Nutritional Analysis Made Easy!

Related Posts

Nutrition facts label
Moreover, anything which appeared to supercede state laws without satisfying the right to know demand would be a political minefield. Only the body of scientific literature. We are known for our fast and helpful customer service. Seed manufacturers can froth at the mouth, just as they have set the stage for it already…providing families who could not feed one child now to feed 14 on plants engineered to grow off the sides of corrugated plastic. Can I see a test result that assures me that the organic corn chips are free of mycotoxins?

Nutritional analysis made easy!

How to Make Nutrition Facts Labels

This is the precise reason a la calc has been created. Please use your results from a la calc on retail products, menus or just for development purposes. All recipes are automatically marked as 'sub-recipes' aka 'component' recipes. To add a sub-recipe to your current recipe simply search for the recipe name when adding ingredients and add in the same way you would any other ingredient. You can also use a standard database item as a template for a new item should you wish.

Yes, however, be aware that a la calc will treat blank values in your custom ingredient as '0' when calculating your nutritional values. It is advised that you fill as much information as you can and be aware that any missing nutrients may be slightly inaccurate in the end result. This is for security purposes. We are constantly working to fill gaps in our database, including weight measurements. Alternatively, you can easily create a copy of that ingredient and add new needed measurements yourself.

Only you can view or change your recipes and ingredients by default. However, you can share a recipe with the 'Share link' button in the 'Nutrition' tab of a recipe. Yes, a la calc is an online application and can be used from any internet connected device with a javascript enabled browser. Currently the a la calc does not offer an automated calculation for 5-a-day counts.

However, to do this manually is very simple. Just add up the weights of all your fruit and vegetables and divide by 80g. Yes, with the limitation that our nutrition databases do not cover food specifically designed for animals, and our Guideline Daily Amounts only refer to food for human consumption.

However nutrition information can still be calculated if you add custom ingredients to a la calc. You would have to know the nutritional values of the item of food from the retail packet or get them from the manufacturers. Yes, please follow this link to our support material.

Start with our free trial. Happy and want more? Choose between our pay as you go or an unlimited use plans. For each recipe you get a complete calculation for Nutrition and Costings. And of course your recipes can always be adjusted to your full satisfaction.

What our customers say.. Manufacturers Restaurants Nutritionists Laboratories. Confectioneries Sandwich shops Take-aways Bakeries. Consultants Schools Universities Education Edition. Instant results and easy to use In minutes alacalc. Over professional users agree a la calc is used by nutritionists, schools, restaurants, consultants, manufacturers, bakeries, confectioneries, take-aways, sandwich shops and laboratories.

Secure access from anywhere With a la calc you can access your recipes from any internet connected device — be it a computer, tablet or phone. Superfast recipe editor alacalc. Add special ingredients If you use special ingredients not covered by the official nutrient databases, a la calc lets you easily add those to your personal ingredient database with our custom ingredient feature.

Attach pictures, notes and more A recipe is more than a list of ingredients. Accurate nutritional analysis alacalc. FSA compliant labels Our calculations use approved methodologies to generate nutrition analysis facts labels which follow the FSA mandated regulations. Corn and cotton are modified to resist certain order of insects and as a result reduce chemical inputs.

I have heard some argue that the reduction in insecticides due to Bt crops is less than the increase of Roundup being used on crops, but they fail to take into account the amount of all the other herbicides used or to consider the lower toxicity of glyphosate. Please point me to one long term independent human study proving that GMOs are safe for human consumption.

I have yet to see one. Sorry, not buying it. And when it comes to GMO crops feeding the world, what an epic fail. Superweeds and superbugs are showing the fallacy of Roundup resistant crops and Bt-crops. How long will that last? Both of these article are over 2 years old and from pro-business sources. There is no shortage of food in the world, it is a distribution and affordability issue. Show me a long-term human study that shows organic is safe. Din, are you referring to e coli contamination?

The Standford meta study found the following:. When the authors removed one study that looked only at lettuce, the meta-analysis showed that organic produce had a 5 percent greater risk for contamination.

I am not a farmer nor a scientist even though I administratively support basic research scientists. All of us are paying the price for all of the cheap, fast, chemical, over processed, junk we are consuming. Therefore, as a consumer and concerned citizen, I must ask questions and in seeking answers need open, transparent, truthful information. That is all I ask so I can decide what is best for me and my family. Blasting plants with nuclear rays is OK — precisely altering a couple of genes not?

