13 Ridiculous Food Labels that Might Be Fooling You
by Vin Miller
With the ridiculous and misleading claims that are made on the packaging of many foods, it can be difficult to differentiate the truth from devious marketing. This is important because the failure to make this distinction can have a significant impact on your health and wellbeing.
To help you recognize the deceiving marketing that’s commonly found on food labels, I went grocery shopping and came home with a number of great examples. Aside from the obvious reason of it being unhealthy, I ordinarily don’t buy this type of food because it supports industrial agriculture, and in turn, supports irresponsible and inhumane farming practices. However, if I’m able to help steer you away from these foods, then it will be for a good cause.
The following are some of the most ridiculous and misleading food labels that quickly drew my attention in the grocery store.
1. Froot Loops Is a Smart Choice
According to the new Smart Choices Program, which seems to be nothing more than another way for food manufacturers to market processed food, Froot Loops is apparently a “smart” choice despite the sugar, trans fat, and artificial additives that it contains.
It’s true that Froot Loops contains natural fruit flavors, but this shouldn’t be interpreted to mean that it provides similar benefits to eating real fruit. Natural fruit flavors are nothing more than concentrated fruit extracts that contain little to none of fruit’s original nutrition. Furthermore, the term natural has no bearing on the quality of the fruit that the flavoring is extracted from. It’s very likely that this fruit was grown with heavy usage of chemicals which is clearly not natural. In addition, the trans fat, artificial colorings, preservatives, and synthetic vitamins that are found in Froot Loops certainly aren’t natural either.
What I find most despicable about the Froot Loops label is the suggestion that its fiber content will keep your child healthy and improve your family life. Aside from the fact that the health benefits of fiber are often overstated, and that fiber can even be detrimental in some ways, fruit and vegetables contain plenty of fiber and are a much healthier source of it. Furthermore, the sugar, refined grain, and chemical additives in fruit loops certainly won’t help digestive health. If you’re concerned about the health of your children, feed them natural whole foods, not Froot Loops.
Another thing that’s disturbing about the marketing of Froot Loops is that Kellogg’s has included it in their Fuel for School program suggesting that it’s a good way for kids to start their day. Anyone having to deal with the resulting hyperactivity will likely disagree.
2. DanActive will Boost Your Immunity
DanActive is a “probiotic dairy drink” that claims to strengthen your immune system with active cultures of beneficial bacteria. Although this claim is supposedly “clinically proven”, the packaging gives no indication whatsoever of what this actually means.
The label is correct in pointing out that approximately 70% of your immune system is in your digestive tract. It’s also true that beneficial bacteria will promote healthy intestinal function, and in turn, strengthen your immune system. However, what the package doesn’t tell you is that DanActive’s 13 grams of sugar will diminish these benefits by suppressing the immune system and fueling the growth of undesirable bacteria. Furthermore, the pasteurized milk that DanActive contains is a common cause of digestive issues, including suppressed immunity.
If you really want to strengthen your immunity and improve the health of your digestive tract, then avoid processed foods and use a high quality probiotic supplement. If you’d prefer a more natural source of probiotics as I tend to, you can use some of the recipes in Nourishing Traditions to make fermented vegetables.
3. Sensible Snacking with Fig Newtons
Although this packaging may lead you to believe that Fig Newton Minis are a 100% whole grain product, a closer look reveals that they’re merely baked with 100% whole grain. Based on this, only a portion of the grains used are whole, and if you check the ingredients, you’ll see unhealthy and highly refined grains such as corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup in addition to added sugar.
A similar claim is made in regard to this product’s fruit content. At first, you might miss the smaller print and be impressed by only seeing 100% fruit. Even after realizing that Fig Newtons merely contain 100% more fruit than a Nutri-Grain bar, you may still be impressed. However, a Nutri-Grain bar is highly processed and unlikely to contain much real fruit, and if Fig Newtons really do have twice as much, it’s still probably a small amount. Regardless of how much better Fig Newtons are than Nutri-Grain bars, neither product even comes close to the nutritional value of whole fruit.
Fig Newton Minis are supposedly a sensible snack because they’re low in saturated fat and contain 0 grams of trans fat. Despite the bad reputation that saturated fat has undeservedly earned, its a valuable source of energy and is critical to the proper function of the brain, the nervous system, cell membranes, and ironically, even the heart. Even though the side panel does list 0 grams of trans fat, the ingredients list contains partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil which is a trans fat. This is possible because the amount per serving is small enough to be rounded down to zero. While this may sound negligible, the amount of trans fat that you consume can accumulate to the point of being dangerous if you eat this type of product frequently enough.
4. Snack Right with Nip Chee
Similar to Fig Newtons, Lance’s Nip Chee claims to contain 0 grams of trans fat but contains partially hydrogenated soy bean oil. The fine print under the ingredients list states that the partially hydrogenated soy bean oil “adds a dietary insignificant amount of trans fat.” Many processed foods contain this “insignificant” amount, and as I previously mentioned, if you eat enough processed food, an insignificant amount can become substantial.
The package also proudly proclaims that it contains no preservatives, which is true, but is negated by the fact that it contains artificial flavors and artificial coloring.
5. Natural and Farm Fresh Chicken from Perdue
Unlike the USDA certified organic label, there are no regulations whatsoever on the use of the word natural on food labeling. As such, you’re left to rely entirely on the honesty of the company behind the label.
In the Food, Inc. documentary, which I highly recommend that you see, Perdue forbid their chicken farmers from letting the film’s producers inside their facilities. One farmer who disobeyed this order revealed thousands of chickens that were crammed into a small indoor space and deprived of sunlight. They were fed antibiotics and many of them were too sick and weak to even walk. That certainly doesn’t sound natural or remind me of the nice farm house setting prominently displayed on the Perdue packaging. Furthermore, the label claims that no hormones are used, but says nothing about antibiotics, feed quality, or living conditions.
6. On the Go with Sugar Free Kool-Aid
Despite what the label clearly says, Sugar Free Kool-Aid is not sugar free! Its second most abundant ingredient is maltodextrin which is a sugar. Like the labels that hide small amounts of trans fat, the amount of sugar contained in the minuscule 1 gram serving size must be small enough to be rounded down to zero. In addition, it’s unlikely for most kids to be satisfied by the 8 ounces of Kool-Aid that this small serving size produces.
This product is supposedly a “sensible solution” because it only contains 5 calories per serving and contains synthetic vitamin C. However, the aspartame, preservatives, artificial flavors, and artificial coloring that it contains aren’t sensible at all. Aspartame in particular is especially not sensible and is a highly controversial artificial sweetener that’s often associated with a number of serious health problems including cancer and neurological disorders. As such, it should be regarded as a legitimate concern.
7. Soft, Delicious, and Nutritious Whole Grain Wonder Bread
If you look to the left of the label on this package of Wonder Bread where it says whole grain, you’ll see from the smaller print that it’s made with whole grain. As with some of the previous labels, this Wonder Bread only contains a partial amount of whole grain. In fact, there isn’t even enough whole grain for it to be listed as the first ingredient. Enriched wheat flour is the first and most abundant ingredient and is a low quality grain that’s so depleted of nutrients during processing that synthetic vitamins and minerals must be added as replacements. Whole wheat flour doesn’t show up until the third ingredient and is immediately followed by high fructose corn syrup and other highly refined grains.
