Why? - Why doesn't FDA food labelling include Glycemic Index?

[patrice]

Informed Choices will result in less PROFITS$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Could we estimate that Diabetes costs this country Trillions every year?

[spanone]

1. The FDA is being run just like FEMA pre-Katrina. Hence, e-coli outbreaks etc.

[patrice]

2. Do you think millions of people would make better food choices if

they knew what the Glycemic Index is and what it has to do with their Health? I do.

Corporate Dinosaurs don't care about what is best for People.

Thank you Bob (and Libby) Dole.

[G Hawes]

16. Where would it end?

Personally, I find that there is so much labelling on foods these days that most of it ends up being ignored, not out of lack of interest but out of label overload.

I don't think that adding the glycemic index of foods to labels would serve any purpose because it is not something that can be objectively quantitatively accurate, and thus cannot be regulated.

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. It has no objective scientific basis, that's why

The glycemic index is a relative measure of how fast a given food item is converted into glucose within the blood. The metric is to arbitrarily set a single slice of white bread at GI 100, then compare how much or less quick other foods theoretically make the same convertion.

This measure is theoretical because there are so many different things that can change it. Your metabolism changes throughout the day, and with what you have eaten, and with physical activity (or lack thereof) between the time you eat and the time you take a measurement, and with mood, and with hormonal levels, and with genetics.

Another factor is what else do you have in your stomach. A slice of white bread by definition has a GI of 100. If you spread it with margarine or peanut butter and then eat it, the GI will be lowered because the fats in the margarine or peanut butter inhibit the absorbtion and conversion of the bread. Likewise, if you eat a salad with the bread, the GI drops even further.

So basically, there is no way to convert the concept of the glycemic index into any objective, non-relative unit of measurement. Until and unless that can be done, GI really has no meaning.

[patrice]

6. What you are saying amounts to Absolute Relativism.

Many of us grew beyond Deconstruction a long time ago.

[jwirr]

7. The basis of the book "Ultra Metabolism" by Mark Hyman MD is

the glycemic index and its scientific basis. It also makes a lot of common sense. What I found to be a problem is that it is not easy to change our habits.

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. Yes, but

That certain foods convert to glucose faster or slower than other foods can be established, yes. The importance of how quickly blood sugar rises is being studied, and the current research shows that quick spikes are more harmful than slow, gradual rises.

BUT. The current metric of how quickly foods affect blood glucose has no scientific basis. By definition, glycemic index is a relative measurement and subject to too many subjective factors to be meaningful for statistical or research purposes. It is certainly not something that can be defined in a regulatory way.

(Edited for clarity)

[ironflange]

9. That's correct

I'm a diabetic, and it truly does have some merit, but as you said there are just too many variables involved. My dietician says to not worry about it, there are more important things to watch. Like STAY AWAY FROM THE CHRISTMAS CANDY!!!11!

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. I'm diabetic, too

That's how I know the concept is useful, but there is no objective way of quantifying it.

[ironflange]

12. How's it going for you?

I'm happy, my last two A1C's were both 5.4. Sorry, I just like to tell that. Now, if I can lower the blood pressure
and fix the sore back. . .

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. It's going well

My A1Cs aren't as low as yours, typically between 6.2 and 6.5. I'm not on meds, though, just diet and excercise. I could definitely stand to lose more weight but otherwise, I'm in very good health.

[pitohui]

15. we've observed this too

you say: what else do you have in your stomach. A slice of white bread by definition has a GI of 100. If you spread it with margarine or peanut butter and then eat it, the GI will be lowered because the fats in the margarine or peanut butter inhibit the absorbtion and conversion of the bread

this is exactly what my husband has learned using his test strips


i'm still frustrated that i was killing him for 20 years w. a low fat diet but who knew?

[Brewman_Jax]

4. This from the same agency that won't label

irradiated food or genetic-engineered food, and is in the hands of Big Business. It's a shock that they got the food industry to label trans-fats.

[WinkyDink]

5. Because the labeling would be misleading, perhaps?

[patrice]

8. And there isn't anything anyone can do about that.

[pitohui]

14. it seems to be individual, eat to the meter

my husband has discovered that some foods thought to be better, such as brown rice rather than white rice, spike the meter just as much

you need to eat to YOUR results, unfortunately there is no quick number scrawled on the back of a candy bar that is going to fix a problem this complex and this individual

[Candide]

17. two reasons mainly I would think

One being it is very difficult to quantify the GI of a mixed meal, ergo a food containing substantial quantities of protein and or fats as well as carbs. fats are great at blunting the glycemic effect, and can make it quite unpredictable

Also, the GI is based gram for gram on the reference standard (usually 50 or 100g white bread). As i understand it, a food like carrots scores high on the GI, but you must also take into consideration the abnormal serving size the score references.