This is a guest post by Lisa Cain, PhD, a.k.a Snack-Girl

Do you have a food fight with your child after school?

Is he starving because he tossed out his uneaten lunch? Was he  having too much fun in the school cafeteria and simply forgot to eat?

You’re not the only family where this happens. That’s why the after school snacks are tricky – kids are uptight, you haven’t prepared anything special, and the temptation to open up a bag of processed junk is just too high. As a result, afternoon snacks tend to fall into the treat category more than parents would like to admit. Cookies, candy, chips, along with “healthy” packaged snacks like fruit snacks are very common.

A recent study has shown that kids are eating 27% of their daily calories from snacks.  If a third of daily calories are coming from non-meals, parents need to be vigilant about the composition of those snacks.

We all want to ensure our kids don’t get too cranky before dinnertime. But, we should try to feed them something that will feed their brains (homework time!). What can we feed them without a war? Here are 5 afternoon snacks that have promise as peaceful substitutes for unhealthy treats. Replace brownies, potato chips, candy, pizza bites, and ice-cream with these suggestions:
Replace brownies with No bake brownie balls
Replace chips with Ants on a log
Replace candy with Chocolate covered raisins
Replace frozen pizza snacks with the Tiniest and Yummiest Pizzas on the Planet
Replace ice cream with DIY yogurt

Lisa Cain, Ph.D., is an avid snacker, foodie, published author, and mother of 2. An evolutionary biologist by training, she has become obsessed with how food contributes to our overall health. Check out snack girl for other healthy snack ideas.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

Inadequate Public Funding and the Sale of Competitive Foods as a Revenue Source

This is a guest blog-post by Professor Timothy D. Lytton

First Lady Michelle Obama’s recently launched Let’s Move campaign to reduce childhood obesity has put a spotlight on reforming school food.

The primary reason for the abundance of unhealthy foods in schools is inadequate public funding of school meals and schools in general. Unfortunately, the sale of unhealthy foods, popular among students, is an essential source of revenue for many schools.

Today, most schools are dominated by foods that are high in sugar, fat, and salt. These items—pizza, burgers, French fries, cakes, snack foods, soda, and candy—are sold in cafeterias, vending machines, and school stores. In addition, students sell these foods to raise funds for extra-curricular activities, parents provide them for in-class birthday parties, and teachers give them out as rewards.

Unhealthy Foods in the Cafeteria

School food services sell unhealthy kids’ favorites as a la carte items in the cafeteria to make up for inadequate school meal subsidies. Additionally, they have incorporated them into the subsidized meals themselves in order to avoid losing student participation in the meal program. (The Federal funding is paid per participating child).

Here’s how it works: Read more…

This is a guest blog post by Beth Casey Gold, R.D., M.S., and Heather Leonard, R.D., of the University of Vermont Vtrim Online Behavioral Weight Management Program

We don’t like the word “diet.” Diets are about restriction, sacrifice, and typically they aren’t too much fun. Instead, we’re all about lifestyle change through behavior modification. Guess what? It works. We’ve researched this technique for the past 18 years under the leadership of Jean Harvey-Berino, R.D., Ph.D. at the University of Vermont. You can lose and manage weight by simply changing troublesome habits. We’ve seen person after person go through our program and lose 1-2 lbs per week by doing just that.

What You Need to Know

There are strategies you can put into action right now to make your weight loss and management goals doable and your results sustainable. Here are five to get you started:

1. Reduce TV Time. Researchers at the University of Vermont found that watching less TV results in subtle but meaningful changes in overall activity levels (see The Archives of Internal Medicine.) They found that individuals who cut television viewing by 2.5 hours (based on the average of 5 hours per day) burned off an additional 120 calories a day – the equivalent of walking about 8 miles a week. Less TV time is good for kids, too – it significantly reduces the number of calories a child consumes.

2. Step Away From the Couch. The more places you associate with eating, the more likely you are to eat there. Decide on a “Designated Eating Place” (“DEP” for short) and restrict your eating to this location. Limiting eating to just one location in your house or office will help you avoid downing a lot of calories while doing something else, like watching TV or working at your computer.

