Like a heap of people, I do my grocery shopping with one eye open for Heart Foundation ticked foods. Because even though the foodie companies pay for the right to wear “the tick” on their wares, it surely stands for something, yeah?

But I’ve figured out how companies weasel their way through the Heart Foundation’s hoops. And twigged that it’s a total rort.

Here’s a packet of seven (7) sausages that we bought from Woollies last week… when we first spotted these in the meat section we thought we’d hit the jackpot. SAUSAGES! With the HEART TICK!

But, normally I’d eat, say, two sausages with my veges for dinner? Maybe three sausages if I was feeling particularly hungry (or on PMS).

Oh noes. That’s not a Heart Foundation approved serving size.

Check this crap out:

So to eat the Heart Foundation approved serving size, we’re only meant to eat ONE MEASLY SAUSAGE.

They’re fat little buggers, but jeebus, no way I’d cope on just one. I gots to have my proteins!

You can feel my anger because I used MS Paint, no?

I call bullshit on the Heart Foundation tick. What say you?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

15 thoughts on “Why I think the Heart Foundation “Tick” is a crock

  1. I have seen the most fat-laddened, sugar laddened food given the heart foundation approval tick. You are right, it doesn’t stand for anything any more.

    Posted on 25 October 2010 at 9:05 pm
  2. It’s ridiculous, huh? Can’t believe it took me all this time to cotton on to it properly

    Posted on 25 October 2010 at 9:09 pm
  3. 8.0 g fat per 100g is borderline as far as I’ve been told with what I should be putting into my body lest I spent the night in a crumpled heap.


    Posted on 25 October 2010 at 9:11 pm
  4. ooh, that’s an interesting stat, could be helpful, thanks bogan! ;)

    Posted on 25 October 2010 at 9:34 pm
  5. I have probably invented this in my head – but I thought the heart foundation tick means a better option of a type of food. Like from all the sausages, the ticked ones are the healthiest option, but not necessarily “healthy”.

    The foody thing that makes me agro is the fat free and salt reduced advertising. I purchased salt reduced tomato sauce the other day, checked out the label and realised they reduced the salt by add a tonne of sugar. And fat free yoghurt usually has more sugar in it than icecream. I can feel my blood pressure rising now just typing that. SO frustrating.

    Oh and re the sausages, the term “natural edible casing” concerns me. I love those sausages. It better not be something gross like intestine. Vom.

    Posted on 25 October 2010 at 10:14 pm
  6. Companies pay exorbitant amounts to get the tick on their food. Half the time I think they’d be better putting the money into researching food that tastes good!

    Posted on 26 October 2010 at 12:42 am
  7. I’ve never checked for the Heart Foundation tick because I think it’s possible to get it on anything, providing it conforms with their standards according to the manufacturer’s serving size.

    You’re better off checking the packaging for the fat content per 100 grams. My dietician told me that 8-10 grams per 100grams was okay for someone seeking to maintain their weight. I try to stick to 6-8 grams per 100 grams most of the time.

    I will however make exceptions for pizza…cake…croissants…and anything else yummy on an infrequent basis. :P

    Posted on 26 October 2010 at 7:28 pm
  8. Total crock! Especially when we’ve cooked all seven, Liz has eaten one and a half and I’ve scoffed five and a half. I could have died from a heart attack right then and there!!

    Posted on 26 October 2010 at 7:44 pm
  9. Keep riding those bikes, Jarod!!

    Posted on 26 October 2010 at 7:46 pm
  10. *snort* @ Jarod. How can you eat five-and-a-half of ’em? Hollow legs, etc

    Nicola, I’m gonna take on your angle and just take them as healthier options… after I’ve checked the serving size and the fat content and the sugar content and the salt and the fibre and everything else. No bloody wonder I hate shopping

    Posted on 26 October 2010 at 7:52 pm
  11. i love that a post about sausages prompts as many (in fact, now, one more) responses as a post about your wedding ;)

    Posted on 27 October 2010 at 7:16 pm
  12. Hi Laura,

    I get what you’re saying! Companies can be very careless with advertising (lite/light – meaning colour only! etc)

    Usually I have trusted the tick but have gotten cleaver at checking the serving sizes with the calories. Manufacture’s make most of their serving sizes so small!

    You’ve got to be careful. I’ve found over the last few months I’m buying less and less food with the nutritional pack and more fresh stuff.

    But a few years ago, give me a pack of sausages with a tick…well I would have snapped that baby up and eaten the whole pack!

    Posted on 28 October 2010 at 4:59 pm
  13. light oil is colour only!

    And servings sizes suck – I remember getting a tub of yoghurt that was 2 serves (you know the slightly larger ones?) and most coke bottles are 2 srves for 600ml!

    Posted on 28 October 2010 at 5:02 pm
  14. I totally forgot that light olive oil only refers to colour!

    PS Harriet, sausages are WAY more important than white dresses ;)

    Posted on 29 October 2010 at 10:09 pm
  15. I have more sausages than weddings.

    Posted on 29 October 2010 at 10:40 pm