Although whole grains are certainly more nutritious than refined grains, they contain phytic acid and enzyme inhibitors which interfere with digestion and absorption. Although these substances can be broken down by soaking the grains prior to use, it’s extremely unlikely for processed food manufacturers to incur the added expense and inconvenience to do so. Furthermore, it’s common for grains to cause digestive and health issues for many people.
8. All Natural 100% Juicy Juice
As the label indicates, Juicy Juice is indeed free of artificial flavors and preservatives. However, despite the clam that it’s all natural, the fruit that this juice originates from is almost certain to be a product of industrial farming, and as such, is likely to contain chemical residues.
The claim of 100% juice is valid as well, but this isn’t as meaningful as it sounds. Juicy Juice is made from concentrate like most other juices, and although concentrate is extracted from real fruit, it’s highly processed and pasteurized which results in most of the fruit’s nutrients being lost or damaged. The sugar from the fruit is most of what remains after processing, and as such, juice from concentrate isn’t much healthier than soda. Although the label is again correct in stating that Juicy Juice contains no added sugar or high fructose corn syrup, this doesn’t really matter because it already contains more than enough sugar from the concentrate.
The label also claims that one 8 ounce serving of Juicy Juice equals one cup of fruit. Perhaps the amount of concentrate in 8 ounces of Juicy Juice comes from one cup of fruit, but there’s simply no way that drinking 8 ounces of Juicy Juice is as nutritious as eating a piece of whole fruit. Furthermore, because juice doesn’t contain the fiber naturally found in fruit, the sugar it contains is much more likely to be absorbed quickly and cause blood sugar fluctuation which can promote weight gain, diabetes, and other health issues.
Worst of all, the manufacturer of Juicy Juice makes an unsettling attempt to bring the welfare of your children into the equation by stating that “with Juicy Juice as your ally, you can focus on the good stuff – raising happy and healthy children.” What this should really say is hyper and overweight children. As if we should be grateful for this awful guidance, the label also states that “parenting doesn’t come with road maps. That’s why Juicy Juice is by your side throughout this journey – creating nutritious and delicious 100% juice products.” Unbelievable!
9. 99% Fat Free Soup and Broth
I firmly believe that fat is essential to good health and am definitely not an advocate of low fat diets. However, the deception behind the labeling of the following products as 99% fat free is still a good example of why most food labels can’t be trusted. As you will soon see, percentages can be very ambiguous.
Fat contains more than twice as many calories as protein and carbohydrates. As such, it’s advantageous for food companies to use weight rather than calories when calculating the percentage of fat. As you can see with the Progresso Chicken Noodle Soup above, it’s really only 85% fat free when calculated based on calories. The Swanson Chicken Broth is an even more dramatic example and is only 50% fat free based on calories.
Jeff Novick, a registered dietitian and former employee of Kraft Foods, has shared some interesting insight. To justify the use of low fat food labels, he claims that Kraft intentionally dilutes certain products with water to make the fat content a smaller percentage of the weight and then adds sugar and salt to compensate for the resulting lack of flavor. He also claims that on his departure, Kraft forced him to sign a legal document that prevents him from talking about this. Fortunately, his conscious has compelled him to talk about it anyway.
10. Weight Watchers Endorsed Popcorn
Although seriously flawed, the premise of Weight Watchers is quite simple. You’re given a daily allowance of points, and based on the point values that Weight Watchers has assigned to various foods, you’re supposed to stay within your limit. Their idea of eating smarter instead of eating less is commendable, but the low fat diet that their point system promotes isn’t so smart. Furthermore, having a daily limit encourages people to equate low point values with healthy choices.
According to the Weight Watchers point system, a regular 12 ounce beer is 3 points and a 4 ounce steak is 7 points. I prefer a 12 ounce steak which is a fairly common size and is 21 points. I assume that Weight Watchers considers steak to be an unhealthy choice, which I completely disagree with, but even despite the misguided dogma surrounding red meat, the fact that a 12 ounce steak is equivalent in points to 7 beers is absolutely ridiculous! Apparently, Weight Watchers thinks that healthy eating is all about calories and completely ignores nutritional quality.
Jolly Time popcorn, which is coincidentally only one Weight Watchers point, makes some familiar claims. A single 34 gram serving contains 2 grams of fat which amounts to 6% of fat by weight. However, 20 of the 90 calories per serving are from fat which amounts to more than 22%. In regard to the 0 grams of trans fat, partially hydrogenated soy bean oil is listed as the second ingredient with an asterisk admitting that it “adds a dietary insignificant amount of trans fat per serving.” Insignificant is not the same thing as zero!
11. Lower Your Cholesterol with Cheerios
Despite the excessive amount of advertising from General Mills that depicts Cheerios as a heart healthy food, 4% of a high cholesterol level is not much at all. Furthermore, the relatively high carbohydrate content of Cheerios has the potential to elevate blood sugar, and in turn, cause artery damage and actually increase your cholesterol.
Even though saturated fat and cholesterol don’t cause heart disease, the fact that Cheerios is low in these two nutrients earns it the stamp of approval from the American Heart Association. General Mills had to pay quite a bit of money to display the AHA’s seal of approval on their products which detracts from its validity in my opinion.
12. A Cardiologist Approved Promise
The work of Dr. Weston A. Price clearly shows that butter is an excellent source of nutrition. However, the lies we’ve been fed about saturated fat lead most people to choose a highly processed but “cardiologist endorsed” food like Promise Butter Spread instead.
Out of the 326 cardiologists that supposedly endorse Promise, it’s unlikely that any of them have received more than the one or two weeks of nutritional training that’s typical of most medical school curriculums. Otherwise, they would know that the pro-inflammatory and delicate nature of some polyunsaturated fats found in vegetable oils, which is what Promise is made of, are now believed to be a significant cause of the artery damage that leads to heart disease. As such, this “cardiologist endorsed” product is probably more likely to cause heart disease than prevent it.
In addition, the package prominently lists its imbalanced content of omega-3 and omega-6 essential fatty acids as if it were a good thing. Based on the diets of our ancestors, it’s commonly recommended that we consume a roughly equivalent ratio of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. Despite this, the modern diet is excessively high in omega-6 fatty acids which is believed to be a contributing factor to many of today’s health problems. Promise contains a 6:1 ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids which isn’t awful, but isn’t great either. Furthermore, the omega-3 fatty acid it contains is alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) which must be converted by the body into the more important eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) forms. Because this conversion can be slow or incomplete, ALA is a less preferable form of omega-3.
13. Fight Heart Disease by Drinking Diet Coke
You can help to spread awareness about the impact of heart disease on women by purchasing and drinking one of the most unhealthy beverages available.
Diet beverages, especially zero calorie sodas, don’t offer any nutritional value and are full of potentially harmful additives and artificial sweeteners. Diet Coke in particular contains aspartame which is one of the most notorious sweeteners on the market.
It would make a lot more sense to associate foods like fruits and vegetables with such a program, but I guess the red dress goes better with the red Coke label than it does with yellow, orange, or green fruits and vegetables.
The Most Honest Label is the One that Doesn’t Exist
Regardless of what a food label says, the fact that the label even exists should raise some concern. In general, the healthiest foods available are the whole foods provided to us by nature such as meat, fish, fruit and vegetables. Although some healthy foods do come in packaging, these foods don’t, and if you truly want to eat healthy, they should ideally represent the majority of your diet.
