Former President Bill Clinton was released from the hospital a few days ago after undergoing a procedure to bypass a clogged artery. In a statement to reporters at a childhood obesity event of the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, Clinton blamed his poor health on

“the habits I acquired in my childhood, mostly the way I ate and the way it interacted with my own biology and propensity to produce bad cholesterol…I ate too much fried food, too much ice cream, too much everything”. read more…

Fried food – too much fats, too much salt. Ice cream – too much fats, too much sugar. Too much everything – calorie overload. Not a recipe for a healthy life.

What you need to know:

Former president Clinton. First Lady Michelle Obama. Cabinet members. All are involved in some way with our nation’s obesity epidemic. Clinton, like Obama realize that adults who have developed bad habits are much harder to turn around compared to children who have their whole life ahead of them. We all remember president Clinton’s uncontrollable burger cravings. That’s why he and Mrs. Obama are focusing on ways to combat childhood obesity. They’re hoping to affect food consumption patterns at a young age.

Unfortunately the junk food companies know this too. “Get ‘em while they’re young, and they’ll stay loyal to your brand forever”. The consumption patterns their marketing efforts have yielded so far (and continue to shape) will eventually lead millions into hospitals for treatment.

Unless we parents take action.

What to do at the supermarket:

Instead of taking Clinton’s negative remarks of “too much this or that”, let’s focus on the positives, on things you want to get your kids to eat and enjoy. This means real food, with real flavors. Expose them to fruits and vegetables from the minute they can start to chew. Even if they don’t like something, try multiple times, showing them a good example by eating the same. Eventually they will come around and start to eat produce as well. Maybe not everything, but at least french fries and ketchup won’t be your only option.

Get the family into a water drinking habit, relegating sweet juices or sodas to “uncontrollable” events such as holidays or parties out of the home. Tap water is safe, clean, and delicious in almost all parts of the country. And it’s much easier to grow up drinking water than having to switch from soda to H2O as an adult.

By helping your children to develop sophisticated taste buds, you will encourage lifelong appreciation of real food tastes, with less reliance on sugar/fat/sodium. This triumvirate is the lowest common denominator used by the junk food industry to mask all the other band ingredients and make everything seem great.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

The Heart Check Symbol – one of the first front-of-pack nutrition labels – was created by the American Heart Association in 1995. The idea was to give people a quick visual cue as to foods that were low in saturated fat and cholesterol. Unfortunately, the sugar count was not considered. And thus, ridiculously sweet and unhealthy foods started to appear with the heart check symbol.

No more, says an AHA spokesperson:

The association advocates limiting the amount of discretionary calories in the diet which come from added sugars. Since desserts are a significant source of added sugars, we have elected to close the dessert category to further certification.”

What you need to know:

This is a good development.

Endorsements on food products by respected health organizations are a double edged sword. On one hand, the AHA wanted to promote healthier eating habits. But on the other hand it began to develop a tidy little revenue stream, charging companies thousands of dollars per product endorsement.

That creates an unnecessary tension that could potentially cause the criteria for heart healthy food to be lower than if no money was being paid. Not saying that this is what happens, but it could.

In general, nutrition labeling that is not regulated by the FDA is an opening for various tricks, shenanigans, and nutrition voodoo. Instead of contributing to healthier consumer choices, such labels may actually achieve the opposite.

What to do at the supermarket:

Your best bet is NOT to rely on front-of-pack labels or other health claims, and head straight to the ingredient list and nutrition facts panel. Granted, it’s more time consuming and requires effort, but if you need help – we’re here to provide advice.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

The FDA has been more assertive this year with regards to health claims on food products. Here’s an example – the heavyweight bout with cereal giant General Mills:

Round 1: In May, the FDA asked General Mills to explain why its Cheerios packages carried a claim “Lower your cholesterol 4% in 6 weeks” which is more appropriate for a drug, not a food product.

Round 2: In June, the FDA received copies of 4 studies from General Mills substantiating the percentage reduction claims.

Round 3: It took several months to review, but in October the FDA sent its response to those studies. The bottom line – One study was OK, but that’s not enough for a health claim to be approved. Three studies  were not conclusive enough. This is the FDA’s summary:

In conclusion, in determining whether … to authorize the soluble fiber/coronary heart disease claim to include a statement about a specific percentage reduction in LDL cholesterol, FDA would need to consider the totality of the publicly available scientific evidence to support such a statement and also how to convey information in a way that is not misleading.

Round 4: On November 3rd, General Mills responded [PDF] with further clarifications.We won’t go into the details, although we’re sure the company firmly stands behind the research.

Round 5: Yesterday, the FDA published the letter it has sent in October. General Mills decided to respond immediately – a good PR tactic – by publishing its response and a press release:

“discussions with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the cholesterol-lowering benefits of the soluble oat fiber in Cheerios continue.”

