Can You Guess This Food?
The US FDA is looking at reviewing the rules surrounding "functional foods". These are foods whose labels claim health benefits. While there is no official definition of a functional food - they have become very popular.
"Increased consumer demand is causing the food industry to add more and larger amounts of substances to food," notes the FDA (via).
That said... can you guess what food this is?
That's a lot of health benefits.
Written By J. Foster
"So Good" soy-milk products!
http://www.elopak.com/site/repository/pdf/135-11560binary.pdf
ReplyIs it bread? Some of the bread out there on the market has all sorts of additives in it now.
I work at a food company and we often have pressure to add things to our products to make them healthier to increase sales. Calcium supplement, Vitamin E (preservative and antioxidant), other vitamins and minerals, etc. People tend to eat more of something if it's "healthier" than its counterparts.
ReplyIs it a soda maybe?
Personally I'd rather get my antioxidents from good old fashioned fruits and veggies, maybe with a handful of nuts and a side of black beans.
Replysoymilk. duh.
ReplySpinach? Hehe.
ReplyWell I agree it's probably soy milk but I also agree with Jan.... It should be spinach :)
Replyfiber
ReplyMy goodness, I can't get enough of that delicious Soy milk. I haven't touched cow milk in years until last month. I was suddenly surprised to realize how much I disliked the taste. To think I grew up on cow's milk. It had such an animalistic (if that makes any sense) after taste. You can drink D milk for the creamy taste, or have soy, with way less calories and fat, and still have the creamy taste! Y U M!
GO SOY!!
Reply
ReplyIs something like sugar free soy ice cream
or a candy bar :-)
It's going to be something horrible like Kool-aid or a candy bar isn't it?
ReplyI went past a sweet shop the other day. All the fat-based munchies (soy snacks, roasted nuts etc.) had 'sugar free and healthy!' labels on the self-serve hoppers.
Right next to them, all the sugar-based sweets (jellies, hard sweets etc.) had 'fat-free and healthy!' labels on *their* self-serve hoppers!
Putting it bluntly, without any sort of regulated labelling, manufacturers and salespeople can put pretty much whatever they want and make it sound good.
Case in point being stickers on avocadoes that read 'cholesterol-free!', yet avocadoes never *had* any cholesterol in them (cholesterol is OLY found in animal-based foods i.e. meat, fish, dairy, eggs etc.).
In Australia, foods can be labelled 'fat-free' if they contain fat below a certain percentage, and *anything* can be named 'healthy' or 'lite' - these words are not controlled or regulated. So you can have 'Healthy Choice' meals that are way high on trans fats, cholesterol, sugar, salt and that contain genetically modified ingredients, yet that misleadingly appear healthy. Put anything in a package with some nice verdant green lettering, and anything can look good.
In short: buyer beware!
ReplyI think its HERBAL FOODS .... like Cafy Coffee Day sells off herbal cofee...name differs from brand to brand but its quite nutritious and ofcourse healthy....
ReplyLeanne, even where they are regulated there are ways around it. For ex., "0% trans fat" just means "less than 0.5g trans fat per serving", which may be a tiny serving, like 1/4 of a single-serve pack of something. So you'd getting almost 2g trans fat in that "0% trans fat" food.
The only way to make sure is read the ingredient list.
ReplyIt looks like the label you find on premium pet food.
ReplyCherie.
Yeah, food labels can be extremely misleading. I've noticed that LOTS of vegetable-fat products (ie, peanut butter, avocadoes, vegetable oil, olive oil, nuts, etc.) read "Cholesterol-free!" Well, duh. It's like Leanne said, plant products don't contain cholesterol because they can't synthesize it. Just because something's cholesterol free doesn't mean it's good for you.
There are ways companies get around stuff with legalism, too...claiming things are "fat free and part of a healthy diet" or "sugar free" or "low carb" or "low fat" or whatever. IMHO, it's better to buy foods that don't have advertising on them at all...fresh fruits, veggies, fresh meat, etc. Foods that speak for themselves, that is.
ReplySounds like the advertising I hear for smart balance margarine substitute. Pass the butter thank you.
ReplyI agree that it looks very much like soymilk.
(About the spinach comments... I might be wrong here but doesn't spinach kind of block calcium from being absorbed? I've always heard that spinach should be avoided when recovering from a broken bone. For that reason, I wouldn't think of spinach as a "Strong Bones" food.)
ReplyGrass-fed steak?
ReplyKelly, I never knew that about spinach, but you might be right. Anyone know for sure?
I know that iron should be avoided with calcium for blocking absorption though.
ReplySome kinds of fiber do reduce calcium absorption somewhat. If your breakfast cereal is high in wheat bran, for instance, take your calcium pill at lunch. Fiber from oats and other grains (including standard doses of psyllium, such as Metamucil) doesn’t appear to be a problem. Oxalates, substances found in many plant foods (especially some leafy greens, like spinach), bind to calcium and thus reduce its absorption. But because foods high in oxalates tend to be rich in calcium, some of the calcium is still absorbed.
Replyhttp://www.wellnessletter.com/html/ds/dsCalcium.php
With that many health claims it sounds like a miracle healing elixir.
Replyit is milk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!duhhhhhhhh
ReplyThank you Dr. J.
ReplyGoogle rocks!
ReplyThere are three kinds of people:
(1) Ones who don't read labels and don't care what they're eating as long as it tastes good.
(2) Ones who are impressed by "LOW FAT!" or "LOW CALORIE!" or "ALL NATURAL!" plastered on the front of a package.
(3) Ones who actually read (apparently now, unreliable) nutritional labels and ingredient lists and have some kind of sense of counts they want for the day (calories, fats, carbs) and do immediate serving size multiplication based on how much they know they'll actually be eating (I have yet to encounter any scenario in which I, myself, or someone I observed, have cooked ONE egg, for example. I'm sure it happens but not in my universe.)
#2 is the problem. #2 is always the problem and you know what? I find it hard to be really concerned - at this point in time, about the fate of #2.
Teach your children:
(1) The role of fat and the different kinds of fat.
(2) The role of carbohydrates and the different kinds of carbohydrates and the importance of fiber. Blood sugar, insulin...
(3) Why whole foods are generally better choices for every reason but price.
(4) (Kilo)Calories and what they measure.
(5) The manipulative, not-your-friend nature of advertising, packaging, and marketing - of foods and any other consumer good. Have them learn to identify on packages and commercials and ads the specific manipulatory mechanisms (trying to convince me this is healthy, trying to convince me it will give me sex appeal, trying to convince me I have a lame lifestyle without this product).
(6) UNIT PRICE on store shelves, which, I find, the vast majority of adults I meet, have no idea about.
(7) Subsidies, corporate interference in governmental affairs, the fairly fluid and random nature of the "food pyramid." Make it clear that corporations and business interests *do not care* about your health. There's no big conspiracy; it's just about profit, and that's all.
It is not difficult to innoculate yourself against this kind of treachery.
I have less and less sympathy for people who believe packaging and commercials. At some point, you have to hold people responsible for their own cluelessness. Pick up any magazine or read any book or newspaper on nutrition and it becomes quite clear that you have to be responsible for your own nutritional considerations.
ReplyThe cholesterol-free vegetable products remind me of seeing "No-carb" pepperoni. Cracked me up, but made me wonder whether the advertising people truely thought the general population was that stupid, or whether people really -are- that stupid.
Reply