Food manufacturers gaming food labelling

[onetrack]

An ABC news article is reporting that food labelling requirements will be overhauled after food manufacturers have been found to be "gaming" the labelling system - and that "self regulation" of the labelling laws is not working.

You don't need to be Einstein to figure that out. One spends a lot of ones time in supermarkets just trying to figure out how many lies are being told, information being obfuscated, and additive origins and exact ingredients descriptions not provided.

 

Classic examples - "70% Australian ingredients". So which ones exactly, are Australian? If the product is 70% water, it means only the water is Australian origin, all the other ingredients are foreign.

"Natural flavours", "Natural colours". O.K., so they may perhaps be "natural" in origin (and that description is wide open to definition) - but exactly chemical is used as the "natural" flavour or colour?

Is is a product of natural origin that has been processed in an industrial process utilising industrial chemicals? Or simply acquired as a natural process (such as refining, crushing, heating, etc)

 

Vast amounts of chemicals added to processed foods have their origins in industrial processes, or are simply by-products of industrial chemical processing.

The petroleum industry produces a vast range of food additives, and not many people understand that. What is worse, vast amounts of food additives come from China in 200 litre drums, and the processes involved in making them are very opaque.

 

I've even seen an ingredient in a Butter Chicken ready-to-eat meal labelled as "Butter Chicken". Hmm, there's a major educational advance, I didn't know cows could produce chickens! 

After having been conned way too many times by dubious meat content in Butter Chicken that didn't contain chicken meat, I'd have to say that introducing actual MEAT origin testing, should be a high priority in revised food labelling laws.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-14/overhaul-of-health-star-ratings-labelling-and-marketing-of-food/104217784

 

Edited August 14 by onetrack
fixed the dyslexic typing...

[spacesailor]

onetrack .

Sugar 

Natural or processed. 

spacesailor

[onetrack]

Ahhh, yes - Sugar, another favourite of the manufacturers labelling obfuscation. I pick up a nice packet of (almost always American origin) dried cranberries.

I look at the label and find they are something like 40% or 50% sugar content! The cranberries are laced with sugar in the dehydration process.

 

So I go to the "sugar-free" dried cranberries (same company), expecting them to be sweetener and chemical-free - and I find they have a massive amount of saccharin added, in place of the sugar!!

Now saccharin is a chemical nasty that has a big cloud hanging over it. It's banned as food additive in Canada, and the EU has severe restrictions on its use. It's been proven in testing to cause cancer in test animals.

It's not something I want in my food. None of this stops food manufacturers from using it wholesale. It's a major ingredient in virtually every toothpaste brand on the market.

 

Then there's the labelling that is hidden under the flaps of wrapping. This is prevalent in chocolates and other sweet treats. You actually have to peel back the flap that is hiding the ingredient list - which generally reads like a rocket fuel chemical list.

It's way past time to get tough on companies that put profit before truth in food labelling.

 

I always have to question the idea of putting "natural flavouring" or "natural colouring" in processed food? Why does the food need added flavour or colour to give it the desired flavour and colour?

Is it because the end result is a pretty horrible-looking tasteless concotion that only becomes attractive and edible when the flavours and colours are added?

 

I'm convinced a lot of this stuff is added because the additives are quite addictive, and addictive chemicals are a godsend to the highly processed food manufacturers.

I reckon Chicken salt has to rate at the highest level of undesirable chemicals in its makeup. Not surprisingly, Chicken salt doesn't contain any chicken, thus leading to the best definition of misleading labelling.

 

But Chicken salt does contain a wide range of spices - and generally, at least two "flavour enhancers" (sometimes more). These flavour enhancers are MSG and its derivatives (621 and 635 typically).

And these chemicals are produced in industrial treatment processes, which turns me right off them being added to foods. Add to that, the number of people who are MSG intolerant, and it surprises me that the stuff is still on the market.

 

https://www.thefoodintolerancedietitian.com.au/post/what-you-need-to-know-about-msg

[red750]

.Most of these things come from American companies, and we know how addicted to sugar Americans are. Ketchup for instance is heavily laced with sugar. 

[old man emu]

Here's a comment about a sugar tax. The Senate inquiry recommended a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) would create a disincentive to buying them by raising the price, as well as encourage companies to make drinks with less or no sugar so they could avoid the tax.

 

We are so used to prices in supermarkets going up that an increase in the price of a can of soft drink due to the tax would simply be identified as just another grocery price increase and be paid.t have a look at the price of cigarettes. They carry a massive tax burden, but people still are buying them, even after the withdrawal of advertising and the introduction of plain packaging.

 

As for listing ingredients, you need to be a food technologist to not only translate the ingredient identifying numbers, but to know the physiological effects of of each individually and in combination. Can you see young parents with a couple of little ones doing the grocery shopping having that knowlede?

Is it any wonder that a kid nowadays who is not allergic to some food or other is the odd one out?

[red750]

7 minutes ago, old man emu said:

look at the price of cigarettes. They carry a massive tax burden

And some alcohol has 57% tax. Not that it affects me. Don't buy alcohol, can't remember when I last had a can of soft drink (maybe more than 10 years.) Never tasted Red Bull or other caffeinated drinks. Stopped drinking Mineral Water about 6 months ago.

[spacesailor]

Saccharine. 

The favourite chemical for " dietitians " .

Cut out your sugars to have a healthier life & live longer on Saccharine. 

spacesailor

[Marty_d]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

have a look at the price of cigarettes. They carry a massive tax burden, but people still are buying them, even after the withdrawal of advertising and the introduction of plain packaging.

Smoking rates have massively decreased.  Yes some people are still buying them but VERY few compared to previous decades.

Putting a price signal on harmful products does actually work.  If a slab of Coke cost $100 instead of $25, a lot of people would look at alternatives.

[Jerry_Atrick]

I think, like cigarettes, the tax has to be punitive and ubiquitous. We have a 10p per can of soft drink sugar tax. Just raises a bit more revenue for the government

[spenaroo]

1 hour ago, Marty_d said:

Smoking rates have massively decreased.  Yes some people are still buying them but VERY few compared to previous decades.

Putting a price signal on harmful products does actually work.  If a slab of Coke cost $100 instead of $25, a lot of people would look at alternatives.

Most of my generation have started to drink coke zero, or pepsi Max.

rarely see actual proper coke anymore in peoples fridges

[ClintonB]

4 hours ago, Marty_d said:

Smoking rates have massively decreased.  Yes some people are still buying them but VERY few compared to previous decades.

Putting a price signal on harmful products does actually work.  If a slab of Coke cost $100 instead of $25, a lot of people would look at alternatives.

the rrp of $46 is pretty off putting, and we have found that the no sugar has a very detrimental effect on my mother in law who has dementia, she was drinking up to 19 cans a day- forgetting she had had them. When we took it off her, her "craziness" subsided drastically. she is still suffering memory loss part. Who is to say the onset of her illness is not linked to the chemicals in this drink, which she has lived on for 20 plus years. 

[onetrack]

The sweetener in Coca-Cola Zero Sugar is Aspartame. Preliminary research has indicated an increased chance of acquiring dementia by drinking carbonated drinks containing artificial sweeteners, such as Aspartame.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5405737/

[Marty_d]

54 minutes ago, ClintonB said:

the rrp of $46 is pretty off putting, and we have found that the no sugar has a very detrimental effect on my mother in law who has dementia, she was drinking up to 19 cans a day- forgetting she had had them. When we took it off her, her "craziness" subsided drastically. she is still suffering memory loss part. Who is to say the onset of her illness is not linked to the chemicals in this drink, which she has lived on for 20 plus years. 

If she's been drinking up to 19 cans a day of anything for 20+ years it'd have bad effects.

Regular coke probably would have given her obesity, diabetes and tooth decay in that time.

[pmccarthy]

Even water would kill her at that rate. I once went down the deepest mine in the world, in South Africa, and the bloke who showed me around had many cans of coke shoved down his shirt. Said he drank lots, perhaps it was six or eight, every shift because of the heat. Still had his teeth.

[nomadpete]

Excess sugar....

 

In the bloodstream is called diabetes

 

In a kids brain is called ADHD

 

In a oldies brain is called dementia

 

In the eye is called macular degeneration

 

Yeah, I know it isn't directly true. But are is sugar linked to any of these?

We do know that modern research is funded and initiated  by industries that can see a profit outcome from research.  There is little incentive for research the would destroy major businesses.

 

The same goes for many other food additives.

[facthunter]

Sugar plus O2 =Rocket fuel. Pure water is the best drink., Adam's ALE.  Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

I reckon the lack of a sugar tax is shocking evidence of our corruption . This tax is the only one which would meet the approval on the payees.

[old man emu]

Obviously the politicians here know that putting a tax on sugar would start a revolution amongst the farming community. Both sides, and even the Greens, wouldn't like to suffer that sort of electoral backlash.

 

The Australian sugar industry produces around 4 million tonnes of raw sugar annually of which 85% is exported to countries including South Korea, Japan and Indonesia where it is refined to produce white, food-grade sugar. I just looked at a couple of packets of sugar in my pantry and they are labelled "Product of Australia".  Something may be labelled as a 'Product of Australia' if all of its significant ingredients originated in Australia. However, to be able to carry a 'Product of Australia' standard mark label all of the food's ingredients would have to be Australian grown or produced.

 

So, while the sugar is partially prepared for use in Australia, the real added value is done overseas, thereby taking employment and profits from our economy while adding the costs of transport to the shelf price. Proof again that Australia is a lucky country run by second rate people who share its luck. But don't seem to want to share the prize money.

[Marty_d]

If 85% of sugar is exported, an Australian sugar tax won't hurt them.

[spacesailor]

Sugar and diabetes. 

I'm a Sugar addic . My Grandparents ( both ) & both my parents were diabetics. 

I didn't get it . But my four elder parents that had reduced Sugar intake did .

So I don't think there's much of a link there .

spacesailor

[red750]

It's called sugar diabetes because the pancreas doesn't produce sufficient insulin to control blood glucose. While sugar intake needs to be controlled, the real culprit is carbohydrates, such as potatoes, white bread etc. I am currently under the direction of a dietition to reduce my blood glucose levels to prevent type 2 diabetes.

[old man emu]

Just now, red750 said:

the real culprit is carbohydrates, such as potatoes, white bread

White (polished) rice is another food that hikes your blood glucose level. 

 

No matter what we decide to eat, a difficulty is the portion size. For a couple of months now I have been checking the portion size of the food I eat and making my servings match those sizes. It is amazing how small a proper portion size is compared to what I used to dish up. Am I going hungry? No. Have I enough energy? Yes, when I can get over my tendency to procrastinate. How's my weight? I think I might have lost a small amount, but I know that when I first came here from the city, I lost a heap of weight because I wasn't having takeaways.

[willedoo]

I seem to remember the problem with white rice and white bread is that the seed has the germ and bran removed which makes it more easily digestible. It's the carbohydrates digesting too fast that causes a hike in your blood glucose level. The germ and bran are also the nutritional parts. At least that's how I remember reading it; I could be wrong.

 

I had a couple of pre diabetic readings a while back so have been cutting back on the carbs for the last three months. It's keeping the weight down to a manageable degree as well. Mainly less rice and pasta. I don't like potatoes and rarely ever eat them, so that's one less to cut down on.

[old man emu]

8 hours ago, willedoo said:

The germ and bran are also the nutritional parts.

You are quite correct. For the best nutritional value, if you want to eat rice it should be brown rice. That's not some vegetarian cultist comment. Beriberi is a disease caused by vitamin B1 deficiency, also known as thiamine deficiency. It occurs most often in people whose diet that consists mostly of white rice or highly refined carbohydrates.

 

In the mid-19th century, interest in beriberi steadily rose as the disease became more noticeable with changes in diet in East and Southeast Asia. The link to white rice was clear to Western doctors, but with no knowledge of vitamins, the cause of beriberi was among the most hotly debated subjects in Victorian medicine. In 1897, Christiaan Eijkman, a Dutch physician and pathologist, published his mid-1880s experiments showing that feeding unpolished rice (instead of the polished variety) to chickens helped to prevent beriberi.

[facthunter]

HIGH GI foods are the worst  for the Pancreas. Insoluble fiber helps sweep out the toxins. Cheapest foods are overloaded with FAT, SUGAR and SALT. All are addictive. so avoid processed foods and have fresh Natural food. Avoid alcohol and some prescribed drugs that ruin your kidneys and look after Your stomach Bugs that are killed by antibiotics..  Nev