>I just discovered "Better Than Milk?" in my local HFS. I really like, =
>tastes great, not to sweet or rich. In fact, it's just perfect for me!
Thanks for the nutrional analysis...now, what are the ingredients? You
indicate that there are some grams of sugar per serving...what is the
overall ratio of sweet stuff to the contents?
I am adamant about reading labels and learning how to read a label
intelligiently. If we are going to take responsibility for what we put
into our mouths, then I think we must all know how to do this.
I distrust the "advertising labels", the really prominent ones on things in
the market. I figure the stores, even HFS, and the packaging of products
are there for only one thing: to separate me from my money. I have said it
before and I'll say it again: there is nothing convenient about so-called
convenience products. They are very inconvenient when one knows how to
read those labels.
And I get a huge laugh out of labels such as "cholesteral free" on products
which were never filled with cholesteral in the first place. OR "fatfree"
on products that don't normally contain fat. Words like "all natural" on a
label really annoy me. The only way a food can be all natural is if one
finds it in it's original condition. "All natural" fruit spreads are not
all natural. The fruit has been smooshed in some way and it is no longer
all natural. And I wonder about the health benefits of the smooshing
process. How, exactly, do they do that? After all, people are still
drinking decaf coffee that is not decafed in a healthful way, and when do
use oils, I trust we are all looking for cold-pressed oils.
Someone commented a few weeks ago about the tricky bit of legislature that
allows a product that contains less than 1 gram of fat to be labeled fat
free when it isn't. The same sort of deceptive reasoining is at work with
the use of the term "all natural" this or that.
Evidently the law allows them to use the term all natural when other items
are missing such as preservatives, but the term "all natrual" does not
indicate a healthfu product. After all, sugars, fats, in gredients to make
alcohol, tobacco are all natural, in that they occur very naturally in.
well, nature. But they are not all healthful.
One problem I find is that the American public want to be duped for the
most part. And i don't mean that in a nasty way. In some ways I am very
sympatehtic. We are deluged with information. One week such and such is
good for us, the next week it is not. Whom can we trust to give us good
and useful advice. I have read Prevention magazine, thinking that is a
good source of info. I found the editorial pages very very interesting as
they make only very positive editorial comments on something that is
advertised in their mag. Now, I'd like to think that this is because they
don;t allow products to advertise that are not for our good. But I have
seen some that I am convinced do more harm than good...egg substitutes for
instance.
And I think we also collude with our own deception, because we want to
trust advertisers. I think we really do desire that. If we believe them,
it makes our lives more simple, right? Wrong..it makes us poorer and less
healthy.
And while I am up here getting dizzy on my soap box, except in the very
rarest of medical conditions, fatfree is not equal to healthful eating. We
need some fat in our diet to make our bodies work correctly. Of course,
this gets interpreted by the average person on the SAD to mean that if a
little fat is good, then a lot is even better.
Gloriamarie gma@xxxxxxxx
In La Mesa, CA, 1 town east of San Diego where, hallelujah, we once againn
have ...sigh...perfect weather and a lovely breeze and not so darned hot!!
------------------------------