Just when we thought we had covered all the nutrition rating systems out there, here’s a new system being implemented at Whole Foods Market stores nationwide. ANDI, short for Aggregate Nutrient Density Index, is the brainchild of author, MD, and founder of Eat Right America, Dr. Joel Fuhrman.

The ANDI system is a part of a bigger initiative by Whole Foods, entitled Health Starts Here, which encompasses not just making healthy food available, but also providing education on what to do what with that food (culinary lessons, 28 day programs to jump start healthy eating habits…).

The healthy eating principles WFM is promoting are:

• plant based diet
• whole foods (less processed flours, for example)
• low fat – or the right fats (unsaturated, more from plants and less from animals)
• nutrient dense (that’s where ANDI comes in)

The ANDI score, based on a Dr. Fuhrman’s Nutrient Density Scoring System analyzes many nutrients in a food product

Calcium, Carotenoids: Beta Carotene, Alpha Carotene, Lutein & Zeaxanthin, Lycopene, Fiber, Folate, Glucosinolates, Iron, Magnesium, Niacin, Selenium, Vitamin B1 (Thiamin) Vitamin B2 (Riboflavin), Vitamin B6, Vitamin B12, Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Zinc, plus ORAC score X 2 (Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity is a method of measuring the antioxidant or radical scavenging capacity of foods).

The data for whole foods such as produce, grains, and legumes is relatively easy to analyze based on USDA databases. It is much more complicated to get accurate info for packaged or processed foods, especially because the ingredients in a processed food interact with each other and change the nutrition profile of a product.

Here is a table with some sample scores. The highest score is 1000, the lowest is close to zero.

This is a very interesting table, especially if one compares it to NuVal ranking which goes from 1-100. Take a look at these 4 healthy products and their scores:

• Kale – 1000
• Orange – 109
• Whole wheat bread – 25
• Olive oil – 9

A naive shopper may be led to believe that kale is the only product worth consuming. But all 4 of the aforementioned are healthy and needed by our bodies. Dr. Fuhrman addresses this:

Keep in mind that nutrient density scoring is not the only factor that determines good health. For example, if we only ate foods with a high nutrient density score our diet would be too low in fat. So we have to pick some foods with lower nutrient density scores (but preferably the ones with the healthier fats) to include in our high nutrient diet.

So wouldn’t it be more practical to create a scoring system that doesn’t require people to analyze a score , the product type, the required nutrients and then decide? The entire point is to simplify life for consumers, not complicate it!

Whole Foods is perceived as a healthier, albeit expensive, grocery retailer. But recently John Mackey, WFM CEO and founder, openly admitted that his chain sells lots of junk food. The Health Starts Here program may be a signal that Mackey is retuning to the roots of what WFM stood for in the seventies when just starting out.

The ANDI scores are an interesting first step in trying to help consumers better choose healthier foods, and it will be very interesting to see consumer response. We expect Whole Foods will continue to introduce and test additional tools to help their customers.

What to do at the supermarket:

Don’t let the Whole Foods health halo confuse you, as organic junk food is still junk food. Stick to the less processed products, of which Whole Foods has copious amounts, including in bulk (cheaper).

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 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…

Are you a loyal fan of a specific cereal brand? Is it the flavor? The nutritional value you once took the time to look up? The only thing your kids will eat? Well here’s some bad news. Manufacturers can, and often do, change product formulations, and you don’t even know about it. Sometimes the changes are not necessarily in the consumers best interest.

Thanks to Marion Nestle’s Food Politics blog for pointing out a falling out between loyal customers and Cascadian Farms, an organic food manufacturer that was acquired by General Mills in 1999. (To be precise, it was actually acquired by Small Planet Foods earlier in the 1990’s. General Mills acquired Small Planet in 1999)

The issue at hand – Cascadian Farm Purely O’s Cereal and a recent reformulation that TRIPLED the sugar count without notifying consumers. The company’s website is abuzz with rants by (ex)-loyal customers:

As a mother of three, and devoted Cascadian Farm consumer, I can’t imagine why more sugar was added to previously excellent product. We consumed about 2,3 boxes of Purely O’s per week until my children all the sudden told med how they tasted differently. Naively, I thought it would be marked on the box if any changes of the products had taken place…then I noticed the increased sugar content. This made us lose faith in your entire brand.

OR

How you can call this cereal “Purely O’s” is beyond me. SUGAR!!??? Really???? CORN?? Really?? Why do we need another corn based,sugary cereal in the grocery aisles? And it is very sneaky to not announce a change on the box.

What you need to know:

In the past, Purely O’s had a front of pack label claiming “No added sugar”. This label disappeared a while ago. Then in October, the company changed its product formulation, without informing consumers.

