Kids' Cereals Packing Some Nutrition Punch

Consumer Reports Rated 27 On Sugar, Sodium, Fiber, Other Factors; Some That Did Well May Surprise You

(CBS)  You probably struggle to find your kids just the right cereal for breakfast.

You don't want a lot of sugar or salt, but you do want lots of nutrition.

"Consumer Reports" has taken some of the guesswork out, by rating 27 popular cereals aimed at kids, and you might be surprised by some of those that got higher scores for nutritional value.

Gayle Williams, deputy health editor of Cosumer Reports, worked on the study, and told co-anchor Chris Wragge about it, on The Saturday Early Show.

She says CR looked at commercials on kids' networks, such as Nickelodeon and the Cartoon Network, to see which cereals were most heavily marketed to kids. That's why you don't see cereals such as Raisin Bran or Special K on the list. CR only wanted to consider cereals marketed directly to children.

None of the cereals is considered bad. They were rated very good, good, and fair.

None of them is poisonous; none would make you ill. CR considered sugar, sodium fiber, calcium and iron content.

The ones dubbed fair have some nutritional value; CR isn't saying not to eat them, but don't make them your everyday cereal. They may be high in sugar, but some are also high in iron.

The top-rated cereal was Cheerios. It has, Williams said, "very little sugar, and was good in sodium, and did well in fiber as well. It's a good source of a lot of things that has iron and calcium in it as well, and it's good cereal for you."

Also rated "very good": Kix which, Williams said, "is a little bit more fun for kids, and also did well in terms of sodium and sugar and fiber. So that rated well."

Lucky Charms and Frosted Mini-Wheats were rated "good."

Rice Krispies didn't do as well as many at home might think. "After all," Williams pointed out, "it's puffed rice, but basically, it has no fiber in it. It didn't have a lot of sugar, but it also has a lot of sodium in it, so if you're watching your sodium, this is not a good choice."

Amolng those that didn't rate well were Corn Pops, Honey Smacks and Golden Crisps. They are, Williams said, "high in sugar, and you can make better choices than those."

Some others that did pretty well included Cocoa Pebbles and Chocolate Crisps. "When you look at the lower sodium and the more fiber in it, that's what made those pretty good choices," Williams expalined.

SOME OF CONSUMER REPORTS' RATINGS

Ranks are in parentheses next to the cereal's name.

Very Good

Cheerios (1)
Fiber: 3 grams
Sugar: 1 gram

Kix (2)
Fiber: 3 grams
Sugar: 3 grams

Frosted Mini-Wheats (5)
Fiber: 6 grams
Sugar: 12 grams

Lucky Charms (9)
Fiber: 1 gram
Sugar: 11 grams

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -

Rating: Good
Fiber Sugar
Cookie Crisp (7) 1 grams 11 grams
Cocoa Puffs (10) 1 grams 12 grams
Trix (12) 1 grams 13 grams
Cocoa Pebbles (14) 3 grams 11 grams

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Rice Krispies (22)
Sugar: 4 grams
Sodium: 220 mgs

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Rating: Fair
Sugar Sodium
Froot Loops (24) 12 grams 135 mgs
Golden Crisp (25) 14 grams 25 mgs
Honey Smacks (26) 15 grams 50 mgs
Corn Pops (27) 12 grams 110 mgs

[cr0511]

Okay, nice article and all, but here''s a complaint:

CONSUMER REPORTS needs to realize that they aren''t the only organization out there that rates products. To have themselves linked to a high profile article, and then we are forced to subscribe to get the rest of the info, is wrong. It''s part of why I don''t subscribe to Consumer Reports any more.

If you go there often, then yes, they are right to want you to subscribe. But for a one-time visit, from a link in an article, then let people see all the info in the products being rated.

To my mind, Consumer Reports tactics are straight-up greed, and I''m really tired of that kind of thing.

thx - cpr

[cr0511]

Okay, nice article and all, but here''s a complaint:

CONSUMER REPORTS needs to realize that they aren''t the only organization out there that rates products. To have themselves linked to a high profile article, and then we are forced to subscribe to get the rest of the info, is wrong. It''s part of why I don''t subscribe to Consumer Reports any more.

If you go there often, then yes, they are right to want you to subscribe. But for a one-time visit, from a link in an article, then let people see all the info in the products being rated.

To my mind, Consumer Reports tactics are straight-up greed, and I''m really tired of that kind of thing.

thx - cpr

[cr0511]

Sorry for the double post - not sure what I did, Something to do with the "Publish" button being disabled?

thx - cpr

[buttonjockey]

CBS News and Consumer Reports need to raise their standards! Folks, there''s a whole lot more to nutrition than sugar, sodium, iron and fiber! This article over-simplifies the matter to the point of near uselessness. What about micro-nutrients such as vitamins and other key minerals than just iron? Where''s the talk about whole grains versus processed white flour? What preservatives and colorings are used?

It''s no wonder that the U.S. has the highest obesity rate. We get our nutritional education from poor sources such as this.

CBS loves to rave about their advertisers products. Jack Lalane said it best, "If it comes in a box, don''t eat it".