Former Mayor’s Sugar Fix

Looks like old Dick Hubbard is in a spot of bother. He copped it in the chops on this blog when he was the Mayor of Auckland for lying about rates. Now Hubbards’ are heaping more sugar into his Hubbards’ Cereal range than the label on the pack says.

Hubbards cereals can contain more than double the sugar listed on the label, independent tests have found.

Three mueslis were tested by two different laboratories and all samples were found to have significantly more sugar than is declared on the packaging.

The levels were between 38 and 120 per cent higher than on the label – well outside the accepted range.

Double toasted Golden Syrup & Cranberry muesli claims to have 13.8g of sugar per 100g. However, four different batches were tested and found to have an average of 100 per cent more than that. This means a 600g box would contain an extra 18 teaspoons of sugar. 

That’s not a good look. It might actually be illegal too to falsely mis-state ingredients on the food labelling.

Here’s a tip to the WO Army, especially those of us involved with Blubbergeddon – don’t buy any of these muesli cereals as they have sugar levels 38% to a whopping $120% higher than the label says.

Hubbards-sugar-loaded-cereal

So if you’re considering chomping through one of Hubbard’s breakfast cereals, each time you lift your spoon up to your mouth just think of this…

image004-1

 

 

  • LionKing

    So much for Hubbard’s line “That’s a ‘leap tall buildings in a single stride’ or an ‘I’ve just won the jackpot. Wellington here I come’ type of good.” No wonder – it’s full of sugar and they’ve tried to hide it!!!!

  • Hillary Green

    I saw that article and was shocked. How can Hubbard’s get away with this? It’s misleading consumers isn’t it?

    • Naylor

      Looks that way. AsureQuality and Eurofins are the testing houses that manufacturers send products to for testing. If they’ve got it right, and I would suspect they do, then Hubbards is in for a world of pain. The only thing they should do is a product recall. Anything less and they are continuing to mislead their consumers, which brings into play questions about legal ramifications for misleading consumers.

    • Hazards001

      Shocked? Really? You were shocked? If that’s all it take to shock you maybe you should stick to the home and garden section.

    • IWantToBeLikeMallardOneDay

      Bring him to China and see how they sort people who do this kind of thing…

  • DLM

    Hubbards was always a fucking lair, didn’t know what was happening when he was Mayor of Auckland and seems he doesn’t know what the fuck is happening in his own company.

  • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Petal

    That has to be made to be as damaging as possible. People rely on food labelling for health and medical reasons. But as is often the case with corporate transgressions, they’ll get a fine that will be barely a couple of percent of their annual net profit, and life goes on. The only way to hurt them would be to stop buying their products. And what exactly are we going to replace Weetbix with. Grumble.

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Whaleoil

      Hubbards don’t make Weetbix…

      • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Petal

        Fark. (facepalm). I’m so tired… wonder why. ;)

        Well, that’s cheered up my day.

        • Bunswalla

          Probably coming down off your breakfast sugar rush.

      • Hazards001

        Yeah..that’s the other bunch of god bothering do gooders with hidden fucking agendas. Won’t find a fucking weet bix in this house.

  • Lloyd

    I’m Type 2 diabetic (which is under control, so long as I watch what I eat). The first time I tried one of Hubbard’s mueslis, I knew it was loaded with sugar. Even his bran is soaked in (sugar-rich) apple juice. Just too damn dangerous for me to risk again.
    I don’t like the Seventh-Day Adventist company, but I have found their sugar claims to be about right, although you need to read the back label!

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Petal

      We need to avoid highly processed foods, essentially, notwithstanding the claims on the label

      • unsol

        Which means rather than any cereal you are far better off making your own muesli with organic wholegrains & organic dried fruits or better still, fresh fruit coupled with maybe wholegrain toast (homemade bread – breadmaker is the best thing you could ever buy) with banana or tomato on top.

