If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   New Jersey bakery comes up with novel way to make those tasteless sugar-free snacks taste better. FDA does not approve   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 33
    More: Fail, FDA, New Jersey bakery, New Jersey, baked goods, regulatory affairs, bakery, snacks, sugars  
•       •       •

12198 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Mar 2013 at 9:32 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



33 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-15 09:36:17 AM
And this is what happens when the FDA isnt defunded and rendered useless by the 'starve the beast' corporate whore GOP.
 
2013-03-15 09:36:35 AM
24.media.tumblr.com
 "Thanks for ruining my daddy's business you fat fark!"
 
2013-03-15 09:37:03 AM
We should let the market handle problems like this.
 
2013-03-15 09:37:59 AM
I suspect this happens far more often than we think. I'm type 1 diabetic, so I count every gram of carbohydrate. There are many products I've purchased that left my glucose levels much much higher than they should have been were the labels correct.
 
2013-03-15 09:44:12 AM

Wellon Dowd: We should let the market handle problems like this.


nice
 
2013-03-15 09:46:38 AM
This is not good.  Mislabeling normal food and being off is one thing but doing sugar-free items and including sugar is potentially dangerous to diabetics for which they are marketing the product to.
 
2013-03-15 09:49:11 AM

HindiDiscoMonster: I am confused. I see a mention of the saturated fat content in the sugar-free items, but not the actual sugar content... bait and switch article?


FTFA
The investigation conducted over a number of years found that some products labeled "sugar-free" did in fact contain sugar and others contained more fat than what appeared on the label.

I can see how it was missed. You had to make it to the third sentence. Who's got that kinda time
 
2013-03-15 09:52:45 AM
This stuff tastes so good for being sugar free!

*diabetic coma*
 
2013-03-15 09:53:40 AM
Fatty thread?
 
2013-03-15 10:00:22 AM

JRaynor: HindiDiscoMonster: I am confused. I see a mention of the saturated fat content in the sugar-free items, but not the actual sugar content... bait and switch article?

FTFA
The investigation conducted over a number of years found that some products labeled "sugar-free" did in fact contain sugar and others contained more fat than what appeared on the label.

I can see how it was missed. You had to make it to the third sentence. Who's got that kinda time


I agree with the point though. The article was "lite" on information. It listed "percent" higher fats, but *never* mentioned how much sugar was there. (I think if you have < 0.5g of sugar it is "sugar-free" and labeled as 0g sugar.) So real values are important here.

Telling me there is 360% or 444% more fat than the label says is meaning less if the label said 0g fat. If it said 1g fat, that means 4.5 or 5g fat total.

How about some *real* data instead of news media scare the typical Farker type un-data?
 
2013-03-15 10:05:39 AM
abcnews.go.com
The pic indicates that the muffins are "Made with 100% love". I'll bet that doesn't even appear on the ingredient list, where it should be the first and only ingredient.What's worse, I'm willing to bet that it's fatty, saturated love and not the healthy kind.
 
2013-03-15 10:05:47 AM
So the moral of the story is don't try to compete with Krispy Kreme they'll sick the FDA on you.
 
2013-03-15 10:07:26 AM

JRaynor: HindiDiscoMonster: I am confused. I see a mention of the saturated fat content in the sugar-free items, but not the actual sugar content... bait and switch article?

FTFA
The investigation conducted over a number of years found that some products labeled "sugar-free" did in fact contain sugar and others contained more fat than what appeared on the label.

I can see how it was missed. You had to make it to the third sentence. Who's got that kinda time


Though the pictures of the products say "No sugar added". Which actualy doesn't mean much if all the ingredients already have sugar in them.
 
2013-03-15 10:07:40 AM

The Smails Kid: Fatty thread?


Sure. Since we're on Fark I assume this will qualify.

i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-15 10:18:26 AM
Point taken. In my rush to snark I misread your post.

Sorry
 
2013-03-15 10:22:18 AM
One last thought before I leave (hanging my head in a bit of shame) if my diabetic mom ate something labeled sugar-free and suffered a serious diabetic  reaction, <internet tough guy> somebody's bakery is getting burned to the farkin' ground. </internet tough guy>
 
2013-03-15 10:34:40 AM
Why do investigations like this take "years"?
 
2013-03-15 10:48:06 AM

Wellon Dowd: The Smails Kid: Fatty thread?

