Food Frauds!

I found this link while wandering the net today:

http://cspinet.org/nah/foodfrauds.html

While the wording is a little sensational, I think the authors have a valid point. For one, I think it's incredibly deceptive of Kellogg's Special K Fruit and Yoghurt to put berries on the front of its box when it actually only contains dyed apple slices. I would at least expect something of berry origin in there!

Anyone else think that food advertising laws and the right to claim "health benefits" needs to be seriously revised?

I do!

I had no idea that they didn't have actual fruit in there. o-o But with everyone trying to diet these days, a fancy picture of fruit can distract them from what's really in it. D:

And the multigrain stuff!? Why even put that on the package? ;.;

Oh it's all spin.....   Like KFC putting pictures of cuddly, moustachioed old gentlemen on their fascia boards to give the impression of heritage and respectability.  Or Tesco selling 'Willow Farm' chicken for the same reason when it's just a brand-name rather than an actual place.  Or Bird's Eye having a backdrop of a typical English country scene on their frozen roast beef dinners when the contents aren't British. 

There are a lot of rules and regs on what can go on packets and I'm sure they're adhered to faithfully but stretched to the limit.   I'm in the fresh produce business and, ironically, we can't put on punnets of fruit 'low in fat' because there is no 'high fat' version out there.  Makes no sense, really.

I like Michael Pollan's suggestion that we should simply give a wide berth to any food making a health-claim.  Works for me. LOL!

Original Post by gi-jane:

I'm in the fresh produce business and, ironically, we can't put on punnets of fruit 'low in fat' because there is no 'high fat' version out there.  Makes no sense, really.

I like Michael Pollan's suggestion that we should simply give a wide berth to any food making a health-claim.  Works for me. LOL!

I always think it's ridiculous that sweets and lollies can be marketed as "fat free" when yes they are, but they're still full of sugar! I guess the difference is you can have confectionery containing fat - had never thought about that technicality before.

And yes, Michael Pollan is full of common sense - I love his books. If only more people listened to him our food supply would not be half as saturated with chemicals as it is now... Let's hope people start paying attention to what they eat sooner rather than later.

I think a good place to start would be changing packaging laws so that images on the packet must represent a minimum (but substantial) proportion of the actual contents... not just the 'flavour' of the contents!

Then the Kelloggs cornflake packet would have to be adjusted.... In all these years I've never once found trace of a rooster!

We had a big retailer here slap a "V" for vegetarian on their yoghurts. Turns out they were using bovine gelatine as a stabiliser. I wish I could formulate a claim for damages - maybe if I was Hindu I could place a monetary value on their screwing with my Karma?

Thanks for the link Meryl,

This sort of thing why I am a fanatic about reading labels.

My SU always insisted on eating "low-fat" crackers and did not understand why I ate the regular fatted ones (and only a few at a time). Once I made him read the ingredients he understood that he was trading fat for sugar. He also discovered that the calories were the same. The packaging/marketing made the box appealing to people trying to eat in a more healthy way without actually coming out and saying Eat This and You Will Be Healthier.

Fat makes food taste good. If the companies remove it and do not want to lose sales, they have to replace it with something that people like, which is unfortunately the easy to rely on inexpensive to add sugar!

That they can then be technically within the law with their marketing to imply yet not actually state that this is a healthy food is silly. Although I am quite sure they checked with their lawyers to make absolutely sure that the method of advertising was strictly legal. Ethics was never under consideration.

I think that if they did revise the laws, the corporation's lawyers would just figure out ways to get around them.

Best to just know what you are eating. If you can make it that's great. If not, then read the labels and find out what those odd sounding ingredients are!

nothing ever looks like it does on the adverts or in the box

big soup has a chicken and veg soup it has 1 piece of chicken in it

some of these foods are all packaging

and creme eggs is it me or have them and all choclates shrunk or perhaps my eyes have got bigger :)

I was deceived into thinking that eating more of a healthy food would make me healthy.

Part of this was due to advertising.  The more you eat the more fiber and vitamins you get.

But being a glutton was all my fault.

Side note: I subscribe to Nutrition Action Health Letter & highly recommended it for anyone who's interested in the "truth about commercial food". It has comparison articles like this in every issue. It's quite informative.

I too am getting sick and tired of being scammed! When I was younger I ate boxes of Cheez-It crackers...absolutely love them. Well I stopped eating them when I started reading labels and found out that partially hydrogenated plastic fat was a very high chemical in the ingredient list. Well last week I noticed it is not in their any longer, so I bought a box and just dove in...estatic!!! Then I noticed TBHQ for freshness added....hmmmm....googled it...........BUTAIN (sp) LIGHTER FLUID!!!!!! but the FDA says the quanity is safe for human consumption.........very IRATE OLD WOMAN here!

Original Post by coastsc:

 Then I noticed TBHQ for freshness added....hmmmm....googled it...........BUTAIN (sp) LIGHTER FLUID!!!!!! but the FDA says the quanity is safe for human consumption.........very IRATE OLD WOMAN here!

