Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that food manufacturers should be forced to use the phrase 'with artificial sweeteners' instead of 'no added sugar'

123 replies

MistyValley · 04/03/2011 13:16

as gullible people may think that they are making a healthy choice when in fact they aren't.

It's downright misleading, many's the time my PFB has been offered squash at a friend's house with the mother saying 'it's okay, it's a no added sugar one'.

It may have no extra sugar, but it's sure as hell packed with dodgy chemicals to make it taste sweet and nasty you loon.

OP posts:
gramercy · 04/03/2011 13:18

Oh dear, I am a loon too then.

YANBU to suggest that manufacturers shouldn't deceive us, but YABU to call people who have been taken in "loons".

FindingStuffToChuckOut · 04/03/2011 13:18

I agree with you MistyValley - food labelling is all smoke and mirrors in this respect and lots of people have no idea.

musksticks · 04/03/2011 13:20

Maybe some people arent taken in by the woo hysteria re artificialy sweeteners like other "loons"

Chil1234 · 04/03/2011 13:21

YABU. 'Dodgy chemicals' is a bit of a dumb-down generalisation. If you look at the ingredients list you'll find the sweetener clearly listed and it's classed as safe for human consumption. Doesn't make anyone a 'loon' for drinking sugar-free squash occasionally.

TheArmadillo · 04/03/2011 13:21

YABU

you are working on the assumption that
a) she didn't know about the artificial sweetners
b)she would have not fed her child it if she had

dentists recommend the no added sugar for example - its not demonised by everyone

stop thinking that anyone who has a different opinion to you is stupid

Bert2e · 04/03/2011 13:21

YANBU
So many people think that the no added sugar versions are better for them and just don't think about the effects of the sweetners.

Original poster
MistyValley · 04/03/2011 13:22

Sorry Gramercy, was done for dramatic effect. Actually the thing that's really worrying (and hence reason for starting thread) is that the people who are 'taken in' are not loons, they are educated people who do on the whole try and eat healthily. Which just seems to indicate HOW misleading it is.

OP posts:
musksticks · 04/03/2011 13:22

Chil spot on. I have just read 2 very extensive reviews as part of my work on artificial sweeteners and there is NO compelling evidence against the one Im sure we are talking about. There is even a review being done/extended by FSA as we speak.

musksticks · 04/03/2011 13:23

mistyvalley where is your evidence against artificial sweeteners?

Original poster
MistyValley · 04/03/2011 13:24

Absolutely fair enough if you actively CHOOSE to consume artificial sweeteners (having researched them) rather than sugar.

But my point is that many people just ASSUME it's healthy because it says 'no added sugar'.

OP posts:
musksticks · 04/03/2011 13:25

You cant assume it isnt healthy on that basis

Chil1234 · 04/03/2011 13:26

Many people? How many?.... You seem to have worked out the truth, no problem. What makes you so special?

musksticks · 04/03/2011 13:27

You are only suggesting the product is "unhealthy" based on your own perceptions of artificial sweeteners

WhensBedtime · 04/03/2011 13:29

YANBU to think that drinks with sweeteners should be much more clearly labelled.

YABU to refer to people who don't notice as 'loons'.

TheArmadillo · 04/03/2011 13:29

" But my point is that many people just ASSUME it's healthy because it says 'no added sugar' ."

where's your evidence for that? or is it just an assumption based on what you would do?

Original poster
MistyValley · 04/03/2011 13:30

I'm not an artificial sweetener specialist I'm afraid, I personally avoid them because I hate the taste, and I'd rather my PFB didn't have them as a) afaik they haven't been conclusively proved to do no harm and b) there have been questions raised about them in the past.

As far as I know, they are mostly used in preference to sugar in drinks simply because they are cheaper for the manufacturer.

OP posts:
musksticks · 04/03/2011 13:31

There is no evidence that they harm. They have been approved. They have been reviewed extensively. Its all woo.

FindingStuffToChuckOut · 04/03/2011 13:31

if artificial sweeteners were widely considered to be so fantastic (especially as sugar is so demonised these days) why aren't the food manufactures boasting CONTAINS ARTIFICIAL SWEETENERS on their labels instead of no added sugar?

Because they know full well sales would drop if they were upfront & honest about their products!

Original poster
MistyValley · 04/03/2011 13:32

My point is about the misleading labelling.

OP posts:
WhensBedtime · 04/03/2011 13:32

musticks, do you work in marketing for a manufacturer of artifical sweeteners or something? Of course aspartame is unhealthy. There is a growing mountain of evidence that it is. Sadly, no, I will not be combing the internet to find it for you.

ovenchips · 04/03/2011 13:32

YADNBU

Tis so disingenuous. Labelling would be much better as you suggested.

FindingStuffToChuckOut · 04/03/2011 13:32

Tobacco & alcohol have been "approved" too haven't they?

musksticks · 04/03/2011 13:33

No im a nutritionist in Academia and also a researcher. Dont worry, as I said I have a mountain of evidence for this area.

Chil1234 · 04/03/2011 13:34

The labelling is not misleading. The ingredients panel by law shows all the contents, including that the product contains artificial sweeteners. The 'no added sugar' reference is accurate.... and might be useful to know for someone who is diabetic, for example.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 04/03/2011 13:35

Yes, absolutely agree. It's terribly misleading and if people are going to buy the product anyway, why try to hide the 'sweetners' or pretend they aren't there?

Swipe left for the next trending thread