Comments on: Hannaford’s Stars Get Results

By: What to Eat » Oh no! Yet another food rating scheme

What to Eat » Oh no! Yet another food rating scheme — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 17:35:28 +0000

[...] that are doing this to devise criteria that allow lots of their products to qualify. Recall the Hannaford example: when the supermarket chain recruited independent nutrition experts to devise criteria, less than [...]

By: It was only a matter of time before… « Balanced Health and Nutrition Rebecca Scritchfield’s Blog

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 13:41:37 +0000

[...] another blog post about Hannaford stars or listen to this NPR [...]

By: Jane

Jane — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 01:43:11 +0000

Jami – you don’t need grains, whole or otherwise, regardless of ‘stars’. Stick to whole meats, eggs, vegetables and fruits and a bit of dairy if you can tolerate it. Your body will thank you!

By: Jami JoAnne Russell

Jami JoAnne Russell — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 22:22:29 +0000

Alright, eating healthy is important. But what about those of us who are allergic to most “healthy” foods? Whole grains – ANY whole grains – cause me severe GI distress and make me break out in huge, painful zits. So what will the stars do for me when I can’t eat the healthy things?

By: WaltK

WaltK — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:49:40 +0000

Nicely spun report. But it begs the real question.

If people suddenly start buying 90% lean ground beef and 3-star breakfast cereals and 4-star frozen entrees, will it have any effect on health, or on body weight?

I’m skeptical. Is there any data that suggests free-living people will lose weight and become ‘healthier’ simply by switching to lower-calorie, lower fat food? From what I’ve seen, there’s a tendency to compensate — perhaps unconsciously — by simply eating MORE of the so-called ‘proper’ food. Net effect, zero.

I admit, there’s good PR value in programs like this, though.

By: Anna

Anna — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 05:05:23 +0000

So sad. Reminds me of that recent study in the news where kids thought that any food wrapped in McDonald’s packaging tasted better. Now it’s stars to fool people.

Have people really become so ignorant about their food choices that they need a trail of stars around a store to tell them what to eat? Is it really that bad out there? Most of the grocery shoppers I know have a pretty good idea what is good food and what isn’t (it’s usually in the perimeter of the store, often has no or minimal packaging, and typically isn’t processed to last an eternity. And I would argue that many of those “starred” items mentioned in the article are not the healthiest things to eat or at least in any quantity. I won’t take up your space on where Hannaford’s and I differ on what constitutes healthy foods, but suffice it to say that I am more in line with Nina Planck’s recommendations in her book Real Food: What to Eat and Why. No, I’m not connected to that author in any way other than as a reader and in agreement on food, so I’m not trying to drum up business for her (check it out of the library). But if someone is so ignorant of nutrition and good eating that they need instruction, read Planck’s book before looking for Hannaford stars. Sheesh! My stars, indeed.