It’s getting harder and harder to find actual food in the grocery stores these days. It seems every package I pick up lists at least three ingredients I can’t pronounce, let alone imagine where it comes from. Where exactly does natural red dye come from? (Believe me, you want to know the answer to this question - keep reading.) What the heck is polyvinylpyrrolidone? If you, like me, feel you shouldn’t need a degree in organic chemistry in order to pick your next meal, meet your new best friend for the iTouch and iPhone: Food Additives.

Web Artisan’s Food Additives application is, first and foremost, an example of a beautiful, well-written and organized interface. Food Additives lists more than 450 ingredients, organized by name, international number, risk level, symptom and diet type. Recognizing the overwhelmingly tediousness in scrolling through 450+ items, Food Additives provides a tappable letter/number strip along the right side - one tap skips to the beginning of that letter.

Tapping a list item reveals the details page. WebArtisan uses several layout tricks, including color-coding and front/back panels, to present a lot of information in a small space. The front panel displays the international number, name, other names the ingredient might be known as, use or function, products in which the ingredient might typically be found, the ingredient’s origin, icons indicating countries currently listing the ingredient as unapproved and a color-coded background indicating risk level. Tapping the page reveals the back panel, which displays side effects, recommended daily intake and dietary restrictions. As a nice touch, this panel also includes an information icon linked to the ingredient’s wikipedia page.

Obviously, Food Additives is not going to be helpful at the Olive Garden or most other restaurants, as they post only minimal nutrition information and no food ingredients. However, Food Additives provides invaluable assistance when choosing between Oreos and carrots - one look at all the non-food chemicals contained in Oreos, and I’m headed back to the vegetables. Many restaurants, like Subway and Dunkin’ Donuts, list ingredients on their websites as well.

As thorough as Food Additives is, there are a few things I’d like to see added to the next release. First, I’d like to be able to search for names and alternative names. A linked glossary of terms would be nice (many people may not know what an emulsifier does), and a pronunciation key or even sound file for ingredient names would be a nice added feature. These are, however, only niggling requests for additions to what is already a polished, user-friendly and informative application. Food Additives is well worth the $3.99 price tag.

And by the way, natural red food dye #4, or Carmine, is derived from crushing and boiling dried insects. Next time you’re picking out your favorite yogurt, take a peek at the ingredients label and look up unrecognized ingredients with Food Additives - you might just be surprised by what you discover.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

photo credit: The Rocketeer

Margaret Atwood must be proud - the disgusting meat products appearing in Oryx and Crake are just around the corner, if PETA has anything to do with it. Following the current trend of offering large bounties, as Google currently does with the X-Prize, PETA is offering a $1 million prize for what NPR summarizes as the “development of commercially-viable ‘test-tube meat’ - meat grown through a lab process, not from a live animal.” PETA’s website outlines the contest in further detail:

PETA is offering a $1 million prize to the contest participant able to make the first in vitro chicken meat and sell it to the public by June 30, 2012. The contestant must do both of the following:

• Produce an in vitro chicken-meat product that has a taste and texture indistinguishable from real chicken flesh to non-meat-eaters and meat-eaters alike.
• Manufacture the approved product in large enough quantities to be sold commercially, and successfully sell it at a competitive price in at least 10 states.

Judging of taste and texture will be performed by a panel of 10 PETA judges, who will sample the in vitro chicken prepared using a fried “chicken” recipe from VegCooking.com. The in vitro chicken must get a score of at least 80 when evaluated in order to win the prize.

In vitro meat production would use animal stem cells that would be placed in a medium to grow and reproduce.

And I thought everything tasted like chicken… As long as the FDA mandates labeling test-tube SPAM, I don’t personally mind PETA and others throwing money at fake meat. Seriously though, can’t they spend the money on making tofu more appealing? And don’t members of the target audience, non-meat-eating people, already have non-meat alternatives? Does PETA really think they’re going to convert meat-eaters into vegetarians with fake SPAM?

