Irish breakfast cereals have higher levels of sugar and fat

Davei141

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

bigpinkelephant wrote:

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

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

rubadub

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bigpinkelephant

Davei141 wrote: »

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

You're all charm.

Davei141 wrote: »

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

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

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

corkcomp

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

g'em

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

You're all charm.

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

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

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

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

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

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

bigpinkelephant

g'em wrote: »

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

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

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

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

g'em

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Macha

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

corkcomp

taconnol wrote: »

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

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

Macha

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

Just found an article written on the series:

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

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

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

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

Khannie

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

Macha

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

bigpinkelephant

g'em wrote: »

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


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


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

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

Blazer

Mr Magnolia wrote: »

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

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

rubadub

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

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

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

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bigpinkelephant wrote: »

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

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

g'em wrote: »

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

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

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

Khannie

taconnol wrote: »

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

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

Khannie

rubadub wrote: »

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

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

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

rubadub

Khannie wrote: »

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

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

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

bigpinkelephant

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

Macha

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

rainbow kirby

This thread has just pushed me towards eating more porridge and less Just Right. :eek:

corkcomp

rainbow kirby wrote: »

This thread has just pushed me towards eating more porridge and less Just Right. :eek:

well it has defo achieved something good in that case

Nevyn

There is a lot to be said for porriage, wetabix and shreddedwheat.
It's a very rare thing that sugary or chocolatey ceral gets bought in this house.