This post is part of Real Food Wednesdays.
Post this on Twitter
Post this on Facebook
Support this on StumbleUpon
Email this to friends
Leave a comment
The more I deviate from sugar, the better whole foods taste, it only takes time. I just hate foods that taste ridiculously sweet, but I eat chocolate, especially dark ones (I love 85% cocoa mass), but the raw cocoa bean would be great, as said in the DSP, but I do not yet know where to get it in Malaysia or the Philippines.
Chocolate is the most frequent sweet thing which I eat according to the 80/20 rule. This September, not much (got tired), August it was almost rampant. I hate Daim chocolate, too sweet caramel=sugar!
Again you went deeper into the details!
In the Philippines, 99% fat free deception also exists (I first saw from Nestlé’s milk).
Look into our kitchen, you’ll barely see any of these colorful labels.
About 5 years ago, upon shipping to Malaysia any Post breakfast cereal that deceptively says “reduces the risk of heart disease” was replaced by their slogan “breakfast made right”. But as I know from this article, it is of course hardly an improvement!
Since that time, my family did not eat any heavily packaged breakfast cereals.
Hi ægil,
Thanks for sharing that bit of information about Post cereals. It’s also great to hear that you and your family avoid processed foods.
of course as you know, not completely, my dad snacks right in front of the tv with potato chips! me and my mom eat the least, again according to 80/20.
I only buy a few packaged foods, such as steel cut oats, organic brown rice, organic butter, etc. The only part of the label that is important is the ingredient list. Everything else on the label is there for marketing purposes, to convince you to buy their processed junk instead of buying real food.
You deserve a lot of credit for purchasing this crap in order to inform people, it must have been hard and I don’t know if I could have done it!
Thank you! The hardest part was deciding what to do with this stuff. Even though I hate wasting food, I threw some of it away because I couldn’t give it to anyone in good conscious. Although, I did give some of it away to people who I knew would buy it on their own anyway.
FYI, Dannon just settled a lawsuit over the claims made on their DanActive and Activia yogurts. According to the settlement, they are to remove the probiotic claims. Although changing the label will not change the contents…
On a similar note, took a trip to Mexico this summer. The breakfast menu had a diet section. Decided to take a look one morning and the Mexican equivalent of Frosted Flakes was one of the cereals. Even had the AHA equivalent check mark for low in fat.
The madness has spread…
Brian
Hi Brian,
Thanks for sharing that information about Dannon. Here’s an article about the settlement. I read somewhere else that they only agreed to remove “immunity” from their labels for 3 years.
Yes, the madness is spreading indeed! Hopefully people in other countries will see the health problems that processed foods are causing elsewhere and leave them alone.
Now that I’ve found Weston A. Price Foundation and a fabulous local farm from which to obtain real milk, real grass fed meat and organic local produce, I’ll never waste money at the supermarket again! Like you said, the best foods have no labels. Thanks for a great article!
Hi Lisa,
The Weston A. Price Foundation is a great resource, I’m glad you found it! I’m also glad to hear that you’ve found what seems to be an excellent source of great food and are making healthy and conscientious choices!
Great article, Vin! I love how you “dissected” the labels for your readers! Great, GREAT job! One of the things I always recommend to my patients is to shop on the OUTSIDE of the grocery store; thereby not getting the processed/pre-packaged foods, but instead lean meats, raw fruits and vegetables. I’m going to share this article with my readers!
Thanks!
Melissa
Hi Melissa,
The outer perimeter of a grocery store is definitely where the best food is as long as people pay attention to the quality of the meat, fish, and produce. When possible, I think it’s better to shop outside of the grocery store altogether.
Thanks for sharing the article, I appreciate it!
Fantastic Vin! You get ‘em. This stuff is ridiculous. I still can’t get over all the health benefits of Fruit Loops. I’m going to have to stop eating my apples, walnuts, and other crap food for breakfast and pour myself a bowl of Fruit Loops!
According to the label, eating Froot Loops may even improve your family life.
Right on “the fact that the label even exists should raise some concern.” I agree if there is more than a statement of what you are getting then its a slick diversion to get you to buy it.
Exactly, George! If there’s a need for the manufacturer to convince you that you’re making a good choice, then you’re probably not.
Thanks for taking the time to such an amazing post – I can believe the crap that these companies and advertising agencies expect us to swallow – do they think we are idiots?
Sadly a lot of people are idiots about food (even intelligent people) and they are feeding this to their kids in a misguided attempt to be healthy – sad
I find it easier to resist these crappy claims now because:
* I don’t have a tv – so I don’t get sucked into advertising, it can be powerful, even when it’s stupid
* I rarely go into supermarkets – I get home delivery from an organic veg box company or top up from a local fruit and veg store
* Read books like The China study and blogs like this one
Hi Denise,
Unfortunately, I think the food industry relies on many people not making an effort to research their food choices and relying on what the label says. I definitely agree with your point, but I prefer to regard such people as being uniformed rather than being idiots. After all, most of us were doing the same things before realizing what healthy eating is really about.
It’s great that you don’t watch television. It can definitely be a negative influence which I recently wrote an article about.
Here’s an article about The China Study that might make you think differently about it.
Whenever possible, I feed my kids whole food and do as much of the cooking myself at home. You have to read the actual labels yourself and not rely on the front of the box to tell you if it’s good for you or not!
Hi Tracy,
That’s great to hear! Cooking whole foods at home is the best way to be sure that you’re eating quality food. I’m sure your children will benefit from it tremendously. I don’t know about that Pupa you wrote about though.
NICE detective work! Speaking of Food, Inc (I haven’t seen it yet, so I’m not sure if they mention this company in the article) I thought I’d link you to this article from Rolling Stone Magazine in 2006 – I had a subscription then and read this article and it has stuck in my mind ever since. Every once in a while you get lucky with Rolling Stone and they actually write something worth reading. This is one of those articles. It’s something you’ll never forget..
I love pork, but this article makes me want to start my own farm and raise my own livestock more than anything !!
“America’s top pork producer churns out a sea of waste that has destroyed rivers, killed millions of fish and generated one of the largest fines in EPA history. Welcome to the dark side of the other white meat.”
That’s an excellent article, Andrea. Thanks for sharing it. Everyone should read it! I wish the spoke more about the fact that these issues are not a problem with sustainable farming, and in fact, animal waste is considered valuable because it is part of how nature refertilizes the land.
Good post! I cringe everytime I see a commercial talking about how healthy their crappy product is. Whole Foods is the best way to eat.
Hi Dottie,
I cringe too, especially when I see drug commercials. As Denise mentioned, this is why it’s good to watch less television or at least record your favorite shows so that you can fast forward through the commercials.
Excellent post! I’ve been trying to move away from processed foods, but the labels always seem to suck me back in. I mean, they wouldn’t say it if it wasn’t true, right?! ^_-
Here’s a webcomic dealing with this exact topic. I thought it was timely considering this particular webcomic tends to deal in geekery, not healthy foods: http://xkcd.com/641/
Tamahome, stay strong and don’t let those labels have their way.
Thanks for sharing the cartoon. I definitely prefer my food to be asbestos free! It’s a great example of how a label can impress people with something that should be expected with all products.
