Primatologist argues for changes to caloric values listed on food labeling

by Bob Yirka report

(Medical Xpress)—Richard Wrangham, a primatology professor at Harvard University, in a speech given to an audience at this year's American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting, advocated that changes be made to how calories are shown on food labels. He said that the current method doesn't count the calories in fiber or take into account how much energy the body uses to break down foods. This he said, means consumers aren't getting accurate information.

The current method of calculating caloric content for is based on a system devised by chemist Wilbur Olin Atwater, over a century ago. He assigned carbohydrates and proteins an average of 4 kilocalories per gram, and fat 9 per gram. Because he assumed fiber was passed through the body undigested, no were assigned to them. Modern food processors use these simple guidelines to create the caloric values they stamp on packaging. Wrangham says the system is flawed though, because fiber is digested by the body to some extent and thus does provide calories. In addition, he notes that the Atwater system doesn't take into account how much energy the body burns as it digests different foods, which is wrong, because raw food takes more energy to digest than cooked food. The end result, he said, means that customers are relying on labels that could be wrong by as much as 25 percent. Consumers rely on packaging information when making food choices, he noted, and quite often that information is not just misleading, but wrong.

Wrangham's speech was backed up by the head of Leatherhead Food Research, Professor Martin Wickham, who said that changing food labeling to more accurately represent actual caloric content is an urgent issue because it's very important.

Unlike carbohydrates, proteins and fat, fiber, cannot be assigned a single number to calculate how many calories it contains, because different types of fiber have different amounts of calories. Thus, efforts to force food processors to add such labeling would require complex formulations that may or may not be any more accurate than current models. This is because no one has worked out a way to estimate the caloric content of different fibers or to describe how many calories are burned in the process of digesting food. Eating a single serving of raw green beans, for example, should actually count less than eating one that has been cooked. The body has to work harder to process raw foods, which is why dieters turn to them for fast weight loss.

Wrangham concluded his talk by urging food processors to update their calculation methods, though it's doubtful few if any will heed his request without pressure from governmental agencies.

Related Stories

Recommended for you

When you lose weight, where does the fat go?

Dec 16, 2014

Despite a worldwide obsession with diets and fitness regimes, many health professionals cannot correctly answer the question of where body fat goes when people lose weight, a UNSW Australia study shows.

Shed post-Christmas pounds just by breathing

Dec 16, 2014

Ever wondered where the fat goes when somebody loses weight? Most of it is breathed out as carbon dioxide, making the lungs the primary excretory organ for weight loss, explain Australian researchers in the ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MR166
1 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2013
Sure, let's make the food companies spend billions of extra dollars trying to get caloric data correct down to the last tenth of a percent. Food is too cheap anyway.
triplehelix
1.5 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2013
"The end result, he said, means that customers are relying on labels that could be wrong by as much as 25 percent."

"This is because no one has worked out a way to estimate the caloric content of different fibers or to describe how many calories are burned in the process of digesting food."

So they have quantified an admitted unquantifiable system.

Fantastic news.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2013
Since caloric information has become widely available on almost every product, the general population of the US has not lost one extra pound. In fact, we are fatter now than ever. I do not see how increasing the caloric accuracy of some foods could help in the slightest. We have a problem with poor diets not excess calories.
velvetnoose
not rated yet Feb 22, 2013
"I do not see how increasing the caloric accuracy of some foods could help in the slightest."

Just wow... Screw the facts they mean nothing and serve no purpose.

Fritobot???
Shootist
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2013
"I do not see how increasing the caloric accuracy of some foods could help in the slightest."

Just wow... Screw the facts they mean nothing and serve no purpose.

Fritobot???


Forcing us to pay for it, for out own good? Bordering on evil.

Allowing us to go look it up ourselves? Empowering.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.