The Naked “No Sugar Added” Juice Scam

juice_notcool

How about this? “No sugar added” on the front of the Naked juice container. The reality? It’s full of sugar – 53 grams or more than 13 teaspoons.

The sad reality is this is not even uncommon. Plenty of juice sellers put “no sugar added” on their boxes, no matter how misleading it is.

Some may say that juice contains “natural” sugar, distilled from fruit. Well the sugar in soda comes from nature too. From corn (in the US) or sugar cane (in Europe).

It’s really not much of a difference – same amount of sugar, same sugar. Except soda does not come with the words “no sugar added” on it.

Earlier

Let’s Stop Pretending That Juice is Better Than Soda

The China Diabetes Explosion

“The Personal Responsibility Argument Is Complete and Utter Nonsense”

14 Comments

  1. Apicius
    When will the racist view of sugar and carbohydrates end? If it comes from cane or corn...it's "bad" sugar. If it comes from mangos or apples, it's "good". If the glucose molecule emerges from sugar, it's "bad". If the glucose molecule emerges from oats, it's "good". It's food racism. And racism stems from pure ignorance and hanging on to traditional "values" regardless how ridiculous they are.
  2. Paul
    Yet in the US our regulations prevent the word "healthy" on eggs or bacon but it can be on sugar-coated cereal. "Buyer Beware!" applies now more than ever. Your site is critical to help bring accurate (and entertaining) information to people for free.
  3. Marion
    Why attack Naked? Their smoothie/juice is, if I look at the ingredients, superior to other juices I've seen on the supermarket shelf. Go to the supermarket and look at the packaging of other juices if you want. It was a whole education when I found out that 'orange juice' was actually made from boiled down 'concentrate', additives and water, and that there is a legal difference between 'fruit juice', 'nectar', 'fruit drink' and 'squash'. Talk about scam!

    The problem is not that 'Naked' puts 'no added sugar' on its packaging. It's the truth after all. No, the problem is that people have been told for decades that they should eat 'five a day' of fruit and veg. We've been told that eating that much fruit is HEALTHY. Hence the juicing/smoothie craze and hence the market for 'Naked' and other smoothie companies. And other smoothie/juice companies DO add sugar or extra 'fruit concentrate' in their product.

    So if you're going to accuse anyone of 'scamming', 'Naked' is the last one you should point the finger at. Now, if you had said that the policy makers were scamming the public by their adherance to their 'five pieces of fruit a day is good for you' and 'juice is the healthy option' advise, then I would applaud you. Going after a company that (by the look of their label) produces a rather unadulterated product is rather unfair, I feel.

    Look, this is how it's done:

    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/sep/07/smoothies-fruit-juices...

    http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/jan/17/how-fruit-juice-h...

    Reply: #5
  4. Peter Biörck Team Diet Doctor
    Putting the label "no sugar added" on an extreme sugary drink, thats scam to me. :)
  5. Apicius
    Marion, you are a sugar discriminator. According to you, sugar from cane is "bad" and sugar from fruit is "good". Stating "no added sugar" is a big fat lie. Naked is deceiving the customer.

    Well...according to this infinite wisdom...I guess you can feed this 53 grams sugar no-sugar-added drink to a type 2 diabetic. For sure, no problem with blood sugar control will happen....oh no, of course not....why?....because it has no added sugar. What a brilliant conclusion....thanks Naked, for solving the diabetes epidemic. Bravo! And thanks Marion for bestowing your genius upon us.

  6. Lorraine
    It depends entirely on your definition of sugar. If they mean "the white stuff that has been produced from sugar cane" then technically they are correct in saying no added sugar. But if we mean or accept a broader definition of sugar its wrong, Its really just a marketing ploy to fool people into buying it. If you decide eat only real food or food you have made from real food, you won't even be looking to buy processed foods like this.
    Reply: #7
  7. Apicius
    Sorry, Lorraine, not sure that makes sense. Bottles of juice and smoothies do not grow on trees. Fruit does. If you want to place a "no sugar added" sticker on an apple, go ahead - no protest from me. That indeed is no sugar added. BUT...if you squeeze or blend or chop or liquify or add water to or remove fiber or remove the outer peel or remove the seeds ...etc...in the process of making the juice or smoothie, you ARE adding sugar. Why do you think they add sweet fruit to juices...FOR THE SUGAR...DUH! Do you think Naked will make a smoothie using only broccoli and Brussels sprouts alone? If course not! They will liquify a sweet fruit (that has been peeled, seeded and fibre removed) to make the end product more palatable (sweet!). Ergo====> ADDED SUGAR!!!!
  8. Marion
    Apicius, I'm not a 'sugar discriminator'. I *know* that there is no difference between the sugar in fruit, the sugar in grains and the sugar in the sugar bowl. Carbs is carbs is carbs. But 'Naked' isn't 'scamming' when they proudly proclaim that THEIR company, unlike other juice companies, doesn't add extra sugar to their product. They don't. Their product is, according to their label, 100% fruit and veg juice. GMO and no additives.

