Does anyone else think that this "trans fat free" food labeling is really deceptive?

From what I understand, according to the FDA guidelines, if something has less than .5g of trans fat per serving, it can be labeled as "0g trans fat per serving." Does that strike anyone else as dishonest, if not outright lying? .5 g is .5g! Hows does that translate as 0g? It's like the whole "2+2=5" scenario in 1984.

In addition, in making a product "trans fat" free, manufacturers often put in stuff that's just about as bad for you as trans fat ever was (such as good, old, regular saturated fat).

Take these new KFC ads on TV: "0g Trans Fat!" with "per serving" below it in font half the size (hint, hint: this still actually contains trans fat!). Plus, they make it seem like KFC chicken bucket without the trans fat is now equivalent to a bucket of fruits and vegetables.

Why does this have to be so hard? Why can't zero mean zero? It'd make it a lot easier for people to make healthier eating decisions.

In my experience, 9 out of 10 people have no idea in the first place what's in the food they are eating, let alone care about trans fat. Since nobody cares, nobody does anything.

Who cares. Those who want to make 'healthier eating decisions' will look closely at the label anyway. It's just a marketing thing. Like on a bag of sweet it may say 99% fat free. Never mind the sugar that you are chewing down.

And don't blame the food. KFC and big macs are good for those who want to pack on weight. A lot of people can't gain weight and they tell you they're been eating heaps (only if I get a dollar every time I hear that...), some fast food is great for them to get some calories in.

Flaxseed oil and olive oil FTW

Surely there must be a better way to gain weight safely that Big Macs.

Also do you remember the pepsi one commercials? "Just 1 calorie omg lolz!!!!"

Look on the back of the can: 2.5 servings per can. Therefore, 2.5 calories per can. Not a big deal, but seriously, it's crap that they manipulate their information.


I LOVE pepsi one, however.

the food industry is always out to fool you.
I bought some microwave popcorn recently that was called something like healthy-life popcorn ...
I didn't really read the label until later.
well the trans fat was at least 1.5 gr per serving, while only zero is acceptable.
so at least I knew next time to avoid that product.


regarding the need to define "zero" trans fat present ... there may be issues with the sensitivity of the testing equipment.
such that if there really was zero, but the testing showed up a little bit (which is a false positive result).
rather than squabble about was it there or not, just set the standards up a bit to allow for testing errors.
This is rather new testing, so maybe there are calibration issues, (can't say), but maybe over time the tests will become more accurate to the zero point.

.5 gram isn't going to make a goddamned difference. You probably burned off that half gram just getting so worked up over it.

Its like "non alcoholic beer" still has 0.5% alcohol. OMG I CANT DRTIVE NOW DERS ALCOHOL I SUE U!!!1

It's 0.5 grams. Who cares? You eat hundreds of grams of macronutrients per day. If a few grams of bad fat are all you have to worry about, you're doing great.


Yes it's manipulative, but it's about as bad as selling something for $19.99

Actually, they do tell the truth, so it won't qualify as false advertising if someone were to sue them.

E.g. in huge letters on some cereals I saw "FAT-FREE!!," but when I looked at the nutritional facts, I saw plenty of carbs and saccharose (which turns into fat later.) But they won't tell you that. They are legally required to tell the truth, not to educate unsuspecting morons by telling them that when carbohydrates are ingested they are broken down into glucose and stored in the muscles and liver as glycogen (fat.) Fructose is a better alternative if you wanna avoid trans-fats.

So they do tell the truth, just not the whole truth.