The Grocery Edit

Silk Protein Non-Dairy Yogurt Review

Brittany Raftis, MScFN, RD — Sat, 29 Aug 2026 10:00:58 GMT

Last month, Silk launched a new high-protein yogurt. What makes this launch interesting is that it’s plant-based. Naturally, most plant-based milks contain less protein than cow’s milk. And creating a non-dairy yogurt that’s high in protein has typically required a lot of additional processing, which often means multiple emulsifiers and other additives to give the desired yogurt-like texture and taste.

While these ingredients aren't inherently harmful, they do make for a more heavily processed product, which is something many health-conscious consumers are looking to limit. In this week’s edit, we’ll see if the new Silk product is any different. We’ll look at the nutrition facts, ingredients, and ultimately whether it’s worth adding to your cart.

Let’s discuss.

Nutrition Profile

Silk vanilla Protein Yogurt contains 4g of fat, including 0.5 g of saturated fat, primarily from soy milk. It also provides 80 mg of naturally occurring sodium.

Each serving contains 14 g of carbohydrates, primarily from sugar and inulin fibre, with smaller contributions from tapioca starch. This includes 4 g of fibre and 10 g of sugar.

There are 12 g of protein per container from soy milk and added soy protein isolate.

The ingredient list is otherwise relatively simple. Additional ingredients include vanilla bean, bacteria, vitamins and minerals, pectin, natural flavours, fruit and vegetable juice.

Overall Review

Overall, I’m very impressed by the nutrition facts and ingredients here. Silk has managed to create a protein-rich, plant-based yogurt without relying on a long list of additives for texture and stability.

In this case, the formula is relatively simple. It gets its protein from soy milk and added soy protein isolate, uses pectin as a thickener, and contains inulin, a prebiotic fibre. It’s sweetened with a moderate amount of sugar, 10 g per serving, which falls below our threshold when evaluating yogurt. It’s also fortified with vitamins and minerals, making this an all-around nutritious option.

This is also a great example of where added protein makes sense. For someone who can’t have dairy or chooses to avoid it, this product provides a similar alternative to traditional yogurt while helping to fill the same nutritional role.

TL;DR: Excellent choice. Can be suitable for daily consumption.

The Best Alternatives to Potato Chips

Brittany Raftis, MScFN, RD — Sat, 22 Aug 2026 10:01:01 GMT

Chips are a favourite snack food for many, and one of the most common questions I get is for healthier alternatives. Over the past decade, the snack aisle has exploded with snacks marketed as better-for-you alternatives, making it one of the most confusing aisles to shop.

When shopping for a better-for-you chip alternative, here’s what we’re looking for:

Not fried. Limiting fried foods is recommended as part of a healthy dietary pattern, so we’re looking for a snack that isn’t fried. Baked, popped, air-puffed, or roasted are common alternative processing methods.
Low to moderate sodium count. I’m more flexible here than I am in some other product categories. These are still savoury snack foods, and they’re not necessarily something most people eat every day. The goal is to find options that satisfy as a savoury/salty snack without excessive sodium.
Something you enjoy eating: A snack can have a great nutrition label, but if it doesn’t satisfyy that craving for something crunchy, it’s not doing what it’s supposed to.

Here’s what I’m not wasting my time worrying about:

Protein content: This is an occasional snack, not something you're relying on to meet your protein needs.. If the snack is made from nutrient-dense ingredients and naturally provides some protein, great. But protein isn’t a deal breaker here. Sometimes, crunchy snacks can just be crunchy snacks.
Seed oils: I've shared the research on seed oils in a previous post and reviewed ideal sources of dietary fats in my Label Reading: Fats guide. If you'd like a deeper dive, I'd encourage you to check those out. For this review, it's simply not something we need to be concerned about.

In this week's edit, I'm sharing 10 non-fried crunchy snacks that can be a good alternative to traditional chips. As always, there isn't one "best" choice. The goal is to help you find a satisfying crunchy snack for those occasions when you're craving one, while making choices that better align with an overall healthy dietary pattern.

1. Pop Corners

PopCorners are popped and made with simple ingredients. They have a great crunch and come in a variety of classic chip flavours, making them a great swap if you’re looking for something similar to a chip without the fried part.

Are Phosphate Additives Harmful?

Brittany Raftis, MScFN, RD — Sat, 15 Aug 2026 10:02:34 GMT

Hello! In this week’s edit, we are talking about phosphate additives. Phosphorus is a mineral found naturally in foods like meat, fish, dairy, legumes, and eggs. It also exists in the form of phosphate additives, which are commonly added to processed foods. High blood phosphate levels have been linked to health concerns, including heart disease, stroke, and bone disease. Because Western diets are relatively high in meat and processed foods, there is concern about whether we are getting too much phosphorus in our diet.

Today, I’ll take a closer look at phosphate additives in foods, what we know about their potential health effects, and whether there’s reason to be concerned about how much we’re consuming.

Let’s discuss.

What is phosphorus?

Phosphorus is an essential mineral that plays an important role in bone and tooth structure, cell membranes, energy production, and many other processes in the body. About 85% of the phosphate in our bodies is stored in our bones and teeth, with the rest found in our blood and soft tissues.

As mentioned, phosphorus is found in our diet in two main forms. First, there’s the naturally occurring phosphorus found in foods like dairy, meat, fish, legumes, and eggs.

The other, and the primary cause for concern, is phosphate added to processed foods as a food additive. Some examples of common food additives you’ll see on ingredient lists include dicalcium phosphate, sodium phosphate, and phosphoric acid.

Phosphate additives can serve a variety of purposes in food production, including acting as emulsifiers, leavening agents, stabilizers, acidity regulators, and moisture-retaining agents.

An important difference to note between naturally occurring phosphorus and phosphate additives is how much our bodies absorb. We absorb about 40–70% of naturally occurring phosphorus, compared with around 90% of phosphorus from phosphate additives. Meaning, phosphate additives could more easily contribute to higher phosphate levels compared to the naturally occurring sources.

High blood phosphate levels can be harmful

Our food environment is rich in both naturally occurring phosphorus and phosphate additives. And unlike many other nutrients, phosphorus isn’t required to be listed on the Nutrition Facts table, making it difficult to know exactly how much we’re consuming. So, it’s reasonable to question whether we’re consuming more phosphate than we need, particularly from highly absorbed phosphate additives.

We also know that high phosphate levels in the body are problematic. Phosphate levels are very tightly regulated, and when they become too high, they can contribute to problems like bone disease and cardiovascular disease.

But here’s the thing: In healthy people, the body is pretty good at keeping blood phosphate levels in check. When we eat more phosphorus than we need, the kidneys filter it out of the bloodstream and increase the amount they excrete in the urine. This helps keep phosphate levels in the blood within their normal range, regardless of food intake. This is similar to other minerals, like calcium and potassium, which are also very tightly regulated in the bloodstream.

Where we tend to see high blood phosphate levels is in people with impaired kidney function. For example, people with advanced chronic kidney disease are at greater risk because their kidneys aren’t able to clear excess phosphate as effectively. High phosphate levels in this population have been associated with cardiovascular disease, vascular calcification, progression of kidney disease, and increased mortality.

This is why people with advanced kidney disease may need to follow a phosphorus-restricted diet to help keep blood levels within a safe range.

But is high phosphorus intake a concern even in healthy people?

This is where things get a little more complicated. The picture is still a bit mucky, but here’s a summary of what some of the research is showing:

First, even when blood levels are still within the normal range, higher blood phosphate levels have been associated with cardiovascular disease and greater coronary artery calcification in some studies.

The important caveat here is that these studies don’t necessarily show that eating more phosphorus causes blood phosphate levels to rise in healthy people. In fact, some studies (like here and here) have found that increasing phosphorus intake results in only a fairly modest increase in blood phosphate levels.

Second, higher phosphorus intakes have been associated with a greater risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality in observational studies. For example, one study using NHANES data found that people consuming more than 1,400 mg of phosphorus per day had a higher risk of all-cause mortality.

But again, this is where we need to be careful about interpreting the evidence. An association doesn’t necessarily mean that phosphorus itself is causing these outcomes. People who consume more phosphorus may also have other dietary or lifestyle factors that differ from those consuming less. There’s also a question as to whether we can accurately estimate phosphate intake from large population data sets like NHANES.

There’s a third piece of the puzzle that researchers are looking at, too.

Even when healthy kidneys are successfully clearing excess phosphate from the body, the process isn’t completely passive. One of the ways the body responds to higher phosphate intake is by increasing hormones like PTH and FGF23, which help regulate phosphate metabolism.

For example, higher FGF23 levels have been observed in people with higher phosphorus intakes (like here, here, and here), and elevated FGF23 has also been linked to cardiovascular disease risk.

This has led researchers to question whether the process of handling excess phosphate could have effects on the body that we don’t necessarily see by simply measuring blood phosphate levels.

Where do we go from here?

I think there’s reason to be mindful of phosphate additives, but not fearful.

If there’s one thing we’ve learned from nutrition research, it’s that chronic disease risk rarely comes down to one ingredient or nutrient in isolation. Our overall dietary pattern matters much more. We also know that overconsumption is a common theme in many nutrition-related health problems. So it’s probably not a good thing to get too much phosphate, just like any other commonly over-consumed nutrient.

But one thing to keep in mind is that we aren’t all automatically getting too much phosphate from our diets. Just because you eat meat or processed foods doesn’t mean you’re consuming an excessive amount of phosphorus or phosphate additives.

If you’re following an overall healthy dietary pattern, with plenty of fibre-rich foods, healthy fats, fruits and vegetables, and using some processed foods to supplement your diet, like a milk alternative with phosphate additives, I’d be much less concerned about excess intake. I’m much more interested in the other 95% of the foods you’re eating regularly.

When we look specifically at phosphate additives, some of the biggest contributors to a “high consumer” diet are soft drinks, processed cheese, cakes and pies, rolls and buns, and cookies and brownies. So if your diet includes several foods from these categories consistently, daily, it’s worth taking a closer look. Not only can these foods be sources of phosphate additives, but this type of dietary pattern can also mean more added sugar, sodium, saturated fat, and fewer of the nutrients we want more of.

If you’re not sure what an overall healthy dietary pattern actually looks like, I’ve covered that in more detail here. You can also use my Healthy Dietary Pattern Checklist as a simple way to assess your own diet and identify areas where you may want to make some changes.

Thank you SO much for reading and subscribing! You can leave a comment or send me a message using the buttons below.

Refer a friend

Additional sources:

Fulgoni K, Fulgoni VL 3rd. Trends in Total, Added, and Natural Phosphorus Intake in Adult Americans, NHANES 1988-1994 to NHANES 2015-2016. Nutrients. 2021 Jun 29;13(7):2249. doi: 10.3390/nu13072249. PMID: 34210102; PMCID: PMC8308364.

EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF); Younes M, Aquilina G, Castle L, Engel KH, Fowler P, Frutos Fernandez MJ, Fürst P, Gürtler R, Husøy T, Mennes W, Moldeus P, Oskarsson A, Shah R, Waalkens-Berendsen I, Wölfle D, Aggett P, Cupisti A, Fortes C, Kuhnle G, Lillegaard IT, Scotter M, Giarola A, Rincon A, Tard A, Gundert-Remy U. Re-evaluation of phosphoric acid-phosphates - di-, tri- and polyphosphates (E 338-341, E 343, E 450-452) as food additives and the safety of proposed extension of use. EFSA J. 2019 Jun 12;17(6):e05674. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5674. PMID: 32626329; PMCID: PMC7009158.

Do Preservatives Cause High Blood Pressure?

Brittany Raftis, MScFN, RD — Sat, 08 Aug 2026 10:01:42 GMT

A new study published in the European Heart Journal is making headlines after reporting links between several commonly used food preservatives and a higher risk of high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. Media summaries with headlines like “Study Links Common Food Preservatives to High Blood Pressure” have been circulating widely.