At any rate, it’s all very interesting. It’s good to see PETA doing something that doesn’t involve bloody babies on a stick in front of McDonalds.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

photo credit: thelifeledger

I recently received this e-mail from someone at Fleishman-Hillard, who apparently represents Gatorade in PR matters:

Great post on calorie disclosure. Did you know that you would have to take 2,640 more steps to burn off the calories in vitamin waters? Propel has one-fifth of the calories and punches up water. With that said, we would like to invite you and your readers to view our channel on YouTube at http://youtube.com/PropelFitWater…

I’ve long been fascinated with the growing fitness water trend and the marketing games they play. For instance, as Mark’s Daily Apple points out, most fitness water manufacturers will market a calorie claim on the label (only 10 calories!), but the bottle holds more than one serving. Does anyone here measure out their serving size when drinking water from a bottle? I don’t either.

At any rate, after reading the e-mail, I was interested in what people have to say about Propel. However, I couldn’t find any articles comparing Propel to other products - beyond short articles like the one at Trying Fitness, there doesn’t seem to be much info. To satisfy my curiosity, I bought several enhanced water products, tried them myself, and put together a comparison.

My personal takeaway? Fitness waters are nothing more than “dietary supplements” with bottled water from unknown sources thrown in. Drink regular water and eat varied colors of fruits and vegetables to get the same nutrient naturally. If you need some tips on drinking more water, Diet-Blog lists a couple to get you started.

photo credit: thelifeledger

Bot (www.botbeverages.com)

Flavor Tried
Berry Bot; refreshing, clean, only slight aftertaste; tastes like water with a little flavoring.

My Take
The clean taste isn’t the only thing that’s refreshing about Bot - it’s also the only product whose label reflects the calorie count of the entire bottle. While technically accurate, it’s still purposefully misleading to market one bottle of fitness water as 2.5 servings, then place in bold letters “Only 10 calories!” It’s also nice to see only ingredients I recognize, including pure cane sugar. Definitely top of my list.

Nutrition Information
Serving Size: 12 fl oz, 1 per container
Calories: 40 per serving (40 per container)
Sugar: 9g per serving (9g per container)
Vitamins per serving: B3 10%; B12 10%; B5 10%; B6 10%

Ingredients
filtered, deionized water, pure cane sugar, natural flavors, citric acid, niacinamide (vit. B3), calcium D pantothenate (vit. B5), pyridoxine hydrochloride (vit. B6), cyanocobalamine (vit. B12)

photo credit: thelifeledger

Vitamin Water (www.vitaminwater.com)

Flavor Tried
XXX (Acai, Blueberry, Pomegranate): too sweet, no aftertaste, good flavor; tastes like fruit punch, not water.

My Take
Vitamin Water gets a lot of rave reviews. As long as you’re expecting fruit punch as opposed to a clean water taste, you’re in for a treat. In my opinion, it also gets high marks for using real sugar and no preservatives - it could stand to be less sweet, but at least it’s not using sugar alternatives or HFCS. I would treat this as a soda alternative, something I drank maybe once a day - it’s not as healthy as water, but it’s a good lot better than a Coke.

Nutrition Information
Serving Size: 8 fl oz, 2.5 per container
Calories: 50 per serving (125 per container)
Sugar: 13g per serving (33g per container)
Vitamins per serving: C 100%; B3 10%; B12 10%; B5 10%; B6 10%

Ingredients
vapor distilled, deionized, and/or reverse osmosis water, crystalline fructose, cane sugar, citric acid, vegetable juice (color), ascorbic acid (vit c), natural flavor, berry and fruit extracts (acai, blueberry, pomegranate and apple), magnesium lactate (electrolyte), calcium lactate (electrolyte), monopotassium phosphate (electrolyte), niacin (B3), pantothenic acid (B5), pyridoxine hydrochloride (B6), cyanocobalamin (B12)

photo credit: thelifeledger

Voosh (www.drinkvoosh.com)

Flavor Tried
Acai, Blueberry, Pomegranate: refreshing, clean taste; good balance between sweetness/flavoring and clean water.

