A question for food manufacturers

by kalbzayn on December 7, 2006

If you can really remove 1/3 or more of the sugar from, let’s say, breakfast cereals or pop and still make them have the “same great taste”, why would you ever add that extra 1/3 of sugar in the first place.

We all know it does not have the same great taste. Stick to the whole, “You won’t get as fat with this version.”

Also, what is the point of removing 1/3 of the sugar from a cereal if you are not going to lower the calorie content. I can’t remember which one it was, but I saw a box of ceral this week advertising 1/3 less sugar*. That little star led me to a spot on the box where I learned that there was no calorie reductions despite there being less sugar.

Why would I want less sugar, but the same number of calories?


S William Shaw December 10, 2006 at 7:54 am

I have never found that removing sugar or fat has left any food product with a “great taste.”

They are marketing the cereal to the “too busy to schedule a bathroom break” mommies who need an excuse to feed Johnny Jingle Puffs.

Bonnie December 11, 2006 at 9:50 am

Don’t get me started on the “less sugar”, “no sugar added” or “sweetened naturally” crap that is out there to fool people into thinking that this stuff is better for them. As I diabetic, I firmly believe that you’re better off eating one or two regular Oreos than an entire bag of “half the sugar” ones any day. If you’re concerned about Johnny’s breakfast, feed him something that’s good as it is originally without the need for invasive calorie reductions and added chemicals to make it taste better.


kalbzayn December 12, 2006 at 1:46 pm

Another one of my favorites is the zero net carbs thing where they subtract out a gram of carbohydrates for every gram of fiber in the food.

Fun with food math.

Comments on this entry are closed.