![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"No Sugar Added" my foot! (Perhaps literally...)
Went to Olive Garden with the family for dinner tonight. Plenty of salad and breadsticks, good food, good service (though I was thinking I might have had better luck at a different location... ;) ), reasonable prices. If you're in the US, you probably know the place.
This time, I noticed that they had some new (to me... it's been a while) desserts. Including a lovely looking chocolate torte which was labeled "No Sugar Added!"
Having had some nasty experiences with that particular label in the past, I asked the waitress what sweetener was actually used before ordering. She went back to check and told me it was Splenda. I relaxed. It's a plausible replacement sweetener for baked goods. Unlike Nutrasweet, it doesn't denature at high temperatures. And, since it's basically just an isomer of sugar, it tastes and acts just like the real thing. (Except that it's not actually digested.) So I went ahead and ordered it.
Then we got home. I was curious, so I checked the site. Turns out they don't list nutritional information for most of their items (big surprise :p), but since this one is special diet food, they do have it listed on their Garden Fare menu.
According to that, one serving of Torta di Chocolate (specifically mentioned above as being great for those looking to limit their sugar intake) has a whopping 63 grams of carbohydrates (about as much as, say, two full cups of pasta or four slices of bread) - probably more than the entire rest of my dinner. 11 of those are from fiber, which isn't really digested. And some of it is, of course, complex carbs from the flour. But 34 grams are from... sugar alcohol. The bane of my diabetic existence. (One of them, anyway.)
Sugar alcohols are derivatives of sugar. They aren't fully digested, but what is digested might as well be sugar. The FDA seems to have mixed feelings about them. Their regulations seem to change from year to year and context to context. In one place, they define "sugar" as anything that is a sugar, is derived from sugar, or functions as sugar - including sugar alcohols. In another, they say that reporting of sugar alcohols on labels is voluntary. And, although I can't seem to find a clear indication now, my old research (from when I tried the Killer "Sugar Free" Gumballs Of Doom about 10 years back) says that sugar alcohols don't count towards the "No Sugar Added" label.
So, right now... my blood sugar isn't supremely dangerously high (or even as majorly high as it was after a single gumball), but it's up there. Higher than it should be. Much higher than it would otherwise have been.
I wrote to the FDA to ask for labeling clarification (and to beg for tighter rules), but I doubt they'll do anything. And yet...
This stuff is dangerous. It may or may not technically be sugar. It may not be processed exactly as sugar. But, dammit, it's close. Close enough to put a crimp in a dieter's style. Close enough to pose a serious health hazard to people with metabolic disorders like diabetes.
If I'd had more than a couple of those innocent-seeming gumballs, I could have been hospitalized. Or too much of that "no sugar added" pie from the grocery store. Or, yes, the chocolate torte from tonight (which I thankfully split with Mom).
Why would they allow that? Why?? I can only assume it's pressure from the manufacturers, but, dammit, stuff like this is exactly what the FDA is supposed to be protecting us from.
Why would people be so irresponsible as to label a thing as "no sugar added" and "good for those seeking to lower their sugar intake" and such when, really, it's no such thing? And why would the FDA be so irresponsible as to let them get away with it?
They're playing with people's lives.
Went to Olive Garden with the family for dinner tonight. Plenty of salad and breadsticks, good food, good service (though I was thinking I might have had better luck at a different location... ;) ), reasonable prices. If you're in the US, you probably know the place.
This time, I noticed that they had some new (to me... it's been a while) desserts. Including a lovely looking chocolate torte which was labeled "No Sugar Added!"
Having had some nasty experiences with that particular label in the past, I asked the waitress what sweetener was actually used before ordering. She went back to check and told me it was Splenda. I relaxed. It's a plausible replacement sweetener for baked goods. Unlike Nutrasweet, it doesn't denature at high temperatures. And, since it's basically just an isomer of sugar, it tastes and acts just like the real thing. (Except that it's not actually digested.) So I went ahead and ordered it.
Then we got home. I was curious, so I checked the site. Turns out they don't list nutritional information for most of their items (big surprise :p), but since this one is special diet food, they do have it listed on their Garden Fare menu.
According to that, one serving of Torta di Chocolate (specifically mentioned above as being great for those looking to limit their sugar intake) has a whopping 63 grams of carbohydrates (about as much as, say, two full cups of pasta or four slices of bread) - probably more than the entire rest of my dinner. 11 of those are from fiber, which isn't really digested. And some of it is, of course, complex carbs from the flour. But 34 grams are from... sugar alcohol. The bane of my diabetic existence. (One of them, anyway.)
Sugar alcohols are derivatives of sugar. They aren't fully digested, but what is digested might as well be sugar. The FDA seems to have mixed feelings about them. Their regulations seem to change from year to year and context to context. In one place, they define "sugar" as anything that is a sugar, is derived from sugar, or functions as sugar - including sugar alcohols. In another, they say that reporting of sugar alcohols on labels is voluntary. And, although I can't seem to find a clear indication now, my old research (from when I tried the Killer "Sugar Free" Gumballs Of Doom about 10 years back) says that sugar alcohols don't count towards the "No Sugar Added" label.
So, right now... my blood sugar isn't supremely dangerously high (or even as majorly high as it was after a single gumball), but it's up there. Higher than it should be. Much higher than it would otherwise have been.
I wrote to the FDA to ask for labeling clarification (and to beg for tighter rules), but I doubt they'll do anything. And yet...
This stuff is dangerous. It may or may not technically be sugar. It may not be processed exactly as sugar. But, dammit, it's close. Close enough to put a crimp in a dieter's style. Close enough to pose a serious health hazard to people with metabolic disorders like diabetes.
If I'd had more than a couple of those innocent-seeming gumballs, I could have been hospitalized. Or too much of that "no sugar added" pie from the grocery store. Or, yes, the chocolate torte from tonight (which I thankfully split with Mom).
Why would they allow that? Why?? I can only assume it's pressure from the manufacturers, but, dammit, stuff like this is exactly what the FDA is supposed to be protecting us from.
Why would people be so irresponsible as to label a thing as "no sugar added" and "good for those seeking to lower their sugar intake" and such when, really, it's no such thing? And why would the FDA be so irresponsible as to let them get away with it?
They're playing with people's lives.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
See ya,
Anna.