I’m not entirely sure what the recommended sugar intake for babies is, but I’m pretty sure these 15% sugar snacks at Coles shouldn’t be marketed as healthy. Shonky use of ‘Organic’ to claim ‘Healthy’ for sure.
Yikes! Good spotting @tpeter267
The per 100g sugar content is by the packaging more to the tune of a total 32% sugar (with the 15% being actual added sugar). But either way a huge amount of energy from somewhat “empty” calories/kj. If they had just relied on the inherent natural sugars of the ingredients a more healthy snack would have ensued.
It is an interesting point, however Certified 'organic’ does not mean healthy, it means the product contains ingredients which were producted without synthetic chemical inputs, GMO etc…
Products such as sugar, oils (including palm oil), salt and highly processed foods can all be certified organic if they meet the required certification standards. Such in themselves, these ingredients/products as well an many others which can be certified aren’t what one would call healthy.
There are posts on this forum also about the term natural…natural indicating being not toxic to theenviron ent nor ones health. This perception is a mistaken belief.
Those who purchase and advocate organic products often state that organic is healthier than non-organic. This message does not mean that organic are healthy. If ones believes this it means in relative terms, organic produce could be marginally healthier than the equivalent non-organic product as it doesn’t contain the chemicals, GMO etc which would prevent its certification.
For example, if one beleives the organic product benefits, one may believe there is the ever slightest risk that a synthetic chemical may be present in non-organic sugar. If one thinks synthetic chemicals are ‘bad’, then it could be perceived that certified organic sugar could be marginally better than non-organic sugar as it should be free of the same chemical.
The body also sees sugar the same way whether it is organic or non-organic.
Does the packaging say ‘healthy’? If it does, it definitely would be misleading.
I also thought most soy was GMO these days and would be under the ACO rules hard to justify as “Organic”.
There are still some Australian soy bean growers who don’t grow GMO soy.
But even the ingredient list does not say it has soy just the allergy warning makes it clear it contains soy, so perhaps it is part of the flour mix?? But your point re non GMO…do they produce enough to provide the entire market, reminds me somewhat about the old Barra scam when alternatives were used but sold as Barra because at the time not enough was provided to the market.
I wonder what % of Australian product was used in the bars as well…an interesting initial product exposure by @tpeter267 that leads me to more questions as I see the accreditation is an Australian one so you would think they are dealing with a wholly 100% Australian supply chain, but I guess if they accept OS certifying it might also explain the accreditation.
Second picture with nutritional info at the bottom has a brown bar in which it states that the product contains Wheat dairy and soy (it is hidden sometimes by the image description)
That’s a very good point.
It could also be imported…and certified elsewhere.
I don’t know about the entire market situation, but the organic soy milk I buy certainly contains certified Australian grown soy beans.
I can’t spot any allergy warning on the pictures above, but I think that if soy is not in the ingredient mix, then the bars are made on the same equipment as other products that do contain soy. I’m pretty certain it wont be a mix of soy and wheat flour.
Tricky, it appears when my mouse isn’t hovering over the pic!
Don’t worry about the sugar. Would you like salt with that?
They do and if it has been certified by an accredited organisation overseas, it is taken to meet the Australian certification standards. The Coles product could be anywhere from 0 to 100% Australian content.
It would be interesting to know what the package indicates is the Australian content, as well as its health star rathing.
Here is the manufacturers website:
The website states " Healthy Kids Healthy World
We believe in unjunking our food and our lives°.
We choose the finest organic ingredients to make the yummiest, healthiest foods for your kids. No artificial stuff. No funny numbers. No junk. Just honest food with real ingredients that’s created by a real Mum.".
° This comment is very interesting especially when the product is high in sugar.
Almost sounds like a “real Mum” is the manufacturer of every item, must be one busy cook! Maybe they mean that the recipe is created by a “real Mum” but how many of them or is it just one who “creates” the recipe but they didn’t say recipe in that line…but my sarcasm leaks through…it is just advertising to attract the innocent with words that hold little “real” value when you see the nutritional values on the packets.
If you have a dairy, wheat or soy allergy how can a broad description that the products are allergen friendly really hold water. Maybe they mean they are friendly to the allergens by including them?? Then they could say “We didn’t exclude them because we really like them in our products”.
I think being junk food aimed at kids isn’t enough to be a shonky. But being junk food aimed at kids that specifically says ‘No junk.’ Now THAT is shonky.
Playing on people’s fear of ‘funny numbers’ (most of which are harmless) to sell them something worse.
Yes, funny when some of these numbers could also be certified organic. I wonder if the organic ones are a part of the ‘funny number’ bunch and junk as well?
For those who don’t beleive this is possible, here is one example…
Food additive 330 - Citric Acid…