Light means you'll eat more of it because you think it's healthier
En los lineales del supermercado moderno, la verdad no desaparece: se disfraza. El nutricionista Pablo Ojeda recordó esta semana en televisión lo que la industria alimentaria prefiere que olvidemos: que las etiquetas 'light' y 'sin azúcar' no son promesas de salud, sino herramientas de marketing diseñadas para explotar nuestra confianza y nuestra prisa. La Organización Mundial de la Salud fija en 25 gramos diarios el límite de azúcar recomendado, un umbral que la mayoría supera sin saberlo, guiada por palabras que suenan a cuidado pero esconden una aritmética muy distinta.
- La industria alimentaria ha convertido el etiquetado en un lenguaje propio: 'light' significa legalmente un 30% menos de calorías que el original, no que el producto sea saludable, y esa diferencia silenciosa tiene consecuencias reales.
- El efecto psicológico es el verdadero mecanismo: quien compra 'light' tiende a consumir más cantidad, convencido de que ha tomado la decisión responsable, y el balance calórico final suele ser peor.
- Los productos 'sin azúcar añadido' esconden otro problema: los edulcorantes alternativos no los procesa el páncreas sino el hígado, lo que puede provocar hinchazón y alteraciones metabólicas que ninguna etiqueta advierte.
- La única salida práctica está en la letra pequeña: buscar en el panel nutricional la línea 'de los cuales azúcares', dentro del apartado de hidratos de carbono, es el único gesto que devuelve el control al consumidor.
Pablo Ojeda llegó al plató de Más vale tarde con un argumento incómodo: la industria alimentaria confía en que no leeremos la letra pequeña. Ante la conductora Cristina Pardo, el nutricionista explicó cómo los azúcares ocultos se cuelan en casi todo lo que comemos, camuflados bajo un lenguaje de marketing que suena tranquilizador pero que raramente dice lo que parece.
La OMS establece un límite de 25 gramos de azúcar al día —unas seis cucharaditas— que resulta fácil de superar antes del mediodía si no se sabe dónde mirar. Ojeda señaló el camino: en cualquier etiqueta nutricional, el apartado de hidratos de carbono y, dentro de él, la línea 'de los cuales azúcares' es donde vive la verdad real de lo que se está comprando.
Sobre los productos 'light', fue directo: el término tiene un significado legal preciso y limitado. Solo garantiza un 30% menos de calorías respecto a la versión estándar. Una bolsa de patatas fritas de 1.000 calorías se convierte en una de 700 en su versión 'light', pero el efecto psicológico lleva al consumidor a comer más, convencido de que ha elegido mejor. La aritmética, explicó Ojeda, no les suele favorecer.
Los productos 'sin azúcar añadido' presentan una trampa diferente. Que no se haya incorporado azúcar durante la fabricación no significa que el alimento esté libre de azúcares naturales, ni que los edulcorantes utilizados en su lugar sean inocuos. A diferencia de los azúcares naturales —procesados por el páncreas—, los edulcorantes alternativos recorren el hígado, lo que puede generar hinchazón y efectos metabólicos que la etiqueta no menciona. Son mejores que sus versiones azucaradas, concedió Ojeda, pero 'mejor' no equivale a 'seguro'.
El mensaje de fondo era más amplio que la química de los carbohidratos: la industria no miente en las etiquetas, pero las diseña para que no pensemos demasiado en lo que dicen. Quien aprende a leerlas recupera el control. La mayoría, sin embargo, coge la caja que dice 'light' y siente que ha hecho lo correcto. La industria, precisamente, cuenta con eso.
Pablo Ojeda walked into the studio of Más vale tarde with a straightforward message: the food industry is betting that you won't read the fine print. The nutritionist had come to talk about something most people don't think about while reaching for a snack—the hidden sugars that slip into nearly everything we eat, disguised by marketing language that sounds reassuring.
The World Health Organization sets a clear ceiling: 25 grams of sugar per day. That's about six teaspoons. It sounds manageable until you start looking at how food actually gets made. The way most manufacturers process and package their products makes it almost trivial to blow past that limit before lunch. Ojeda's point was simple but unsettling: the label is where the truth lives, if you know where to look. Specifically, he directed viewers to the carbohydrate section of any nutrition panel, then to the line that reads "of which sugars." That number tells you what you're actually consuming.
When host Cristina Pardo asked about products marked "light" or "sugar-free," Ojeda didn't mince words. These labels, he said, represent a fundamental deception by the food industry. The word "light" has a precise legal meaning, but it's not what most people think it means. It doesn't mean the product is healthy. It means the product has 30 percent fewer calories than its standard version sitting on the shelf next to it. A bag of potato chips with 1,000 calories becomes 700 calories in the light version. The problem, Ojeda explained, is psychological: people see the word "light" and assume they can eat more of it because it's better for them. They do eat more. The math doesn't work in their favor.
The "sugar-free" or "no added sugar" category presents a different trap. These products haven't had extra sugar dumped into them during manufacturing, which sounds good until you understand what it actually means. The food may already contain natural sugars. More importantly, the sweeteners used instead of sugar don't behave the same way in your body. Natural sugars—the kind in fruit or vegetables—are processed by the pancreas. Alternative sweeteners take a different route: they go to the liver. That detour can trigger bloating and other metabolic effects that the simple label doesn't warn you about. Ojeda acknowledged that these products are better than their fully sugared counterparts, but "better" is not the same as "safe" or "healthy." The distinction matters.
What Ojeda was really saying, beneath the specifics of carbohydrate chemistry and organ function, is that the food industry has learned to hide in plain sight. The information is there on the package. The deception isn't in what's written—it's in what the words are designed to make you not think about. A consumer who reads labels carefully and understands what they mean can navigate this landscape. Most people don't. Most people grab the box that says "light" and feel like they've made a responsible choice. The industry counts on that.
Citas Notables
This is a major deception by the food industry— Pablo Ojeda, nutritionist
Although these foods are better to use, you have to be careful because the metabolization is different— Pablo Ojeda, on sugar-free products
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does the food industry bother with these labels at all? Why not just sell the product as is?
Because "light" and "sugar-free" sell better. They let people feel virtuous while eating. The industry isn't lying exactly—they're just using language that sounds good while relying on most people not understanding what the words actually mean.
So when someone buys a light product, they're eating more of it than they would the regular version?
Often, yes. The psychology is powerful. You see "light" and your brain says "I can have more of this." You end up consuming the same calories or more, sometimes without realizing it.
What about the sugar-free products? Are those actually worse for you than regular sugar?
Not worse, necessarily, but different in ways people don't expect. The sweeteners bypass your pancreas and go straight to your liver. That can cause bloating and other effects that the label doesn't mention. It's not a simple trade-off.
So the real advice is just read the labels?
Read them, yes, but understand what you're reading. Look at the carbohydrate line. Look at the ingredients. And understand that a product being "better" than the original doesn't make it good. That's the gap where the deception lives.