On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 4:10:14 PM UTC-7, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:23:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 12:22:36 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
> >> http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...ally-healthier
> >
> >Yes, a paper study looking at lists of ingredients is always the last
> >word in anything.
>
> Depends on the study...no reason to discount such an analysis without
> some specific reasons for it. What are your objections?

Take the source you point us to, below. Consumer Reports is quoted as
saying, "But it was impossible to decode the [nutritional] labels
in a way that would predict nutritional performance in the tests."


> >
> >I remember, decades ago, when Consumer Reports investigated the
> >nutrition of breakfast cereals by feeding them to rats. The
> >most nutritious was Lucky Charms.
>
> It was Cheerios, Special K And A version of Maypo, actually, but hey,
> don't let that stop you....
>
> https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...28,54236&hl=en

Hon, when have you ever known me to be wrong?
Take a gander at the February, 1981, Consumer Reports. In case you
lack access, the study is referred to he
http://www.feingold.org/PF/archives/1981-05.pdf

> >
> >Apparently this result freaked out the CR poobahs, because the next
> >time breakfast cereals were evaluated,it was based on an ingredient
> >analysis only.
>
> While you are at it, why not back up that claim, too? Hmmm?

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cereals.htm
Click on "Nutrition score." No more feeding rats. Just looking
at labels.