Chicken. The healthy alternative to beef. The original white meat. Raise your hand if you don’t have chicken at least once or twice a week, if not daily. And when you buy it unprepared, you’re getting an all natural product. NOT.

Turns out you are paying for a product with natural ingredients – Chicken, water, salt. Up to 15% salt water, injected into the chicken, and approved by the USDA! Consumer watchdog group CSPI has this to say

The practice of pumping up poultry with salt water is basically a hidden tax of up to 15 percent that extracts about $2 billion from American consumers each year. This isn’t about “enhancing” chicken, it’s about enhancing profits.

Think of it this way. You think you’re buying 7.5 pounds of chicken, if 15 percent is water weight; you’re really getting less than six and a half pounds of chicken and more than one pound of added water. read more…

What you need to know:

This is a double whammy for consumers – pay more-get less AND kill yourself with excess salt.

Raw chicken has very little sodium in it, only 50-75mg per 4 z serving. But the injected versions has as much as 550mg! That’s when the maximum recommended consumption should be 2400mg per day or 1500mg for adults over 45, certain ethnic groups, and people with high blood pressure. Most Americans are already consuming 4000mg per day, and this leads to various health complications that kill 100,000 people annually.

The Truthful Labeling Coalition, is a lobbying group of poultry producers that don’t enhance their products. They’ve been pushing the USDA to change its policy, currently allowing up to 15% of the product sold to us as chicken to be salty water.

Manufacturers who add sodium claim that this is what consumers want. Of course, clearer labeling would help consumers better understand and decide for themselves if they want this dubious “benefit”.

What to do at the supermarket:

Read the fine print on the label. If it says “enhanced with broth / marinade” or something similar, this means it could contain up to 15% water and a whole lot of sodium you don’t need. You get punished twice – paying for chicken and getting water, and the excess sodium.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate
New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

Earlier this week, The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) published an open letter to the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) asking the government organization to stop its affiliation with The Coca Cola Company. From CSPI’s press release:

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute should not partner with Coca-Cola to raise awareness of heart disease among women…overweight and obesity are prime risk factors for heart disease, and the agency shouldn’t be bolstering the dismal reputation of the Coca-Cola Company, the world’s biggest manufacturer of obesigenic soft drinks

…Supermodel Heidi Klum is described on the government web site as the “Diet Coke heart health ambassador.”

…”Coke has long sought to affiliate with or co-opt health groups, and associate its brand with athletes and models. I fervently hope that NHLBI officials understand that letting Coke bask in their agency’s good reputation does American hearts far more harm than good.” read more…

What you need to know:

This is not the first nor last sponsorship of health organizations by the Coca Cola company. Just a few months ago we wrote about the $600,000 contribution to the American Association of Family Physicians, to be used “to  educate consumers about the role their products can play in a healthy, active lifestyle.” Yeah, right.

If you’re thinking, this is OK, Diet Coke does not contribute to obesity and heart disease, you may want to reconsider:

1. Our body gets confused by artificial sweeteners that may actually promote weight gain.
2. We’re “Infantilizing” our taste sense and as a result natural sweets like fruit aren’t as appetizing.
3. The long term health effects of artificial sweeteners are unclear.

While Coke is just one example, what we’re seeing is a generally accepted norm. Non-profit organizations, and even government bodies, have to accept money from the very corporations that contribute to the maladies they are trying to prevent. Crazy no?

You may argue and say that unlike cigarettes, no one food can kill you, and what about fun factor. Sure thing, but a company that deals in good vibes and lifestyle should stick to sponsoring music events and beach parties, not health and diet related associations.

Consider that even this country’s ultimate food and nutrition advisor – the American Dietetic Association – is sponsored by the likes of Coke and Mars. When I asked dietitians about this, some were agnostic while others pragmatically explained that there is no other way to fund research and educational activities that will ultimately benefit consumers.

Such is the state of affairs in America,  2010.

What to do at the supermarket:

It’s hard to quantify the compound effect of all these sponsorships, but you certainly can do your share to show you know better. Ignore the marketing messages on cans and boxes. Stick to the nutrition facts panel and ingredient lists of products you are considering. And specifically referring to soft drinks, whether sugary or non-caloric, did you know that you can save $500 for a family of four, just by switching to tap water?

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

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  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

Just as the year is ending, the tireless consumer advocacy group CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) has sent a 158 page report to the FDA, entitled Food Labeling Chaos – the case for reform [download PDF]. In it, the organization claims that nutrition labeling today is insufficient, and that existing regulations are too lax to deal with the marketing brainpower of the food industry.

If you have a nutrition label addiction like we do, this report is awesome. The authors break the issues down into 3 areas:

1. Improving the Nutrition Facts Panel
2. Improving ingredient labels
3. Stopping false and misleading health-related claims

They provide examples, from a wide range of product by Kellogg’s , Nestlé, Gerber,  Minute Maid, and others of why regulatory changes are needed ASAP:

Smart Start Cereal by Kellogg’s misleads consumers to believe that half a cup of added sugar a day is approved by the Institute of Health (that’s 125 grams or 600 empty calories!)

Glacéau vitamin water that comes in 20 fl oz bottles misleads people to think that a serving is only 8oz. In fact, most people gulp down the entire bottle receiving 125 calories instead of just 50.

Thomas’ Hearty Grains English Muffins claim to be “made with the goodness of whole grain” and “made with whole grains”, when in fact the primary ingredient is “unbleached enriched wheat flour,” meaning white flour without the benefits of the whole grain (fiber).

“Consumers need honest labeling so they can spend their food dollars wisely and avoid diet-related disease,” said CSPI senior staff attorney Ilene Ringel Heller, co-author of the report. “Companies should market their foods without resorting to the deceit and dishonesty that’s so common today. And, if they don’t, the FDA should make them.”

What you need to know:

The food industry has a very strong lobby and indirectly exerts a lot of pressure on the FDA. Changes will occur slowly, if at all, and the smart folks in the business sector will always find loopholes and tricks to keep consumers just confused enough to want to buy their products.

What to do at the supermarket:

Don’t fall for marketing tricks disguised as nutrition claims. Simply ignore health claims on the front of the package. Read both nutrition facts panel AND ingredient list, to get a better picture of what food you are buying. Buy products with short, understandable, ingredient lists.

HAVE A HAPPY AND HEALTHY NEW YEAR !!!

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

Yesterday we wrote about the FDA’s plan to refresh nutrition labels and made several of our own suggestions. In parallel, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a consumer watchdog organization, published its own set of recommendations. They’ve done a great job, including some very cool graphics. You can download their 2 page report here [PDF]. Tara Parker-Pope of the New York Times also has a good summary.

Some of CSPI’s recommendations include:

1. Putting calorie and serving size information in larger type at the top of the label so it’s immediately clear how much you are eating. To that, we would add listing the entire calorie content of a package soa person doesn’t have to do the math.

2. Making the ingredient list easier to read by printing it in regular type instead of all capital letters. Use bullets to separate ingredients rather than allowing them to all run together. This is a good point – consumers have a hard time just reading what’s in the box, let alone trying to understand it.

3. Listing similar ingredients together and show the percentage by weight. For instance, sugar, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup and grape juice concentrate are all forms of sugar and should be listed in parenthesis under the catchall heading “sugars.”

4. Using red labeling and the word “high” when a product has more than 20 percent of the daily recommendation for fats, sugars, sodium or cholesterol. This is a good idea, but we think focusing on sodium, sugar, and saturated fats should be enough. Not all fats are bad, and avocados, high in healthy fats, would be reprimanded in vain.

5. Displaying prominently the percentage of whole grains contained in a product – This is important because many times a bread or pasta will boast “multi-grain” or “whole-grain” when only a small percent of the wheat used is whole, and the rest is plain white flour, devoid of fiber and other nutrients.

What to do at the supermarket:

Until the FDA actually does something, we still have a while to go. In the meantime, shop around the perimeter of the supermarket, look for products with short ingredient lists,  and when in doubt, ask us.

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

Popcorn, the quintessential snack of the movies, is a long standing tradition.

The Good: it’s a healthy, low calories snack – very filling due to its fiber content, and less than 100 calories per 3 cups of air popped popcorn.

The Bad: Problems start when pop corn is bathed in oils and butters and serving sizes balloon to double, triple, and higher of the the 3 cup portion size.

The VERY BAD: Popcorn served in movie theaters, in conjunction with soda pop. The Center for Science in the Public Interest just published a report on this matter, and some of the finding were outrageous – Regal theaters largest size popcorn and soda are the caloric equivalent of three McDonald’s Quarter Pounders PLUS 12 pats of butter. The 1600 calories are almost a whole day’s worth, while the 60 grams of saturated fat are supposed to get you by a long weekend (that’s 3 days!). It’s got 20 cups of popcorn, or almost 7 times the recommended portion size.

