We’re getting duped

It boggles my mind how smart marketing can make us believe a food item is a healthy choice. Think about it; simple placement of the product in the store will lead the consumer to believe that it is in fact better than the same type of product that’s placed in an obviously unhealthy section of the store. Think Organic Isle sporting all the KIND type bars versus the Candy Isle with all the Snickers type bars. The obvious thinking from a consumer point of view will be to put Snickers type bars into the unhealthy category and the KIND type bars into a better (maybe healthy) category. But clearly, if you take the time to look at the contents of the KIND type bar you will quickly see that it does not differ that much in the nutritional breakdown from the obviously naughty bar. KIND is higher in fat whereas Snikers has more sugar added. 

BAR CALORIES FAT CARBS SUGAR PROTEIN
KIND 53g* 251 16g 30g 16g 4g
SINCKERS 53g 250 12g 33g 27g 4g

My verdict is that if I was in a dire need of food and all that was available was the choice between supposedly healthy bars and candy bars, I would opt for getting more fat than sugar and pick a KIND type bar to fuel myself. However, I will not be fooled into thinking that there is something inherently good and healthy about a KIND bar. It is for all intents and purposes a candy bar in my books – it has 4 different types of sugar added to it – hence it is a candy bar.

 

*Please note that the KIND bar is a smaller bar than the Snickers bar in weight, so in order to be accurate in comparing the nutritional value of both I adjusted the weight of the KIND bar to match that of the Snickers bar.  

Leave a Reply