Label this and then we can talk: The labeling of GM is simply Big Business vs. Mind you, organic is way larger than biotech.

I have said before, if the GMO is actually made for that reason, sure. I am in favor of that technology. I am an organic producer, but I never agreed with the idea of providing food without using the very important tool kit of modern technology.

However, the reality is that most GMOs are not designed for that reason. They are made for supporting the concentrated animal feeding operation CAFO business model which is destroying the planets ecosystems. The other part is categorically false. We already can produce much more food and actually improve the environment by eliminating once and for all the entire CAFO business model and returning the animals to the land where they belong using the most modern scientific management practices.

This not only produces more food per acre, it even restores more acres to productivity for a compounding effect. That land is slowly deteriorating. Organic is better described as biomimicry. Organic agriculture looks at the natural biosystem and uses that template to make a model optimizing both food production and carbon sequestration far beyond what unguided Nature can do.

So while grazing is good. Better than a CAFO. The organic biomimicry model of adaptive multi paddock grazing is better, both for the environment and food production.

Multi-paddock grazing had higher soil carbon, water- and nutrient-holding capacities. Success was due to managing grazing adaptively for desired results. Grazing management impacts on vegetation, soil biota and soil chemical, physical and hydrological properties in tall grass prairie W.

I know many people who say they are opposed to GMOs. Some go out of their way to avoid GMOs in their own diets. They buy and eat foods that with minimal investigation would almost certainly be found to contain ingredients derived from GMOs. They do this because of plausible deniability. If all GMO derived ingredients were labelled as such, most people who support this form of labelling would accept this and move on.

They already accept this on some level but they are afforded the fear that industry is keeping secrets from them. Yes, most people accept GMOs. The people have decided to buy GMOs. And they want a label. Transparency is a completely reasonable expectation and there need not be anything anti-scientific or otherwise misleading in providing that. What rock did all of you people come out from under? Have any one of you taken a look at any of the studies done?

Do you really think it is a good idea to ingest Bt corn which has its DNA injected with a pesticide that eats holes in insects stomachs? What the hell do you think this pesticide might do to your stomach? Not to mention the destruction of the American farmer as we used to know them. The fact that they can no longer save their own seeds for the following season and must go to the big ag companies for seeds to each time should tell you something about what is at play here. And now these so called wonder crops are requiring greater and greater amounts of pesticide due to the insects becoming immune to the pesticide imbedded in the crops themselves..

It is an environmental nightmare. Not to mention the sky rocking allergies, cancer rates etc.. I guess I am just a crazy organic nut.. And yes you are exactly right when you surmise that our real agenda is the out right banning of GMOs in America. Of course it is.. Americans are waking up to the sick corruption of these Big Ag companies and will soon follow in the foot steps of our more intelligent over seas neighbors and force an out right ban.

I hope we are not all too sick or dead by then. Din Morfar, She might have gotten the Bacillus thuringiensis part from a propaganda site. Maybe even most of her post. But the basic major points are spot on as I detailed in depth 2 posts higher. Growing grains to support the CAFO system is about as destructive a practice there is. I agree completely with Mark. So, YES, label foods that contain genetically modified ingredients but label them to clearly communicate the benefits to consumers: The dominant seed technologies [BT pesticide and Round Up resistance] decrease production costs, but do not increase yields.

This cost benefit is restricted, however, to the highly mechanized and low labour agriculture of the global north. I would not be confident that consumers will simply accept foods labeled as containing GMO, because the political economics of GE are already close to the tipping point. The form and prominence of labeling will also have an effect. But I agree that it is possible the fallout will be to defuse the issue.

Mark is certainly correct that trying to fend off labeling at the ballot box is a losing political strategy. On the other hand, a Supreme Court ruling that such a law is unconstitutional would be hard to overturn. The obvious grounds for such a ruling is that it in effect establishes a religion. As a food industry employee writing personally, not on behalf of my employer or anyone else , I find myself in agreement with Mark. This Luddite fear of modern, life saving technology is tragic, but sad reality.

