Irish breakfast cereals have higher levels of sugar and fat

g'em

From today's Irish Times:

Irish breakfast cereals have higher levels of sugar and fat

PAUL CULLEN, Consumer Affairs Correspondent

Mon, Sep 29, 2008

SOME IRISH children's breakfast cereals contain more fat and/or sugar than the same product sold in other countries, a survey has found.

All the children's cereals tested contained "unacceptably" high levels of sugar, with an average of 33 per cent, according to the results of international research published in Consumer Choice magazine.

Irish children eating cereals are also more likely to be subjected to health claims than children elsewhere. For example, an Irish box of Kellogg's Frosties claims the cereal has the goodness of grains, but in six other countries no claim is made.

The survey found Kellogg's Coco Pops Coco Rocks contained almost 9 per cent fat in Ireland, but only 1.3 per cent fat when sold in Australia and New Zealand. Rice Krispies were found to contain 13 per cent here, but only 10 per cent sugar in most of the other 13 countries surveyed. Fat levels in this product were 1-1.3 per cent in Ireland, but only 0.7 per cent in the US, Australia and New Zealand.

The Consumers' Association of Ireland (CAI), which publishes Consumer Choice, says the results show manufacturers can produce healthier cereals with lower amounts of sugar, salt and fat.

Kellogg's Ireland described the survey as alarmist. A spokesperson said it was based on an average portion size of 100 grams, when the average child would eat no more than 30-40 grams per serving. Breakfast cereals contributed only 13-15 per cent of the average child's daily sugar requirement while providing a significant portion of the vitamins and nutrients they need.

Asked why sugar and and salt levels in some products were higher in Ireland, the spokesperson said brand formulation varied from continent to continent for a variety of reasons.

The research does not explain why the formulation of cereal products varies, but it is thought to be due to perceived differences in national tastes, suggesting the Irish may be seen as having a sweeter tooth.

The research, carried out by 31 consumer organisations around the world, says cartoons, bright colours, prize tokens and other marketing strategies are widely used to "entice" children to eat high-sugar cereals.

Among the products surveyed, Frosties contained the highest level of sugar, at 40 per cent, while Nestle Golden Nuggets had 38.7 per cent.

Rice Krispies had the lowest level of sugar, but borderline high levels of sodium. All the products had low or acceptable levels of fat. While all the products gave information on guideline daily amounts, for most products the figure given was for an adult.

© 2008 The Irish Times

Mr Magnolia

Heard it reported on the news this morning. Shocking stuff really, I hope they're made answer these statistics.

Macha

Their comment on the use of 100g in the study, instead of 30-40g is pathetic:
1) 100g was probably just chosen for matters of convenience
2) The results are discussed in percentages
3) What kid/adult do you know that eats just 30g??? My brother used to eat cereal by the casserole dish when he was in his early teens.

Unfortunately, this sort of thing is also happening with foods that are less quantifiable. For example, the varieties of apples that are stocked by supermarkets contain more sugar than a generation ago.

EileenG

Just for interest, I weighed a bowl of cereal that one of the children poured out this morning. 85g of Fruit and Fibre, and eldest child would normally take a second bowl.

corkcomp

spot on about the portion sizes - i find 100g is more likely portion size for me, the same goes for porridge / muesli ... Most cereals inc porridge and even the less healthy stuff are not too high in calories / 100g but i guess the problem lies with the other added ingredients!! In fairness though, common sense must apply - most people must surely know that coca pops and frosties are not in the same league as porridge and other healthier stuff? Even fruit and fiber isnt actually that bad considering! On a slight aside (while were on the topic of childrens diets), was in tesco last nite and woman in front in Q spent nearly €200 on groceries, she had 5 or 6 kid's with her, two trollies full and it was shocking, not a single vegetable or piece of fruit or meat (except crappy processed stuff) or wholegrain in sight ... one trolly was full of white bread, bottles of coke, tesco's version of coca pops and value packs of sausages and processed sandwich meat ...

ali.c

OMG That is shocking. presume it's for taste reasons although it still seems bizarre

corkcomp wrote: »

On a slight aside (while were on the topic of childrens diets), was in tesco last nite and woman in front in Q spent nearly €200 on groceries, she had 5 or 6 kid's with her, two trollies full and it was shocking, not a single vegetable or piece of fruit or meat (except crappy processed stuff) or wholegrain in sight ... one trolly was full of white bread, bottles of coke, tesco's version of coca pops and value packs of sausages and processed sandwich meat ...

