NOT Monty Pythons ("the Royal Navy is a haven for cannibalism!"

Newscientist.com has an interesting piece on food labeling. While its main focus is attempting to determine if the calories listed on a package are, in fact, the calories we get to use, it also has a section on the effects of cooking food that might be of interest to those here. You can find the article here: [www.newscientist.com]

It's interesting that Wrangham's study does not mention how the python, with its lessened digestive load from ground, cooked meat, broke out of the lab and slithered all the way back to Burma in record time, as it surely must have ; ).

This was very interesting. Thanks for posting, FrankBlack!

Those Python navy skits!.... on a life boat..

"Eat me."
"No, eat me."

..so polite

The article in Newscientist could have been better researched. It concludes the Atwater method is the standard for determining caloric value, whereas this is not the case, at least in modern times. There are now multiple methods of determining calories for recording on food labels which take into account the cost of digestion and effects of cooking.

[www.fao.org]

..btw, Wrangham's python also became fluent in seven lanquages on its long journey home.

loeve,

"..btw, Wrangham's python also became fluent in seven lanquages on its long journey home."

Ah, what a ripping success the experiment was, indeed! This explains why every White Castle patron is a Rhodes Scholarship candidate. I always wondered; now All Is Explained ; )

As far as I know and what we were taught in cooking school just a few years ago, The Atwater Method, for good or for ill, is still the standard for food labels in North America. I think that's what the article you posted is addressing--the need for standardized method worldwide. I can see why the WHO is concerned about this.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2009 01:42PM by Tamukha.

In the US there are 5 approved methods for calculating calories for food labeling, according to federal regulations. Admittedly, Atwater factors are the first mentioned..

(i) Caloric content may be calculated by the following methods. Where either specific or general food factors are used, the factors shall be applied to the actual amount (i.e., before rounding) of food components (e.g., fat, carbohydrate, protein, or ingredients with specific food factors) present per serving.

(A) Using specific Atwater factors (i. e., the Atwater method) given in Table 13, “Energy Value of Foods—Basis and Derivation,” by A. L. Merrill and B. K. Watt, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Handbook No. 74 (slightly revised, 1973), which is incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 and is available from the Office of Nutritional Products, Labeling and Dietary Supplements (HFS–800), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740, or may be inspected at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, or go to: [www.archives.gov]. ;

( Using the general factors of 4, 4, and 9 calories per gram for protein, total carbohydrate, and total fat, respectively, as described in USDA Handbook No. 74 (slightly revised 1973) pp. 9–11, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 (the availability of this incorporation by reference is given in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) of this section);

(C) Using the general factors of 4, 4, and 9 calories per gram for protein, total carbohydrate less the amount of insoluble dietary fiber, and total fat, respectively, as described in USDA Handbook No. 74 (slightly revised 1973) pp. 9–11, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 (the availability of this incorporation by reference is given in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) of this section;

(D) Using data for specific food factors for particular foods or ingredients approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and provided in parts 172 or 184 of this chapter, or by other means, as appropriate; or

(E) Using bomb calorimetry data subtracting 1.25 calories per gram protein to correct for incomplete digestibility, as described in USDA Handbook No. 74 (slightly revised 1973) p. 10, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51 (the availability of this incorporation by reference is given in paragraph (c)(1)(i)(A) of this section).

[ecfr.gpoaccess.gov]


..the scientist (Livesey) mentioned in the OP's article is pressing for caloric data accurate to within 2%, and better figures for high fiber and low fat diet foods which the Atwater factors don't estimate as well.

Edit: ..right, the FAO is reporting on current practice worldwide and making recommendations for 'preferred' methods.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/17/2009 10:45PM by loeve.