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Whaleoil

      Interesting…you don’t like a company because the SDA church owns it? Is it because they give away all their profits to charity…is that the bad thing you don’t like? You’d rather a company like Hubbards where all the profits go into Hubbard’s pocket? Or Kelloggs where it all goes offshore to an American corporate? Or perhaps Kraft with its connection to cigarette brands, perhaps you’d like them more?

      • Jimmie

        Ooo ouch – someone be sensistive about the SDA eh?

        • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Whaleoil

          No I like people to use facts not left wing emotional clap trap about not paying tax

      • James

        I don’t buy them as I don’t like cults or supporting cults. Corporations are fine – cults and their religion subset generally not. Giving them money just allows them to keep trying to brainwash people into their belief system.
        But my OH does buy them – as a Catholic she doesn’t see all religions as a cult!

        • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Whaleoil

          The SDA is hardly a cult…they are a protestant church not unlike Presbyterians…which is what I was brought up as…they have a healthy eating programme, and treat Saturday instead of Sunday as the Sabbath, but are as far from a cult as Anglicans are.

          • James

            All religions are cults – it is just some are more dangerous than others. I would put SDAs, Presbyterians and Anglicans at the lower level of dangerousness – but it doesn’t mean that they aren’t cults.

          • IWantToBeLikeMallardOneDay

            If religions are cults are all patterned means of thinking cults also? Ideologies for example? But it isn’t even limited to the two very obvious examples of religion and politics. Anyone who adheres to any kind of systematic interpretation of the world in your view must be in a cult. Pure empiricism is just stamp collecting after all. You are inferring a lot. Which cult do you belong to?

          • James

            If the ideology involves its believers unquestioningly worshiping someone or something then, yes; it could be a cult.
            But most ideologies don’t involve the unquestioning worship that is a requirement for a cult.

          • IWantToBeLikeMallardOneDay

            You use ‘involve’ in the place of ‘require’ perhaps..? I can’t agree with that. If you deviate from your ideology then you’re not an ideologue anymore, but if you disagree with a small aspect of Christian teaching, like the idea that the communion wafer is Jesus’s flesh, you can still be a catholic or an Anglican. That’s discounting the effects of cognitive dissonance also.

          • James

            Yes – but generally an ideology doesn’t “require” something in the same way that religion does … which is why I initially wrote require and then changed it to “involve”.

            The definition of cult does, however, exclude non-religious ideologies:

            1) a religious group, often living together, whose beliefs are considered extreme or strange by many people
            2) a particular system of religious belief.

            http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/cult_1?q=cult

            I would suggest that many people believe the beliefs of many religions to be strange. I guess it is how you define “many” as to whether you think that religions fall over the “cult” line.

          • Kimbo

            Hmmm. Cult,…no, or at least not any more as an
            organisation, although I do wonder in terms of the spirituality and
            legalism of SDAs I’ve met. Sect – yes. But then as the days of political and social benefit of belonging to a particular Church are nearly completely over, it probably doesn’t matter.

            However, Presbyterians don’t make a big deal
            of John Calvin or John Knox. To most Presbyeterians they are simply
            names, and are not essential to the system of belief, whereas SDA’s put
            an awful lot of store on the supposedly prophetic writings and special providential status of Ellen G White. She may not be the equivalent of a
            Joseph Smith for Mormons but I think I’m right she used to be regarded
            as equivalent to Scripture, although the SDA’s may have modified their
            position. What SDA’s in the trenches actually believe and practice
            could be different

            What classifies the SDAs as a sect (or worse)
            and forfeits their status as orthodox Protestants (where there can be
            differing opinions, e.g., Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans,
            Congregationalists, Baptists) in my book is their insistence on the
            dietary requirements of the Law of Moses for special spiritual benefit, or as an evidence of spirituality.
            No. No. No!