My Take
I’ve never heard of Voosh, but I’m glad I tried it - with a pleasant, clean taste, the flavoring complements the water without overpowering that refreshing, quenched taste I get from water. It’s got more junk than Bot, including electrolytes which I tend to steer clear of, but many people like. In my opinion, this is a fantastic alternative to Propel or Gatorade - what you lose in some “repleneshment” and nutritional additives from Gatorade products, you gain in lack of sucralose and preservatives. Voosh is second to Bot on my list.

Nutrition Information
Serving Size: 8 fl oz, 2.5 per container
Calories: 50 per serving (125 per container)
Sugar: 13g per serving (33g per container)
Vitamins per serving: C 100%; niacin 10%; B12 15%; pantothenic acid 10%; B6 10%

Ingredients:

water, crystalline fructose, citric acid, vitamin blend (ascorbic acid, grape seed extract, niacinamide, d-calcium pantothenate, vitamin b12, pyridoxine hcl), fruit and vegetable juices for color, natural flavors, magnesium lactate, calcium lactate, potassium phosphate

photo credit: thelifeledger

LifeWater (www.sobelifewater.com)

Flavor Tried
Blackberry Grape: too sweet, slight aftertaste, good flavor; tastes like syrup-based beverage, not water.

My Take
I had high hopes for LifeWater. I like many other Sobe beverages, and expected this to be no different. And to be honest, if I hadn’t gone to the local whole foods grocery store (Earth Fare in my area) and discovered Bot and Voosh, LifeWater would have been my favorite pick. While not as overpoweringly sweet as Vitamin Water, it’s still obviously not water, and doesn’t quench my thirst like water should. It also lists things like food starch and gum arabic that I expect from more processed products - perhaps that’s the reason Sobe markets LifeWater as a “Vitamin Enhanced Water Beverage” instead of a fitness water or something similar. All in all, it’s not a bad drink, and like any of these I’d drink LifeWater over any soda, but there are definitely better ones out there.

Nutrition Information
Serving Size: 8 fl oz, 2.5 per container
Calories: 40 per serving (100 per container)
Sugar: 10g per serving (25g per container)
Vitamins per serving: C 100%; E 20%; niacin 10%; pantothenic acid 10%; B12 10%; B6 10%

Ingredients
filtered water, sugar, natural flavor, citric acid, ascorbic acid (C), grape skin extract (color), sodium citrate, modified food starch, l-theanine, vitamin e acetate, calcium phosphate, gum arabic, calcium pantothenate, yerba mate exctract, niacinamide, pyridoxine hydrochloride (B6), cyanocobalamin (b12)

photo credit: thelifeledger

Propel (www.propelwater.com)

Flavor Tried
Kiwi-Strawberry: bitter aftertaste, doesn’t quench thirst, tastes unnatural.

My Take
Here we go, the drink that started this whole article. I tell you what, I don’t like soda, but I think I’d drink a Sprite over this stuff. It tastes bitter and doesn’t slake my thirst, probably due to the sucralose (Splenda) used to sweeten the drink. Also, the “natural kiwi and strawberry flavors” listed in the ingredients taste anything but natural - I can’t tell what it tastes like. Sorry Gatorade, but I’ll pass on this drink - I’d rather have the higher calorie count of one of the other drinks than sucralose, sucrose syrup and bad taste. Or, just drink water.

