Deceptive advertising is getting out of control

I have harangued before about deceptive advertising (here and here), but this instance truly takes the cake. I was in Stop & Shop today, and my husband innocently brought my attention to a display of chocolate and caramel-covered apples which boasted: "Healthy never tasted this good!" I took a closer look at the apples, which appeared to be more candy than fruit, and was appalled- to say the least- by what I found.

Although the display called these apples "healthy" and also claimed that they contained "natural antioxidents and fiber PLUS benefits of dark chocolate," the nutrition label told a different story. The apple did contain about 9 grams of fiber, but at over 800 calories, it's hardly worth it. But what I really take issue with are the claims that the product is "healthy" and provides the benefits of dark chocolate.

First of all, more than half of the fat in the apple is saturated fat. In fact, it provides 35% of the daily maximum recommended level of saturated fat that the average adult should consume in an entire day per serving. And mind you, one serving is less than ONE-FOURTH of the apple- thanks to Joyce Faraj for pointing that out. I almost missed it myself! This means that the whole apple actually contains 27 grams of saturated fat alone (over 150% of the recommended daily limit).

Furthermore, partially hydrogenated oil is listed twice on the ingredient list (in the caramel and chocolate coatings), suggesting that despite the "0g trans fat" listed on the label, the product does in fact contain some trans fat. It also contains a substantial amount of added sugar. Given these facts, I am amazed that this company (Tastee) has the gall to use the word "healthy" in the same sentence as these death snacks.

But the lies don't stop there. Tastee also implies that if you eat their products, you can reap the benefits of dark chocolate. How much dark chocolate do you get from these apples? Beats the hell out of me! The only thing close to chocolate listed on the label is cocoa, the fourth ingredient in the chocolate coating- after sugar, partially hydrogenated oil, and milk powder. The coating itself is only the 6th ingredient. I can't imagine that the amount of cocoa in the trans fat/sugar concoction that covers the apples is anywhere near enough to cause any kind of beneficial effects remotely resembling those associated with real dark chocolate consumption. Even if there was, any positive effects would be more than outweighed by the negative effects of the sugar, saturated fat, and trans fat.

You better believe I will be contacting this company to complain about their ethical standards, and I will also be contacting the FDA regarding the lawfulness of their claims, which I believe may be in violation of current labeling regulations. In the meantime, I made my own small effort to protect my fellow shoppers from Tastee's deceitful advertising (look closely):

High fructose corn syrup- "you know what they say about it"

Tweet

You've probably seen the ads, put out by the Corn Refiners Association, poking fun at concerned moms and other folks who are wary of high-fructose corn syrup for.. well, no apparent reason.

Like many people, you may be wondering whether the CRA is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, or if they're right and everyone else is just paranoid. I think it's long past time I address this controversy.

Let's start with the argument against HFCS. In one of the CRA ads, one mom chides another for serving fruit punch made with HFCS at a kids' party. When asked why she's worried about it, she replies, "you know what they say about it." When the other mom asks her to give examples, she is unable to come up with any. So, what exactly do "they" say about HFCS? There are two main arguments that I am aware of:

1. As the amount of HFCS in our food supply has increase, so have obesity rates, suggesting that HFCS may be one of the causes for the epidemic.

2. HFCS contains more fructose, which has a "lipogenic" (fat-generating) effect. Fructose is metabolized differently than sugar and leads to higher levels of triglycerides and LDL in the blood, insulin resistance, and more visceral fat storage. All of these are risk factors for diabetes and heart disease.

However, there are some very big problems with these arguments. In regards to argument #1, a correlation between HFCS and obesity is simply not enough to suggest a causal relationship. I could just as easily point to any other change that happened to occur in the last 50 years or so and blame it for the rise in obesity. I could blame the increases we've seen in college graduation rates, the number of women in the work force, or public interest in vampire romance novels. But this would, of course, be ridiculous.

The second argument lends some scientific credibility to the hypothesis that HFCS could cause some metabolic problems, and it is based on research. The problem is that much of this research is in mice, which are not always good models of human metabolism (and in fact, human studies have not consistently had the same results). But more importantly, the animal studies frequently compared the effects of diets very high in pure fructose or pure glucose-- sweeteners we rarely see in foods or beverages. Instead, our choices are usually HFCS or sucrose (sugar). And we don't typically consume the quantities of either sweetener that are tested in research.

The molecular makeup of these two substances is not remarkably different. A molecule of sucrose is comprised of 1 molecule of glucose and 1 molecule of fructose. Thus, sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. High-fructose corn syrup, belying its name, ranges from 42-55% fructose and the rest glucose. Therefore, studies comparing the metabolic effects of pure fructose and pure glucose are largely irrelevant to the question of whether HFCS is more harmful than sugar. Finally, studies that have been done on humans comparing HFCS and sucrose have not found any differential effects on metabolism or appetite.

Finally, if fructose is the "bad guy" in HFCS, then why isn't anyone attacking the natural and organic food manufacturers adding fruit juices (60%+ fructose) and agave nectar (84% fructose) to their products and touting it as healthier than the convential stuff? Chew on that one for a bit.

The bottom line is, the evidence doesn't support choosing sugar over HFCS, or choosing products with more natural sweeteners instead of products with HFCS. BUT, evidence certainly does support avoiding BOTH high-fructose corn syrup AND sugar. My goal here is not to vindicate HFCS and encourage people to not feel guilty about buying soda. Quite the opposite. My intent is to emphasize that ALL added sugars of any kind are equally horrible.

References
Melanson et al. High-fructose corn syrup, energy intake, and appetite regulation. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008; 88(6):1738S-1744S.

Schaefer EJ et al. Dietary fructose and glucose differentially affect lipid and glucose homeostasis. J Nutr. 2009;139:1257S-1262S.

"Sugar Overload: Curbing America's sweet tooth." Nutrition Action Healthletter. January/February 2010.