I've been to that site and have read the list. I'm not sure I agree that
those manufacturers should be shamed.
The US feds came up with that definition - .5 grams of fat or less per
serving equals fat free. "fat free" is a poor choice of words, but
nonetheless, determined by the US government. In addition to setting the
definition for those words, they also set standard serving sizes so that
consumers could compare nutritional information on a equal basis. I'm sure
that these companies lobbied very strongly for this term, but the shame goes
to the government.
I never thought that I would be coming to the defense of these companies. I
can't imagine that we could reasonably expect them to label a product
something other than what the federal government lets, almost begs, them to
However, I do believe that consumers in the US have benefited from this
standard, even if I don't agree with the choice of wording. Here in Canada,
there is still no law requiring nutritional labeling. Some products contain
labeling, but since there is no standard, it's hit-and-miss for us. Because
there is no legal definition for fat-level terms, manufacturers have no real
incentive to develop a product with less than .5 grams of fat per serving.
I believe, though, if a manufacturer makes a fat claim, they have to list
the fat content.
I do believe, though, that manufacturers should be shamed for reaching that
.5 fat free level by cutting the size of the product down or through the
addition of water, such as Kraft fat free singles. You can practically see
through those slices they are so thin. I'm sure there are plenty of
consumers out there who pile on 3-4 slices because they are 'fat free'.
http://www.infoadvisors.com - home of the IRM Bookstore,
where 100% of the proceeds go to IT-related
non-profit and charitable organizations