“Regal and AMC are our nominees for Best Supporting Actor in the Obesity Epidemic,” said CSPI senior nutritionist Jayne Hurley

Oh well, at least that combo is quite expensive, $12.00. That should give some people pause, if not the nutritional atrocity.

Compare to the innocent serving sizes of the 1950’s drive-ins in the clip above.

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 consumer watchdog group CSPI published [PDF] a provocative list of 10 healthy foods that have been involved in large scale contamination in the past few years:

1. LEAFY GREENS: 363 outbreaks involving 13,568 reported cases of illness
2. EGGS: 352 outbreaks , 11,163 illness
3. TUNA: 268 outbreaks , 2341 illness
4. OYSTERS: 132 outbreaks , 3409 illness
5. POTATOES: 108 outbreaks , 3659 illness
6. CHEESE: 83 outbreaks , 2761 illness
7. ICE CREAM: 74 outbreaks , 2594 illness
8. TOMATOES: 31 outbreaks , 3292 illness
9. SPROUTS: 31 outbreaks , 2022 illness
10. BERRIES: 25 outbreaks , 3397 illness

The group is not trying to scare us away from these foods, it is simply pointing out a fact that the FDA must do a better job of enforcing safety regulations on growers, shippers, and manufacturers. The FDA should be given the tools by law:

the United States Senate should follow the House and pass legislation that reforms our fossilized food safety laws

What you need to know:

Food Safety is something we take for granted when everything is OK. But a rushed trip to the emergency room, fevers, cramps, bloody stools, or worse remind us how fragile we are vs tiny contaminants that find their way into our food. And the grave responsibility of the entire supply chain in providing us safe food.

While we believe that most companies try to maintain high standards of safety, there is always room for improvement. Unfortunately, many times the pressure to cut costs is at odds with additional safety measures.

Just this past January the great peanut butter recall exposed how easy it is for one bad apple (or in this case peanut) to infiltrate hundreds of food items.

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

Michael Jacobson is the director of the non-profit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a non-profit consumer advocacy group that serves as an almost lone crusader against the might of the food industry lobbies in Washington DC. At a weekend nutrition conference at Tufts University, Dr. Jacobson presented, as he has been doing for decades, the case against excess salt consumption.

He began his presentation with a proclamation that salt is the single deadliest ingredient in our food supply – worse than all the additives, pesticides, and trans fats combined.

After reviewing the regulatory history of salt over the past 50 years, it was quite obvious that government efforts not only failed in curbing sodium consumption, it has actually gone up. (If you are wondering why, look no further than the average American pantry. Each year, more processed food takes the place of unprocessed cooking ingredients. Salt is used in many of these processed items as both a preservative and a flavor enhancer.)

The FDA held a public hearing on salt in 2007, one of many such activities that ultimately ended up yielding no tangible results.
But there is some hope. The UK, as well as New York City are mounting campaigns calling for the voluntary reduction of salt in processed foods in an incremental fashion over the course of the next 10 years.

And some manufacturers are playing game. In some product categories, there is a two to threefold variation in sodium levels. This means that salt can be removed without harming the product’s flavor. Additional measures include using potassium chloride (instead of sodium chloride), using herbs and spices to round off the flavor, and setting a different size of salt crystals to create a saltier taste perception while actually using less salt.

At the end of the day, Dr. Jacobson believes sodium reduction needs to be handled both through regulation and by industry efforts.

He notes the good work done by Campbell’s, who took a bet reducing sodium by 30% in their best selling tomato soup product line, which accounts for 15% of their sales. Campbell’s is heavily touting the new formulation in its current marketing campaigns. Other food processors opted to silently reduce sodium levels, as in their minds consumers associate less salt with bland product flavor.

On the regulatory front, CSPI would like to see the FDA partially revoke salt’s GRAS (generally regarded as safe) status if the amount per serving in certain food categories is above a certain threshold. And the USDA should also be involved, as 20% of the salt in foods comes from USDA regulated products such as hot dogs and chickens injected with a salt water “broth” of up to 200mg per serving.

Dr. Jacobson ended his talk on an optimistic note, hoping that 2010 will be the year of the salt. He left the podium with one last stat – a 100mg daily reduction in sodium consumption by every American will reduce health care costs in the US by $18 billion!

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