I think the problem is.. if it includes whole grains they can label it... not if it includes them and doesnt include anything else bad for you. Yes those things have a lot of sugar in them. But a cup of Lucky Charms or Golden Grahams has less sugar and more sodium than a cup of Raisin Bran, so its all relative isnt it?
Companies are notorious for labelling things to appear to be more appealing nutritiously... like all the "0 trans fat" on packages now that still have tons of other fats. Last year it was carbs. Stuff had "0 net carbs" labels on foods that were ALREADY low carb before this craze.
The problem is, you can't say "only the products that are healthy are allowed to put positive nutritional advertisements on their boxes". Think of the things that have a lot of calcium. Arent they allowed to say so even if the product also has a lot of fat and caloriesas well?
To me, the products can say what they want. I always look at the nutritional information on the package anyways. It won't change how I shop or what I buy. The truth is its not all about one particular nutrient or another its about everything together. I take into account calories, fat, fiber, calcium, iron....
|