Sure. Since we're on Fark I assume this will qualify.

[i.imgur.com image 675x900]


Nice knees.
 
2013-03-15 10:58:08 AM
Doesn't it say "No Sugar Added" which to me means that they didn't add refined sugar. That doesn't mean "Sugar Free" since fruits, etc. contain sugar. If you were to analyze one of those muffins, you'd find sugar. It doesn't mean the labeling was wrong. With that said, the still could have actually added sugar.
 
2013-03-15 10:58:50 AM

squidgod2000: Why do investigations like this take "years"?


jobs
 
2013-03-15 11:11:42 AM

GlobalStrategic MapleSyrup Reserve: Wellon Dowd: The Smails Kid: Fatty thread?

Sure. Since we're on Fark I assume this will qualify.

[i.imgur.com image 675x900]

Nice knees.


She should blast those stems at the gym. They look pretty sharp to be supporting that huge gut.
 
2013-03-15 11:26:42 AM

The_Original_Roxtar: I suspect this happens far more often than we think. I'm type 1 diabetic, so I count every gram of carbohydrate. There are many products I've purchased that left my glucose levels much much higher than they should have been were the labels correct.


I have heard that for some diabetics sugar alcohols will still raise blood sugar but this is just anecdotal.

If you want a good no-sugar added dessert recipe Google "Myra's Tiramisu Cheesecake". It's a fantastic recipe, about five carbs per serving, but keep in mind it is in no way low fat.
 
2013-03-15 01:06:29 PM

Vitamin Pb: JRaynor: HindiDiscoMonster: I am confused. I see a mention of the saturated fat content in the sugar-free items, but not the actual sugar content... bait and switch article?

FTFA
The investigation conducted over a number of years found that some products labeled "sugar-free" did in fact contain sugar and others contained more fat than what appeared on the label.

I can see how it was missed. You had to make it to the third sentence. Who's got that kinda time

I agree with the point though. The article was "lite" on information. It listed "percent" higher fats, but *never* mentioned how much sugar was there. (I think if you have < 0.5g of sugar it is "sugar-free" and labeled as 0g sugar.) So real values are important here.

Telling me there is 360% or 444% more fat than the label says is meaning less if the label said 0g fat. If it said 1g fat, that means 4.5 or 5g fat total.

How about some *real* data instead of news media scare the typical Farker type un-data?


Tada.

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm343523. ht m
 
2013-03-15 01:46:58 PM
To summarize the specific accusations that the FDA made about the offending muffins in the warning letter (I never thought I'd use the phrase "offending muffins"):

Fat measurements are way off. Label: 1 muffin = 7 g fat, 1 g saturated fat. Reality: 1 muffin = 19 g fat, 4.5 g saturated fat.
Muffin ingredient list includes "sodium caseinate", which is a milk product; but the label does say "contains milk". Milk is an allergen that has to be listed.
A nitpick: The label gives nutrition info based on a serving size of 1/2 muffin, but legally the serving size should be 1 muffin. (I call this one a nitpick because the muffins weigh 102 grams, and if the muffins weighed 110 grams, it would be legal to measure them in half-muffins.)
 
2013-03-15 02:42:56 PM
This building is next to mine. In fact, my bosses own the building. We have a spice co across the street. We make plastic bags, needless to say, my block smells weird.
 
2013-03-15 03:02:13 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: I suspect this happens far more often than we think. I'm type 1 diabetic, so I count every gram of carbohydrate. There are many products I've purchased that left my glucose levels much much higher than they should have been were the labels correct.


I'm a type II but I feel your pain because I'm trying to control my disease as much as possible on the "input" end and not the medication end, so I count my carbs pretty carefully but sometimes I get wildly weird results on my meter that tells me something I ate wasn;t as advertised.  Recently I got a cup of coffee at a gas station and added a small amount of what was supposed to be half and half and a packet or two of splenda to it.  My BS was 110 (first thing in the morning it's always the highest it will be all day), but tow hours after drinking that coffee, I started feeling shaky and restested and it was up aroun 160.  Those farks must make thier coffee with syrup rather than water
 
2013-03-15 03:50:22 PM

KickahaOta: Muffin ingredient list includes "sodium caseinate", which is a milk product; but the label does NOT say "contains milk". Milk is an allergen that has to be listed.


FTFM.
 
