Vice Squad: Froot Loops 1/3 less sugar

Product: Froot Loops 1/3 Less Sugar
Price: $4.49-$5.29 for 350g box
Total calories: 112 for a 27g serving
Manufacturer: Kellogg Canada Inc.
The position: Froot Loops 1/3 Less Sugar gives consumers choice if they are looking to limit their sugar intake.
Top 4 ingredients: Flour mix (corn/white/whole oat flour, sugar, salt), sugar, hydrogenated coconut oil, colour
Nutritional breakdown for a 27g serving: Froot Loops 1/3 Less Sugar: 23g carbohydrate (0.9g fibre, 8g sugar, 14g starch), 0.9g fat (0.3 saturated), 2g protein, 149g sodium.
Regular Froot Loops: 24g carbohydrate (0.9g fibre, 12g sugar, 11g starch), 0.5g fat (0.5 saturated), 1g protein, 110g sodium and 110 calories
Analysis: Take a moment to compare the nutrition information of both products and see if anything stands out as being a little ... strange? Now give yourself a point if you found each of the following:
1/3 Less Sugar is higher in fat
1/3 Less Sugar is higher in sodium
1/3 Less Sugar is higher in calories
1/3 Less Sugar is only lower in carbohydrates by 1g
Shocked? I sure was. When scanning the numbers, the first three were probably easy although no less surprising to pick out. The last one may have been a little trickier. In the process of reducing the sugar content in this cereal, Kellogg's ended up using an artificial sweetener sucralose and more flour. This increased total starch by 3g and led to a slightly higher sodium, iron, thiamin, niacin and protein content.
Research has shown, however, that some starches (like white bread) actually turn into sugar in the blood faster than table sugar itself. In the end, it's the concentration of fibre that plays a larger role than the number of grams of sugar. To your body, this means there's basically no difference in sugar content between these two cereals.
You don't have to go by my word on this, however. You can ask any dietitian you want — even Johanne Trudeau, director of nutrition for Kellogg's Canada. Despite quotes from Kelloggs.ca stating that they are dedicated to the health of children and nutrition education, Trudeau was quick to clarify with me that Kellogg's 1/3 Less Sugar wasn't formulated with the health of children in mind. Say what? Apparently it was created to meet the consumer demand that moms want their children to consume less sugar.
Stunned, I asked: "Wouldn't that be for health reasons though?" Her answer: "You're going too deep." According to Trudeau, Kellogg's didn't take the time to find out why moms wanted their kids to eat less sugar, they simply made a product that would "make moms feel better."
When I pushed her on the fact that both cereals would provide a similar sugar load to the blood, she told me that although she and I might know that, "most kids and moms don't."
Alternative: I know I've been hard in the past on companies that are trying to make healthy products but in the end fall short of their goals. This, however, is an entirely different ball game. If I'm going to treat myself to a high-carbohydrate, low-fibre cereal like this one, I'd rather buy one that doesn't take advantage of consumers' lack of knowledge.
Take it or leave it: I think my work here is done.