Seriously, that is shocking mind you it costs me about €100 a week to feed 2 adults (plenty of protein, fresh veg etc) so i can imagine that budget is likely to be influencing her choices. It is shocking but i think we likely dont have the full story!

corkcomp

ali.c wrote: »

OMG That is shocking. presume it's for taste reasons although it still seems bizarre


Seriously, that is shocking mind you it costs me about €100 a week to feed 2 adults (plenty of protein, fresh veg etc) so i can imagine that budget is likely to be influencing her choices. It is shocking but i think we likely dont have the full story!

yeah, that occured to me but when then i saw her handing over €200! I know some "healthy" food can be expensive if your venturing down the route of fresh salmon and pre cut / washed brocolli!! but overall you could get a LOT of fresh fruit / vegetables and lean meat fillets for half that and even swapping the cereals for porridge would be a huge saving! and as for the coke .. well what can i say?

Macha

ali.c wrote: »

OMG That is shocking. presume it's for taste reasons although it still seems bizarre


Seriously, that is shocking mind you it costs me about €100 a week to feed 2 adults (plenty of protein, fresh veg etc) so i can imagine that budget is likely to be influencing her choices. It is shocking but i think we likely dont have the full story!

Meat is always going to be the most expensive food item (unless you have a penchant for fresh truffles..). But all that crap quality meat really isn't value for money. Once I picked up a pack of burgers and it said "50% meat!" I put them down pretty quickly. Low-quality chicken breasts can contain up to 40% water - good value? Not really.

Plus all that processed stuff, ie packaged etc is more expensive precisely because of the extra processing. It's the "value-added" stuff that supermarkets love. Eg tomato sauce is 4 tomatoes, 1 onion, 2 garlic cloves, splash of wine if you want. Probably around €1.50. Jar of tomato sauce costs about €3.

El_Dangeroso

A dozen eggs costs less than a box of cheerios. I've always found cereal ridiculously expensive.. isn't the sugary stuff almost €5 a box? You can buy organic Omega 3 enriched eggs for that!

corkcomp

neddas wrote: »

A dozen eggs costs less than a box of cheerios. I've always found cereal ridiculously expensive.. isn't the sugary stuff almost €5 a box? You can buy organic Omega 3 enriched eggs for that!

mostly yeah but you can buy 1KG of porridge oats for just under €2 and thats going to last a while ....

El_Dangeroso

True, but I find porridge leaves me starving by 12pm..

I need some protein in the morning, and eggs contain way more of your RDA of essential vitamins and minerals than porridge does.

An bowl of porridge costs maybe <20c. An free range organic egg costs 60c.. hardly an extravagance even in these uncertain financial times

It's just a case of bad, better, best..

EileenG

I once sat down and worked out how much I was spending every week on food for each member of the family. Feeling guilty because of all the eggs etc I was buying for my low carb diet. Turned out my diet was the cheapest, and the children were the most expensive. Even though I buy the basic cornflakes, not the sugary ones and not big name brands, they still added a lot to the budget, especially because of the speed they can get through a box.

And my children are not typical. They do eat whole foods, lots of veg etc and don't whine for fizzy drinks. At a party recently where one child (very overweight) refused to drink anything except coke and to eat anything except dessert. She ate four of those!

g'em

neddas wrote: »

It's just a case of bad, better, best..

Eggs are not 'better' than porridge, they're incomparable.

Porridge on its own leaves me hungry, porridge with whey keeps me very satiated for hours. Plus you can add berries and crushed nuts and all sorts of yumminess to increase the vitamin/ mineral content of your breakfast.

Personally I'm an egg person in the a.m., but I don't consider them better than porridge, I just prefer the taste first thing. Porridge is one of my favourite post-workout quick suppers.

corkcomp

neddas wrote: »

True, but I find porridge leaves me starving by 12pm..

I need some protein in the morning, and eggs contain way more of your RDA of essential vitamins and minerals than porridge does.

An bowl of porridge costs maybe <20c. An free range organic egg costs 60c.. hardly an extravagance even in these uncertain financial times

It's just a case of bad, better, best..

i was simply making the point that low carb is not necessarily cheaper, this thread isnt really about carbs vs protein for breakfast ... In my experience kids function better having some slow release complex carbs for breakfast ...

rubadub

EileenG wrote: »

Just for interest, I weighed a bowl of cereal that one of the children poured out this morning. 85g of Fruit and Fibre, and eldest child would normally take a second bowl.

