Kellogg’s keeps getting slammed with lawsuits related to misleading consumers. This time the product line in question is Nutri-Grain breakfast bars. According to Food Navigator:

The company is being sued in the US District Court of Southern California for violations of the Lanham Act, Unfair Competition Law, Common law of Unfair Competition, False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

In their adverts, the company suggests that Nutri-Grain bars allow you to ‘Eat Better All Day’ because they contain calcium and whole-grains, but the plaintiffs insist that those claims are invalidated by the presence of trans-fats, which contribute to diabetes and heart disease. Read more…

A quick reminder, in November Kellogg’s settled with the state of Oregon, after misleading “immunity claims” on it’s Cocoa Krispies breakfast cereal.

Let’s take a look at Kellogg’s Nutri-Grain Yogurt Bars Strawberry Yogurt to see what all the fuss is about.

What you need to know:

Here is the ingredient list. Take a deep breath:

CRUST: WHOLE GRAIN ROLLED OATS, ENRICHED FLOUR (WHEAT FLOUR, NIACIN, REDUCED IRON, THIAMIN MONONITRATE [VITAMIN B1], RIBOFLAVIN [VITAMIN B2], FOLIC ACID), WHOLE WHEAT FLOUR, SUNFLOWER AND/OR SOYBEAN OIL WITH TBHQ FOR FRESHNESS, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, SUGAR, HONEY, DEXTROSE, CALCIUM CARBONATE, SOLUBLE CORN FIBER, NONFAT DRY MILK, WHEAT BRAN, SALT, CELLULOSE, POTASSIUM BICARBONATE (LEAVENING), NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, MONO AND DIGLYCERIDES, PROPYLENE GLYCOL ESTERS OF FATTY ACIDS, SOY LECITHIN, WHEAT GLUTEN, NIACINAMIDE, SODIUM STEAROYL LACTYLATE, VITAMIN A PALMITATE, CARRAGEENAN, ZINC OXIDE, REDUCED IRON, GUAR GUM, PYRIDOXINE HYDROCHLORIDE (VITAMIN B6), THIAMIN HYDROCHLORIDE (VITAMIN B1), RIBOFLAVIN (VITAMIN B2), FOLIC ACID.

FILLING: HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, GLYCERIN, WATER, FRUCTOSE, MODIFIED CORN STARCH, PARTIALLY HYDROGENATED SOYBEAN AND COTTONSEED OIL†, NONFAT YOGURT POWDER [CULTURED NONFAT MILK; HEAT-TREATED AFTER CULTURING], STRAWBERRY PUREE CONCENTRATE, MODIFIED TAPIOCA STARCH, SUGAR, CORNSTARCH, MALIC ACID, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, CELLULOSE GEL, SALT, COLOR ADDED, CELLULOSE GUM, DATEM, MONO- AND DIGLYCERIDES, MALTODEXTRIN, SOY LECITHIN, CARAMEL COLOR, RED #40.
†LESS THAN 0.5g TRANS FAT PER SERVING

Oh Dear.

Over 60 ingredients!

We won’t go over each one, but we did mark in bold all the sugar synonyms, and underlined the trans-fat.

Note that partially hydrogenated oil means there is trans-fat in the product, even if the nutrition facts label says it contains zero. This is because of a labeling loophole which allows values lower than half a gram per serving to be rounded down to zero.  Too bad that ANY amount of trans-fat is bad for you, and if you’re going to have any it should not be in a purportedly healthy food item.

Don’t be fooled by the strawberry puree concentrate, it is nothing more than sugar by the time it makes it into the filling. No fiber, no vitamin C lost in processing.

Another irritating feature of this product is the claim on the package “More of the Whole Grains your Body Needs.” Unfortunately the second ingredient here is enriched flour, aka refined white flour without any of the whole grain benefits such as fiber.

A serving is one bar, and it contains 14o calories. 13 grams of sugar account for about one third of  the calories, and the fiber count is a measly 2 grams – you really aren’t getting the benefits of the whole grains your body so “needs”.

All told, this is nothing more than a glorified snack bar. Much closer to Twix and Snickers than something that will allow you to “Eat Better All Day”.

What to do at the supermarket:

If you’re looking for a healthier snack to pack in your purse or backpack, how about a banana or an apple? Need something in a wrapper? Look for bars that have short ingredient lists and little or no added sugars. Not to mention partially hydrogenated oils.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

Help the FDA Improve

NUTRITION FACTS LABELS

The FDA is reconsidering the Nutrition Facts Panel. Almost 20 years after the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, and with soaring rates of obesity, one could argue that the goals of a healthier, slimmer America have not been achieved.

The Food and Drug Administration, charged with most foods’ nutrition labeling realizes this. So it has decided to experiment with changes, additions, and omissions in order to improve consumer understanding of what they are about to eat.

