The Breakfast Cereal Scandal

July 8, 2025 by Dr. Steve Chaney

The Race To The Bottom Continues

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Big Food Inc is not your friend. Big Food Inc follows the latest trends and is only too happy to give consumers what they want.

You want low-fat? No problem. You want low-carb, natural, organic, non-GMO, gluten-free, Paleo, Keto? No problem. However, their motive is a healthy bottom line, not your health.

They know humans are hardwired to desire sugar, salt, and fat. Foods with those ingredients sell. Convenience sells. At the end of the day, they are more interested in sales than they are in your health.

They don’t want you to buy whole foods and cook them from scratch. They don’t make money from whole foods. They want you to buy their pre-packaged convenience foods instead.

A prime example of how Big Food Inc of how Big Food takes a healthy food and turns it into a nutrition disaster is what I call “The Breakfast Cereal Scandal”.

The Breakfast Cereal Scandal

It’s hard to believe that breakfast cereals started as health food, but they did. Dr. John Harvey Kellogg was a Seventh-day Adventist who took over the Western Reform Health Institute in 1877 and renamed it the Battle Creek Sanitarium.

It gained prominence as a health resort where people went to be healed through a combination of physical activity and healthy eating.

Dr. Kellogg invented Corn Flakes in 1878 as a healthier alternative to the high-fat breakfasts most Americans were consuming at that time. Corn Flakes had less than 5% sugar. It was a great idea for its time, but what happened next is nothing short of appalling.

It is a perfect example of how Big Food Inc leads us astray. The graphic above that I created illustrates what the major food companies have done to breakfast cereals over the decades since then.

It all started with Corn Flakes. Then other food companies started bringing out competing products. Cereals like Wheaties and Rice Krispies were still pretty healthy, but they had a bit more sugar, which gave them better consumer appeal.

As soon as the food companies ﬁgured out that sugar increased their sales, the race was on. The percentage sugar increased to 40%, then to 50%, and now to almost 60%.

No sane parent would ﬁll their child’s cereal bowl half full of sugar, but that is exactly what they are doing when they feed them some of today’s breakfast cereals. The food companies are hiding the outrageous sugar content of their cereals with slogans like “Just a touch of honey.”

Speaking of deception, can anyone tell me how you label a product with 20% sugar 100% Bran Flakes?

I created the graphic above in the 1990’s. At that time, I assumed breakfast cereals couldn’t get much worse. But I was wrong. Big Food’s “race to the bottom” continues.

A recent study (A Zhao et al, JAMA Network Open, 8(5): e2511699, 2025) examined the nutritional content of children’s cereals introduced to the US market between 2010 and 2023.

How Was This Study Done?

The investigators used data from the Mintel Global New Products Database, which tracks new product launches for foods and beverages. From this database they identified 1,200 new children’s cereals introduced in the US market from 2010 through 2023.

Children’s cereals were defined as breakfast cereal products explicitly marketed (through packaging or branding) to children between 5 and 12 years old.

Using product label information, they compared the total fat, sodium, total carbohydrate, sugar, protein, and dietary fiber per serving and analyzed the trends between 2010 and 2023.

The Race To The Bottom Continues

If the previous decline in nutritional value of breakfast cereals between the 1870s and 1970s can be described can be described as “appalling”, the latest results can only be described as disastrous.

For newly introduced children’s breakfast cereals in the 13 years between 2010 and 2023,

Fat content increased 34%.

Sodium (salt) content increased 32%.

Sugar content increased by 11%.

Protein content decreased by 11%.

Fiber content decreased by 30%.

The authors of the study concluded, “Analysis of newly launched children’s RTE (ready to eat) cereals from 2010 to 2023 revealed concerning nutritional shifts: notable increases in fat, sodium, and sugar along decreases in protein and fiber.

Children’s cereals contain high levels of added sugar, with a single serving exceeding 45% of the American Heart Association’s daily recommended limit for children.

These trends suggest a potential prioritization of taste over nutritional quality in product development, contributing to childhood obesity and long-term cardiovascular health risks.”

In short, despite the American public’s increasing interest in a healthy diet, Big Food is still prioritizing sales over healthy foods. The race to the bottom continues.

What Does This Mean For You?

The take home lesson is clear. Don’t trust Big Food with your health. Their priority is sales, not your health.

Even when they claim their processed foods are healthy because they have removed fat or sugar, they have simply replaced them with a witches brew of chemicals so they look, taste, and smell delicious.

And breakfast cereals are just the tip of the iceberg. For most Americans 60-70% of their diet comes from highly processed foods.

If you value health, the choice is clear. Choose whole, unprocessed food whenever possible.

The Bottom Line

The dramatic decline in the nutritional quality of breakfast cereals between the 1870s and 1970s is well documented. By the turn of the century most breakfast cereals had gotten so bad, you might assume they couldn’t get any worse. You would be wrong. Big Food’s race to the bottom continues.

A recent study evaluated the nutritional value of newly introduced children’s breakfast cereals between 2010 and 2023. In those 13 years,

Fat content increased 34%.

Sodium (salt) content increased 32%.

Sugar content increased by 11%.

Protein content decreased by 11%.

Fiber content decreased by 30%.

The authors of the study said, “These trends suggest a potential prioritization of taste over nutritional quality in product development, contributing to childhood obesity and long-term cardiovascular health risks.”

I agree. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. For most Americans 60-70% of their diet comes from highly processed foods.

If you value health, the choice is clear. Choose whole, unprocessed food whenever possible.

For more details on this study and what it means for you, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

_________________________________________________________________________

My posts and “Health Tips From the Professor” articles carefully avoid claims about any brand of supplement or manufacturer of supplements. However, I am often asked by representatives of supplement companies if they can share them with their customers.

My answer is, “Yes, as long as you share only the article without any additions or alterations. In particular, you should avoid adding any mention of your company or your company’s products. If you were to do that, you could be making what the FTC and FDA consider a “misleading health claim” that could result in legal action against you and the company you represent.

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

___________________________________________________________________

About The Author

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 53 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Are Saturated Fats Good For You?

April 1, 2014 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Is Everything We Thought We Knew About Fats Wrong?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Bring out the fatted calf! Headlines are proclaiming that saturated fats don’t increase your risk of heart disease – and that they may actually be good for you.

The study (Annals of Internal Medicine, 160: 398-406, 2014) that attracted all the attention in the press was what we scientists call a meta-analysis. Basically, that is a study that combines the data from many clinical trials to improve the statistical power of the effect being studied.

And it was a very large study. It included 81 clinical trials that looked at the effects of various types of fat on heart disease risk.

Are Saturated Fats Good For You?

The answer to this question is a simple No. The headlines suggesting that saturated fats might be good for you were clearly misleading. The study concluded that saturated fats might not increase the risk of heart disease, but it never said that saturated fats were good for you.

In short, the study concluded that:

Saturated fats, monounsaturated fats and long-chain omega-6 polyunsaturated fats did not affect heart disease risk.

Long chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fats decreased heart disease risk [Note: The original version of the paper said that the decrease was non-significant, which is what the headlines have reported. However, after several experts pointed out an error in their analysis of the omega-3 data, the authors corrected their analysis, and the corrected data show that the decrease in risk is significant.]

Trans fats increased heart disease risk

If those conclusions are correct, they would represent a major paradigm shift. We have been told for years that we should limit saturated fats and replace them with unsaturated fats. Has that advice been wrong?

Is Everything We Thought We Knew About Fats Wrong?

Before we bring out the fatted calf and start heaping butter on our12 ounce steaks, perhaps we should look at some of the limitations of this study.

We Eat Foods, Not Fats

When the authors broke the data down into the effects of individual saturated and unsaturated fatty acids on heart disease risk some interesting insights emerge.

