Abstract: No preservatives, can not say that it does not contain other food additives; does not contain artificial colors, or contains pigments; does not contain sucrose, but contains refined starch; does not contain monosodium glutamate, does not mean does not contain sodium glutamate; contains fruit nutrition, just a marketing gimmick; contains the nutrition of two foods, but there is no nutrition; high dietary fiber, but it is saturated with oil; contains vitamin C, but does not say how much is added; no cholesterol, nothing to boast about; pure meat without starch, does not mean that it is pure lean meat.
1 Statement 1: "No preservatives".
It contains no preservatives, but it does not say that it does not contain other food additives. Antioxidants, flavors, pigments, colorants, fresheners, etc. may all be in it. That is, there are no preservatives, and there is no guarantee that it is in a "purely natural" state. Many foods naturally do not use preservatives, such as canned food, such as some foods with high salt and sugar, and some extremely dry foods such as instant noodles, noodles, etc. Because the can has completely killed the bacteria and spores inside, and at the same time sealed it, so that the bacteria outside can not enter, so it does not need preservatives. Without water, bacteria cannot multiply, and large amounts of salt and sugar can also act as preservatives. Still, salt and sugar are too high, worse than containing preservatives. Because excessive salt intake is much more harmful to health than a few tenths of a percent preservative. For example, some soy sauce, sauce, pickles, etc. claim not to contain preservatives, usually the kind of products that are particularly strong and even covered with sugar. Therefore, "this product has no preservatives" should not be the main reason for consumers to give priority to a certain product.
2Thesis 2: "No artificial colors".
This means that it still contains pigments, not the original color of the food. However, these pigments are not synthetic pigments, but extracted from natural raw materials. For example, extracts containing some carotenoids, red yeast pigments, or coloring derived from natural foods such as annatto, lac red, and sodium chlorophyll copper. For most consumers, natural colors are more reassuring, but in the extraction process, trace amounts of residual organic solvents are not excluded. As long as it meets the relevant product standards, it is not necessary to mind. But the problem is that the strong color of the product is brought by the pigment, which means that the raw materials are not so "natural". For example, the red or green "juice" products commonly found in shopping malls look like they are concentrated in fruit, and the packaging is painted with large fruit images. However, after carefully reading the raw material description, it was found that it contained only about 20% of the original juice. That is to say, 80% of the contents are mixed with water, sugar, flavors, pigments, thickeners, etc. Despite the use of natural colors, the objective result is to mislead consumers and make people think that it is thicker than 100% juice.
3 Theory 3: "No sucrose".
This kind of propaganda is often found in pasty products, biscuits, snacks and the like. Their packaging says "no sucrose", that is, no white sugar that we eat every day. Middle-aged and elderly people, as well as diabetics, as well as obese people, are susceptible to this confession. In fact, this is really a big trap. The motivation of these people to pursue sucrose-free products is to control blood sugar. However, it is far more than just sucrose that can make blood sugar rise rapidly. The blood sugar rise rate of refined starch is fast enough, and the dextrin, maltodextrin, maltose syrup, glucose syrup, fructose glucose syrup, etc. made of starch as raw materials are all more than sucrose. These ingredients can often be seen in products that claim to be "sucrose-free". If diabetics choose them, it is really better to eat rice directly. In terms of nutritional value, the absence of sucrose does not mean that the nutrient content is higher than other products. If sucrose is not added, what is the volume filled with? It is nothing more than starch, dextrin, oil and the like, and it is not necessarily better for the body. For example, the ingredients from starch mentioned above are things with zero nutritional value, which is not helpful to people except to provide energy to raise blood sugar. The problem is that their price is quite high, often giving those who lack nutritional knowledge a "high-grade" and "nourishing" illusion. In a sense, this is a bit of a "risk to others" suspicion.
4 Theory 4: "Does not contain MSG".
Western products prefer to claim that MSG is a flood beast. However, there are indeed a few people who are more sensitive to sodium glutamate in MONOS glutamate, which will produce a series of adverse reactions, so there are many so-called MSG-free products that have come into being. However, many experts suggest that not containing monosodium glutamate does not mean that it does not contain sodium glutamate, nor does it mean that it does not contain artificial freshening ingredients. This is because there are now too many varieties of fresheners used in the food industry. In addition to monosodium glutamate, there are sodium nucleotides, organic sodium acid, compound chicken essence, yeast extract, plant protein hydrolysate and so on. A variety of umami hydrolysates and extracts contain quite a lot of sodium glutamate, in fact, it is not much different from monosodium glutamate. Those who are sensitive to MSG, as well as those who need to control the sodium content of their food, should take a closer look.
5 Theory 5: "Contains fruit nutrition".
This kind of propaganda is commonly found on the packaging of drinks and snacks. Saying this means adding some fruit or juice to it. But how much is added? That's not clear. Unless you look closely at the small print on the side of the package, you may find that "the original juice content ≥ 2.5%", that is, this juice is really negligible. Contains fruit nutrition, not necessarily fresh fruit. Some products contain a small piece of fruit, but this fruit has been sterilized by high temperature, or it is originally a canned fruit, which is no longer comparable to the nutritional value of fresh fruit. For example, fruit grain yogurt has a shelf life of 21 days, and fruit grains that have been left for two weeks really have so much health value? Can it have that strong fragrance? To like that product is nothing more than to like the fruit flavor and sugar in it. The so-called fruit nutrition is often just a marketing gimmick, a beautiful head. I really like fruit nutrition, why can't I take a few minutes out of 24 hours to eat fresh fruit for myself?
