Dispelling nutrition myths, ranting, and occasionally, raving


2 Comments

Grocery Store Lessons: Mott’s Fruitsations Rolls

20170923_164513.jpg

It’s has recently come to my attention that some moms are blithely sending their kids to school with these new “fruit roll-ups” as the result of a mistaken belief that they are “healthy”.

Before I start dissecting these “fruit” snacks, let me first get this out of the way: healthy eating is complicated. Food is not “bad” or “good”; it has no moral value. And no one food is going to make or break a nutritious balanced diet.

Now that, that’s done, let’s take a closer look at these “healthy” fruit roll-ups, shall we? Ingredient #1: Pear puree. Ingredient #1 in “traditional” fruit roll-ups?: Apple puree. For those who are not aware, ingredients are listed by weight, from most to least. Therefore, the first ingredient in a product is going to be the ingredient that’s present in the greatest quantity. Ingredient #2 in the Mott’s fruit rolls: sugar and/or golden sugar. Ingredient #2 in your “traditional” fruit roll-up: corn syrup. The lists go on from there in a similar fashion. See for yourself:

20170923_164716

 

20170923_164910

It’s difficult to compare the nutrition information for the two products as the serving size for the Mott’s product is 21 grams while the serving size for the classic fruit roll-up is 14 grams. However, (spoiler alert) they are both essentially sugar. Actually, in a surprise twist, the “traditional” fruit roll-up is actually slightly more nutritious than the new “healthy” Mott’s version. It’s has about two grams less of sugar per 7 gram serving and has 2 grams of fibre, whereas the Mott’s roll has no fibre. For further comparisons, again, see for yourself:

20170923_165215.jpg

The moral of the story here is not that Fruit Roll-Ups are a nutritious snack. They are not comparable to whole fruit. They are still just sticky concentrated sugar, ideal for literally rotting kids teeth. It’s that food companies are fantastic at marketing and convincing us that their products are far better for us (and our children in many cases) are better for us than they truly are. What can you do to arm yourself against their clever marketing tactics? Increase your food literacy. Learn how to read nutrition facts labels, and check ingredient lists.

Advertisements


Leave a comment

Grocery store lessons: Baby food pouches

Gerber_Organic_Baby_Food_Pouches

Sometimes I have loads of things to blog about and other times I struggle to find a topic that I feel like ranting about. This was one of those weeks where nothing noteworthy caught my attention. Thankfully, my friend who runs a day-home suggested I write about baby food pouches which seem to have crept from being food for babies to being food for school-aged children.

If you’re not a parent of young children you may ask (as I did) “what are food pouches”? They’re basically pureed baby food but in a squeezable pouch. Generally they’re more expensive than your traditional jarred baby food and they come in fancy flavours like “wildberry, rhubarb, kale, & quinoa”. Parents like them because there’s no need for a spoon so they’re handy when you’re on the go. Just twist off the top and let your kid squeeze and suck away at it while you’re running errands. But, what’s the best feature of these newfangled baby foods is also the worst feature.

While there’s no disputing the fact that these are handy in a pinch, that’s really how these pouches should be used. Ideally, you’d want to be squeezing these pouches out into a bowl and feeding the to your baby (or letting them feed themselves) with a spoon. When babies are learning how to eat (at about six months of age) there’s this window of opportunity during which they learn things like chewing, appreciation for various textures, and how to put food in their mouths. Gone are the days when purees were the mainstay for babies for month on end. Now parents may use them for a short period, start baby with a variety of textures, or skip the purees altogether. The concern with children receiving all of their food from squeeze pouches is that their mouths may not develop properly and they may also be unaccepting of different textures when they are finally introduced. There’s also a missed opportunity for infants to develop hand-eye coordination when feeding themselves. These pouches really shouldn’t be considered a meal for a toddler or older child.

Something else I’ve wondered about when it comes to these fancy baby food pouches is the gourmet ingredients themselves. Introducing babies to a variety of foods and flavours is important but what about food allergies? When you’re giving your baby new foods, generally you would introduce one new food at a time so that if there’s an allergic reaction it’s easy to pinpoint the source. When you’re giving your baby “yumberries and plum with ancient grains” what are the odds that he or she has had at least two out of three of those ingredients before? I mean heck, I’ve never had yumberries. I’m not even sure what they are. I feel like by marketing these as baby foods that provides parents with a potentially false sense of safety when it comes to giving them to their children.

Speaking of safety, I’ve seen a number of recalls of these baby food pouches in recent years. When I worked in a grocery store, I also came across one that was bulging (a common sign of bacterial growth). I think that it’s a lot easier for these packages to be opened and closed and put back on the shelf without anyone noticing that the seal’s been broken than it is with jarred baby food where there’s usually a plastic wrap around the lid as well as the popped down seal of the jar lid. Not to fearmonger. I just think that it would be easier for a child (or adult) to be curious about a flavour, twist the top, and put it back on the shelf without the fact that it had been opened being obvious.

