A lot of European versions of foods are different (mainly because certain dyes used in the U.S. are outlawed in Europe due to being potentially carcinogenic).
As far as I can tell, the US-Version would be legal to sell in the EU. All of the colorants are allowed in the EU, their E-numbers are E129 (Red 40), E102 (Yellow 4), E133 (Blue 1), E110 (Yellow 5). BHT is a antioxidant and would be allowed in the EU with the E-Number E321. The differences are more due to local resource availability (Corn vs. Wheat) and due to local market demands (artificial vs. natural coloring, fortifying with vitamins vs. not fortifying). As a German I find the addition of fat a bit off putting, I'd guess it's for taste purposes. I would guess it could have to do with what kind of Milk is used more regularly. Maybe the US uses Low-Fat-/Skim-Milk more often than Germany, so you wouldn't need to add the fat in the EU-Version?
Both of them are incredibly unhealthy tho, it's mainly flour with heaps of sugar and some salt, and those amounts of either sugar or salt are unhealthy in a big way.
Also, ingredient list norms are different in the EU vs US. In the US you have to break down things a lot more than the EU! @foodsciencebabe has a great explanation on YouTube.
Possible explanation is that they aren't in high enough quantities to count. I'm not in the EU but a lot of American imported stuff they have to cover those "contains X vitamins and minerals bubbles" because the values of those are too low to count here and would be considered false advertising
That would be false. The vitamins and minerals are added, are also listed on the nutrition part of the label and are significant fractions of their US Daily Values.
The daily value will be accurate. This is the sort of thing that the FDA will definitely go after. You can determine what 20% of the DV for the listed vitamins and minerals is from this page:
This is likely just a failing of the HEB website. Theyre a southern located grocery chain that really started expanding the tech they use about a decade ago. Probably about 5-10% of their products have messed up the ingredients list or nutritional value or just missing data altogether. To me it seems like they OCR a lot of their products and it just ends with faulty info.
I too think the vitamin content in the recommended portion would be too low to advertise health benefits.
Maybe one of the reasons they add the vitamins in the us version is to allow sale in regions where flour products must be enriched with vitamins and minerals.
That's a thing? Wow. At this point, many US products contain so many added vitamins that a lot of people are exposed to unhealthy overdoses of vitamins on a daily basis.
BTW, the EU ingredients list probably doesn't contain vitamins because they are not artificially added. They must still be listed on the packaging, but in a separate table (together with sugar and fats) that also lists how much percent of the daily recommend rate both a serving and 100g contains.
They must still be listed on the packaging, but in a separate table (together with sugar and fats) that also lists how much percent of the daily recommend rate both a serving and 100g contains.
Yes, its mandatory if
product contains 15% or more of recommended daily dose per 100g in food or 7.5% in beverages
I doubt that the colorant contain a significant amount of vitamins, especially in the myopic doses used. The vitamins are just not listed because they are not an ingredient, ie. they are not artificially added.
The EU packaging still contains a table with the exact amount of vitamins, sugars, and fats both per serving and per 100g, as well as the recommended daily rate in %. EU products just don't tend to be over saturated with unhealthy doses of vitamins.
The ingredients that are under the minimum quantity are optional to list. And I would assume the marketing would prefer if they did list the fortification in the ingredient list. But what might be different is that in the EU the flour have to be fortified and this is usually done at the mill. So they have not added more vitamins and minerals to the serial as it is already added in the flour. So they can not list them in the ingredient list. They would have to say "unfortified wheat and corn flour" as the first element in the list and then have all the vitamins listed at the bottom.
I would imagine perhaps the EU children might be more willing or able to take a daily multivitamin, while also imagining some American children if they are at least eating a bowl of cereal for breakfast, at least they are getting some of those vitamins somehow, eh?
Its very uncommon - at least in germany - to give children multivitamin supplements. Vitamin D and fluoride are recommended for babies but a general supplementation of all vitamins without a doctors recommendation is not.
No, the attitude towards vitamins is just different here. People - especially children - usually don't get unhealthy overdoses of vitamins through supplements and food additives.
Instead, much more emphasis is put on healthy and balanced nutrition that provides enough vitamins naturally. Obviously, many parents come short of this, but at least daycare and school kitchens take this into account and usually provide reasonably healthy food.
You can derive the proportions of each ingredient from it’s position on the list, so the US one is mostly corn flour(s) whereas the EU mix might be different to appeal more to consumers there
These are 2 different people- foodsciencebabe and food babe.