            I know Presbyterians have sometimes pushed the
            teetotal band wagon, but that is not an essential aspect or core facet
            of Presbyterian belief or spirituality. Calvin, in contrast to the other
            great Reformer Martin Luther stressed a primary continuity with the Law
            of Moses when it came to the ethics and spirituality Christians should
            adopt. BUT Calvin was always very clear – where the New Testament
            clearly abrogates aspects such as the Mosaic dietary restrictions, they
            no longer apply for Christians. To insist they should be adopted, or are
            of some spiritual benefit contradicts the essential Protestant
            principle of salvation by grace – and not by works or spiritual
            techniques, be it praying to saints, paying indulgences, or refraining
            from sweet and sour pork. The letter to the Galatians is always useful and insightful Scripture to identify legalists of every shade (including Presbyterians), but is especially appropriate for measuring biblical spiritualiy with what SDA proselytes would have you believe.

            Which doesn’t detract from the fine work SDAs do, nor your legitimate point about their merited tax-deductable status.

            Just saying…

          • Hazards001

            Cult!

        • IWantToBeLikeMallardOneDay

          Not necessarily. I buy quakers porridge. Are you scared of the quakers too? I recall Christopher Hitchens sent his daughter to a quaker school.

      • Bunswalla

        I don’t like them because of their arrogant bullying of small businesses trying to sell a product similar to one that they themselves couldn’t even supply. Happy-clappy churchgoers behaving like some kind of corporate thugs.

        BTW not all Hubbard’s profits go into his own pocket – he’s a generous supporter of Outward Bound, with I think 50c from each box going to the Outward Bound Trust. Over the years that’s been a not inconsiderable gift.

        Either way, I don’t eat any processed cereals, particularly mueslis due to the dried fruit and fruit juice in them. Being pre-diabetic I prefer to make my own muesli which is not only cheaper and much tastier, it’s very easy to make and much lower in sugar.

        • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Whaleoil

          Again, this is spin…they hold the intellectual property rights, if they fail to fight for them then they risk what happened in Australia with Ugg Boots. Failure to stop other people using or trading with your trademark makes the mark worthless.

          FYI sanitarium offered to assit those people bring in the product, by relabelling them at their expense…but those people were more intent on creating a massive fuss.

          When it went to court…guess who won…yes Sanitarium…they own the trademark, they tried to work with the importer of the imposter product, and when that failed they won in court. No bullying, just protection of legal intellectual property rights.

          • Dave

            Agree totally, their products are fairly good, reasonably priced and consistent. They are not driven by massive profits, and throughout their product life, I have not witnessed gouging the corporates have managed at almost every opportunity. Sure, their existence is cult like, but inside their factories (on the occasions I have been in) it is a spotless streamlined operation. I was a specialized tradie, and whilst they largely operate with their own, outsiders do get in and I was well treated. If people don’t like their product, they can vote with their feet and their wallet, but be prepared to spend a few hours a week making your own.

          • Bunswalla

            Not sure there’s any intellectual property in making a yeast spread but I know you’ll defend them to the death. After all, they sent you an advance order of their product for free before it went on general sale.

      • unsol

        I personally put SDA, Salvation Army, Catholic Church, Mormons & Pentecostals & Jehovah’s into the same category – I find each of their doctrines to be problematic & against what I consider to be the standard that Jesus lived by.

        That said, the SDA & the Sallies are fantastic charities in terms of what they give back to the community. If God can use a gay pedophile (allegedly) like King James to translate His Word then I am sure he can used any religion to do good work -whether providing a refuge for broken families or encouraging good health.

        And as for those saying that don’t buy Sanitarium because they don’t wish to support a cult – corporates are often no better (cult vs greed – I’m not sure God sees the difference).

        The make the best breakfast products out there so that is what we buy. And they are mostly made in NZ.

      • Whanga_Cynic

        SDA send all their profits to the USA.

  • Dave

    remember the Ribena lies, uncovered by school kids doing a research project. Seems a lot of the food we eat is falsely labelled, yet NZ has food labeling regulations. Is the regulator asleep at the wheel, AGAIN?

    • James

      Or perhaps it demonstrates that having an arm of Government trying to regulate things doesn’t work – and that the best disinfectant actually is the sunlight of third parties openly releasing their findings?

      • Kopua Cowboy

        Heresy. Need more bureaucracy!!

  • tarkwin

    Diabetes Dick rides again.

  • Patrick

    Why would anyone be buying Hubbard’s products in the first place? You are only supporting another leftie lying prick that makes his money as a Capitalist but extols the virtues of Socialism.
    Buying his products is only encouraging him.

  • unitedtribes

    In a past life I was a food processor. I was asked by a multi national company to develop a strawberry jam for their food service trade. Being used to making high quality foods I was appalled to be instructed to use only 30% strawberries. The first sample was favourable accepted with the only negative comment being the seed profile was too low. I made a flippant reply that there was only so many seeds in one strawberry. No no Mr xxx you use artificial wooden seeds available from xxx.

    • Dave

      On that note unitedribes, I was a big fan of Anathoths relish, pickles and jams, but they sold to Barkers. Barkers have changed the ingredients, and manufacturing process to the point it is nothing like the original, we now avoid it!! All Manufacturers need to stick to their knitting, and quality seems to pay off.

      • unitedtribes

        Surprised to here that. Barkers were at the quality end in my day. Used to do trade fairs with them

  • a{random{reader

    Sugar is relatively expensive (compared to the other ingredients in Muesli).

    It’s pretty idiotic to suggest that they are adding sugar. If anything, a dodgy manufacturer would be using more of the cheaper materials like rice/wheat/oats.

    But the real issue here is Cameron’s apparent hypocrisy towards NZ business. He uses his bully pulpit to bash the Greens for being “Hobbit Haters” and Labour for “Declaring war on NZ Business”, but then uses the same platform to hurl damaging accusations at a successful NZ business like Hubbards.

    What a sanctimonious prick you are Cameron!

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/ Whaleoil

      Sanctimonious for asking that companies declare the actual ingredients and content of their product?

      Sanctimonious for asking that companies, and politicians and unions tell the truth?

      I’m not saying they are adding sugar, I am saying they are failing to accurately declare the real sugar content.

      You obviously have an issue with comprehension not to mention a failure to understand what sanctimonious means.

    • Bunswalla

      Hahaha – you think sugar is cheaper than other ingredients in muesli? You’re having a laugh, of course!

      Sugar is about half of the price of the next-cheapest and most common muesli ingredient (rolled oats). Everything else in it is between 7 and 30 times dearer than sugar – I put cashews, macadamias, brazil nuts, almonds, walnuts, pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds, sesame seeds and flax-seeds (linseed) in mine.

      There’s a huge incentive for manufacturers to add sugar, which is why it’s in pretty much everything – it’s cheap as chips, makes the product taste sweeter and gets people hooked on it.

      It’s fine to call people for their sanctimony if warranted, but your cause will be damaged if you just make shit up.

      • Andy C

        @Unitedtribes – are you able to wade in here and let us know if Bunswalla is right? Is sugar one of the cheaper ingredients in muesli?

        • Bunswalla

          Of course I’m right. Just go to the supermarket and check the price of sugar per kilo against every other ingredient.

    • Patrick

      I think you will find the issue lies with transparency, or lack of in this case. Food should be correctly labelled & marketed. After all if you are marketing a “healthy” breakfast product why would you not state the ingredients on the packaging? Unless of course you have something to hide.
      Seems to me you are suggesting the consumer should not be informed because the product was manufactured in NZ – that sounds very protectionist to me, are you Russell Norman by chance?

      • Kopua Cowboy

        Anyone thinking muesli is a healthy breakfast is a plonker, unless its homemade, but that takes effort. WeetBix for the win

        • Lion_ess

          Correct. If you must eat boxed cereal at all, Allbran and Weetbix are two of the better ones.

  • GregM

    My breakfast for the last 30 odd years has been a fag and a mug of coffee.
    Accurate labeling not required, I know it’s going to fuck me up eventually.
    However, people buying “healthy food” should expect correct labels, not a good look Dick.

  • Hazards001

    Dick Hubbard is a ….where the hell is raresarerevolting when you need him huh?

98%