In today’s post, we’ll look beyond the headlines. I’ll break down what the researchers actually found, the strengths and limitations of the study, and what, if anything, these findings should mean for the way we shop and eat.

Let’s discuss.

Summary of study design and methods:

This study used data from more than 100,000 adults enrolled in the French NutriNet-Santé cohort, who were followed for an average of 6.7 years. Researchers estimated preservative intake using three 24-hour dietary recalls, where participants recorded everything they ate and drank.

To identify specific additives, participants were asked to report the brand names of packaged foods. These were cross-referenced with three food composition databases, allowing researchers to estimate whether a food contained specific preservatives and, when available, approximate amounts based on typical industry use levels.

Preservatives were grouped as follows: sorbates, sulphites, nitrites, nitrates, acetates, propionates, ascorbates, tocopherols, erythorbates, lecithins, citrates, phosphoric acid, and rosemary extract.

Cases of hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD) were identified through follow-up questionnaires and validated using medical records and administrative health databases where possible.

Key findings:

Participant characteristics

The study population included 112,395 adults, with an average age of 42 years; 79% of participants were women. Compared with lower consumers, higher consumers of total food preservatives tended to be younger, less physically active, and less likely to report a family history of heart disease or hypertension. They also reported lower alcohol intake but higher consumption of ultra-processed foods and drinks.

Risk of High Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Disease

Overall, total preservative intake was associated with a higher risk of hypertension but not cardiovascular disease. The researchers also examined individual preservatives and identified several that were associated with each outcome.

Hypertension

The following preservatives were linked to high blood pressure. I have included the most common food sources from the study as well, where available.

Campbell's New Protein Soup: A Dietitian's Review

Brittany Raftis, MScFN, RD — Sat, 01 Aug 2026 10:01:52 GMT

Campbell’s has recently launched a new line of protein soups, with five flavours that each provide 20 g of protein per serving.

Now, I know that in today’s protein-obsessed climate, it’s easy to roll your eyes every time a new protein product hits grocery store shelves. But in this case, adding protein actually makes a lot of sense.

Over the years, many of my clients have reached for canned soup as an easy, convenient lunch. My two biggest concerns are usually the same: first, the sodium content (which we’ll get to shortly), and second, that most canned soups simply aren’t substantial enough to serve as a satisfying meal.

Take a classic chicken noodle soup. Most of what's in the can is broth, a few noodles, and a surprisingly small amount of chicken. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it often means you're filling up on salty broth without much that provides real staying power. As a result, it's not uncommon to find yourself hungry again an hour later.

This is where adding protein can actually serve a purpose. Unlike protein-fortified coffee or soda, soup is often eaten as a meal. Increasing the protein content has the potential to make it more satisfying and help fill a nutrition gap that already exists.

But does the added protein actually make this a better soup?

Today, we’ll take a closer look at the nutrition facts and ingredients to see whether the added protein really moves the needle, and how these soups fit into a healthy dietary pattern.

Let’s discuss.

Campbell’s Protein Soup Nutrition Profile

Let's start with the Nutrition Facts and ingredient list.

One can of Campbell’s Protein Homestyle Chicken & Rotini Soup contains 5 g of fat, including 1 g of saturated fat, primarily from chicken fat. It provides 1,100 mg of sodium from added salt, which we’ll come back to later.

Each serving contains 29 g of carbohydrates, coming primarily from navy beans and pasta, with smaller amounts from cornstarch and potato starch. This includes 5 g of fibre and 5 g of sugar.

Now, the reason we’re all here: each can provides 20 g of protein, sourced primarily from chicken, bone broth, and navy beans.

The rest of the ingredient list is fairly typical for a canned soup. It includes modified cornstarch and potato starch to improve texture, yeast extract and flavouring, dried onion, spices, and garlic extract to enhance flavour, and carrageenan to stabilize texture (I've written more about carrageenan here).

A question about the protein source

One aspect of this product I found interesting is where the protein actually comes from.

The first ingredient in this soup is bone broth, followed by chicken and navy beans. While Campbell’s doesn’t disclose how much protein comes from each ingredient, bone broth can itself contribute a meaningful amount of protein, depending on how it’s produced.

On the product website (pictured above), Campbell’s describes the soup as being “packed with protein from foods like white meat chicken and navy beans.” That’s certainly true, both ingredients contribute protein. At the same time, I found myself wondering how much of the 20 g comes from the bone broth, particularly since it’s listed first in the ingredient list.

For comparison, Campbell’s Chunky Savoury Chicken with White & Wild Rice Soup provides 13 g of protein per can, despite also containing chicken. One notable difference is that it uses regular broth rather than bone broth. That doesn’t prove bone broth accounts for the difference, but it does make me curious about how the recipe was designed.

Without access to the formulation, we can’t know the answer. It’s entirely possible the soup contains substantially more chicken than Campbell’s traditional varieties. But if a meaningful proportion of the added protein comes from the bone broth, I do think many consumers might assume the increase is coming primarily from larger amounts of chicken and beans, rather than broth.

Overall Review

I actually like the idea behind this product. Unlike protein-fortified coffee or soda, soup is often eaten as a meal, and adding protein could genuinely make it more satisfying. The biggest selling point of this soup is clear: it provides 20 g of protein per can. For many adults, that’s a reasonable amount of protein for a meal and certainly more than you’ll find in a traditional canned chicken noodle soup.

However, it’s worth remembering that you only reach that 20 g of protein by eating the entire can. Doing so also means consuming 1,100 mg of sodium, nearly half of the recommended daily limit for most adults. While canned soup has always been a higher-sodium food, that’s still a substantial amount to get from a single meal.

Because of the sodium content, I wouldn't recommend relying on this as a regular meal option. If you enjoy canned soup, a better strategy may be to choose a lower-sodium option, or stretch the soup with additional water so each serving contains less sodium, and then add your own protein, such as cooked chicken, beans, or lentils, to make it a more satisfying meal. You end up with many of the same benefits while keeping the sodium content more manageable.

Clinical Corner

For when the answer isn’t so black and white.

One thing I’ve learned as a dietitian is that there are very few foods I’d recommend to everyone, or to no one. While this isn’t a product I’d suggest as an everyday staple, there are situations where convenience and practicality matter just as much as nutrition.

For example:

✅ Someone recovering from illness who needs an easy source of protein.

✅ Someone who lives alone or has limited cooking skills and struggles to prepare meals.

✅ Someone looking for a convenient, shelf-stable lunch who doesn’t need to follow a low-sodium diet.

In cases like these, ready-made, protein-rich products can help fill a gap when preparing a balanced meal simply isn't realistic.

What do you think about this new product launch? Let’s continue the discussion in the comments below!

Refer a friend

Talk soon,

~Brittany

Is Citric Acid Really Made from “Black Mold”?

Brittany Raftis, MScFN, RD — Sat, 25 Jul 2026 10:01:36 GMT

Tell me if this sounds familiar: you're lying in bed scrolling through your feed as you get ready to fall asleep. Suddenly, someone filming in the grocery store is telling you that your favourite flavoured sparkling water isn’t actually safe to eat because it contains "black mold."

In this week's Edit, we're talking about the ingredient at the centre of that claim: citric acid. We’ll discuss how it’s made, whether it actually contains black mold, and whether this is an ingredient worth worrying about.

Let’s discuss.

What is citric acid?

Citric acid is a naturally occurring compound found in many fruits, especially citrus fruits like lemons and limes. Within the body, citric acid is one of the essential acids in the Krebs cycle, a series of reactions that turn glucose (sugar) into energy.

Citric acid is also one of the most common additives used in our food industry. It serves many functions in food, including preserving colour and flavour, slowing oxidation, maintaining product quality, and providing a tart taste. You’ll find it in products like flavoured sparkling water, soft drinks, jams, candies, desserts, and frozen fruit.

Historically, citric acid was extracted from lemon juice, with the first commercial production dating back to the late 1700s. However, as demand grew, extracting citric acid from citrus fruits became impractical. Today, approximately 90% of commercial citric acid is produced using a fungus called Aspergillus niger.

Does citric acid really come from black mold?

One of the most common claims you’ll see online is that citric acid is “made from black mold.” There is a grain of truth behind this claim, but it’s missing some important context.

Is Aspergillus niger the same as black mold?

The Problem With Putting Protein in Everything

Brittany Raftis, MScFN, RD — Sat, 18 Jul 2026 10:01:41 GMT

There’s a nutrition trend I’ve been noticing more and more in my practice that I think makes for an interesting discussion: the unintended consequences of putting protein in everything.

Recently, I’ve had several clients come in for their initial appointment with a similar story. They feel like they’ve been eating well, making healthier choices, and doing all the “things”, but they’re frustrated because their weight has unexpectedly started creeping up.

When we look more closely at what they’re eating, they’re getting an excess of one thing I didn’t expect: protein-fortified foods or supplements.

Prefer to listen?

✨New this week: I'm trying something different and have recorded an audio version of this week's newsletter. I'm planning to test this over the next few weeks to see how readers like it, so if you give it a listen, I'd love to hear your feedback. This isn't a word-for-word reading; it's more of a conversational version. Listen below 👇.

We’re being sold protein products as if more is always better. Protein is essential, yes. But protein is only beneficial when it’s solving a problem, a need. And honestly, most of the protein products on the market are selling a solution to a problem that many people don't actually have.

If your diet is lacking protein, adding more is a good move. But if you’re already getting enough, more won’t continue to provide a benefit. And in cases I’ve seen recently, the unintended consequence has been a higher overall calorie intake.

Some context…

Before I go further, I want to give you some context. I haven’t talked much about calories in my practice for about a decade. Mentioning calories brings me right back to the era of “low-calorie” and “100-calorie” everything lining the supermarket shelves, and that’s not a direction I want to return to.

For years, I deliberately moved away from talking about calories because they had become the entire conversation. Instead, much of my work has focused on helping people move away from fearing calories and toward the bigger picture: food quality, nutrient density, and overall dietary patterns. I’ve also spent much of that time encouraging people to prioritize protein because, for many, it’s a nutrient that has historically been used suboptimally.

But recently, I’ve found myself talking about calories again. Not because I think we should go back to counting them, but because they help illustrate something that’s easy to miss in today’s protein-obsessed food environment. Even with protein, more is not always better. And regardless of which nutrient we’re talking about, excess is still excess.

How we got here

The protein trend didn’t happen because people suddenly needed more protein. It happened because protein has become one of the strongest signals of "healthy" in today’s food environment.

Combined with the growing narrative that it is difficult (or even impossible) to meet your protein needs through whole foods alone, many consumers have started seeking out protein-fortified versions of foods they already eat, or adding protein supplements on top of their usual diet.

Because protein is associated with health, fullness, and muscle growth, many consumers don’t realize that the benefits of adding protein are not infinite. The messaging is this: protein is good, so more protein must be better. And this can add up quickly.

Protein bread. Protein pasta. Protein coffee. Protein soda. If you’re choosing between regular whole grain bread and a protein-fortified version, today’s marketing tells us the protein bread is automatically the better choice. After all, it has more protein.

Is the extra protein actually helping you?

Added protein is only beneficial if it’s solving a problem for you. If you’re making a vegetarian sandwich and your meal is falling short on protein, a higher-protein bread may help fill in the gap. But if that same sandwich already contains chicken, tuna, or another protein source, the added protein may not provide any meaningful benefit.

Here’s a common example that I see in my practice to illustrate my point.

