As someone who is also severely lactose intolerant, this is something you figure out through trial and error (or I should really say trial and extreme digestive system upset). Unless the food product is clear with mentioning "no lactose", you can only trust that product will contain a "minimum upper bounds of 500 milligrams of lactose per serving for products labeled “0g sugar”" and it could have that much as the author says.
I basically take lactase enzyme pills everytime I have a dairy product. Better to be safe than sorry
> I basically take lactase enzyme pills everytime I have a dairy product.
Sorry I'm not familiar with lactase enzyme or lactose intolerance, but wouldn't this be the reccomended usage? Or is it suggested to take the pills only when eating something with especially high lactose content?
Usually on the bottle of lactase enzyme pills it will just say "take before consuming a lactose-containing product." But actual usage will really depend on the degree of lactose intolerance of the person. For example my wife is only mildly lactose intolerant: she can consume hard cheeses and many processed products containing dairy just fine, but soft cheese, milk, cream, etc. will give her digestive problems.
She mostly gets by simply avoiding these things, but she really really loves a good quality burrata so she will take an enzyme pill when she wants to indulge.
AFAIK, lactose intolerance is a spectrum. I come from a country with spotty lactose tolerance so I've known multiple intolerant people. Just to give you an example:
I am mildly intolerant. I can have a small glass of whole milk with some discomfort, namely gas and bloated stomach. People who are highly intolerant would have a really, really bad time with the same amount with cramps, diarrhea and whatnot.
Sadly is the case for me as well. A friend of mine went vegan just for the sake of at least it eliminated any possibility of diary products in their food.
At least in the UK the enzyme pills can add up quite quickly in cost.
Buy lacto-free milk and drink that instead of the pills. In my experience, it's much better than the pills and works faster and better - enzymes added to whole milk are the same as in the pills.
I, for me, wouldn't go vegan, as then supplements are needed and that add really up in costs :(
May be not directly the lactase, but the split' lactose. Lactose is split into (milk) sugar by lactase enzyme. Lacto-free milk is sweeter than whole milk. So, it's the same problem with as with all sugars.
This is the only way to live and keep living when someone is having life threatening condition due to food allergy.
My wife 'only' have coeliac so it is not life threatening 'only' have (lasting) long term consequences but still - or precisely for this, due to its stealthy nature - we are very diligent. We, not only she, because it affects daily life of both of us. Our home is a gluten free zone. People do not bring here any consumables when they are unaware of its composition. Eating out safely is non-existent. She accepts a certain and unknown level of damage - that is not prominent at the time. There are rules, law, but there are rules for taxation and speed limits too, yet people break those rules. When they have related risks on themselves as well. Not like here where the direct consequence (so excluding law breaking) is on others. People could be sloppy, people could be tired. People could be clueless but pretend otherwise. People could lie their socks off for 2 dollars more income if the consequence is almost exclusively on someone else. People make mistakes, conditions are not always full in control. And there are the vague, inadequate and easy to circumnavigate regualtions that we cannot rely on. Even in places we know we tend to talk repeatedly about coeliac approaches because personnel change, business incentive and owners' incentives evolve. And still we never know if someone is lieing or clueless. Luckily talking with them we developed a sense of if the person in front of you is aware and straight, taking about things seriously that affects your health and wellbeing only. Nomally the most reassuring places are the ones we avoid as they either not aware of the difficulty of the situation (e.g. cross contamination, brought in contaminants by personel, ..), or just do not care and lie with a kind face. Those with doubt at least think it through honestly.
But for us it is not (immediate) life or death situation. Still lots of sacrifice (cannot travel calmly and freely, very little dining out, cooking is the primary center of life, time and energy consuming, ...). Still nowhere near to those with life threatening food allergy. Sacrifice is life for those with condition, or easily no life at all.
And this is where I cannot understand ignorant people who endanger their loved ones by taking unnecessary risk, like the mother who's child is now dead in London after having a sip of hot chocolate from Costa. Was it worth it? No. Aware, emphasizing the situation to the staff that looks smug about it yet still risking having allergic reaction while carrying no epi-pen either? I hate that this aspect is not reflected at all in media report only that Costa staff killed the poor little girl (well, they did, or at least caused it), causing unimaginable suffering to the mother. For a cup of hot chocolate. For fuck's sake people, take it seriusly and be cautious like the blog author here and you, the OP. Your and your loved one's life depend on it, do not put into the hand of others having no incentives, or worse, only having contrary incentives!
The term serving or serving size means an amount of food customarily consumed per eating occasion by persons 4 years of age or older which is expressed in a common household measure that is appropriate to the food.
This means manufacturer's are free to make serving sizes based on how little a hypothetical four year old child might eat in theory. There aren't any substantial penalties for inaccuracy. There can be substantial incentives for optimistic labeling.
Just as a counterpoint, in Europe the requirement is to specify nutrition data per 100 g of "usable" product. Some products are e.g. intended to be added to water before consumption, then the nutrition is for that final form, not for the concentrate that you actually buy.
