Nutritional Labels: How Precise Are They?

The Reporting at ABCNews: How Precise Are They?

Not very.

In fact, the dimbulbs there do reporting at a level that would make researchers in the overweight/obesity realm proud.

"The 'Nutrition Facts' panels on foods may not be as accurate as you might think.

'Good Morning America' hired a lab to test a dozen packaged food products to see if the nutrients in them matched the labels.

'I don't think anyone knows for sure how accurate the nutrition labels are,' said Delia Hammock from the Good Housekeeping Institute."

That would be this Delia Smith.

Fact is, perfection is a very difficult standard.

The real issues are, over time, do the variations average out and are they really significant, anyhow?

For example:

"In another case of government doublespeak, 'no' means none, but that's not necessarily what 'zero' means. Manufacturers are allowed to list '0' even if their product contains up to half a gram of a nutrient."

Calorically speaking, which is all that matters in the weight debate, the most a serving can be off is 4.5 Calories.

If this, 4.5 Calories, is what's preventing you from losing weight, you are full of it.

Speaking of full of it, here is more from the ABCNews idiots:

"As for total fat, consider Snackwell's Devil's Food Cookies. With '0' fat listed, they're supposed to be a guilt-free treat for dieters, but the lab we hired found more than a quarter of a gram of fat in each one-cookie serving."

Oh my God!

That amounts to a whopping 2.25 Calories.

If this, 2.25 Calories, is what's preventing you from losing weight you are so full of it, you should work for ABCNews.

But what does make a difference is the really important stuff ABCNews will not report:

That it is the the media sponsor of some of the worst offenders in what I opine is the nutritional homicide effort by the IMHO cons Oprah Winfrey, Mehmet Oz, David Katz and Jorge Cruise.

This irresponsible network is using your airways to sicken and kill you, IMHO.

Fight back.