They recently ran an episode on Superfoods with the stance that
- Superfoods are too expensive
- That studies on superfoods were funded by companies who benefit from the sales of the product or that there isn't sufficient evidence as of yet to prove that they are in fact super.
- They dislike that Oprah and Jennifer Hawkins increased the sales of superfoods.
Now if you are familiar with this website you would know that I have a whole series on superfoods that you can check out HERE and I have incorporated a lot of them into my everyday lifestyle, finding fantastic results particularly; better digestion due to increased fiber, a fuller for longer feeling, energised and I actually FEEL healthier.
I have recently become aware that it is a social stigma that when someone mixes chia seeds into their morning smoothies everyone goes crazy and it's a huge argument about how healthy it really is while the millions of people who walk through the McDonald's golden arches each day aren't batted an eyelash at. So enjoy my sarcastic approach to responding on the controversy of superfoods.
Now as for the first point, I'm not even going to argue here. Superfoods are EXPENSIVE! But you know what else is? Fresh fruit and vegetables! I pay $3.50 an avocado, $1.50 a Truss tomato, $8 a Dragonfruit and $7 for a little pack of raspberries. At this point, $8 for a pack of Chia Seeds isn't what is setting me back in the bigger picture of everything.
So they don't like that studies on superfoods were funded by companies who benefit from the sales of the product? The reality is though that it's no different to any other product on the
market, every food has a corporation rallying behind it with BILLION dollar
budgets. Why do we eat ANYTHING that we eat?! It all comes down to marketing and super foods are no exception to the rule so why pick on them when they are healthier than most. Most of the studies that look at Dairy are funded by the dairy industry etc. It's silly to consider marketing health foods any different to marketing milk as "nutritious" and "healthy" but instead they say it has "goodness" and is "delicious". Ever wonder why? Because there's measures preventing them from lying and milk is technically not considered nutritious or healthy. This is particular prevalent in the USA but look at some samples of milk bottles above that you have probably seen on the shelves at Coles or Woolies. Pauls can merely say their milk has "goodness" and "for a better you"...whatever those statements mean? This is the case for every other milk bottle on the shelves, not just Pauls.
So there isn't sufficient evidence as of yet to prove that they are in fact super at all? A lot of foods aren't proven without a doubt to be healthy for you but does that mean that they are bad for you? Fruit juices, olive oil, wine and so many other foods and drinks have strong arguments for both sides. The jury is still out on products such as these but do we still consume them? Most likely at least once a week! Then there's plenty of foods where research shows ONLY NEGATIVE results and yet we still eat them as part of our diet...but that's for another day and another post.
I guess my point is just try not to get persuaded so easily by tv programmes. As someone so deeply in journalism I understand their persuasion methods to suck in the masses and often times they succeed when it's the only viewpoint being shown on a topic. You're all intelligent and smart individuals so make up your own mind rather than listen to others. That even goes with this article you're reading right now, these are my opinions only here to help you make yours.
Just food for thought, pun intended.