3. Don’t Clean Your Plate. There’s no rule that says you have to finish what you started. In fact, research shows that people will automatically eat more when served bigger portions, regardless of physical hunger. To curb excess eating, start with a smaller serving by using a smaller plate or bowl. Measure your snacks into snack-sized bags rather than eating straight from the bag.

4. Sneak In Exercise. Three ten-minute walks are just as effective as one thirty-minute walk. One study found that people who took more short exercise bouts actually lost more weight. Create a new routine: instead of meeting a friend for drinks or coffee, ask her to join you for a weekly catch-up walk so you can burn calories over conversation.

5. Crack Open a Cook Book. Research shows that people who eat more meals at home consume fewer calories on average than people who dine out on a regular basis. You can keep meal planning simple by keeping your pantry stocked with healthier items— low-fat soup and a whole grain roll, salad with some diced chicken breast, or a quesadilla with salsa and a portion-controlled amount of cheese can be whipped together in the amount of time it takes to get through the drive-thru.

What to do at the Supermarket

We recommend finding the foods that best fit your individual goals according to taste, ingredients, and smart portion control. Be a smart consumer and make choices based on what matters most to you and what promotes better health habits for you. Don’t just follow the marketing message you see on the package–it may lead you the wrong way.

6. Don’t shop hungry. A grumbling stomach and impulse shopping go hand-in-hand.

7. Stick to your list. Unless you see a great buy on something you use regularly, stick to only “pre-planned” items.

8. Read labels. In one study, subjects who read labels consumed about 30 percent of their calories from fat (the amount recommended for healthy eating) versus 35 percent for those who didn’t read labels.

9. Shop the perimeter. Generally, you’ll find healthy, whole foods (produce, dairy, etc.) along the sides and back of the store. Packaged goods—including tempting snacks are concentrated in center aisles.

Old habits die hard, but mindfulness and vigilance will keep you on the path towards a healthier lifestyle!

You can read more from Beth and Heather at the Vtrim Community Blog

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

This is a guest blog post by Chef Rob Endelman.

Cooking, despite what Big Food wants us to believe, does not have to be a time-consuming chore.  I’ll argue that waiting in line at the doctor’s office and pharmacy is the real energy-draining bore.

You do not need much to successfully cook for yourself and your family, save for simple ingredients and basic cooking technique.  I can’t shop for you, but I can help you realize that often just a little sautéing or stirring is all that is needed to produce meals that are far superior to packaged and processed foodstuffs.

I’ve chosen three dishes that illustrate cooking’s simplicity.  Feel free to substitute ingredients, especially in the hearty vegetable soup and pasta sauce.

1. Hearty vegetable soup recipe – A hearty winter meal that further debunks the myth that cooking is difficult and expensive. I made about eight portions and it cost me $9. (Had I not used mostly organic ingredients, it would have totaled $5.) Prep time was 10 minutes and cooking time (mostly unattended) was roughly an hour.

2. Pasta sauce recipe – make a quick sauce, in about 10 minutes, to put over whole wheat pasta. The pasta cooks while you prepare the sauce.

3. Hot chocolate recipe – Making your own hot chocolate with quality cocoa powder (I use Green & Black’s) takes about the same amount of time and isn’t that much more expensive than using packaged hot chocolate mixes that contain refined sugars and synthetic ingredients. Plus, the difference in flavor is startling.

Rob Endelman is a chef who, in addition to teaching cooking technique, empowers people with the knowledge to make better choices when it comes to buying and preparing food.  He believes that a lack of awareness about our industrial food supply has contributed to the increase in modern diseases such as obesity, diabetes and cancer.  Through The Delicious Truth and Cook with Class, Chef Rob helps people understand, identify and avoid hormones, antibiotics, pesticides and synthetic additives.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

A big thanks to our friend Carol Harvey from Palate Works for this flowchart

Have a great weekend and Happy Valentine’s Day !!!

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

This is a guest post by Melissa Marek, RD LD

Fiber is an extremely important part of your daily diet. Its best known benefit is its ability to help keep our bowels moving. Eating enough fiber will help prevent constipation. The added benefit is that it also plays a role in protecting against diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer. If that isn’t enough reason to get a daily dose of fiber, it also helps with weight management by helping to keep you fuller longer.

In order to make sure you are getting enough fiber, it helps to understand where it comes from and where you can find it. Fiber comes mainly from plant cell walls, the parts that cannot be digested by the enzymes of the GI tract. For that reason, fiber can be found in plant foods such as fruits, vegetables, and grains.

To best benefit from fiber, the recommended daily amount is 21-25 grams per day for women and 30-38 grams per day for men. This is not a difficult goal to meet, but remember that when adding fiber to your diet, you will need to increase your fiber intake slowly and more importantly, increase your fluids. If you don’t drink enough fluids you may suffer from constipation, the very thing that fiber helps alleviate.

To better comprehend the benefits of fiber and how to best meet daily requirements, it helps to understand that there are different types of fiber. They come from different sources and, accordingly, help with different things.

SOLUBLE FIBER may help lower blood cholesterol, especially LDL (bad) cholesterol. It also helps control blood sugar in people with diabetes. You can get soluble fiber from oats, oat bran, dried beans and peas, nuts, barley, flax seed, oranges, apples, carrots, and psyllium husk.

INSOLUBLE FIBER moves bulk through the intestines, which helps prevent constipation. It also controls and balances the pH in your intestines. Insoluble fiber can be found in fruit skins, root vegetable skins, dark green leafy vegetables, whole wheat products, corn bran, seeds and nuts.

Soluble fiber, as it name alludes, becomes a jelly-like mass when mixed with water and ferments in the intestinal tract, but insoluble fiber just absorbs the water and bulks up stool.

The term DIETARY FIBER, which appears on nutrition facts labels is merely a sum of the soluble and insoluble fiber content in a product, per serving.

A common source of fiber is whole grain. Whole grain refers to the entire grain seed (bran, germ, & endosperm).  Whole grain foods are an important source of not only fiber, but also of vitamins, minerals and other health-promoting compounds that you won’t find in a refined grain.

HOW MUCH SHOULD I BE EATING?

According to the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 3 or more ounce-equivalents of whole grain products per day is ideal. You can meet this requirement by adding barley, buckwheat, bulgur, corn, millet, rice, rye, oats, sorghum, wheat and wild rice to your daily diet.

What does a one-ounce equivalent of whole grains look like?

• 1 slice 100% whole grain bread
• 1/2 of a 100% whole grain English muffin or bagel
• ½ cup hot cooked oatmeal (Rolled oats or quick oats)
• 2 cups popped popcorn
• 1 ounce baked tortilla chips (About 15 chips)
• 1/3 cup cooked whole wheat pasta
• 1/3 cup cooked brown rice, bulgur, sorghum, or barley

TIPS TO INCREASE YOUR FIBER INTAKE:

• Sprinkle flax meal, wheat germ,  or nuts/seeds onto your cereal, cottage cheese, yogurt, or even frozen yogurt
• Add fresh or dried fruits to your cereal or yogurt
• Substitute whole wheat flour for at least 1/3 of the all purpose flour in baked goods
• Add frozen vegetables to soups or casseroles
• Add beans into a salad, soup, or stew
• Cut prunes into pieces and mix them into yogurt, cereal, or pancake mix

What to do at the supermarket:

Packaging for fiber rich foods now often contain a label promoting its fiber content. These labels make finding fiber-rich foods easy so shoppers don’t have to go through the hassle of checking out the food label or searching for the fiber content. But what do these regulated fiber claims mean exactly?

• 100% Whole Grain or 100% Whole Wheat: The product doesn’t have any refined white flour
• Good source of fiber:  There are at least 3g per serving
• Excellent source of fiber:  There are at least 5g per serving
• When reading the ingredient statement, a whole grain should be listed FIRST!

Here’s a handy list of fiber rich products:

• Oats
• Oat bran
• Grains (Barley, bulgur, Kasha, Amaranth, Quinoa, Couscous)
• Polenta
• Brown rice
• Whole wheat breads and pastas
• Fresh fruits (Oranges, pears, dried figs, apples, berries, raisins)
  —> Choose whole fruits (fresh, frozen, or dried) over juices, which have most of the fiber removed
• Fresh vegetables (Winter squash, peas, eggplant, beets, cabbage, broccoli, artichoke hearts, corn)
• Potatoes & sweet potatoes
• Dried beans
• Nuts

Melissa Marek is a graduate of Texas A&M University with degrees in both Nutritional Sciences and Food Science & Technology.  She has experience with recipe analysis for magazines and restaurants as well as with nutrition facts labeling for large corporations and private label companies. She is a registered dietitian at Axxya Systems, makers of Diet Analysis and Food Labeling software products. Contact her at mmarek [at] axxya [dot] com.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate (It’s Free)

This is a guest blog-post by  Professor Timothy D. Lytton

In my previous posts I have proposed that the FDA regulate front-of-package nutrition labels by better enforcement of existing regulations and by setting minimum standards for labels that rate the overall nutritional value of foods. By contrast, the Center for Science and the Public Interest as well as the Fooducate Blog have advocated that the FDA develop and impose on the food industry “a simple, uniform science-based system [that] would bring consistent and reliable information to the marketplace and help consumers choose more healthful diets.”

However, the high level of complexity involved in designing nutritional rating systems gives rise to two reasons to prefer a regulatory approach that merely sets minimum-standards.

First, there is little reason to suppose that government policymakers will be able to create a system that is superior to those developed by research scientists in academia and industry. Disagreement among experts in industry and academia as to the best approach to nutrient profiling—even after millions of dollars of investment and years of research—is significant and ongoing. By contrast, merely setting minimum standards is a less complex task that is more likely to generate consensus among experts, who do agree on many basic principles of nutrition. Setting minimum standards is a common regulatory tool well within the expertise of the FDA and likely to elicit few complaints about the agency acting beyond the powers delegated to it by Congress.

Second, allowing for experimentation and competition among private-sector groups is likely to advance knowledge in the area of nutrient profiling and food labeling more effectively than the development and imposition of a single, centralized government scheme. Minimum government standards will create space for genuine experimentation and competition aimed at advancing knowledge while eliminating merely profit-driven research and the use of front-of-package nutrition labels as just another marketing strategy. There is also reason to believe that market incentives, under certain circumstances, will produce high quality scientific information. While allegations of conflict of interest and “junk-science” surround manufacturer-sponsored front-of-package labels, such as Smart Choices, the same is not true of shelf labels developed by or for retail stores. The Guiding Stars and NuVal labels have been singled out for the scientific integrity of their ratings, even among critics of nutrient profiling generally. One reason may be that retail supermarkets are less interested in selling any particular type or brand of food, including their own their own store brands, than in attracting consumers into their stores. Whereas manufacturers have an incentive to adopt nutrient profiling schemes that favor their products—regardless of the product’s nutritional value—retail supermarkets draw customers into their stores by offering them reliable nutrient profile labels that, for some consumers, enhance their shopping experience.

The most effective role for government in the regulation of front-of-package nutrition labels is not to supplant private sector experimentation and competition but rather to ensure that it is not corrupted by unscrupulous companies willing to put profits ahead of scientific integrity.

Timothy D. Lytton is the Albert and Angela Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School where he teaches regulatory law & policy, constitutional law, administrative law, and tort law. His article “Signs of Change or Clash of Symbols? FDA Regulation of Nutrient Profile Labeling” (forthcoming in Health Matrix, vol. 19, no. 2) is available online by clicking here. He is also working on an article about regulation of nutrition standards for school food. For more information, visit his Albany Law School faculty website.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate (It’s Free)

This is a guest blog post by Carol Harvey, director of nutrition labeling at Palate Works. She recently visited the San Francisco Fancy Food Show.

For 35 years, the Fancy Food Show has been the trade show of all things tasty, gourmet and upscale. Many food products are launched there, including an increasing number dished up as “healthy” or “better for you,” due to evolving consumer demand.

In fact, the “top 5 food trends” for 2010 just announced by NASFT (the trade association that produces the show) include “good-for-you foods”. This “trend,” brewing for most of the 20 years that I have been attending the show, has proven a smart business move for a number of brands.

Whether any of the 100,000+ exhibited products really nailed the “taste + nutrition” prize was my focus again this year in San Francisco. And once again, how a company uses nutrition claims separated those that know their nutrition and labeling from those that don’t. Here are three examples. Read more…

This is a guest blog-post by  Professor Timothy D. Lytton

In my previous post, I suggested that regulation of front-of-package nutrition labels should begin with better enforcement of existing standards. Existing regulations, I argued, already provide adequate tools to clamp down on misleading labels. I focused on the three most common types of front-of-package nutrition labels: (1) those that provide simple quantitative statements, (2) those that rate individual nutrients, and (3) those that present seals of approval. In this post, I suggest how existing standards might be further developed to regulate a fourth type of front-of-package label.

Rating Overall Nutritional Value: Guiding Stars & NuVal

The fourth type of front-of-package nutrition label rates the overall nutritional value of foods. For example, Hannaford Brothers’ Guiding Stars label rates foods on a scale of zero to three stars and the NuVal Nutritional Scoring System rates foods on a scale from one to one hundred.

The FDA could build on its existing regulations concerning the use of “healthy” claims to develop multiple threshold definitions for overall nutritional value, for example providing three threshold definitions that would create a four-point scale: (1) foods below the bottom threshold, (2) foods between the bottom and middle thresholds, (3) foods between the middle and top thresholds, (4) and foods above the top threshold. This could be accomplished by adding further gradation to the current FDA definition of “healthy,” as the agency has already done for some single nutrient claims (for example, “low sodium,” “very low sodium,” and “sodium free.”).

Thus, food ratings in a scheme like Hannaford Brothers’ Guiding Stars would have to meet the corresponding FDA threshold definitions—a food labeled with three stars would have to meet the FDA’s top threshold definition, a food labeled with two stars would have to meet the FDA’s middle threshold definition, and so on. For schemes with a higher level of gradation, like NuVal’s one to one-hundred ranking, the FDA could use the same four-point scale. Foods rated by NuVal in the top quartile (100-76) would have to meet the FDA’s top threshold definition, foods in the NuVal second quartile (75-51) would have to meet the FDAs middle threshold definition, and so on. Calibrating nutrient profile rating schemes to graduated FDA definitions of relative overall nutritional value, using the definition of “healthy” as a starting point, would provide consistency among schemes based on the federal government’s dietary guidelines and health recommendations.

This means of regulation would also allow for variation among schemes in terms of gradation and rankings. Those who design nutrient profile labeling schemes could experiment with greater and lesser levels of gradation, and rankings could vary so long as they met or exceeded minimum FDA threshold levels. The purpose of my proposal to formulate a four-tiered definition of “healthy” is not to create an FDA nutrient profile rating system to displace private-sector rating systems like Guiding Stars or NuVal. The purpose is merely to provide an easily understandable system of minimum thresholds to prevent abuse. Thresholds should be set in such a way as to prevent high ratings for foods of low nutritional value—like Froot Loops—while allowing for variation in different approaches that are consistent with these minimum thresholds. This regulatory approach does not interfere with private sector efforts to develop more complex nutrient rating schemes, so long as those schemes satisfy minimum standards that prevent ratings that are false or misleading.

In a subsequent post, I will discuss why FDA imposition of a uniform, mandatory front-of-package labeling system—as proposed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest—might not be the best regulatory approach.

Timothy D. Lytton is the Albert and Angela Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School where he teaches regulatory law & policy, constitutional law, administrative law, and tort law. His article “Signs of Change or Clash of Symbols? FDA Regulation of Nutrient Profile Labeling” (forthcoming in Health Matrix, vol. 19, no. 2) is available online by clicking here. He is also working on an article about regulation of nutrition standards for school food. For more information, visit his Albany Law School faculty website.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

This is a guest blog-post by  Professor Timothy D. Lytton

At the top of the FDA’s agenda for 2010 is regulating front-of-package nutrition labels.

Proponents of symbols like the Heart Check mark and the Smart Choices logo and rating systems like Guiding Stars and NuVal argue that they offer a quick way to help consumers identify foods that contribute to a healthy diet. Critics allege that the labeling schemes are confusing and misleading and have called for stricter government regulation. The Center for Science and the Public Interest (CSPI) recently released a report advocating that the FDA to develop a uniform, mandatory front-of-package labeling system.

But before the FDA gets into the business of creating its own front-of-package labeling scheme, it should first consider how existing regulations could be used to clamp down on misleading front-of-package labeling information. Better use of existing regulations would be a prudent first step in reigning in the current front-of-package free-for-all.

The FDA has promulgated extensive regulations governing the use of nutrient content claims on food labels—claims describe the level of a nutrient in a food. FDA regulations distinguish several different categories of nutrient content claims, and most front-of-package nutrition labels fall into one of three categories.

1. Simple Quantitative Statements: The Nutrition Highlights Panel

Some front-of-package nutrition labels present nutrient information in the form of simple quantitative statements concerning the amount of one or more nutrients in the food. General Mills’ Nutrition Highlights panel is an example of this type of label.

Existing FDA regulations allow for simple quantitative statements provided that they are accurate.

2. Rating Individual Nutrients: The Traffic Light Label

A second type of front-of-package nutrition label rates the level of individual nutrients on a scale. The British Food Standards Agency (FSA) traffic light label provides an example.

Under FDA regulations, any label claim that employs descriptive terms to characterize the level of a nutrient, such as “low in sodium” or “high in fiber,” may be made only for nutrients for which FDA has established a Daily Value (DV), may be used only if the food meets specified threshold requirements for the nutrient, and may employ only descriptive terms approved by the FDA. For example, a tub of yoghurt labeled “high in calcium” must contain at least twenty percent of the DV of calcium per 225 grams of yoghurt. Any front-of-package label that rates individual nutrients must conform to these strict guidelines. (Note: A daily value for sugar has not been established by the FDA.)

3. Seals of Approval: The Heart Check Mark & The Smart Choices Logo

A third type of front-of-package nutrition label combines analysis of nutrients to suggest that a food satisfies some minimum standard of overall nutritional value, such that it contributes to a healthy diet. The American Heart Association (AHA) Heart Check mark is an example.

The AHA explains on its website that the underlying nutrient criteria for the label are based on the Association’s dietary recommendations which it explains are consistent with federal dietary guidelines and health recommendations. The mark is intended to convey that a food is of high nutritional value by these standards.

Symbols like the Heart Check mark are functionally equivalent to label claims that a food is “healthy.” Under FDA regulations, foods labeled “healthy,” or any derivative of the term such as “healthier” or “healthful,” must not exceed specific thresholds of fat, saturated fat, sodium, and cholesterol and must contain requisite amounts of other nutrients such as vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein, and fiber, depending upon the food. “[T]he purpose of the ‘healthy’ claim,” explains the FDA, “is to highlight those foods that, based on their nutrient levels, are particularly useful in constructing a diet that conforms to current dietary guidelines.” This is precisely what symbols like the Heart Check mark are intended to convey, and this is how consumers understand them. They should, therefore, be required to meet FDA standards for “healthy” claims.

Some front-of-package nutrition labels place symbols of approval on products within a food category that have comparatively better overall nutritional value, although they may be foods of low nutritional value. The symbol is meant to indicate not that a food is healthy in the absolute sense but merely healthier in a relative sense. For example, the Smart Choices logo has appeared on cereals such as Cocoa Krispies and Froot Loops based on their relatively lower sugar content when compared to other highly-sweetened children’s cereals.

FDA regulations prohibit this type of relative healthy claim, explaining that,

“[t]he usefulness of a food labeled ‘healthy’ is not based on how it compares to a similar food, but on how it contributes to achieving a total diet consistent with dietary recommendations.”

Foods that are healthy only in a relative sense do not contribute to a total diet consistent with dietary recommendations and are, therefore, misleading. Under existing FDA regulations, front-of-package labeling schemes that make this type of relative “healthier” claim should be prohibited.

In a subsequent post, I will address how the FDA could further develop its regulations governing the use of healthy claims to regulate more complex front-of-package labels that rate the overall nutritional value of foods.

Timothy D. Lytton is the Albert and Angela Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School where he teaches regulatory law & policy, constitutional law, administrative law, and tort law. His article “Signs of Change or Clash of Symbols? FDA Regulation of Nutrient Profile Labeling” (forthcoming in Health Matrix, vol. 19, no. 2) is available online by clicking here. He is also working on an article about regulation of nutrition standards for school food. For more information, visit his Albany Law School faculty website.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate