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!)

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

Last week, General Mills made a dramatic splash in nutrition circles when it announced it would reduce the amount of sugar in its cereals for kids to “single digit” levels. While sugar reduction is commendable, it still does not make the cereals a good choice for breakfast. And the decrease is not substantial enough. Some cereals have already seen their sugar content lessen by 1 gram or 2 (8%-15% decrease), but cereals are still at the 3-teaspoon-of-sugar per serving level.

Take Lucky Charms as an example. “Magically delicious Lucky Charms cereal features frosted oats and colored marshmallows.” Why should kids be getting marshmallows for breakfast every morning? Aren’t these treats reserved as occasional treats for roasting over a fire at summer camp or a family outing?

We took a deeper look inside Lucky Charms to find out just how good they are for our children. Read more…

General Mills, one of the big 4 cereal manufacturers, including brands such as Cheerios, Lucky Charms, Trix, and Wheaties,  announced yesterday that it will reduce the added sugar in its products. More specifically, the sugar in cereals advertised to kids will be reduced to “single digit” levels, according to the press release headlines. Reading the fine print of the comapny’s release, which basically extols General Mills as the best thing to happen to healthy diets since the invention of food processing, we learn that “by spring General Mills cereals advertised to children will all have 11 grams of sugar per serving or less.”

What you need to know:

The first thing you should know is that “11″ is not a single digit. 11 grams of sugar is still almost 3 teaspoons of sugar, and that’s for serving sizes for 4 year olds.

Nonetheless, General Mills should be commended for taking a step in the right direction. If all manufacturers follow suit, maybe in 2011 they can do another down round, and reduce added sugar to 1 teaspoon’s worth.

Here are two further improvements that General Mills can make:

- remove artificial colorings from all cereals. Red 40 and others have been linked to hyperactivity in children.

- stop using BHT to preserve freshness. BHT is also suspected of causing hyperactivity and cancer.

What to do at the supermarket:

Your children do not need a sugar rush first thing in the morning. Look for cereals that contain less than 6 grams of sugar. You can always add more at home.

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 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

One of the interesting sessions here at the annual Food and Nutrition Conference in Denver hosted a panel of 3 experts who presented their views on what the rating systems are, why and how they were created, and how they will improve nutrition.

First up was  Susan Crockett, PhD, RD, FADA, who for the last 10 years has been with General Mills. She presented the Smart Choices program of Fruit Loop infamy, and addressed the specific backlash against pre-sweetened cereal. In her attempt to justify the benchmark that allows such a culinary and nutrition horror to be considered a smart choice, Dr. Crocket first provided a background on how General Mills is committed to health and nutrition. She then showed that the Smart Choice panel was composed of both industry and academic experts, and lastly dug deep into the numbers to show how the benchmark for cereals was chosen.

Let us say that we commend General Mills that contribute 5% of pretax profit to nutrition and wellness programs. That was about $80M last year. But let’s not forget that this is a huge profit driven enterprise. The company and its peers has seen consumer confusion regarding nutrition labels and decided to handle it as a business opportunity. Working with “non-industry” experts is a way to lend credibility to the program. However, many experts are affiliated in some way or another with the industry.

As to sugar in cereal – the Smart Choices panel took a recommendation for 10% of daily calories from added sugar. In a 2000 calorie a day diet, that means 200 calories. They divided the 200 calories into 4 eating events of 50 calories. 12 grams of sugar, which is what you’ll find in Froot Loops, Apple Jacks, and others, add up to 48 calories per serving. And that, by their book is a Smart Choice. Wonderful, no?

We were left with some hope, as Dr. Crocket said that Smart Choices is continually evolving, and that with time benchmarks will be adapted to feedback from the field.

Next speaker was Annette Maggi, MS, RD, LD, FADA from NuVal. Maggi is the director of the business arm of NuVal, which licenses its 1-100 rating system to supermarkets for display on shelf tags. The NuVal system was not funded by the industry, rather by a group of scientists with a stated goal of becoming a nutrition GPS at the supermarket. The idea is to tag every single product in the supermarket with a score. That way, in the supermarket, people can compare products within a category.

So far 33,000 products have been scored. In an earlier talk we had with Prof. Keith Ayoob, of the Nuval Scientific board, he said that the group was working on rating over 100,000 items in supermarkets. The Nuval algorithm is quite complex when compared to Smart Choices, with hundreds of factors taken into consideration for each product.

Without referring specifically to Smart Choices, Maggi stated that one of the clear advantages of NuVal was its independence. A Kraft PR spokesperson tried to refute that statement in the ensuing Q&A by mentioning that the wife of one of the NuVal board members has a conflict of interest.

Last to present was Susan Moores, MS, RD who does not represent any rating system, but has been working with grocers on a variety of health and nutrition issues over the years. She provided an interesting viewpoint whose main message was stop looking for the numbers and the stickers, focus on the food: “A number will not put a meal on the table”.

Moores said that the nutrition labels have had an effect on industry. Food manufactures have reformulated products to get better scores. For example, the notorious Froot Loops lowered sugar by one gram and upped fiber by one gram. Supermarkets who adopt one system or other are able to differentiate themselves.

Mostly though, these programs have created controversy and chaos. And wherever there is a mess, there’s an opportunity for dietitians to help their clients  with guidance and sound advice.

The session was very informative, but did not provide any substantially new information. Our position is that any industry funded rating system is inherently flawed because of the direct conflict of interest between companies’ need to sell more processed food to make more money, and consumers’ need to get away from these types of foods.

What to do at the supermarket:

Skip the health claims, benchmarks, and other marketing tricks. Learn to read a nutrition panel and familiarize yourself with ingredients to watch out for in the ingredient list. When sugar is the first ingredient in a cereal, that is not a smart choice, no matter how many PhDs in the room will tell you it is.