Nutrition Information
Serving Size: 8 fl oz, 2 per container
Calories: 10 per serving (25 per container) (yes, I know mathematically this shouldn’t be the case, but that’s what’s listed on the bottle)
Sugar: 2g per serving (4g per container)
Vitamins per serving: C 10%; E 10%; niacin 25%; B12 4%; pantothenic acid 25%; B6 25%

Ingredients:
water, sucrose syrup, citric acid, natural kiwi and strawberry flavors with other natural flavors, sodium citrate, potassium citrate, sucralose, vit c (ascorbic acid), vit e acetate, niacinamide (b3), calcium disodium edta (protects freshness), calcium pantothenate (vit b5), pyridoxine hydrochloride (b6), acesulfame potassium, vit b12

How about you - did I dis or skip your favorite fitness water drink?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

photo credit: Nutsboutnuttn (Allison)

Lately, I’ve been suffering from a sweet tooth - I can’t get enough chocolate to satisfy my “craving,” and grapes just aren’t cutting it. I know enough now to just keep it out of the house so I don’t have access to it, but it’s nice to know my “addiction” might be more based on biology and less on my lack of will-power. According to an article on Science Daily, scientists found the brain can sense caloric values of foods independent of taste mechanisms:

Their finding that the brain’s reward system is switched on by this “sixth sense” machinery could have implications for understanding the causes of obesity. For example, the findings suggest why high-fructose corn syrup, widely used as a sweetener in foods, might contribute to obesity.

In their experiments, the researchers genetically altered mice to make them “sweet-blind,” lacking a key component of taste receptor cells that enabled them to detect the sweet taste.

In analyzing the brains of the sweet-blind mice, the researchers showed that the animals’ reward circuitry was switched on by caloric intake, independent of the animals’ ability to taste. Those analyses showed that levels of the brain chemical dopamine, known to be central to activating the reward circuitry, increased with caloric intake. Also, electrophysiological studies showed that neurons in the food-reward region, called the nucleus accumbens, were activated by caloric intake, independent of taste.

Significantly, the researchers found that a preference for sucrose over sucralose developed only after ten minutes of a one-hour feeding session and that neurons in the reward region also responded with the same delay.

So I eat chocolate, my brain releases an amount of dopamine relative to the caloric value of the chocolate, and I inherently place a higher value on chocolate because of the pleasant feelings it invokes. It’s like someone designing our bodies knew we wouldn’t eat enough if there weren’t some biological prompting. Frankly, I don’t know if this is good news or not - it’s like I’m my body is biologically designed towards obesity! Or, at least, our current society, with all it’s abundant and ready access to high-calorie foods, warps our biological mechanisms.

At any rate, I just need to keep grapes in the house, and evict the chocolate.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

photo credit: kansasliberal

Eating Fabulous points to this Consumer Reports article on designing a heart-healthy diet. Advice offered includes recommended fruits and vegetables to load up on, designing a diet around the “Mediterranean eating plan,” and whether “heart-healthy supplements” actually promote heart health. Their supplement advice is particularly interesting, as they investigate three supplements currently marketed as heart-healthy, including B vitamins (like folic acid) and fish oils. For example, here’s what they have to say about vitamin E:

While considerable observational evidence has associated high intakes of vitamin E with protection against heart disease, several large-scale clinical trials have failed to find persuasive evidence that vitamin E supplements yield any benefit to the heart. In fact, some suggest the opposite.

Upshot: We feel that taking supplements of vitamin E to lower your risk of heart disease is a waste of time and money.

Consumer Reports also recommended eating a diet with enough “healthy fats” (as opposed to those nasty ones the USDA recently reported on) and various colors of fruits and veggies to ensure a wide variety of micronutrients. Personally, I’ve always thought consuming vitamins and nutrients naturally is probably much healthier than taking supplements. Of course, there’s so many chemicals in our food now, maybe it doesn’t matter.

One thing’s for sure: when it comes to preventing heart disease, research matters.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

photo credit: Infidelic

Medical News Today carried a story about a program at Ohio State University where doctors are storing large amounts of medical information on secured USB drives for heart surgery patients to carry with them. Should the patient suffer an emergency, the treating physician could review the patient’s entire history quickly.

“We usually include their most recent clinic visit, ultrasounds of their heart, heart catheterizations and, in some instances, if it’s important, we may have images of their heart,” says Dr. Curt Daniels, a cardiologist at Ohio State University Medical Center.