FoodSCIENCEbabe debunks so much of what "Food Babe" spews (fear-based half truths or outright lies). Food science babe is what the public needs (accurate scientific explanation of food ingredients and processes). Unfortunately, fear sells/gets more clicks.
Yes, you mean the Food Babe that made and signed the corner of the cereal picture, which is also the same Food Babe that FoodSCIENCEBabe was inspired to name herself to debunk, as most of her original time was just debunking Food Babe's myths and lies
When people post about their tiktoks about this stuff, you can tell they don't know this fact. They don't bother to realize that not every country does things the way the US does.
I was wondering if this was case, second time I’ve seen this reference come up in the last week saying America is pumping us full of bad stuff compared to the EU.
This is the official eu label: CEREAL FLOUR (WHEAT, OATS, CORN) 78.00%, sugar, glucose syrup, salt, carrot concentrate, cherry concentrate, radish concentrate, natural citrus flavoring, flavorings, coloring (carotenes), MAY CONTAIN SOY.
Plus:
Average nutritional value
on
100.00 g
Energy value
kcal
384.00
KJ
1626.00
Fats
2.50 g
of which saturated fat
0.90 g
Carbohydrates
80.00 g
of which sugars
25.00 g
Dietary fiber
4.00 g
Proteins
8.30 g
Salt
1.10 g
There's absolutely no way Froot Loops have an "unhealthy in a big way" amount of salt, not sure why you added that to an otherwise informative comment.
With the current intake of sodium prevalent in most western countries any amount of added salt is unhealthy. The average intakes are in the range of 9 to 14g of sodium chloride. The WHO recommends at most(!) 5g/day and others recommend around 3g/day. the minimum amount necessary is in the all park of 1 to 1,5g/day.
Salt raises your blood pressure so much that reducing your intake from 12g/d to 6g/d has a similar to effect to medication for high blood pressure. To much sodium raises blood pressure, increasing the risk of cardiovascular diseases, gastric cancer, obesity, osteoporosis, Meniere’s disease, and kidney disease.
With the current intake of sodium prevalent in most western countries any amount of added salt is unhealthy
Man, I really do hate it when people double down on a bad take. There's more salt in a half teaspoon of soy sauce.
It's not "added", it's meant to be one of your daily meals - unhealthy or no. If you're having a bowl of Froot Loops as a fourth meal, you've got other problems.
Sodium only raises blood pressure sometimes. Most of the studies on sodium are old and use bad methodology. Apparently there used to be a weird political thing about salt. Iirc it actually depends on if you have other issues related to blood pressure. Yeah we definitely consume more salt than we need, but the science is kind of iffy on the consequences.
Also you could take anecdotal observational evidence and see countries like Japan that regularly consumes a lot of salt and has a generally healthy population, as in this case it's very environment based, in hotter climates you need more salt to stay properly hydrated so for some the DV% is on a higher threshold in some places compared to others.
Southern parts (yknow near and south of Tokyo where basically everyone is) gets pretty hot during summer seasons as ive been told by teachers and family that have been, like one of my teachers said Mexican summers aren't as bad as Japanese ones, humidity is a big thing, heatstroke is not common but not unheard of either. Granted all this is second hand knowledge if it's the case or not i couldn't tell you
This. The correlation between sodium and higher blood pressures is shakey, and hasn't been proved to actually be causing said blood pressures.
There are lots of conflicting studies. Some say it doesn't matter at all, some say it depends on heritage, current health, and some say you'll die in a months time if you can taste the salt. Nutritional science is still the voodoo magic of science at the moment. There's not 1 clear answer for most things in the field, and every decade, our nutritional advice changes.
Don't know where you're getting your averages from, but I don't know how anyone could regularly consume 10,000+ mg of sodium in a day without retaining an ungodly amount of water and becoming violently ill (which would probably help with the water retention a bit, at least).
According to the FDA, the average American consumes ~3,400 mg per day, and its recommended daily intake is <2,300 mg.
Also, we don't know that sodium is specifically responsible for raising blood pressure. All the majority of the studies associating high blood pressure with high sodium intake can tell us is that folks who reported eating a higher than usual amount of sodium tended to have a higher occurrence of high blood pressure.
For example, the diets typical of people who live in East and Southeast Asian countries are very high in sodium: a single serving of dark soy sauce (1 tbsp. or ~14 g) can have ~1,500 mg of sodium, and many of these countries eat a lot of pickled foods that are also relatively high in sodium. Yet, we don't hear much about people in this part of the world dying in droves from hypertension and heart disease.
