Advertise
Professor of Oils and Fats at the National Research Centre; Vice-President of the Egyptian Food Safety Association; WHO National Consultant for the iTFA programme.
In the previous article, we mentioned that a food product might need solid or more stable fats to succeed technologically; maintaining its texture, shine, brittleness, layers, and stability during manufacturing, storage, and transport. However, the question that cannot be postponed is: Does a product’s success in the factory mean it is suitable for unlimited repeated consumption?
This is where the other half of the picture begins.
A product may be technologically successful, visually beautiful, structurally stable, and tasty, but it does not necessarily become an ideal nutritional choice when consumed excessively or repeatedly without awareness. What works for making layers of croissants, the shine of chocolate, or the texture of pastries must also be read from another angle: What does it provide to the body? And what is its impact within the general diet? This is the subject of nutritional requirements.
Industry might be able to create a brittle biscuit, smooth cream, shiny chocolate, richly scented pastry, and crispy golden fries. However, the success of these attributes does not mean the product can be consumed without limits.
Humans do not nourish themselves with texture alone, nor with shine, aroma, or tenderness. The body handles food with a different logic: the amount of energy, the quality of fats, the proportion of sugar, the salt content, the portion size, the frequency of consumption, and the degree of diversity of the entire diet.
Hence, we must clearly distinguish between two questions:
Confusing these two questions is the root of much "food noise." Not everything that is industrially successful is suitable for excessive consumption, nor is everything that is nutritionally superior automatically suitable for every industrial application.
Nutritional requirements are the set of considerations that determine the health and nutritional value of a product, not just through a single ingredient, but through its complete picture within a lifestyle.
It looks at the amount of calories, the quality of fats, the ratio of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids, the presence or absence of trans fats, the content of sugar, salt, fiber, protein, vitamins, and minerals, as well as the portion size and the frequency of product consumption.
It also looks at the group consuming the food: a child, an adult, a heart patient, an obese patient, an active person, or a sedentary individual. What suits one person within certain limits might not suit another in the same quantity and frequency.
Therefore, nutrition is not a quick judgment of a product as "good" or "bad," but rather a balanced evaluation: What does it contain? How much do we eat? How often? And in what dietary and lifestyle context?
As we explained in the previous article, the industry might need solid or more saturated fats to perform specific technological functions. However, from a nutritional perspective, we must look at the amount of these fats within the entire daily diet.
Fats are not an absolute enemy. The body needs them as a source of energy, to absorb fat-soluble vitamins like A, D, E, and K, to form cell membranes, and to produce certain vital compounds. Furthermore, the body cannot manufacture some essential fatty acids and must obtain them from food.
However, the problem begins when fats increase, especially saturated fats, within a diet that is already high in calories, sugars, and salt, and low in physical activity, vegetables, and whole grains.
For this reason, we should not say that the presence of solid fat in a product necessarily makes it dangerous, nor that its technological success makes it suitable for unlimited repeated consumption. The scientific judgment lies between the two extremes: the type of fat, its quantity, its manufacturing quality, its freedom from industrial trans fats, and the size and frequency of the portion.
It is important to emphasize here that "natural" does not always mean it is suitable without limits, and "processed" does not necessarily mean it is harmful. The key lies in the composition, quality, quantity, frequency, clarity of data, and the place of the product within the entire diet.
While saturated fats require control and moderation, industrial trans fats represent a red line in food safety and public health. These fats have been clearly linked to health risks, especially to the heart and blood vessels, which is why the world has moved to reduce or eliminate them in food products.
Here, the important distinction appears between using natural solid fats or regulated fat blends to achieve a technological function, versus relying on partially hydrogenated oils that lead to the formation of industrial trans fatty acids.
Modern industry should not search for texture at the expense of health; rather, it must achieve texture, stability, and sensory acceptance through safe alternatives, studied blends, clear specifications, and strict control. A successful product today is not just one that shines, but one that shines without deceiving, crunches without harming, and sits on the shelf without carrying an unjustified health burden.
In sweets and baked goods, the nutritional issue does not come from fats alone. Many of these products combine fats, sugar, and white flour—a combination that provides a desirable taste and texture but raises the caloric density of the product.