But it's really practical, it makes it dead easy to e.g. compare calories, sugar, fat and so on between e.g. milk and apple sauce (to take random example from the breakfast table this morning).
> in Europe the requirement is to specify nutrition data per 100 g of "usable" product
Source? that doesn't seem true and seems prone to the same serving size tricks used in US. My experience it that nutritional values per 100g of product (actual raw product no matter what its final form is supposed to be) are always listed first.
Then if you're supposed to mix it with water there can be e.g., optionally, a nutritional table per 100ml of finished product.
No, "usable" product cannot be quite the correct expression. The macros per 100g of dry pasta are for the dry, not the cooked product. I'd venture to guess that few people eat their pasta dry.
That's also why cooking spray, which is 100% fat, can be advertised as having 0 grams of fat. Because 1/3 of a second of spray, the serving size, has less than the minimum amount of fat you need to declare.
I developed a severe dairy protein allergy in my late 30s. At first, I thought it was just a lactose issue but anything dairy triggers it (with symptoms aligning with vasculitis). While I'm not vegan, it's just easier to eat vegan food when I go to a restaurant. I generally know what's safe from the grocery store but always look for the Contains Milk or Dairy Free labels.
The labeling is extremely important. I find it upsetting that there aren't more rigid requirements for labeling common allergens. Given that a large percentage of people are at least mildly lactose intolerant by the time they hit age 70, you would think this would have stricter labeling requirements.
My son is anaphylactic on contact with cow's milk.
We're on an experimental program to reverse this by dosing him with milks closer and closer to cow's. If you're interested (and courageous) try camel milk - it's the furthest away milk from cow in the program.
My understanding is that it is somewhat common in adults to have a virus (cold, flu, etc) trigger a dairy protein allergy. They’re most often irreversible, or so the MDs told me. Anyhow, it’s been 15 years without dairy so I’m used to living without it. There are far more high quality non-dairy alternatives now than there were even 5 years ago, thankfully!
I am in my mid 30's, moved to US from India a few years back, after lot of suffering, visit to Urgent care, Colonoscopy and lot trial and error I found out it was the milk which was causing the issue, currently I consume low fat lactose free milk and non fat greek yogurt from Costco.
one question I keep wondering about is, do I have lactose intolerance or issue with digesting milk fat from cow milk. I am able to consume all products with any amount of fat content made from Buffalo milk inlcuding lactose (Buffalo milk is predominantly used in India)
Getting my lactose intolerance diagnosis changed my life. I was having all sorts of bad pains & issues. At one point I thought I had kidney problems because of the pains in the area. I stopped drinking alcohol. The GP did so many tests - I was fit and healthy. Then he suggested an elimination diet. I was sceptical, but after 2 weeks I felt like I had been reborn.
Many of the ills I had had over the years had been misdiagnosed (antibiotics for a bladder infection, for example - turns out it was just bloating and internal pressure from my bowel).
It's so nice being able to sleep properly at night, and also not have random diarrhea/bloating/pains. My mental health is also great - the link between gut health & depression etc needs much more research.
I remember when I was in grad school, I was out with drinks with a bunch of students from the biology department. One of them was talking about finishing up a paper to submit to the FDA on a drug she was testing. She called the FDA "the department of legalized rounding". Another author on her paper was proposing that they could round ".445" to ".45" and then to ".5" so that they could be above a threshold to go on to the next phase. She was horrified, but they were going through the regulations because it wasn't clear that it was prohibited.
It does in sane countries where nutrition labels are required to also include the per-100g stats.
But in North America, they only need to show the per-serving column. Combine that with the <0.5g rule and the fact they are allowed to pick the serving size, you end up with tic tacs which don't mention any sugar on their labels.
It depends on the jurisdiction. Some places require totals per 100g, whereas others are "per serving", which allows you to say 0 to pretty much everything if that "serving" is 0.5g or less.
0g means less than half a gram per serving. Given an arbitrarily small serving size, everything has 0g of sugar. Like how PAM spray grease has 0G of fat due to a tiny serving size.
famously different type of dry sausages, e.g fuet.
Although, I'd not call it 'secret', at least in the vast majority of the EU, it is listed. It's another story it's listed in the local language which is rather "unpleasant" (inconvenient) if you travel (esp. road trips)
Readit News
I basically take lactase enzyme pills everytime I have a dairy product. Better to be safe than sorry
Sorry I'm not familiar with lactase enzyme or lactose intolerance, but wouldn't this be the reccomended usage? Or is it suggested to take the pills only when eating something with especially high lactose content?
She mostly gets by simply avoiding these things, but she really really loves a good quality burrata so she will take an enzyme pill when she wants to indulge.
I am mildly intolerant. I can have a small glass of whole milk with some discomfort, namely gas and bloated stomach. People who are highly intolerant would have a really, really bad time with the same amount with cramps, diarrhea and whatnot.
At least in the UK the enzyme pills can add up quite quickly in cost.
I, for me, wouldn't go vegan, as then supplements are needed and that add really up in costs :(
This is the only way to live and keep living when someone is having life threatening condition due to food allergy.