But before building the experiment, the FDA is soliciting comments from the public, and that includes us – you, me, and whoever cares about nutrition. Unfortunately, the digital hallways of the federal government are not user friendly and it is not trivial to find the right webpage to comment. This means that in many cases, the only comments come from food manufacturers and trade groups. You can probably guess what their comments will look like.

So here’s some help from Fooducate. Not only did we dig up the single click that takes you straight to the comment page, we’ve also collated Seven Label Improvement Suggestions [see below] that you can suggest to the FDA.

The invitation to comment by the FDA can be downloaded [PDF] or viewed online.

You need to submit your comments by January 19, 2010. For reference, the docket number is FDA–2009–N–0532 and you can submit your comment here.

Seven Suggested Label Improvements:

If you are contemplating what improvements the FDA should undertake, let us help with a few examples. Feel free to “copy paste” when you file your comment with the FDA.

1. Show REAL serving size. Have you ever noticed the ridiculously small serving sizes on packages – 3 Oreos? 15 potato chips? Or a single serve 20 fl oz bottle of cola written up as containing 2.5 servings? Manufacturers like to minimize the servings to toddler size portions so that the nutrition facts per serving won’t seem too bad (calories, sugar, etc…). This is misleading and needs to change to reflect how people really consume food and drink.

2. How much ADDED sugar? The nutrition label states the amount of total sugar in a serving, but it does not indicate whether the sugar is added to the food, occurs naturally, or both. Caloric-ly, there is no difference between added sugar and sugar found naturally in fruits and vegetables. But the benefit of fruits containing naturally occurring sugars is in the additional vitamins, minerals, fiber, antioxidantss and phytochemicals they provide. Added sugars provide no health benefits. They are truly empty calories. People should choose products with as little added sugar as possible. Unfortunately, today consumers can only guess how much sugar has been added to a product.

3. Daily Values for Protein, Sugar. These numbers don’t appear on nutrition labels today and consumers can only guess if 5 grams of protein are a lot or a little. As most people consume plenty of protein daily, this will decrease the marketing hype around high protein bars and snacks. As for sugar, people don’t know what amount is an acceptable daily intake of total sugar, and of added sugar.

4. Zero should be zero. Did you know that if a product contains trans fat, but less than 0.5 grams per serving, it can legally be labeled as 0 gram of trans fat? This is ridiculous. Knowing this, manufacturers can “calibrate” serving sizes to be just under half a gram’s worth of trans-fat, thus earning the right to place the coveted zero number on the nutrition label. But when wolfing down a snack bag (real serving size much larger than labeled – see #1 above), you could be getting even 1.25 grams of trans-fat, all while thinking that the product contains none at all.

5. Caffeine content. Products that contain caffeine should clearly state the amount. People are often surprised to discover caffeine in soft drinks, cakes, and other snack items. Some energy drinks contain ridiculously high amounts. Physicians have asked the FDA to require caffeine labeling on energy drinks.

6. Allow rBGH-free labels. rBGH / rBST is a hormone injected into cows to increase their milk output. The hormone has been associated with various health risks for humans consuming the milk. People should know if their milk comes from cows treated with these hormones.

7. Label Booz. Alcoholic beverages should be labeled as well. At a bare minimum, provide serving size and calories.

Click HERE to submit your comments to the FDA.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

Last week, the FDA  hinted it would be seriously looking at regulating Front of Pack (FOP) nutrition labeling systems. As a result, Smart Choices called it quits, and other programs are “on alert”. The FDA’s involvement can be of great assistance to the public, by creating a single unified system in ALL supermarkets and on ALL packages.

But first, wouldn’t it be nice if the FDA cleaned up the mess originally created when the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) brought us the nutrition facts label as we know it today?

Here’s a list of 10 things the FDA can do to improve the existing information on labels. Read more…

We are blogging live have concluded live blogging from The 4th annual Friedman School Symposium at Tufts University – Nutrition Agenda 2009 & Beyond.

This morning’s topic is Nutrition Labeling and Scoring 2.0: What have we learned? What do we need to know?

Here is the list of speakers and presentations for this morning.

Click Refresh in your browser to get updated.

Our brief summary:

1. Each nutrition rating system was eloquently presented.

2. Inconvenient issues were swept under the rug.

3. The food industry still controls what goes on the food packages, not the FDA.

4. The tower of babel of front of pack labels will only confuse consumers more in the coming years. As Barbara Schneeman of the FDA said – what will a consumer think when she sees a product that is a “Smart Choice, did not get a guiding star , is high in calcium, but got a 30 NuVal score.”?

5. As it stands, we recommend ignoring front of pack labels, and focusing on minimally processed foods.

for the entire session … Read more…

The FDA has served as a punching bag for this blog and other critics for a long time. In retrospect, deservedly so. Weakness in the face of the food industry, revolving doors of top personnel and corporate conglomerates, ineptness in preventing food contamination and handling the ensuing recalls, etc…

We’re hoping all this will change with new FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg starting her first full week in office today. Welcome Dr. Hamburg.

