Fruit juices with little or no fruit content

Tangible

The basis of the report is that even natural fruit juice has been hyped up as a health product when even in its pure and untainted form, the high sugar content makes water a healthier option.

The point being that these other products, some of which do call themselves 'juices', may contain very little fruit at all, and have no basis upon which to suggest that they are in any way healthy.

Some of these have managed to become synonymous with being beneficial health products, but the only reason appears to be that it can be sold at a premium price, whether or not there is any foundation in the claim.

RadoJo

Then do you have a link to the original report, because the article that you linked to didn't seem to indicate that there were any products which called themselves 'juice' which contained no juice at all as your thread title suggests.

Tangible

... which isn't untrue, but when you see reviews like this

The drinks are aimed at being healthy and made entirely (or as entirely as possible) of fruit juice to be healthy for children, their main market.

How could somene get that idea ?

Do they still sell 'sports' drinks ? - another peculiar phenomenon.

... and if you read the thread title, it says

Fruit juices with little or no fruit content

... not quite what you say it is.

Okay - I'll amend the thread title to be pedantically correct, and to properly reflect the law as written.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Whilst the phrase 'juice drink' is perfectly legal, and can be used on drinks containing as little as 5% juice[/FONT]....

RadoJo

Your title states that there are drinks called fruit juices that contain no juice as well as those which contain little juice - I just wanted some clarification as to whether that was in fact the case. I'm not denying that the labelling may be considered misleading to some people, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence in the original report that there were those which were downright lying about the contents. I'm not looking for an argument, just clarification on the report's findings. The report is here for anyone who wants to read the full findings:

http://www.sustainweb.org/resources/files/reports/SoftDrinksHardSell_lowres.pdf

browneyedbazzi

The Daily Fail article said that some fruit drinks contain little or no fruit...some people who don't understand the difference between a drink and a juice (and who don't bother to read articles fully or are incapable of comprehending what they mean) think that the two terms can be used interchangeably. The thread title is factually incorrect.

Not surprisingly the Daily Fail doesn't make any effort to explain the difference between a drink and a juice because leaving that out suits their desire to be inflammatory, misleading and scaremongers.

Tangible

I am not stating or implying that any laws are being broken or that anyone is lying. It's just shocking that 'fruit' drinks can contain so little fruit - even those caling themselves fruit juices.

More correctly I would amend the thread title (if I could) to 'fruit juices contain as little as 5% fruit', Those containing no fruit are labelled differently, though it appears a marketing device in many to suggest otherwise, or over emphasise the association with something that is often much less than a majority content.

I also later added that even an unadulterated fruit juice is not the best way to consume fruit, as the juicing process itself removes important constituents even when pulp is included.

I'm not a health food fanatic, and enjoy a sickly sweet fizzy drink, but object to it being marketed as being healthy for me, especially as I know a premium is added for the claims being made.

vikingaero

I asked an expert earlier, DD1, if there was any fruit in her Fruit Shoot H2O. She looked at me as though I was stupid and said: "No. It's the Fruit flavour of Blackcurrant, Orange or Apple."