Dr. Daniels and his staff came up with the idea of using the jump drives. Daniels says the medical history of some heart patients is very complex, and if they ever find themselves needing medical attention in another city or country, every minute matters. That’s where the jump drive can help. Any doctor, anywhere in the world, can simply plug it into their computer to answer any questions they might have.

“What heart surgeries have they had? How should their heart really be arranged, and how strong or weak is their heart? Do they have valve problems? Is that part of their history? Having that information right away, we believe, will improve medical care for our patients,” says Daniels.

I tried tracking down exactly what application, if any, is used to store the data, but couldn’t find anything. I suspect they simply use encryption software to protect the data, and store files in folders. It would be interesting to see someone develop a software application that encrypts the data, automatically runs when the USB drive mounts, and provides a searchable index to all information stored on the drive. Extra points for automatic language translation for patients travelling to other countries.

If you’re interested in creating one of these jump drives yourself, work with your doctor to accumulate the medical information pertinent to you and use a program like TrueCrypt to protect your data. Just make sure you carry instructions on decrypting the data, and don’t leave both the drive and the instructions at the same restaurant in Italy.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

photo credit: M J M

According to a recent article on Food Navigator, a USDA study found the increased rate of obesity in US adults is matched by an increased rate of fat and oil consumption. This follows the generic advice you find almost anywhere - cut fats and sugars, lose weight. The study identifies processed foods as the culprit for the fat consumption trend.

American consumption of added fats and oils has increased dramatically over the past 35 years, exceeding government recommendations and affording a need for healthier processed foods.
The findings form part of Dietary Assessment of Major Trends in the US Food Consumption, 1970-2005 - a report by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) that shows Americans are failing to meet the Federal dietary recommendations.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, two-thirds of US adults were either overweight or obese between 2003-2004, compared with 47 percent between 1976 and 1980.

The report shows this correlates with a swell in added fats consumption of 63 percent between 1970 and 2005 and a 19 percent increase in added sugar and sweeteners.

I wonder if anyone has conducted a study on the obesity trend of communities before and after fast-food restaurants move in? If not, they’ll have to act fast - I bet it’s getting hard to find one-horse towns without a McDonalds.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

photo credit: Meriol Lehmann

Seriously? It’s not enough that I have to worry about lead in my child’s toys and e.coli in my beef, I now have to worry if there’s salmonella in my puffed wheat? From the FDA’s report:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced that at least 23 people in 14 states have been diagnosed with salmonellosis that was caused by the same strain of Salmonella that was found in the recently recalled unsweetened Puffed Rice and unsweetened Puffed Wheat Cereals produced by Malt-O-Meal.

The recalled products were distributed nationally under the Malt-O-Meal brand name as well as under private label brands including Acme, America’s Choice, Food Club, Giant, Hannaford, Jewel, Laura Lynn, Pathmark, Shaw’s, ShopRite, Tops and Weis Quality. The cereals have “Best If Used By” dates from April 8, 2008 (coded as “APR0808″) through March 18, 2009 (coded as “MAR1809″).

On April 5, 2008, Malt-O-Meal voluntarily recalled the cereals because the company’s routine testing found Salmonella in a product produced on March 24, 2008.

Good thing I stick to Cheerios.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

photo credit: e.marie

It’s not every day I read a story on blogging when flipping through health and science RSS feeds. The Science Blog and Science Daily have released articles discussing a study conducted at UC Irvine studying “blog readers’ online habits and experiences, as well as how they perceive their roles in blog-based communities.” Blogging and “citizen journalism” continues to be a growing phenomenon - even the federal government is taking a look at how it can better communicate using Web 2.0 style methods. Recognizing the growing phenomenon, apparently the scientific community is taking a hard look at social interaction and information consumption:

The UCI study examined in-depth the blog-reading habits of 15 participants of various ages to determine how they consume content and interact with blogs and blog writers. The research found that some readers frequently post comments, while in others “lurk,” or visit without commenting.