Ironically, as these discussions are going on, Cheerios is running a new promotion, with an even bolder claim of 10% reduction in cholesterol in just one month.

What you need to know:

The argument between the FDA and General Mills over what wording is to be allowed may seem like nit-picking to some, but you need to understand that a lot of money is at stake.

Manufacturers use health claims as a marketing tool to increase sales, and have been doing so since for ages. Up until 1991, it was pretty much a wild west when it came to health claims. Manufacturers would claim almost anything they liked. When the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act was passed in the early 1990’s, it seemed as though the claims would go away. The law provided the framework for the FDA to require standardized nutrition facts labels and ingredient list for virtually all packaged foods.

But pressure by food industry lobbies on Congress allowed the manufacturers to add health claims to packages as well. Thankfully though, the claims had to be thoroughly substantiated by scientific research and consensus. The language of the claims was also addressed in the law. There are certain things that can be said, while other can’t. And there’s a way to say it. In the Cheerios example, the FDA warned that the cholesterol reduction wording is more like that of a statin drug than of a food, and therefore out-of-bounds.

Nobody is arguing that Cheerios (the plain unsweetened version) is one of the better cereals out there, with a relatively low sugar count, and high fiber content. But the studies, funded by General Mills, showed that the control groups who ate other cereal products also reduced their cholesterol intake when both groups ate the cereals instead of some other non-fibrous meal. Hey, eating even Sugar Smacks daily, as “part of a healthy, balanced diet including regular exercise” will lead to better heart health.

Incidentally, just a few weeks ago Kellogg’s retracted it’s “Immunity” claims from packages of Cocoa Krispies.

What to do at the supermarket:

While the scientists on both sides of regulation battle it out, here’s the deal when it comes to breakfast cereals - best to ignore health claims. The information you need is on the nutrition facts panel and ingredient list. Look for:

- fiber at more than 3 grams per serving

- sugar at less than 6 grams per serving

- no artificial colors (Yellow 5, Red 40, etc…)

- no partially hydrogenated oils

All the other fortifications (B vitamins, etc..) are nice to have but very similar across the board.

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

Over the weekend Congress (barely) passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act, or H.R. 3962. And while much media attention went to the abortion clauses that were put in / taken out, there were also several food and nutrition related provisions added to the new legislation.

Section 2572 [NUTRITION LABELING OF STANDARD MENU ITEMS AT CHAIN RESTAURANTS AND OF ARTICLES OF FOOD SOLD FROM VENDING MACHINES] will require 2 things:

1. Any operator of 20 or more vending machines will now be required to label the calorie count for each of the items on sale:

the vending machine operator shall provide a sign in close proximity to each article of food or the selection button that includes a clear and conspicuous statement disclosing the number of calories contained in the article

This is great, because it will help people snack a bit more mindfully. Especially important is the labeling of soft drinks and juices. Consumers pick up a vitamin water and are sometimes surprised when they’re told it contains 8 teaspoons of sugar and 130 calories!

2. Restaurant chains with national presence of 20 or more locales will now have to post calorie information as well. The information has to appear on menus as well as on the menu board and drive in menu board where applicable.

There have been calorie labeling efforts in several cities and states across the country in the past 2 years, but now they’ll all come under a single roof.

While calories are a great start, they certainly don’t tell the whole story of a product, so the bill further states that upon request, customers shall also be informed about level of nutrients such as  fat, sodium, and cholesterol.

That’s nice in theory, but you can just imagine a scene where Fred is standing in line at a busy BK, trying to decide whether to go for a cheeseburger or whopper, and asking the Jack the cashier for the saturated fat content of each. While Jack is scratching his head and calling the shift manager who vaguely remembers some brochure buried in the stock room, the line behind Fred gets longer and more restless….

The National Restaurant Association supports the new menu requirement, and with good reason. Better have one single rule, than have each state or municipality come up with its own requirements, as California did.

We would have liked to see more sweeping legislation connected to food and nutrition in this bill. After all, much of our health problems are directly related to poor eating habits. But this will have to wait for another time.

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

School lunch is a hotly debated topic these days.

Around 30 Million children are served a hot lunch every day. The National School Lunch Program is funded and regulated by the Food and Nutrition Service of the USDA. Participating schools get cash minimal subsidies and donated commodities from the USDA for each meal served (now there’s an incentive to get all the kids to eat..). The meals must meet specific nutrition requirements, and eligible children must receive free or reduced price lunches.

So what are people fretting about?

The low budget for the meals usually means preprocessed chicken nuggets, hot dogs, fries, and a host of other fast foods that may be filling, but hardly nutrient rich. Parents, educators, and nutrition professionals would like to see children getting better food. Entrenched businesses find that concept difficult to accept.

Baltimore public schools, serving 80,000 children, decided to try out a new concept – Meatless Mondays. Instead of protein from meats, they are serving up beans and cheese. This is in order to reduce the amount of saturated fats and cholesterol from the meats (although cheese, an animal product, also contains saturated fats and cholesterol).

The decision, reports Eliza Barclay for the Atlantic, has caused the meat industry serious grief. No less than 4 organizations have attacked Baltimore’s moves:

The American Meat Institute says that kids are being deprived of much needed protein. A bogus claim stating that 75% of kids are protein deficient is totally unbased. In fact, there are barely any Americans with a protein deficiency these days.

Pork Magazine alleged that the decision was made without any dietetic consultation. Unfortunately for them, the entire meal plan was created by a school dietitian and a chef.

The Animal Agriculture Alliance and Missouri Beef Concil were just plain “shocked” and hoped this maligned decision would not spread to other communities.

While the  business fears of the meat industry are understandable, only good can come of Meatless Mondays. Nobody is being forced to become a vegetarian, and a good portion of the kids will probably be having some form of meat for dinner anyway. So why the fuss? Introducing children to vegetable lasgana, various bean dishes, and other additions such as whole grains and fresh fruits and vegetables is but a small measure in trying to fix childhood obesity.

Onwards and upwards, school lunchers. Get ready for for tasty Tuesdays and weight-loss Wednesdays…

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

This is a follow-up to our previous post which posed a provocative question – who contributes more to your health, doctors or dietitians?

We’ve gotten insightful feedback from Joan Endyke, MS, LDN, CPT, that we’d like to share:

1. Nutrition Training in Medical School.  Some med schools are incorporating more nutrition ed into their programs. This is great because currently some doctors’  “advice” regarding weight loss and food recommendations is appalling. But even with more nutrition ed in med school, unfortunately doctors do not have the time to listen to a patient and teach him how to change his food habits.

2. It takes more than a 10 minute visit…Dietitians typically spend an hour in an intro meeting with a client to be able to really pinpoint a person’s variables: Is it lack of knowledge? Emotional overeating? Poor planning? Which nutrients are in excess? Which are likely deficient?

During the next visit (another full hour) a good dietitian breaks down the findings, explain the physiological reasoning behind the recommendations (people don’t just want to be told what to eat, they want advice so they are able to make their own informed decisions & their habits are likely to last this way too). Lastly comes  the tricky part – realistic food choices that match a person’s job schedule, family life, activity, income, time available, etc.

This can occur with frequent, consistent follow-up to enable one to develop and maintain the right habits with continued support and advice. All of this takes TIME as well as a skilled professional – but it is well worth it in the end.

3. Health Insurance. The CDC has made “overweight” a billable medical diagnosis. Many health insurance companies allow nutrition visits now, and dietitians are able to capture overweight clients before they develop a chronic condition. HOWEVER, some insurance companies limit individuals to 2 or 3 visits per year. This is really ineffective because these scarce visits do not provide enough face-time with a dietitian for most people to change habits.

This should be remedied. Preventive care should be generously available to all via a mandate and co-payments should be reasonable. Yet clients should also have to show they are committed and making progress to continue to use those health care dollars. This can be done with a quick assessment sent to the insurance company or family physician from the RD.

4. Personal Responsibility and Incentives. In Joan’s opinion, the consumer needs to bear more responsibility in this health care mess – you can’t just blame the health insurers and doctors.

Financial incentives targeting consumer would help shift some of this. People pay more for life insurance if they have high cholesterol or are overweight. Young or reckless drives have increased car insurance rates. Similarly, people who choose to smoke, not manage their weight, cholesterol, blood pressure, etc. should pay a higher premium. If and when they have managed those conditions, the premium should be lowered.

Or it could be a tax incentive for hitting your “health goals.” The proof could be a standard assessment signed off by an MD. There is only so much a dietitian or a doctor can do – individuals need to make the changes. But they should be allowed visits with a dietitian to help them. If they choose not to – that’s fine, it’s a free country, but others should not have to bear the burden of their likely use of greater health care dollars in the long run.

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

An encouraging development in the world of food manufacturing. Food giant Cargill has shut a production line in  Wichita, Kansas that has been manufacturing hydrogenated oils:

President of Cargill’s dressings, sauces and oils division Mike Venker said in a statement: “The demand for hydrogenated oils has decreased significantly as a result of trans fat reduction in foods, therefore leaving the plant underutilized. We made every effort to keep the production at the plant, but ultimately could not achieve acceptable production efficiencies.” [See Progressive Grocer]

And thank goodness for that. Despite the loss of jobs.

What you need to know:

Trans Fat is just plain EVIL.

