Ever notice foods that say "not a low calorie food" when it doesn't make all that much sense? For example, I have this protein shake that is 160 cal and 30g of protein, which relatively speaking is actually pretty low calorie. Another example I saw recently was on a snack food in 80 cal packets, also a pretty low number.
Turns out that's 21 CFR 101.60(c)(1)(iii)(B).
The concern is that foods may be labeled "no added sugar," "sugar-free," or similar verbiage despite being high in fat or other things that convert readily to energy. The FDA feels that this could be misleading to consumers who associate lack of sugar with healthfulness, especially in the somewhat extreme example of sugar-free candy.
So 21 CFR 101.60 says that any claim of "no added sugar" or similar must be accompanied by "not a low calorie food" (or similar) UNLESS the food *also* qualifies to be labeled as "low calorie." The rules here vary by item but, in general, are 40 cal or less per serving for snack foods and 60 cal or less per 100g for main dishes (yes there is a definition of "main dish" in the CFRs) or a caloric content at least 25% less than an "appropriate" comparable food, in which case the comparable food and difference in calorie content must also be labeled.
This has been J. B.'s Food Labeling Corner. Join us next week for a discourse on how incredibly fucking weird the labeling on nuts is, due to decades of controversy over whether or not they are good for you.