1) 0 calories
2) 3% fruit juice
(no i don't look for zero calorie or diet foods. i think those are dumb. but i like nectarines!)
fruit juice contains calories, so that's weird. so i looked it up:
TITLE 21--FOOD AND DRUGS4.9 calories PER SERVING (servings are usually kept small to make the amount of calories and fat seem small. like a bag of chips might be 10 servings. this drink is counted as 2 servings in a bottle). so a food with 30 calories could easily be labeled "0 calories".
CHAPTER I--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SUBCHAPTER B--FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
...(b)Calorie content claims. (1) The terms "calorie free," "free of calories," "no calories," "zero calories," "without calories," "trivial source of calories," "negligible source of calories," or "dietarily insignificant source of calories" may be used on the label or in the labeling of foods, provided that:
(i) The food contains less than 5 calories per reference amount customarily consumed and per labeled serving.
and it's not even just advertising like "free of calories". they actually write the number 0 in a nutrition info chart like it's a real number. wouldn't it make more sense to put the real number in that chart? why not write 4 instead of 0 there? how is this helping anything?
our government at work.
this is stupid.
i wonder if they would have put a little more juice in the drink and made it better, but had to stop at just under 5 calories per serving for marketing. maybe the optimal amount to make the best drink would be a little more juice and 7 calories per serving. :/
(ii) As required in 101.13(e)(2), if the food meets this condition without the benefit of special processing, alteration, formulation, or reformulation to lower the caloric content, it is labeled to disclose that calories are not usually present in the food (e.g., "cider vinegar, a calorie free food").abolish the FDA!!!!!!!! it's not busy keeping us safe!!! it's busy making medicine more expensive and making up a bunch of dumb rules.
(2) The terms "low calorie," "few calories," "contains a small amount of calories," "low source of calories," or "low in calories" may be used on the label or in labeling of foods, except meal products as defined in 101.13(l) and main dish products as defined in 101.13(m), provided that:
(i)(A) The food has a reference amount customarily consumed greater than 30 grams (g) or greater than 2 tablespoons and does not provide more than 40 calories per reference amount customarily consumed; or
(B) The food has a reference amount customarily consumed of 30 g or less or 2 tablespoons or less and does not provide more than 40 calories per reference amount customarily consumed and, except for sugar substitutes, per 50 g (for dehydrated foods that must be reconstituted before typical consumption with water or a diluent containing an insignificant amount, as defined in 101.9(f)(1), of all nutrients per reference amount customarily consumed, the per 50 g criterion refers to the "as prepared" form).
I agree, abolishing the FDA may yield more fruitful research and prevent the manipulation of the type found in the system we have.
That being said, how do you foresee drugs being evaluated for safety, the role the FDA ostensibly performs, but in reality doesn't very well?
Now we have one organization doing regulation (FDA), and their conclusions have the force of law.
We should have MANY organizations doing regulation. Anyone who thinks they can do a better job can try. Then no one's conclusions would be enforced. The customer can pick which organization(s) he trusts.