'The use of general terms on food, such as 'healthy for you' or
'superfood', implies a health benefit. However, these terms do not
communicate why the food is healthy or a super food. So, the
regulation requires they are backed up by a relevant and authorized
health claim. This way the consumer knows why this food is healthy.'
This is a lift up of the portion from an article that I found at

http://www.theanalystmagazine.com/july2007/103.htm

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 10:05:31 -0700, wrote:

>'The use of general terms on food, such as 'healthy for you' or
>'superfood', implies a health benefit. However, these terms do not
>communicate why the food is healthy or a super food. So, the
>regulation requires they are backed up by a relevant and authorized
>health claim. This way the consumer knows why this food is healthy.'
>This is a lift up of the portion from an article that I found at
>
>http://www.theanalystmagazine.com/july2007/103.htm

Superfood? Leave it to the EU to come up with a term no one can
figure out. I would have thought it was genetically altered at the
very least.
--

History is a vast early warning system
Norman Cousins

sf wrote:
>
> Superfood? Leave it to the EU to come up with a term
> no one can figure out. I would have thought it was
> genetically altered at the very least.

I think it arose as a marketing term in the U.S.
for various dietary supplements, such as dried
_Spirulina_ algae. Blech!

Since it can mean anything, I'd call red wine
and dark chocolate (70% or more) superfoods.

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:17:03 -0700, Mark Thorson >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>>
>> Superfood? Leave it to the EU to come up with a term
>> no one can figure out. I would have thought it was
>> genetically altered at the very least.
>
>I think it arose as a marketing term in the U.S.
>for various dietary supplements, such as dried
>_Spirulina_ algae. Blech!
>
>Since it can mean anything, I'd call red wine
>and dark chocolate (70% or more) superfoods.

the only way you can tell if a food is a genuine superfood is to
expose it to kryptonite. (if you're an experimental-type cook, try
red kryptonite.)

your pal,
lois

One time on Usenet, blake murphy > said:
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:17:03 -0700, Mark Thorson >
> wrote:
>
> >sf wrote:
> >>
> >> Superfood? Leave it to the EU to come up with a term
> >> no one can figure out. I would have thought it was
> >> genetically altered at the very least.
> >
> >I think it arose as a marketing term in the U.S.
> >for various dietary supplements, such as dried
> >_Spirulina_ algae. Blech!
> >
> >Since it can mean anything, I'd call red wine
> >and dark chocolate (70% or more) superfoods.
>
> the only way you can tell if a food is a genuine superfood is to
> expose it to kryptonite. (if you're an experimental-type cook, try
> red kryptonite.)

Snrk! I think blackberries are considered a super food, I just don't
remember why...

--
Jani in WA