Dietarily Insignificant Ingredients

[Severian]

On the back of a bag of Lay’s Light Potato Chips:

Ingredients: Potatoes, Olestra, Salt, alpha-Tocopheryl Acetate (Vitamin E), Vitamin A Palmitate, Tocopherols (to protect flavor), Vitamin K*, and Vitamin D*.

*Dietarily insignificant

So, why bother with Vitamins E, A, K, and D?

And relating to the same ingredients list, why do they tell us what the Tocopherols are for (to protect flavor), but not anything else? I see that with BHT a lot too. Why do they offer an explanation?

[Mangetout]

Without the explanation, ‘Tocopherols’ sound scary and unnecessary, whereas nobody really minds vitamins being added to their food.

[Mangetout]

And I’m not sure, but I think ‘dietarily insignificant’ may not be talking about ‘diet’ in the context of general; nutrition.

[vladimir44]

what is the % of daily vitamin k & d value on the bag? i am guessing it is >2% making it a terrible source of vitamins.

[Colophon]

I would guess it’s because they are listing the ingredients as “vitamins” rather than by their chemical names: “vitamin A palmitate” sounds better than “retinyl palmitate”, and so on. Doing this, however, could run the risk of being seen as a claim that the food is “vitamin-enirched”, when in fact the amounts are so tiny as to be dietarily insignificant, so to cover themselves they state that fact.

@Mangetout

Without the explanation, ‘Tocopherols’ sound scary and unnecessary, whereas nobody really minds vitamins being added to their food.

The strange thing being that vitamin E is in fact a mixture of tocopherols. Quite why they used the scary-sounding name here, I’m not sure.

[Severian]

[QUOTE=Colophon]
I would guess it’s because they are listing the ingredients as “vitamins” rather than by their chemical names: “vitamin A palmitate” sounds better than “retinyl palmitate”, and so on. Doing this, however, could run the risk of being seen as a claim that the food is “vitamin-enirched”, when in fact the amounts are so tiny as to be dietarily insignificant, so to cover themselves they state that fact.

[QUOTE]

Fair enough, and it’s supported by the fact that none of those vitamins are even listed in the percentage of daily intakes. Well, Vitamin A is listed, but at 0%. What the heck is up with that?

Anyways, my question still stands: Why bother adding those vitamins?

[Dr.Lao]

From Howstuffworks: http://science.howstuffworks.com/question526.htm

Many scientists and doctors are worried about whether olestra is safe for people to consume. They originally wanted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to reject Procter & Gamble’s petition to market a line of foods containing it. One big fear is that eating olestra may lead to nutritional deficiencies. Fats normally bind to the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K in your intestines, and when your body absorbs the fat, these essential vitamins come along for the ride. The same vitamins also stick to the fake fat, olestra. Instead of being taken up into the body, they are excreted, unused, with it. If you consume excessive amounts of olestra-containing foods, you may not get enough of these important vitamins in your diet.

Vitamin deficiency can have serious consequences. Vitamin D, for example, is involved in calcium metabolism and bone formation. An older woman who eats too much olestra could be at an increased risk of fracturing her already fragile bones! Because of potential problems like these, any food containing olestra must have vitamins A, D, E and K added.

[D0pBOt]

But isn’t that just a waste? If they’re going to bind with the olestra what’s the use in consuming them at the same time?

[Joe_Random]

@D0pBOt

But isn’t that just a waste? If they’re going to bind with the olestra what’s the use in consuming them at the same time?

Probably to make sure that the olestra has enough vitamins to bind to that it won’t start leeching away vitamins from other food that you’ve eaten.