“With the increased popularity of blogs, various tools like Blogger and Movable Type have made writing a blog easy for a wide audience,” said Baumer, who studies informatics. “But, until the technology embraces the role of the audience, the full social potential of blogging remains untapped.

The researchers hope their work will prompt further studies about the roles of blog readers and how features such as commenting and linking create new ways to interact with authors and text.

This potential change in research approach would be similar to a shift that occurred in literary theory in the 1960s and 1970s, when scholars began taking into account readers’ responses when studying literature.

“This study is really just the beginning,” said Tomlinson, an ICS professor and affiliate of the California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology. “With the rapid expansion of online social media such as Flickr and YouTube, understanding how people consume these media will be vital to understanding their broader social impacts.”

It appears the target audience for this study is other scientists - bloggers already study and are intimately aware of how they interact with their readers; blog readers don’t care about the science behind their interaction, they just enjoy receiving RSS feeds and having the opportunity to offer feedback and participate in discussions. Perhaps among those in the social science community, the “blogging movement” represents the same sort of paradigm shift quantum mechanics wrought on the “hard science” community - there is no longer such a thing as an objective observer. Of course, atoms and quarks don’t participate in discussions about what it means to be a quark and how quarks are being denied a voice in the current elections, so there’s possibly even a more thunderous change on the horizon for social sciences - not only is there no such thing as an objective observer, but interpretations and feedback offered by the observed participants have to be factored into the study.

It’s interesting to see the blogging movement through the eyes of scientists. For example, their findings included:

• Some readers frequently post comments, while in others “lurk,” or visit without commenting.
• Readers have diverse opinions of what makes a blog a blog. Academic definitions generally refer to blogs as frequently modified Web pages with dated entries listed in reverse chronological order. But study participants identified a wide variety of characteristics in what they considered to be blogs. These included both technical aspects like RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds and trackback links, as well as social aspects, including the presence of conversation or personal content.
• Regular blog reading often becomes more habitual and less content oriented. Similar to e-mail checking, blog reading can become ingrained into users’ online routine. Sometimes, even the usefulness of the blog content itself can be less vital than the activity of reading or skimming the blog to fulfill a person’s particular routine.
• The timing of a blog post is not nearly as relevant to readers as its position among the other entries. Readers are more likely to read the most recent posts at the top of the screen, and are generally less concerned with the exact age of a post. A vast majority of participants said they were not bothered when they were not able to read each and every blog post, challenging a common theory that users tend to feel overwhelmed by the need to remain constantly up to date.
• Blog readers feel a responsibility to make insightful contributions. While past research noted readers expect bloggers to deliver frequent, high-quality posts, the UCI study found readers also place pressure on themselves to produce coherent, worthwhile comments in response to good blog posts.

Sound familiar? If you read “blogs on blogging” like John Chow, this kind of information is frequently discussed. However, my guess is scientists in general don’t blog much, and their fascination and study of the semantic web is proof we are living through a major shift in social science.

If you’re interested in reading more about blogging or semantic web and informatics, here’s some good places to start:

• O’Reilly Radar
• ReadWriteWeb
• iLibrarian
• John Chow
• Dosh Dosh
• PureBlogging

With more people in the science and medicine community jumping on the semantic web bandwagon, it will be interesting to see studies like this one conducted on information consumption, social networking and how it changes our social behaviors.

Do you want your doctor blogging about your checkup? Take our poll and tell us how you feel. Do you, as a blog reader, consume more of your information online than other media? Do you simply go through a daily routine of checking RSS feeds, or do you actually read articles to stay up-to-date on current events and topics that interest you?

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

photo credit: thelifeledger

Childhood obesity is becoming such an epidemic that many schools are taking steps to increase the nutrition and exercise awareness of both their students and their students’ parents. Take, for example, this article covering changes recently instituted by five Philadelphia schools:

Five Philadelphia elementary schools replaced sodas with fruit juice. They scaled back snacks and banished candy. They handed out raffle tickets for wise food choices. They spent hours teaching kids, their parents and teachers about good nutrition.