And not just that, but the misuse and abuse of science to advance a political cause is nothing short of criminal. Labeling should not be necessary since it is very easy to find out what commodities are genetically modified, or not. It must include disclosure everywhere it exists, including restaurants, beverages, drugs, etc. After all, half of all food dollars spent in the U. In addition, to the previous point, there is pretty well established body of law in the U.

Industry is opposing state by state initiatives because they cannot work. A federal solution is the only solution. And when the labels appear and people see the price differences as they can now between most non-GM and GM foods, I suspect buying habits will not change. The pro-label forces will have to find a new business model to pick the pickets of their gullible contributors and invent new snake oil to peddle. But if industry were to concede this — mandating labeling based on a process, not on materiality — what will be the next demand?

What about listing whether plants were manipulated by humans in some other way grafting? Proximity to power lines? It was signed byan international group of more than 90 scientists, academics and physicians and is now open for further signatories.

The first sentence on the wiki article would have enlightened you:. The claim that it does exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue. Moreover, the claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment.

We endorse the need for further independent scientific inquiry and informed public discussion on GM product safety and urge GM proponents to do the same. I tried to google the first name on that list and came up with… that list.

It seems like another fake list of fake nonexistent people. Too bad you people resort to lies, pseaudoscience, threats and other underhand tactics instead of just conceding you lost the argument. A list of names is not scientific anything.

The body of literature is. You can ignore the science as much as you like and have an opinion as much as you like. The facts, however, does not change according to those opinions no matter how strongly held. The article at http: No, both lists are PDFs. The PDF currently available at sustainablepulse. And this has been accidentally revealed by sustainablepulse. A list of names does not constitute scientific consensus. Only the body of scientific literature.

I couldnt agree more. What about those of us who like knowing our dairy cows are on pasture at least days of the year according to federal law. An act of US Congress it was. Twelve years in the making and still being tinkered with, for better of for worse. Am I making a bigger deal than necessary about a comment? Im curious about how you reconcile these viewpoints. Mark, as always I find your insights incredibly valuable. What an interesting position! If someone had actually made this point, I might have voted yes on I But I never considered labeling to actually help achieve those ends.

Too bad the initiative got so brutally crushed. Not only does the process differ, but the result does too. Truly natural crops nourish pests and humans ; BT crops grains kill pests because they generate their own insecticide in the plant. As resistant pests emerge, farmers have to spray on additional pesticides anyway.

Other GMO crops contain fungicidal toxins. So such crops nowadays get saturated with herbicides to kill weeds en masse, rather than hire workers to pull out weeds individually. If so, developers can add such distinguishing information to the label. Or with pyrethrins, sulfur, copper, rotenone?

Genetic literacy the lack thereof and scientific ignorance lie at the heart of this discussion. Look up the Genetic Literacy Project, which is an independent group of scientists who address biotech.

The genetic modifications typical in biotech involve the insertion of a few genes. Natural selection tends to eliminate genes that are harmful to an organism but works the opposite way for those that are harmful to its predators. In fact, plants and animals have naturally evolved many poisons, both to kill or deter predators and for other reasons. Note that we are the predators when we eat plants and other animals.

Over thousands of years of trial and death, humans have learned which foods are most of the most acutely toxic, i. These still are not subject to any kind of regulation or testing requirements. In fact, we know that natural foods contain such compounds. In addition, nature continues to modify genes randomly, and without any safety testing, all the time. In contrast, biotechnology products are extensively tested for any sign of an unintended harmful change.

Biotech products generally contain the same natural toxins as the natural varieties they are derived from, so they are not really much safer, if at all. But they are also not any more risky. They are subjected to testing, at least. Well, thank you for that. However I found this report up to date and much closer to how I see the problems. Typical compilation of anecdotes, innuendo, pseudoscience and nonsense posted on a snake-oil site and written by a professional charlatan.

I suppose there is some new reason to believe that random mutations are appreciably more likely to be harmful if an unintended byproduct of biotechnology than if caused by other natural human processes, including the billions of completely random mutations that gave rise to all natural genomes in the first place.

There is however massive money being thrown at showing gmos are safe and most of it is lobbying and coercion. It took a long time to disprove them. Yet we still have to live with the long lasting effects of these poisons that were in use decades ago. Everything is based on lies, pseudoscience and damned lies. What the anti-gmo cult hailed as a triumph recently, the fraudulent Carman pig study, was indeed funded by a seed company like Monsanto.

Hypocrites all the way. It surprises me no end the number of people who mistrust the vast majority of scientists on this subject. Reminds me of the global-warming deniers who absolutely refuse to look at the scientific evidence. People remember thalidomide, tobacco, DDT, and so on. Also there are more and more scientists who are anti-gmo. I know some really smart EEs, but none who would dare self publish papers so completely outside their field, in questionable journals. The remaining signators are mostly retired, with at most maybe 10 who are currently working in a related field.

More and more scientists against GMO? You make it sound like thats true. Im not sure which college campuses you have been around beyond Europe, but thats simply not the mainstream view.

You can read exactly what has been said by a dozen commentors mostly anti-GMO ironically, that the university-govt-industrial complex is behind the development of almost all of these crops. So Im confused, is one system growing and getting too big, e. I ask that one only reads some of the literature coming out of India and Brazil; Thailand and the Phillipines.

The methodology for breeding is here to stay. We have to learn how to use it properly and to our advantage where we can. It can do too much good in this world to stop the exploration. You did not address what I wrote in my first reply to you, instead posting a link to a Jeffrey Smith screed posted on a snake oil site. So, I will not take the time to dissect said screed, although I recognize many of the claims and know that they have been thoroughly debunked as you could easily ascertain with the use of google and the willingness to read and think.

So, rather than spend my time to do this for you, I simply offer my considered and informed judgement of the link you posted. Call it name-calling if you will, but it is my honest assessment. What I suspect is the root of this baffling contradiction is the inability to divorce the anti-Monsanto rhetoric from the concept and application of GMO foods.

However, making this distinction is complicated and nuanced, and hard to put on a sign or bumper sticker. Thus the blanket opposition to anything and everything GMO. As a Washington State teacher and resident, I voted against the measure, and encouraged people to vote no because the labeling is a waste of time and resources that could be spent actually helping the people of my state. Actually, the case against Monsanto is wildly overstated. I get that they are guilty of some abusive business practices but how much more so than other big corps?

Why are they the most hated, more than Exxon or LockMart? The sources of the anti-biotech movement are rooted in the cult of nature, hostility to science, food purity fetishism, health paranoia, aging, identity politics and the business interests of the organic foods and alternative medicines industry. For the Left, the local food co-op or petty-capitalist simulacrum thereof is one of the few surviving venues for community building and activist communication.

These are, I think, the major factors that account for the remarkable strength and energy of this particular movement, despite its relative lack of intellectual or moral foundations. The case against Monsanto is wildly understated. How much more so than other companies? That is a difficult thing to quantify. Why are they the most hated? So much environmental damages that they are responsible for the extinction of entire species. Nothing new for humans you might counter.

Why more than Exxon? We make the choice to use oil every time we gas up. We even have the choice to be conservationists, and buy fuel efficient cars, homes well insulated etc.. It is all known and above board. And when Exxon does have an accidental fuel spill, it really is an accident. Maybe they could do more to prevent accidents, but no one claims they dump millions of barrels of oil on purpose.

And when a spill does happen they are right on it with the clean up. They also to this day sell chemical products that are known, in fact even designed, to cause environmental harm. They justify it by saying they do less harm than the previous chemicals they used to market. The markets, the equipment, the support industries, all are built around an industrial farming model that is purposely killing entire ecosystems.

We have to eat you say? The majority of that is to grow livestock feed. Livestock that actually do far better on that tallgrass prairie, managed properly. They are most definitely a huge player in deciding how agriculture is done and very aggressively fighting any progress in fixing the problem. Diane, you may see this as a matter of respect; others see it as a matter of science vs. But what you are probably asking for is not to know the GCTAs but how they got there.

That distinction is something that many assume is meaningful and has implications for health or the environment. However, that assumption has no foundation in science.

And it has zero to do with the subject at hand. But know that AO was thought out, sprayed, misused and ordered by the US government who also ignored safety warnings regarding it. Monsanto was obliged under law to make it and so was the dozen or so other companies that were producing it.

Further, the Monsanto of today is not that of 50 years ago. Way to go with the red herring. Until long term studies are available we should proceed cautiously as in year and longer studies. Heck, we should proceed cautiously now, given Indian livestock and farmer deaths, the Mexican maize debacle, Sherbrooke BT study on umbilical blood, etc…all signs of bashing into a party un-announced. Who of sane reasoning cannot claim the environment to be of first value?