To be fair, the increase in sugar is from 1 gram to 3 gram, which still leaves these O’s a better choice than virtually all other sweetened cereals.

The company lowered the sodium content from 280 to 200mg, which is commendable, but still too high for a breakfast cereal.

Other changes include removing whole grain barley flour and instead using corn meal. To compensate for the fiber loss, they’ve added oat fiber. The total fiber count hasn’t changed and is 3 grams per serving, the minimum you should be getting from a breakfast cereal.

So why hide the change? It’s not like people won’t notice – the ingredient list and nutrition panel are on the box, for crying out loud. Why the need for all this sneakiness? Didn’t General Mills know it would lose its loyal base of Cascadian Farms fans? Most likely, a focus group showed that the loss of a few loyal fans would be compensated for by an influx of new consumers for whom 3 grams of sugar is a 60-70% reduction.

We’ve updated the CerealScan database to reflect these changes. Cascadian Farm Purely O’s is still a top scorer, but for a group of (no longer) loyal customers, that doesn’t matter anymore.

What to do at the supermarket:

When buying a breakfast cereal, look for low sugar (6 or less grams. 3 grams is considered very low), high fiber (3 or more grams), and less than 150mg sodium per serving. Obviously, artificial colors are a big No No. These factors are much more important factors for your heath than whether the cereal is organic or not.

And just to reiterate, despite the changes, Purely O’s are still a better choice than most other cereals out there.

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!)

A great article called The Vita Myth appeared earlier this week in online magazine Slate. Science writer Emily Anthes tears apart the $25B-a-year-and-growing supplement industry.

Half of Americans pop a multivitamin or other supplement regularly. But substantial studies in the past few years have shown that for the most part, these supplements did not provide any health benefits, aside from those of the supplement companies:

1. A study of more than 160,000 post-menopausal women, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, found that multi-vitamins supplements did not prevent cancer, heart attacks, or strokes and did not reduce overall mortality. [see here]

2. A 2006 National Institutes of Health panel of experts evaluated evidence that vitamin pills could prevent chronic disease. The scientists that there is no “strong evidence for beneficial health-related effects of supplements taken singly, in pairs, or in combinations.”

3. Antioxidant supplements (vitamins A, C, and E, selenium, beta carotene, and folate) fail to protect against heart disease, stroke, and cancer. But, get this, they actually increase the risk of death, according to a 2007 analysis of research on more than 232,000 people, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Wow – this boggles the mind.

What you need to know:

The American Dietetic Association just recently reminded us that people should get their nutrients from real food, not supplements. The science of nutrition is relatively young, and for every known nutrient, there are hundreds that scientists have yet to figure out. Interactions between various nutrients in a certain vegetable or fruit contribute differently to your health than if you just take a pill with one or two vitamins.

Some people argue that we must take a daily multi-vitamin because the produce in this nation has been depleted of it nutritional value over the past few decades. This, due to the depletion of nutrient from soil as a result of industrialized agriculture, pesticide use, and monocultures.

Hogwash, according to Joanne Larsen, RD, of Ask the Dietitian: There is no proof that soil is losing its mineral content.  Minerals in soil are pretty stable and don’t migrate unless there is erosion or flooding that washes minerals away.  Soils are replenished with fertilizers (organic or chemical) periodically.

Individual vitamins are created by fruits and vegetables through the oxidative process determined by each plant’s genetics.  Some plants are naturally high in particular nutrients than others. We are not seeing mutations in plant genetics that affect vitamin content. If soils were becoming depleted of nutrients, we would see widespread nutrient deficiencies in the American population.  We are not.

So if real food has all the vitamins and minerals we need, and supplements could actually be detrimental, how is it that we are paying  twenty five billion dollars a year for what amounts to smoke and mirrors?

Note: There are people that require specific boosts in certain nutrients. We’re not referring to those needs here.

What to do at the supermarket:

If you are a healthy person, get your nutrition from real food. Plenty of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, dairy and meat. The less processed the better. You never know what “benefits” the presence of industrial additives and artificial chemicals will amount to once inside your body.

And foods that are fortified with lots of vitamins and minerals, for example breakfast cereals? A secondary consideration compared to the importance of whole grains and low sugar content.

Says Emily Anthes – we should stop treating supplements like health candy and more like prescription meds, to be used only when there’s a demonstrated need.

(hat tip to Dan Mitchell of The Daily Bread for the story)

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

While everyone is focusing on food trends for 2010 (see here and here), we took a riskier guess into trends for the next decade. We could be totally wrong, come back in December 2019 and let us know.

