Blueberries faked in cereals, muffins, bagels and other food products - Food Investigations

US vs. UK:

Kellogg's Nutri-Grain Cereal Bar ingredients in the US:

CRUST: WHOLE GRAIN OATS, ENRICHED FLOUR (WHEAT FLOUR, NIACIN, REDUCED IRON, THIAMIN MONONITRATE [VITAMIN B1], RIBOFLAVIN [VITAMIN B2], FOLIC ACID), WHOLE WHEAT FLOUR, SOYBEAN OIL (WITH TBHQ AND CITRIC ACID FOR FRESHNESS), HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, SOLUBLE CORN FIBER, SUGAR, CALCIUM CARBONATE, WHEY, WHEAT BRAN, SALT, CELLULOSE, POTASSIUM BICARBONATE, PROPYLENE GLYCOL, MONO- AND DIGLYCERIDES, SOY LECITHIN, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, WHEAT GLUTEN, CORNSTARCH, NIACINAMIDE, VITAMIN A PALMITATE, CARRAGEENAN, ZINC OXIDE, REDUCED IRON, GUAR GUM, PYRIDOXINE HYDROCHLORIDE (VITAMIN B6), THIAMIN HYDROCHLORIDE (VITAMIN B1), RIBOFLAVIN (VITAMIN B2), FOLIC ACID. FILLING: HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, CORN SYRUP, BLUEBERRY PUREE CONCENTRATE, GLYCERIN, SUGAR, WATER, SODIUM ALGINATE, MODIFIED CORN STARCH, NATURAL AND ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, CITRIC ACID, METHYLCELLULOSE, CALCIUM PHOSPHATE, MALIC ACID, RED #40, BLUE #1.

http://www.nutrigrain.com/ProductDetail.aspx?product=340

Kellogg's Nutri-Grain Soft Bake Blueberry from the UK:

Cereals (32%)(Wheat Flour, Oat Flour, Whole Oats), Glucose-Fructose Syrup, Sugar, Humectant (Glycerol), Vegetable Oil, Blueberry Puree from Concentrate(4.5%), Maltodextrin, Modified Starch, Dextrose, Stabilisers (Sodium Alginate, Methyl Cellulose, Xanthan Gum), Calcium Carbonate, Natural Flavouring, Skimmed Milk Powder, Colour (Anthocyanins), Salt, Raising Agent (Potassium Hydrogen Carbonate), Emulsifier(Sunflower Lecithin), Calcium Phosphate, Citric Acid, Malic Acid, Niacin, Iron, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (B2), Thiamin (B1), Folic Acid, Vitamin B12.

http://www.kelloggs.co.uk/products/nutrigrain/Bar/nutri_grain_soft_bake_blueberry_.aspx

In both cases, the information is on the packages and easily available on the Internet. In both cases, you have some sort of blueberry puree mixed in with sugars and vegetable oils. The recipes may be slightly different, but I wouldn't want to eat either of them.

Based on my experiences in England, I don't think that the British consumer is any more discerning than the American consumer.

sanctimonious Brit wrote:

What rules are there on food labelling and description in the USA? And why can't people campaign for stronger ones?

Because some of us are adults, are capable of reading food labels, and don't need a nanny-state government to make all of our decisions for us.

Contraceptive Jelly on Toast

PHILADELPHIA, PA: A woman is suing the pharmacy that sold her a popular contraceptive jelly - because she ate the stuff on toast and got pregnant anyway. And, incredibly, many legal experts are saying she's got an excellent chance of collecting!

http://wcthompson.com/funnies/dumbsuit.htm

Mr. Obvious wrote:

sanctimonious Brit wrote:

What rules are there on food labelling and description in the USA? And why can't people campaign for stronger ones?

Because some of us are adults, are capable of reading food labels, and don't need a nanny-state government to make all of our decisions for us.

As I posted above, the food labeling and description in the US and UK is essentially the same, with some minor variations in how ingredients are described.

In both countries, there are plenty of people who would be much healthier if a nanny-state government decided what they eat and drink, but that doesn't actually occur in either country. The essence of freedom is that you let idiots abuse their freedom to their own detriment.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Because some of us are adults, are capable of reading food labels, and don't need a nanny-state government to make all of our decisions for us.

If people are willing to bear the consequences of their own decisions, then I have no problem with that philosophy. So when they eat themselves into diabetes, don't ask me to help pay for their treatment.

(And thank goodness the "nanny-state government" required the labelling with ingredients and nutritional information in the first place, no doubt over the kicking and screaming of the food industry.)

SomeActualData wrote:

If people are willing to bear the consequences of their own decisions, then I have no problem with that philosophy. So when they eat themselves into diabetes, don't ask me to help pay for their treatment.

Yes, I am not in favor of mandating taxpayers to pay for the health care of other people either.

Food companies have started doing this with chocolate, too. Anything that doesn't explicitly say "chocolate", but rather something like "chocolate flavored" or my personal favorite "chocolatey" is made from a mixture of low-quality, rancid oils and flavors.

haha YO wrote:

RuKiddingMe!! wrote:

exposes the deceptive chemical ingredients and dishonest marketing of "blueberry" products from big-name food and cereal companies.

http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=7EC06D27B1A945BE85E7DA8483025962

You post the stupidest threads. I've been telling you that for almost a year now and they never get any more intelligent. When are you going to start using your brain?

