Are foods labelled ‘lighter’ any healthier?

So called low fat foods can contain a similar number of calories to the standard versions and in some cases contain even more sugar, according to a study by consumer watchdog Which?

The investigation by Which? found that as many as six out of 10 consumers eat low fat and light foods several times a week, believing that they are a healthier option and can help them to lose weight. But its snapshot sample of 12 low fat, reduced and light products from supermarkets, compared with their standard counterparts found minimal differences in calorie content.

A standard McVitie’s chocolate digestive contained 85 calories and a light one had 77. A Tesco low fat yoghurt had more calories per pot at 130 than a standard Activia version at 123, while the Tesco option contained more sugar at 20.2g, more than four teaspoons than the 16.9g in the Activia pot. The high fat and saturated fat content of cheese, meant Cathedral City lighter cheddar still contained a fat content, higher than the governments recommended guidelines.

The problem appears to be the public’s general misconception of words such as: low fat, lighter, lite and lighter. Labelling regulations define low fat as containing less than 3% fat, which is great; however, what most people don’t realize is that there is a big difference between low fat foods and those labelled light, lite and lighter. A product labelled light, lite or lighter only has to contain 30% less fat than the standard version.

30% less fat than the standard product sounds very good, but not if the standard product contains far too much fat in the first place. In such cases even though the product contains 30% less fat than the standard product, it still contains a very high fat content.

Which? found misconceptions among consumers about the meaning of the terms reduced fat and light, with only 16% of people correctly stating that products carrying the label had to contain 30% less fat than the standard alternative. The Consumer Watchdog said, “While shoppers believe that words such as light and low fat are interchangeable, they have significantly different meanings.”

Richard Lloyd, executive director at the consumer group Which? warned consumers to read the labels carefully before they buy light, lite or lighter foods. He said, “Consumers are choosing low fat and light options believing them to be a healthier choice, but our research has found that in many cases they’re just not living up to their healthy image. Our advice to consumers is to read the nutritional labels carefully.”

This is a view backed up by Maya Monteiro, Senior Education Manager at the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), who said, “There is a troubling lack of understanding about the calorie content of everyday food, a fact that is not helped by products being labelled light, when in fact they have a very high calorie content.”

One positive development is the introduction of the traffic light labelling system, which many of the major Supermarkets are now adopting. Food sold pre packed is labelled with a traffic light label, showing at a glance the proportions of fat, saturated fats, sugar, and salt using traffic light signals for high (red), medium (amber) and low (green) percentages for each of these ingredients.

Ingredient	Green (low content)	Amber(medium content)	Red (high content)
Fat	less than 1,5 g	between 1,5 g and 10 g	more than 10 g
Saturated Fats	less than 0,75 g	between 0,75 g and 2,5 g	more than 2,5 g
Sugar	less than 2,5 g	between 2,5 g and 6,3 g	more than 6,3 g
Salt	less than 0,3 g	between 0,3 g and 1,5 g	more than 1,5

Foods with green indicators are healthier and to be preferred over those with red ones. The label is on the front of the package and easier to spot and interpret than Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) labelling, which will continue. The GDA is difficult to understand for many and does not lend itself to quick comparisons.

The use of traffic light labelling is supported by many physician groups, including the British Medical Association and welcomed by consumers. Despite worries from some in the food industry that red foods would be shunned, the British Medical Association, Food Standards Agency and others agree, that consumers interpret the labels sensibly, realise they can have red foods as a treat, and they are easier to understand than lists of percentages.

Which? has campaigned for clearer food labelling and is calling on Morrisons andIceland, the two remaining supermarkets yet to adopt the traffic light system, to do so as soon as possible.

Coconuts: Natures sports drink!

Coconuts have been referred to as ‘the fluid of life’ and ‘mother nature’s sports drink’ and with good reason it would seem. It has long been known that coconuts have a very high nutritional value, but now new scientific analysis undertook by Dr Chhandashir Bhattacharya has backed these claims up.

“Coconut water is a natural drink that has everything your average sports drink has and more,” said Bhattacharya. “It has five times more potassium than Gatorade or Powerade. Whenever you get cramps in your muscles, potassium will help you to get rid of the cramps. It’s a healthy drink that replenishes the nutrients that your body has lost during a moderate workout.”

