Food & drink Cereals laden with sugar, report warns

Macha

Old news for most of us, I know but many people still aren't aware:

Cereals laden with sugar, report warns

• Some brands contain more than a Cadbury Flake
• Which? survey finds few hit target for healthy foods

It is considered the most important meal of the day, yet according to a report today the most popular brands of breakfast cereal - including those targeted at children - are laden with sugar. Typical portions of some were found to contain more sugar than a Cadbury chocolate Flake, despite manufacturers' claims to be reducing the level of unhealthy ingredients.

A survey by the consumers' organisation Which? of 100 cereals bought from the main supermarkets found a lower proportion of high-sugar cereals overall compared with 2006.

But only eight of the products qualified for a Food Standards Agency healthy "green light" for low levels of sugar, with 31 out the 100 cereals examined containing more than four teaspoons of sugar to a recommended serving. Only one of the 28 cereals specifically marketed at children, Kellogg's Rice Krispies, was found not to be high in sugar, but it was high in salt.

Many brands perceived to be healthy, including Kellogg's All Bran, Bran Flakes and Special K, also had high levels of sugar. Morrisons Choco Crackles cereal tops the sweet mountain with more sugar to a serving than a Cadbury Flake, followed closely by Kellogg's Coco Pops Moons and Stars, Frosties and Ricicles, which were more than a third - 37% - pure sugar, according to the Which? report.

The report, Going Against the Grain, said there had been some progress since 2006, with the biggest improvements made in reducing salt levels. Only eight of the 100 cereals were classed as high in salt in 2009, compared with almost a fifth of the 275 sampled in 2006. But Which? highlighted Tesco Special Flakes, where 100g was still found to contain the same amount of salt as 100g of Walkers ready salted crisps. Cereals are also still labelled inconsistently, the report said, with many manufacturers and some shops not using the government's recommended "traffic light" scheme.

Sue Davies, chief policy adviser at Which?, said: "Some cereals deserve their healthy image, but most simply don't. It's especially shocking that almost all those targeted at children are less healthy."

Cereal manufacturers need "to wake up to the fact that people want to eat healthily and provide them with the means to do so by reducing sugar and salt levels and making labelling clearer", she added. "With over £1bn spent every year, it's time they rose to the occasion."

Kellogg's said: "Which? say reports like this are part of their drive to curb obesity yet they demonise breakfast cereals that, with milk, have around 170 calories and contain less sugar than a slice of buttered toast and jam or a cup of sweetened tea or coffee. While this grabs headlines and sells magazines it shouldn't be confused with sound scientific research that consistently shows that people who eat breakfast cereals, regardless of sugar content, are slimmer than those who don't."

Morrisons said it had a programme of development on its own-label brands and the two products highlighted by Which? had been reformulated.
Wake up call

Top 10 for sugar content (per 100g)

Morrisons Choco Crackles (38.4g)
Kellogg's Coco Pops Moons & Stars (37g)
Kellogg's Frosties (37g)
Kellogg's Ricicles (37g)
Sainsbury's Choco Rice Pops (36g)
Tesco Choco Snaps (36g)
Nestle Cookie Crisp (35.3g)
Nestle Cheerios Honey (35.1g)
Kellogg's Crunchy Nut (35g)
Nestlé Nesquik (35g)

• Source: Which?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/apr/29/breakfast-cereal-survey-health-food

*Honey*

Was there any listing of the healthy cereals? Surely that would have been a more useful list so people can choose a better breakfast.

I did some research into this myself recently (very simple, look at all the boxes on the shelves) and it's shocking the amount of sugar in cereals. It's actually really hard to find one that isn't just totally crap. In the end I choose Bitesize Shredded Wheat... I think one of the lowest (if not the lowest) cereal around.

rubadub

Being illiterate is the only excuse for ignorance on this, all the info is on the packets.

I have a bigger issue with the "healthy" ones, conning people, bran flakes being 22% sugar. Some of these supposed healthy ones are marketed with athletes advertising them etc. At least frosties is upfront. They also strangely missed out the real worst I have seen, sugar puffs with ~49% sugar.

Also an issue not mentioned there is portion size, they quote tiny portions on the pack so it appears low in sugar, cals etc. In the ads they are wolfing down massive bowls, and except for weetabix, I have NEVER seen a pictures on the packet that looked like the quoted portion,

35g of museli, an often quoted portion size.

typical packet shows this.


Also Irish cereals have more sugar than some other countries.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055387928

*Honey* wrote: »

Was there any listing of the healthy cereals?

Weetabix are surprisingly low in sugar, not sure about salt, you can check their websites online and most have full info. Your shredded wheat is fine. Porridge oats are the best bet, I just eat them uncooked with milk and this sugar free strawberry flavouring I got. Also I mix in unflavoured whey protein powder to make it creamy. Or I make pancakes with the oats.

As a vegetarian fortified cereals are important sources of b vitamens and iron.

rubadub

Moonbaby wrote: »

As a vegetarian fortified cereals are important sources of b vitamens and iron.

But watch out, as most of the fortified ones tend to be crap, they only fortify them to make them appear "healthy", just another scam. It would be like cadburys sticking "vitamins & iron" in their chocolate, it is still junk with a mulitvitamin tablet crushed up in it.

The real good ones, like porridge oats & shredded wheat are not fortified, just eat them with a mulitvitamin tablet! Also porridge oats are probably the cheapest breakfast out there.

Here was one thread on the porridge pancakes
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055002535

cozmik

kellog's wrote: »

sound scientific research that consistently shows that people who eat breakfast cereals, regardless of sugar content, are slimmer than those who don't.

regardless of sugar content?

Can anyone confirm that sound scientific research exists to backup this claim?

Macha

cozmik wrote: »

regardless of sugar content?

Can anyone confirm that sound scientific research exists to backup this claim?

Argh - that's a Kellog's quote, not mine!

I would say they're just piggy-backing off the "people who eat breakfast tend to eat less calories during the rest of the day". No more access to academic journals for me so I can't help further

cozmik

taconnol wrote: »

Argh - that's a Kellog's quote, not mine!

fixed.

cozmik

taconnol wrote: »

I would say they're just piggy-backing off the "people who eat breakfast tend to eat less calories during the rest of the day".

So then are high sugar breakfast cereals a problem or not?

*Honey*

It's actually very scary indeed when you spend just a little time looking at the labelling on the cereals (thank God for the new labelling system too, it helps a lot!). The way cereal companies advertise cereals is so misleading (Coco Pops ad saying they're an important source of calcium for instance... I would think the milk is far more important and the cereal is a load of sugar)... however, if a parent wasn't exactly clued in, they'd see that ad and think "great idea, I'll buy it".

I agree porridge is probably the best way to go - however, I've overdosed on it in the past and still not gotten to the point where I could eat it happily again! I'm happy with my Shredded Wheat for now.

PS Does anyone else think eating Weetabix/Oatibix is like eating a gluey sponge though? Cannot abide that cereal but it does fill you up.

*Honey*

*Honey* wrote: »

PS Does anyone else think eating Weetabix/Oatibix is like eating a gluey sponge though? Cannot abide that cereal but it does fill you up.

The mini oatibix with sultanas and apple are yummy.

My problem is that I can never remember to take pills....which is why I have become run down after a winter of porridge eating
Thinking of switching to readybrek.

Macha

cozmik wrote: »

So then are high sugar breakfast cereals a problem or not?

Well, yes.

Honestly, I'd be hard-pressed to choose between a high sugar breakfast cereal and no breakfast at all. OK so you've eaten breakfast but you've also pushed up your blood sugar levels, which will come down pretty quickly after about an hour or so. You won't feel hungry for very long and you'll probably have ingested a fair amount of calories for all that sugar (and 45 minutes of satiety). I'm not too sure about the bioavailability of those artificially added vitamins either.

I look at my daily calorie and carb allowances like money I have to spend and IMO, breakfast cereals are bad value for money.

cozmik

Here's an interesting view I stumbled across

A typical serving size for breakfast cereal products in Ireland is in the region of 40g.

Sugar consumption from breakfast cereal accounts for about 5% of the average adult daily intake of added sugars and 7.4% of the daily energy intake for children.


A recent national survey of the diets of Irish children confirmed that breakfast cereals do not contribute significantly to the sugar in children s diets.