It has been unequivocally shown to increase the chances of heart disease because it raises the levels of LDL, the bad cholesterol, in our bloodstream. This leads to clogged arteries and other precursors of coronary ailments.

Trans fat is mostly man-made, and found in hydrogenated oils. These are vegetable oils that are “bombed” with hydrogen atoms in a process that makes them solid at room temperature (think margarine).

Since 2006, the FDA has mandated that the amount of trans fat in foods be labeled on product packages. In addition, several states and municipalities have banned the use of trans fat in restaurants.

Trans fat in the form of partially hydrogenated oil is most common in baked and fried foods, in which it can count for up to 45 percent of total fat content. It is cheaper to produce than healthier oils like canola or olive oil, provides food manufacturers with greater processing stability and gives foods a longer shelf life. Therefore, commercially produced shortenings in the US have traditionally contained high levels of hydrogenated fats.

But guess what, pressure from the FDA and local lawmakers had a positive effect. The food industry figured out a way to make the same foods without trans fat. In fact, over the last 5 years, demand for trans fat laden hydrogenated oils has declined by  75% percent in the US.

By the way, Cargill is one of the largest private companies in the US, dealing mostly in agricultural products such as grains, livestock, and eggs. If it were public, it would be in the top 10 companies of the Fortune 100 list. It has 160,000 employees worldwide and sold 120 BILLION dollars worth globally last year.

What to do at the supermarket:

We’re not safe yet. There are still plenty of foods out there with trans fat. Always check the nutrition panel for 0 trans fat, as well as the ingredient list to make sure there are no “partially hydrogenated vegetable oils“.

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

It’s not the most important meal of the day. And it’s not the heartiest either. Lunch, the get-it-on-the-run or have-it-at-the-computer meal doesn’t get enough respect. And how could it, when products like Oscar Meyer’s Lunchable’s take its name in vain.

We tried and tried to find something healthy and nutritious among the dozens of Lunchable products. Unfortunately all we encountered was a nutrition desert, left in shambles by sodium blizzards and trans fat torrents.

Read on for an analysis of Oscar Meyer’s Lunchables Turkey & Cheddar Cracker Stackers… Read more…

We wrote a few days ago about the odd health claim General Mills has tacked on to its Cheerios breakfast Cereal. According to the cereal manufacturer, consuming Cheerios reduces cholesterol by 10% in a month.

Seems like we weren’t the only ones that got ticked. The FDA has officially scolded General Mills last week. But the FDA is not disputing the health claim itself. The FDA wants it to be rephrased, because as it appears now, Cheerios would have to be classified as a drug, not a food.

Ridiculous, no?

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

Image via Wikipedia

Add this to the ever growing list of ridiculous health claims from food manufacturers. General Mills, one of the breakfast cereal quartet (Post, Quaker, and Kellogg’s are the other 3), has published a press release:

Research presented today [...] revealed Cheerios can help lower cholesterol by 10 percent in one month.

The study, which was conducted and presented by Provident Clinical Research, found that eating two 1 1/2 cup servings of Cheerios daily, as part of a reduced calorie diet low in fat, lowered LDL or “bad” cholesterol about 10 percent in one month. Cheerios is the only leading ready-to-eat cereal clinically proven to lower cholesterol.

“We monitored the diets of study participants for 12 weeks, and a clinical evaluation of their cholesterol levels showed coupling Cheerios with a reduced calorie diet significantly helps lower LDL cholesterol levels,” said Kevin C. Maki, Ph.D. of Provident Clinical Research. “We were impressed with how effectively eating Cheerios daily as part of a reduced calorie diet lowered bad cholesterol. These are simple changes that are easy for most people to make.”

Read the entire propaganda…

What you need to know:

Cheerios is definitely one of the better choices in the breakfast cereal category, as it is made from whole wheat and is very low in sugar.

But don’t buy into the marketing claims disguised as scientific research. Here is why:

1. The research was conducted by Provident Clinical Research, a for-profit institute that gets paid by General Mills and other manufacturers to design, implement, and analyze tests that will always shine a bright light on the product in question.

2. There is no mention of how the test was conducted, on whom, was there a control group, etc… How scientific could this test be if the information is not disclosed.

3. The subjects tested changed their diets not only by eating Cheerios twice a day, but by switching to a reduced calorie low fat diet. No doubt, dietitians helped these people make smart choices over the 12 week test period so that cholesterol would shoot down. But just how much did the Cheerios themselves contribute to the cholesterol reduction?

What to do at the supermarket:

Don’t base your purchasing choice on marketing hype and health claims that are worthless. In the cereal aisle, look for cereals made with whole grains and low amounts of sugar (less than 6 grams per serving). Cheerios definitely makes the grade, but not because of the silly paid-for science report they have brought to the public’s attention.

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