Here, we must not hold fat alone responsible for the problem. A small piece of a rich product might be acceptable within a balanced diet, whereas the danger turns into a habit when products high in fat and sugar become a daily substitute for varied food, or a repeated meal without accountability.
Therefore, nutritional awareness does not mean scaring people away from every food pleasure, but rather teaching them how to put it in its correct proportion: a product for calculated enjoyment, not a daily foundation of the diet.
One of the concepts that consumers miss most in evaluating food is the concept of portion size. A product might be acceptable if consumed in a small amount and at distant intervals, but it becomes a nutritional burden if the quantity is doubled and the consumption is repeated.
A single piece of chocolate is not like a whole bar. A spoonful of ghee is not like several spoonfuls. A small piece of pastry differs from a full meal of high-fat pastry. An occasional fried meal is not like a daily pattern of fried foods.
For this reason, nutritional judgment is inseparable from a simple question: How much? Then another question that is no less important: How often? Health is not created by a single bite, nor is it usually ruined by a single bite, but it is shaped by repeated habits.
It is not enough for the consumer to ask: Is the product made with natural ghee or vegetable oil? Is it natural or processed? These are important questions, but they alone are not sufficient.
The smarter questions are: What is the size of the piece I am eating? How often do I eat it? Is it part of a balanced meal or a repeated substitute for it? Is the label clear? Does the product contain industrial trans fats? How much saturated fat? What amount of sugar and salt? And is the product consumed as a calculated pleasure or as a heavy daily habit?
In this way, the consumer transforms from a recipient of advertisements to an aware reader of food, and from a captive of slogans to a decision-maker.
If technological requirements refer to what happens inside the factory, then the data label (nutrition facts) is the bridge that transfers the truth to the consumer. It is not just a small legal space on the packaging, but a document of trust.
The label must clarify the type of oil or fat used, whether the product contains hydrogenated fats or not, the percentage of saturated fats, trans fat content if any, energy, sugar, salt, portion size, and ingredients in their order.
The aware consumer is not satisfied with a picture of butter on the packaging, nor with the word "premium," nor with a golden color that suggests quality. They must read: What is the type of fat? How much saturated fat? Are there trans fats? What is the amount of sugar? What is the real portion size?
And the responsible industry does not hide behind implication what it must say clearly. Sensory pleasure is a right, but transparency is a duty.
The industry is responsible for choosing good raw materials, applying food safety specifications, reducing ingredients of concern whenever possible, banning industrial trans fats, improving fat blends, and providing an honest data label.
However, the consumer is also responsible for an informed choice, not being swayed by slogans, and not transforming high-energy products into a daily habit. Even a product manufactured with the best technology and highest specifications does not exempt a person from moderation.
Food is not just a moral judgment between the forbidden and the allowed, but an intelligent relationship between knowledge, quantity, frequency, and need.
The mistake is not in studying technological requirements, nor in discussing nutritional requirements. The mistake is confusing them or canceling one in favor of the other.
If we ignore technological requirements, we will ask liquid oil to create a texture it cannot create, and we will blame the industry for using solid fats in applications that require them. If we ignore nutritional requirements, we will turn the success of texture and taste into an open license for excessive consumption.
The solution is balance. We want a product that is successful technologically but safer nutritionally. We want good texture, but without industrial trans fats. We want a desirable flavor, but without excess sugar, fat, and salt. We want an industry capable of innovation, and a consumer capable of understanding and choice.
In the first article, we talked about technological requirements: How does the product succeed? How does it hold together? How does it shine? How does it crunch? How does it withstand manufacturing, storage, and transport?
In this article, we complete the other half of the picture: nutritional requirements—that is, how does this product enter the human body? And what is the effect of its components, quantities, and frequency of consumption on health?
Between the two articles, the golden rule becomes clear: We must not judge a product nutritionally without understanding its technological function, nor must we justify any product health-wise merely because it is industrially successful.
Just as a professional shooter needs an eye that knows the target and an arrow that knows the way, judging food requires two eyes, not one: an eye that sees the technology that makes the product, and an eye that sees the nutrition that protects the human.
Only then does food become a science, not an impression; awareness, not noise; and a pleasure that is inseparable from responsibility. A distinguished product is not just what succeeds in the factory, nor just what satisfies the tongue, but what intelligently balances manufacturing quality and human safety.
