As a diabetic I find it abhorrent that certain companies are trying to disguise the amount of sugar that they have in their food. It is also a disgrace that the TSO's are permitting products that are flouting our health laws to be marketed regardless of whether such laws were drawn up in Westminster or in Brussels.
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen Humphreys Sent: 25 February 2010 10:58 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:46763] Re: NY Times and kilojoules Martin, The bit in brackets is why a very small, relatively recently formed party called 'UKIP' came second in the most recent European elections. Incidentally - I have three observations: 1) The packet of sweets (US: candy) I have here right now on my desk shows no information regarding calories, kJ, etc (and probablt a clever move considering that these sweets are encrusted in sugar!). 2) My bottle of Pepsi Max (Pepsi's much nicer tasting version of Coke Zero which proved difficult to buy otside the UK) quotes 'kJ', 'kcal' and 'Calories'. 3) I have bought many products which have the US 'nutrition info' labelling system on them with no UK sticker on over top of or beside it. It appears that the rules are not strictly enforced. For some reason the biggest carriers of the US label system are in health food shops (pick up a carton of protein drink, or the array of tablets they have etc and check the label). _____ From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [USMA:46759] Re: NY Times and kilojoules Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:13:17 +0000 US Congress might play silly games by calling kilocalories and calories, thereby adding yet more confusion to an already confused system of measure, but within the United Kingdom, British (and EU) law trumps US law. _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John M. Steele Sent: 24 February 2010 20:56 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:46758] Re: NY Times and kilojoules When in doubt find the law: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=5ff8aaaa91ba9798753 8fc138063b16a;rgn=div5;view=text;node=21%3A2.0.1.1.2;idno=21;cc=ecfr#21:2.0. 1.1.2.1.1.6 <http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=5ff8aaaa91ba979875 38fc138063b16a;rgn=div5;view=text;node=21:2.0.1.1.2;idno=21;cc=ecfr#21:2.0.1 .1.2.1.1.6> To the FDA, nutritional calories are obviously always kilocalories, but the kilo is never used, and they are fairly indifferent to big C and little c unless the word is in a position requiring capitalization. Scrolling down to section (c) (apologies for how messy the cut & paste looks): [quote] (c) The declaration of nutrition information on the label and in labeling of a food shall contain information about the level of the following nutrients, except for those nutrients whose inclusion, and the declaration of amounts, is voluntary as set forth in this paragraph. No nutrients or food components other than those listed in this paragraph as either mandatory or voluntary may be included within the nutrition label. Except as provided for in paragraphs (f) or (j) of this section, nutrient information shall be presented using the nutrient names specified and in the following order in the formats specified in paragraphs (d) or (e) of this section. (1) "Calories, total," "Total calories," or "Calories": A statement of the caloric content per serving, expressed to the nearest 5-calorie increment up to and including 50 calories, and 10-calorie increment above 50 calories, except that amounts less than 5 calories may be expressed as zero. Energy content per serving may also be expressed in kilojoule units, added in parentheses immediately following the statement of the caloric content. (i) Caloric content may be calculated by the following methods. Where either specific or general food factors are used, the factors shall be applied to the actual amount (i.e., before rounding) of food components (e.g., fat, carbohydrate, protein, or ingredients with specific food factors) present per serving. (A) Using specific Atwater factors (i. e., the Atwater method) given in Table 13, "Energy Value of Foods-Basis and Derivation," by A. L. Merrill and B. K. Watt, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Handbook No. 74 (slightly revised, 1973), which is incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 and is available from the Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements (HFS-800), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, or may be inspected at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_loc ations.html. ; (B) Using the general factors of 4, 4, and 9 calories per gram for protein, total carbohydrate, and total fat, respectively, as described in USDA Handbook No. 74 (slightly revised 1973) pp. 9-11, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 (the availability of this incorporation by reference is given in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) of this section); (C) Using the general factors of 4, 4, and 9 calories per gram for protein, total carbohydrate less the amount of insoluble dietary fiber, and total fat, respectively, as described in USDA Handbook No. 74 (slightly revised 1973) pp. 9-11, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 (the availability of this incorporation by reference is given in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) of this section; (D) Using data for specific food factors for particular foods or ingredients approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and provided in parts 172 or 184 of this chapter, or by other means, as appropriate; or (E) Using bomb calorimetry data subtracting 1.25 calories per gram protein to correct for incomplete digestibility, as described in USDA Handbook No. 74 (slightly revised 1973) p. 10, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 (the availability of this incorporation by reference is given in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) of this section).[endquote] So they can be called Calories; Calories, total; or Total calories with complete indifference. Based on the methods allowed and the values of 4, 4, and 9 "calories" per gram for protein, carbohydrate and fat, these are obviously kilocalories, but the kilo prefix or kcal is NOT permitted. A parenthetical value in kilojoules is permitted but the Calories are required. Scrolling through the law, there are many references to calories (lower case) when Calories are meant and the word is not in a position requiring capitalization. Perhaps if we pick at them enough about calories, Calories, kilocalories and their utter confusion about same, kilojoules would start to look better to them. They are wrong, but they are the government. If they instruct everyone that this wrong manner must be used, everyone must do it (or sue). _____ From: Martin Vlietstra <[email protected]> To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, February 24, 2010 2:21:43 PM Subject: [USMA:46756] Re: NY Times and kilojoules You might well run into problems if you tried to export that food to the United Kingdom - I don't think that the argument that it says "Calories" rather than "calories" would convince many people here. _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 24 February 2010 15:20 To: U.S. Metric Association Cc: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:46751] Re: NY Times and kilojoules Actually...the law says kilocalorie shall be used and it shall be called Calorie. Big C. Silly I think, but technically accurate. Canada uses kcal. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [USMA:46749] Re: NY Times and kilojoules From: "John M. Steele" < [email protected] > Date: Wed, February 24, 2010 3:17 am To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> It seems to me that what she really had to explain was "calorie" whereas kilojoule was almost an aside for international readers. Our food labeling laws require that the kilocalorie shall be used and it shall be called calorie. That is confusing. If you don't understand the unit you are starting with, it is harder than normal to convert to kilojoules (which may NOT be legally used here on nutrition labels). (It may be allowed as supplemental, but not to replace mislabelled kilocalories.) _____ From: Pat Naughtin < [email protected] > To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, February 24, 2010 3:00:24 AM Subject: [USMA:46748] NY Times and kilojoules Dear All, It is only a small mention in the first paragraph of the Notes but the editor at the NY Times actually felt that they had to explain the meaning when they used kilojoules. Here is the paragraph: The term "calorie" sometimes causes confusion. Most people, when referring to the energy content of food, use "calorie" instead of "kilocalorie" - which is the actual unit that food energy is measured in. When I refer to 30 calories, I am following this convention and therefore technically mean 30 kilocalories. For metric system users, that's about 125 kilojoules. To see this in context go to http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/stand-up-while-you-read-this where you might be concerned about the ideas in the article. Cheers, Pat Naughtin Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, that you can obtain from http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html subscribe. _____ Do you want a Hotmail account? Sign-up <http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/197222280/direct/01/> now - Free