* More functional foods - the trend is clear, people want to eat the same tasty and cheap food, spend less time preparing it, but get a bigger nutritional bang for every dollar spent and calorie consumed. More scientific discoveries of micronutrients will create new marketing buzzwords, just like the passing decade did (how many of us knew about omega-3 in 1999?). Nanotechnology will also play a role in modifying foods we know into something “healthier for us”, see example here.

* More information – As the Internet reaches the palm of our hands (iphone, blackberry, etc..) we consumers will be able to make better choices when selecting our foods. Comparing prices, nutrition, learning new recipes, and even tracking down which farm that tomato was grown on are all becoming a reality now .

* Genetically modified food – Already today a vast majority of the corn and soy in the US is genetically modified, and it seems like all the activism in the world is not going to stop other crops. Without getting into the crossfire of the debate here, expect more developments and more pressure by companies like Monsanto on agriculture departments across the globe to start planting GMOs.

* Sustainable Food - hand in hand with the monoculture crops and GMOs, a growing number of people will seek a sustainable, or close to it, approach to feeding themselves. Important as it may be, only a small part of the population will be able to partake in this noble lifestyle. The modern capitalistic world does not allow for large systems of small independent farms – not economically efficient, meaning high price for food – meaning many will continue to opt for cheaper “conventional” food. Also – to be truly sustainable and peruse local food, many people in Europe and the US would need to give up bananas, tomatoes in the winter, coffee, and many other comforts we can’t imagine living without. Too difficult. Please – prove me wrong!

* More profits for the big food companies – No matter what trends and prophesies will fulfill themselves, companies will continue to eek out monster profits. if you think healthier less-bad choices by consumers mean less profit for the big food manufacturers, you are wrong. Manufacturers charge a premium for health, even just a health halo. Slap the words “Natural” “Health”, and others on product packages, and you can charge 10, 20, and even 50 percent more for basically the same product. If you think organic foods reduced the profits of big companies, just look at who owns all the big organic brands. That’s right, the big conventional food companies.

What do you think?

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

Food, Inc., the powerful, and slightly depressing, documentary about our modern food industry is out on DVD today. You can buy the movie from Amazon.com here. If you didn’t have a chance to catch this movie in theaters earlier this year, it is highly recommended.

The documentary touches upon many aspects of the modern, industrialized food system, whose quest for efficiency and economies of scale has led to cheap food for everyone. This, at a high cost to the environment, farmers, animals, and our health.

The first part of the movie examines meat and poultry “production” by taking the viewer to CAFO – concentrated animal feeding operation – basically a huge factory for building the biggest, fattest, animal in the shortest amount of time and with the cheapest feed possible.

The next segment focuses on corn and how this single crop, heavily subsidized by the US government,  has completely changed the food industry. This, mostly through using it as cheap feed for animals, and even cheap sweetener in the form of high fructose corn syrup.

The last part discusses food safety, or rather unsafety that is the result of the huge factory farm systems. A mother who lost her two year old son to e-coli, from a hamburger he ate when they were on a family vacation, is now crusading for improved safety standards. Unfortunately for her, she and the few congress-people on her side are facing a massive, well-funded food/ag lobby that likes things just as they are.

The movie is presented straight forward without the over-dramatizations of Michael Moore’s works, yet it is this lackluster narrative that drives the message home.

Some critics view the movie as a one-sided attack on the food industry that does not provide real alternatives to feeding a planet with 6 billion people. The producers stated that they invited all the large food manufacturers to share their views and participate in the movie, but that they had declined.

We’ll let you be the judge, but don’t base your decision on just one movie. Read more about the food you’re eating, how it got to your table, your supermarket, your country.

For us, one big question looms after learning the issues: Is there an inherent conflict between economies of scale and sustainable food production?

What to do at the supermarket:

You’ll certainly view the food you eat and buy differently after watching Food, Inc. While some people may take an extreme approach and revamp their entire pantry, most of us can make slower gradual changes in our eating habits.

Here are some of the changes the movie’s producers suggest:

Stop drinking sodas and other sweetened beverages. You can lose 25 lbs in a year by replacing one 20 oz soda a day with a no calorie beverage (preferably water).

Eat at home instead of eating out. Children consume almost twice (1.8 times) as many calories when eating food prepared outside the home.

Tell schools to stop selling sodas, junk food, and sports drinks. Over the last two decades, rates of obesity have tripled in children and adolescents aged 6 to 19 years.

Meatless Mondays—Go without meat one day a week.

Buy organic or sustainable food with little or no pesticides. According to the EPA, over 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used each year in the U.S.

Make a point to know where your food comes from—READ LABELS. The average meal travels 1500 miles from the farm to your dinner plate.

