Re: "Natural" again

On 24 Nov 2007 19:41:45 -0800, R H Draney posted:

Oleg Lego filted:

On 24 Nov 2007 13:26:24 -0800, R H Draney posted:

A few years ago I somehow managed to buy both the regular and "sugar-free"
versions of the same instant flavored coffee...a close look at the nutritional
information on the label revealed that the latter had a *much* higher percentage
of its calories from fat and was therefore, according to the prevailing wisdom
of the time, less healthful....

Does this not make sense to you? Some folks need to reduce sugars, and
some need to reduce fat. For those that need to reduce sugars, the fat
may not be a problem at all.

It made sense to me after some thought, but at first it was counter-intuitive
that the "diet" version of the same product was more fattening than the
non-"diet"....

(And then there's that peanut butter with "cholesterol free!" plastered across
the label in letters bigger than those of the brand name)....r

Here's to truth in advertising! I was thinking I might market sugar,
with the banner reading "No sugar added!"

I want to boost a leaf from the people who market "krab" that's never known the
presence of a crustacean...my idea is to sell bits of "textured vegetable
protein" under the trademark name "beaf"....r

Great! If you ever do it, see if you can get the UPC code _48815_!
.

Loading