Reduced Fat Doesn’t Always Mean Reduced Calories

Calories are back.

Not that they ever really disappeared, but somewhere in the fat-free frenzy some of us lost sight of one of the laws of thermodynamics. People ate fat-reduced cookies, crackers and cakes, and the calories added up.

They didn’t lose weight. Maybe they even gained.

Now Nabisco is splashing calorie comparisons on some of its SnackWell’s packages. Other food companies have calorie-reduced foods in the works. The Calorie Control Council, which represents the “lite” food industry, has mounted a “Calories Still Count” campaign. And health authorities are realizing that their simple message to “reduce fat” may have been too simple.

Those frustrated with nutritional flip-flopping may see the return to calories as just another reason to throw up their hands. But here’s how it happened: Health authorities originally told Americans to slash fat from their diets to lower the risk of heart disease and cancer. People then looked to fat reduction as the solution for obesity, too.

And the scientific community is partially to blame, said Nancy Ernst, nutrition coordinator for the government’s National Cholesterol Education Program. Studies showed that lower fat consumption translated to weight reduction, she said. But subjects in the studies ate foods naturally lower in fat (and calories), such as fruits, vegetables and grains, not reduced-fat cookies and crackers.

In the real world, an aggressive food industry went gangbusters marketing the fat-reduction concept, even though in some cases those lower-fat desserts and snacks have almost the same amount of calories (sugar or other carbohydrates are added to replace the fat). Then there’s the American tendency to want it all, especially when it’s fat-free.

Calories have not risen enough to account for all of the rise in obesity, says Sue Borra, a dietitian with the International Food Information Council, a nonprofit group funded by the food industry. People also have become more inactive, so they’re burning fewer calories, she said.

Still, some in the food industry are looking at calories consumed - or at least marketing the idea. Nabisco recently put calorie-comparison claims on six SnackWell’s cracker and cookie packages as well as on Newtons Cobblers and fat-free blueberry and cranberry Newtons.

Most people aren’t going to understand what’s being compared, however. And even if they do, the calorie differences aren’t very significant. For example, the label of SnackWell’s Devil’s Food cookie cakes says that they have “35 percent less calories than the leading cookie.” Not the leading devil’s food cookie, mind you (that’s SnackWell’s itself), but the best-selling cookie overall. Right now, that’s Oreos - and the calories in equal weights of devil’s food cookies and Oreos were compared.

Still, people don’t eat cookies by weight. They eat them by unit. One SnackWell’s cookie is 50 calories; one Oreo is 53.

Ann Smith, spokeswoman for Nabisco, said that the labeling comparisons follow government rules. Furthermore, Nabisco is developing new products that focus on fewer calories, not just less fat. “It’s the next wave,” Smith said.

While Nabisco’s market research showed that people want not only fat-reduced but calorie-reduced products, others think consumers haven’t quite reconciled the two.

“I don’t feel comfortable saying that the calorie message has made an impact,” said Robyn Flipse, a dietitian in Ocean, N.J. “People are still looking for another magic formula without approaching food in a more holistic way.”

Anne Marie Johnson, senior brand manager for Keebler cookies, agrees that consumers “aren’t there yet” when it comes to putting calories and fat together. Keebler had a calorie-reduction claim on the front of its now-defunct Fruitastics cookies, but “people didn’t value it as much as fat reduction,” said Johnson. Part of it may be that cookies are so high in calories anyway, she said.

Johnson said calorie claims are definitely an “emerging trend,” but Keebler will watch and wait. “We look to Nabisco to lead the education train,” she said. “They have a lot more money than we do.”