For example, with respect to saturated fats:

Both palmitic acid and stearic acid – which are abundant in palm oil and animal fats – increased the risk of heart disease.

On the other hand, margic acid – which is more abundant in dairy products – decreased the risk of heart disease.

So while the net effect of saturated fats on heart disease risk may be zero, these data suggest:

It is still a good idea to avoid fatty meats, especially red meats, if you want to reduce your risk of heart disease. When you focus on foods, rather than fats this fundamental advice has not changed in over 40 years! In next week’s “Health Tips From the Professor” I will share some of the latest research on the dangers of red meat.

With fatty dairy foods the situation is a little more uncertain. I’m not ready to tell you to break out the butter and whipped cream just yet, but recent research does suggest that dairy foods have some beneficial effects that may outweigh their saturated fat content.

With respect to omega-3 fatty acids:

alpha-linolenic acid – which is found in vegetable oils and nuts and is the most abundant omega-3 fatty acids in our diets – had no effect on heart disease risk.

On the other hand, EPA and DHA – which are found primarily in oily fish and omega-3 supplements – decreased heart disease risk by 20-25%.

Once again, while the net effect of omega-3 fatty acids on heart disease risk was very small, that’s primarily because most Americans consume mostly alpha-linolenic acid and very little EPA and DHA. This study shows that fish oil significantly reduces heart disease risk, which is fully consistent with the heart healthy advice of the American Heart Association and National Institutes of Health over the past decade or more.

What We Replace the Fats With Is Important

A major weakness of the current study is that it did not ask what the individual clinical trials were replacing the fatty acids with. Many of them were simply replacing the saturated fats with carbohydrates. To understand why that is important, you have to go back to the research of Dr. Ancel Keys.

The whole concept of saturated fats increasing the risk of heart disease is based on the groundbreaking research of Dr. Ancel Keys in the 50’s and 60’s. But, it is important to understand what his research showed and didn’t show.

His research showed that when you replaced saturated fats with monounsaturated fats and/or polyunsaturated fats the risk of heart disease was significantly reduced. He was the very first advocate of what we now call the Mediterranean diet. (He lived to 101 and his wife lived to 97, so he must have been on to something.)

Unfortunately, his diet advice got corrupted. The mantra became low fat diets, where the saturated fat was replaced with carbohydrates – mostly simple sugars and refined flours. Since diets containing a lot of simple sugars and refined flours also increase the risk of heart disease you completely offset the benefits of getting rid of the saturated fats.

Just in case you think that is outdated dietary advice, Dr. Key’s recommendations were confirmed by a major meta-analysis published in 2009 (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89: 1425-1432, 2009). That study showed once again that replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates had no effect on heart disease risk, while replacing them with polyunsaturated fats significantly reduced risk.

The Bottom Line:

You can put the fatted calf back out to pasture. The headlines telling you that saturated fats don’t increase the risk of heart disease were overstated and misleading. This study does not represent a paradigm shift. In fact, when you analyze the study in depth it simply reaffirms much of the current dietary advice about fats.

1) When you simply replace saturated fats with carbohydrates, as did many of the studies in the meta-analysis that generated all of the headlines, there is little or no effect on heart disease risk. However, other studies have shown that when you replace the saturated fats with monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats you significantly reduce heart disease risk.

In short, if you are interested in reducing your risk of heart disease, low fat diets may be of relatively little value while Mediterranean diets may be beneficial. No paradigm shift there. That sounds pretty familiar.

2) Fatty meats, especially red meats, appear to increase the risk of heart disease. No surprises there.

3) Alpha-linolenic acid, the short chain omega-3 fatty acid found in nuts, seeds and vegetable oils, does not decrease heart disease risk. However, EPA and DHA, the long chain omega-3 fatty acids found in fatty fish and fish oil supplements significantly decrease heart disease risk. That’s probably because the efficiency of conversion of alpha-linolenic acid to EPA & DHA in our bodies is only around 10%. No surprises there.

4) The study did suggest that dairy foods may decrease heart disease risk. While there are a few other studies supporting that idea, I’m not ready to break out the butter and whipped cream yet. More research is needed.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

What Causes Food Cravings?

January 9, 2014 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Is Your Body Trying To Tell You Something?

Author: Dr. Pierre DuBois

What Causes Food Cravings?

For some years, researchers had believed that having cravings for a particular type of food may be an indication that you are missing a particular nutrient in your diet. For example, if you crave red meat then you may have an iron deficiency, or if you crave ice cream you must need calcium.

Studies have shown, however, that cravings have nothing to do with a nutritional deficiency, but are actually caused by chemical signals in the brain. Nutritionist Karen Ansel says, “If cravings were an indicator of nutritional deficiency, we’d all crave fruits and vegetables. The fact that we all want high carb, high fat comfort foods, along with the research, is a pretty good indicator that cravings aren’t related to deficiencies.” Yes–it’s really all in your head.

Fat, Sugar and Salt Fuel Food Cravings

When you crave a food, the same reward centers in the brain that are responsible for drug and alcohol addiction are more active: the hippocampus (memory), the insula (emotion and perception) and the caudate (memory and learning). These areas are all very receptive to dopamine and serotonin, neurotransmitters that are responsible for feeling relaxed and calm and which spur reward-driven learning.

The reason you crave things such as ice cream, potato chips and chocolate is that these items are full of fat, sugar and/or salt. Both fat and sugar are involved in an increased production of serotonin and other chemicals that make us feel good.

Food Cravings Are Also Learned

There is a large societal aspect to cravings as well. For instance, women in Japan tend to crave sushi and only 6 percent of Egyptian women say they crave chocolate. Approximately half of American women claim that their cravings for chocolate reach a peak just before their period. However, research has found no correlation between fluctuations in women’s hormones and cravings. In fact, postmenopausal women do not report a large reduction in cravings from their premenopausal levels.

Will Power Alone Is Not Enough

Studies have found that the more people try to deny their cravings, the greater the craving they have for the forbidden food. Researchers suggest that it is better to give in to the craving in a controlled way rather than denying yourself altogether. Just be sure to restrict what you consume to a reasonable amount. If your dopamine receptors are constantly bombarded with high-fat and high-sugar foods (or drugs and alcohol), they shut down to prevent an overload. This makes your cravings even greater and you end up eating more in an attempt get the same reward, but you never really feel satisfied.

How To Bust Your Food Cravings

Exercise and distraction are the two best ways to reduce food cravings. One study found that a morning workout can reduce your cravings for the whole day. Other studies suggest that distracting your mind with other pleasurable stimuli can be effective. For example, smelling a non-food item that you really like can also help. Keep a small vial of your favorite perfume with you when a craving comes on and take a whiff when the craving hits you. It will occupy the aroma receptors that are involved in food cravings.

The Bottom Line

In most cases food cravings are not due to nutritional deficiencies. They are a physiological response of the “pleasure center” in the brain to fat, sugar & salt.

Food cravings are different in different cultures, which indicates that food cravings are also a learned response.

Willpower alone is not sufficient to overcome food cravings.

The best strategy to avoid food cravings is to exercise regularly and distract your attention with other pleasurable stimuli.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Are High Protein Diets Your Secret To Successful Weight Loss?

October 17, 2013September 17, 2013 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Do High Protein Diets Reduce Fat And Preserve Muscle?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Are high protein diets your secret to healthy weight loss? There are lots of diets out there – high fat, low fat, Paleolithic, blood type, exotic juices, magic pills and potions. But recently, high protein diets are getting a lot of press. The word is that they preserve muscle mass and preferentially decrease fat mass.

If high protein diets actually did that, it would be huge because:

It’s the fat – not the pounds – that causes most of the health problems.

Muscle burns more calories than fat, so preserving muscle mass helps keep your metabolic rate high without dangerous herbs or stimulants – and keeping your metabolic rate high helps prevent both the plateau and yo-yo (weight regain) characteristic of so many diets.

When you lose fat and retain muscle you are reshaping your body – and that’s why most people are dieting to begin with.

So let’s look more carefully at the recent study that has been generating all the headlines (Pasiakos et al, The FASEB Journal, 27: 3837-3847, 2013).

The Study Design:

This was a randomized control study with 39 young (21), healthy and fit men and women who were only borderline overweight (BMI = 25). These volunteers were put on a 21 day weight loss program in which calories were reduced by 30% and exercise was increased by 10%. They were divided into 3 groups:

One group was assigned a diet containing the RDA for protein (about 14% of calories in this study design).
The second group’s diet contained 2X the RDA for protein (28% of calories)
The third group’s diet contained 3X the RDA for protein (42% of calories)

In the RDA protein group carbohydrate was 56% of calories, and fat was 30% of calories. In the other two groups the carbohydrate and fat content of the diets was decreased proportionally.

What Did The Study Show?

Weight loss (7 pounds in 21 days) was the same on all 3 diets.

The high protein (28% and 42%) diets caused almost 2X more fat loss (5 pounds versus 2.8 pounds) than the diet supplying the RDA amount of protein.

The high protein (28% and 42%) diets caused 2X less muscle loss (2.1 pounds versus 4.2 pounds) than the diet supplying the RDA amount of protein.

In case you didn’t notice, there was no difference in overall results between the 28% (2X the RDA) and 42% (3X the RDA) diets.

Pros And Cons Of The Study:

The con is fairly obvious. The participants in this study were all young, healthy and were not seriously overweight. If this were the only study of this type one might seriously question whether the results were applicable to middle aged, overweight coach potatoes. However, there have been several other studies with older, more overweight volunteers that have come to the same conclusion – namely that high protein diets preserve muscle mass and enhance fat loss.

The value of this study is that it defines for the first time the upper limit for how much protein is required to preserve muscle mass in a weight loss regimen. 28% of calories is sufficient, and there appear to be no benefit from increasing protein further. I would add the caveat that there are studies suggesting that protein requirements for preserving muscle mass may be greater in adults 50 and older.

The Bottom Line:

1) Forget the high fat diets, low fat diets, pills and potions. High protein diets (~2X the RDA or 28% of calories) do appear to be the safest, most effective way to preserve muscle mass and enhance fat loss in a weight loss regimen.

2) That’s not a lot of protein, by the way. The average American consumes almost 2X the RDA for protein on a daily basis. However, it is significantly more protein than the average American consumes when they are trying to lose weight. Salads and carrot sticks are great diet foods, but they don’t contain much protein.

3) Higher protein intake does not appear to offer any additional benefit – at least in young adults.

4) Not all high protein diets are created equal. What some people call high protein diets are laden with saturated fats or devoid of carbohydrate. The diet in this study, which is what I recommend, had 43% healthy carbohydrates and 30% healthy fats.

5) These diets were designed to give 7 pounds of weight loss in 21 days – which is what the experts recommend. There are diets out there promising faster weight loss but they severely restrict calories and/or rely heavily on stimulants, they do not preserve muscle mass, and they often are not safe. In addition they are usually temporary. I do not recommend them.

6) This level of protein intake is safe for almost everyone. The major exception would be people with kidney disease, who should always check with their doctor before increasing protein intake. The only other caveat is that protein metabolism creates a lot of nitrogenous waste, so you should drink plenty of water to flush that waste out of your system. But, water is always a good idea.

7) The high protein diets minimized, but did not completely prevent, muscle loss. Other studies suggest that adding the amino acid leucine to a high protein diet can give 100% retention of muscle mass in a weight loss regimen – but that’s another story for another day.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.