Related Stories
Top 5 deceptive food labels we bet you’ve fallen for
In the past couple of years, the word “artisan” has been popping up on everything from Domino’s Artisan Pizza to Starbucks Artisan Breakfast Sandwiches — but what does “artisan” mean anyway? It’s basically the 2011-2012 version of “gourmet,” an old favorite among manufacturers that makes their product sound expensive and maybe healthier or high-quality. This trend peaked our interest in misleading food claims and labels and sent us on a quest to find the most deceptive.
“All Natural”
The second most common claim made on new food products in 2008, “all-natural” is oftentimes all-nonsense. There is absolutely no regulatory definition for “all-natural,” and you’re better off getting the facts on your own from reliable sources — like the ingredients listed on the back. If you’re having trouble understanding — or pronouncing — them, the product is probably not as natural as it claims.
Our stroll through the local bodega produced this example: Nature Valley Chewy Trail Mix of the Fruit & Nut variety. As you can see, the “100% Natural” label is prominently displayed underneath the logo. Yet when you check out the ingredients on the side of the box, the second ingredient listed is “high-maltose corn syrup.” Sounds a hell of a lot like high-fructose corn syrup, huh? Glamour’s Health & Fitness blog describes it as “high-fructose corn syrup’s sneaky cousin.” Experts say it’s a lab-altered sweetener very similar to HFCS, and it appears to be the substitute many manufacturers are using for the controversial HFCS.
Unfortunately there is currently zero scientific research on high-maltose corn syrup, which means it hasn’t been studied for any potential risks. 
While there are currently no studies, many experts believe it to have the same health risks as HFCS, according to Glamour. Now I’m sure plenty of you could argue all day about whether or not high-fructose corn syrup or high-maltose corn syrup is natural — it’s debatable because it requires a very specific definition of “natural” since both are molecularly altered in the lab — but the point is that I would bet most of you wouldn’t expect high-fructose corn syrup, or it’s “sneaky cousin,” to be second on an ingredient list for an “all-natural” product.
“Lightly sweetened”
Once again, the re are absolutely no regulations concerning the marketing of a product as “lightly sweetened.” It obviously suggests less sugar, but this isn’t necessarily the case with each product. The Food and Drug Administration regulates the use of “sugar-free,” which means the food contains less than 0.5 grams of sugar per serving, and “no added sugars” or “Without Added Sugars,” which mean that no sugar or sugar-containing ingredient was added during processing. But there’s nothing in the FDA or USDA’s labeling guidelines about “lightly sweetened.”
F
or example, on our shopping trip, we found Kellogg’s Smart Start Original Antioxidants cereal, which is described on the front of the box as “lightly sweetened, toasted multigrain flakes and crunchy oat clusters.” For you, “lightly sweetened” might be a sprinkle of sugar. For Kellogg’s, it’s 14 g of sugars. That’s a lot compared with, say, Cheerios’ 1 g per serving. Kellogg’s isn’t the only manufacturer that likes to “lightly sweeten” its packaging claims, so always check the label.
“Made with Whole Grains”
This label is often abused in the same way “Made with Real Fruit” is applied to Pop-Tarts that contain less than 2% of actual fruit. Sure, the manufacturer might have thrown some whole grains in there, but that doesn’t mean it was a significant amount. Take Cinnamon Toast Crunch for example. The box contains the words, “with Whole Grain Guaranteed,” printed in large text with a giant checkmark at the very top, and “whole grain wheat” does appear first in the list of ingredients. However, the reason whole grains are recommended by experts, explained Livestrong.com, is because they provide you with fiber and nutrients. Yet Cinnamon Toast Crunch only claims a measly 2 g of fiber, so it’s unclear how much whole grains the cereal actually contains. Livestrong.com quoted Dr. William Sears, of AskDrSears.com, as saying it’s best to find a cereal with 5 g of fiber or more per serving.
The second issue with this label surrounds the actual definition of whole grains. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends that half of our grains are whole, but what actually qualifies as “whole grains?” Many manufacturers assume you don’t know the answer to this and find a sneaky loophole by incorporating ordinary refined wheat flour or enriched flour as their main ingredient, since they’re not required to break down the total “whole grains” into whole grains and refined grains on the label.
Cooking Light supplied an excellent example with Nabisco’s Whole Wheat Ritz Crackers, which tout the claim “with 5 g whole grain” on the front of the box. The crackers are made from enriched flour, and whole-grain wheat flour doesn’t appear on the ingredient list until you’ve read halfway down. According to Cooking Light, you would need to eat more than 200 calories and 360 mg of sodium (and likely a few grams of trans fats) to reach a full serving of whole grains.
“Low-carb”
You could technically slap the “low-carb” label on anything — the FDA currently does not regulate such terms as “low-carb,” “reduced carb” or “carbohydrate-free.” There’s also not enough research to scientifically support the belief that low-carb diets are more effective long term than other, more balanced diets. Plus, as Real Simple pointed out, manufacturers often replace those carbohydrates with high-fat ingredients, like nuts, which raises the food’s calorie count.
“0 grams of trans fat”
This one isn’t so much a lie as misleading simply because most of us don’t know what else to look for on the label. While plenty of foods boast “0 grams of trans fat” on the front of their packaging, they’re often high in saturated fat instead. (FYI: “High in saturated fat” is defined by the FDA as 4 g or more of saturated fat in a serving.)
For example, we came across this box of Hot Pockets Ham & Cheese sandwiches on our shopping excursion. Notice the nice box highlights that this product contains “0 g Trans Fat” on the front of the box. Oh goody! … But wait! We took a look at the nutrition label and found that the saturated fat content is 5 g, which means this product is regarded by the FDA as high in saturated fat — not so good for you after all.
Lesson of the day: Manufacturers think you’re stupid and won’t notice when they use marketing chicanery to trick you into eating less healthy, cheaper-to-produce ingredients. Don’t be stupid. Educate yourself and make wise shopping choices.
Tags: all natural, FDA, food, food labels, healthy food, lightly sweetened, low-carb, nutrition, nutrition facts, saturated fat, trans fat, usda, whole grains, whole wheat
Live it HellaWella. Sign up for our email.
Newsletters
| Trending |
© 2011-2012 HellaWella.com
Sure could have done without the thinly veiled “Michele Bachman is an idiot” referenceand some ofthe other snarkiness. I don’t look for that on this website — just clear medical information. I also don’t look here for politics.
Agree with previous comment. Why the snarky opininated comment to an otherwise great article? makes me wonder if the rest of the article is just as opinionated……
Great article…..keep up the good work….
To make this more relevant it would be nice to let readers know that 4 grams of sugar or fat are equivalent to about one teaspoon. This is something more people can relate to than just seeing how many grams are in the product. For example, one cup of the Smart Start cereal in the example above has more than 3 teaspoons (14 grams) of sugar in it. ugh !!!
To Ann and Sand: What veiled ref to Bachman? (which, by the way, is a Jewish name – see how easy it is to to play on prejudice, just like Obama’s “birth certificate”).
I agree, politics has no place on a website like this and the point of this brief article is, as always, Buyer Beware, highlighted by common examples of attempts to intentionally mislead and, by veiled reference, cheat the consumer.
If politics did have a place here I would point out that the same caveat applies, especially since similar techniques are being used to pull wool over everyone’s eyes in order to pick everyone’s pockets.
The writer, Mellissa Valliant is grossly misled if she thinks that there is not enough research to support low carbohydrate intake. Citing the FDA is pretty weak. She needs to go back to the drawing board on this one instead of passing on such misinformation.