6 Theory 6: "Nutrition containing two foods".
This type of propaganda is common in milk drinks and soy milk drinks. There are both fruit raw materials and milk raw materials in the product, and then tell you that the fruit is not nutritious enough, the milk nutrition is not enough, only drink it this product is enough. Many people believed it and gave up pure milk and fresh fruit to let their children drink these drinks instead. Actually? This is the typical mental tragedy of being led by the nose by ad creatives. Smart consumers may wish to think in reverse, and the truth is like this: on milk nutrition, it is not as good as pure milk; on fruit nutrition, it is not as good as pure fruit juice. It doesn't even have the nutritional value of 50% milk plus 50% fruit. There is less than half of the milk, only one-fifth of the juice, which has thickeners, sugar, flavors, etc., which are nothing more than using these things to meet the taste of consumers, so that those who are not satisfied with the taste of milk and have unlimited love for sweet drinks can justifiably drink sweet "milk". It's ridiculous to say. People believe that "milk cannot be drunk with juice", and at the same time believe that "milk plus juice is more nutritious"; on the other hand, they believe that "milk and soy milk cannot be drunk together", and they believe that "plant protein and animal protein are drunk together". Is there a good idea? Good to use your own brain, don't believe what the advertisement says.
7 Theory 7: "High Dietary Fiber".
This kind of propaganda is common in cookies and desserts. Most modern people are seriously deficient in dietary fiber, and even half of the recommended amount cannot be eaten, so it is indeed a good thing to increase the supply of some fiber. So many people who love health will be attracted to such words. Some products even simply declare, "fiber content 10%", which makes consumers more moved. Unfortunately, these fibers do exist, but they are saturated with grease. This is because grains and beans mainly contain insoluble fibers, and their nature is "rough". Those who have thin throats and eyes, those who are accustomed to being white and soft, can't stand this rough feeling. 3% fiber content can already bring the feeling of pricking the throat, let alone 10%? But why are these so-called high dietary fiber products still taste outstanding, coarse and not rough? It is nothing more than the effect of grease "lubricating" inside. Fibers are characterized by softness after absorbing oil. Paper is a product made of cellulose. Tear off a small piece of napkin and soak it in oil, will it feel a lot softer at once? It is not difficult to tear it up and swallow it. Therefore, the higher the fiber content of the product, the higher the amount of fat in general. And, because saturated fats soften fibers work better, these products are usually treated with hydrogenated vegetable oils that contain a lot of saturated fats or animal oils such as butter, lard, and butter. - Where is the health value?
8 Theory 8: "Contains vitamin C".
Vitamins are good things, especially vitamin C, which is the most recognized by people, because it is given the effect of "beauty and beauty" by merchants, and it is almost a nutritional word that attracts women's attention. In drinks, as long as the claim to add vitamin C, it will make women flock to it. In fact, it is not uncommon to contain vitamin C, and it does not increase much cost. If you only say that you have vitamins, but don't say how much you add, you basically don't have to count on it, because it is not intended to be responsible for the content. Besides, in addition to vitamin C in the fruit there are many health components and nutrients, some drinks in addition to vitamin C what is not good, drink it and eat a vitamin C small pill and then drink a cup of boiled water is not much difference, but the small pill is only 3 cents, and the drink to several dollars, which also added a lot of sugar and flavor, vitamin C may also be degraded oxidation, in fact, it is not as good as drinking white water plus pills health.
9 Theory 9: "No cholesterol".
All vegetable oils do not contain cholesterol, and there is really nothing to boast about. To say such seemingly meaningless things is to consciously or unconsciously exploit the ignorance of consumers and imply that other oil and fat products may contain cholesterol and be suspected of unfair competition. Someone actually told me that I only buy a certain oil product because it "doesn't contain cholesterol." I said, do other cooking oils have cholesterol? She said, who knows, I just can't be sure... I was speechless. It's all vegetable oil, where does the cholesterol come from? Unless animal oil is artificially added to it... The absence of cholesterol does not mean that this oil must have any special benefits for blood lipids, nor does it mean that eating this oil will not make people gain weight. For example, palm oil does not contain cholesterol, but it has a higher proportion of saturated fatty acids than lard. Containing cholesterol is not necessarily bad for health, such as fish oil, cod liver oil contains cholesterol. Whether it contains cholesterol or not, eat less oil and don't eat oil that is heated many times, which is the most important thing.
10 Theory 10: "Pure meat without starch".
This phrase is often heard in front of the shelves of meat products. No starch, does not mean that it is pure lean meat, and does not mean that the quality of raw materials is higher and safer than other products. Western-style meat products are unlikely to have pure meat in the true sense of the word, just taste it. Pure lean meat is heated and cooked after the texture is relatively tight, there is a sense of fiber of shredded meat, and meat products are rich in moisture, even a shredded meat can not be eaten, there is no doubt that a large number of water-retaining ingredients are added to it - but they are not starch, but soy protein, vegetable glue and phosphate and other water-retaining substances. Moreover, in order to make the texture of the product soft and tender, the slice is smooth, and a lot of fatty minced meat is traditionally added to the meat sausage to improve the taste. The absence of starch definitely does not mean that there is no fat ingredient in its raw materials, and fat meat is probably not the raw material that most consumers are willing to buy first.
In short, no matter in which country and region, whether you go to the supermarket or the farmers' market, you need to use your brain when buying food, and you can't just look at the various gorgeous and attractive words on the advertisement or packaging, otherwise it is easy to be fooled by the merchant.
![Huaou starch: work together to build brilliant[fig]]()