Yep, I am always going on about portions, and especially cereals. They should have a law about it, the photos on the packs are fecking huge, they should get them on that, though perfectly legal they cannot defend it. There is some cereal in an ad at the moment where the father trys to tell his daughter it is not great (so he gets to eat it all) and the bowl has a huge amount in it.

Sugar puffs are 48 or 49% sugar, so higher than any listed there. But most people do not add sugar to them, many would buy regular flakes and kids could be putting even more on them.

I would sooner give a kid porridge and a mini mars if he finishes it. Or make them porridge oats pancakes with a little maple syrup. I have been making wholemeal french toast lately.

I would also like to see the full details of the studies, when in the US I was shocked at the cereals. They may not have the same brand here.

Fat levels in this product were 1-1.3 per cent in Ireland, but only 0.7 per cent in the US, Australia and New Zealand.

That could well be since there was no room left for fat, with all the sugar in them;)

This was listed as a photo of 35g museli, a "normal portion"




Now the marketers versions

corkcomp

g'em wrote: »

Eggs are not 'better' than porridge, they're incomparable.

Porridge on its own leaves me hungry, porridge with whey keeps me very satiated for hours. Plus you can add berries and crushed nuts and all sorts of yumminess to increase the vitamin/ mineral content of your breakfast.

Personally I'm an egg person in the a.m., but I don't consider them better than porridge, I just prefer the taste first thing. Porridge is one of my favourite post-workout quick suppers.

i always find i am hungry about 3 hrs after breakfast no matter what i eat, or what quantity .. i would guess this is normal? i try to have as much fruit / nuts as possible with the porridge as it defo keeps me full for longer ... the thought of having only scambled eggs in the morning doesnt do it for me .. i always crave carbs after morning run

g'em

corkcomp wrote: »

i always find i am hungry about 3 hrs after breakfast no matter what i eat, or what quantity .. i would guess this is normal?

If you're quite an active person then yup, absolutely - you'll find yourself getting quite peckish every 2-3 hours without fail.

It makes me really cringe when I think back to how many heaps of sugar I used to spoon over my Bran Flakes a few years ago, blissfully unaware of the iorny of adding so much sucrose to my "healthy" (:o) breakfast cereal.

rubadub

Bran flakes are the sneakiest, most thing they are "good for you", since they taste bland, and then put sugar on presuming there is little or none in them

They are 22% sugar!!!

http://www.kellogg.co.uk/products/branflakes/cereal/bran_flakes.aspx

And look how the snakes list it!

Wholewheat, Wheatbran (21%), Sugar, Salt, Barley Malt Flavouring, Honey, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin D, Vitamin B12.

Translated- wholewheat, wheatbran, sugar, salt, sugar, sugar.

g'em

rubadub wrote: »

Translated- wholewheat, wheatbran, sugar, salt, sugar, sugar.

lol, it's amazing how clever the marketing is behind these products is isn't it?! I'd love to do a side-by-side comparison of the 'healthy' cereals vs the kids' ones, I'm sure there's not that much of a difference in sugar/salt content tbh.

corkcomp

g'em wrote: »

lol, it's amazing how clever the marketing is behind these products is isn't it?! I'd love to do a side-by-side comparison of the 'healthy' cereals vs the kids' ones, I'm sure there's not that much of a difference in sugar/salt content tbh.

the salt content of bran flakes is mad!! and TBH you cant blame someone for pouring sugar over them as they taste like card board, IMO ... the only cereals i normally have are porridge / homemade muesli / weetabix or maybe fruit n fibre if eating away from home ...

rubadub

g'em wrote: »

I'm sure there's not that much of a difference in sugar/salt content tbh.

Yep, very little. Just go into the shops and hold them side by side. Problem is the kids do not even realise it is junk so do not "appreciate" it, i.e. I mentioned they would be better to have porridge and then a mini mars, the kids would probably think this is more of a treat than their cocoa pops, and if you add up the numbers they are probably getting less crap.

Those cereal bars are horrendous too, I would sooner get it over and done with and just eat some REAL bars for breakfast (which I admit I do the odd time!). But I am not fooling myself, I could have some crappy cereal bar, but it is just as bad, but tastes crap! If you are going to eat junk go all out and at least treat yourself The bars have tiny portions too, so are a ripoff, give me a peanut butter kitkat anyday.

I remember my sister offloading loads of snacks onto me, one was a really rich chocolate cake, I took out her new "health" food from the press, the cereal bar had more fat and sugar than the cake. She was shocked but still said "well I can't sit there eating that in work, I would look like a pig", fully aware that she was fooling herself and trying to fool others. She had my other pet hate too, instant noodles, 420kcal per miserable 65g pack.

familykane

neddas wrote: »

True, but I find porridge leaves me starving by 12pm..

