ReportWire

Tag: breakfast cereal

  • Mold Toxins in Cereals, Herbs, Spices, and Wine | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Most crops are contaminated with fungal mycotoxins, but some foods are worse than others.

    Oats can be thought of as “uniquely nutritious.” One route by which they improve human health is by providing prebiotics that “increase the growth of beneficial gut microbiota.” There are all manner of oats, ranging from steel-cut oats to, even better, intact oat groats (their form before being cut), all the way down to highly processed cereals, like Honey Nut Cheerios.

    “Rolling crushes the grain, which may disrupt cell walls and damage starch granules, making them more available for digestion.” This is bad because we want the starch to make it all the way down to our colon to feed our good gut bacteria. Grinding oats into oat flour to make breakfast cereals is even worse. When you compare blood sugar and insulin responses, you can see significantly lower spikes with the more intact steel-cut oats, as shown below and at 0:54 in my video Ochratoxin in Certain Herbs, Spices, and Wine.

    What about ochratoxin? As seen here and at 1:01 in my video, oats are the leading source of dietary exposure to this mold contaminant, but they aren’t the only source.

    There is a global contamination of food crops with mycotoxins, with some experts estimating as much as 25% of the world’s crops being affected. That statistic is attributed to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, but it turns out the stat is bogus. It isn’t 25%. Instead, it may be more like 60% to 80%. “The high occurrence is likely explained by a combination of the improved sensitivity of analytical [testing] methods and the impact of climate change.”

    Spices have been found to have some of the highest concentrations of mycotoxins, but because they are ingested in such small quantities, they aren’t considered to be a significant source. We can certainly do our part to minimize our risk, though. For instance, we should keep spices dry after opening sealed containers or packages.

    What about dried herbs? In “Mycotoxins in Plant-Based Dietary Supplements: Hidden Health Risk for Consumers,” researchers found that milk thistle–based supplements had the highest mycotoxin concentrations. It turns out that humid, wet weather is needed during milk thistle harvest, which is evidently why they get so moldy. “Considering the fact that milk thistle preparations are mainly used by people who suffer from liver disease,” such a high intake of compounds toxic to the liver may present some concern.

    Wine sourced from the United States also appears to have particularly high levels. In fact, the single highest level found to date around the world is in a U.S. wine, but there’s contamination in wine in general. In fact, some suggest that’s why we see such consistent levels in people’s blood—perhaps because a lot of people are regular wine drinkers.

    Ochratoxin is said to be a kidney toxin with immunosuppressive, birth defect–causing, and carcinogenic properties. So, what about ochratoxin decontamination in wine? That is, removing the toxin? Ideally, we’d try to prevent the contamination in the first place, but since this isn’t always practical, there is increased focus on finding effective methods of detoxification of mycotoxins already present in foods. This is where yeast enters as “a promising and friendly solution,” because the mycotoxins bind to the yeast cell wall. The thought is that we could strain out the yeast. Another approach is to eat something like nutritional yeast to prevent the absorption.

    It works in chickens. Give yeast along with aflatoxin (another mycotoxin), and the severity of the resulting disease is diminished. However, using something like nutritional yeast as a binder “depends on stability of the yeast-mycotoxin complex through the passage of the gastrointestinal tract.” We know yeasts can remove ochratoxin in foods, but we didn’t have a clue if it would work in the gut until 2016. Yeast was found to bind up to 44% of the ochratoxin, but, in actuality, it was probably closer to only about a third, since some of the bindings weren’t stable. So, if you’re trying to stay under the maximum daily intake and you drink a single glass of wine, even if your bar snack is popcorn seasoned with nutritional yeast, you’d still probably exceed the tolerable intake. But what does that mean? How bad is this ochratoxin? We’ll find out next.

    Doctor’s Note

    This is the second video in a four-part series on mold toxins. The first one was Ochratoxin in Breakfast Cereals.

