Nutrition and healthy eating

Free

E-newsletter

Subscribe to Housecall

Our weekly general interest
e-newsletter keeps you up to date on a wide variety of health topics.

• March 9, 2013 12:27 p.m.

  I just received my Girl Scout Cookie order and each product (3) lists clearly "partially Hydrogenated fats" but also claims in nutrition information "0 trans fats" This is not only false but also misleading and has been the case for years. How do they get away with that? Cookies have been baked and supplied by Little Brownie Bakers, Louisville, Ky, for 35 years according to them.

  - Gail

• June 18, 2012 10:23 p.m.

  I agree. I noticed a bag of chocolate pretzels with huge letters on the outside "0 grams transfat!"... Of course, there was no mention on the front label that there was 20 grams of fat. Now could I eat it? Personally, I could afford to. But the point is, don't mislead people. I can afford to eat that, but I won't, because I do not want to support a company that is intentionally misleading people. I think calorie counting is a little silly - everybody should get out and walk and stay active, then you won't need to count every calorie. But if there's one thing I hate, it's deception.

  - RJ

• February 12, 2012 1:33 p.m.

  The best report on this topic of reforming nutritional labeling is published by the "Center for Science in the Public Interest. It is titled "Food Labeling Chaos Report" My favorite nutritional labeling fraud is on non-stick food spray. A serving is a 1/4 second spray. There are about 500 servings in a can. My wife and I joke about whether we want 15 or 20 servings per steak. Perhaps the best way to explain nutritional information is to list total weight per container;total weight of component;and percentage of the food item. The more hazardous the item, like salt, the more accurate the measurement needs to be. Trans-fat and Saturated fat should be accurate to 0.1G, Salt to 0.01G Use-by-dates and other important packaging information should be standardized, and more detailed information needs to go into a national-internet accessible database. Serving size should be eliminated, or be determined by actual use. It labeling requirements are too large to fit, add a flap like on insecticides or medicines.

  - Rick

• February 5, 2012 5:09 p.m.

  Carb counting leaves me with questions. Some foods will say something like: 45 carbs= 23 g / fiber & 2 g / sugar. What are the other 25 carbs made of and what does it do to my body?

  - sadie

• November 5, 2011 8:46 p.m.

  The FDA needs to make food manufactures disclose information on genetically modified foods. A simple label on the package would be fine. I am amazed that the FDA is not "concerned" about this health hazard.

  - sarah

• May 9, 2011 1:03 p.m.

  Many products now have nutrition information labels that list sucralose AND regular sugar. Often there are misleading advertisements on the front of the packages regarding the sucralose (indicating that sucralose is a better choice than regular sugar), yet there is regular sugar included in the ingredients as well. Personally, having both sugars in a product causes me trouble because I have very severe reactions to sucralose, so I need products that have either one or the other but not both.

  - Kristen

• April 13, 2011 7:56 p.m.

  parkay 0 fat free/ 0 calories/ 0 fat bottle is very misleading. a lot of buyers think there is 0 everything no matter how much you use. there is almost 100 grams of fat & almost 1000 calories in 1 bottle. there are buyers that use a bottle of this a day that are suppose to be cutting out fat because of health issues & trying to lose weight not knowing why they're not. i have added half of the bottle in dishes thinking it was fat free, until i resently googled it to see if it was healthy. now, bob green has came out with a similar bottle that is misleading in the same way! they know they are deceiving you and get by with it with the FDA by 1 spray having less than 5 grams. there should be some way to protect consumers, the FDA sure isn't doin it!

  - sylvia

• May 19, 2010 4:05 p.m.

  Hello, I would also lik to see labels on things like toilet paper. I'm severely allergic to phenoxyethanol and I know that it is in certain papers, but I'm ingredients aren't listed. Can we not force the producers to label t. paper?

  - Kathy

• March 29, 2010 2:32 p.m.

  As to the safety of raw milk, please read the article at the following link: http://www.executivegov.com/2010/03/fda-warns-against-drinking-raw-milk/ Always do your own research. Never rely solely on a "posting".

  - Cheryl

• March 27, 2010 9:38 p.m.

  Label Gives an amount for total fat but does not explain total amount.

  - Gene

• March 24, 2010 4:39 p.m.

  It is in the interest of consumers to see posted, the names of companies that use misleading claims on food labels. This would enable consumers to write their own letters of censure to the companies, which may act as a deterrent and warning to the violating companies to cease and desist. Because the names of the violating companies are not made public,some consumers mistakenly believe that the FDA or similar govenment regulatory bodies that act in the public interest are protecting the corporate interest.

  - Sal

• March 24, 2010 4:25 p.m.

  It is in the consumers' interest to post the names of manufacturers who violate FDA regulations through misleading food labels. Such tactics attempt to deceive consumers so it is fitting that consumers know the identities of these companies so that the consumers can send letters of censure to them. vhg

  - Sal

• March 24, 2010 8:04 a.m.

  I have always enjoyed soup and looked for the "healthy" labeled cans when shopping. Since taking care to read nutritional information on canned and packaged products, I find that canned soup is among the worst in the high amounts of sodium contained. This is also true in the so called "healthy" types. I now make my own soup and no longer purchase any canned "mislabeled" brands. I feel this is highly misleading and insults the shoppers' intelligence.

  - Mary

• March 21, 2010 5:20 p.m.

  Good post. However, I read a Q&A from Katherine Zeratsky about moldy cheese in which she asserts, without reference to any evidence, "Also, don't eat cheese made from unpasteurized (raw) milk. Raw milk and cheeses may contain harmful bacteria and aren't safe to eat, drink or use in cooking." This is a patently false statement. 100 years ago, pasteurization may have been necessary, but raw milk and raw milk cheeses are entirely safe to consume. Indeed, they are healthier than their industrialized cousins (even organics).

  - casey

• March 19, 2010 4:32 a.m.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto An interesting reference of the power of the market opposed to health.

  - Ans