A typical day:

Breakfast: 2 eggs, 1 slice of whole grain toast, apple
AM: Coffee with milk
Lunch: Tuna sandwich (2 slices bread, ~½ can tuna, small amount of mayo/Greek yogurt, vegetables) + veggie sticks
Snack: ½ cup Greek yogurt, fruit, ⅓ cup nuts
Dinner: Rice with 4 oz chicken, steamed broccoli

This day provides approximately 2,000 calories and 110 g of protein

For someone weighing 165 lb (75 kg), that equals approximately 1.5 g protein/kg, already well within a range that can support muscle growth if that’s the goal.

Now let’s swap in some of the protein-fortified options many people are adding:

Breakfast: 2 eggs, 1 slice whole grain protein toast, apple
(+40 calories, +6 g protein)

AM: Protein coffee
(+120 calories, +20 g protein)

Lunch: Tuna sandwich on protein bread + veggie sticks
(+80 calories, +12 g protein)

Snack: ½ cup Greek yogurt, fruit, ⅓ cup nuts

Additional: Protein beverage
(+170 calories, +24 g protein)

Dinner: Rice with 4 oz chicken, steamed broccoli

This version provides approximately 2,400 calories and 170 g of protein. That’s an additional 50 g of protein and 400 calories compared to the original day.

Protein is important. But more protein is not automatically better.

My point here is not necessarily to avoid these protein foods. If you’re trying to gain weight, have higher protein needs, or genuinely struggle to get enough protein in your day, these products can be great tools. But if you’re already meeting your protein needs, adding more protein isn’t automatically an upgrade.

The irony is that one of protein’s biggest benefits is its ability to help regulate appetite. Including adequate protein in a meal can increase fullness, help manage hunger, and improve portion control. But that’s not how many protein products are being sold today.

Instead of replacing lower-protein foods or filling a genuine nutritional gap, they’re often layered on top of an already adequate diet. The very nutrient that can help prevent overconsumption is now being marketed in ways that can encourage us to overconsume it.

In the example above, nothing else about the person's eating pattern changed. They simply swapped in a few protein-fortified products. The result? An additional 50 g of protein, which might sound impressive in today's food environment, but also several hundred extra calories that weren't needed in the first place.

One of the challenges with many processed foods is that they're formulated to make certain nutrients easy to consume in excess, whether that's saturated fat, sodium, added sugars, or refined carbohydrates. As I look at today's food environment, I can't help but wonder whether we're watching the same pattern develop with protein.

The problem isn’t really about protein or calories. The problem is that we’ve been sold the idea that more protein is always better. The real question to ask yourself before you buy is: Is this protein product solving a problem I actually have?

For more on how much protein you need, you can check out my previous post: Protein: How much do you need, and does the source really matter? here.

Are Emulsifiers bad for gut health?

Brittany Raftis, MScFN, RD — Sat, 11 Jul 2026 10:01:06 GMT

In this week’s edit, we’re tackling one of the most common concerns about food additives: whether emulsifiers harm the gut. You’ve probably seen headlines claiming that emulsifiers “destroy your gut microbiome” or “cause leaky gut.” But do they?

The short answer is: the evidence is more complicated than social media makes it sound.

Approved food emulsifiers have undergone extensive safety evaluations by regulatory agencies and are permitted for use only when the available evidence supports their safety, although questions remain about whether some may have subtle effects on gut health that were not considered in earlier assessments.

While some emulsifiers have raised concerns in animal and laboratory studies, evidence in humans remains limited and often mixed. More importantly, “emulsifiers” are not a single ingredient. They are a broad category of compounds that differ substantially in their chemical structure, how they’re processed by the body, and potentially how they interact with the gut.

This distinction is often lost in online discussions and food-rating apps, where broad claims such as “emulsifiers are harmful to the gut” treat all emulsifiers as though they behave the same way. In reality, that’s a bit like saying all apple varieties taste the same - from Granny Smith to Red Delicious. They’re all apples, but each type has its own characteristics. Likewise, emulsifiers share a common function in food, but they are chemically distinct ingredients with different biological properties and different bodies of evidence.

Today, I’m reviewing what the research actually shows for five of the most common emulsifiers used in our food supply, and whether they’re something the average consumer should realistically worry about.

Paid Subscribers also get access to a downloadable PDF evidence summary. A practical tool to see a snapshot of evidence. The preview is shown below, but you can download the full version at the end of this post!

Let’s discuss…

Gums (xanthan, arabic, guar)

Gums are naturally derived polysaccharides used primarily as thickeners and stabilizers in foods. They’re resistant to digestion and reach the colon intact, where they are fermented by gut bacteria, functioning similarly to dietary fibre.

Gums & Gut Health

Human studies generally show that gums are well tolerated, although some people experience gas or bloating at higher intakes (just like fibre). Because they’re fermented by gut bacteria, they can influence the microbiome, and several studies suggest they may even have prebiotic effects, including improvements in beneficial gut bacteria, stool quality, and gastrointestinal symptoms.

TL;DR: ✅ Current evidence does not suggest that commonly used gums adversely affect gut health at typical dietary intakes. Some studies have even reported improvements in bowel regularity and stool quality.

For more details, check out my deep dive on gums here.

Carrageenan

Carrageenan is a seaweed-derived thickener commonly used in processed dairy products, coffee creamer, and processed meats. It is mostly resistant to digestion and reaches the colon intact.

Carrageenan & Gut Health

Are Snackish Chips Really Better for You?

Brittany Raftis, MScFN, RD — Sat, 04 Jul 2026 10:01:37 GMT

Snackish just launched, and it may be one of the most talked-about snack launches of the year. Created by the founder of SmartSweets, this new chip brand is being marketed as a better-for-you alternative to traditional potato chips. Backed by a major social media campaign featuring celebrities like Chad Michael Murray and an array of well-known influencers, the brand has generated significant buzz surrounding its launch.

But are they really that much better than traditional potato chips?

Today, I’m comparing Snackish to Lay’s, breaking down the Nutrition Facts table and ingredient list, and taking a closer look at whether the health claims surrounding this brand are justified.

Let’s discuss.

Before you move on, I wanted to share that I’m on Instagram!

I’ve reopened my account and will be using it to connect between weekly newsletters, sharing post previews and any interesting food industry or nutrition news that comes up between newsletters.

If you’d like to follow along, you can find me at @the.grocery.edit

Snackish Nutrition Profile

First, let’s start with the Nutrition Facts and ingredient list. One 30 g serving of Snackish Salt Kissed potato chips (about 15 chips) contains 6 g of fat, including 1 g of saturated fat, from avocado oil. It also provides 290 mg of sodium from added salt.

Each serving contains 13 g of carbohydrates, primarily from dried potato, with smaller contributions from cassava fibre and potato starch. This includes 3 g of fibre and no sugar.

The chips provide 8 g of protein per serving from potato and rice protein.

The ingredient list is otherwise relatively simple and contains no added emulsifiers, preservatives, non-sugar sweeteners, flavours, or colours.

Marketing claims

Snackish was developed by Tara Bosch, the founder of SmartSweets, and has been launched with a major social media campaign. The brand has partnered with several influencers and creators as “part-owner/creative directors,” with the launch featured extensively across social platforms.

According to Tara, the idea for Snackish was inspired by becoming a mom. After seeing that her daughter’s favourite snack was potato chips, she set out to create a healthier alternative. Below are some snap shots of marketing featured across the Snackish website:

The brand’s website and social media feature several nutrition-focused marketing claims that position Snackish as more than just a “better-for-you” alternative. Instead, the messaging suggests it is a chip that can be enjoyed as a regular part of a healthy diet. This is reflected in statements such as “the chip you can eat every day” and “so finish the bag, it’s kind of the point,” alongside prominent claims highlighting the chips’ “gut-happy fibre” and complete protein content.

How does Snackish compare to a traditional potato chip?

Compared to Lay’s Classic, Snackish is slightly lower in calories, though the difference is relatively small. It also contains less total fat (6 g versus 10 g per serving), likely reflecting less oil absorbed during frying

Snackish contains 290 mg of sodium per serving, compared with 140 mg in Lay’s. This higher sodium content may help enhance flavour, given the lower fat content

Carbohydrate content is similar between the two products. However, Snackish provides 3 g of fibre per serving compared with 1 g in Lay’s, along with 8 g of protein versus 2 g.

The ingredient lists also differ substantially. Lay’s is made from a short list of ingredients: potatoes, vegetable oil, and salt. In contrast, Snackish incorporates added potato protein, rice protein, cassava fibre, and potato starch to increase its protein and fibre content. As a result, it is a more formulated product designed to deliver a specific protein and fibre profile while still functioning as a traditional chip

So, are Snackish chips really better for you?

Compared with traditional potato chips, I would say yes. Snackish provides more protein and fibre while also containing less oil from frying than a traditional potato chip. Together, these are meaningful nutritional improvements. The added protein and fibre may increase satiety, making the chips a more balanced standalone snack than traditional potato chips.

Where I take issue is with the marketing. Snackish uses a strategy we've seen repeatedly in the food industry, where trendy nutrition features, such as added protein and prebiotic fibre, are used to position food under a health halo and as fundamentally “healthy.” Snackish is promoted as “the chip you can eat every day,” and the website even encourages consumers to “finish the bag”. Those messages imply that the nutritional improvements make moderation less important.

To put this into perspective, eating an entire bag of Snackish provides approximately:

662 calories
28 g of fat
1,363 mg of sodium (over half of your daily needs!)
37.6 g of protein
14 g of fibre

Eating a full bag of Snackish is stil considered over-consumption. The reason traditional potato chips aren’t considered a daily health food isn’t because they’re low in protein or contain vegetable oil. Rather, they’re energy-dense, relatively high in sodium, deep fried, and easy to overconsume.

If you enjoy the taste of Snackish as much as your favourite classic chip, and the protein and fibre content helps you consume it in moderation, that’s a win. But those improvements don’t change the role this food plays in a healthy dietary pattern. It’s still a fried, energy-dense, high-sodium snack that is best enjoyed in moderation. As consumers, it's worth distinguishing between a product that is better than its alternative and one that truly deserves a regular place in your diet.

If you find this kind of breakdown helpful, check out my 6-week (+) Label Reading Series. I take you line by line through the Nutrition Facts table and show you my unique method for evaluating products, including which nutrients matter most, how much is too much, and when ingredients really make a difference.

Week 1: Calories - Why they’re not the most important number
Week 2: Making Sense of Fats on Food Labels
Week 3: What to Know About Cholesterol and Sodium
Week 4: Not All Carbs Are Equal: Understanding Nutrition Labels
Week 5: Protein: How much do you need, and does the source really matter?
Week 6: Final Tips for Navigating the Grocery Store

Do you agree that Snackish claims are overstated? Let’s continue the discussion in the comments below!

Refer a friend

Talk soon,

~Brittany

Which Protein Drinks at Costco Are Actually Worth Buying?

Brittany Raftis, MScFN, RD — Sat, 27 Jun 2026 10:01:08 GMT

Hello all!

Today, we’re reviewing protein drinks available at Costco.

The beverage category is exploding right now, and protein is one of the biggest trends in food marketing. As a result, ready-to-drink protein shakes have become more popular than ever, and Costco has no shortage of options.

While most people can meet their protein needs through food alone, protein drinks can be a convenient way to supplement protein intake when needed. They can be particularly useful as an on-the-go post-workout option, for people with higher protein needs, or for those who find it difficult to consistently consume enough protein through food alone.

However, not all protein drinks are created equal. While many offer a similar amount of protein, they can differ substantially in their use of sweeteners, additives, and overall formulation.

Today, I’m reviewing 10 of the most commonly available protein drinks at Costco to see how they stack up nutritionally.

Let’s discuss.

My criteria for protein drinks

Before getting into my recommendations, I want to provide some context on how these products compare. The protein drinks currently available at Costco share several similarities, which can make them difficult to differentiate at first glance.

First, they all provide a similar amount of protein, with most offering around 30 g per serving. Most also use milk-based proteins, which are complete protein sources containing all essential amino acids.