JACKASS! And my PRs are faster than yours too, A Hole

Geez, this whole thread is depressing. What's next,Boo-Berry and Franken-Berry are fake berries, too?

grasslandbeef.com

100% raw to include cheeses

ps: isn't the Mike Adams (the healthranger) website the best?

i live under a bridge wrote:

Geez, this whole thread is depressing. What's next,Boo-Berry and Franken-Berry are fake berries, too?

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IllinoisMaster wrote:

Say, does the UK Government have to adhere to the "Trades Description Act" also? What about the BBC?

No, they're the government! They can do what they like.

The act basically says products must be described honestly. BBC isn't selling anything so I guess that's their let-out.

WARNING: Lucky Charms have not been shown to increase luck of consumers in placebo-controlled double blind trials.

sanctimonious Brit wrote:

I'm curious - don't you Americans have any laws about this?

In the UK we have something called the "Trades Description Act" and I am pretty sure this would be illegal. Frequently, when a product has a misleading name, they get slapped publicly and have to change it. Also, every food product must have an ingredients list, with ingredients in order of their proportion. So if something says "Blueberry Pop Tart" and the blueberries were 17th on the ingredients list after the E-numbers, you can tell pretty quickly that they added one token berry to the mixing vat ;-)

What rules are there on food labelling and description in the USA? And why can't people campaign for stronger ones?

In the U.S., corporations control almost everything including the politicians who make our laws and law enforcement. Food is a one trillion dollar business here and represents a very powerful lobbying group in Washington. Our elections are not publically funded. Politicians rely on "political contributions" (i.e. bribes) to finance their campaigns and therefore rely on corporate money as the public interest suffers. So, short of actually giving us poison in our foods, the corporations can do almost anything they like and we have no protection and no recourse. Its "caveat emptor"gone wild.

moron dat later wrote:

In the U.S., corporations control almost everything including the politicians who make our laws and law enforcement. Food is a one trillion dollar business here and represents a very powerful lobbying group in Washington. Our elections are not publically funded. Politicians rely on "political contributions" (i.e. bribes) to finance their campaigns and therefore rely on corporate money as the public interest suffers. So, short of actually giving us poison in our foods, the corporations can do almost anything they like and we have no protection and no recourse. Its "caveat emptor"gone wild.

Not true, but not far off the truth. In reality, there are fairly strict laws, but I think those are just a smoke screen to keep us oblivious to the actual damage being done (i.e. the things being added to our foods that are killing us yet are not required to be listed).

Think about pesticides, GMO, rBGH and things of that nature. Whether or not you think they are harmful, why the hell are they not required to be listed?

Literal Man wrote:

Think about pesticides, GMO, rBGH and things of that nature. Whether or not you think they are harmful, why the hell are they not required to be listed?

The irony of the situation is that dairies that do not use rBGH have to list it on their labels. Something like:

This milk does not contain rBGH, but rBGH has not been found to cause any negative effects.

You know that you live in bizarro world when a company has to have special warning labels to NOT include a controversial ingredient.

SomeActualData wrote:

(And thank goodness the "nanny-state government" required the labelling with ingredients and nutritional information in the first place, no doubt over the kicking and screaming of the food industry.)

That's why I asked. I had heard somewhere that in the US it was a convention to list ingredients, but that you didn't have to list all of them or provide nutritional info.

However I just found the FDA "Food Labeling Guide" and I'm impressed - seems you have pretty strong rules just like us.

IMHO we actually need laws requiring people to keep to a minimum level of health

what most mature economies need badly is some kind of sliding scale of obesity taxes and penalties:

- everyone educated on nutrition in high school

- compulsory regular health checks

- punitive tax or insurance premiums if your body fat exceeds guidelines (unless there is a medical condition, in which case you get help)

- likewise, compulsory education programs, court orders etc for fatties. In the worst case have them sent to labor/rehab camps before they get to the stage of needing firemen and cranes to evacuate them on TV news!

I'm amazed the politicians don't go for this - think how well it would distract us all from the more serious sneaky stuff they want to slip by us...and what it would save us all in the long run...

Cow Teet wrote:

You know that you live in bizarro world when a company has to have special warning labels to NOT include a controversial ingredient.

I was JUST about to write this. I had a huge fight with my dad about this last year when he tried to give my daughter milk from wal-mart.

Call me crazy, I do not care, but I don't want my kids drinking milk from this thing -

He argues, "By not including rBGH, these dairies are unfairly implying that rBGH is unhealthy." I say, "So what, the onus need to be on the ones adding the shady growth hormone, not the ones using natural cows."

He is a chemical engineer, so he sees things differently. A very smart man, but sometimes can't see the forest through the trees.

Literal Man wrote:

Think about pesticides, GMO, rBGH and things of that nature. Whether or not you think they are harmful, why the hell are they not required to be listed?

Yes, we had a big story on the news about that a couple of years ago: some small US company as going to start saying "GM-free" on its products, and the food lobby mobilised to stop them saying it.

We Euro-organic-cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys Euro-lefties simply cannot believe that kind of thing. Most of Europe errs strongly on the side of consumer protection.

And it's amazing how expensive fresh veggies are in the USA.