    Stay tuned for Should We Be Concerned About the Effects of Ochratoxin? and Should We Be Concerned About Aflatoxin?. You can also check: Friday Favorites: Should We Be Concerned About Ochratoxin and Aflatoxin?.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Fungal Toxins for Breakfast? | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    One of the few food contaminants found at higher levels in those eating plant-based diets are mycotoxins, fungal toxins in moldy food ingredients, such as oats.

    In France, exposure to dietary contaminants was compared between vegetarians and meat-eaters, and the results showed that exposures to persistent organic pollutants like PCBs and dioxins were dramatically lower among those eating more plant-based foods. This was due to their avoidance of foods of animal origin, though they did have higher estimated exposure to some mycotoxins, fungal toxins present in moldy food.

    There are many types of mold on the planet, possibly millions, and the vast majority are harmless. However, over the last several years, certain mold toxins, such as aflatoxin and ochratoxin, have been popping up in breakfast cereals. Hundreds of samples were taken off store shelves, and about half were found to be contaminated with ochratoxin, but those store shelves were in Pakistan, which has a sub-tropical climate with monsoons and flash floods, leading to fungal propagation. Similar results have since popped up in Europe, in Serbia, for instance. They’ve also been found in Spain and seen in Portugal. Then, mycotoxins were discovered in breakfast cereals in Canada. What about breakfast cereals sold in the United States?

    Researchers collected 144 samples and, similar to other countries, found that about half contained ochratoxin, but only about 7% exceeded the maximum limit established by the European Commission. What is the significance of finding ochratoxin in U.S. breakfast cereals? In the largest study to date, which included nearly 500 samples of cereal off store shelves across the United States, overall detection rates were about 40%, though only 16 of the samples violated the European standards. All the cereals with ochratoxin were oat-based; however, about 1 in 13 of the oat-based cereal samples tested were contaminated.

    Ochratoxin has become increasingly regulated by many countries to minimize chronic exposure. Shown below and at 2:23 in my video Ochratoxin in Breakfast Cereals are the current regulations for mycotoxins in cereal-based baby foods, for example, worldwide.

    Some countries are very strict, like in the European Union; other countries are less so, and one country in particular has no standards at all. Ochratoxin is not currently regulated at all in the United States.

    What about sticking to organic products? One might expect them to be worse due to the fact that fungicides are not allowed in organic production. However, “mycotoxin concentrations are usually similar or reduced in organic compared with conventional products.” For example, in one of the breakfast cereal studies, researchers found similar contamination, and the same was found for infant foods. It cannot be concluded that organic is better than conventional from a mycotoxin perspective. “Despite no use of fungicides, an organic system appears generally able to maintain mycotoxin contamination at low levels.” But how much is that saying, given how widespread it is? How concerned should we be about the public health effects from “long-term exposure to this potent mycotoxin”?

    If you look at blood samples taken from populations going back decades, sometimes 100% of people turn up positive for ochratoxin circulating in their bloodstream. In some sense, mycotoxins “are unavoidable contaminants of food,” since they are not easy to detect and many of them can remain hidden. And, once foods have become contaminated, mycotoxins aren’t destroyed by cooking. So, are there some foods we should simply try to avoid due to a higher risk of contamination? That’s exactly the question I’m going to address next.

    Doctor’s Note

    This is the first video in a four-part series on mold toxins. Check related posts below for the other three.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Obesity and a Toxic Food Environment  | NutritionFacts.org

    Obesity and a Toxic Food Environment  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Implausible explanations for the obesity epidemic serve the needs of food manufacturers and marketers more than public health and an interest in truth. 

    When it comes to uncovering the root causes of the obesity epidemic, there appears to be manufactured confusion, “with major studies reasserting that the causes of obesity are ‘extremely complex’ and ‘fiendishly hard to untangle,’” but having just reviewed the literature, it doesn’t seem like much of a mystery to me.

    It’s the food.