A great display of some the scammy marketing used in labeling Vin.
The marketing of juices has brought out some real creativity in labeling. A mixture of water, sugar and juice can be called Juice Fantastic, Juice Shangri-la and such. MADE WITH PURE JUICE does not indicate how much pure juice it contains!
100% Juice Blend: CRANBERRY. The two brands I’ve used have the main juice ingredient listed as GRAPE.
100% pure jam sounds pure but 100% jam does not mean 100% fruit. Does the jam recipe that is used contain excessive non-fruit ingredients such as sugar?
NO TRANSFAT. It can be loaded with unhealthy saturated fat, salt and sugar but it has NO TRANSFAT. NO SUGAR ADDED does not mean unsweetened and likely contains other sweeteners or taste enhancers.
Some breads contain a variety of additives but it’s not very obvious when printed on the clear part of the packaging in small letters.
And how about those little symbols that look remarkably like the Health Check logo of the Heart and Stroke Foundation?
15.4% LESS SALT could still contain excessive amounts.
This stuff really burns my cheeks.
Those are all great examples, Ken. Thanks for sharing them! It’s sad when you buy fruit juice and aren’t even getting the type of fruit that you expect to. Jams and jellies are misleading as well and are full of sugar.
In regard to saturated fat being unhealthy, you might want to reconsider your opinion on this. Here’s an article I wrote about cholesterol and heart disease myths, and here are two articles from the Weston A. Price Foundation about fats in general and the importance of saturated fat.
hmmm . . I’ll check those out Vin.
I know, it’s hard to believe at first.
The Fat Head documentary would be great to check out as well.
I try to keep in mind that their aim is not to inform us, but to misinform us so we will buy their product. The same is true of “scientific research.” Every study is funded by someone who is looking for product support.
Hi Jonathan, thanks for your comment!
That’s a great way to look at it and I completely about research. All research needs to be funded, and if there’s not a strong potential for profit, the funding is hard to find. Here’s an article that I wrote about this topic.
Geez, Vin, this is an amazing compilation for some who needs to learn about what they are eating. And that about includes everyone. Fantastic. I’ve been doing this for years and REALLY watch what I eat. I agree with Jonathan, that the aim is to misinform. I just know if one really cares about their body and health, you have to be proactive and educate yourself. This is a GREAT reservoir of information. Thank you.
Thanks, Robin! I agree with both of you about the intention to mislead, but for those who are willing to take responsibility and educate themselves, it doesn’t matter.
Check this out Vin!
Note that familiar “The Heart Truth” Red dress…look familiar? Don’t trust much (if any) of the stuff you read on a website of an organization that has its logo on a can of DIET COKE!
Lower Heart Disease Risk
the SAD part?? It’s a “.gov” site. Ugh.
It was linked from this article on the front page of CNN.com today “Knowing cholesterol numbers could ward off heart disease” they should really speak with Tom Naughton or Jimmy Moore regarding the insignificance of cholesterol numbers
Hi Andrea, thanks for your comment!
Better yet, they should speak with Dr. Uffe Ravnskov and Dr. Malcom Kendrick who are both MDs and have researched this topic thoroughly.
Just FYI, if you really do your research into the WeightWatchers Program it does not promote that “healthy eating is all about calories and completely ignores nutritional quality”. If you actually follow the program it is all about choosing foods of high nutritional quality (ie fruits, veggies, whole grains, etc), but it is realistic in the fact that most people are not going to completely give up all processed foods.
Hi Audra, thanks for your comment!
I did research the Weight Watchers program and I realize that it does focus more on healthy eating than calorie counting. In the article, I said that “their idea of eating smarter instead of eating less is commendable, but the low fat diet that their point system promotes isn’t so smart.”
In my opinion, the Weight Watchers program is a politically correct diet that’s based on some of the same flawed principles as the food pyramid. Although it’s an improvement compared to how most people it, that doesn’t mean it’s a truly healthy diet.
I completely agree that it’s not reasonable for people to completely avoid processed foods, but this certainly doesn’t mean that Weight Watchers has to go out of their way to endorse them! In addition, it would be interesting to know if Weight Watchers is paid by the companies whose products display their endorsement label.
The bottom line is that people should learn for themselves what healthy eating is really about so that they can make their own choices instead of relying on a point system. Weight Watchers is fine for people who want the easiest solution, but this certainly doesn’t mean that it’s the healthiest or most effective solution, and in my opinion, people who rely on the Weight Watchers, or any other similar type of system, are only taking partial responsibility for their health.
While weight watchers isn’t the worst diet to follow (there are always worse- have you heard of the amputation diet!?!), and it’s better than those that say “you must give up everything you’ve ever loved to eat cold turkey, forever” it is SERIOUSLY flawed. Anyone who has researched proper nutrition knows this. The biggest flaw with them is they use that horrible point system where you’re essentially just counting calories (although it’s masked by the points), which assumes that all calories are “created equally,” which they are not. They don’t take into account the insulin response foods high in sugar and carbs causes. Instead for example, if you look closely at their point system, they allow you to consume more beer than meat. Beer that is chock full of carbs and alcohol that turns to sugar in the body, and meat that is chock full of protein and other essential nutrients that help to build muscle (and we all know, the more muscle on your body, the faster your metabolism). But since meat has more calories, it has more points! In short, and Vin has many many posts on this subject so I won’t even begin to try to explain it, but diets low in fat like weight watchers, will actually make a person gain more weight than a diet high in natural fats. Sure at first a person might lose a whole bunch of weight on weight watchers, but it is because they are eating less than before. Wait a couple months, I guarantee they’ll put it back on, and more of it. And if they haven’t, they will eventually. Oh and they may have lost some weight, but 9 times out of 10 they’re miserable in the process. Ask anyone, (like myself, Vin and many other visitors) who eat a diet composed of natural, whole foods, high in natural fat. We’re happy, satisfied, fit, active and best of all, healthy!
This is a terrific post and one I plan to share a lot on the web! I agree ,the best defense against misleading food labels is to avoid buying them. This is why I purchase 95% of my food from the organic grocery and try to keep my grocery cart full of whole foods, vegetables, and grains. These corporations are out purely for the profit and couldn’t care less about the health of it’s consumers. Bravo to you, Vin, for a timely and educational post that everyone should read.
Thanks, Darren! I think healthy eating is an area that’s surprisingly neglected by many athletes, even professionals, and I’m sure that your perspective on food will set a great example for your clients! Good luck with the CSCS certification.
I’m loving your website and your articles…..
People really get cheated by the way that packaged food is labelled and it’s about learning how to interpret the words that they use. It probably all goes together with the general ‘dumbing down’ of the world’s population, but that’s another topic…..
People need to understand that words and phrases can be used in particular ways so as not to be too specific but to come across, by association, that they are supporting the claim being made in relation to that particular product. …..and it’s oh so important to read the small print.
The thing these companies, and processed food makers, have going for them, is that people are now so used to highly flavoured foods, that natural fruits and vegetables don’t taste like anything to them. It’s no wonder they can’t eat them. Nature provides the most fantastic and wonderfully tasting foods ….and then they provide all the goodness and nutrients that our bodies need.
