The concept of zer A moving target
It was only a few weeks ago that I wrote to you about the FDA's definition of zero. You can interpret "nada" to now mean just a smidge, a tad, or a wee bit over according to their guidelines. I say this because they allow trans fats to be in products that don a huge "0 grams trans fats" on their packages.
But it seems the FDA has multiple personalities when it comes to how and whom they regulate. They're now taking action against those companies that stamp their products with "sugar free." The first thought that came to my mind was, "maybe these companies don't pay out any bonuses or thank you's to the FDA?"
In any case, the FDA wants these companies to proclaim (in letters that should be a minimum of one-sixteenth of an inch in height so you'll need your extra set of reading glasses to see it) one of the following disclaimers: "not for weight control," not a low-calorie food," or "not a reduced-calorie food." This standard only applies if the product is being marketed as "sugar-free," "zero sugar," or "sugarless."
This new regulatory "smack down" comes after the discovery that there is an increase in the number of sugar-free products that are labeled wrong because they don't also carry the disclaimer as to whether or not they are low calorie or reduced in calories. Currently, in order for a sugar free claim to be in place, the product must contain less than 0.5g of sugars per serving—an amount that still must be taken into account.
What I can't understand is why the FDA is all-fired determined that you have the correct information when it comes to sugar-free products, while trans fats get a pass. It seems their intent on this tightening of the regulatory belt is to help us reduce the size of our belts. Evidently, they feel they can make an impact on the obesity epidemic but monitoring the amount of sugar in our diets, while all but ignoring a perfectly useless, unnatural and downright harmful fat like the trans fat abomination.
And beware to any company fraudulently touting a "sugar-free" claim: The FDA is intent on taking "appropriate action" if it catches you labeling your goodies incorrectly.
Speaking of wrong, please don't get me wrong: I welcome accurate, truthful claims in food packaging. But think of this—if it's in a package, it's simply not the best choice.
When's the last time you saw a bag of beans and some fresh tomatoes parading across your TV during commercial time? They're not conspicuous, and they're also not adulterated. They sit quietly on store shelves, waiting for consumers who look beyond the glitz for products that truly do offer "zero" in terms of unhealthy ingredients.