Actually 5 grams are a teaspoon, 15 grams a tablespoon and 30 grams are an ounce
Great bit of information,and also creditable I have read in a nutient book the same for instantes
i dont need political comments in my health related articles. i am canceling
this newsletter. keep your politics…I dont need it…goobye
Interesting info, but the veiled negative political reference to a female Pres Candidate and HPV is TOTALY OUT OF PLACE in this article, you may be smart about food but keep your political opinions to yourself, you just look stupid.I choose to be elsewhere in the future. BTW… I do not even support the candidate in question, I just detest ignorance and hidden agendas, think I’ll go buy some kids a Big Mac…LOL.
For all of the commenters who had an issue with the Bachmann reference: I apologize if I offended you. At HellaWella, we like to have a strong voice and a unique tone and style. As the name HellaWella suggests — this isn’t intended to be a Martha Stewart-type of health site. We like to have fun with our subjects and to report on serious topics without being sanctimonious. So, yes, it was a joke — albeit a sardonic one — and it was meant as a current analogous reference to how it would be foolish to trust the “all natural” label when it isn’t supported by evidence or regulated whatsoever. It’s true that we are not a political organization; however, reporting on health related topics cannot possibly be immune from politics, since they are intrinsically linked. As we all know, the Bachmann/HPV issue has been an especially topical cultural debate, and her argument has been largely discredited by both political parties. In that sense, the comment was not political at all — just another example of how consumers should be vigilant and not always trusting of what they hear.
Wait, I cnanot fathom it being so straightforward.
There is a ton of silliness when it comes to marketing food. Thanks for pointing out examples of some of them, especially the 0 trans fat one. It is an excellent example of how what’s bad or good for you comes and goes and what happens when politicians and do-gooders think they know what is best for you and get involved. Trans-fats were actually hailed as the healthy alternative to highly saturated fats when they were developed. Now trans-fats should be banned, so the only satisfactory replacements especially for baking are saturated fats like coconut oil, palm oil, etc. We are all getting obese, fats are bad and so we get lo-fat and no-fat foods loaded with sugar (which is much worse for you) so our food doesn’t taste like cardboard. Now we have a law to post calories on menus – not healthy calories or empty calories, just calories. Garden salad (no dressing) = 150 calories. Can of Coke = 140 calories. How stupid! Common sense, moderation and self-responsibility, now that’s smart.
@rehun: Actually teaspoons, tablespoons and the related measure of fluid ounces are measures of volume while grams is a measure of weight. There are (approximately) 5 milliliters (a volume measure) in a teaspoon, 15 milliliters in a tablespoon and 30 milliliters in a (fluid) ounce. When it comes to sugar there is approximately 4.2 grams of granulated sugar in a teaspoonful. There is also a weight measure of ounces and pounds. An ounce weight is approximately equal to 28.3 grams, although it is often rounded up to 30.
This was a great article. I think most consumers are not aware of how important it is to actually read the ingredients on a label. I especially like that you brought up the whole grains. Again, read that label! This is something I am always trying to stress to people.
I fail to see how one successfully separates food from politics. There is actually a genre of information with the heading “food politics.” Not to mention “food policy.” The FDA (food and drug administration) is a government (political) organization subject to lobbyists shenanigans. The government regulates what a label means, and whether a company has to place a specific notification within the label. Food is grown, picked, distributed, priced, and you got it, regulated, all under the aegis of politics. If you can’t handle the heat (of politics and food), you should get out of the kitchen (pun absolutely intended). Those who complained, I am sure, don’t mind having their bit of fun when it suits them. Imagine limiting your information gathering sources to only those which do not offend, or grate? How does one even argue/debate an issue without having read or researched the issue from both sides? Be disgusted if you will, but please distance yourselves from self-enforced ignorance. And really, taking issue over a reference to Michelle Bachman’s mistakes is time-management suicide. Now see, that was an unnecessary comment in light of the article here (lol). Still . . .
I am in the food industry. As long as the government continues not to do their job to standardize rules and regulations, there will be a wide variance of interpretations. I think the regulatory agencies need to step to the table and make rules so we are all playing on a level field.
They are still trying to define what All Natural means. It just cannot be this hard.