My wife 'only' have coeliac so it is not life threatening 'only' have (lasting) long term consequences but still - or precisely for this, due to its stealthy nature - we are very diligent. We, not only she, because it affects daily life of both of us. Our home is a gluten free zone. People do not bring here any consumables when they are unaware of its composition. Eating out safely is non-existent. She accepts a certain and unknown level of damage - that is not prominent at the time. There are rules, law, but there are rules for taxation and speed limits too, yet people break those rules. When they have related risks on themselves as well. Not like here where the direct consequence (so excluding law breaking) is on others. People could be sloppy, people could be tired. People could be clueless but pretend otherwise. People could lie their socks off for 2 dollars more income if the consequence is almost exclusively on someone else. People make mistakes, conditions are not always full in control. And there are the vague, inadequate and easy to circumnavigate regualtions that we cannot rely on. Even in places we know we tend to talk repeatedly about coeliac approaches because personnel change, business incentive and owners' incentives evolve. And still we never know if someone is lieing or clueless. Luckily talking with them we developed a sense of if the person in front of you is aware and straight, taking about things seriously that affects your health and wellbeing only. Nomally the most reassuring places are the ones we avoid as they either not aware of the difficulty of the situation (e.g. cross contamination, brought in contaminants by personel, ..), or just do not care and lie with a kind face. Those with doubt at least think it through honestly.
But for us it is not (immediate) life or death situation. Still lots of sacrifice (cannot travel calmly and freely, very little dining out, cooking is the primary center of life, time and energy consuming, ...). Still nowhere near to those with life threatening food allergy. Sacrifice is life for those with condition, or easily no life at all.
And this is where I cannot understand ignorant people who endanger their loved ones by taking unnecessary risk, like the mother who's child is now dead in London after having a sip of hot chocolate from Costa. Was it worth it? No. Aware, emphasizing the situation to the staff that looks smug about it yet still risking having allergic reaction while carrying no epi-pen either? I hate that this aspect is not reflected at all in media report only that Costa staff killed the poor little girl (well, they did, or at least caused it), causing unimaginable suffering to the mother. For a cup of hot chocolate. For fuck's sake people, take it seriusly and be cautious like the blog author here and you, the OP. Your and your loved one's life depend on it, do not put into the hand of others having no incentives, or worse, only having contrary incentives!
The term serving or serving size means an amount of food customarily consumed per eating occasion by persons 4 years of age or older which is expressed in a common household measure that is appropriate to the food.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B...
This means manufacturer's are free to make serving sizes based on how little a hypothetical four year old child might eat in theory. There aren't any substantial penalties for inaccuracy. There can be substantial incentives for optimistic labeling.
But it's really practical, it makes it dead easy to e.g. compare calories, sugar, fat and so on between e.g. milk and apple sauce (to take random example from the breakfast table this morning).
Source? that doesn't seem true and seems prone to the same serving size tricks used in US. My experience it that nutritional values per 100g of product (actual raw product no matter what its final form is supposed to be) are always listed first. Then if you're supposed to mix it with water there can be e.g., optionally, a nutritional table per 100ml of finished product.
I am drinking an energy drink with a big "zero calories + zero sugar" label.
On the nutritional content, it actually says 2 kcal per 100 ml even though there is <0.1g carbs in the recipe.
The labeling is extremely important. I find it upsetting that there aren't more rigid requirements for labeling common allergens. Given that a large percentage of people are at least mildly lactose intolerant by the time they hit age 70, you would think this would have stricter labeling requirements.
We're on an experimental program to reverse this by dosing him with milks closer and closer to cow's. If you're interested (and courageous) try camel milk - it's the furthest away milk from cow in the program.
one question I keep wondering about is, do I have lactose intolerance or issue with digesting milk fat from cow milk. I am able to consume all products with any amount of fat content made from Buffalo milk inlcuding lactose (Buffalo milk is predominantly used in India)
Many of the ills I had had over the years had been misdiagnosed (antibiotics for a bladder infection, for example - turns out it was just bloating and internal pressure from my bowel).
It's so nice being able to sleep properly at night, and also not have random diarrhea/bloating/pains. My mental health is also great - the link between gut health & depression etc needs much more research.
But in North America, they only need to show the per-serving column. Combine that with the <0.5g rule and the fact they are allowed to pick the serving size, you end up with tic tacs which don't mention any sugar on their labels.
USA: https://www.food4less.com/p/tic-tac-berry-flavored-mints/000...
Canada: https://www.amazon.ca/Strawberry-Fields-Singles-Ounce-Pack/d...
Italy: https://worldofeurope.com/shop/hard-candy/product-289/
A single serving of Tic-Tac is less than 0.5g, and therefore it has 0g of everything.
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment
Although, I'd not call it 'secret', at least in the vast majority of the EU, it is listed. It's another story it's listed in the local language which is rather "unpleasant" (inconvenient) if you travel (esp. road trips)
After learning this I now take lactaid to ramen restaurants.