These beverages are also relatively low in carbohydrates. This is expected in a protein shake, where protein is the primary macronutrient.

All of the products included here are also low in sugar. As a result, sugar content is not a major point of differentiation.

Where these products differ is in the type and number of non-sugar sweeteners used, as well as their overall formulation and ingredient lists.

Non-nutritive sweeteners

Non-nutritive sweeteners (like sucralose or stevia) are used in these beverages to keep the sugar content to a minimum. But while low added sugar is beneficial, simply replacing large amounts of sugar with large amounts of sweeteners does not necessarily improve the overall nutritional quality of a product. Ideally, we want a lightly sweetened product, regardless of the sweetener source.

A key limitation is that labels are not required to disclose the quantity of each sweetener used (with the exception of sugar alcohols). As a result, we can only assess presence and variety rather than exact amounts.

However, when multiple sweeteners are used together, it often indicates a formulation more heavily engineered to achieve a specific sweetness profile while minimizing aftertaste or other unfavourable changes that may occur when relying heavily on a single sweetener. Since sweetener quantities are not disclosed, I generally favour simpler formulations that achieve a similar result with fewer sweeteners. Based on the options currently available at Costco, a practical target is to choose products containing 2 or fewer non-nutritive sweeteners.

Additives

Protein drinks are processed and therefore will contain additives such as emulsifiers and preservatives to improve texture, flavour, and shelf life. This is part of what allows them to be convenient, palatable, and shelf-stable beverages.

While approved additives are generally considered safe, some products rely more heavily on stabilizers, emulsifiers, preservatives, and flavouring agents than others. When comparing products with similar nutrition profiles, I generally favour those that achieve the same outcome with fewer additives. While a beverage with more additives isn’t necessarily “less healthy”, it often reflects a more engineered formulation. Selecting an option with fewer additives can help keep your overall additive exposure within typical population intake ranges, particularly when consuming a diet that regularly includes processed foods.

With this in mind, a practical benchmark based on the protein shakes currently available at Costco, is fewer than 5 additives.

Additional nutrients

Some products include added fibre, vitamins, or minerals. If the purpose of a protein drink is simply to help meet protein needs, these are likely not necessary. For this reason, I don’t put a lot of weight into these additions. In this case, I see them as a bonus to support overall nutrient intake adequacy.

Protein Drinks at Costco

Fairlife

Fairlife protein drinks provide 30 g of protein per serving from ultrafiltered milk. They also have a minimal carb count, with only 4 g per serving, including 2 g of sugar.

However, Fairlife achieves its low sugar content through a combination of multiple non-sugar sweeteners, including acesulfame potassium, monk fruit extract, stevia, and sucralose. While this helps keep sugar low, it creates a product that is heavily reliant on sweeteners.

TL; DR: ❌ Choose an alternative

Orgain

What Food Marketing Is Selling in 2026

Brittany Raftis, MScFN, RD — Sat, 20 Jun 2026 10:01:12 GMT

If you’ve walked down a grocery store aisle lately, you’ve probably seen the shift. Food labels are no longer just talking about calories, fat, and sugar. Instead, they’re increasingly focused on protein, fibre, gut health, hydration, processing level, and functional ingredients. In this post, I’ll break down some of the biggest trends shaping how food is being marketed in 2026 and what they reveal about the concerns, priorities, and aspirations of today’s consumers.

Gut Health: From PRO to PREbiotics

For many consumers, the first exposure to probiotics and the idea of supporting gut health came from the Activia commercials of the 2010s, featuring Jamie Lee Curtis and the now-famous "happy belly" imagery. Suddenly, gut health became something consumers actively sought to improve, and probiotics (healthy bacteria that live in your gut) began appearing in everything from yogurt to protein bars and crackers.

15 years later, gut health continues to be one of the biggest themes in food and wellness marketing, but it has changed in a couple of ways. First, rather than seeing small amounts of probiotics added to a wide range of products, we're now seeing fewer but more premium offerings, such as Coconut Cult, that emphasize high probiotic counts and clinically meaningful doses.

We’re also seeing a shift in focus from prObiotics to prEbiotics. Part of the reason for this shift is that prObiotics are not particularly easy to incorporate into packaged foods. As living organisms, they require specific conditions to survive, including appropriate temperature, moisture, and pH levels. This means that adding probiotics to something like potato chips doesn’t necessarily result in a meaningful dose of probiotics at the time of consumption.

PrEbiotics, on the other hand, are a type of fibre that basically fuels the good bacteria present in your gut. As a fibre, prebiotics are far easier to incorporate into packaged foods while still allowing brands to participate in the growing gut-health conversation. What was once an ingredient quietly added to foods or used in therapeutic settings has become one of the food industry's hottest additions.

The consumer definition of "gut health" has also expanded. Rather than just being about how often you poop, gut health is viewed as an overall wellness hack, linked to mood, immunity, skin health, allergies, and other aspects of health. Whether all of these claims are supported by strong evidence is another question, but the expanding consumer interest has created a major opportunity for food companies.

+ Fibre

Piggybacking on the gut health movement, fibre is being repositioned from a basic nutritional requirement into a functional wellness ingredient.

For years, fibre quietly appeared in packaged foods, often to improve texture or subtly enhance the nutritional profile, but it’s now being used more explicitly as a front-of-package marketing strategy.

Fibre is no longer positioned as something you take for “digestive issues,” but as a key ingredient to overall wellness. What was once associated with older consumers or digestive discomfort has been reframed through the lens of gut health into something much more mainstream and even aspirational.

At the same time, fibre is increasingly being added to ultra-processed foods that would otherwise be low in it, effectively “fibre-washing” products that are still primarily designed for indulgence. Similar to what we’ve seen with protein, this creates a category of snacks, bars, and beverages that signal health through added fibre rather than through their underlying food composition.

Added fibre in packaged foods has not yet peaked, and we will likely continue to see it expand across categories in the coming years.

Protein continues to rule

Long associated with strength and muscle-building, high-protein foods initially gained traction among consumers looking to support weight loss or fitness goals. Over time, protein has evolved into a broader signal of healthfulness and product quality, extending well beyond traditional wellness categories. Once largely confined to products like protein bars, powders, and shakes, it now appears in everything from candy and ice cream to soft drinks, often helping reposition otherwise indulgent products as more functional or better-for-you.

At the same time, consumers are becoming more aware that protein content alone does not necessarily make a food healthy. This growing skepticism suggests the peak of "protein-washed" products may be approaching. However, protein is unlikely to disappear from marketing altogether. It will likely remain a key nutrient in the positioning of genuinely nutrient-dense foods, while its role in more indulgent categories becomes increasingly questioned.

“Free-From” Marketing

Claims surrounding ingredients have shifted as consumers have become more focused on what is, and what’s not, in their food. Grocery store influencers, food rating apps, and increasing scrutiny of ultra-processed foods have all contributed to a stronger emphasis on ingredient lists and product composition.

In response, marketing has moved away from simple claims like “only 3 ingredients” toward a growing focus on “free-from” messaging. Rather than highlighting what is in a product, brands increasingly emphasize what’s not - free from artificial flavours, colours, preservatives, seed oils, refined sugar, or other perceived undesirable ingredients.

This shift is often used to position brands against a broader “big food” narrative, where large manufacturers are portrayed as prioritizing profit over health and contributing to a food system associated with chronic disease and poor nutrition.

From natural to minimally processed

We’re seeing a shift away from broad, often loosely defined claims like “natural” toward terms like “non ultra-processed” or “minimally processed”.

This shift is being reinforced by the growing demonization of processed foods in both media narratives and parts of the food industry, where “processed” is increasingly used as a shorthand for lower-quality nutrition.

However, ultra-processed food remains a broad category, with no single universally agreed-upon definition. This ambiguity creates some risk for consumers, as it may enable brands to borrow the language of “non-UPF” to create health halos around products that may not meaningfully differ in nutritional quality.

This trend is likely to accelerate further with the development of third-party “non–UPF” certification systems, which are expected to appear on front-of-package labelling in the near future.

We are already seeing early signals of this shift, including the promotion of specific “less processed” ingredient swaps, such as avocado oil as an alternative to refined vegetable oils. As scrutiny of processing levels increases, more explicit “non-UPF” language is likely to emerge across packaging.

Brain health

Brain health is having a moment within the functional food space. As Millennials become more focused on long-term health and longevity, cognitive health has emerged as a growing area of consumer interest and product innovation.

Unlike heart health, which was heavily emphasized in previous decades and has since become more familiar and mainstream, brain health still feels relatively abstract to many consumers. Scientifically, it remains less understood and more difficult to define, which unfortunately creates space for misinformation and exaggerated claims.

In many cases, the evidence linking specific ingredients to meaningful improvements in brain health is limited or still emerging, yet products are increasingly positioned around cognitive enhancement, focus, and mental performance.

GLP-1 and “satiety”

As discussed in my previous work, GLP-1 medications are already beginning to influence how brands think about satiety, portion size, and product positioning.

We are now seeing foods marketed as “GLP-1 friendly,” as well as products positioned around satiety and fullness as a kind of natural alternative. These claims often piggyback on broader consumer interest in appetite regulation and sustained energy, even among people who are not using these medications.

Another emerging shift is the rise of portion-controlled packaging (think: moderately-sized single-serve ice cream portions). This represents a notable departure from the long-standing “more is more” approach in many packaged food categories, where value was historically tied to larger formats and shareable sizes.

It will be interesting to see how consumers perceive this shift in value, whether smaller portions are seen as worth a premium price, or whether they are viewed as less cost-effective. Ironically, for GLP-1 users specifically, portion control may be easier to manage independently, reducing the need for pre-portioned packaging in the first place.

Plant-based is out, meat is in

We are seeing a clear cooling in plant-based food marketing, alongside a renewed emphasis on animal-based proteins. Where dairy was once positioned by some wellness narratives as unnecessary or overly promoted by “big dairy,” it is now being reintroduced into mainstream nutrition messaging as a high-quality protein source.

There has also been a broader shift toward animal-based proteins such as beef, often framed around protein quality and completeness. Terms like “complete protein” are increasingly used to signal superior amino acid profiles and better functional value, particularly as consumers prioritize high-protein, convenient foods.

What was once primarily associated with paleo or ancestral-style eating has evolved into a more generalized movement that positions animal proteins as the most efficient and “less processed” source of protein in everyday diets.

Strength-coded wellness

Alongside the renewed focus on animal-based proteins, some brands are increasingly leaning into strength-coded imagery in their marketing. Strength, muscle, performance, and resilience are being used as central themes, particularly in high-protein foods and supplements. What was once more niche within fitness and bodybuilding culture is increasingly appearing in mainstream food marketing.

This shift aligns with the broader elevation of protein as a key nutritional priority, where “more protein” is often equated with improved physical performance and body composition. Within this framing, animal-based proteins are frequently positioned as more “powerful,” “complete,” or performance-driven, while plant-based alternatives are increasingly absent from these strength-oriented narratives or positioned as “weaker” alternatives.

Electrolyte maxing

Hydration is having a major moment. While electrolyte beverages like Gatorade have long existed in the sports nutrition space, hydration products are now being positioned not just as replacements for fluid loss during exercise, but as tools for everyday energy, focus, and “optimal” physiological function.

This shift is reinforced by higher-electrolyte formulations, alongside a growing narrative that modern diets do not provide sufficient electrolytes through food and regular beverages alone. Products such as LMNT electrolyte powder, for example, contain a whopping 1,000 mg of sodium per serving, reflecting this more aggressive approach to electrolyte dosing.

Functional foods

We are seeing a boom in functional foods that increasingly blur the line between food and supplements. It’s no longer enough to slap a vague “+veggies” or “gut health” claim on a product. As consumers have become more sophisticated and skeptical of health claims, brands are increasingly expected to back up their promises with clinically relevant amounts of functional ingredients.