 

Hi there, I have to take some serious issue with this comment. Not your fault, but as a chem major I do like to keep misinformation from spreading. I direct you to read this link:

http://scienceblogs.com/moleculeoftheday/2007 /03/tbhq_mixed_feelings.php

There may be many reasons to avoid those Cheez-its (and even TBHQ), but fear of ingesting actual butane is a reeeeeally ridiculous one. That reminds me of the old hilarious hysteria that margarine is only one molecule away from being plastic (it's not, but even if it were, one molecule change is a LOT). Only someone unfamiliar with chemistry would think actual butane was in the food. It pisses me off that people exaggerate like that to scare consumers like you, coastsc.

I really hope you enjoyed your Cheez-its. If you didn't get ill, then you're probably not allergic to TBHQ anyway. Like I said, Cheez-its have worse ingredients than TBHQ anyway. 

Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'm craving some Cheez-its... :P

Oh boy do I... but unfortunately nothing can really be done because food companies BUY these claims... yes, they need to pay extra $$ to have the claims "branded" on the front/back/sides of their boxes! It's sad too because a lot of people believe EVERYTHING they read &/or hear... which is WHY we have a problem in this world... obesity problem that is.

Original Post by gi-jane:

Then the Kelloggs cornflake packet would have to be adjusted.... In all these years I've never once found trace of a rooster!

Haha, this is true! I guess it never occurred to me that that would be misleading as obviously I never thought there would be chicken in the cereal. However, it does remind me of a case we had in NZ a couple of years ago. A family who were new to the country bought dog roll (thinking it was dog meat, not meat for dogs) and realised their mistake after eating some of it.

Their case was based on the fact that the product had photos of dogs on the outside... but they didn't get very far. For one, if they had been able to read English they would have seen it was dog food. For another, like I've been noticing you can put pictures of just about anything on your food product regardless of what the product actually contains.

Original Post by cellophane_star:

Side note: I subscribe to Nutrition Action Health Letter & highly recommended it for anyone who's interested in the "truth about commercial food". It has comparison articles like this in every issue. It's quite informative.

I just subscribed yesterday after finding the link. It looks right up my alley - I am fascinated by this kind of stuff, and I also think it's important reader as a consumer. Can't wait to get the next newsletter! Do you subscribe to any other similar newsletters?

Original Post by tessa1223:

and creme eggs is it me or have them and all choclates shrunk or perhaps my eyes have got bigger :)

Hahaha, I don't know but I agree! I think they're probably the same size but as a kid they seemed so much bigger. I love Cadbury creme eggs but haven't seen them over here...

Speaking of Cadbury I heard on the news today Kraft is trying to buy out Cadbury. Failed at one bid but will likely offer another. I am not a huge fan of Cadbury of late since they have started lowering costs by using palm oil (the beautiful, priceless rainforests here in Malaysia are being destroyed in order to grow palm plantations) but ugh... anything has got to be better than Kraft! Don't they own enough already!

Original Post by jannid:

This sort of thing why I am a fanatic about reading labels.

I need to be more careful!

I thought I knew which products would be full of false advertising claims and, seeing as I eat very little highly processed food anyway, thought I would be mostly in the clear.

So after posting this link I happily trotted off to the supermarket and bought fruit, veges, whole milk, full-fat cheese, plain yoghurt, beans, tofu, lentils, spices, herbs, meat and... tea. Well, not really tea but a fruit infusion or tisane in a teabag. I am fond of these fruit tisanes and it never really occurred to me before posting that link that they would not contain the fruit of the flavour they represent.

The flavour I bought yesterday was strawberry and raspberry. It suddenly occurred to me to check the ingredients. Results? 39% hibiscus flowers, 34% apple bits, 24% rosehip peels, 3% flavouring. Huh! Not a whole lot of raspberry and strawberry going on there!

I know this is hardly a bad product to consume, but it is still in my mind false advertising. There are photographs of strawberries and raspberries on the front of the box. The description says "The fragrance of summer berries enlivens this Strawberry Raspberry Tea with a character that is both sparkling and sweet, for a cheery and refreshing infusion." OK, so I can see they're not breaking the law, but they're still stretching the truth.

Original Post by merylwhite1:

Original Post by cellophane_star:

Side note: I subscribe to Nutrition Action Health Letter & highly recommended it for anyone who's interested in the "truth about commercial food". It has comparison articles like this in every issue. It's quite informative.

I just subscribed yesterday after finding the link. It looks right up my alley - I am fascinated by this kind of stuff, and I also think it's important reader as a consumer. Can't wait to get the next newsletter! Do you subscribe to any other similar newsletters?

subscribed just now. Looking forward to the first newsletters!

Original Post by merylwhite1:

Original Post by cellophane_star:

Side note: I subscribe to Nutrition Action Health Letter & highly recommended it for anyone who's interested in the "truth about commercial food". It has comparison articles like this in every issue. It's quite informative.

I just subscribed yesterday after finding the link. It looks right up my alley - I am fascinated by this kind of stuff, and I also think it's important reader as a consumer. Can't wait to get the next newsletter! Do you subscribe to any other similar newsletters?

 Not other health letters but I do subscribe to Vegetarian Times (though I'm an omnivore) and Clean Eating magazine. I appreciate their take on healthy food.

Hmmm. Some of the foods in the original article don't seem to really  belong.  Like Enviga?  Hello, 1 in 5 people burning less calories than the drink holds?  That's pretty neat regardless, and it's still a good majority.

I agree that labels are misleading though.  I'm not a huge clean-eater, but it still pisses me off sometimes.

yummy_kitty

noted, thanks.