Here is a partial wish list of things we’d like to see fixed in the food regulation arena.

1. Revoke the GRAS (generally regarded as safe) status of harmful food additives such as artificial colorings, potassium bromate, and others.

2. Free packaged foods of “health claims“, which are actually marketing claims, by banning them altogether. A reminder to our readers, “health claims” are a concession that the US lawmaker gave to the powerful food industry lobby in the early 90’s when the Nutrition Education and Labeling Act was being negotiated. The result of that law is the nutrition label as we know it today.

3. Speaking of nutrition labels – please stop the practice of rounding down to zero. Manufacturers are legally allowed to claim a product has 0 trans fat even if a serving contains 0.49 grams. And since we all know people consume much more than the formal serving size, they can get much more than the 0 trans fat they were expecting.

4. Serving Size – Here are some ridiculous examples – 11 potato chips, 2 Oreo cookies. Come on, even 3 year olds eat more than that in a sitting. The reason serving sizes are so minute is to make them appear less caloric/fat/salty/sweet in the nutrition label. Please help manufacturers give us  accurate info.

5. How about a unified front of package label? These labels are supposed to be a quick glance way for a consumer to decide if a product is nutrtious enough ro not. With all the new formats sprouting like mad (NuVal, Smart Choices, Guiding Stars, etc..), consumers are more confused than ever. Why not adopt a system such as UK’s Traffic Lights? Yes, it irritates food manufacturers, but hey, you are supposed to protect us consumers.

6. We know you need Congress for this, but isn’t it ridiculous that the FDA can’t mandate a company to stop shipping tainted food? Today, all recalls are voluntary.

7. While we’re at it, ask Capitol Hill to allow prosecution of CEOs and processing plant managers who knowingly continue to ship poisoned products. Nothing like the fear of jail time to get folks thinking straight.

8. Back to food labels – it would be great to know how much sugar has been added to a product. The nutrition label states the amount of total sugar in a serving, but it does not indicate whether the sugar is added to the food or occurs naturally. Caloric-ly, there is no difference between table sugar and sugar found naturally in fruits and vegetables. But the benefit of fruits and vegetables is in the additional vitamins, minerals, fiber and phytochemicals they provide. Added sugars provide no health benefits. They are truly empty calories. Today, consumers can only guess how much sugar is added.

9. Lastly – Food safety is divided among too many government bodies, including the FDA, USDA, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and others. At times there is overlap between the regulatory bodies, and sometimes the opposite. Wouldn’t it be smarter to have all food safety issues handles under one roof?

Any more suggestions folks? Please comment below.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

Thank you Women’s Health Magazine for sharing 11 Secrets the Food Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know.

Among the tricks played on us:

- many reduced fat foods compensate with added sugars.

- lean cuts of meat may contain high levels of sodium.

- Food additives can make your kids misbehave.

- your food can legally contain maggots!

- more…

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

We recently covered freeze dried fruit snacks, and today we’ll take a look at leather snacks. Chef Roberts, operating in the New York metropolitan area, has recently launched a line of fruit leather. From the Chef’s marketing department:

Matt’s Munchies are all-natural fruit leathers free of gluten, nuts, eggs and dairy products. There are 6 palate-pleasing flavors with no artificial coloring or preservatives. Great for vegans and those concerned with food allergies. All flavors are less then 100 calories per one ounce serving with no added sugar, oils or salts. They make for a super convenient, tasty nutrition-perfect snack on the go, a tasty companion to a glass of wine, or a healthy dessert after dinner.

The six flavors are divided into 2 categories:

Banana based – Choco-Nana, Apple Pie, and plain old Banana
Mango based – Island Mango, Ginger Zest, and plain Mango

Read on to find out which flavor is the tastiest, and learn what’s inside the label.

Read more…

flickr photo: cloverity

We wrote yesterday about Yoplait’s encouraging announcement, promising to use milk for yogurt only from cows not treated with growth hormones.

Today we’ll take a look inside Yoplait Strawberry Yogurt, a stalwart, and see what else is going on… Read more…

It’s been almost 20 years since the nutrition label as we know it was introduced. The intent was to empower consumers to make more informed (read: healthy) purchasing decisions. Unfortunately, the labels have not helped, as America continues to grow, and not in a good way.

While blaming the inadequacy of the nutrition panel is a naive approach to America’s relationship with its food, there are certain oversights or loopholes in the way packaged food information is provided to consumers today. For example, health claims or nutrient claims, which appear in large font on the front of package, embellish one positive trait, say “low-fat”. The nutritional cost may be a product high in sugar content as compensation. But such details appear in the side panel (the nutrition label is never up front), and consumers don’t always bother to check.

We’ve compiled a list of improvements that can make labels and packaging even more informative, hopefully providing consumers with  better tools to make a decision. Consumers will benefit from increased transparency of nutrition and ingredient information. Read more…