Dispelling nutrition myths, ranting, and occasionally, raving


2 Comments

Showing a little KINDness to KIND bars

IMG_3194

Last week everyone got all in a kerfuffle because KIND bars were told that they were not allowed to use the term “healthy” to market their snacks by the FDA. Since I’ve promoted KIND bars on here in the past (my first, and only, giveaway) I felt that I should weigh in on the subject.

In my opinion, as far as snack bars go, many KIND bars are a damn sight better than the alternatives. Many of them contain only about a teaspoon of sugar, compare that to upwards of six teaspoons in other snack bars. They are all nut-based, which is a nice change from the refined ingredients in many granola bars. The packaging on KIND bars doesn’t actually state “healthy”. This was a claim made on the KIND website. If you want to see some misleading packaging, just take a walk down the granola bar aisle. Here are just a few examples that I found:

IMG_3197

IMG_3195

IMG_3196

I understand that the FDA and CFIA need to ensure that food manufacturers aren’t using terms willy nilly. Otherwise you’d have every bottle of pop, chocolate bar, and bag of chips claiming some sort of health promoting abilities or ingredient. But really, really? I think that all this incident does is to highlight the difficulty with food marketing and health and nutrition claims. “Healthy” is a relative term and the criteria the FDA has used to define it may not fit for everyone. As you know, the negative effect of dietary saturated fat (especially from plant sources) has recently been called into question. Using specific nutrient quantities to determine whether or not a product can be marketed as “healthy” is tricky, and frankly not all that useful. You’re far better off reading the ingredients and making your own decision as to whether or not you want to include a particular food in your diet.


1 Comment

Breaking the (food labelling) law

images

A little over a year ago Canada changed the food labelling laws for common allergens. With the growing prevalence of food allergies and celiac disease this change in the law was intended to provide clarity for the consumer. No longer could food manufacturers use the statement “may contain x, y, z, etc” to cover their butts. That statement was now to only be used if there was a real risk of an allergen being present in a food. Consumers were advised to treat any allergen identified in this manner as being present in the ingredient list. Despite this, it seems that some companies are just not getting it.

There are a couple of areas that I’m not sure about as they don’t seem to be clearly covered in the labelling laws: restaurants and supplements. Neither of these are packaged foods; however, it seems to me as they are ingested by consumers they really should have to comply to the same regulations. Then again, we all know how closely the supplement industry is regulated by Health Canada and the CFIA. Despite foods listing “hydrolyzed vegetable protein” on their ingredient lists having to identify the specific vegetable source of the protein in their allergen statement, it seems that supplements do not have to as I have seen many vitamins listing HVP without stating the source.

Not very long ago I was out for dinner with my family. I noticed that the menu offered “gluten-free” pizzas. However, a disclaimer stated that, because the kitchen was not gluten-free there may be cross-contamination of the pizzas. I went on a little tirade to my family about how they shouldn’t make the statement that their pizza crusts are gluten-free if they can’t guarantee that they haven’t been cross-contaminated. I’m sure they meant well but for someone with celiac disease it’s like saying “here, you can eat this, oh, maybe not”. It only takes a very small amount of gluten for someone with celiac disease to become quite ill.

The worst offender though are the Beanitos chips. They’re a relatively new tortilla chip made from beans rather than from corn. The package proudly proclaims that they’re gluten-free yet, if you read the allergen statement it says that they’re “made in a facility that also processes wheat.” Hmm…. Pretty sure that this is contrary to the new labelling laws. If there is enough risk of cross-contamination then you can’t say that your product is gluten-free. This is the butt-covering that the new labelling laws were designed to curtail. Your product is either gluten-free or it’s not.