Nutrition, omission edition

Exercise may be the last bastion of healthy individuals, as granola bars are exposed for their true content.

Farzeen Foda

Senior News Editor

As the prevalence of obesity and the proportion of the population at high risk of particular chronic diseases increases year after year, diet and lifestyle continue to be flagged as the top contributors to these unappetizing figures. Meanwhile, the top-dollar brands behind the foods that likely sparked the epidemic, have, in recent years, begun looking for a cure, with new and improved health foods, catering to the dietary needs of the average consumer. It is important, however, that citizens remain sceptical of the high-reaching claims of such foods.

According to Statistics Canada, the percentage of males and females between the ages of 15 and 19 classified as obese nearly doubled between 1981 and 2009. During that same time frame, the proportion of the population at risk of developing severe health consequences more than tripled.

What changed in 27 years? Comparing food availability in 2009 to 1981, a lot of common food items available in 2009 would hardly be recognized as “food” for the everyday individual back in 1981. Back in those days, if you wanted cereal, you actually had to have a bowl of milk with some kind of crispy topping, usually corn flakes. Flash forward to 2009 and there’s a convenient bar claiming to be the exact same thing, just dehydrated and packaged to fit in the palm of your hand. Yes, All-Bran cereal bars are the supposed answer.  A breakfast on-the-go bar, which looks and tastes, but essentially is nothing like actual cereal, is a good source of fibre, according to the label.

While the synthetic cereal bar started gaining momentum, granola bars, also catering to the busy lifestyle of the modern-day person, started taking on new roles as meal replacements, protein supplements and overall healthy, quick fillers for the busy lifestyle. A Globe and Mail investigation in December 2010 found that there is essentially no difference between these two-bite treasures and the ordinary sugar-infused chocolate bar.

Nature Valley, the pricier and seemingly healthier granola bar, boasting a rich green and brown packaging, successfully gives the illusion that there is something wholesome about the granola bar, and a nice little blurb on the box saying “100% Natural” and “Good source of fibre” should certainly lead one to believe that this product is a key ingredient for a healthy diet.

It was found, however, that this miracle bar, advertised as the food of choice for hikers during their long journeys through the wilderness, has nearly the same nutritional value as a Kit Kat bar. Consider the nutritional facts of the 46-g Nature Valley bar versus 45-g Kit Kat. Both have 230 calories, and the granola bar has 11g of fat while the Kit Kat bar has 12g. The drug of choice for all hikers topped the Kit Kat bar in sodium content with 150mg in Nature Valley and 35mg in the chocolate bar. The Kit Kat bar had double the sugar content with 22g compared to 11g of sugar in the Nature Valley bar.

So, if you’re going to eat a granola bar, you’re probably craving a chocolate bar, but can’t handle the guilt that would ensue after the first bite. Neither chocolate bars nor granola bars are particularly healthy food choices, but if you’re going to pick one, don’t fool yourself; just indulge in the chocolate bar. It’s just as bad for you, and probably cheaper.

It doesn’t stop at granola bars. Nutella, the chocolate spread featuring a stereotypical elementary school teacher in the commercial talking about how she can tell when her students have had a complete breakfast topped with Nutella, is essentially melted chocolate. I’m sure she can tell which students have had Nutella for breakfast. Those are the kids who can’t sit still for five minutes because in a 19-g serving of Nutella, sugar comprises 60 per cent.

Advertising is amazing when it comes to tricking people into thinking that they are making healthy choices. High-calorie, sugar-coated junk is not healthy and consumers know it, yet the companies branding junk as healthy food are actually quite successful at fooling people into thinking that their artery-clogging product will lower cholesterol or reduce the risk of particular diseases just because 0.001% of the food item contains fibre or some kind of antioxidant.

It would seem reasonable to conclude, then, that if a product contains the slightest bit of something healthy, it’s worth consuming even if in a small quantity. A valid argument indeed, however, consumers should take note of what proportion of the product contains the healthy ingredient compared to ingredients that are in fact unhealthy. Many items boasting high antioxidant levels, omega-3s, or any other healthy element often contain extremely high levels of sugar, saturated fats, or sodium as well.

While consumers are at the mercy of the print on food labels, health claims on foods continue to boost revenues. It must be noted, though, that the makers of even the seemingly healthiest of foods are much more concerned with revenues, shelf-life of foods, and methods to cutting costs, than the health of citizens.

There is nothing wrong with spreading some Nutella on toast for a snack, or keeping a granola bar on hand on a busy day, as long as people realize that those flashy little lies plastered all over the packaging of every single food item must be scrutinized before patronising the food companies that advertise their product as healthy, while they are in fact the root of many public health problems.