So I see nothing wrong, only something fundamentally very sane, about being called an environmentalist. Maybe one day I will be honoured by the title as well. The environment is of first value and the forming of ones ideas, beliefs, and actions on the basis of environmental sustainability is essential.

Somehow the pro-GM crowd support what amounts to ballooning the population to 10 billion and quickly, through methods that grow crops off of microbe-dead soil. As if this 10 billion is an inevitability…which I suppose it will be if western multinationals are successful in establishing customers out of Asian peasant farmers. Trouble is the planet apparently cannot keep up with all of our clever genetic tinkering in an industrial confluence of chemicals, genes and species generation.

Keep highly controlled GM testing to tightly controlled labs held in the public domain not university labs which have fallen under industry control. GM is creating new species after all, and before these be allowed to cross-pollinate into the wild we need to protect the wild from these long-term untested species. A return to local will represent a return to the dark ages for many and that is simply a product of a lack of imagination.

We can take beautiful technologies, those not applied to seeds, into the new world of new locally-based and locally-oriented economies. Utopia and the promise of world-savior technologies is only a distraction while we find ourselves smack in the middle of a smouldering global ecological crisis and species die-off.

Can the tinkering little science-freaks go play with their genetic little games in lock down containers where the responsible people of the world can keep an eye on these adolescents? The rest of us will be busy at return-to-local economies focussed on the health essentials of eating both locally and according to what is locally in season.

That means no more GM mangoes from Hawaii for sale in Saskatoon, both for heath and for ecological reasons and yes, I am saying tropical fruit eaten out of season in northern climates is not good for you. I wonder how many of us can handle the idea of our glass cities crumbling as populations disperse and retreat into the country, where we were born by nature to belong, and with local markets and small communities becoming the cultural focal points?

For whom is this just too painful a possibility? Life, which mother nature is at least very reasonably well able to provide for us, and for which she has an impressive resume to show for. A resume that probably puts even the cleverest of the clever geneticists to shame. Facts and evidence to the contrary welcomed and encouraged! PJ, it is apparent that you have done some reading on this subject, but only of anti-biotech writers. I see no evidence that you have read much of Mark Lynas or any other critic of the anti-biotech movement, so why do you comment here?

This is why I am writing…to discover. My hypothesis is that GM is a miserable failure at creating a living ecology experiencing full expression in a bio-diverse abundance.

Proving my hypothesis wrong will in effect teach me how GM science is a boon. What have I discovered so far? Adopting a human diet cats have a diet, cows have a diet, frogs have a diet. Humans have a diet and it is starch-based.

Can we accept that humans have a diet and eliminate non-foods from the shopping list? Most of us can walk, ride, bus, or car pool to work, or find jobs that allow for this. With each adopter enlisting two more people to adopt these painfully simple ideas, and by law of the progression of numbers, millions will have set the stage to save their own ecosystems within months.

Our collective purchasing power will soon enough collapse the powers-that-be. The infrastructure is subsequently re-shaped by a completely displaced workforce, where someone in the new economy probably an exchange based economy takes things like food and shelter to lend what they know to build their local economy.

You would be surprised at how self-regulating and adaptive this process is, even at the cost of the established global-based economy.

Global based in replaced with local-based. Easy to argue this is how man was fit to interact with life. This economic renewal would NOT be the armageddon so many in establishment fear. The way forward is antithetical to the growth of one thing only: Shareholders are firmly rooted in their shares however, so the demise will be gradual enough. Why is this the only solution?

Complex solutions geo-engineering, pant engineering, etc involve balancing one thing at the distortion of another thing. Nothing further could be from the truth and this has been evidenced time and time again. Set row 1 to font size 13; rows 4, 6 and 18 to 6 pt. This makes a long format Nutrition Facts box. Enter the text and proper nutrient values as seen in the attached image. Use the proper font types and sizes, predefined by the FDA for food labels.

Make a simplified format Nutrition Facts panel by deleting rows 8, 9, 10, 13 and State in row 16, using a 6 pt. At least eight nutrients in the Nutrition Facts box must have values of zero in order to use this format.

Related Articles