    My point was and is that 'Naked' isn't scamming. Governments and nutricionists are scamming. Governments and nutricionists tell the populace that 100% fruit juice is good for you. That you *should* be drinking that sugary shit. That 'the body needs sugar to run on'. There is a political and monetary reason for that, of course.

    Ahum (putting on my historian's hat)... Back in the sixties, people (intellectuals, politicians and that ilk) were worried about world population. 'How are we gonna feed them all', was their slogan (look up 'Club of Rome' on wikipedia for details). At the same time, in the USA, housewives were protesting the rising prices on food.
    http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/money_13.html
    A solution had to be found! Enter bigwigs like Norman Borlaug, who produced a new type of grain to quadruple, nay, octuple, the grain harvest. (google 'green revolution' for details)
    To make a long story short; the US was producing humongeous amounts of grains and corn, which drove prices down, which meant that farmers needed to produce more to make a living, which meant huge silos of surplus grains. What to do with it? There were one or two feedlots in the fifties, for 'grain finishing' beef (to get that fatty marbled beef), but in the sixties and seventies they popped up like mushrooms. What else? Well, corn oil industry had been lobbying that their product was better than animal fats for decades by then, and Ancel Keys had been stubbornly hammering on that animal fats were Bad For You (even though other scientists laughed him out of the room ten years earlier). And isn't it a *coincidence* that right around that time that infamous Food Pyramid was designed? Gosh! Who wouldda guessed! */sarcasm/

    So politicians and Big Agra were pushing the grains and by making 'Animal Fat Bad, Veggie Oil Good' the national mantra, industry complied by taking out fat from their products and putting high fructose corn syrup (another product of grain surplus) and since this caused the public to get sick and obese this benefitted all kinds of other industries such as Big Pharma (statins! insulin!). And nobody will put the record straight, because a) to do so would mean to say they were wrong and Authority never admits that it's wrong because "Nobody Will Listen To Us Ever Again - Deny! Deny" and b) the amount of money concerned is STAGGERING.

    And of course, to say all this in a blog post is complicated. It's much easier to pick on a single company and tell us that they are 'scamming', but personally I think you've picked the wrong company for that. (disclaimer: before this post I've never heard of 'Naked', I've never consumed their product nor do I advise anyone doing so)

    Why not pick on, say, Sunny Delight? A quick google of the ingredients in their 'fruit juice' (the ones moms are encouraged to give their kids because gotta get them 5-a-day in them somehow!) reveal that Sunny Delight contains: " Water, High Fructose, Corn Syrup and 2% or Less of Each of the Following: Concentrated Juices (Orange, Tangerine, Apple, Lime, Grapefruit). Citric Acid, Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C), Beta-Carotene, Thiamin Hydrochloride (Vitamin B1), Natural Flavors, Food Starch-Modified, Canola Oil, Cellulose Gum, Xanthan Gum, Sodium Hexametaphosphate, Sodium Benzoate To Protect Flavor, Yellow #5, Yellow #6 "

    How's that for a scam? Fruit juice that is sold as 'healthy option' which contains less than 10 percent fruit juice!

    Is the high fructose cornsyrup in Sunny Delight worse for you than the fructose of freshly squeezed fruit-and-veg-juice? Mayby not.

    God forbid that we are, as Apicius calls us, 'sugar racists'. I mean, the horror! Bad enough that we are 'fat racists' with our rejection of corn oil and transfats! Right, Apicius? If there are as many carbs in a pound of broccoli as there is in a teaspoon of HFCS, then it ab-so-lute-ly matters not one tiny bit if you consume the broccoli or the HFGS, right?

    Personally, *IF* I were forced to drink fruit juice (which I haven't in years since I've been eating LCHF for years) I would prefer to drink 'Naked's' smoothie to SunnyD, thankyouverymuch, because at least that one is made of Real Food, but hey! Easy target, right?

    Oh, and Apicius? You do realise that if you keep on using a word like 'racism' to things unrelated to 'race', it will lose all of it's power?

  9. Marion
    Well isn't that interesting? I just watched the latest video here on dietdoctor, which featured a panel with drs. Lustig and Attia (very good video, btw), and guess what? Dr. Lustig tells us about how he took a group of kids with fatty liver disease and reversed that withing two weeks but cutting out foods with added sugar. He stresses that he didn't give them 'good food', he gave them 'junk food'. He gave them exactly the same amount of fat, protein and carbs. When he took sugar out, he gave them starches back. And guess what? It totally reversed their fatty liver disease.

    So apparantly, adding extra fruitjuice to your smoothie is not the same as adding the same carb amount of sugar to your smoothie. Whodathunk, eh?

    Replies: #11, #14
  10. Adriana
    There are several rules and norms on labelling, and the label of this product is not lying. -it doesn't have any added sugars-
    I wouldn't call this article as a "scam" because it doesn't contain any added sugars and that is what it is on the label. "No sugar added". The amount of carbohydrates of this beverage comes from the juicing of the fruits that makes this product, therefore the labelling is correct. For us who follow a lchf/keto/low carb know that fruit juices are liquid carbohydrates which raise the sugar levels in the blood and causes insulin production.
    PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE Diet Doctor, or Andreas or anyone from the Diet Doctor team... Let's not make of the amazing Diet Doctor website a scandal tabloid.
    Reply: #12
  11. Peter Biörck Team Diet Doctor
    Hi!

    I haven't seen the video yet but I'm sure that Lustig means adding "complex" carbs (starches) and definitely not juice.

    Interesting reading below that describes Lustigs view on juice.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/10238549/Is-fruit-juice-bad-f...

    Well isn't that interesting? I just watched the latest video here on dietdoctor, which featured a panel with drs. Lustig and Attia (very good video, btw), and guess what? Dr. Lustig tells us about how he took a group of kids with fatty liver disease and reversed that withing two weeks but cutting out foods with added sugar. He stresses that he didn't give them 'good food', he gave them 'junk food'. He gave them exactly the same amount of fat, protein and carbs. When he took sugar out, he gave them starches back. And guess what? It totally reversed their fatty liver disease.
    So apparantly, adding extra fruitjuice to your smoothie is not the same as adding the same carb amount of sugar to your smoothie. Whodathunk, eh?

  12. Peter Biörck Team Diet Doctor
    Why do they put the label "No sugar added" on the product? Adding concentrated apple juice as a sweetener is getting more and more popular, why? I bet my last penny that isn't because of health reasons.

    Drinking that stuff every day will give a lot of us diabetes within 20-40 years!

    There are several rules and norms on labelling, and the label of this product is not lying. -it doesn't have any added sugars-
    I wouldn't call this article as a "scam" because it doesn't contain any added sugars and that is what it is on the label. "No sugar added". The amount of carbohydrates of this beverage comes from the juicing of the fruits that makes this product, therefore the labelling is correct. For us who follow a lchf/keto/low carb know that fruit juices are liquid carbohydrates which raise the sugar levels in the blood and causes insulin production.
    PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE Diet Doctor, or Andreas or anyone from the Diet Doctor team... Let's not make of the amazing Diet Doctor website a scandal tabloid.

  13. BobM
    I would say this is within the law, as those laws are written in the US at least. That's why Cheerios (a sweetened grain cereal) can be labeled as "heart-healthy" even when there's no evidence that consuming Cheerios leads to fewer heart attacks or less heart disease.

    It's still wrong, though.

  14. Apicius
    Fantastic. Great idea Marion. From now on, I shall drink fruit juice to accompany my LCHF diet. What a brilliant idea. I'm pretty sure the high sugar content will have no negative impact. In fact, even better with the fibre removed.

    Just to be clear, these are the rules you put forth...
    (1) if the drink contains sugar from cane, it's bad.
    (2) if the drink contains sugar from fruit, it's good.

    Did I capture the genius concept accurately?

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts