I was idly surfing though the Natural Products Insider site (an online trade publication) today, and stopped to read an article about the recent ”All Candy Expo” in Chicago.  Despite the “down” economy, apparently candy is still dandy…evidently over 2,000 new products were introduced and attendance was up by 7%.

But my eye was caught by these paras:

Which got me to wondering if there were any healthy candies being showcased. Sure enough … well, at least candy with “healthful” flavors such as acai, pomegranate and green tea. And a few wholesome and/or organic snack mixes.

But then this caught my attention: BrightSpot Brands (great name, isn’t it?), The World’s First Nutritionally Enhanced Candy Company. Its Gimme line of bite-sized candies delivers a substantial dose of calcium, omega-3 and probiotics. The company is owned and operated by Tim O’Connor, who, after a great career marketing fruit snacks with General Mills and launching Tropicana’s Pure Premium Plus OJ, decided to be an entrepreneur with a mission. That is, to use candy as a delivery vehicle for health and nutrition.

Candy as a “delivery vehicle for health and nutrition”???

Let’s get something straight: I don’t have anything against candy, per se, as an occasional indulgence.  While I don’t eat the stuff myself any more (with the exception of sugar-free breath mints and the random protein bar when traveling), I still have fond memories of loaded “Trick or Treat” bags on Halloween, gigantic chocolate bunnies and hard-sugar “panorama” eggs on Easter; and homemade fudge and candy-decked gingerbread houses on Christmas.  And I had no reservations about providing my kids with the same sugar-infused memories.* Wilbur Wonka, I ain’t.

But let’s face it: “candy” and “healthy” just don’t go together in the same sentence…and I don’t care if the candies in question contain a decent percentage of the RDA for specific nutrients.  Non-dietetic candy is still high in sugar, and frequently high in fat/calories.  Yes, certain candies – like those made from nuts or dark chocolate - provide some nutritional benefits and are ok in small amounts, but that’s the trick, isn’t it?  And in the end, even these candies don’t deliver as much “bang” for your calorie “buck” as – say – a handful of plain nuts or a spoonful of low fat, unsweetened cocoa powder added to a protein shake or smoothie.

In other words, just because a processed, sugary food product provides somewhat more nutrition than competing products doesn’t necessarily make it “healthy” – rather, it’s just less unhealthy than its unfortified counterparts.  ”Nutritionally enhanced” candy is in the same class as Tang, Red Bull and Lucky Charms cereal, but I don’t see too many people (beyond the manufacturers) insisting the latter products are “healthy”.  I seriously doubt the author of the above article (Lori Colman, an expert on natural foods marketing) would either.

In fairness to the manufacturer, the “Gimme” product ads don’t actually use the term…but as the writer of the quoted article demonstrates, it’s all too easy to make the connection.  For the record, I wish Mr. O’Connor success with his products: after all, if one is going to eat candy, a fortified version will be a better choice than one that isn’t.  But let’s call a spade a spade here. In my humble opinion, “healthy” is a word that should be reserved for foods for which the nutritional positives strongly outweigh any negatives (assuming there are any obvious negatives at all) – and not applied to products that are basically “value-added” junk food.

 

*Unlike my own mother, however, I made a point of NOT keeping candy around the house in the months between those holidays.  Both my mother and sister had serious weight problems that I managed to avoid, largely by keeping my hands off the candy dish and other junk Mom bought/made.

Share