I need some protein in the morning, and eggs contain way more of your RDA of essential vitamins and minerals than porridge does.

An bowl of porridge costs maybe <20c. An free range organic egg costs 60c.. hardly an extravagance even in these uncertain financial times

It's just a case of bad, better, best..

I thought I was just a greedy basta! :eek:

porridge ALWAYS leaves me hungry.

I think protein takes longer to burn off hence that's why it makes you feel fuller. Not positive if that is actually why so don't beat me up if I have this wrong!

any way getting to the point of the €200 **** shopping. Aldi is so much better than tesco

You get in buy the stuff you need and get back out again. none of this buy two things you don't want for €5. it's a way of upselling **** you just don't need. the Chicken is ok - not tried the beef. the premium mince is grand though.

I believe Legs of lamb are better in Lidle though

We still go back to Tesco to buy the toiletries & cleaning products.

cozmik

You think our cereals are bad? look what they feed kids in the U.S.

http://health.yahoo.com/experts/eatthis/13908/americas-worst-breakfast-foods/

Worst Kids Meal

Denny’s Big Dipper French Toastix with margarine and syrup
770 calories
71 g fat (13 g saturated)
107 g carbs

cozmik

g'em wrote: »

Personally I'm an egg person in the a.m., but I don't consider them better than porridge, I just prefer the taste first thing. Porridge is one of my favourite post-workout quick suppers.

I'm with you. Eggs in the morning and porridge in the evening is the way to do it!

Macha

cozmik wrote: »

You think our cereals are bad? look what they feed kids in the U.S.

http://health.yahoo.com/experts/eatthis/13908/americas-worst-breakfast-foods/

Jaysus-that's insane.

Did anyone else go through a Poptart phase?Whaddya know! Also manufactured by Kelloggs.

Oh look at the nice "healthy message" thrown at you when you go onto the website: http://www.poptarts.com/healthymessage/index.html
Note the complete lack of nutritional information

About 200 cals, 15g sugar & 5g fat per poptart. And sometimes I would have been greedy and had 3...

corkcomp

TBH we cant blame it all on the multinational co's like Kelloggs etc, People have to take responsibility for what they put into their own mouths ... Most people prefer not to think about these things but in reality they are well aware that pop tarts / coca pops / other sugar coated cereals are not as nutritionally beneficial as a bowl of porridge or a couple of fresh eggs .. Cost is something that is often used as an excuse but most of the time it's BS - a loaf of whole grain bread is the same price as crappy white bread, fresh (loose) veg are cheaper than the pre packaged ones .. etc .etc sometimes small changes can make a huge difference

Macha

You're right about the cost issue.

But I do place a lot of blame on Kelloggs and their ilk. Firstly, they target kids and rely heavily on the 'nag factor', where kids are motivated by bright colours, gender stereotyped crap, keeping up with their friends, not standing out by not having something and their natural tendency to go for sweet, bland, "safe" flavours. It's easy (and true) to say that parent's shouldn't give in, but I think this is a case of "easier said than done".

As an adult, I'm totally responsible for my own nutrition but I am human. I have a natural preference for salt, sugar, fat, etc for evolutionary reasons. In addition, I had to get off my oversized butt and educate myself on nutrition on my own steam. I didn't learn it in school because I thought Home Ec was just learning how to sew. Home Ec was never treated, by parents or teachers, as the learning of important life-skills in the same way bisorg or physics was. Learning how to cook & nutrition shouldn't be optional in school. Plus, where was the course in college that explained how advertising works??

Moreover, a lot of these things are marketed as healthy so it's a case of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing: "Corn? That's a grain, that's healthy - let's get some cornflakes. Plus Kelloggs keeps telling me its healthy so it must be true."

So we allow misleading advertising that preys on our and our children's natural tendencies and at the same time, we fail to equip them with the tools to counter all this advertising. I agree with the idea of personal responsibility but why are we making it so damn hard for ourselves, just so that a few multinationals can profit? I don't see any of them picking up the tab for the huge range of social, environmental and economic damages that their products contribute to.

g'em

g'em wrote: »

lol, it's amazing how clever the marketing is behind these products is isn't it?! I'd love to do a side-by-side comparison of the 'healthy' cereals vs the kids' ones, I'm sure there's not that much of a difference in sugar/salt content tbh.