When I first changed my diet 24 years ago, I did it with friends and we all supported each other. For about 6 weeks we ate nothing but raw natural food up until dinner, where we cooked a meal still containing large amounts of vegetables. There was no tea or coffee, no animal products, large amounts of fruit for breakfast, large doses of vegetables for lunch with rye or equivalent bread. It was quite demanding to go through for a while for the body to adjust.
After 6 weeks we all decided to give ourselves a treat of a cup of black tea and a piece of chocolate cake after dinner one night. it was so funny ….we all had just one teaspoon of the cake, and we couldn’t eat it!! …it was just so falsely sweet and overpowering, we just couldn’t eat it. Let alone a packet of chips or something ….they were just way off the scale with flavouring and salt.
It’s amazing what our bodies can adapt to and get used to. There really needs to be a lot of will power and persistence to change our life styles. Lets hope more people start getting educated and start questioning the garbage that is fed to us by big ‘money making’ corporations.
As has been stated by other people ….the corporations have no interest in people’s health. Only repeat customers and bottom line profits. Full stop!
Thanks, Mianne! I’m glad that you’re enjoying the site and I appreciate your comments!
I’ve had similar experiences with sweet foods and drinks. It’s amazing how our taste buds adapt, and as you suggested, when they adapt to natural whole food, it’s incredible how good it tastes, especially if it’s organic.
Yes, food corporations are no different than any other corporation, and as long as we continue buying their junk, they’ll continue to make, sell, and market it. It’s our responsibility to force a change, and not by demanding legislation, but by speaking through our buying decisions.
I love this post! The more and more I move away from processed foods and live the slow food, simple lifestyle the more these foods just don’t taste good to me anymore. I remember these were “treats”, for the most part, when I was growing up. Nowadays, processed foods and fast food is a way of life for sooo many people. For my family, we’ve gone back to them being something we very rarely eat, much to the chagrin of my mother-in-law, who is a junk food junkie and has “nothing to snack on” when she comes over (grab an apple, mom!).
Hi Earth Mommy, thanks for your comment!
I’ve experienced the same thing regarding taste. Our taste buds adapt, and after eating more real food and less junk, it becomes apparent that many natural whole foods are delicious!
That’s funny about your mother-in-law and brings up a great point. You’re far less likely to eat processed food if you don’t have it in your house.
Great play-by-play analysis on the labels! I found you through 5-Star-Friday and hope to come back to read some more.
Thanks, Marie! I’m glad you found the site and hope you continue to enjoy it!
is it any wonder people are so unhealthy?
Hi flutter, thank you for your comment!
I think there’s a lot factors contributing to so many people being unhealthy, but food is definitely one of the major ones and the misleading food labels certainly don’t help.
hey vin, saw this book and thought of this post
Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition, and Health by Marion Nestle (nutrition chair at New York University and editor of the 1988 Surgeon General Report) i will probably check it out at the library at some point– looks good
Thanks, Andrea! That sounds like a great book. I plan on checking it out.
Thanks for this post. Despite being a label reader, I sometimes just buy something because I think it is healthy. I thought DanActive was a good way to get probiotics since I’m not a big yogurt fan. Opps! This made me think about what other labels I wasn’t reading because I assumed the products were healthy. I was SHOCKED to find out the apple cider I just bought has sodium benzonate. I assumed the only ingrediant in apple cider was apples. Silly me!! I am going to be more aware from now on. Thanks again.
Hi Teena, this is the type of feedback that makes my day! I’m happy that this information has helped to guide you toward making smarter food choices.
Dannon recently settled a lawsuit regarding their probiotic claims. If you didn’t see this already, you can read more about it further up in the comments.
Wow…I’d just purchased Juicey Juice tonight for my 4yr. old son…and I thought I was playing it safe….even more evident that I’ll have to press fress juices instead when sending him off to school.
Hi Veronica, thanks for your comment! Why not send your son to school with a piece of whole fruit and some water?
My mom is constantly telling me that DanActive doesn’t do anything for immunity- but that’s not why I drink it. I drink it because it’s the only yogurt drink that doesn’t upset my stomach! This is a great article. I wish I could skip the supermarket altogether and only buy from the farmers market, but on only one income, that’s not going to be possible for my family til I can find a job.
Hi Eni, thanks for your comment!
If your looking to get probiotics from yogurt, consider making your own fermented foods. They are a natural source of probiotics, and since you’d be making them yourself, they’re inexpensive as well.
In addition, here are a few suggestions for making healthy food more affordable.
Thanks for the tips, Vin! I’ll be sure to look into them.
Hello,
As an obsessive label reader myself who has also been watching The Future of Food, King Corn, Food Inc., etc., I found your list of ridiculous food labels to be fascinating, informative and unsurprising.
Hi
Thanks for the article Ive been trying to eat more healthy for this past year so one of the things I did was stop using butter(I used to use it to cook with everything) I replaced it with vegetable oil more recently canola oil but today I wanted to make lemon herb sauce for salmon so I thought I needed butter. I went to the store and(dont laugh) bought the cardio butter I thought to myself before I bought it cardiologist approved??? looking at the nutritional facts it looked like the same fats as the light butter plus omega+3 so I bought it thinking I cant be that bad and also I have been drinking juicy juice I just recently(4 weeks ago) stopped drinking juices with high frutcose sryup. but I am going to look into the whole foods markets Ill try not to bulk at the price(im reallyy cheap) Thanks again for the article im going to share this with my fiancee
Hi Cheta, thank you for your comment. I think it’s great that you’re planning to include more whole foods into your diet. I know it can be frustrating to spend a lot of money on expensive food, but keep in mind that good health is an investment and it will likely save you from discomfort and expensive medical bills in the future.
Here are some tips for reducing the cost of healthy food.
Not sure if this is being filtered or not (guess I’ll find out) but am I the only one who disagrees with any of this? I’m not going to go too far into a rant of any kind because I know my words will be wasted on what seems to be an almost weird religious aspect surrounding this…. but.
Well wait I just clicked on Vin’s name to find his credentials (if you are not a health professional I would consider not giving health advice) and saw some of the other articles on the site. Including one that suggests sun tanning isn’t a cause of skin cancer (??!) and how saturated fat does not in any way cause heart disease (!!?).
I’m not trying to troll here and I won’t reply to anything posted after this. I won’t even be visiting the site again but I IMPLORE anyone who reads this to please look at real science. Not the stuff people make up on the spot (usually to sell their own product) and don’t back up with any research whatsoever. If you want to learn… *REALLY* learn about nutrition I suggest taking a human physiology course. If you don’t have time/money for that I recommend the following:
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978374
Hi Nate, thank you for sharing your opinion.
I encourage anyone who is interested in learning more about my background to visit my about page.
I too implore everyone to do their own research and I often recommend books and other resources for people to do just that. Perhaps it would do you some good to read some of them yourself.
Thank you for pointing out the Berkeley course.
There’s always going to be a few of these in all the comments who haven’t seen the light yet. Vin you’re so calm with your replies! You’ve probably realized it’s impossible to reply back to all the negative posters (and negative people in life) so why waste your breath trying to convince them? I guess you can only wish they’ll see for themselves someday that it’s all been a big fat lie…
Speaking of Berkeley and big fat lies… I recommend this webcast
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216
The Quality of Calories: What Makes Us Fat and Why Nobody Seems to Care
Gary Taubes is a science journalist who has been published in the Atlantic Monthly, Discover, Esquire, GQ, Science, and many others. He has won the National Association of Science Writers Science in Society Award three times.