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 new force in the battle against obesity, this time from an unexpected source: the food industry.
The Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation, announced on Monday, is a consortium of forty manufacturers, retailers, and several non-profit organizations whose aim is to reduce obesity rates, especially in children, by 2015.

The Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation will promote the concept of energy balance — balancing calories consumed as part of a healthy diet with calories expended by physical activity — to people in the places where they spend much of their time: to consumers in the marketplace, to employees through workplace programs and to children in schools.

Among the coalition members are Mars Inc., Kellogg Company, General Mills, The Hershey Company, and The Coca Cola Company. Yes, the purveyors of Oreos, Pop-tarts, Snickers, and liquid candies called soda pop, are going to help us battle obesity.

This is great news right?
Not really. The focus of this group is on increasing exercise, not decreasing consumption. Heaven forbid if sales should falter or even stay flat. These are all public companies that need to grow-grow-grow their bottom lines each quarter. In parallel, so grow our bottoms:

The coalition has pledged $20 million to the don’t-necessarily-eat-less-but-definitely-exercise-more effort. As one skeptical consumer commented on a CBC News website: “$20M doesn’t seem like very much for these huge companies. What is that, like 6 Super Bowl commercials?” Read more…

While on a personal level we’re sure each and every one of the people working for these corporations wants to see a slimmer, healthier country, the truth is that this collides with their business interest. As long as nutritiously poor products are shoved into our face, we’ll keep eating them, the companies will get richer, and as a country we’ll become even more obese.

Dear coalition companies, if you truly want to reduce obesity rates, please do as follows:

1. Clearly state the TRUE portion size of a snack, and the TOTAL calorie count for that portion. Eleven chips are not a real serving size. Nor are 3 Oreo cookies.
2. Kill all advertising, commercials, web sites, superhero tie-ins, and other marketing activities aimed at anyone under 16 years of age.
3. Reduce package sizes of single serve items – such as Coke bottles. A 20 fl oz of Coke purchased by a child is consumed as one serving not the 2.5 servings displayed on the package.
4. Stop creating more and more line-extensions of winning junk brands and focus on creating healthy foods. There are hundreds of Oreo branded products. Why not create a new healthy brand snack that will become the Oreo of the 21st century?
5. Contribute more than a measly $20 million for obesity related efforts. This paltry sum is less than one percent of what you spend on advertising your products.
6. You’re no fitness experts, so don’t tell us to exercise more. Show us how to eat less. Especially less of your high fat, high sugar, high sodium products. Studies have shown that people today are exercising just as much as they did 30 years ago. It’s the calories in that have gone up, not calories out that diminished.
7. And lastly, please do away with all those silly health claims on product packages.

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

After months of hype and buildup, General Mills finally launched its new Wheaties product last week. After 85 years of a single formulation and recently staggering sales, the General Mills marketing team decided it’s time to invigorate the Wheaties Brand. The new product is aimed squarely at the male demographic, and to that effect has been carefully designed and formulated to be a manly start to the day.

The product is still unavailable in supermarkets, so we could not examine the ingredient list nor the nutrition facts panel to learn what makes this product a breakfast of male champions. However, their website provides some hints:

1. Whole grain. That’s not new, the old formulation is also whole grain.

2. Excellent Source of Fiber. This means it has to have at least 5 grams worth, up from the current 3 grams. This is good.

3. 100% of the daily value of Five B vitamins. All added through fortification. While this is a nice, most Americans are not deficient in B vitamins.

Here’s what the website does not tell the male consumer about where the fuel comes from:

1. More sugar – If you’ve tasted Wheaties, you know they’re facing stiff competition from sugary cereal on the taste front. Many people complain that Wheaties taste like shredded cardboard. The solution is, of course, more sugar. How much more?

We’re not clear on exactly how much because the info is unavailable on the website (Men don’t read nutrition info right?). The older formulation has 4 grams per serving, about 1 teaspoon. The new formula will be 25% sugar by weight!

2. More calories – 200 calories per serving instead of the current 100. That’s twice as many calories. While some of the extra 100 calories come from the sugar increase, the rest may possibly be the result of a larger serving size.

3. No Folic Acid – not that it matters much, but the new formulation has removed folic acid (another B vitamin) from the list of fortifications, because it is associated with girly nutrition and pregnancy. Indeed, not a manly vitamin.

We emailed General Mills for more nutritional information and will share with you if and when we get it. In the meantime, if any of our readers spot this product in the wild, shoot us an email with the details.

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 “Smart Choices” front of package food labeling scheme officially launches this week. 500 Packaged foods from ConAgra, General Mills, Kellogg’s, Kraft, PepsiCo, Sun-Maid, Tyson and Unilever are already approved.

The program hopes to take nutrition confusion out of your life by presenting a simple green check mark on the front of packaged foods that have passed a nutrition benchmark.

While we applaud the initiative to simplify food nutrition information, Smart Choices has substantial drawbacks, which we outlined in the past.

Granted, there are several advantages, such as simplicity, uniformity across brands, and the front-and-center calorie information provided on some labels. However, we think that this industry backed initiative, along with fifteen others was born in a vacuum created by the lack of initiative of the FDA.

Here are six reasons why Smart Choices won’t really help shoppers. Read more…

General Mills published a press release last week heralding a new line of Frozen TV Dinners, branded Wanchai Ferry. The lineup includes 5 flavors: spicy garlic chicken, orange chicken, sweet & spicy shrimp, sweet & sour chicken, and shrimp lo mein. Just for fun, we took a look inside the label of the spicy garlic chicken. Read more…