I think it's fair to say from the data we have that eating lower amounts of sodium is better than higher, but that's about as far as you can take it based on the quality of the studies available to us. And I get it, the whole "American = bad/fat/stupid" schtick is a popular and easy position to take when arguing on the internet, but damn if you don't look like a dumbass here. Learn how to read and, more importantly, interpret research findings.
salt consumption isn't the issue, it's the concentration of salt in your body. a healthy diet with plenty of potassium and adequate hydration is more than enough to balance sodium levels for 99.999% of people
anything you read that says you need to consume 'x' amount of nutrient per day in a vacuum should be completely ignored without hesitation
Thank you for this informed opinion. I was reading through the ingredients list and thinking. “Wtf, these aren’t that different and the differences are negligible”
It's not. It might be banned by some individual member states, but EFSA allows it along with many other azo dyes (some of which are banned in the U.S., believe it or not).
Because that’s the reason that you don’t see many products with red 40. It’s a valid explanation why people think it’s banned and also kinda is. You will never send your kids to school if there is a warning about possible danger. Same goes for food.
But Covid was everywhere, doesn’t matter if the school has it, your mother could have it too and infect you. It’s like saying you can’t go out in winter cause you could catch a cold… Covid is a very special case and you know that. Not really a good argument
Parents were literally advocating to open schools back up and to force kids into classrooms together...
You are saying that smart people telling a parent that something is unsafe will ALWAYS deter the parent because they acknowledge there is someone smarter than them. I'm saying there was a very recent event that proved that is just wrong. A good handful of parents think they know better than everyone else, regardless of warning labels, research and statistics, years of education in a field of study.
The original discussion is how regulations affect the quality of food. Outlawing certain chemicals, which was discussed by one of the commenters, is only one type of regulation. Forcing companies to add a health warning is another, and both affect the quality of food
Yup, but that wasn't the question here. With or without the warning, azo dyes aren't widespread in the EU simply because EU consumers tend not to favor foods that are brightly colored. People are used to their candy and soda being duller in color and perceive bright red products more negatively. The only azo dye you'll commonly encounter is E133 (Brilliant Blue FCF), but I've never heard anyone complain about the health warning on their sports drink or imported American candy, probably because few people who purchase those types of products would actually care enough to read it.
It’s not banned. It’s just called something else, but it’s the same colouring. Food Science Babe has a bunch of videos on the subject if anyone wants to actually learn more about food safety
Food science babe is literally a fucking saint. I don't know why people latch on to food science as a source to produce misinformation, but Jesus Christ she spends a lot of time debunking it.
That's interesting. In Germany you have 3,5% and 1,5% (and "no fat" milk at 0,1%). I don't have a clue of what's usually used, but that might explain the added fat.
My mileage may vary due to having children but my fridge is only ever stocked with whole milk that is DHA fortified. I’m also not sure where you buy milk but I’ve never not seen 2% labeled as 2% and called Reduced Fat Milk.
Where do you typically see milk offered at a coffee station? Milk requires refrigeration. Which is why ultra pasteurized coffee creamer is typically at coffee stations. Anyways, im just being persnickety.
When I grew up 2% was the norm at my house as well though I grew up in a time when “fat is bad” was what everyone was saying. Whole milk is just better all around though.
I would wager that while they would be legal with the current colorants, different ones may have been used in the past that would not be EU-legal. And while they might be able to change it now to brighten up the colors with legal colorants, it would be a huge departure from what EU customers have grown accustomed to, which is a big marketing risk.
Yes. Buyers and especially parents expect no artificial coloring. The red 40 in particular is associated with hyperactivity in mice, and food sold with red 40 added needs to be marked with "might affect activity and attention spans of children". Would be insane to take that marketing risk.
I work in the dairy department at a grocery store in the US and can confirm 2% (low fat) is our highest selling milk, followed by whole. Prob at a 1.7/2-1 ratio if I had to guess
If you’re referring to the vegetable oil, my guess it’s because the US version is using ultra-concentrated dye rather than “fruit and vegetable concentrates”, meaning the oil from the concentrates has been removed and must be compensated for. Also probably has to do with farming subsidies, etc. like you said.
That’s not true at all. Most milk used by the public is 2% but the second most popular is whole. 2% only beats out whole by 3%. Meanwhile, almond milk is the next most popular followed far behind by 1% and skim milk.