For example, Poppi was recently sued over allegations that its prebiotic fibre content was too low to meaningfully support the gut health benefits promoted by the brand. Fuelled in part by growing interest in longevity and biohacking, consumers are increasingly looking beyond the presence of an ingredient and asking whether there is enough of it to plausibly deliver the advertised benefit.

Beverages, beverages, beverages

The beverage category is exploding. While it overlaps with many of the trends already discussed, its pace of innovation makes it worth mentioning on its own. Drinks have become one of the fastest and most visible vehicles for functional ingredients, with nearly every emerging wellness trend now translated into beverage form.

From protein waters and prebiotic sodas to creatine-infused drinks and electrolyte beverages, hydration is no longer the only goal. Today's beverages are increasingly positioned as tools for energy, performance, gut health, cognition, recovery, and overall optimization.

At the same time, beverages have become aspirational products in their own right. Carrying a branded drink has become a form of self-expression, supported by visually distinctive packaging, colourful formulations, and strong social media appeal. This is visible across demographics, from the rise of "emotional support beverages" among younger consumers to the growing popularity of drinks chosen as much for the image they project as for their taste

What wellness trends have you noticed taking over grocery shelves? Let’s continue the discussion in the comments below! 💚

Talk soon,

~Brittany

Mid Day Squares, MUSH bars, Kodiak Cakes Protein Muffin cups: Review Roundup

Brittany Raftis, MScFN, RD — Sat, 13 Jun 2026 10:01:05 GMT

In this week’s Edit, we’re taking a closer look at three popular products: Mid-Day Squares, MUSH bars, and Kodiak Protein Muffin cups.

I’ll break down their nutrition profiles, marketing claims, and whether they truly hold up as smart choices within a healthy dietary pattern.

As a reminder, when I review a product, I’m looking at:

Level of processing
How it fits into a healthy dietary pattern (because no single food has the power to make you healthy or unhealthy)
Where nutrients are sourced from in a product (ingredients), and how significant an ingredient is in contributing to the nutritional value of the food (nutrition facts).
Marketing claims and whether they hold up
How it compares to similar products on the market

Week 1: Calories - Why they’re not the most important number
Week 2: Making Sense of Fats on Food Labels
Week 3: What to Know About Cholesterol and Sodium
Week 4: Not All Carbs Are Equal: Understanding Nutrition Labels
Week 5: Protein: How much do you need, and does the source really matter?
Week 6: Final Tips for Navigating the Grocery Store

Mid-Day Squares

Mid-Day Squares are marketed as “the kind of snack that’s better for you but delicious,” emphasizing real ingredients, protein, and fibre content. The brand heavily promotes the bar’s ability to help consumers get past the afternoon slump, stay satisfied, and avoid energy crashes.

The company also leans heavily into free-from marketing. Its website features the slogan “Say Yes to No” and highlights what the bars do not contain alongside their nutritional benefits. This positioning aligns with a broader wellness marketing trend in which the absence of certain ingredients has become a key selling point.

Nutrition Profile

Mid-Day Squares Chocolate Peanut Butta bar contains 11 g of fat, including 5 g of saturated fat, primarily from chocolate, with smaller contributions from peanut butter, coconut oil, and shea butter. It also provides 120 mg of sodium from added salt.

Each serving contains 12 g of carbohydrates, primarily from sugar and inulin fibre, with smaller contributions from oat flour. This includes 4 g of fibre and 5 g of sugar.

There are 6 g of protein per bar from peanut butter, fava bean protein, and carob protein.

The ingredient list is otherwise relatively simple. Additional ingredients include apple cider vinegar and peanut extract, with no preservatives or other additives listed.

Overall Review

Nutritionally speaking, this is a fairly balanced snack bar. It provides a combination of fat, fibre, and protein while keeping sugar relatively modest.

Mid-Day Squares occupy an interesting middle ground between a snack bar and a chocolate treat. Chocolate is the primary ingredient, which makes it seem at first glance like a healthified chocolate bar. However, the Nutrition Facts table tells a more nuanced story. Compared with a typical chocolate bar, it contains more fibre and protein while remaining relatively low in sugar. The main nutritional drawback is its saturated fat content, with 5 g per bar.

The brand’s messaging around preventing energy crashes is more difficult to evaluate, as responses to foods vary between individuals and depend on the broader dietary context. That said, the combination of fat, fibre, and protein is generally associated with greater satiety than foods that rely primarily on refined carbohydrates or added sugars.

TL;DR: Fair choice. Provides fibre, some protein, and relatively little sugar, but the saturated fat content makes it better suited for weekly rather than daily consumption.

Kodiak Cakes Protein Muffin Cup

Kodiak Cakes Protein Muffin Cups are marketed as a convenient breakfast option and satisfying snack. The brand highlights their protein content and use of whole grains, positioning them as a more nutritious alternative to traditional muffins while capitalizing on the growing demand for protein-fortified foods.

Nutrition Profile

The blueberry muffin cup contains 6 g of fat, including 3.5 g of saturated fat from palm oil, with trace amounts from whole grains. It also provides 370 mg of sodium from sea salt.

Each serving contains 40 g of carbohydrates, including 4 g of fibre from whole grains, and 16 g of sugar primarily from brown sugar and honey.

The muffin cup delivers 12 g of protein from milk protein, with smaller contributions coming from whole grains.

The ingredient list is otherwise relatively simple and includes blueberries, a leavening agent, and natural flavours.

Overall Review

I appreciate the use of whole grains here. With so many consumers looking for a convenient, high-protein breakfast on busy mornings, the concept has a lot of appeal.

However, the nutrition profile is a bit less impressive than the marketing suggests. Compared with a typical bakery muffin, this is likely an improvement, offering 12 g of protein and 4 g of fibre per serving. However, it also contains 16 g of sugar and a surprisingly high 370 mg of sodium.

TL;DR: 👎 skip it

MUSH Protein Bars

MUSH protein bars are marketed as a "smarter snack" that is high in protein, made with real ingredients, and contains "nothing artificial." The brand also highlights the bars' rich flavour and chewy, decadent texture, positioning them as a snack that delivers both nutrition and enjoyment.

Nutrition Profile

The MUSH double chocolate bar contains 12 g of fat, including 5 g saturated fat, primarily from almonds, coconut oil, and chocolate.

Each bar provides 24 g of carbohydrates, including 4 g of fibre and 13 g of sugar. These carbohydrates are sourced primarily from rolled oats, honey, dates, and chocolate chips. The bar also contains 120 mg of sodium from added salt.

Protein is one of the bar's standout features, providing 15 g per serving, primarily from milk protein concentrate.

The ingredient list is otherwise relatively simple. There are no non-sugar sweeteners, and aside from vanilla extract for flavour, the bar contains no food additives.

Overall Review

These bars have a relatively simple ingredient list and a balanced macronutrient profile, providing a source of unsaturated fats, protein, and fibre. The sugar content is slightly above the added sugar threshold I typically recommend for protein bars, although I would still consider it moderate rather than high.

The primary nutritional drawback is the saturated fat content, which is higher than I would ideally like to see in an everyday snack.

TL; DR: Fair choice. A balanced, high-protein snack bar with a relatively simple ingredient list, though the saturated fat content makes it better suited for weekly rather than daily consumption.

Want to make label reading easier in the grocery store?

Check out my aisle-by-aisle product guides to see which products fit into a healthy dietary pattern:

Crackers Aisle Guide: discover brands that deliver fibre and whole grains without excess processing
Yogurt Aisle Guide: compare protein, sugar, and ingredient quality to pick the best options
Cereal Aisle Guide: learn which cereals meet sugar and fibre thresholds, with brand examples
Protein bar aisle: how to choose a good quality protein bar without unnecessary additives and sugar
Granola bar and snack bar aisle: tips for selecting nutrient-rich snack bars with curated brands
Mediterranean Diet Grocery List: how to include processed foods as part of a Mediterranean diet, with a curated brand list.
Low-Sodium Picks: convenient options that keep your sodium target in check.
Grab & Go Snacks at Costco Guide: quick, practical options for busy lifestyles

Refer a friend

Talk soon,

~Brittany

Should You Be Worried About Carboxymethylcellulose in food?

Brittany Raftis, MScFN, RD — Sat, 06 Jun 2026 10:05:55 GMT

Have you ever noticed the ingredient carboxymethylcellulose on a food label?

The name certainly sounds like something straight out of a chemistry lab. If you’ve ever heard the advice “don’t eat anything you can’t pronounce,” carboxymethylcellulose would probably land squarely in the avoid category. But what exactly is it? And is it really as concerning as it sounds?

Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) is a common food additive used in a range of products. In recent years, it has become a target of wellness influencers and food-rating apps. For example, the Yuka app classifies it as a moderate-risk additive, linking it to conditions such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, and poor gut health.

CMC is also part of a broader group of food additives that frequently generate concern online: emulsifiers.

This post is the latest installment in my emulsifier series. If you've been following along, I've already covered several emulsifiers commonly found in packaged foods:

Today we’ll look at:

What is Carboxymethylcellulose?
What major health authorities say
What the research says about CMC exposure, gut health and chronic disease risk

Let’s discuss.

What is carboxymethylcellulose?

CMC, also known as cellulose gum, is a commonly used emulsifier that belongs to a group of ingredients known as modified celluloses.

CMC is a white to slightly off-white, odourless and tasteless powder. When mixed with water, it forms a gel-like solution that can thicken foods, improve texture, and help keep ingredients evenly dispersed. This makes it useful in products where manufacturers want to prevent separation and maintain a smooth, consistent texture. For example: ice cream, yogurt, coffee creamers, salad dressings, sauces, and plant-based beverages.

Although the name sounds intimidating, CMC starts with cellulose, the structural fibre naturally found in plant cell walls. Manufacturers chemically modify cellulose to give it properties that are useful in food production, such as thickening, stabilizing, and emulsifying.

What happens to CMC in the body?

CMC is largely resistant to digestion and is only minimally absorbed from the digestive tract. Most (about 90%) passes through the gastrointestinal tract intact and is excreted in the feces, with only trace amounts absorbed and subsequently excreted in urine or exhaled carbon dioxide.

Regulatory safety: what the major health authorities say

CMC is approved for use in many countries, including Canada, the United States, and across Europe.

It has been evaluated by several major international health authorities, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), both of which have concluded that it can be used safely at current levels of exposure.

WHO

The World Health Organization has assigned CMC an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of “Not Specified”. This designation is reserved for food additives with very low toxicity where the available evidence indicates that establishing a numerical ADI is unnecessary at current levels of use in foods.

EFSA

Similarly, the EFSA concluded that there was no need to establish a numerical ADI for CMC.

As part of their review, EFSA cited animal studies using doses of up to 12,000 mg/kg/day of CMC without toxic effects. The side effects observed in these studies were typically gastrointestinal in nature, including softer stools, increased stool water content, and enlargement of the caecum. EFSA concluded that these changes were not indicative of toxicity, but rather expected physiological adaptations to the intake of large amounts of a non-digestible, fibre-like substance.

For context, EFSA estimated average adult exposure to CMC at approximately 15 mg/kg/day (range: 7–23 mg/kg/day). The largest contributors to intake were bread and rolls, fine bakery products, and flavoured beverages.

Carboxymethylcellulose and health: what the evidence says

In the sections below, I'll summarize the key studies on CMC, including observational research, animal studies, and human trials. Once we've reviewed the data, I'll share my interpretation and discuss some important context that can help put the findings into perspective.

Animal studies

Why “free-from” food marketing can be misleading

Brittany Raftis, MScFN, RD — Sat, 30 May 2026 10:02:12 GMT

I’ve been noticing a growing food marketing trend that’s worth being aware of when you’re grocery shopping. More and more, products are being positioned around what they don’t contain, creating an easy health halo that can be hard to see past.