His 2001 article, “The Soft Science of Dietary Fat,” published in Science, was followed by “What if It’s All Been a Big Fat Lie?” which saw print in 2002 in the New York Times Magazine. His book, Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control, and Disease, has just been released.
Hi Andrea, thanks for your support!
I don’t mind when people disagree because it presents an opportunity to learn. I can do without people being abrasive, but as long as there’s value to be gained from the comment, I will publish it and respond. In this case, I thought it was a good opportunity to clarify my background and the fact that I definitely encourage everyone to learn from as many resources as possible.
I think it’s great that Berkeley offers a course based on Gary Taube’s work. I’ll have to check it out!
Dude, absolutely right. But–and it’s a big but–the other culprit is people eating senselessly. And I mean “senselessly” literally–without stopping to taste, feel, smell or otherwise consider what they’re shoveling into their mouths. And this is a larger, more systemic problem than the labels/ads problem you are discussing (although it is also definitely related)–it relates to the pace of life and the pressures to keep working, keep texting, keep consuming so that you stop noticing, for example, that you just ate roast beef reconstituted from slurry, or some such horror. If people slow down, they’d take the time to register when something does or does not seem like a real piece of food…and they’d also be more able to read and decipher those labels.
Thanks for fighting the good fight.
Hi dwg, thanks for your comment!
I completely agree and just read a great book dedicated to this very topic. It’s called The Slowdown Diet by Marc David.
Not only is it important physiologically as well as mentally that we enjoy our food and eat it in a relaxed manner, but it’s also critical to understand that the rushed pace that most of us are living is unhealthy regardless of eating habits.
This is a great article. Big business is behind Big Food. The objective is to sell stuff that people will eat because it is sweet, salty, filling or crunchy. It has nothing to do with health, but health is the ploy. Worse, people think our government is regulating this stuff, but the truth is it’s a political mess. If you want to be healthy, you cannot afford to eat this kind of nonfood filled with artificial ingredients, sugar, bad fats and hollow calories. It’s junk food made to look like breakfast food, energy drinks, energy bars and you name it. At nutritionresearchcenter.org, we love this kind of analysis and take our hats off to you!
Thanks, Vic!
Yes, it’s a political mess for sure, but it’s also refreshing to know that more people are realizing it.
No, you’re wrong about aspartame being suspect. It’s composed of two amino acids – phenylalanine and aspartic acid – which are both harmless; it’s also metabolised into trace amounts of methanol and formaldehyde, which your body synthesises naturally in greater amounts anyway. It’s been studied to death, and the results are always unanimous: it’s perfectly safe.
Hi Charles,
Phenylalanine and aspartic acid are typically harmless and even beneficial when consumed in whole foods with other amino acids. Isolated amino acids attached to a methyl group is something that simply doesn’t exist in the foods provided to us by nature, and it’s the concentrated and isolated form of these amino acids that cause many of the problems associated with aspartame.
Both methanol and formaldehyde are widely recognized as toxins. Even if the human body does produce these substances in the quantities that you’re suggesting, why increase this quantity with aspartame? More importantly, why take a chance with an unnatural substance like aspartame when much safer alternatives are readily available?
The research done on aspartame is definitely not unanimous. In fact, it’s quite the opposite unless you’re referring to industry funded research only which presents a significant conflict of interest. Ralph Walton MD conducted a peer review of 166 aspartame studies conducted between 1970 and 1998 that were related to human safety. 74 of these studies had funding sources that were tied to aspartame, and the remaining 92 were funded by independent sources. All of the industry funded research concluded that aspartame is safe, and in nearly complete contrast, 92% of the independently funded studies found at least one problem suggesting otherwise. Not exactly what I would consider “perfectly safe.”
Here are some journal articles that agree with me:
article 1, article 2
The point is not whether it’s natural or not, or whether it’s ‘intuitively’ bad for you; results don’t lie, unlike the reviews of the 166 studies you linked to – I looked for some of the supposedly negative articles, couldn’t find many of them, but Ralph Walton is obviously being completely disingenuous: for example, he listed this article as having an identified adverse effect, but the actual conclusion states that it only has adverse effects when injected directly into the peritoneum, and that there were none identified when taken orally. This one states that there is probably no widespread public health hazard. This one states that aspartame only increased incidence of seizure if used in conjunction with metrazol, a convulsant which is not something people would ‘just take’.
It’s very late, so I’m not going to go any further with this, but perhaps you should contemplate why, despite the fact that so many millions of people consume aspartame every day, they rarely if ever collapse in seizure, or get a brain tumour, or have anaphylaxis, or experience renal explosions or whatever else aspartame is purported to do.
Hi Charles,
Of course they agree. Both of the studies that you provided to support your claim that aspartame is “perfectly safe” were funded by the company that manufacters it.
The first study was conducted by G.D. Searle, the oringal manufacturer of aspartame, and the second was conducted by NutraSweet, the current manufacturer of aspartame. Both are essentially the same company. The NutraSweet company was created strictly for aspartame production when Monsanto purchased G.D. Searle.
The Bressler report, written by Dr. Jerome Bressler of the FDA, indicates why G.D. Searle’s research “proving” the safety of aspartame was so seriously flawed, and it raised serious questions about G.D. Searle’s integrity. This article by Mark Gold gives plenty of additional reasons why such industry funded research is highly questionable, especially peer reviews such as the second study that you mentioned. The Sweet Misery documentary provides plenty of similar information as well.
In response to what you’ve asked me to contemplate, I suggest that you watch Sweet Misery. Just because the most dramatic reactions to aspartame aren’t common doesn’t mean that they don’t happen, and there’s nothing to prove that the many millions of people who consume aspartame aren’t accumulating low grade damage that will accumulate and potentially cause more significant problems after years of use. The point about aspartame being unnatural is relevant because the safety of most natural substances is supported by the fact that we’ve been consuming them for thousands of years, and in many cases, much longer.
Finally, here’s an excerpt from an article by Mark Gold explaining 11 significant flaws in the first study that you provided.
You said that there’s nothing to prove that people aren’t accumulating low-grade damage from aspartame consumption – of course there isn’t, because it’s physically impossible to prove a negative like that. Also, considering that literally everything you eat or do has some risk associated with it, why in your mind is aspartame a special case requiring not even a theoretical risk?
I noticed that you didn’t respond concerning those 166 studies supporting you that don’t in fact support you. I really think it’s something that should be addressed. Also worth considering is that every country that has authorised aspartame – which is an awful lot – have conducted independent scientific analyses and have all reached the same conclusion that aspartame poses no especial risk. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/scdoc/356.htm
Hi Charles,
Yes, it’s physically impossible to prove a negative like that, and yes, most foods do pose some level of risk. However, this comes back to my point about aspartame not being natural which you considered to be irrelevant. In my opinion, the foods that we’ve been eating for millions of years pose the least risk, and in contrast, there’s really no good reason to consume a synthetic substance like aspartame when it’s so called benefits are superficial at best and are surrounded by controversy relating to safety concerns.
You said it’s “unanimous” that aspartame is “perfectly safe.” I mentioned Walton’s review to point out that support for aspartame is far from unanimous and that much of the support behind it is industry funded. Furthermore, regardless of how unlikely you may consider the adverse effects reported in some of these studies to be, they are still adverse effects that raise some level of concern which is certainly quite a bit different than “perfectly safe.”