As a result, “the number of kids who got fat during the two-year experiment was half the number of kids who got fat in schools that didn’t make those efforts.” Which is great, but of course not nearly enough. What we need is more education and awareness about what we feed our children. For instance, the cereal we feed them.

A recent article on Medical News Today about children’s cereal caught my eye. The article cites a recent study conducted by Yale’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, which concluded that children’s cereals are higher in calories, sugar and salt than adult cereals, despite marketing claims to the contrary. The article goes on to summarize the study:

[Marlene] Schwartz and her colleagues examined 161 breakfast cereals from four leading manufacturers and compared nutritional values of children’s and nonchildren’s cereals to national guidelines. They found that when comparing nutrients per gram, children’s cereals were higher in calories, sodium, carbohydrate, and sugar, but significantly lower in fiber and protein. They also found that the majority of children’s cereals, 66 percent, failed to meet national recommended nutritional standards for foods sold in schools.

I couldn’t find a copy of the study itself, so I thought I’d conduct a spot-check myself. When selecting children’s cereal and adult cereal, I concentrated on marketing and shelf placement in the grocery store, as one Yale Rudd Center study points out that

Children are exposed to an estimated 10 000 advertisements for food per year, 95% of which are for fast foods, candy, sugared cereal and soft drinks (13). By pre-school, the child begins to have preferences for certain products and, according to McNeal, is a ‘consumer by influence’ (14). Advertisers place cereal boxes at child eye level because they know that toddlers can recognize brands of cereal and request them from their seat in the grocery cart.

Based on ads and shelf placement, I selected three cereals marketed as “healthy” children’s cereals and two “healthy” adult cereals, because let’s face it - comparing Trix to Allbran is just a tad unfair, and you shouldn’t be feeding your child that un-food anyway. Let’s see how they stack up.

Children’s Cereals

Cheerios

photo credit: Z(-_-)F

Nutrition Facts
Serving Size: 1 cup (28 grams)
Calories, without milk: 100
Sodium: 190mg
Sugar: 1g

Ingredients
Whole grain oats, modified corn starch, sugar, oat bran, salt, calcium carbonate, oat fiber, potassium phosphate, corn starch, wheat starch, vitamin E

Kix

photo credit: sajrow

Nutrition Facts
Serving Size: 1 1/4 cup (30 grams)
Calories, without milk: 110
Sodium: 210mg
Sugar: 3g

Ingredients
corn (whole grain corn, meal), whole grain oats, ugar, corn bran, modified corn starch, corn syrup, salt, calcium carbonate, trisodium phosphate, vitamin E, misc vitamins

Wheaties

photo credit: tape

Nutrition Facts
Serving Size: 3/4 cup (27 grams)
Calories, without milk: 100
Sodium: 190mg
Sugar: 4g

Ingredients
whole grain wheat, sugar, salt, corn syrup, trisodium phosphate, BHT, misc vitamins

Adult Cereals

All-bran

photo credit: davekellam

Nutrition Facts
Serving Size: 1/2 cup (31 grams)
Calories, without milk: 80
Sodium: 80mg
Sugar: 6g

Ingredients
wheat bran, sugar, high fructose corn syrup, malt flavoring, calcium phosphate, calcium carbonate, salt, sodium ascorbate and ascorbic acid (vitamin c), misc vitamins

Special K

photo credit: Paul Cheek

Nutrition Facts
Serving Size: 1 cup (31 grams)
Calories, without milk: 120
Sodium: 220mg
Sugar: 4g

Ingredients
rice, wheat gluten, sugar, defatted wheat germ, salt, high fructose corn syrup, dried whey, malt flavoring, calcium caseinate, misc vitamins

The Comparison

I think visually, so I’ve created a table with what I think are the most important comparisons to draw between the five cereals. *I’ve changed the serving size to make the numbers directly comparable.

The takeaway I get? Eat fruit, not cereal. If you need to serve cereal, Cheerios looks like the least evil. The other takeaway? I need to find a new recipe for my bran muffins.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.