Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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 News)   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
    More: Fail, FDA, New Jersey bakery, New Jersey, baked goods, regulatory affairs, bakery, snacks, sugars  
•       •       •

12224 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Mar 2013 at 9:32 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-03-15 09:37:59 AM  
5 votes:
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 09:36:17 AM  
5 votes:
And this is what happens when the FDA isnt defunded and rendered useless by the 'starve the beast' corporate whore GOP.
2013-03-15 03:02:13 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:31:01 PM  
1 vote:

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 01:46:58 PM  
1 vote:
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 11:26:42 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:07:26 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:05:39 AM  
1 vote:
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 09:49:11 AM  
1 vote:

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 09:46:38 AM  
1 vote:
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 09:37:28 AM  
1 vote:
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?
2013-03-15 09:37:03 AM  
1 vote:
We should let the market handle problems like this.
2013-03-15 09:36:35 AM  
1 vote:
24.media.tumblr.com
 "Thanks for ruining my daddy's business you fat fark!"
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report