Back to the issue of price. Many of these retail for around $2 (some a bit less, some more). Which can add up quickly if they’re the primary source of food for your little one. Jarred baby food is generally less than a dollar. Even more affordable though, is to give your baby an unseasoned version of what you’re eating. You can puree it or mince it for younger infants, or provide finger friendly options as they’re ready. There’s a lot more that can be said about infant feeding and starting babies on solid foods. If you have questions, there’s a great resource from Best Start. If you’re in Canada, you can also contact your local public health unit to find out if they offer infant feeding classes.


Leave a comment

Grocery Store Lessons: Excel Naturally Sweetened Gum

Last week my friend Mark tweeted this:

20160618_155206

I think our fear of “unnatural” or “artificial” ingredients has gone too far. I’m generally one to go for real sugar any day over artificial sweeteners. I prefer the flavour and I’m of the opinion that a little of the “real” thing is better than a lot of the fake. In some case though it just doesn’t make sense to be choosing real sugar.

There is no benefit to choosing sugar-sweetened gum over gum sweetened with sugar alcohols. We know that sugar consumption, especially when in products that spend a long time in the mouth (such as gum) promotes the development of cavities. While xylitol (the sugar alcohol generally found in sugar-free gums) may not be the great cavity preventer it was originally touted as, it certainly doesn’t promote the development of cavities like sugary gum does.

It’s beyond me why anyone would think that a “natural” (and come on, how natural is commercial chewing gum anyway?) gum containing sugar is a superior choice over artificially sweetened gum. Shame on Excel for taking advantage of the fear of the “unnatural” by reverting to a product that is likely to incense dentists, dietitians, and doctors alike. File this product under another great example of a natural fallacy.


2 Comments

Grocery Store Lessons: Liberte Baby Yoghurt

8064078

Baby yoghurt isn’t a new product. I had thought about blogging about it a while ago and then forgot and then thought that it had been discontinued. Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case. File this one under ridiculous unnecessary products that you never need to buy.

There is no reason that a baby needs yoghurt with added sugar. And that’s what this product is. It’s a series of yoghurts with 6% milk fat. You’re supposed to start them on the plain (with a mere teaspoon of sugar per 75 gram package). Ingredients: whole milk, cream, cane sugar, milk protein concentrate, bacterial cultures, and vitamin D. Then you can progress to the yoghurts at “step 2”; banana or strawberry.

The banana and strawberry both have 7 grams (just under two teaspoons of sugar) per 75 gram serving.

Ingredients in the banana: whole milk, fruit preparation (banana puree [i.e. flavoured sugar], cane sugar, water, tapioca starch, pectin, natural flavour, lemon juice concentrate), cream, cane sugar, milk protein, concentrate, bacterial cultures, and vitamin D.

Ingredients in the strawberry: whole milk, fruit preparation (strawberry pureecane sugar, water, rice starch, natural flavour, carrot juice concentrate, cranberry juice concentrate, lemon juice concentrate), cream, cane sugar, milk protein concentrate, bacterial cultures, vitamin D.

Babies don’t need sweetened yoghurt. Just because many adults need sugary flavoured yoghurts doesn’t mean that babies do. Their tastebuds are much more sensitive than ours and they’re also learning what they like (and dislike). There’s no need for us to impose our preferences and sweet teeth on them. Lots of babies enjoy the tangy taste of plain full-fat yoghurt.

Parents don’t need to shell out the extra cash for smaller servings of plain yoghurt for their babies. Save your cash and get unsweetened plain yoghurt for your baby.


10 Comments

Grocery store lessons: Catelli “SuperGreens” pasta

I was getting some groceries last week when I saw a new product in the pasta aisle. Catelli SuperGreens”.

PicFrame

Immediately I said, “I feel a blog post coming on!”.

Remember that vegetable bread? Total scam, right? And, according to my sources, pretty revolting to boot. Well, this pasta is no different (at least in the scam regard, I presume it tastes much like regular pasta).

How did Catelli get the vegetables in the pasta? Well, they added some vegetable powders (spinach, zucchini, broccoli, parsley, and kale). Super! Green! Hold-up though, before you decide your plate of pasta counts as your vegetables for the day think about how that compares to actual vegetables. Well, because of the processing that the veggies have undergone to become powders, and because the quantities added are likely negligible, there’s no comparing the two. You’re not getting any of the vitamins and minerals that you would by eating any of those actual vegetables.

I was curious how this “SuperGreens” pasta would compare to regular pasta. Catelli didn’t seem to have a plain old pasta option in the same format so I opted to look at their “Smart” pasta which is just regular pasta with added fibre.

PicFrame (1)

As you can see, nutritionally the “SuperGreens” is nearly identical to the “Smart” pasta. In fact, the “Smart” pasta may be slightly better from a nutritional standpoint as it’s got more B vitamins, more fibre, and less sodium (although these differences are fairly minuscule).

If you like this new “SuperGreens” pasta, there’s nothing wrong with eating it. Just know that it doesn’t contribute to your vegetable servings. There’s nothing “super” about this, except maybe the marketing tactic. There’s nothing green about it either, except maybe the cash Catelli will be pulling in from the ridiculous representation of this product. You know what goes great with pasta though? A vegetable-rich sauce.