morning.

But sugars(plural) on the NFL is referring to all types of sweetening agents, including sugar. These so-called "sugars" include any sweetening agents the food manufacturer has used to make their product.

Sure, that could mean natural sources of sweetener like honey, maple syrup, stevia or agave nectar. Or it could mean actual sugars that have gone through differing levels of refinement, such as raw sugar, brown sugar, molasses of different grades, and white granulated sugar.

And on top of that, the sweeteners listed under the title of "sugars" can include any man-made products too, such as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and aspartame.

When you read the nutrition facts label, do you know what kind of sweetener you're about to eat? No. In order to get a more accurate view of just what sweeteners are in the product, you have to read the ingredients list.

But can you see how misleading the title "Sugars" is on the NFL?

Any casual look at the nutrition facts label would seem to show that all sweeteners are equal in value and purity. Listing all sweeteners under "sugars" makes them part of a collective that sounds innocent. Just like that round teaspoon you may have stirred into your coffee or tea this morning. But are they?

What I propose is that the title "Sugars" be changed to "Sweeteners", and that the sweeteners used in the product be listed under sub-titles that indicate the quantities of natural, refined and man-made sweeteners under strict unbiased definititions.

Then, and only then, will consumers get a clearer view of the sweeteners being used to make their favorite food products.

Of course, that's supposing the FDA doesn't allow the food manufacturers to round down or otherwise fudge the facts unduly in their own favor, rather than for the good of the public.

Do you think the food manufacturers will miss a chance to define for themselves--and for all of us--what constitutes natural "sugars"?

Yeah, neither do I.