In a blow to consumer in the UK, and possibly in the US, The Food Standards Agency (same as our FDA) has decided to back off their proposed traffic light nutrition labeling on the front of food packages. According to the Daily Mail:

The FSA board yesterday supported a plan that will allow food companies to decide for themselves whether they want to use the colour-based system or a number of alternatives.

The net effect is that families will continue to be confronted by a range of confusing nutrition labelling schemes that are difficult to decipher.

Tesco and other leading industry figures have spent millions of pounds trying to kill off traffic light labelling.They have developed alternative schemes which critics insist only serve to confuse customers.

The decision by the FSA is a major climb down by the Government watchdog. Its support for traffic light labels was central to a wider policy to tackle the problem of rising obesity and ill-health. Read more…

What you need to know:

This is an unfortunate happening that is bound to have a ripple effect on our labeling regulations as well. The FDA is getting more aggressive with the food industry’s misleading health claims. The next step would be to create a standard front of pack labeling system that would serve consumers by not only embellishing positive traits of a product, but also warn about high levels of negative nutrients such as sodium, sugar, and saturated fat.

The “problem” with the traffic lights is that they were scaring off customers. People would see one or two reds and decide not to buy a product. That’s why the industry came up with various multicolor solutions where the color itself is meaningless, for example GDA (guideline daily amount).

What to do at the supermarket:

Until the government regulatory bodies figure out how to save us, let’s help ourselves by learning to read nutrition labels and ingredient lists.

(Thanks Greg Miller for the hat tip)

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

Last year it was peanut butter. Before that – tomatoes. It seems like every year there’s one major food recall that really shakes the system. Last week the FDA notified the public about another recall hurricane, this time for various products containing Hydrolized Vegetable Protein, an ingredient used in many processed foods:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is taking steps to protect the public following the early identification of Salmonella Tennessee in one company’s supply of hydrolyzed vegetable protein (HVP). This is a common ingredient used most frequently as a flavor enhancer in many processed foods, including soups, sauces, chilis, stews, hot dogs, gravies, seasoned snack foods, dips and dressings.

The manufacturer of the affected product is Basic Food Flavors Inc in Las Vegas, Nevada. Only HVP manufactured by Basic Food Flavors is involved in this recall. read more…

What you need to know:

HVP is a flavor enhancer used in a wide variety of processed food products, such as soups, sauces, chilis, stews, hot dogs, gravies, seasoned snack foods, dips, and dressings. It is often blended with other spices to make seasonings that are used in or on foods.

As of late Saturday night, 92 products are on the recall list, including bouillon, dips, dip mixes, dressings, and snacks. Unfortunately the list will keep growing.

Fortunately, most of the products that use the tainted HVP have a “kill step” which requires heating them up, thus killing off the salmonella. So far, nobody has reported any illness as a result of the contamination.

Theoretically the shelves should be free of recalled products, but as each day passes new products are added to the list. Since many of them are non-perishable, there is a good chance you may already have them stocked in your pantry. To be on the safe side, check the ingredient list for Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein and then consult with the FDA website to see if the product is on the recall list.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

Big news in nutrition labeling!

The FDA has sent  a WARNING LETTER to 17 food manufacturers notifying them that 22 of their food products violate the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. From yesterday’s FDA press release:

The violations cited in the warning letters include unauthorized health claims, unauthorized nutrient content claims, and the unauthorized use of terms such as “healthy,” and others that have strict, regulatory definitions.

Some prominent examples (see all here):

POM Wonderful – The product makes claims that it will treat, prevent, or cure diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, and cancer. These types of claims are not allowed on food products.

Juicy Juice All-Natural 100% Juice Orange Tangerine and Juicy Juice All-Natural 100% Juice Grape – The product labels imply that the products are 100% juice when they are actuallyjuice blends with added flavors.

Nature’s Path Organic Flax Plus Multibran Cereal – The product label includes the nutrient claim, “excellent source of Omega-3+,” which has not been approved for use on food products.

The warning letters follow an October 2009 statement by Commissioner of Food and Drugs Margaret Hamburg, M.D., encouraging companies to review their labeling to ensure that they were in compliance with FDA regulations, and were truthful and not misleading. Kudos to Dr. Hamburg, who, unlike her predecessors, is unafraid to take on the food industry, just as a strong regulatory body should.