In regard to your last point, here is some further reading indicating that the approval of aspartame in other countries and the EFSA review that you linked to aren’t without controversy.
How Aspartame Got Approved in England
Review Postscript of the Analysis of the EC/SCF Aspartame Document
EFSA’s Review of Ramazzini’s Second Aspartame Study Shows Sellout
I think we’re basically going in circles here and should agree to disagree before we continue to waste each other’s time. There’s enough research both for and against the safety of aspartame that we can go back and forth about this endlessly. This is why we all have to evaluate the available information and make decisions for ourselves. Go right ahead and continue consuming “perfectly safe” aspartame and I’ll continue to avoid it in favor of natural foods.
Finally, just to show that I’m not avoiding your challenge of Walton’s review, here are a few of the 166 independently funded studies that have available abstracts and indicate a concern for adverse reactions caused by aspartame.
Headaches:
Aspartame ingestion and headaches: a randomized crossover trial
Aspartame as a dietary trigger of headache
Cancer:
Increasing brain tumor rates: is there a link to aspartame?
Here’s a newer one not included in Walton’s review:
First experimental demonstration of the multipotential carcinogenic effects of aspartame administered in the feed to Sprague-Dawley rats
Here’s a study done by Walton himself on depression, although I’m sure you’ll ignore this one since you consider him to be disingenuous.
Adverse reactions to aspartame
Neurological disorder:
Formaldehyde derived from dietary aspartame binds to tissue components in vivo
There’s one more thing to add to the picture — most often overlooked are the cumulative effects of nonfood ingredients. Wherein a certain amount of chemicals may be deemed safe in a food, we must remember that people eating the typical modern diet are getting such chemicals from a variety of sources and in myriad combinations. There is no predicting the toxic effects of cumulative consumption of artificial ingredients that range from fake fats to pesticides and from artificial sweeteners to dyes.
Excellent point, Vic! I completely agree. Many people focus on one particular additive and claim that it’s safe because it only exists in small amounts, but when you consume this small amount day after day and year after year, it can add up and cause problems. As you mentioned, it’s also important to consider the “small amounts” of toxins from other sources.
Awesome post Vin.
A lot of mis-labeling going on out there in the food industry. It’s actually quite disgusting when you get down to it. There was a study on breakfast cereals and antioxidants that came out a little while ago and I wrote about here.
Frankly, the study smelled very corporate and suggested kids eat more breakfast cereals as part of there daily nutritional intake. Blows my mind that we let the food industry get away with crap like this.
Keep up the good work,
Mike
Thanks, Mike! It really is a shame what the food industry gets away with. The study you mention sounds similar to the Smart Choice labeling program which basically identified cereals like Froot Loops and Cocoa Krispies as healthy choices. Fortunately, I think the program was abandoned. Either way, as long as people make the effort to understand what they’re buying, advertising shouldn’t matter.
i want to re-address the aspartame argument with that charles guy. i am not a dietician or a health researcher, i’m a singer, but this fact eludes analysis by any pro, aspartame tastes like crappy chemicals, no matter what you put it in. i layghed out loud at a co-worker once who complained of daily headaches while chasing various pain killers with diet COKE…how dumb have we become?? I would like to hear more of your views and findings on things like fluoridation and vaccines, after all they affect our health too… an apple a day keeps the doctor away…glad i found this site.
Regarding evidence and studies, there are plenty. All you have to do is search the internet and you’ll find peer review articles, abstracts and university medical studies showing the ill effects of a host of chemicals. You talked about your coworker getting headaches. This is typical because we as a society have been brainwashed to think the unthinkable — that manmade chemicals are superior to what is natural, and that such chemicals belong in our bodies, which they do not (as evidenced by the biochemical reaction that takes place when the body tries to oust these foreign invaders). The only people defending the outrageous use of chemicals in foods and medicine are those who have to gain financially and those who do not want to wake up and smell the roses because they have been brainwashed into thinking chemicals are good for them. The latter is an example of the great efficacy of marketing. The result of all of this chemical ingestion is clear: cancer, colds, flu, suppressed immunity, skin problems, heart disease and on and on. This is only a secret to those who don’t want to do the research to discover that living organisms (you and I) are not meant to ingest manmade chemicals.
I agree, Vic. There’s plenty of evidence. However, it’s important to realize how corrupt science can be and how various industries are influencing research to support their sales. Some of the research done by G. D. Searle (now part of Monsanto) for the approval of aspartame just so happens to be an excellent example. Not only is it important for consumers to evaluate the available information, but to also be more criticial of it and come to their own conclusions.
It seems to me, generally, that people are extremely protective of those who hurt them the most. People have to learn that being proud to be an American doesn’t mean you have to be proud of these corporations that are literally killing them. Your example of Monsanto is an excellent one. Fear and nationalism often get in the way of discovering the nefarious acts of Monsanto, Gerber, Haliburton, Bechtel, Dean Foods, and others who create nonfoods, do not care about the health of people or the planet, create toxic waste, push smaller companies out of business or spend billions defaming the organic industry, small farmers, etc. Chemotherapy, artificial ingredients, drugs, vaccines, fluoride and chlorine are chemicals that cause cancer and disease. Why be proud to eat them? Why defend the junk?
The psychology is complicated. People defend their dietary habits with great zeal. They complain they cannot lose weight and are in denial about eating lots of carbs or artificial ingredients. They believe the lies that organics and healthier choices food are not better choices because they don’t want anyone taking away their bag of Oreos or can of Red Bull. Change is scary for most people. They fear to replace their Butterball turkey with a humanely raised turkey. People identify with their food as much as they identify with their country, religion or football team. To criticize these things is perceived as a personal assault. So they invent and adopt a language of defamation, using phrases like tree hugger, or granola head. In the same breath they are killing themselves with their diets and lifestyle.
Hi Vic,
I totally agree that the discomfort of change is what discourages most people from pursuing a healthier existence. The first challenge is realizing that mainstream beliefs and even government often have it wrong and don’t always have our best interest at heart. Then, of course, there’s the pain of giving up vices and learning a new way to live. It’s a lot, and it can certainly be overwhelming.
The only people who overcome this are those who truly understand the importance and benefits of optimal health. Unfortunately, it seems that many people don’t gain this understanding until they’re forced to by poor health.
I wrote a book called Evil Genius in the Garden of Eden, about toxins and the corporations that profit from our illness. Writing and research was quite the exercise because it’s apparent that there is no end to the mind games played by propagandists, combined with the ineptitude of government under the influence of large corporations. This all makes for the difficulty in understanding that, as you say, our government does not protect us in regards to the allowable foods found on grocery store shelves, ingredients that are cancer causing and lobbyists and corporate pawns serving in the USDA, FDA and FTC, etc. Meanwhile, thanks to the corporate-controlled media, the most important information we need to know is kept off of TV and out of newspapers. Scary times.
On another issue you brought up — most people have to suffer through poor health before realizing they need to make a change. This,sadly, is the human condition: Like the drug addict or alcoholic, people have to hit “rock bottom” before waking up. We can see this in the economy, global warming, pollution and so many other facets of our lives. And those whom we trust to have insight and intelligence continue to fail us in the political arena.
Hi Joe, thanks for your comment!
I’ve witnessed many things like that myself and it’s always sad to see. This is part of the reason why I write these articles. I hope that they’ll reach the people who care enough about their wellness to be less trusting and more critical of what they choose to put in their bodies.
I think the fluoridation of water is misguided and is very representative of modern medicine’s flawed approach of chasing symptoms. It has been clearly established by the work of Dr Weston A. Price that good nutrition prevents tooth decay. It’s ridiculous that we all have to be exposed to fluoridated drinking water so that kids can continue eating too much junk food. Besides, some sources claim that fluoridated water isn’t even effective despite having numerous risks.
I think vaccines are appropriate in some situations, but it unfortunately seems that they’re also being pushed and even mandated without justification. This especially seems to have been the case with swine flu. I also think the drug industry should make more of an effort to produce vaccines with fewer toxic ingredients. Most importantly, more attention needs to be given to true prevention through healthier lifestyle habits. A strong immune system greatly reduces the need for vaccination.
Brainwashed is right! There are many people out there that only seem to pay attention to the fact that diet sodas and foods don’t have any calories, and take that as meaning they are “good for you.” It is sad that they don’t consider the chemical reaction and toll that these drinks take on the body. Not only that, but diabetics and other people who are conscious of their sugar intake don’t realize that the body wants to release insulin in anticipation of the consumption of a sweet beverage, even one artificially sweetened. Which mirrors almost exactly the response the body gives to sugar itself, which sort of defeats the purpose! Vin has mentioned this before, so I won’t keep going. But it’s sad. I see it every day at work with coworkers who are being conscious about cutting calories and at the same time, starving their body of essential vitamins and minerals in the process!
Take a look at some of these so called “Whole” products. They use marketing as well to try and push their products. How else can they make those huge margins. Also, on another note, next time you are in a health food store, take a good look around. For the most part, these are some of the weakest, frailest, unhealthiest people in the world. Spending their last dime to get an ounce of “Organic barley” or whatever else it is that is suposed to keep them healthier. Sure the mainstream brands decieve, but at time doesnt it seem like this whole Organic/Whole food craze is part of one big marketig schem as well?
You’re absolutely right. Manufacturers of organic foods can be just as guilty of misleading advertising as any other food manufacturers. Even foods that are certified organic aren’t always healthy. In some cases, the requirements for organic certification are too forgiving or aren’t even followed, and in other cases, the food that’s certified may still be full of sugar or be unhealthy in some other way even though it doesn’t contain unnatural substances. The bottom line is to choose foods based on what you know about them and where they come from rather than what their label says. In most cases, the best foods are those that don’t even have a label.
I love the new cereal product from General Mills: Wheaties Fuel
It has to be healthy because Peyton Manning is on the box, right? This product beautifully illustrates your points about food labeling. See if you can spot the sugars from the list of ingredients.
1. Whole grain wheat
2. Rice flour
3. Sugar (at least they’re honest about this one)
4. Whole grain oats
5. Corn bran
6. Honey
7. Canola oil
8. Maltodextrin (short-chain polymers of sugars)
9. Wheat Bran
10. Brown sugar syrup
11. Corn starch (breaks down to sugar almost immediately)
12. Salt
13. Corn syrup (primarily glucose molecules)
14. Cinnamon
15. Barley malt syrup (breaks down to maltose, then to glucose)
You get the idea. The total carbohydrate content in a 55g serving is 45 g. It’s got 5 g fiber, so that leaves 40 g very easily digestable sugars. They could produce a much more accurate label, such as:
1. Sugar
2. Fiber
3. Protein
4. Fat
Hi Ed,
This is a great example of how food manufacturers use multiple forms of sugar, and by doing so, can list “sugar” later in the list of ingredients and make it seem as if there’s less of it. Thanks for sharing it!
Vin, I admit to being a little frustrated here. I absolutely realize that natural foods are the best for you, but in the 21st century, let’s face it, who has time to prepare all natural foods. You’ve done a fine job of telling us what not to eat – or at least eat only in moderation – but I know a lot of us would appreciate you telling us what we can eat in regard to packaged foods. We try to do the right thing by reading labels, but here you are telling us that labels are rubbish. For example, my wife drinks the Danactive stuff, but you recommend drinking fermented vegetables instead – yuck – I cannot think of anything grosser sounding than that. Give us a break and write about some of the packaged foods we CAN eat without guilt.
Hi Rob, thanks for your comment.
We all have to make our own choices about how dedicated we will be to our health, and it shouldn’t be too difficult to realize that most people aren’t nearly as dedicated as they could be. Some people don’t care all that much about compromising their longevity and quality of life for convenience and superficial pleasure. It’s their choice and they have every right to make it. However, just because this type of mentality has become the norm, it doesn’t justify claims that modern life is too hectic and busy for optimal nutrition. In fact, the hectic pace of modern life makes optimal nutrition even more important!
If healthy living was easy, everyone would be doing it and the high incidence of obesity and preventable disease wouldn’t be the problem that it is today. Optimal health is a priority that requires commitment, and those who treat this commitment with the respect that it deserves find the time and effort needed to succeed. Besides, preparing natural foods isn’t really as time consuming as most people think, and there are plenty of ways to reduce the amount of time it takes. However, without the dedication, this is much harder to realize, and it’s much easier to tell yourself that the required effort is unrealistic.
I spend about two hours per week preparing an entire week’s worth of meals, all of which consist only of natural whole foods. Anyone who claims to not have two hours per week to dedicate to optimal nutrition clearly hasn’t established their health as a top priority, and I have little interest in catering to such an audience by writing about processed foods that aren’t quite as bad as the rest of them. While I do sometimes write about processed foods from the perspective of enjoying them in moderation, I don’t think they have any place in the foundation of a healthy diet.
In regard to fermented vegetables, many people including myself think that they taste quite good, and for busy people like yourself, they can even be purchased already fermented. For example, Real Pickles offers a variety of fermented vegetables that are convenient and taste good. It might take time for someone who’s used to the added sugar in processed foods to develop more of an appreciation for the taste for whole foods, but this certainly doesn’t mean that it’s impractical or not possible.
may i ask why you are so anti sugar? how do you justify eating fruit? the main source of carbohydrates in fruit is sugar, and that type of sugar is also found in some foods
Hi Charlie,
Here are many reasons why I’m so opposed to sugar. For most people, there’s nothing wrong with having some in healthy moderation, but the amount of sugar in the typical modern diet far exceeds this.
Yes, sugar exists in fruit, but it’s also naturally accompanied by the fruit’s fiber which helps to slow it’s digestion. Besides, even the sugar in fruit can be problematic if consumed in excess.
Great article and I appreciate the research put into it. Food labels in the USA truly are ridiculous.
Thanks, Mike! I’m glad to hear that you found the information useful.
I do agree to this blog that there are no food labels who will tell the truth. Many consumers have been fooled that buying fruit loops can give you the equal nutrients of a fresh fruit. Don’t believe that even you drink or eat sugar-free products you will presume that it has no content of sugar. The fact is even the foods are sugar-free will still have sugar content and can still be one of the reasons of diabetes. That is one of the deceptions of all the food products that are in the market today. So, the best way to buy food items should be coming from the nature which is organic, fresh and crisp. SMART CHOICE will come to US!