But what matters more is the overall nutritional profile and what the product actually contributes to the diet. In this post, I’ll share examples of this type of marketing and why it can sometimes be misleading.

The images included in this post show screenshots from a range of well-known products on the market: “no artificial ingredients,” “no refined sugar,” “no preservatives,” “no seed oils,” “less sugar than the other guys,” and even messaging like “say yes to no,” as seen in marketing from Mid-Day Squares. This type of “free-from” marketing has always existed (fat-free, sugar-free, gluten-free), but in recent years it has expanded into broader avoidance messaging.

There isn’t a single “villain” ingredient or nutrient anymore, but rather a more general distrust of processed foods and the food industry. That creates space for almost any product to build a health halo by focusing on exclusion. The implied message becomes: we’re different from big food, we’re not like the other guys.

What stands out is that very few of these claims actually describe what the product is. Instead, they focus on what it is not. These statements aren’t necessarily false or misleading on their own, but they do reflect something broader about our current food environment, where products are increasingly sold based on what they exclude, rather than what they meaningfully provide.

Why it works

Food is confusing. There is conflicting information everywhere, especially around ingredients and ultra-processed food. Decades of food marketing, changing processing methods, and evolving science have caused consumers to lose trust in the food industry. In this environment, it’s easier to convince someone that a food or ingredient is harmful than to explain what makes a food beneficial.

As a result, “removal” feels like an automatic improvement. If something is “free from” a perceived unhealthy ingredient, it feels like a better choice, regardless of what has replaced it or what else is in the product.

Consumers also don’t have the time to evaluate every product in detail. So when a front-of-pack claim like “nothing artificial” appears, it taps into a simple mental shortcut: artificial = bad, therefore free-from = good. It also builds trust in products because it separates these brands from “big food,” the bad guys.

Why this is unhelpful

While this type of marketing isn’t always misleading, it is important to remember that at the end of the day it’s just that: marketing. It’s so easy in today's food-obsessed environment to get swept into the lure of a “better than the other guy” product, so here are a few reasons why you want to look beyond these “free-from” statements.

They don’t tell you anything about what’s actually in the product.
This is the most important issue. A “free-from” claim can dominate the entire perception of a product, even though it provides no information about its nutritional value or ingredient profile. Think about that for a second. Claims like “no fake stuff” feel so meaningful, yet they tell you absolutely nothing about what’s in the food. It’s possible to make a purchase decision based almost entirely on absence rather than presence, and this happens more often than we think.

It creates a health halo without making an actual health claim.
This is sneaky. Many of these products would never be able to directly claim they are “healthy” or “nutritious.” For example, a bag of chips wouldn’t be able to make claims related to health benefits. But statements like “free from seed oils” or “nothing artificial” can implicitly communicate that message. There is no regulated nutrition claim being made, but it’s implied based on trending nutrition concerns. It’s subtle but powerful.

It capitalizes on fear-based messaging and adds to consumer confusion.
This type of marketing works because it taps into existing anxiety around food ingredients. Products that are “free-from” certain ingredients can feel reassuring, without consumers necessarily considering the overall nutritional profile.

There’s an implied sense of safety when a perceived “risk” has been removed from a food. This doesn’t just help sell products; it can also reinforce fear around ingredients, even when that fear is not supported by evidence.

It’s just lazy.
Nutrition is complex. And in most cases it’s easier to define a product by what it excludes than by what it meaningfully contributes. Demonstrating nutritional value requires context, expertise, and creativity. There’s more work involved and more risk. In contrast, “free-from” messaging is simple, memorable, and emotionally persuasive, even if it’s baseless.

It creates false binaries in food choice.
The framing becomes: conventional products are “bad,” and “free-from” alternatives are “good.” This can lead to situations where a highly processed food with minimal nutritional benefit is perceived as a superior choice simply because it avoids a specific ingredient. Suddenly, you’re buying a $10 box of “grain-free” protein cereal with no real nutrition benefit and wondering how healthy eating is so expensive.

Final thoughts

Keep an eye out for this messaging the next time you shop. You’ll likely notice it everywhere once you start looking.

These labels don’t automatically mean a product is a bad choice. But they are a reminder to look beyond front-of-pack claims and check the nutrition facts and ingredients list. Whether a claim is legitimate or misleading, the front of pack is still marketing. The nutrition facts panel and ingredient list are what help you make more informed choices.

If you’re feeling overwhelmed by food labels, you’re in the right place. Be sure to follow along for weekly insights on food marketing and navigating healthy eating in an ultra-processed food environment.

Subscribe now

You can also explore my label reading series, where I take you line by line through the Nutrition Facts table and show you my method for evaluating products, including which nutrients matter most, how much is too much, and when ingredients really make a difference.

Week 1: Calories - Why they’re not the most important number
Week 2: Making Sense of Fats on Food Labels
Week 3: What to Know About Cholesterol and Sodium
Week 4: Not All Carbs Are Equal: Understanding Nutrition Labels
Week 5: Protein: How much do you need, and does the source really matter?
Week 6: Final Tips for Navigating the Grocery Store

Have you noticed this type of marketing in the grocery store? Share your examples in the comments below! 💚

Talk soon,

~Brittany

Why certain foods make us eat more

Brittany Raftis, MScFN, RD — Sat, 23 May 2026 10:02:09 GMT

One of the longstanding theories around why ultra-processed foods are harmful is that they are easier to overconsume. This has often been attributed to factors like higher calorie density and increased palatability.

At the same time, we know that processing changes the structure of food, often creating smoother, softer textures and more uniform, easy-to-eat bites. But we still don’t fully understand how these structural differences translate into real-world eating behaviour and satiety.

A recent study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition investigated this question by comparing ultra-processed foods designed to be eaten either quickly or slowly, and examining whether faster-eating versions led to greater calorie intake than slower-eating versions.

In today’s post, I’ll break down what the study found, how to interpret the results, and what, if anything, these findings mean for everyday food choices.

Summary of study design and methods:

The study included 41 participants who completed two separate 14-day diet interventions. During each phase, participants were assigned to one of two ultra-processed diets: a fast-eating rate (fast-ER) diet or a slow-eating rate (slow-ER) diet.

The eating rate classifications were based on previous research from the same group evaluating how quickly foods are typically consumed.

After completing the first 14-day intervention, participants underwent a washout period before switching to the other diet. This crossover design allowed researchers to compare how the same individuals responded to each diet pattern.

Diets

Importantly, both diets consisted almost entirely of ultra-processed foods according to the NOVA classification system. This allowed researchers to isolate the role of food structure and eating rate, rather than simply comparing ultra-processed foods with minimally processed foods.

Participants were instructed to eat normally and consume food until comfortably full. Meals were provided three times daily at structured times, along with optional snacks that matched the assigned diet pattern. Water was permitted between meals.

The diets were designed to be comparable in several ways, including:

Serving size
Visual volume
Calorie content
Familiarity
Overall liking

They were also matched overall for fibre and macronutrients across the full 2-week intervention periods, though not necessarily meal-by-meal.

To assess intake, the amount of food remaining after each meal and snack was weighed to calculate calorie consumption. Participants also recorded a video of themselves eating to confirm differences in eating rate between the diets.

Before and after meals, participants rated their hunger and desire to eat.

The primary outcome measured was average daily calorie intake. Secondary outcomes included hunger ratings, desire to eat, and changes in body weight and body composition.

Examples of Fast vs Slow Eating Rate (ER) Meals

The study used meals that differed primarily in structure and eating rate, rather than overall “healthiness” or level of processing.

Is the Yuka App Actually Helpful?

Brittany Raftis, MScFN, RD — Sat, 16 May 2026 10:02:10 GMT

Hello! This week, I’m sharing a review of the popular grocery shopping app - Yuka. I get asked about this app often, so I’m sharing my thoughts today based on my experience with it.

Apps like Yuka tend to spark strong reactions from dietitians because they simplify foods into “good” and “bad” categories. And to be fair, I generally don’t agree with thinking about foods in such black-and-white terms either.

But at the same time, after over a decade of speaking with patients about nutrition, I understand why these apps appeal to consumers. Grocery shopping has become increasingly confusing. Between marketing claims, conflicting nutrition advice, and long ingredient lists, many consumers feel overwhelmed trying to figure out what’s actually healthy. So in my practice, eventually most nutrition conversations end up in the same place: “Okay, but what should I actually buy?”

Apps like Yuka attempt to simplify label reading and answer that question by assigning products an overall rating. A great idea in theory, but how accurate are these scores really?

Today, I’m taking a closer look at what Yuka gets right, where it falls short, and whether it’s actually a useful tool for navigating the grocery store.

Let’s discuss.

How it works

Yuka is an app that allows users to scan a product barcode to receive an overall health score ranging from “excellent” to “bad,” based on three weighted categories:

1. The nutritional content

Sixty percent of the score comes from the product’s nutrition profile, using the Nutri-Score system, a front-of-package nutrition rating system recognized by several public health agencies across Europe.

Nutri-Score assigns points for nutrients considered less favourable (calories, fat, sugar, and sodium), and subtracts points for components considered more favourable ( protein, fibre, or the presence of fruits, vegetables, nuts, pulses, canola, walnut, and olive oils).

Here are some of the thresholds used within the scoring system:

Calories:

Under 200 calories = favourable (green)
200–310 calories = “a bit too caloric” (orange)
Over 320 calories = “too caloric” (red)

Protein and fibre: Generally, more protein and fibre improve the score.

Sugar:

Less than 5 g = “low sugar” (green)
More than 10 g sugar = “a bit too sweet” (orange)
More than 15.5 g sugar = “too sweet” (red)

Sodium:

Less than 200 mg = favourable (green)
Over 200 mg sodium = “a bit too salty” (orange)
Over 355 mg sodium = “too salty” (red)

Saturated fat:

Less than 2.2 g = favourable (green)
2.2–3.9 g = “a bit too fatty” (orange)
Over 3.9 g = “too fatty” (red)

Overall, I don’t disagree with the general direction of this system. Protein and fibre are beneficial nutrients, while excessive intake of sodium, saturated fat, and added sugar can negatively impact health. The limitation is that foods are assessed in isolation rather than within the context of someone’s overall dietary pattern.

This isn’t unique to Yuka, but a challenge of any food rating system. Nutrients like sugar, sodium, and saturated fat are only problematic when over-consumed in the diet, and an app assessing a single product can’t account for that broader context.

As a result, Yuka may sometimes encourage people to avoid products that could still reasonably fit within a healthy dietary pattern, especially for individuals whose overall intake is already moderate. This can unnecessarily limit food choices and add frustration to an already confusing grocery environment.

2. The presence of additives

Thirty percent of the Yuka score is based on the presence of food additives. Additives are classified as either “risk-free” or “high-risk” based on the app’s interpretation of available research.

While I haven’t reviewed every study cited in the Yuka database, from what I have seen, the app appears to take a more aggressive approach to ingredient risk classification than the evidence necessarily supports. In some cases, the research appears overstated, misinterpreted, or applied more broadly than is appropriate. Here are a few examples:

Over-generalizing evidence

Mono- and diglycerides are emulsifiers that Yuka classifies as “high-risk” due to a wide range of potential concerns, including: suspected carcinogenicity, cardiovascular disease, immune effects, intestinal inflammation, disruption of gut microbiota, weakened intestinal barrier function, and possible contaminants.

However, some of the evidence Yuka uses to support these concerns comes from studies on entirely different emulsifiers, such as polysorbate-80 and carboxymethylcellulose, rather than mono- and diglycerides, specifically. Research on single emulsifiers cannot be generalized to all emulsifiers, as they all have different chemical compositions and functions. In reality, the direct evidence linking mono- and diglycerides themselves to these health outcomes is currently much weaker than the app suggests, and in some cases, non existent.