Here’s why these letters are a monumental turning point:

1. They indicate that food labeling truly is a high priority for the FDA
2. They show, by example, that there is no wiggle room for creative health claims (ie – health claims are not supposed to be marketing claims)
3. They warn the entire industry that companies not in compliance need to shape up or else…
4. Going forward, the FDA will be much more proactive in determining the best way to provide front-of-pack nutrition information to consumers.

While some detractors may pull out their “nanny-state” claims, it is our position that the free markets have failed the US consumer, who is today fatter and sicker as a result of too much bad food peddled by manufacturers. A strong regulatory body stands not to interfere with competition, but to make sure the rules of the game are being observed and that profits are not at the expense of public health.

What to do at the supermarket:

While all this is great news, your local supermarket is still choc full of misleading products and health claims. Our suggestion is to invest the time in reading the nutrition fact labels and ingredient lists, skipping the front of pack claims altogether.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

Two of the most respected and independent experts on nutrition have published an editorial article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) calling for the ban of front of package nutrition labels and health claims. The paper, entitled Front-of-Package Food Labels Public Health or Propaganda? [download PDF] is coauthored by Marion Nestle, a professor at NYU, and professor David Ludwig of Harvard University’s School of Public Health.

In the editorial, the authors review the history of health claims, the relationship between the food industry, Congress, and the FDA, and the big mess we are in today. They provide five reasons why front-of-pack labeling, instead of providing a useful service to consumers, has actually done the opposite:

1. Health claims cannot be easily verified. But people perceive them as absolute truths approved by governmental health bodies.

2. Claims about specific positive nutritional benefits are misleading. Cereals “fortified with vitamins and minerals” but full of sugar come to mind as one example.

3. Singling out a specific nutrient is misleading. A can of Coke has less fat than a handful of nuts. Which is better?

4. “Healthier” is not necessarily healthy. So a junk food with “Now 20% less sugar” is still junk food.

5. Inherent conflict of interest between wanting to sell more products and wanting to educate the public.

The authors add that only strict regulation, based on scientific standards, can assure trustworthy labeling. But because the standards are easily manipulated and in many cases the science is inconclusive, the best solution is to just kill off the front of pack labeling. They admit that this may pose 1st Amendment challenges, and suggest that the FDA and Congress deal with the issue through legal remedies.

In the meantime, improvements in the existing nutrition facts panel can help consumers make smarter choices. We agree, and have a laundry list of suggestions.

What to do at the supermarket:

It’s usually the “silent” products that are healthier for you – the fresh fruit and vegetables that don’t have nutrition information, and the bulk items like nuts and seeds, etc…They don’t have sexy packaging or big marketing budgets.

As a rule, when buying packaged foods, ignore the health claims and go directly to the ingredient list and nutrition fact panel. True, it’s harder to read, requires some learning to master, and is more time consuming. But it will give you a fuller picture of the product, not just what the manufacturer wants you to know.

And if you have any questions, Fooducate is here for you.

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 is not pleased with Kellogg’s waffle manufacturing plant in Georgia. The federal authority sent the company a warning letter. Kellogg’s is reprimanded for the poor sanitary conditions at the factory, and requested to clean up its act. From Food Navigator:

The list of breaches included leaving uncovered rubbish just inches from raw materials, allowing potentially tainted water to drip onto food lines, and a number of unsatisfactory cleaning methods by employees. read more…

These conditions led to the discovery of Listeria monocytogenes (L. monocytogenes), a pathogenic bacterium. It can cause  mild illness (called listerial gastroenteritis) or a severe, sometimes life-threatening, illness called invasive listeriosis. Listeriosis is a major public health concern because of the severity of the disease, a high case-fatality rate, a long incubation and a predilection for individuals with underlying conditions.

What you need to know:

Life is all about trade offs. Food from factories means that every once a while there may be a safety issue. That factory can be a peanut processing plant, a CAFO (where thousands of cows are grown into steaks), or a waffle plant. While churning peanuts into butter is not something most people can do, nor raise a cow in their backyard, waffles are rather easy to prepare from scratch. And yet, Kellogg’s has an entire factory devoted to Eggo waffles.

Here’s what goes into a pre-frozen Eggo Homestyle Waffle:

Were you to make the waffles at home by yourself, you wouldn’t add artificial colors Yellow #5 and Yellow # 6 to make the waffles look better (these colors are not good for you). You wouldn’t use palm kernel oil with TBHQ and citric acid. You’d use real butter, or perhaps canola oil. And you wouldn’t fortify your waffle with vitamins and minerals in order to make it appear more healthy than it really is. And you probably wouldn’t find any surprise bacteria waiting to make your kids ill.