Because I'm in a procrastinating mood with work...

All-Bran:

Wheat Bran (86%), Sugar, Barley Malt Flavouring, Glucose-Fructose Syrup, Salt, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin D, Vitamin B12.

Per 100g:
17g sugar
280 cal

Bran-Flakes:

Wholewheat, Wheatbran (21%), Sugar, Salt, Barley Malt Flavouring, Honey, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin D, Vitamin B12.

Per 100g:
22g sugar
326 cal

Coco Pops:

Rice, Sugar, Chocolate (6%)(Sugar, Cocoa Mass), Fat Reduced Cocoa Powder, Calcium Carbonate, Salt, Glucose-Fructose Syrup, Barley Malt Flavouring, Flavouring, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin B12.

Per 100g:
34g sugar
387 cal

Corn Flakes:

Maize, Sugar, Barley Malt Flavouring, Salt, Glucose-Fructose Syrup, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin B12.

Per 100g:
8g sugar
372 cal

Crunchy Nut Corn Flakes:

Maize, Brown Sugar (Sugar, Molasses), Peanuts (7%), Sugar, Honey (2%), Barley Malt Flavouring, Salt, Glucose-Fructose Syrup, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin B12.

Per 100g:
35g sugar
397 cal

Frosties:

Maize, Sugar, Barley Malt Flavouring, Salt, Calcium Carbonate, Glucose-Fructose Syrup, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin B12.

Per 100g:
37g sugar
371 cal

Just Right:

Wholewheat, Maize, Rice, Brown Sugar (Sugar, Molasses), Raisins (6.5%), Rolled Oats, Sugar, Dates (3%) (Humectant : Glycerol), Sliced Almonds (1%), Salt, Barley Malt Flavouring, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin B12.

Per 100g:
22g sugar
366 cal

Country Store:

Oats, Maize, Wholewheat, Brown Sugar, Sultanas (8.5%), Milk Whey Powder, Sugar, Wheat Bran, Hazelnuts (1.5%), Dried Apple (1%), Salt, Barley Malt Flavouring, Honey, Glucose-Fructose Syrup, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin B12.

Per 100g:
24g sugar
353 cal

bigpinkelephant

rubadub wrote: »

look how the snakes list it!


"Wholewheat, Wheatbran (21%), Sugar, Salt, Barley Malt Flavouring, Honey, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin D, Vitamin B12."


Translated- wholewheat, wheatbran, sugar, salt, sugar, sugar.

What's "snakey" about that?
It's an ingredients declaration, not a thesaurus.

I suppose "lamb" should be listed as "dead baby sheep"??

g'em

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

What's "snakey" about that?
It's an ingredients declaration, not a thesaurus.

I suppose "lamb" should be listed as "dead baby sheep"??

chillax, I think you've misinterpreted the post a tad there. It's snakey because Bran-Flakes are touted as one of the 'healthiest' of breakfast cereals that Kellogg's have to offer, but the reality (which is thinly veiled in a less than upfront way on their ingredients list) is that while the two main ingredients are indeed wholewheat and bran, the remaining ingredients are salt and sugar making it more than a little unhealthy, despite what the manufacturer's claim.

bigpinkelephant

g'em wrote: »

The reality (which is thinly veiled in a less than upfront way on their ingredients list) is that while the two main ingredients are indeed wholewheat and bran, the remaining ingredients are salt and sugar making it more than a little unhealthy, despite what the manufacturer's claim.

Food manufacturers have to state what ingredients are in their products. Any claim that is made on their food must be backed up. For example, a product must be a minimum of 6% fibre to be marketed as "High in fibre".
Correct me if I am wrong, but Bran Flakes are not marketed as "low in sugar". Therefore, there are no lies or false claims being made.

I am beginning to think this thread should be moved to Conspiracy Theories- I mean the ingredients and nutritional information are printed clearly in black and white on the packet so where is all the hiding???

Davei141

They are marketed as "healthy" when in reality they are no different to other junk cereals, which part of this is not getting into your head?

bigpinkelephant wrote:

I am beginning to think this thread should be moved to Conspiracy Theories- I mean the ingredients and nutritional information are printed clearly in black and white on the packet so where is all the hiding???

Also the fact you don't even know that his point is they are listing sugar more than once in their ingredients, sort of proves his point?

rubadub

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

What's "snakey" about that?
It's an ingredients declaration, not a thesaurus.

I suppose "lamb" should be listed as "dead baby sheep"??

The point, as mentioned, is the repeated listing of various sugars. This is all above board of course, but can confuse people.

Most people do not know how to read info, this is obvious from all the posts saying "how many points/calories etc in this & that", people eating stuff like noodles thinking they are low cal and then shocked. The info is all on the packets, never read the front of a pack, go straight to the back. But even if you do know how to read them you have to watch out for the tricks they use.

The bran flakes list is not too bad, but others are very sneaky, and I consider some purposely misleading.

Ingredients are listed in order of greatest first (another point many do not know)

"Wholewheat, Wheatbran (21%), Sugar, Salt, Barley Malt Flavouring, Honey, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin D, Vitamin B12."

Wheat bran is 21%, so some would assume there is less than 21% sugar. But sugar is listed straight after, it could be 20%, salt could be 19% (obviously not I hope!), then barley malt could be 18%, honey 17%. So even though ingredients are listed down the line, they could make up the bulk of the product, there could well be more sugar than the first 2 ingredients combined. At least 42% must be wholewheat & wheatbran, but looking at my numbers there could be 55% sugar "products" in it.

Look at the ingredients lists g'em posted, loads of different names for sugar.

Sweets & drinks do this too, listing sugar, glucose, glucose-fructose syrup, glucose syrup etc. Same goes for listing fat too, lots of different names for fat out there.

To get a better understanding you have to look at the nutritional info along with the ingredients, then you can discover/estimate what % of each ingredient is really in there.

bigpinkelephant

Davei141 wrote: »

They are marketed as "healthy" when in reality they are no different to other junk cereals, which part of this is not getting into your head?

You're all charm.

Davei141 wrote: »

Also the fact you don't even know that his point is they are listing sugar more than once in their ingredients, sort of proves his point?

Why would sugar be listed instead of honey in the ingredients declaration, when it isn't an ingredien of honey? It is a natural component of honey, which is a natural food. Therefore if it isn't an ingredient, it has no place in the ingredients declaration.
The ingredient is HONEY. Honey is a raw, natural product. Therefore it does not have ingredients. Components yes, but this isn't a components declaration is it?
On the other hand, milk is an ingredient of milk chocolate. Therefore if milk chocolate is an ingredient of a product, it's sub-ingredients will be listed
You appear to be a little confused between the difference between the ingredients declaration, and the nutritional information.
Again, Ingredients declaration is the declaration of the ingredients (I know, it's confusing).
Nutritional information is a breakdown of how much carbs, sugar, etc is in a end product.

You seem to think that the nutritional analysis of each ingredient should be in the ingredients declaration, i.e. for example, Honey (60% sugar) or whatever it is. That is incorrect.

corkcomp

i think the main problem is that a lot pf posters on this forum are bordering on obsessive about carbs! Okay, so bran flakes are not an optimal cereal but they have huge benefits over other crap like coca pops or frosties ... If every parent who feeds their kids on cereals with no fiber, and full of simple sugars switched them to bran flakes / allbran / weetabix that would be great ...

g'em

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

You're all charm.

Quite the case of the pot accusing the kettle of being a little on the dark side.

Why would sugar be listed instead of honey in the ingredients declaration, when it isn't an ingredien of honey? It is a natural component of honey, which is a natural food. Therefore if it isn't an ingredient, it has no place in the ingredients declaration.

I think you're missing the big picture of what the posters here are saying, and rubadub has pointed it out already:

People can't read labels. We're not disputing the legality or accuracy of the labels, or what the nutritional content versus the ingredient list is, what we're saying is that for the average person who looks at the ingredients it's not perfectly clear-cut what the nutritional content of the product is.

Bran-Flakes are marketed as 'healthy'. A simplistic look at the ingredients list wouldn't dispute that (wholewheat and bran are the top two ingredients). A more critical look at the ingredients list however will show that there are three types of sugar in it, which will mean that the sugar content is higher than it initially looks. Also, the source of sugar is important.

True, Bran-Flakes isn't marketed as being low-sugar (at 22g of sugar per 100g of product it's nearly triple that of regular Corn Flakes) but it is marketed as (and I quote form the website) "a simple and wholesome way to help improve the health of your digestive system." Improve your digestive system? With that much sugar in it? Meh. But unless your able to read these labels the right way, that kind of information will escape most folk.

bigpinkelephant

g'em wrote: »

Quite the case of the pot accusing the kettle of being a little on the dark side.

I think you're missing the big picture of what the posters here are saying, and rubadub has pointed it out already:

People can't read labels. We're not disputing the legality or accuracy of the labels, or what the nutritional content versus the ingredient list is, what we're saying is that for the average person who looks at the ingredients it's not perfectly clear-cut what the nutritional content of the product is.

Appreciate what you are saying but if people cannot read a food label then that is more their problem than that of the food manufacturer. It is not their job to teach people to read things properly.
I would consider "Values per 100g" to be easy to understand- I mean, it's a percentage.
An ingredients declaration is "Here is what we put in the product".
A nutritional information chart is "Here is the nutrition you are going to get from eating this producy that we have made from those ingredients".

g'em

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

Appreciate what you are saying but if people cannot read a food label then that is more their problem than that of the food manufacturer. It is not their job to teach people to read things properly.

Personal responsibility is absolutely an important factor, but I feel that in this case you can't absolve the manufacturers entirely - their marketing strategy is misleading. Quite simply they are touting their wares as healthy when that's an entirely disputable claim. Learning how to read labels is quite difficult for some people, we see it all the time here. In principle it seems like an easy concept and when you know your way around the information it's easy to tell the good from the bad from the ugly.

I would consider "Values per 100g" to be easy to understand- I mean, it's a percentage.

Absolutely, but the majority of people don't know how to relate 100g to portion size.

An ingredients declaration is "Here is what we put in the product".

Again, people can understand what the basics are (sugar, salt etc.) but most people won't know that dextrose, fructose or fructose syrup are added sugars. So it's one thing to be able to read the ingredients, it's something else entirely to know what they are and what they do, and unfortunately most folk simply don't.

Macha

On a slight side note, people might be interested in watching the current Jamie Oliver programme called Ministry of Food. It's about teaching people about food & cooking. Twas on last night, so every Tuesday night I guess. The ignorance is just shocking (not meaning to be insulting..).

corkcomp

taconnol wrote: »

On a slight side note, people might be interested in watching the current Jamie Oliver programme called Ministry of Food. It's about teaching people about food & cooking. Twas on last night, so every Tuesday night I guess. The ignorance is just shocking (not meaning to be insulting..).

is it healthy food? Anytime i watched jamie Oliver's stuff i was shocked at how much sat fat and while flour ingredients he used ... He is also pretty chubby (as an aside, lol

Macha

I would say you don't eat a Jamie Oliver meal every meal, or even every day. But his style of cooking is based on Italian principles of good raw ingredients. Yes, he adds salt & butter but when you're cooking from scratch, you know how much you're putting in. Buy a hotdog & you have no clue. I have 4 of his books and he does a lot of pasta & gnocchi recipes, but he also has loads and loads of soup & salad ideas, as well as veg & meat.

Just found an article written on the series:

Natasha feeds her two children takeaways most nights. Aged five and two, they have never eaten a meal that has been properly cooked at home. Instead, they sit on the floor - no table, no cutlery - and eat shavings of doner kebabs or chips with processed cheese from polystyrene boxes with their fingers. Even instant noodles have to be negotiated without forks. The bottom drawers of Natasha's fridge are stuffed full of sweets and chocolate bars.

There's a bit of white flour and butter. And then there's this..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/oct/01/foodanddrink.oliver

Yeah he is a bit chubby But I would be too if my work was entirely focused on food!

Khannie

Sounds like a very interesting series. Gonna check it out tonight.

Macha

Ah, I think its on every Tuesday night..so you'll have to wait a week. Might find it up on youtube or on Channel4 website though..?

bigpinkelephant

g'em wrote: »

Personal responsibility is absolutely an important factor, but I feel that in this case you can't absolve the manufacturers entirely - their marketing strategy is misleading. Quite simply they are touting their wares as healthy when that's an entirely disputable claim. Learning how to read labels is quite difficult for some people, we see it all the time here. In principle it seems like an easy concept and when you know your way around the information it's easy to tell the good from the bad from the ugly.


Absolutely, but the majority of people don't know how to relate 100g to portion size.


Again, people can understand what the basics are (sugar, salt etc.) but most people won't know that dextrose, fructose or fructose syrup are added sugars. So it's one thing to be able to read the ingredients, it's something else entirely to know what they are and what they do, and unfortunately most folk simply don't.

See I work in the food industry and I am dealing with product specifications on a daily basis so maybe I am a little biased here. A lot of manufacturers now have their Nutritional Information "per portion" as well, although some of the portion sizes are quite small.

Blazer

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

Heard it reported on the news this morning. Shocking stuff really, I hope they're made answer these statistics.