In another example, Yuka claims that polysorbates increase cancer risk and cites a single NutriNet-Santé study as evidence. However, while the study found links between some emulsifiers and increased cancer incidence, it did not actually find a link between polysorbates and cancer.

Overinterpreting early-stage research

A broader issue throughout the app is the way early findings are translated into disease claims. A common theme is that Yuka links additives associated with intestinal inflammation to long-term outcomes such as type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

For example, Yuka claims that polysorbates increase the risk of type 2 diabetes. The evidence they use to support this claim are mouse studies suggesting polysorbates may contribute to intestinal inflammation.

While inflammation can play a role in chronic disease development, this does not mean that anything associated with inflammation meaningfully increases disease risk in humans.

This distinction is important because much of this research is preliminary. Some findings come from animal or in-vitro studies designed to generate hypotheses, not establish causation. Chronic diseases are influenced by a complex combination of dietary, lifestyle, environmental, and genetic factors, making it inappropriate to draw direct conclusions from early-stage evidence alone.

Overstating observational research

The same issue applies to some of the observational research cited by the app. Yuka relies heavily on results from the NutriNet-Santé cohort (a group of 100,000 adults followed over 7 years - I’ve reviewed many of these studies previously). While observational studies can help identify potential associations worth studying further, they are typically not strong enough on their own to classify specific additives as “high-risk” for diseases like cancer.

Cherry picking data

Selecting only studies that support a particular conclusion while ignoring others is known as cherry-picking, and it can lead to a biased interpretation of the evidence. Throughout my use of Yuka, I noted several examples of cherry picking with the sources that it cites as evidence. For example, there are studies that have failed to show that polysorbates increase intestinal inflammation, yet these findings are not reflected in the scientific evidence summarized by the app.

3. Organic status

Ten percent of the Yuka score is based on whether a product is organic.

This is another area where the scoring system becomes overly simplistic. The idea that organic status alone is a meaningful measure of a food’s healthfulness is not well supported. Organic foods exist across the entire spectrum of dietary quality, including minimally processed foods like fruits and vegetables, but also ultra-processed products such as cookies, ice cream, and snack bars.

Yuka provides a summary of health benefits associated with organic foods, citing studies to support specific claims. However, just like we saw with the additives section, many of these claims rely on a selective interpretation of the literature.

Antioxidant content

Yuka claims that organic foods contain higher antioxidant levels. They cite research supporting this claim while ignoring studies that have found no consistent or significant differences in nutrient composition between organic and conventional foods. Another example of cherry picking data.

Pesticide exposure claims

Another commonly cited argument is that organic foods reduce pesticide exposure. While it is true that organic farming restricts the use of synthetic pesticides, this does not mean pesticide exposure is eliminated. Organic agriculture still uses approved organic pesticides, many of which are naturally derived but not inherently risk-free. “Natural” does not automatically mean safer, just as “synthetic” does not automatically mean harmful. Safety depends on dose, exposure, and context.

Health outcomes (cancer, obesity, diabetes)

Yuka also references observational data, including the NutriNet-Santé cohort, to suggest links between organic food consumption and reduced risk of chronic disease. As I mentioned earlier, I have reviewed this data set previously, and while it can provide useful associative insights, it is not strong enough to establish causation due to well-known limitations of observational dietary studies.

For example, in the cancer analyses, higher organic food intake was associated with lower cancer risk in some models. However, this association disappeared when diet quality was taken into account. In other words, people with both high diet quality and high organic intake did not show reduced cancer risk compared with those consuming lower-quality diets. This suggests more nuance to the argument, and that overall dietary pattern is likely the more important driver, rather than organic status itself.

Despite this, Yuka uses these findings to support broad claims, including reduced risk of other chronic diseases like obesity and diabetes. These are complex chronic diseases, and following an organic diet is not a recognized form of prevention, particularly given that organic products span both nutrient-dense foods and highly processed products like desserts and snacks.

Final thoughts

Yuka can be helpful for quickly identifying products that are high or low in particular nutrients. However, beyond this, the evidence used to support some of its classifications is overstated and may lead users to unnecessarily avoid certain foods or ingredients.

Labelling an ingredient as “high-risk” is alarming. In practice, most users are unlikely to look beyond that statement to evaluate the strength or context of the underlying research. But if they did, they would see that in some cases, evidence is overstated, cherry picked, or even non-existent.

The broader challenge is that nutrition is extremely difficult to reduce to an algorithm. When assessing a food, the entire product needs to be considered together, including the nutrition facts, ingredient list, level of processing, portion size, and the context in which it is consumed. This level of nuance is very difficult for an app to fully capture.

This is the kind of critica thinking I focus on in my 6-week label reading series, moving beyond “good vs bad” scores and into how to actually evaluate foods in context. Check it out below!

Have you tried the Yuka app? Did you find it helpful? Let’s continue the discussion in the comments!

Refer a friend

Talk soon,

~Brittany

Which Protein Bars at Costco Are Actually Worth Buying?

Brittany Raftis, MScFN, RD — Sat, 09 May 2026 10:02:52 GMT

Hello all! Today, we’re reviewing the most popular protein bars at Costco.

I love a good Costco haul, but in some categories, the selection can be overwhelming. Protein bars are definitely one of them. It’s also one of the most common categories I get questions about: what should I look for? Are non-sugar sweeteners better than sugar? Are these basically just chocolate bars with protein? Are they all ultra-processed, aka unhealthy?

Protein bars can be a helpful tool for meeting your protein needs on the go. When they’re well-formulated, they provide a combination of protein, fibre, and other nutrients that help keep you satisfied between meals, without sacrificing convenience. That said, they’re not all created equal.

Most protein bars fall into the ultra-processed category, which can make the aisle even more confusing. But not all ultra-processed foods are harmful to health; some can actually be beneficial when used correctly to meet nutrient needs - in this case, protein.

If you missed it, I’ve previously shared a detailed guide to the protein bar aisle, including specific nutrient targets and examples of bars that check all the boxes. In that post, I break down exactly what to look for and why. The framework I use is designed to support a healthy dietary pattern and is relative to what’s currently available in this category.

If you often feel stuck in the protein bar aisle, it’s a helpful place to start 👇.

Today, we’re taking those same guidelines and applying them to what’s available at Costco. I’ll run through a brief refresher on what to look for next, followed by a detailed review of 10 of the most commonly available protein bars.

Let’s discuss.

What to look for in a protein bar

For my full framework and nutrient targets, be sure to check out my protein aisle guide (as mentioned above). Briefly, here’s what we’re looking for:

Low in added sugar and not overly reliant on non-sugar sweeteners: Some protein bars contain as much sugar as a chocolate bar, which isn’t ideal. At the same time, replacing sugar with large amounts of non-sugar sweeteners doesn’t necessarily improve health outcomes either.
Minimally processed primary ingredients: Look for bars where the main ingredients are recognizable, minimally processed foods, rather than products that are heavily engineered to hit specific macros.
Fewer additives: Additives are common in this category, but some bars contain significantly more than others. While additives don’t make foods “unhealthy” alone, a product with many additives can signal a more ultra-processed formulation.
A source of fibre: Fibre helps support satiety and is often lacking in convenience foods.
Favourable fat profile: Ideally, fats come from minimally processed unsaturated sources like nuts and seeds, with lower amounts of saturated fat.

For paid subscribers, I’m sharing a detailed review of 10 of the most common protein bars at Costco, so you can spend less time reading labels in the snack aisle and more time knowing exactly what to put in your cart. Availability can vary by location, but this lineup reflects the core options most people will come across.

If I missed one of your favourites, drop it into the comment and I’ll be sure to review it!

Pure Protein

Pure Protein bars are high in protein, providing 21 g from milk and whey protein isolates, with a smaller contribution from collagen.

However, the overall nutrition profile is less impressive than some competitors. The bars provide just 2 g of fibre, are high in saturated fat from palm kernel oil, and there are no meaningful source of unsaturated fats or minimally processed carbohydrates.

TL; DR: ❌ Choose an alternative

KIRKLAND Protein Bar

Mush Protein Overnight Oats, Quest Protein Bar, Pillars Drinkable Yogurt: Review Roundup

Brittany Raftis, MScFN, RD — Sat, 02 May 2026 10:01:08 GMT

In this week’s Edit, we’re taking a closer look at three popular products: Mush Protein Overnight Oats, Quest Protein Bar, and Pillars Drinkable Yogurt.

I’ll break down their nutrition profiles, marketing claims, and whether they truly hold up as smart choices within a healthy dietary pattern.

As a reminder, when I review a product, I’m looking at:

Level of processing
How it fits into a healthy dietary pattern (because no single food has the power to make you healthy or unhealthy)
Where nutrients are sourced from in a product (ingredients), and how significant an ingredient is in contributing to the nutritional value of the food (nutrition facts).
Marketing claims and whether they hold up
How it compares to similar products on the market

If you find this kind of breakdown helpful, check out my 6-week (+) Label Reading Series. I take you line by line through the Nutrition Facts table and show you my method for evaluating products, including which nutrients matter most, how much is too much, and when ingredients really make a difference.

Week 1: Calories - Why they’re not the most important number
Week 2: Making Sense of Fats on Food Labels
Week 3: What to Know About Cholesterol and Sodium
Week 4: Not All Carbs Are Equal: Understanding Nutrition Labels
Week 5: Protein: How much do you need, and does the source really matter?
Week 6: Final Tips for Navigating the Grocery Store

MUSH Protein Overnight Oats

MUSH Protein Overnight Oats is a higher-protein extension of the brand’s original overnight oats line. The company markets these products as “ready-to-eat breakfasts made from real, nutrient-dense ingredients. No prep. No fillers. No compromises.”

Nutrition Profile

One serving of the Vanilla flavour contains 7 g of fat, including 1 g of saturated fat, primarily from almond milk. It provides 220 mg of sodium from added salt.

Each serving contains 36 g of carbohydrates from oats and dates, including 5 g of fibre and 15 g of sugar, with no added sugar source.

There is 15 g of protein per serving from oats and milk protein isolate.

The ingredient list is otherwise simple, including vanilla extract and cinnamon, with no additives.

Overall Review

The primary difference between this version and the original MUSH product is the addition of milk protein, which increases the protein content substantially (from roughly 6 g to 15 g per serving). That makes the product more balanced and likely more satisfying as a breakfast option.

The oats provide a meaningful source of fibre, and the combination of fibre and protein can help support satiety and steadier energy through the morning.

The sugar content is fairly high on paper, but it comes from dates, which are a slower-digesting source of sugar due to their fibre content. The amount used is also relatively modest, roughly equivalent to 2–3 small dates per serving, so it would not be considered excessive when viewed in the context of dates as a snack. Overall, this is an example of a processed food that adds convenience to your routine without reducing nutrient content.

TL; DR: 👍 great option - simple ingredients, good fibre and protein.

Pillars Drinkable Greek Yogurt

Pillars Drinkable Greek Yogurt is a yogurt beverage marketed as a no-added-sugar option that provides protein and fibre, along with a source of prebiotics and probiotics.

Nutrition Profile

A 12 oz bottle contains 0 g fat. It provides 8 g of carbohydrates, including 3 g fibre from pectin and fructan fibre, and 4 g sugar from naturally occurring lactose (milk sugar).

It delivers 20 g of protein from Greek yogurt. Each serving also contains 70 mg of sodium from naturally occurring sodium in dairy.

The drink is flavoured with natural flavour and sweetened with stevia to keep the product free from added sugar. It also contains vegetable juice for colour.

Overall Review

This is a strong option for a convenient, minimally processed protein drink. The ingredient list is relatively short, with most of the nutritional and textural benefits coming from actual Greek yogurt rather than the additives and more processed ingredients commonly found in this category.