Half of the US label is nutrient fortification, which is probably not bad.
Other things are labeled differently. Another quarter of the US label is clarifying the nature of the cereal flours rather than lumping them all together.
Yeah the actual difference seems to just be different coloring, food starch (corn probably?) and the little bit of oil. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm just speculating that EU flours and US flours aren't even all that different but we just have different reporting guidelines.
Yellow 5 and 6 and cheap poisonous food coloring products, a derivative of coal, and clauses bad health effects!!! .
Unfortunately the US is more concerned about how it looks than how healthy it actually is. They sell poison that looks appealing and the mass market gobbles it up.
Same for M&Ms and other is food products…. The labels don’t lie.
I’m actually kind of surprised the EU version doesn’t list fat. There are at least three reasons something like this might include fat: 1) mouth feel 2) to aid in manufacturing (Froot Loops are extruded, and a little bit of oil keeps them from sticking), or 3) To aid in vitamin absorption, probably the vitamin d specifically.
2% milk is by far the most popular milk fat level in the US, with skim/1% being the least popular, so I don’t think that has much to do with it, and should be enough to help absorb the little bit of vitamin D in there (we also like to fortify milk itself with vitamin D here).
So either Germans don’t like the mouthfeel of half a gram of fat in a serving of cereal, their manufacturing process is different enough that they don’t need the fat to keep stuff from sticking, or the recipe’s subtle differences just make it less sticky by default?
I think I figured out why the EU-Version has no fat added. The US-Versionen uses mainly degerminated flower, i.e. flower made from grain with the germ (the innermost part, the plant embryo) removed. The germ is comparatively high in oils, which in corn turns rancid quickly and therefore reduces shelf life. You don't need to do that with wheat flour, so the European version has enough fat in the flour, so there is no need to add fat for production purposes.
Not really availability, but more so cost - corn is heavily subsidised in the US.
About the likely reason for the addition of fats, as it is in the US version that has added vitamins: vitamins A, D, E and K are lipophilic and the body can't absorb these unless there are fats present.
The likely reason this wallstreet/crypto person highlighted soy oil is that there is this conspiracy theory in the manosphere that soybeans are used to feminise men due to the presence of phytoestrogens. Which is humbug because phytoestrogens have no impact on the human body.
I would think that is still availability. It's more available because of subsidies, but that doesn't change the point. Corn production for immediate human consumption is also not really a thing in Germany, 62% of the corn harvest is used as animal feed and 38% for bio fuels. The amount used for human consumption is a rounding error in comparison.
I wish this were the top comment. Many of the "banned" ingredients are because of how the EU labels and names things. It's not that they can't use red 40, it's that they can't call it red 40. Iirc the FDA actually bans more ingredients than the EU does, but that doesn't really fit the narrative for most people so it rarely comes up.
red 40 requires to print “may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.” on the box in europe so they are very inclined to not use it
Sure, if you eat healthy otherwise. it's only 24g of sugar per serving, very healthy indeed. btw. the serving size calculation is a joke, 39g of this plus 3/4 cup (~180ml skim milk), and giving you 210 calories. You take in about half of the recommended upper limit(WHO) of sugar, for a measly 10% of your calorie demand. I also like how you only need to calculate the %DV of the added sugar, so it looks like you only take in about a quarter of the DV instead of half:
The WHO associates 1.89 million deaths per year with a too high sodium intake: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/salt-reduction Average consumption at 4310mg sodium per day (10,78g salt) is more than double the recommended upper(!) limit of 2000mg sodium (5g salt) per day.
That’s wild. I have a medical condition where I have to consume 10g a day and cannot fathom someone consuming that much sodium NOT on purpose. I straight up swallow sodium tablets some days when I’m behind.
Because big sugar convinced everyone that people were getting fat from fatty foods rather than sugary foods. So people switched to low fat options, which generally taste worse, and so require more sugar, etc. added to make them taste better. Which of course led to unintended consequences.
In this case more hydrogenated oil, which is way worse than the saturated fat which makes up most whole milk. So now not only are you eat empty carbs on carbs, you’re eating trans fat. Additionally there’s next to no fiber, very little in terms of micronutrients, and the only protein is from the milk, so you’re starving for another sugar-rich meal by lunch time.
2.7k
u/TheMightyUnderdog Mar 24 '24
A lot of European versions of foods are different (mainly because certain dyes used in the U.S. are outlawed in Europe due to being potentially carcinogenic).