Remember that whatever small upgrades you choose, you’ll be affecting not only your health, but also impacting the environment, and all the people, animals, and crops along the food chain from farm to the fork.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

The days are getting colder and many families are switching from breakfast cereal to hot oatmeal. We took a look at Nature’s Path Organic Instant Hot Oatmeal – Apple Cinnamon to see just how good it would be to start of the day.

What you need to know:

The ingredient list (which does not appear on the company’s website) is short:

Organic rolled oats, organic evaporated cane juice, organic dried apple, organic cinnamon, sea salt, natural flavor.

Only 6 ingredients (good), but why is sugar #2 on the list? (In case you didn’t notice, “organic evaporated cane juice” is fancy-speak for sugar). At least we can understand what each ingredient is, expect for the last one. Natural flavor is a code word for some secret hush hush formula of herbs/spices/fragrances that gives this product a supposed edge over competitors. We’d rather have that spelled out for us too.

The nutrition panel says each packet contains 50 grams and will set you back 210 calories (before added milk). 64 calories come from the 14 grams of sugar inside. Since the FDA does not mandate labeling how much sugar is added to a product and how much is naturally present (through the apples, for example), it’s hard to know the exact ratio. It’s safe to assume though, as sugar in #2 in the ingredient list, that at least 3 teaspoons are added sugar, and not  sugar from the dried apples.

From a vitamin and mineral perspective, there are virtually non labeled as present, except for 10% iron. However, that’s simply because many organic products don’t get “artificially” fortified. We wouldn’t get too excited over all those B vitamins that most of us get enough of from other foods on a regular basis.

There are 4 grams of fiber (about 16% of the daily value which is good.)

Summary – we would be happy to recommend this product if Nature’s Path would cut down on the added sugar. Even non-organic competitors such as Quaker Oats only have 12 grams of sugar.

What to do at the supermarket:

Generally, organic products tend to have short, understandable ingredient lists (but not always – we’ve seen plenty of organic junk food). This product has too much sugar than we would like. Look for other options with less than 8 grams of sugar in the per serving (2 teaspoons), especially if they don’t have any fruit inside.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

First Lady Michelle Obama is making a guest appearance on Sesame Street in honor of the show’s 40th anniversary. Elmo, Big Bird and 3 cute kids get to plant some seeds and talk about the health benefits of eating veggies.

Future farmers? probably not, but credit the the First Lady for pushing the agenda of good nutrition through fresh local food, some of it grown in your own back yard.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

A growing number of foodies are looking to the Internet to discover and order tasty gems. These are artisan food products that are manufactured in small batches, usually from organic, local ingredients. The mom&pop operations are very small, will never reach national distribution, and at best are sold at supermarkets in the close vicinity of the producer.

Though some artisans have an online website and ecommerce platform, many don’t have the time or tech savvy to manage such a geeky operation. Another problem they face is marketing. How do you get the world to know you make the best darn beef jerky, or that your organic boysenberry preserves are comparable to ambrosia?

The solution of course is online marketplaces. There are several websites operating online to choose from. Three of the more popular sites are Regional Best, Foodoro, and Foodzie. All three focus on non-perishable items and allow sellers and buyers to interact directly for a cut of the sale and/or a flat fee from the sellers. Another newcomer, Local Dirt, connects buyers and sellers of locally-grown produce and meat and dairy products.

We interviewed Marsha, co-founder of Regional Best to learn more about this growing segment. Read more…

The school year has started and for many children this means lunch served in the school cafeteria. While not all children partake in this tradition, those who do are often served a nutritionally poor meal. A nifty website, What’s For School Lunch?, shows pictures of various school lunches from around the country and the world.

Not at all heartening to say the least. Almost no fruits and vegetables, plenty of fried and processed foods, and even the milk is chocolate flavored, meaning it’s also loaded with sugar.

What’s a parent to do?

Luckily there are resources for concerned parents. One of them is Better School Food, headed by Dr. Susan Rubin. In her letter to parents Dr. Rubin writes:

Welcome to the world of school food. Thanks to tight budgets, most cafeterias have to be self-sustainable or make a profit to survive. And poor-quality food is quick, cheap and profitable. Food service profits, but our children’s health has become the price we pay.

Dr. Rubin also touches upon the social ramifications of healthifying your child’s lunch while all his friends are pigging out on chicken nuggets and 20 oz coke bottles.

Brown bagging your kid’s lunch can work for individual families, but it doesn’t come close to touching the issue on the scale it needs to be addressed. Candy rewards in the classroom, frequent parties loaded with sweets, food fundraisers and vending machines loaded with junk have turned schools into a toxic food environment. Kids want to fit in and they want to eat what everyone else eats.

The website provides practical advice for parents. If enough parents in a school care, changes can be made. But you can rest assured that if you stay passive, your school will be slow to change its habits.