This post contains affiliate links. For more information, please see our Affiliate Disclosure page.
I remember, when I was a kid, probably about the 4th grade. Man, was I one dorky lookin’ kid! Wavy, fiery orange hair, massive coke bottle glasses, a nervous, awkward wire-frame body just swimming in my clothes (purchased 3 sizes too big so I could “grow into them” – which really meant, so we wouldn’t have to buy more for a while). Anyway, I remember fidgeting in my scribbled desk (the kind where the Rubbermaid plastic chair is rigidly welded either too far or too close to the laminated plywood top – a design surely conceived by boring teachers to be the most uncomfortable so as to prevent any hopes of children falling asleep), waiting for my science class to begin. On the faded green chalkboard in the front of the room were the words, “Laws of Conservation.” The clock finally ticked over to the scheduled beginning of the period. My science teacher, in all his plaid button-down balding glory, slammed the door and bellowed,
“TINSTAFL! There Is No Such Thing As a Free Lunch.“
Those words stuck with me all these years. They apply so accurately to so many encounters (e.g. business, economics, politics, kids, et cetera), but the latest being this Calorie Free or Sugar Free marketing scheme. No doubt you’ve seen it!
We’ll get into the trade-off topic in another post. Namely, “Is all that artificial stuff really better for you” question. But for now, I want to call your attention to another important point. You see, in order for manufactures to merely mention that their product is “Calorie free,” “free of calories,” “no calories,” “zero calories,” “without calories,” “trivial source of calories,” “negligible source of calories,” or “dietarily insignificant source of calories,” the food must not contain any more than 5 calories per unit serving. [1] Ah hah! That’s right! That means that the food or drink isn’t really without calories. It just means that legally, they aren’t obligated to tell you that their product actually has calories!
Let’s look at Stevia In the Raw, as an example. I just got some of this to make my beloved Keto Oreos. On the package, the manufacturer claims there are no calories in a single serving. The serving size? One teaspoon. In our Keto Oreos, we use 1 Cup of Stevia for the whole batch. One cup equals 48 teaspoons. Which means, if each serving had the maximum allowable 5 calories – that would be 240 calories (from the Stevia, alone). That’s a big difference from ZERO!
Sugar is the same way! According to the FDA, Title 21, Chapter 1, Subchapter B, Part 101 — FOOD LABELING, Subpart D, Section 101.60…
(c) Sugar content claims –(1) Use of terms such as “sugar free,” “free of sugar,” “no sugar,” “zero sugar,” “without sugar,” “sugarless,” “trivial source of sugar,” “negligible source of sugar,” or “dietarily insignificant source of sugar.” Consumers may reasonably be expected to regard terms that represent that the food contains no sugars or sweeteners e.g., “sugar free,” or “no sugar,” as indicating a product which is low in calories or significantly reduced in calories. Consequently, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, a food may not be labeled with such terms unless:
(i) The food contains less than 0.5 g of sugars, as defined in 101.9(c)(6)(ii), per reference amount customarily consumed and per labeled serving or, in the case of a meal product or main dish product, less than 0.5 g of sugars per labeled serving; and
(ii) The food contains no ingredient that is a sugar or that is generally understood by consumers to contain sugars unless the listing of the ingredient in the ingredient statement is followed by an asterisk that refers to the statement below the list of ingredients, which states “adds a trivial amount of sugar,” “adds a negligible amount of sugar,” or “adds a dietarily insignificant amount of sugar;” and
(iii)(A) It is labeled “low calorie” or “reduced calorie” or bears a relative claim of special dietary usefulness labeled in compliance with paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), or (b)(5) of this section, or, if a dietary supplement, it meets the definition in paragraph (b)(2) of this section for “low calorie” but is prohibited by 101.13(b)(5) and 101.60(a)(4) from bearing the claim; or
In normal speak, the “sugar free” product your consuming right now, might actually contain up to 0.5 grams of sugar per serving! I know that doesn’t sound like a whole heap ton of the stuff, but consider this…
The daily recommended limit for women for consuming sugar (according to the World Health Organization) is 24 grams per day. [2] That seemingly innocuous 20 ounce soda you’re sipping, has a serving size of 10 ounces. That’s two servings you’ll down (’cause who really stops half-way through the bottle?). That means you may be getting an entire gram of sugar (0.5 grams x 2 servings) from that soda. That’s 1/24th of your daily allotment you probably didn’t account for. “So what,” you say, “that’s barely over 4%!” Well, consider losing one hour out of every day! What if every night, some evil trickster set your clocks ahead one hour and robbed you of precious sleep! That’s not so trivial, now – is it?
It’s increasingly more important for consumers to be aware of what they are buying, and it’s easy to be fooled by slick adverts. Be skeptical when products make you feel like you’re “getting away with something,” or promise you the indulgence without the accountability.
When you’re Heading Healthy, we encourage you to avoid processed foods and drinks. That way, you don’t have to worry about evil ploys developed by multi-billion dollar funded advertising departments. Eat real food. Stop counting calories. Drink water. Enjoy life! And remember, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”
[1] https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.60
[2] http://www.who.int/en/news-room/detail/11-10-2016-who-urges-global-action-to-curtail-consumption-and-health-impacts-of-sugary-drinks