Hot fresh waffles are a such great treat on a weekend morning. So why settle for a pre-frozen product? It tastes so poorly compared to a fresh homemade batch. AND it contains unwanted ingredients, sometime with additional surprises…

What to do at the supermarket:

Buy some eggs, flour, and milk. Make sure your pantry is stocked with sugar, salt, baking powder, and vanilla extract. Now turn to one of many recipe websites and make your own waffles in 10 minutes. Bon apetit.

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 best kept secret in the food industry is its liberal use of the definition of a serving size. You’d think a serving size should reflect what the average person consumes, but it seems that many manufacturers are selling their products to smurfs, not humans. How else can you explain exactly 11 potato chips or half a cup of ice cream counting as a serving?

The FDA, it appears, is calling the bluff, and according to the New York Times,

is now looking at bringing serving sizes for foods like chips, cookies, breakfast cereals and ice cream into line with how Americans really eat. Combined with more prominent labeling, the result could be a greater sense of public caution about unhealthy foods. Read more…

The NY Times article also include four graphic examples of how wrong serving sizes distort people’s perception of the calories they will actually consume.

What you need to know:

The serving size is a regulated term required for presentation on the nutrition facts panel of packaged foods and beverages. The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of the early 90’s mandated manufacturers to state the serving size of a product in both measurable amount (grams, fluid ounces, etc..) and consumer graspable terms (2 cookie, half a cup, 1 doughnut). The actual quantity of product per serving is based on outdated consumer surveys, before the era of super-sized meals, big-gulp drinks, and a-pint-at-a-sitting ice creams.

Many companies take advantage of this loophole to literally trick consumers into thinking they’ll be consuming less calories than what they actually do. Here’s a fun trick when you want to create a 100 calorie snack out of a 150 calorie serving – reduce the serving size from 3 to 2 cookies. Genius!

Most annoying are the single serving products that end up actually containing more than a single serving. For example – vending machine soft drinks that come in 20 fl oz bottle meant for a single person to consume, but actually composed of two and a half servings! Duane Reade’s potato chips single serve bag state that there are only 100 calories per serving. Careful examination shows a discrepancy where the serving is defined as 1 oz, but the bag is one an one third ounces, adding 34 more calories to the deal.

If the FDA does take action on this issue, it will be a godsend. We recently published a list of Ten fixes the FDA can require for nutrition labels, such as  getting rid of the silly health claims and stating amount of ADDED sugar. Out #1 request was for proper indication of serving sizes.

What to do at the supermarket:

It’s not enough to check the calorie count per serving, you also need to make sure the serving size suggested by the manufacturer is what you really intend to consume. Be on the lookout especially with snacks and soft drinks, where the empty calories can easily double or triple before you even stop for your first breath of air.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

Several days ago, a small New Zealand based company called BioVittoria received an FDA GRAS (generally regarded as safe) status for its “Fruit-Sweetness” brand low-calorie sweetener:

The sweetener is made from Chinese-grown luo han fruit. It is 200 times sweeter than cane sugar and sells for about $450kg, mostly to beverage, food and confectionary manufacturers.

The company expects to process 3000 tonnes of fruit from Miao and Yao hill tribe growers in mountainous areas of Guangxi province, southern China. read more…

The sweetener comes in powder form and can be used in flavors, foods, beverages, gums, baked goods, dietary supplements, powdered drinks, nutritional bars, and chocolates, according to Food Navigator.

What you need to know:

The luo han fruit is also known as Monk Fruit. The sweet components of  the fruit, mogrosides, are naturally very low in calories. When extracted from the fruit and concentrated, the mogrosides are 200-300 times sweeter than sugar, very similar to stevia extracts.

While this is good news for BioVittoria, and may also help Guangxi’s hill tribes, we have a question.

Does the world really need another sweetener?

We already consume too much sweet food. Instead of trying to train our taste buds to enjoy other flavors, we are looking for workarounds that may trick our metabolism.We are so used to extra-sweet, that when we eat a banana or an apple it is suddenly bland and tasteless. No wonder kids who drink chocolate milk for lunch don’t like to eat fruit for dessert.

What to do at the supermarket:

What’s with the sweet tooth people? Grow up and start eating real food. Drink water if you’re thirsty. Sugar and sweeteners should be relegated to special occasions, not every single meal and snack.

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