In fact when eaten as suggested with milk, even the sweetest cereal provides only 11% sugar in the bowl, which is less than two teaspoons of sugar per serving and less than that provided by other breakfast choices such as two slices of toast and jam, low fat sweetened yogurt or pancakes and syrup.

http://www.ibca.ie/Sectors/IBCA/IBCA.nsf/vPages/Cereal_Industry_Information~sugar/$file/Sugar.pdf

rubadub

cozmik wrote: »

Here's an interesting view I stumbled across

You forgot the most important quote!

The Irish Breakfast Cereals Association is affiliated to FDII/IBEC and represents
the interests of a number of Breakfast Cereal companies in the Republic. Its
members include Flahavans, Kellogg s, Nestle Cereals, and Weetabix.

So an extremely vested, and no doubt biased interest straight off.

A typical serving size for breakfast cereal products in Ireland is in the region of 40g.

That is ludicrous! Look at the picture I already posted of 35g of museli. When I was young I would help myself to cereal, you are essentially giving kids free reign to eat junk food. Most people tend to buy the bigger packs as they are cheaper per kg. The typical QUOTED portion size is 40g, there is NO WAY that is the typical amount eaten. It would be like nestle saying a 2 finger kit-kat is the typical portion size, and then parents handing the kids a dirty big bag of them each morning and telling them to help themselves, how many are going to eat just a single 2 finger one?

I used to have about 3 dirty big bowls when I was a kid, even the ads for crunchy nut cornflakes show the real truth, they're funny because they're true.

Sugar consumption from breakfast cereal accounts for about 5% of the average adult daily intake of added sugars

I wonder what this really means, probably talking of recommended amounts again rather than reality. The average calorie intake in Ireland is 3500kcal.

Breakfast cereals offer the most nutrient dense and lowest fat choice at breakfast time.

No room for fat with all the sugar!, I often eat high fat coconut flour with my oats for health reasons (and taste).

Sugar plays an important role in breakfast cereal manufacture. It is essential for product structure as well as flavour.

WTF! there is no added sugar is many cereals, essential!?!!?

The Irish Breakfast Cereal Association recognizes sugar as an important ingredient in breakfast cereal manufacture and an important nutrient providing energy in the diet.

I think thats the first time I ever saw processed sugar described as a nutrient, usually I am reading about how it is completely devoid of nutrients...

MB Lacey

thanks for posting this yesterday - I went home last night and looked at my cereals and my housemate's - the difference in sugar in weetabix 4.4g per 100g compared to her 'healthy' museli of 40.4g per 100g made me do a double take.

I'm guessing the most important things to note (like in bread) are sugar content (bad) and fibre content (good) ?

My cereal from lidyl (museli in a blue bag) didn't actually list sugar content!

cozmik

MB Lacey wrote: »

thanks for posting this yesterday - I went home last night and looked at my cereals and my housemate's - the difference in sugar in weetabix 4.4g per 100g compared to her 'healthy' museli of 40.4g per 100g made me do a double take.

Most of the sugar found in muesli comes from the naturally occurring sugars in fruit.

g'em

MB Lacey wrote: »

thanks for posting this yesterday - I went home last night and looked at my cereals and my housemate's - the difference in sugar in weetabix 4.4g per 100g compared to her 'healthy' museli of 40.4g per 100g made me do a double take

cozmik wrote: »

Most of the sugar found in muesli comes from the naturally occurring sugars in fruit.

Depends on the brand - that's certainly true for sugar-free muesli's but some muesli's will have multiple sugars added.

Take Country Store for example:

Ingredients: 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.

Four different sugars added, 24g sugar per 100g.

cozmik

rubadub wrote: »

It would be like nestle saying a 2 finger kit-kat is the typical portion size, and then parents handing the kids a dirty big bag of them each morning and telling them to help themselves, how many are going to eat just a single 2 finger one?

Parents should NOT be letting their kids help themselves! It's up to parents not nestle to see to it that their children are eating the right portions of breakfast cereal.

rubadub

cozmik wrote: »

Parents should NOT be letting their kids help themselves!

But they DO, and that report ignores the obvious. Even if they do pour a bowl for the kids I doubt it is 40g, like that museli bowl, it just looks a miserable amount. Weetabix or big shredded wheat are about the only ones I can think of with portion sizes easily recognisable. Those individual packets cost too much for most people, not sure of their size.

The report is not just on kids, I have no doubt the parents are eating well above the 40g too.

cozmik wrote: »

It's up to parents not nestle to see to it that their children are eating the right portions of breakfast cereal.

It is up to "The Irish Breakfast Cereals Association" to produce a truthful report. If they really wanted they could have realistic photos to help parents, or scoops like you get in protein powders.

A typical serving size for breakfast cereal products in Ireland is in the region of 40g

that should say recommended size. If they wanted they should go and find out what people REALLY eat. They could check sales in the country and do some sort of survey.

The recommended intake for men is 2500kcal and women 2000kcal, yet the actual average is meant to be 3500kcal. This "recommended" stuff is a con. It would be like diageo or the vitners association saying there is not a drink problem in Ireland, the recommended intake is 21 units for men and 14 units for women, and we all know everybody sticks to that, don't they??

*Honey*

I totally agree that the average portion of breakfast cereal is far and away higher than 40g. The portion quoted on the Bitesize Shredded Wheat is 45g .... I have a digital scale and weigh my breakfast in the mornings (trying to education myself as to what a "portion" really is) and it is far less than I would have helped myself to in the past. I was giving my hubby the recommended portion of his cereal and it just wasn't enough for him, have to add a bit more.

I would suggest that an average portion of cereal is more like 100grms at least. Probably more.

cozmik

*Honey* wrote: »

I was giving my hubby the recommended portion of his cereal and it just wasn't enough for him, have to add a bit more.

Instead of increasing cereal why not try extra fruit or yogurt? or some nuts or an egg?

billyhead

I have at least 150grams of cereal (Muesli) with my breakfast on top of a 3 egg omelette and full fat milk but thats beacsue I am on a bulking diet:D

*Honey* wrote: »

I totally agree that the average portion of breakfast cereal is far and away higher than 40g. The portion quoted on the Bitesize Shredded Wheat is 45g .... I have a digital scale and weigh my breakfast in the mornings (trying to education myself as to what a "portion" really is) and it is far less than I would have helped myself to in the past. I was giving my hubby the recommended portion of his cereal and it just wasn't enough for him, have to add a bit more.

I would suggest that an average portion of cereal is more like 100grms at least. Probably more.

corkcomp

some cereals offer more bang for your buck... It would be very easy to eat 100g of muesli but 100g of all bran would be a huge bowl full ... Porridge is obviously the best choice but there are lots of other cereals that are not too bad - all bran, weetabix, bran flakes and no added sugar muesli ... One thing I have observed is that nearly EVERYONE I know who is overweight eats some sort of a cooked / fried breakfast every day where as most people I know who are a normal weight eat some sort of cereal - this is just a personal observation !! At the end of the day we all know excessive sugar + salt etc is not good but calories do count too! - a lot of people having the cooked breakfast could be taking in twice the calories of the cereal eatters...

DéiseGirl

*Honey* wrote: »

I totally agree that the average portion of breakfast cereal is far and away higher than 40g. The portion quoted on the Bitesize Shredded Wheat is 45g .... I have a digital scale and weigh my breakfast in the mornings (trying to education myself as to what a "portion" really is) and it is far less than I would have helped myself to in the past. I was giving my hubby the recommended portion of his cereal and it just wasn't enough for him, have to add a bit more.

I would suggest that an average portion of cereal is more like 100grms at least. Probably more.

At least you feel like you've gotten more bang for your buck with a "recommended" portion of Shredded Wheat than with something like Rice Krispies. then again, I think of Rice Krispies as a treat food as in, mmmm, Rice Krispie buns...:pac:

I'm on a porridge kick at the moment and even with that I find the "recommended" portion a bit small so am mixing protein powder into it to make it more filling!

*Honey*

cozmik wrote: »

Instead of increasing cereal why not try extra fruit or yogurt? or some nuts or an egg?

The nuts are a good idea, I could try dried fruit too (he finds fresh too acidic in the morning). We're off to H&B on Sunday so I might grab something there.

amacachi

rubadub wrote: »

In the ads they are wolfing down massive bowls, and except for weetabix, I have NEVER seen a pictures on the packet that looked like the quoted portion,

35g of museli, an often quoted portion size.

typical packet shows this.

When I read the OP this was exactly what I was thinking.