A new report compiled by Choice Magazine has provided the damning verdict that the majority of so-called healthy breakfast/snack bars are actually less healthy than a Mars bar, or, in some cases - TWO RASHERS OF FRIED BACON!
I have spoken before about this type of hoodwinking that the food manufacturers get away with and I have even laid a large proportion of the blame for the worldwide obesity crisis at their doorstep - and this provides some concrete proof.
I honestly can’t believe that they can get away with this. Consumers should be expected to be able to make their own healthy choices - but when companies are allowed to peddle sugar, fat and salt laden foods to them as ‘healthy’ - how are they supposed to know any better!
The report looked at over 150 bars and assessed them on the following:
- Energy
- Whole Grains
- Saturated Fat
- Sugars
- Dietary Fibre
I would highly recommend reading through the report in full - but here are my main takeouts:
- Cereal bars are not as healthy as we think they are. On inspection of their contents, Choice found that ‘most of them are more than 20% sugar, and some deliver more saturated fat than a packet of chips. What’s more, even the ‘fruit’ in them can be a sham — a laboratory creation of chemicals and sugar’
- The report found that SUNIBRITE Muesli Slices ‘have as much saturated fat as a good fry-up of two bacon rashers, two fried eggs and a fried tomato’
- On top of this - there are trans-fats that the manufacturer does not even have to tell us about!
- Fruit? You’re having a laugh! The ‘Friut Pieces’ in one of the Nestle bars is made up of “strawberry puree 2.3%, apple paste, pear paste, plum paste, invert sugar, sugar, humectant (422), wheat fibre, gelling agent (pectin), food acid (malic acid), flavour (elderberry concentrate)” - mmmmmmm
- Of the 150+ bars tested, only 13 met the basic nutritional requirements. That does not mean that they are necessarily even healthy - more that they are not obscenely UNhealthy
The Sydney Morning Herald also weighed in with: CHILDREN would be better off sitting down to a big fry-up for breakfast than eating some commercially produced muesli bars, so loaded are they with fats and sugars. A test found seven were so laden with kilojoules that a Mars Bar presented a healthier breakfast alternative.
This snapshot from the Herald says a thousand words:
The scary thing is that there is absolutely nothing to stop them from saying that these products are ‘healthy’ in order to drive sales. It is the same for margerines - they are perfectly happy to say how their products are brimming with omega oils, even though the preparation process of creating margerine actually makes any healthy fats highly toxic.
Surely something has to be done?
11 responses so far ↓
1 Giles // Sep 27, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Before joining Energise UK I worked in the food industry as a Research and Development Manager for 10 years. One of the reasons I decided to leave was solely down to the misinformation that food companies feel they can spread in their marketing message.
Having worked for a company developing the very food bars this article talks about I know what goes into them, how they are processed and the general cons (although it really is lack of information) being used to push/advertise them. Incedentally, when working for this ’snack bar’ company, it was the only time in my life I have actually put any extra weight on.
In short there are 2 manufacturing methods: i) bake them with an invert/liquid sugar, which hardens on baking (we’re talking a lot of sugar), then add fats to it to lessen the ‘crunch’ or, ii) for the softer variety, make a cereal ’slurry’ combining saturated fatty acids (usually trans) with a humectant, like gycerol. The fats are hard at room temperature, whereas the humectant keeps it pliable. Nice and natural.
The best type of bars to go for are ones that use apple juice as the binding agent, you know you are getting a healthier, better developed, ‘with you in mind’ product. The apple juice contains both sugar (to help it set) and pectin (which keeps it pliable). Much more natural. Usually they are still quite high in energy, but it’s a better form of energy, with more complex carbohydrates and less cariogenic (less tooth decay)
However, is the problem food companies or the lack of legislation. If you get a development person to develop a product they develop it. So, what if that development person has been sold an individual ingredient without the full facts (particularly nutritionally). That product containing that ingredient will get to market. Surely both manufacturers and government have a responsibility to get this right.
That should give you something to chew on.
Regards
Giles
2 Drug treatment // Sep 27, 2006 at 8:24 pm
I prefer orange, mango and apple juices in breakfast. They keep me active and fine all day.
3 Twisted Cinderella // Sep 29, 2006 at 2:21 pm
Wow, I knew that some of these bars weren’t as healthy as they make themselves out to be, but WOW!
4 Steven // Sep 30, 2006 at 4:43 am
Eating sugar (from choc bars) for breakfast is ridiculous advise:
Try this instead…
1. Drink 2 glasses of water when you wake up - your body dehydrates when you sleep.
2. Eat an apple 20 minutes after you wake up - you’ll get twice as much lasting energy than a cup of coffee (or bar)
3. Use Grape Seed oil when you cook breakfast - higher metabolic rate than olive.
4. Eat small meals regularly throughout the day to increase metabolic rate.
5 Ross // Sep 30, 2006 at 7:18 am
Hi Steven
I hope you haven’t interpreted my article as me advocating chocolate bars for breakfast because I would certainly never do that! It would be the most insane breakfast choice ever. In fact, just as insane as some of those breakfast bars!
I agree with your points, but would probably change point three. All oils become highly toxic when they are heated - so I would not recommend cooking anything that requires oils. Instead, have oils raw on salads and veggies and chose one that is high in omega 3 rather than omega 6.
Point 4 is essential!
Cheers for contributing
Ross
6 Andrew Wilmot // Sep 30, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Its low glycemic that counts …
See my blog http://www.ecademy.com/module.php?mod=blog&uid=96889
Andrew
7 Ross // Oct 1, 2006 at 12:29 am
Hi Andrew
Thanks for your comment, however, all I see on your blog is severe plagiarism of my own blog post. I’m not sure why you have plagiarised my post and then let me and all of my readers know about it.
From your profile you seem like a nice guy, so I am sure that this was not your intention - but I would suggest that you credit other bloggers for their hard work because most of us put a lot of hours into contributing to the community – and most other bloggers would look on this a LOT less kindly than me.
Regarding the glycemic index, while I agree to some degree about the virtues of this approach – I do not understand how you are relating this to the content of my post. Can you please contextualise the point you are making as at the moment this just looks like an empty comment with the design to attract traffic from my blog.
Ross
8 Ibrahim Machiwala (Lodhi) // Oct 2, 2006 at 9:17 pm
The concept of Food Triggers in health science is not new. Simply put, a food trigger can be any food that causes or triggers a reaction or change in the body.
9 Ross // Oct 3, 2006 at 8:31 am
Ibrahim
Sorry you have lost me - where was Food Triggers mentioned?
I’m feeling like I am going to have to turn off comments soon
10 ellie // Oct 26, 2006 at 10:34 am
ok, i am a 12 year old kid just looking for energy in kj in a mars bar,b ut this is intesresting stuff…how can this be true??
11 Ross // Oct 27, 2006 at 2:24 am
Hi Ellie
It is true - but it is not saying that you should eat mars bars for breakfast!!!
What it is highlighting is that these breakfast bars that are advertised as being good for you are actually less healthy than a mars bar.
Not that you can start eating mars bars for breakfast! Sorry
Let me know if you have any other questions and welcome to the blog (and congrats on being the youngest one here!)
Ross
Leave a Comment