Low-fat claims not what they seem
"This isn't new, but the extraordinary thing is that a majority of people don't actually know this. Co-incidentally a majority of people are overweight too..."
Featured commentSo-called “low-fat” foods can contain a similar number of calories to the standard versions – and in some cases contain even more sugar, a study by Britain’s consumer watchdog Which? says.
The investigation found that as many as six out of 10 consumers eat low-fat and light foods several times a week believing that they are a healthier option and can help them to lose weight.
But its “snapshot sample” of 12 low-fat, reduced and light products from supermarkets compared with their standard counterparts found minimal differences in calorie content.
Among the foods singled out were a standard McVitie’s chocolate digestive, which contained 85 calories, compared with 77 in the “light” version – a difference of just eight calories.
In another case, a low-fat yoghurt had more calories per pot – 130 – compared with a standard one containing 123 calories. The low-fat one also contained more sugar.
Which? says its research also uncovered misconceptions among consumers about what the terms “reduced fat” and “light” mean.
Products labelled with these terms only have to contain 30% less fat than the standard version, yet only 16% of people surveyed understood this.
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Latest
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Comments and questions8
When will western societies wake up to the erroneous fat advice. People who eat industrial food that contains soy, maize and canola and of course sugar are destined to have obesity, Alzheimers, MS, heart trouble and cancer.
New Zealand produces amongst the best food in the world, grass fed!! It is a pity what Fonterra does to perfectly good milk.
This isn't new, but the extraordinary thing is that a majority of people don't actually know this. Co-incidentally a majority of people are overweight too...
Is food education in schools the answer? What about public advertising (like they do for drink driving) to get through to adults too?
Why do you need a British study to find this out
An idiot can read labels and see that for themselves. Every packaged product with 90% less fat or fat free is bound to be full of sugar.
Sugar is the curse of the modern world - its not fat. Fat is not a drug or addictive
SUGAR IS
Just like cigarettes and alcohol the authorities should be forcing sugar out of the food chain - we only need the natural sugars through fruit to exist.
Maybe there is a brave politician out there who will take on this cause - I doubt it - they are all self interested and get wined and dined by the PR people representing the sugar producers and snack food producers.
Well said sir! I actually have about 25% of my diet as fat (so called good fat) but I dont eat much sugar. I also eat those terrible things called Carbs which seem to have been found guilty of every health crime going. Here's the clincher folks - I exercise!!
Dairy products are some of the worst for our health, and studies have shown that they cause the same problems comment #1 attributes to other sources.
I did notice earlier this week that Arnotts Salada Lite crackers have significantly more calories than the Salada Originals. I thought that to be rather odd...
if I buy a low fat product I expect only one thing. Specifcally that it is low fat.
Having a low fat label tells me nothing about the calorific content or sugar content, or indeed anything but the level of fat.
anybody who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
I agree completely.
The problem is we have been brain washed into thinking 'low fat' is good.
Lots of research coming out now that suggests high fat, high protein, low sugar diets are much better for us. Try finding that in the supermarket, other than in the meat or vege section.