The added prebiotic fibre is also meaningful, at 3 g per bottle. However, the probiotic claim is less clear. While yogurt is made with probiotics, the product does not specify the probiotic strains or amounts added.

That doesn’t mean it has no benefit, but it does make it difficult to assess how functional the probiotic claim truly is. Typically, a food needs a substantial amount of probiotics (beyond what is typically used in standard yogurt production) for them to have a clinically meaningful effect (e.g., noticeable effects on digestive health).

So while the product may still contribute to overall dietary quality as a fermented food, the use of a “probiotic” front-of-pack claim may not be fully supported based on the nutrition facts and ingredients provided.

Lastly, there may be some individual considerations here. Some people notice the flavour of stevia. In addition, fructan fibres may not be well tolerated by those with IBS or sensitive digestion.

TL;DR: 👍 great option - high in protein, low in sugar, simple ingredients.

Quest Protein Bars

Quest protein bars are promoted as a low-sugar, low–net–carbohydrate option designed to help meet protein goals. They are often positioned as a convenient “hack” for increasing protein intake and come in a wide variety of flavours.

Nutrition Profile

One Quest Strawberry Shortcake bar contains 10 g of fat primarily from almonds and palm kernel oil, including 6 g saturated fat.

Total carbohydrates are 21 g per bar, including 10 g fibre and 2 g sugar, from polydextrose, almonds, erythritol, and glycerin. Sodium is 230 mg per bar, from added salt.

Each bar provides 20 g of protein, primarily from milk protein isolate and whey protein isolate.

The bar keeps it’s no-added-sugar status due to the use of 8 g of sugar alcohols and sucralose, a non-sugar sweetener. Other ingredients include natural flavours, sodium caseinate, and sunflower and/or soy lecithin.

Overall Review

These bars are high in protein compared with many others on the market, which is their main advantage. They also use almonds as a primary source of fat, which is a more minimally processed ingredient compared with some alternative fat sources used in this category. However, there is still a significant amount of saturated fat coming from palm oil.

While the product is low in sugar, it is still highly sweetened. It relies on multiple non-sugar sweeteners, including a moderate-to-high amount of sugar alcohols and sucralose. While choosing a lower added sugar bar can be beneficial, we know that simply replacing products high in sugar with those high in non-sugar sweeteners does not necessarily improve health outcomes.

TL; DR: it’s not the worst, but there are better options out there 👎

Want to make label reading easier in the grocery store?

Check out my aisle-by-aisle product guides to see which products fit into a healthy dietary pattern:

Crackers Aisle Guide: discover brands that deliver fibre and whole grains without excess processing
Yogurt Aisle Guide: compare protein, sugar, and ingredient quality to pick the best options
Cereal Aisle Guide: learn which cereals meet sugar and fibre thresholds, with brand examples
Protein bar aisle: how to choose a good quality protein bar without unnecessary additives and sugar
Granola bar and snack bar aisle: tips for selecting nutrient-rich snack bars with curated brands
Mediterranean Diet Grocery List: how to include processed foods as part of a Mediterranean diet, with a curated brand list.
Low-Sodium Picks: convenient options that keep your sodium target in check,
Grab & Go Snacks at Costco Guide: quick, practical options for busy lifestyles

Refer a friend

Talk soon,

~Brittany

Which protein pancake brands are actually better for you?

Brittany Raftis, MScFN, RD — Sat, 25 Apr 2026 10:40:51 GMT

Hello, all! Today, we’re reviewing protein pancakes. This category has exploded in recent years, with more options than ever, and plenty of marketing claims to go with them. But are these products actually a better choice than regular pancake mix, or just another high-protein health halo?

Today, I’m breaking down what to look for in a protein pancake. For paid subscribers, I’ve also reviewed 10 popular brands to help you decide which ones are worth buying and which ones I’d leave on the shelf.

If you like this post, you’ll love these too:

What to look for in a protein pancake

Traditional pancakes can absolutely fit into a balanced diet, but if they’re eaten frequently as a breakfast staple, there are a few limitations to keep in mind.

Many mixes are made primarily with refined flour, which is naturally lower in fibre than whole-grain alternatives. On their own, pancakes also tend to be low in protein, which may make them less satisfying and less supportive of steady energy levels through the morning.

That doesn’t mean pancakes are “bad”, but it does mean there’s room for improvement if you’re hoping to have pancakes as a morning staple.

Pancakes can be a practical breakfast option. They freeze well and reheat easily, making them useful for meal prep and busy mornings.

This is where protein pancake mixes can offer value. They have the potential to turn a breakfast favourite into a more balanced, nutritionally rounded option. Adding protein can improve satiety and help create a more satisfying meal, but only if the overall product is well formulated.

Here’s what I look for:

A source of fibre: Traditional pancakes are typically low in fibre. For a better-for-you everyday option, look for at least 3 g of fibre per serving.
Whole grain or nut flour listed first: When a whole grain or nut-based flour appears first on the ingredient list, it suggests the product is built on a less refined base rather than primarily white flour.
Meaningful protein per serving: Aim for at least 15 g of protein per serving to provide a meaningful amount that can help support fullness.
Limited added sugar or minimal sweetener use: Ideally, look for under 5 g of added sugar per serving, especially if you plan to add syrup. If non-sugar sweeteners are used (such as Stevia), look for a product that uses only one sweetener and lists it toward the end of the ingredient list.
Minimal use of additives: Most pancake mixes will contain leavening agents such as baking powder, which is expected. Beyond that, there are many products on the market without additional additives.

For paid subscribers, I’m sharing a detailed review of 10 of the most common protein pancake brands to save you time, money, and label-reading in the grocery aisle.

Let’s take a look.

Premier protein

Premier Protein pancakes provide 15 g of protein per serving from wheat gluten and whey protein isolate.

However, the overall nutrition profile is less impressive than some competitors. The mix is made primarily with refined wheat flour, provides just 1 g of fibre, and contains 6 g of added sugar per serving. Sodium is also quite high at 700 mg, which is notable for a single serving.

While the added protein may help make the meal more filling than traditional pancakes, protein alone does not automatically make a product nutritionally superior.

❌ Choose an alternative

Kodiak cakes

Do Food Dyes Cause Hyperactivity? What the Research Actually Shows

Sat, 18 Apr 2026 10:01:34 GMT

Hello! This week, I’m tackling the evidence behind artificial food dyes and hyperactivity. Artificial food colours are approved for use across many countries worldwide. While they have faced criticism for decades, and some brands have chosen to remove them from product lines, they remain among the most commonly used food additives in the food supply.

According to a 2020 market review, synthetic dyes were present in 19% of products in the U.S, and represented more than $46 billion in consumer purchases. The most common synthetic dye was Red No. 40.

DYK General Mills attempted to remove artificial food dyes from their cereal brands over 10 years ago? It flopped. You can read about it here.

You’ll find artificial colours in:

Beverages (e.g., soft drinks, juices, sports drinks)
Confectionery and sweets (e.g., candy, popsicles, cookies, pastries, gelatin desserts)
Breakfast cereals
Sauces and condiments (e.g., relish)
Decorative food products (e.g., icing and sprinkles)
Snack foods (e.g., chips, some protein bars)

Artificial colours are widely used because they provide consistent quality, stable colouring, and scalability for large-scale food production. Compared with many natural colourants, they are often more stable under heat, light, and varying pH conditions, and deliver strong, uniform colour without contributing flavour.

A major concern surrounding artificial food colours has been their potential link to hyperactivity or behavioural changes in children. More recently, some research has also explored whether similar effects may occur in adults with ADHD. Today, we’ll look at the evidence behind artificial food dyes and hyperactivity, and whether this concern is warranted.

Let’s discuss.

Regulatory safety: what the major health authorities say

Artificial food colours are approved for use in many countries, including Canada, the United States, and across Europe.

While regulations and permitted uses vary by region, some of the most commonly used artificial food colours in the food supply include:

Red 40 / Allura Red
Yellow 5 / Tartrazine
Yellow 6 / Sunset Yellow
Blue 1 / Brilliant Blue FCF

These approvals are based largely on toxicology data, including animal studies used to establish no-observed-effect levels (NOELs) and acceptable daily intake limits. Reviews also continue over time. For example, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) completed a re-evaluation of previously authorized food colours in 2016 and continues to reassess specific additives as new evidence becomes available.

Additionally, in 2022, the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) published a review evaluating whether synthetic food dyes currently permitted in the U.S may affect neurobehavior in children. The review examined seven commonly used dyes and concluded:

Available scientific literature supports an effect of synthetic food dye exposure on neurobehavior in some children at environmentally relevant exposure levels.
Not all children appear to respond adversely to these dyes, and the reasons for this potential sensitivity remain unclear.

Proposed mechanism

The mechanism by which artificial food colours may contribute to hyperactivity is not well understood. One hypothesis is that they may influence neurotransmitter activity in the brain, though evidence is limited. A small genetic study found that children with variations in histamine degradation genes showed greater behavioural sensitivity to synthetic food dyes. Because histamine also functions as a neurotransmitter involved in wakefulness and arousal, reduced histamine breakdown could theoretically amplify behavioural responses in susceptible individuals.

Food Dyes and Hyperactivity: what the evidence says

While food dyes remain a common additive across the food system, ongoing reviews and continued pressure from parts of the wellness industry have kept the topic polarizing. With food dyes regularly making headlines, it is worth examining what the clinical research has actually found. Here is a summary of what we know.

The Grocery Edit

Silk Protein Non-Dairy Yogurt Review

Nutrition Profile

Overall Review

Other posts you may enjoy:

The Best Alternatives to Potato Chips

1. Pop Corners

Are Phosphate Additives Harmful?

What is phosphorus?

High blood phosphate levels can be harmful

But is high phosphorus intake a concern even in healthy people?

Where do we go from here?

Do Preservatives Cause High Blood Pressure?

Summary of study design and methods:

Key findings:

Participant characteristics

Risk of High Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Disease

Hypertension

Campbell's New Protein Soup: A Dietitian's Review

Campbell’s Protein Soup Nutrition Profile

A question about the protein source

Overall Review

Clinical Corner

Is Citric Acid Really Made from “Black Mold”?

What is citric acid?

Does citric acid really come from black mold?

Is Aspergillus niger the same as black mold?

The Problem With Putting Protein in Everything

Prefer to listen?

How we got here

Is the extra protein actually helping you?

Protein is important. But more protein is not automatically better.

Other protein posts you may enjoy…

Are Emulsifiers bad for gut health?

Gums (xanthan, arabic, guar)

Gums & Gut Health

Carrageenan

Carrageenan & Gut Health

Are Snackish Chips Really Better for You?

Snackish Nutrition Profile

Marketing claims

How does Snackish compare to a traditional potato chip?

So, are Snackish chips really better for you?

Which Protein Drinks at Costco Are Actually Worth Buying?

My criteria for protein drinks

Non-nutritive sweeteners

Additives

Additional nutrients

Protein Drinks at Costco

Fairlife

Orgain

What Food Marketing Is Selling in 2026

Gut Health: From PRO to PREbiotics

+ Fibre

Protein continues to rule

“Free-From” Marketing

From natural to minimally processed

Brain health

GLP-1 and “satiety”

Plant-based is out, meat is in

Strength-coded wellness

Electrolyte maxing

Functional foods

Beverages, beverages, beverages

Mid Day Squares, MUSH bars, Kodiak Cakes Protein Muffin cups: Review Roundup

Mid-Day Squares

Nutrition Profile

Overall Review

Kodiak Cakes Protein Muffin Cup

Nutrition Profile

Overall Review

MUSH Protein Bars

Nutrition Profile

Overall Review

Want to make label reading easier in the grocery store?

Should You Be Worried About Carboxymethylcellulose in food?

What is carboxymethylcellulose?

What happens to CMC in the body?

Regulatory safety: what the major health authorities say

WHO