2013-03-15 05:53:46 PM

KickahaOta: I never thought I'd use the phrase "offending muffins"


Tonight, one night and one night only, live on the main stage is Offending Muffins!

/ you ain't seen nothing
 
2013-03-15 07:31:01 PM

The Smails Kid: Fatty thread?


Diabeetus thread, more like it.

Not all folks with the beetus are Fatty Boomaladdys, and I'd even argue probably the MAJORITY of folks with the beetus aren't in the Fatty Boombaladdy category.  Type I diabetics tend to be skinny, and pretty much people can get ANY of the five or six somewhat common kinds of diabetes without being a tubby-type.  (Type I is autoimmune (autoimmune attacks against beta islet cells), usually triggered by viral infections; type II has a strong genetic component particularly in indigenous peoples and there are hints that this may be a disorder of glucacon regulation, "type III" (MODY) is purely genetic and is a basic inborn insufficiency in insulin production and/or insulin receptors (depending on which genetic subtype of MODY we're talking about), and "Type 1.5" aka "adult-onset autoimmune diabetes" is likewise autoimmune (in this case, an apparent autoimmunity to insulin) and is much longer-onset than type I (to the point it's often misdiagnosed as type II).  This also isn't including diabetes due to overt pancreatic injury--due to either acute pancreatitis, pancreatic injury requiring partial removal, or those very few and very lucky cases of folks with pancreatic cancer who caught it in time to nip stuff in the bud with removal of the pancreas.)
 
2013-03-15 07:37:08 PM

Iblis824: Vitamin Pb: JRaynor: HindiDiscoMonster: I am confused. I see a mention of the saturated fat content in the sugar-free items, but not the actual sugar content... bait and switch article?

FTFA
The investigation conducted over a number of years found that some products labeled "sugar-free" did in fact contain sugar and others contained more fat than what appeared on the label.

I can see how it was missed. You had to make it to the third sentence. Who's got that kinda time

I agree with the point though. The article was "lite" on information. It listed "percent" higher fats, but *never* mentioned how much sugar was there. (I think if you have < 0.5g of sugar it is "sugar-free" and labeled as 0g sugar.) So real values are important here.

Telling me there is 360% or 444% more fat than the label says is meaning less if the label said 0g fat. If it said 1g fat, that means 4.5 or 5g fat total.

How about some *real* data instead of news media scare the typical Farker type un-data?

Tada.

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm343523. ht m


And looking at the warning letter in particular from that page...holy crap, but they were doing some wacky hijinks all around with their labeling (not just with labeling products as "sugar free" when they did have sugar added and lowballing their saturated fat, but also failing to list allergens like milk on the label (once listing it as "sodium caseinate ", a fancy term for "concentrated milk protein", which would make for a Bad Day if someone was legitimately allergic to dairy products).
 
2013-03-15 10:08:42 PM
FTFA: The investigation conducted over a number of years .... "This injunction demonstrates that the FDA will seek enforcement action against companies that mislead consumers on the products they purchase," Melinda K. Plaisier, the FDA's acting associate commissioner for regulatory affairs, said in a press release.

Yeah, after allowing them to profit handsomely for years first. How long does it take to mulch some muffins and test for truth in advertising? It's not like the government has a problem forcing companies to pay for USDA inspections, why not FDA?
 
2013-03-15 10:16:04 PM

Iblis824: Tada.

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm343523. ht m


Good find. So it was all about the fat content and serving size problems (seriously? Half a muffin as one serving? shady), and the article was just plain wrong about sugar being added to anything.

I wouldn't be surprised if they got screwed by product and recipe variations over the years, neglecting to bother with a new nutritional analysis.
 
2013-03-15 10:53:57 PM

HindiDiscoMonster: JRaynor: HindiDiscoMonster: I am confused. I see a mention of the saturated fat content in the sugar-free items, but not the actual sugar content... bait and switch article?

FTFA
The investigation conducted over a number of years found that some products labeled "sugar-free" did in fact contain sugar and others contained more fat than what appeared on the label.

I can see how it was missed. You had to make it to the third sentence. Who's got that kinda time

I'm sorry, but I don't see a number there... perhaps it's hiding behind the sugar? They posted the percentage of fat content... how much more sugar was there... 1 microgram? 1 billion pounds?


Do you work for the bakery company in Clifton as their PR guy? If so...

i150.photobucket.com

If not, read the damn article and then speak!
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report