    Attempts at obfuscation—rolling out hosts of “implausible explanations,” like sedentary lifestyles or lack of self-discipline—cater to food manufacturers and marketers more than the public’s health and our interest in the truth. “When asked about the role of restaurants in contributing to the obesity problem, Steven Anderson, president of the National Restaurant Association stated, “Just because we have electricity doesn’t mean you have to electrocute yourself.” Yes, but Big Food is effectively attaching electrodes to shock and awe the reward centers in our brains to undermine our self-control.

    It is hard to eat healthfully against the headwind of such strong evolutionary forces. No matter what our level of nutrition knowledge, in the face of pepperoni pizza, “our genes scream, ‘Eat it now!’” Anyone who doubts the power of basic biological drives should see how long they can go without blinking or breathing. Any conscious decision to hold your breath is soon overcome by the compulsion to breathe. In medicine, shortness of breath is sometimes even referred to as “air hunger.” The battle of the bulge is a battle against biology, so obesity is not some moral failing. It’s not gluttony or sloth. It is a natural, “normal response, by normal people, to an abnormal situation”—the unnatural ubiquity of calorie-dense, sugary, and fatty foods.

    The sea of excess calories we are now floating in (and some of us are drowning in) has been referred to as a “toxic food environment.” This helps direct focus away from the individual and towards the societal forces at work, such as the fact that the average child is blasted with 10,000 commercials for food a year. Or maybe I should say ads for pseudo food, as 95 percent are for “candy, fast food, soft drinks [aka liquid candy], and sugared cereals [aka breakfast candy].”

    Wait a second, though. If weight gain is just a natural reaction to the easy availability of mountains of cheap, yummy calories, then why isn’t everyone fat? As you can see below and at 2:41 in my video The Role of the Toxic Food Environment in the Obesity Epidemic, in a certain sense, most everyone is. It’s been estimated that more than 90 percent of American adults are “overfat,” defined as having “excess body fat sufficient to impair health.” This can occur even “in those who are normal-weight and non-obese, often due to excess abdominal fat.

    However, even if you look just at the numbers on the scale, being overweight is the norm. If you look at the bell curve and input the latest data, more than 70 percent of us are overweight. A little less than one-third of us is normal weight, on one side of the curve, and more than a third is on the other side, so overweight that we’re obese. You can see in the graph below and at 3:20 in my video.

    If the food is to blame, though, why doesn’t everyone get fat? That’s like asking if cigarettes are really to blame, why don’t all smokers get lung cancer? This is where genetic predispositions and other exposures can weigh in to tip the scales. Different people are born with a different susceptibility to cancer, but that doesn’t mean smoking doesn’t play a critical role in exploding whatever inherent risk you have. It’s the same with obesity and our toxic food environment. It’s like the firearm analogy: Genes may load the gun, but diet pulls the trigger. We can try to switch the safety back on with smoking cessation and a healthier diet.

    What happened when two dozen study participants were given the same number of excess calories? They all gained weight, but some gained more than others. Overfeeding the same 1,000 calories a day, 6 days a week for 100 days, caused weight gains ranging from about 9 pounds up to 29 pounds. The same 84,000 extra calories caused different amounts of weight gain. Some people are just more genetically susceptible. The reason we suspect genetics is that the 24 people in the study were 12 sets of identical twins, and the variation in weight gain between each of them was about a third less. As you can see in the graph below and at 4:41 in my video, a similar study with weight loss from exercise found a similar result. So, yes, genetics play a role, but that just means some people have to work harder than others. Ideally, inheriting a predisposition for extra weight gain shouldn’t give a reason for resignation, but rather motivation to put in the extra effort to unseal your fate. 

    Advances in processing and packaging, combined with government policies and food subsidy handouts that fostered cheap inputs for the “food industrial complex,” led to a glut of ready-to-eat, ready-to-heat, ready-to-drink hyperpalatable, hyperprofitable products. To help assuage impatient investors, marketing became even more pervasive and persuasive. All these factors conspired to create unfettered access to copious, convenient, low-cost, high-calorie foods often willfully engineered with chemical additives to make them hyperstimulatingly sweet or savory, yet only weakly satiating. 

    As we all sink deeper into a quicksand of calories, more and more mental energy is required to swim upstream against the constant “bombardment of advertising” and 24/7 panopticons of tempting treats. There’s so much food flooding the market now that much of it ends up in the trash. Food waste has progressively increased by about 50 percent since the 1970s. Perhaps better in the landfills, though, than filling up our stomachs. Too many of these cheap, fattening foods prioritize shelf life over human life.

    But dead people don’t eat. Don’t food companies have a vested interest in keeping their consumers healthy? Such naiveté reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the system. A public company’s primary responsibility is to reap returns for its investors. “How else could we have tobacco companies, who are consummate marketers, continuing to produce products that kill one in two of their most loyal customers?” It’s not about customer satisfaction, but shareholder satisfaction. The customer always comes second.

    Just as weight gain may be a perfectly natural reaction to an obesogenic food environment, governments and businesses are simply responding normally to the political and economic realities of our system. Can you think of a single major industry that would benefit from people eating more healthfully? “Certainly not the agriculture, food product, grocery, restaurant, diet, or drug industries,” wrote emeritus professor Marion Nestle in a Science editorial when she was chair of nutrition at New York University. “All flourish when people eat more, and all employ armies of lobbyists to discourage governments from doing anything to inhibit overeating.”

    If part of the problem is cheap tasty convenience, is hard-to-find food that’s gross and expensive the solution? Or might there be a way to get the best of all worlds—easy, healthy, delicious, satisfying meals that help you lose weight? That’s the central question of my book How Not to Diet. Check it out for free at your local library.

    This is it—the final video in this 11-part series. If you missed any of the others, see the related posts below. 

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Children’s Cereals: Candy for Breakfast?  | NutritionFacts.org

    Children’s Cereals: Candy for Breakfast?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Plastering front-of-package nutrient claims on cereal boxes is an attempt to distract us from the incongruity of feeding our children multicolored marshmallows for breakfast.

    The American Medical Association started warning people about excess sugar consumption more than 75 years ago, based in part on our understanding that “sugar supplies nothing in nutrition but calories, and the vitamins provided by other foods are sapped by sugar to liberate these calories.” So, added sugars aren’t just empty calories, but negative nutrition. “Thus, the more added sugars one consumes, the more nutritionally depleted one may become.”

    Given the “totality of publicly available scientific evidence,” the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decided to make processed food manufacturers declare “added sugars” on their nutrition labels. The National Yogurt Association was livid and said it “continues to oppose the ‘added sugars’ declaration,” since it needed “‘added sugars’ to increase palatability” of its products. The junk food association questioned the science, whereas the ice cream folks seemed to imply that consumers are too stupid to “understand or know how to use the added sugar declaration,” so it’s better just to leave it off. The world’s biggest cereal company, Kellogg’s, took a similar tact, opposing it so as not “to confuse consumers.” Should the FDA proceed with such labeling against Kellogg’s objections, the cereal giant pressed that “an added sugars declaration…should be communicated as a footnote.” It claimed that its “goal is to provide consumers with useful information so they can make informed choices.” This is from a company that describes its Froot Loops as “packed with delicious fruity taste, fruity aroma, and bright colors.” Keep in mind that Froot Loops has more sugar than a Krispy Kreme doughnut, as you can see in the graph below and at 1:46 in my video Friday Favorites: Kids’ Breakfast Cereals as Nutritional Façade. 

    Froot Loops is more than 40 percent sugar by weight! You can see the cereal box’s Nutrition Facts label below and at 1:50 in my video. 

    The tobacco industry used similar terms, such as “light,” “low,” and “mild” to make its products appear healthier—before it was barred from doing so. “Now sugar interests are fighting similar battles over whether their terminology, including ‘healthy,’ ‘natural,’ ‘naturally sweetened,’ and even ‘lightly sweetened,’ is deceptive to consumers.”