This has been known about for a few years. They also have the highest salt content.

rubadub

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

Why would sugar be listed instead of honey in the ingredients declaration, when it isn't an ingredien of honey? It is a natural component of honey, which is a natural food. Therefore if it isn't an ingredient, it has no place in the ingredients declaration.

I would agree with that. I do not think bran flakes are the best example, but I do believe manufacturers purposely select ingredients to intentionally mislead people into believing things, they strongly infer things and are probably borderline illegal in some cases.

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

On the other hand, milk is an ingredient of milk chocolate. Therefore if milk chocolate is an ingredient of a product, it's sub-ingredients will be listed

OK, now look at coco-pops
Rice, Sugar, Chocolate (6%)(Sugar, Cocoa Mass), Fat Reduced Cocoa Powder, Calcium Carbonate, Salt, Glucose-Fructose Syrup, Barley Malt Flavouring, Flavouring, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin B12.

Sugar is listed twice, not a different sugar, like the glucose fructose syrup, and the barley malt. "Sugar" is listed twice there. They do that in a way which could be concealing the fact that sugar is possibly the main ingredient. e.g. rice could be 31%, sugar 30%, chocolate 6% but half of which could be sugar, so in fact sugar could be 33%. That is the trickery I am talking about. Look at their ingredients list for chocolate- just 2 items. I see no real reason not to change

Rice, Sugar, Chocolate (6%)(Sugar, Cocoa Mass),
to
Rice, Sugar, Cocoa Mass,

And why only give % for some items? always makes me suscpicous.

Crunchy nut cornflakes
Maize, Brown Sugar (Sugar, Molasses), Peanuts (7%), Sugar, Honey (2%), Barley Malt Flavouring, Salt, Glucose-Fructose Syrup, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin B12.
Same trick, sugar listed twice, a few of the others use the same trick.

I could legally put
Maize, brown sugar (sugar, molasses), beige sugar (sugar, molasses), tan sugar (sugar, molasses), sugar, molasses.

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

Appreciate what you are saying but if people cannot read a food label then that is more their problem than that of the food manufacturer. It is not their job to teach people to read things properly.

Some make it their job to deceive people though, just look at the ridiculously low portion sizes they quote, and not just breakfast cereals. Then look at the pics I posted earlier. IMO portion control is most peoples biggest problem when it comes to being overweight, and ignorance about info. It shoudl be the governments job to teach people this stuff, if they are at all serious about the obesity problem. A few ads on TV now and again would help.

g'em wrote: »

True, Bran-Flakes isn't marketed as being low-sugar (at 22g of sugar per 100g of product it's nearly triple that of regular Corn Flakes)

Not marketed, but some would presume it. I would be shocked if you had a person on the street interviewing people and even 1% guessed branflakes were over 20% sugar.

People are ignorant, the school system is to blame a lot, people know how to fuel a car but not themselves.

Khannie

taconnol wrote: »

Ah, I think its on every Tuesday night..so you'll have to wait a week. Might find it up on youtube or on Channel4 website though..?

Ah sure when you're a filthy geek like me you can't be hanging around for a week for tv shows. It's waiting for me at home.

Khannie

rubadub wrote: »

Not marketed, but some would presume it. I would be shocked if you had a person on the street interviewing people and even 1% guessed branflakes were over 20% sugar.

Feck me. :eek: I would never have guessed that.

My own rule is not to even consider cereal that comes in a box. I discard major brand bagged cereals as well (alpen, country store).

rubadub

Khannie wrote: »

Feck me. :eek: I would never have guessed that.

Some would be naturally occurring from the grains, but not a lot. Another huge source of sugar is from dried fruits in cereals.

I am always reading labels, have been since I was around 10, but I still get the odd shock. Latest was that my 100% pure tomato puree was 18% sugar. It just doesnt taste that sweet at all. Coke is only about 11% sugar, but obviously your puree portion is a lot smaller. But the marketing people do use this ploy, if something is "low % fat" then you can get bet the portions are massive, and if they quote it in grams, the portions are tiny. like they advertise crisps with grams of salt & fat, since a portion is only ~25g. But they say milk is only 4% fat, while people drink kilos of it.

bigpinkelephant

One thing I will say is if you're food shopping and want to lose weight, don't automatically go for the products marked "Low fat" etc.
I was shopping for beans and the Tesco Value baked beans have less calories (and are half the price) of the Tesco Healthy options baked beans. And they taste much nicer!

Macha

Yeah, they usually just add sugar as a replacement for taste! Low fat yogurts are the worst...