• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Food labelled as 'Diabetic' vs 'Suitable for Diabetics'. Do you differentiate?

Do you differentiate between food with the label "Diabetic" vs "Suitable for Diabetics"?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 10.0%

  • No

    Votes: 18 90.0%
  • Total voters
    20

QR93

Active Member
Messages
25
Type of diabetes
Researcher
Treatment type
I do not have diabetes
Hello,

I hope everyone is having a good day.


Some of you may have followed/read/replied my other thread on my questionnaire project to find out how many diabetic patients eat diabetic foods and why. I am back and wanting to see whether diabetic patients differentiate between these two terms:

  • Foods that have 'Diabetic' written on the packaging (usually in big writing on the front).
  • Foods that are reduced in sugar and have "Suitable for Diabetics" written somewhere on the packaging.
I would be interested to hear whether you differentiate between these two above (so really just a yes/no answer mainly as I ascertained everyone feelings and thoughts on these foods in the other thread). I haven't said too much because I genuinely want to know off the top of your head what you think, without be influencing what you say. I would like to clarify that you can answer yes or no even if you do not agree with these foods and even if you don't eat them.

Thank-you to all those in advance who take the time to read or reply to this: much appreciated.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I clicked no because I don't buy either, good fresh not messed with food, meat fish veggies berries etc etc - no need for diabetic anything
 
No - because i consider them both to be weasel words and see no need to be persuaded by such terms (and other advertising ploys...) to eat so called "specialist" foods when what I normally choose eat is more than suitable for my (diabetic) diet.

(We're giving you a bit of a hard time, aren't we!!)

Robbity
 
I answered no.

I have yet to see a cauliflower with "suitable for diabetics" written on it, which is just as well as it would probably cost more
 
Haha, Robbity!

Thank-you for replying guys:

Even if you do not agree with these foods or eat them, would you/do you see those two labels in the original post highlighted in green as being different, or do they mean the same thing to you? - This is really the main thing I am trying to get from you. I do appreciate that many (or all) of you probably do not or have never thought about this.

(And Avacado, I completely agree with your point. Fruits and vegetables are 'Suitable for diabetics' but they aren't labelled as such so they would not be included in this category, as I am referring specifically to labelling)
 
@QR93
  • Foods that have 'Diabetic' written on the packaging (usually in big writing on the front).
  • Foods that are reduced in sugar and have "Suitable for Diabetics" written somewhere on the packaging.
These are both advertising ploys and onceyou have ascertined your dietary requirements and the nutritional contents of the foods should be seen as such!

after all, most foods have a problem in controlling their insulin, so a stick of celery or a "mars bar" are probably able to be labelled diabetic.

Also what is "Suitble for Diabetics" is outside the dictat of a marketing lackey as for a T1 at a BG of 2.6, a slab of "Kendal Mint Cake" is suitable for diabetics, if only to correct the hypo!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can see you don't agree with the labelling system and you make a good point with regards to the definition of diabetic foods, but going back to the original question, do you see the two terms as meaning the same thing or not?

Sorry - I am just trying to keep the thread on track and concise. I appreciate your input CollieBoy

Brunneria said:
I thought these questions had been flogged to death in your other thread.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask this question on the other thread but some respondents did diverge into discussing definitions so I can see why it looks like that. That thread was just to ascertain beliefs and attitudes towards these foods but there were tangents here and there touching on this thread. Here I am trying to be very specific and see if people view these very specific terms as being different or the same as these are the commonly used terms on packaging.

Subtle wording changes can have an impact:

I.e. "Diabetic" written in big writing on the front may imply that this food is made only for people with diabetes whilst "Suitable for diabetics" written on the packet may imply that in fact anyone can eat it, including people with diabetes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do not see the two as being the same, one being a descriptor of a syndrome, not a food, and the other being a descriptor of usefulness, though not an accurate one..
I do however disregard both as being advertising weasle-words!
 
Are you doing market research rather than a project?
The questions from this and your other thread seem to be going around in circles.
You have an overwhelming majority of posters that do not eat diabetic food because it is not suitable for diabetics. No amount of different labelling is going to make any difference to their choice.
If you asked how many non diabetics buy diabetic foods for relatives and friends, on another forum where nobody is diabetic, then the answers would tell you who and you could market accordingly.
 

Hi Catherine,

It's for my elective project as a final year medical student, and is based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (a behavioural model). It has nothing to do with market research I can assure you and everyone else.

The questions from the other threads did not ask to differentiate between the labelling terms. Reason I am wanting to know about whether diabetic patients see these terms as different is for the patient instructions on the questionnaire, and to see if I need to reword anything.

I am not trying to see if the labelling will make them buy it or change their decision/choice, it is purely because I need to be very specific in ensuring I know what people think, which is why I may come across as being persistent.

I know I haven't come across anyone here who eats these foods but your input is valuable nonetheless, as one doesn't need to eat diabetic foods to tell me whether they see these terms as the same or not.

I hope that has made things clearer
 
Last edited by a moderator:

But the vast majority of responses on your other (long, winding) thread made very clear that they wouldn't touch foods labelled 'diabetic' with a 10 foot barge pole.

So your second thread seems pointless.

You would do better to target non-diabetics and see if THEY would like to eat these foods.
 
I see them as exactly the same - do not buy me!
 

Even if you wouldn't touch it you can still tell me if you see the labeling terms as being different or not.

I would like to clarify the point of the project is not to see if people would like to eat these foods. The purpose is to see why they do or do not eat them. So everyone who has said they wouldn't touch these foods would still be able to do the survey, one example being that they disagree with the statement that diabetic foods are healthy. I hope that makes sense.
 
But I have already answered, in your previous (long and windy) thread.

No point in repeating myself - and for that reason, I won't be posting in this thread again.
 
Thank-you to everyone who has replied. The poll shows 90% as saying no, so this answers my question.

Hope everyone has a great day.
 
I understand the differences in the words, but I can honestly say I've never seen the "suitable for" written on anything.

If it was on a menu, describing something like a roast chicken with vegetables I might consider having it, but that would be an "ordinary" meal, I would consider acceptable for me to eat. If the same label we applied to something like a cake or a sandwich, it would be left on the shelf, for sure.

Out of context, I couldn't really answer the poll, as even something like chicken can be deeply unsuitable for me, as a T2, not on any medication, if it's something like Sweet and Sour Chicken or a sweet honey or molasses marinaded BBQ dish.
 
They both mean the same but I can see how some people would think one was better than the other but Diabetic labelled food is unessesary
 
If I eat it, I wouldn't mind how it was labelled.
I go off the contents, I don't specifically avoid any foods, and I don't specifically eat any foods.
I eat ones that don't affect my BG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…