The Wholesome Blueberry Quiz, or Truth in Labeling… NOT

by Ravi

I ran across this tidbit that so definitively answers any remaining notion that the labeling of food is honest, or even vaguely honest, I just had to re-post it.

A bogger by the name of Amy Kubal at her site Fuel As Rx had this *great* bit of label de-construction – Enjoy and take heed (hints to the wrong answer in BLUE…):

The Wholesome Blueberry Quiz

Okay, quiz time! What do these foods have in common: Total Pomegranate Blueberry Cereal, Betty Crocker Blueberry Muffins, Kelloggs Blueberry Poptarts,  Kelloggs Blueberry Muffin Frosted Mini-Wheats, and Special K Blueberry Fruit Crisps?

If you answered blueberries, you are WRONG!!

Even though the product name says ‘blueberry‘ and the packages hold pictures of the fruit – there are absolutely NO blueberries in these foods! In fact Betty Crocker’s blueberries are a less than wholesome mixture of dextrose, corn flour, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, sugar, citric acid, artificial flavor, blue #1, and red #40. The Special K Fruit Crisps version of a blueberry looks like this – apple powder (hey at least there’s some fruit – right??), partially hydrogenated soybean oil, fructose, sugar, red #40, and blue #1.

The 'wild" part is that they contain NO BLUEBERRIES!

On the plus side, these crisps are enhanced with a bit of blueberry puree concentrate… And the Total Pomegranate Blueberry Cereal – you guessed it! Not a pomegranate OR blueberry to be found.

How do they get away with this??

They just do it.

I guess I should start a blog series on the (almost foreign) language of food labeling. (hhmmmm, not a bad idea…)

Post part of Real Food Wednesday – return here

Post part of Simple Lives Thursday return here

Do you have any blatant lies on labels to expose? Do it here!

Advertisements

Get Stupid & Get Cancer in Convenient, BPA-lined-Hormone-Disrupting Can

by Ravi

If you have not tossed the cola/soda yet – then this post is my effort to get you to do so and do so NOW.

FIRST, we have the study:

“Brain functional magnetic resonance imaging response to glucose and fructose infusions in human.”

published in the journal:

Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, Volume 13, Issue 3, pages 229–234, March 2011

which simply states that:

“In normal weight humans, cortical responses to infused glucose are opposite to those of fructose. Differential brain responses to these sugars and their metabolites may provide insight into the neurologic basis for dysregulation of food intake during high dietary fructose intake.”

more detail on how fructose is killing you as you sip your cola

Serious to Lose Weight? then LEARN TO SHOP!

by The DaiaSolGaia Community

Wanna be more successful losing weight?

Then get real.  Having foods around that are NOT part of your program (ANYWHERE in the house or within reach) is tempting fate – or worse yet – tempting your questionable will power (you are over-weight after all, yes?…)

Success going Paleo/Primal to lose weight (Paleo/Primal diet explained here) is no different than success with any other venture in your life – you must decide, choose your path and put you mind and will to the task!  Happily, the wonder of the paleo diet is that, although there are “rules” on what NOT to eat, what you CAN eat is immensely satisfying, delicious, and you really do not have to “count calories”.

get some serious shoppin’ rules click here

PaleoHydration – Making Water a Tad More Tasty

by Ravi

Mark over at his “Daily Apple” just did a good awareness post on diet sodas, and although he does not come and outright vilify them, his good comments are food (drink?) for thought.

I, on the other hand, am happy to vilify any and all sweetened soda no matter what you use to sweeten it.

Seriously folks, this is one of the most amazingly profitable (and legal!) scams in all of modern marketing history. Take water (and not even good water), toss in some cheap sugar – or even cheaper highly-suspect pretend-sugar, add questionable chemicals to mimic a flavor – all at a total cost of probably less than a cent per can (the canning/bottling/shipping is the most expensive part of the package) and sell resulting pollution for 20 to 100 times it’s cost.  Advertise this liquid atrocity as “the cool drink to drink”, make sure it has some legal, at least mildly-addictive substance in it (too bad they could not still use cocaine, huh?) and literally become pushers of this nutritionally worthless and in fact, highly damaging fluid.  Use your ever-increasing huge profits to further push and addict group after group, generation after generation of people and voila! – you have one of the most amazingly profitable scams in all of modern marketing.

more on the sweet, calorie-free, all sweetener-free tasty water

Re-thinking the Appropriate Cost of Food

Percent of Average Family Budget for food

1901 – 42.5%   1956 – 33%   2009 – 12.4%

What’s wrong with these numbers?

Nothing! declares many newspaper articles “We’re sooo much better off than we were 100 years ago!” they exclaim with elation – “why the cost of food is only 25% of what it used to be!”   When one examines the reasons for these figures, the real implications of this truth are not ecstasy, but out-and-out horror.  I’m not going to discuss all the other aspects of “our better life”- they are sometimes positive and sometimes argumentative (having ipods enriches our life?… I mean, I have one, but does an ipod really make me happier?)

But in the arena of food – these trends are frightening. Why? Well, as witnessed by a recent and ridiculous article titled “In Praise of Fast Food” the author argued that industrialized food has actually improved our lot in life.  Oh really? Her reasons ranged from the idea that the foods produced were not all that bad relative to the freedom their ease of producing and acquiring has provide us. Such gems as this statement abound: “If we assume that good food maps neatly onto old or slow or homemade food, we miss the fact that lots of industrial foods are better.”

What? Excuse me? – Does this author live on THIS planet?

This sentence strikes home my very point. The author is bemoaning the poorly paid labor of the local food grower or “artisan” (a word she feels is elitist) and the essential slavery of the traditional mothers of families sweating in the kitchen all day to produce the family’s fare. Then she goes on to praise easily obtainable (and of course cheap) industrial food as a boon to mankind – helping relieve cultural sufferings of the people who toil at labors like squeezing gorgeous pressed olive oil or making  handmade tortillas.  Sounds more like she had a bone to pick with a traditional upbringing. It also sounds like the 1950’s ads for all the “work saving appliances” that have led us into our consumerist spiral downward.

Read more of this post

Re-thinking the Appropriate Cost of Food

Percent of Average Family Budget for food

1901 – 42.5%  

1956 – 33%  

2009 – 12.4%

What’s wrong with these numbers?

Nothing! declares many newspaper articles “We’re sooo much better off than we were 100 years ago!” they exclaim with elation – “why the cost of food is only 25% of what it used to be!”   When one examines the reasons for these figures, the real implications of this truth are not ecstasy, but out-and-out horror.  I’m not going to discuss all the other aspects of “our better life”- that these articles espouse, they are sometimes positive and sometimes argumentative (having ipods enriches our life?… I mean, I have one, but does an ipod really make me happier?)

Lots of Industrial Foods are Better…. (wtf?)

more about the declining cost and quality of food here