The truth behind cereal bars

They are sold as a healthy breakfast alternative for those with too much to do and too little time.

Cereal bars are snapped up by busy workers - and also by parents who think they will provide a nutritious lunchtime snack for their children.

But research published yesterday shows they are not as wholesome as they seem. Independent analysis found they were laden with sugar and saturated fats.

One bar, a Coco Pops spin-off, was found to be even sweeter than pure milk chocolate.

The bars' makers have been accused of being economical with the truth by the food quality watchdog the Food Commission.

Its director, Tim Lobstein, said: 'While a bowl of porridge, muesli or low-sugar cereal topped with reduced fat milk would receive a thumbs-up for good nutrition, it's unlikely any of these breakfast bars would deserve the same approval.

'It is important that breakfast substitutes offer the healthiest alternative, rather than a worse option still. Sadly, we could not recommend any of the products we examined.'

The commission said that in the past two years sales had risen by 30 per cent thanks to customers who believed the oaty biscuits were a healthy alternative.

All those tested by the commission were found to be high in fats, sugars or both.

The worst offenders were the Coco Pops bar, of which 41 per cent of its calories were from sugar, a Tracker banana breakfast bar with 43 per cent of its calories from fat and a Rice Krispies bar in which saturated fats accounting for 29 per cent of the calories.

On average the bars were 10 to 20 per cent fat by weight, and some were high in unhealthy saturated fat. The commission also said that while the sugar in a bowl of cereal can get washed down by milk, sugar in a breakfast bar can stick to the teeth.

Experts compared the nutritional content of a bowl of Rice Krispies and semi-skimmed milk with that of 18 cereal bars.

Ten of the bars had high fat levels, with more than 30 per cent of calories from fat. More than half the bars were 10 per cent pure saturated fat.

The commission found some products did not reveal their saturated fat content on the packet. It said all the bars were too sweet.

A Kellogg's spokesman said: 'Kellogg's Cereal and Milk Bars are an alternative snack option rather than a breakfast replacement as suggested by the Food Commission survey.

'Kellogg's Cereal and Milk bars are a valuable source of iron and calcium to the diet. They have significantly less fat and sugar than other snack options.'

Gordon Storey of Mars, which makes the Tracker bar, said the product was not marketed as a breakfast substitute but as 'an alternative snack'.

He added: 'Talking about 43 per cent of the calories being fat makes it sound like it's 43 per cent of the bar, and it's not. It's more like 10 per cent and we all need fat in our diets.'

Article source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-80000/The-truth-cereal-bars.html