Fruit growers and processors say they are crushed by a decision to cut the health star rating (HSR) for 100-per-cent no-added-sugar juices from five stars to as low as two stars.
Mike Harding said
07:13 AM Nov 29, 2020
Thanks for that Dorian.
What a stupid decision! And it certainly goes against everything I've learned about eating fruit.
"Star rating"? What star rating? I'm vaguely aware of it but have never paid heed to it and now see what a sensible decision that was.
Whenarewethere said
07:30 AM Nov 29, 2020
One can't any of these ratings seriously when the heart foundation gives a high rating to high sugar products.
As far as breakfast cereal goes it is all too offensive to our taste buds with the level of sugar, we make out own from primary product. Easy & a lot cheaper.
We once had a bottle of tomato sauce for spaghetti, 28% sugar, ridiculous! We usually make our own from fresh tomatoes, but we do use a bit on wine!
Conola oil gets a higher rating than olive oil. Amazing how the Italians live so long!
Whenarewethere said
07:36 AM Nov 29, 2020
This year we have eaten more blue berries & asparagus than one can poke a stick at. Artichokes are coming on the scene, boiled & with a home made salad dressing we will probably die as they all have zero ticks!
dorian said
08:45 AM Nov 29, 2020
AIUI, fruit sugar (fructose) is responsible for the fat that builds up around our internal organs (visceral fat), while sucrose (cane sugar) is responsible for subcutaneous fat. The former is far worse than the latter. People who eat whole fruit are better off than those who drink fruit juices because their fructose consumption is lower. That's probably the explanation for the low rating. It still seems stupid nevertheless.
It would be interesting to see what ratings are assigned to "fruit drinks". These are watered down fruit juices.
-- Edited by dorian on Sunday 29th of November 2020 08:52:14 AM
Tony LEE said
09:28 AM Nov 29, 2020
Advice that you should eat a certain amount of fruit and vegetables does not equate to guzzling down litres of processed juice (often made from reconstituted imported stuff anyway) .
Who looks at star ratings anyway
https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2020-11-28/fresh-australian-juice-rates-lower-than-diet-coke/12930562
Thanks for that Dorian.
What a stupid decision! And it certainly goes against everything I've learned about eating fruit.
"Star rating"? What star rating? I'm vaguely aware of it but have never paid heed to it and now see what a sensible decision that was.
One can't any of these ratings seriously when the heart foundation gives a high rating to high sugar products.
As far as breakfast cereal goes it is all too offensive to our taste buds with the level of sugar, we make out own from primary product. Easy & a lot cheaper.
We once had a bottle of tomato sauce for spaghetti, 28% sugar, ridiculous! We usually make our own from fresh tomatoes, but we do use a bit on wine!
Conola oil gets a higher rating than olive oil. Amazing how the Italians live so long!
This year we have eaten more blue berries & asparagus than one can poke a stick at. Artichokes are coming on the scene, boiled & with a home made salad dressing we will probably die as they all have zero ticks!
AIUI, fruit sugar (fructose) is responsible for the fat that builds up around our internal organs (visceral fat), while sucrose (cane sugar) is responsible for subcutaneous fat. The former is far worse than the latter. People who eat whole fruit are better off than those who drink fruit juices because their fructose consumption is lower. That's probably the explanation for the low rating. It still seems stupid nevertheless.
It would be interesting to see what ratings are assigned to "fruit drinks". These are watered down fruit juices.
-- Edited by dorian on Sunday 29th of November 2020 08:52:14 AM