    But if you look at the side of a cereal box, as shown below and at 2:13 in my video, you can see all those vitamins and minerals that have been added. That was one of the ways the cereal companies responded to calls for banning sugary cereals. General Mills defended the likes of Franken Berry, Trix, and Lucky Charms for being fortified with essential vitamins. 

    Sir Grapefellow, I learned, was a “grape-flavored oat cereal” complete with “sweet grape star bits”—that is, marshmallows. Don’t worry. It was “vitamin charged!” You can see that cereal box below and at 2:31 in my video. 

    Sugary breakfast cereals, said Dr. Jean Mayer from Harvard, “are not a complete food even if fortified with eight or 10 vitamins.” Senator McGovern replied, “I think your point is well taken that these products may be mislabeled or more correctly called candy vitamins than cereals.” 

    Plastering nutrient claims on cereal boxes can create “a ‘nutritional façade’ around a product, acting to distract attention away” from unsavory qualities, such as excess sugar content. Researchers found that the “majority of parents misinterpreted the meaning of claims commonly used on children’s cereals,” raising significant public health concerns. Ironically, cereal boxes bearing low-calorie claims were found to have more calories on average than those without such a claim. The cereal doth protest too much. 

    Even candy bar companies are getting in on the action, bragging about protein content because of some peanuts. Like the Baby Ruth, a candy bar that has 50 grams of sugar. Froot Loops could be considered breakfast candy, as the same serving would have 40 sugar grams, as you can see below and at 3:45 in my video. 

    Given that “research suggests that consumers believe front-of-package claims, perceive them to be government-endorsed, and use them to ignore the Nutrition Facts Panel,” there’s been a call from nutrition professionals to consider “an outright ban on all front-of-package claims.” The industry’s short-lived “Smart Choices” label, as you can see below and at 4:13 in my video, was met with disbelief when it was found adorning qualifying cereals like Froot Loops and Cookie Crisp. The processed food industry spent more than a billion dollars lobbying against the adoption of more informative labeling (a traffic-light approach), “opposing most aggressively the use of a red light suggesting that any food was too high in anything.” 

    I was invited to testify as an expert witness in a case against sugary cereal companies. (I donated my fee, of course.) Check out the related posts below for a video series and blogs that are a result of some of the research I did. 

    You may also be interested in videos and blogs on the food industry; see related posts below.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • How Much Added Sugar Is Okay?  | NutritionFacts.org

    How Much Added Sugar Is Okay?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    Public health authorities continue to lower the upper tolerable limit of daily added sugar intake.

    Dating back to the original “Dietary Goals for the United States” in 1977, also known as the so-called McGovern Report, leading nutrition scientists didn’t only call for a reduction in meat and other sources of saturated fat and cholesterol, such as dairy and eggs, but also sugar. The goal was to reduce America’s sugar intake to no more than 10 percent of our daily diet.

    “The conclusions would hang sugar,” reported the president of the Sugar Association. “The McGovern Report has to be neutralized.” The National Cattlemen’s Association was on its side and, just like Big Sugar, appealed to the Senate Select Committee to withdraw the report.

    “The Sugar Industry Empire Strikes Back”—and it appeared to work. When the official U.S. Dietary Guidelines were released in 1980 and again in 1985, it was without a specific limit, like 10 percent. It “said, simply, and in just four words, ‘Avoid too much sugar.’” (Whatever that means.) “In 1990, it went to five words, ‘Use sugars only in moderation,’ and in 1995 to six: ‘Choose a diet moderate in sugars.’” In 2000, it at least went back to limiting intake—specifically, “‘Choose beverages and foods to limit your intake of sugars’ (ten words), but even that was too strong. Under pressure from sugar lobbyists, the government agencies substituted the word ‘moderate’ for ‘limit’ so it read ‘Choose beverages and foods to moderate your intake of sugars.’” Then, the 2005 guidelines committee dropped the s-word completely, encouraging Americans to “Choose carbohydrates wisely…” Again, what does that mean? If only there were a dietary guidelines committee that could guide us….

    The Sugar Association expressed optimism about that 2005 Committee. In its Sugar E-News, it wrote that Sugar Association Incorporated (SAI) “is committed to the protection and promotion of sucrose [table sugar] consumption. Any disparagement of sugar will be met with forceful, strategic public comments”—and it wasn’t kidding. “In 2003, [the World Health Organization] WHO released a joint report with the Food and Agriculture Organization entitled Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases which, for the first time [since the McGovern Report], called for a reduction in sugar intake to under 10% of total dietary energy [caloric] consumption.” The Sugar Association responded by threatening to get the United States to withdraw all funding from the WHO. You can see it yourself in black and white at 2:22 in my video Friday Favorites: The Recommended Daily Added Sugar Intake. The Sugar Association threatened to pressure Congress to withdraw funding from the World Health Organization—polio vaccinations and AIDS medications be damned! Don’t mess with the candy man. The threat was described as “tantamount to blackmail and worse than any pressure exerted by the tobacco lobby.” 

    Fifteen years later and 40 years after the first proposed McGovern Report, the 2015 to 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans lays out the 10 percent limit as a key recommendation: “Consume less than 10 percent of calories per day from added sugars.” This is currently exceeded by every age bracket in the United States starting at age one, as you can see in the graph below and at 2:58 in my video, with adolescents averaging 87 grams of sugar a day. That means the average teen is effectively eating 29 sugar packets a day. 

    The Sugar Association describes the 10 percent limit as “extremely low.” Well, I mean, it is only up to about a dozen spoonsful a day. Of course, there is no dietary requirement for added sugar at all, and every single calorie we get from added sugar is a wasted opportunity to get calories from sources that provide nutrition. To the American Heart Association’s credit, it went further by trying to push added sugar intake down to about 6 percent of calories, for which a single can of soda could send you over the limit. That’s an added sugar limit exceeded by 90 percent of Americans.

    In 2017, the American Heart Association (AHA) released its guidelines for children, recommending they get no more than about six teaspoons per day. In that case, a single serving of nearly a hundred cereals on the U.S. market would exceed the entire recommended daily limit. The AHA recommends no added sugars at all for children under the age of two, a recommendation that’s violated in up to 80 percent of toddlers, as you can see below and at 4:20 in my video. 

    In the United States, “at least 65 countries have implemented dietary guidelines or public health policies to curb sugar consumption to encourage maintenance of healthy body weight.” In the United Kingdom, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition made new recommendations to reduce added sugars down to 5 percent, which is also the direction the World Health Organization is headed. The WHO always seems to be ahead of the curve. Why? Because its policy-making process is at least partially protected “against industry influence.” Unlike governments, which may have competing interests in commerce and trade, “WHO is exclusively concerned with health.”

    I spoke at a hearing of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Committee. Watch the highlights and my speech here: Highlights from the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Hearing.

    The sugar industry keeps pretty busy, as you’ll see from my recent videos, Friday Favorites: Are Fortified Kids’ Breakfast Cereals Healthy or Just Candy? and Flashback Friday: Sugar Industry Attempts to Manipulate the Science.

    Check the related posts below for my other popular videos and blogs on sugar.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link

  • Are Fortified Children’s Breakfast Cereals Just Candy?  | NutritionFacts.org

    Are Fortified Children’s Breakfast Cereals Just Candy?  | NutritionFacts.org

    [ad_1]

    The industry responds to the charge that breakfast cereals are too sugary.

    In 1941, the American Medical Association’s Council on Foods and Nutrition was presented with a new product, Vi-Chocolin, a vitamin-fortified chocolate bar, “offered ostensibly as a specialty product of high nutritive value and of some use in medicine, but in reality intended for promotion to the public as a general purpose confection, a vitaminized candy.” Surely, something like that couldn’t happen today, right? Unfortunately, that’s the sugary cereal industry’s business model.

    As I discuss in my video Are Fortified Kids’ Breakfast Cereals Healthy or Just Candy?, nutrients are added to breakfast cereals “as a marketing gimmick to “create an aura of healthfulness…If those nutrients were added to soft drinks or candy, would we encourage kids to consume them more often?” Would we feed our kids Coke and Snickers for breakfast? We might as well spray cotton candy with vitamins, too. As one medical journal editorial read, “Adding vitamins and minerals to sugary cereals…is worse than useless. The subtle message accompanying such products is that it is safe to eat more.”

    General Mills’ “Grow up strong with Big G kids’ cereals” ad campaign featured products like Lucky Charms, Trix, and Cocoa Puffs. That’s like the dairy industry promoting ice cream as a way to get your calcium. Kids who eat presweetened breakfast cereals may get more than 20 percent of their daily calories from added sugar, as you can see below and at 1:28 in my video. 

    Most sugar in the American diet comes from beverages like soda, but breakfast cereals represent the third largest food source of added sugars in the diets of children and adolescents, wedged between candy and ice cream. On a per-serving basis, there is more added sugar in a cereal like Frosted Flakes than there is in frosted chocolate cake, a brownie, or even a frosted donut, as you can see below and at 1:48 in my video. 

    Kellogg’s and General Mills argue that breakfast cereals only contribute a “relatively small amount” of sugar to the diets of children, less than soda, for example. “This is a perfect example of the social psychology phenomenon of ‘diffusion of responsibility.’ This behavior is analogous to each restaurant in the country arguing that it should not be required to ban smoking because it alone contributes only a tiny fraction to Americans’ exposure to secondhand smoke.” In fact, “each source of added sugar…should be reduced.”

    The industry argues that most of their cereals have less than 10 grams of sugar per serving, but when Consumer Reports measured how much cereal youngsters actually poured for themselves, they were found to serve themselves about 50 percent more than the suggested serving size for most of the tested cereals. The average portion of Frosted Flakes they poured for themselves contained 18 grams of sugar, which is 4½ teaspoons or 6 sugar packets’ worth. It’s been estimated that a “child eating one serving per day of a children’s cereal containing the average amount of sugar would consume nearly 1,000 teaspoons of sugar in a year.”

    General Mills offers the “Mary Poppins defense,” arguing that those spoonsful of sugar can “help the medicine go down” and explaining that “if sugar is removed from bran cereal, it would have the consistency of sawdust.” As you can see below and at 3:17 in my video, a General Mills representative wrote that the company is presented “with an untenable choice between making our healthful foods unpalatable or refraining from advertising them.” If it can’t add sugar to its cereals, they would be unpalatable? If one has to add sugar to a product to make it edible, that should tell us something. That’s a characteristic of so-called ultra-processed foods, where you have to pack them full of things like sugar, salt, and flavorings “to give flavor to foods that have had their [natural] intrinsic flavors processed out of them and to mask any unpleasant flavors in the final product.” 

    The president of the Cereal Institute argued that without sugary cereals, kids might not eat breakfast at all. (This is similar to dairy industry arguments that removing chocolate milk from school cafeterias may lead to students “no longer purchasing school lunch.”) He also stressed we must consider the alternatives. As Kellogg’s director of nutrition once put it: “I would suggest that Fruit [sic] Loops as a snack are much better than potato chips or a sweet roll.” You know there’s a problem when the only way to make your product look good is to compare it to Pringles and Cinnabon.

    Want a healthier option? Check out my video Which Is a Better Breakfast: Cereal or Oatmeal?.

    For more on the effects of sugar on the body and if you like these more politically charged videos see the related posts below.

    Finally, for some additional videos on cereal, see Kids’ Breakfast Cereals as Nutritional Façade and Ochratoxin in Breakfast Cereals.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Greger M.D. FACLM

    Source link