Dr Bhattacharya said that the potassium in coconut water also may benefit other people who do not exercise. The typical American diet is low in potassium and high in sodium, which is found in table salt. Other research has shown that such an imbalance is unhealthy. In one study, people who ate foods low in potassium and high in sodium had twice the risk of death from heart disease and a 50 percent higher risk of death from all causes. Other analyses indicate that a 12-ounce serving of coconut water has more potassium than a banana but equally important it has considerably less salt than common sports drinks such as Lucozade or Gatorade.

Bhattacharya’s team analyzed coconut water, Gatorade and Powerade and found that coconut water contained up to 1,500 mg/litre of potassium, compared to up to 300 mg/litre for Powerade and Gatorade. Coconut water, however, had 400 mg/litre of sodium compared to 600 for the other two drinks. It also contained considerably less sugar along with no artificial colours, preservatives or flavourings.

Coconut water is the clear liquid found most abundantly inside young green coconuts, which are fruits of the coconut palm. It long has been a popular drink in the tropics, where street and beach vendors sell green coconuts with a drinking straw in the top. Interestingly coconut water was used for its medicinal properties as far back as world war two, where it was used to give emergency plasma transfusions to wounded soldiers. This could be done because coconut water has the same level of electrolytic balance that we have in our blood. Coconut water has also been used as an emergency short term intravenous hydration fluid as the high levels of sugar and other salts make it possible to be used in the blood stream.

So it seems that we would be better off taking a coconut to the gym with us than our regular sports drink, however that would look a bit silly. Fortunately coconut water now is available in bottles, cans and other containers, and marketers have promoted it as a healthy beverage.

Cereal bars lambasted by consumer group Which

If there was still anybody out there who believed that ‘healthy’ cereal bars were nutritional and a better option than say a chocolate bar, perhaps more research that has just been published on them will finally shatter that belief.

Cereal and granola bars are often seen as a quick meal replacement for people, especially schoolchildren, who don’t seem to have the time to sit down and eat a proper, healthy breakfast. As a general rule of thumb, some believe that if they taste ‘bad’ then they will ironically probably be better and healthier for you. On the other hand, the ‘nicer’ they taste will more than likely be attributed to the bad qualities contained in them such as the fat, sugar and chocolate.

The popular choice of snacks have taken a battering in recent years in the media, with studies emerging that have portrayed them in a poor light, unearthing them to be just as damaging as chocolate bars in terms on sugar content, with many even being more unhealthy than a typical bowl of sugary cereal in this aspect too.

The new research into them comes in the form of a detailed analysis conducted by the consumer group Which?, who closely looked at 30 of the top selling cereal bars. To their shock, they found that all but one of these actually contained an alarmingly high amount of sugar. In addition, 16 of them comprised of more than 30% sugar.

One of the shocking discoveries was regarding the widely popular Kellogg’s Nutri-Grain Elevenses Raisin Bake bar, which they found to be containing four teaspoons of sugar (18g). This is a higher sugar content than that of a small 150ml can of cola drink (15.9g) and is approximately 20% of the recommended daily intake.

Worryingly, it was found that six out of the seven cereal bars marketed for children that they studied, were high in saturated fat. A particularly unhealthy cereal bar was determined to be the Monster Puffs bar, advertised as ‘great for your lunchbox’. The evidence would suggest it is not so great however, with one bar containing a whopping 43.5% sugar, working out at around over two teaspoons of sugar.

Richard Lloyd, Executive Director of Which?, provided a scathing attack on the companies that are producing the worst offending cereal bars and he said, “People often choose cereal bars in the belief they’re healthier than chocolate or biscuits but our research shows this can be a myth. With high levels of sugar and saturated fat in some of these products they should be on the sweet counter not marketed as health foods. Manufacturers need to be much clearer about how much sugar, fat and calories are loaded in to each bar so people can make an informed choice. We want all foods to have traffic light colour coding system so people can see easily what they’re eating and giving to their children.”

A spokeswoman for Kellogg’s tried to deflect criticism however and argued that their Nutri-Grain Elevenses bars are not being viewed in their intended purpose. The spokeswoman said, “We’re confused as to why anyone would call a Nutri-Grain Elevenses snack a cereal bar. If you’ve eaten one you know it’s not. It’s a baked bar and looks and eats much more like a muffin or cake. We bake it like a cake and market it as a mid-morning snack. In fact, compared to other similar mid-morning snacks, it’s one of the choices that has slightly less sugar than the norm.”