Last week, I went to a market with my mother. When I was about to pick a pack of Oreo, my mother warned me that I could get fat from eating it. She added that eating too much sweat cookies is not good for my health. So, I picked up the reduced fat version of Oreo next to the original version: this was the great compromise that I could buy the cookie I want and my mother felt relieved from the fact that I bought health friendly cookies. The word “reduced fat” seemed to give my mother a great promise that this particular version of Oreo would be good for my health. Furthermore, the color of the reduced fat Oreo pack was green, which stands for safety and freshness.
Yet, I found only a slight difference between the original Oreo and the reduced fat Oreo. In terms of calories, the original Oreo contains 10 more calories than the reduced fat Oreo. Furthermore, they contained the same amount of sugar. Also, ironically, the reduced fat Oreo decreased its nutritional value by giving up the 2% of Calcium that the original Oreo possessed.
We can easily find similar cases in the other less calories products, such as less calories soft drinks (Coke Zero, Diet Pepsi, and Diet Sprite). Their original products are already well known as artistic results of artificial ingredients. Yet, in order to reduce calories and make them taste like the original, they again choose to add artificial ingredients like aspartame, the artificial sweetener. If you look at the chart in the link, almost every ‘diet’ product contains aspartame and Acesulfame potassium, which is another type of artificial sweetener. http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/mail/goodanswer/soft_drink_nutrition.pdf
This sudden mass consumption of the less calories and reduced fat products in the era chasing the healthy group of food reflects the modern society where trend leads people. In modern society, trend builds up the list of what people should wear, do, and eat. The trend of consuming healthy diet also forces people to buy food that looks healthy without careful observation.
It is interesting how the “less calorie” aspect of food is looked at only for its name rather than how many calories less it might be. I have never paid close attention to the artificial ingredients that are added to make up for the taste. Although I have never been a fan of soda, I always questioned how much better all the diet flavors could actually taste as could as the sugar filled pop cans. It also seems that the artificial flavoring might actually be worse for your health than the extra few calories, depending on your exercise habits. Interesting blog.
ReplyDeleteSooyeon,
ReplyDeleteI myself was going to write an article similar to yours relating low fat food with food that generally cannot be characterized by low fat or reduced fat foods. Take for example chocolate chip cookies and chips of all sorts. As I wrote to Maria, who also talked about the lighter color packaging on light calorie, or low/ reduced fat food and drink products, the lighter colored packaging tricks our brain into thinking that the calorie difference is one that makes us feel better about ourselves when we pick it up at the grocery store. However, just as you said, the difference is as little as ten calories, or even just the two percent calcium nutrient loss. The label claiming it to be less fat only literally means there is only less fat, but what the consumers do not realize is that the fat is actually being replaced with more sugar as well as other ingredients that are less than .05 percent per serving. When it meets such a requirement, the company does not have to display it on the nutrient chart. Therefore the consumers are buying their product with false information, and buying more with the impression of gaining less weight.
-Krita Parekh