USA Today has two stories out about a recent research project by Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. The findings were presented in Washington DC as part of the annual meeting of the Obesity Society. Here’s what they found:

Cereals marketed to kids have 85% more sugar, 65% less fiber and 60% more sodium than those aimed at adults!

Some more interesting facts:

•The least nutritious cereals are  the most heavily marketed to children – Reese’s Puffs, Corn Pops, Lucky Charms, Cinnamon Toast Crunch and Cap’n Crunch.

•Some of the products with the poorest nutrition ratings have health claims on the boxes.

•The average preschooler sees 642 TV cereal ads a year; most are for types with the worst nutrition ratings.

•Cereal companies spend more than $156 million a year marketing to children.

This study shines an even brighter light on the ludicrous Smart Choices Program, terminated this weekend, which elevated candy breakfasts such as Froot Loops and Apple Jacks to a “nutritious” status.

As Expected, the major cereal manufacturers have an answer though:

General Mills spokeswoman Heidi Geller says kids who eat cereal more frequently, including pre-sweetened cereals, “tend to weigh less than kids who eat cereal less frequently — and they are better nourished.”

The Rudd center put together a great website called Cereal Facts, that lets parents search cereals by name or manufacturer, and then receive a nutrition ranking, including information about the product.

What to do at the supermarket:

Look for cereals that are high in fiber (3 grams and up per serving), low in sugar (less than 6 grams), and low in sodium (less than 120mg). If your kids complain that they are not sweet enough – you can always add a spoonful of honey, maple syrup, or sugar to the milk.

Click here for a list of the top 10 cereals according to Cereal Facts. In the list are shredded wheat products from Kashi, Barbara’s Bakery, Nature’s Path and the big players too.

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

A California judge threw out a lawsuit yesterday filed by a woman who claimed to have been misled by the Quaker Oats Company. Apparently, she had been eating Crunchberries cereal for the past few years, thinking she was getting wholesome crunchberry fruit with each serving.

Although this news flash is deemed a comic relief by most of us, taking a look at what’s inside Crunchberries is more of a Greek tragedy. 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…

The NuVal Nutritional Scoring System has updated its website to include sample score of hundreds of everyday items. We posted about NuVal and its competitors a few months ago.  These nutrition scoring systems aim to simplify the task of choosing healthier foods at the supermarket.

The NuVal approach is especially easy to understand – each product gets a score from 1 (lowest) to 100 (highest) based on the presence of “good” and “bad” nutrients. The system, originally known as ONQI (Overall Nutritional Qulaity Index), was developed by a respectable team of scientists led by Dr David Katz.

Here are some interesting facts:

The top scoring category, unsurprisingly, is fruits and vegetables, with all products scoring 78 to 100, except for coconut, with a mere 24. Could this be a mistake?

The cereal section has products with scores as low as 4, and as high as 100. Hodgson Mill Unprocessed Wheat Bran scores a perfect hundred, but do you know any kids who’ll eat it? Sadly for this blog’s editor, a childhood favorite, Cap’n Crunch, gets a lowly score of 10.

The worst scoring categories are cookies (1-40) and salty snacks(1-52). Cheetos get a measly 5, Doritos a 10. The top scorer is Garden Of Eatin No Salt Blue Tortilla Chips Made With Organic Blue Corn with a score of 52.

Vegetables, either frozen or canned, score anywhere between 2-100, based on their original “fresh score” plus consideration of the nutrition reduction caused by freezing or canning. Canned vegetables usually get plenty of added salt as a preservative and flavor enhancer, but unfortunately this lowers their score.

What to do at the supermarket:

If you are pondering which cereal to choose from, perhaps NuVal can help you. Right now, the shelf display scoring system is being tested at Price-Chopper and Hy-Vee. Rollout in other groceries has been expected in fall 2008, and early 2009, but it perhaps the logistical challenges are causing some delays. If you have come across an NuVal score that helped you make a halthier shopping decision, please share with us.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription