This is a guest blog post by Carol Harvey, director of nutrition labeling at Palate Works. She recently visited the San Francisco Fancy Food Show.

For 35 years, the Fancy Food Show has been the trade show of all things tasty, gourmet and upscale. Many food products are launched there, including an increasing number dished up as “healthy” or “better for you,” due to evolving consumer demand.

In fact, the “top 5 food trends” for 2010 just announced by NASFT (the trade association that produces the show) include “good-for-you foods”. This “trend,” brewing for most of the 20 years that I have been attending the show, has proven a smart business move for a number of brands.

Whether any of the 100,000+ exhibited products really nailed the “taste + nutrition” prize was my focus again this year in San Francisco. And once again, how a company uses nutrition claims separated those that know their nutrition and labeling from those that don’t. Here are three examples. Read more…

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

[Update November 4: In a press release earlier today, Kellogg's announced it would remove the immunity label from its packaging.]

Earlier this week, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera sent a letter to Kellogg’s CEO expressing concerns over the very misleading front of package “claim” which you can see for yourself on the right.

“I am concerned that the prominent use of the Immunity Claims to advertise a sugar-laden, chocolate cereal like Cocoa Krispies may mislead and deceive parents of young children. Specifically, the Immunity Claims may falsely suggest to parents that cereals like Cocoa Krispies are more healthy for their children than other breakfast foods that are not high in sugar and not highly processed.

The Immunity Claims may also mislead parents into believing that serving this sugary cereal will actually boost their child’s immunity, leaving parents less likely to take more productive steps to protect their children’s health.

At a time when parents are increasingly worried about the spread of the H1N1 virus (“swine flu”), it is vitally important that parents receive accurate information about what they can do to protect their children’s health.”

A copy of the letter, which requests to see the scientific evidence behind the immunity claim, has also been sent to FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg. As Marion Nestle points out in her excellent Food Politic blog “Shouldn’t the FDA be taking this on?”

What you need to know:

Is a new wave of backlash against food processors starting to rise? Just 2 weeks ago Connecticut’s Attorney General wrote strongly to the Smart Choices Program regarding its questionable benchmarks. The FDA followed up a week later with a letter that ultimately led the program to suspend itself indefinitely (read – harakiri).

This is a good sign (hopefully) of things to come. A product package is not a billboard for half baked medical claims. When you come to think of it, it’s surprising that the FDA didn’t do anything when the revamped Rice Krispies came out this summer.

The product in question is a sugar bomb (40% by weight) that also carries trans fat and BHT. You can read our recent analysis here.

What to do at the supermarket:

Since the only product information tightly regulated by the FDA is the nutrition panel and the ingredient list, those are the ONLY places you should look to for accurate information regarding a food you are about to place in your shopping cart.

Short, understandable ingredient lists are usually a sign of a better product.

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

Last week, the FDA  hinted it would be seriously looking at regulating Front of Pack (FOP) nutrition labeling systems. As a result, Smart Choices called it quits, and other programs are “on alert”. The FDA’s involvement can be of great assistance to the public, by creating a single unified system in ALL supermarkets and on ALL packages.

But first, wouldn’t it be nice if the FDA cleaned up the mess originally created when the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) brought us the nutrition facts label as we know it today?

Here’s a list of 10 things the FDA can do to improve the existing information on labels. Read more…

This was the subject matter at one of yesterday’s most important and interesting sessions at ADA’s Nutrition Conference in Denver.

Unfortunately, it was one of the least popular sessions, with only 50 or so participants. The American Dietetic Association is a science / evidence based organization. The dietary recommendations consumers receive from its members are the result of scientific research. It is imperative that the information be 100% accurate, unbiased, and scientifically sound. The potential for conflict of interest when companies wanting to sell more products fund research is obviously high and creates a tension that must be resolved.

From a consumer perspective, there is a natural suspicion of research that is funded by companies. Companies usually fund research in areas close to products they sell. It turns out that industry funded studies are 4-8 times more likely to have a favorable outcome to the funder than non-funded studies. This could be explained by the fact that companies have conducted their own preliminary research to begin with, but perhaps the scientists felt in some place obliged to produce certain results.

Supporters of industry funded research acknowledge that there is a potential for bias, but potential does not mean bias actually exists. In fact, some will say that unfunded studies may have just as much potential for bias, based on the researchers’ personal beliefs, aspirations, and lifelong attempts to prove a certain hypothesis.

So should all ties between industry and academia be severed?

In an ideal world, perhaps yes. But reality is more complex. Universities and the government do not have enough money to fund all food related research. So as researchers want to reach new frontiers, they must accept additional sources of money. Conversely, maybe in utopia industry would fund studies freely, but the ethics of all sides would be so high that it wouldn’t matter.

There must be a middle ground. The speaker presented a set of guidelines for future research. Here are some of their suggestions:

1. Full disclosure of each researcher’s past and current affiliations with industry.
2. Full disclosure of conflicts of interest among researchers and among peer reviewers of the research results. (In academia, before a research paper is published, it goes through a long review process by “peers” from other universities).
3. Firewalls between the research functions and the money functions.
4. Publication of ALL research efforts, not just favorable ones. As one researcher explained after the session, sometimes companies will pay MORE to play down and even stop publication of unfavorable results.

Will these guidelines be adopted? Will they suffice? As always, there won’t be a clear-cut answer. We support any and all activities than provide increased transparency.

And we reserve the right to remain highly skeptical of the manifestation of research as “Health Claims” on food packages in the supermarket.

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

We often complain about the FDA’s weakness as the regulating body dealing with the food industry. Thankfully, the new FDA leadership is starting to add more bark and bite. Here are two steps forward:

1. The FDA is doing a huge Internet survey of 43,000 people to learn about Barriers to Food Label Use . Apparently, there is a decline in label use in the “under 34″ age bracket. According to the FDA the purpose of the study is to explore possible explanations for food label use and non-use among U.S. consumers. The information collected from the study will be used to help to improve consumer understanding and use of the food label.

We would like to see the FDA take a bolder step, of course, and improve the requirements for food labels. Some easy examples – require manufacturers to specify how much added sugar is present. Or provide more realistic serving sizes, a serving of 2 Oreo cookies is not logical. And how about getting rid of those silly health claims, like that of a sugary cereal reducing cholesterol levels.  For a full list, see a previous Fooducate post – 16 Ways to Improve Nutrition Labels.

2. The FDA has issued a rule that requires food manufacturers to notify the government agency within 24 hours if they discover a contamination that poses a health threat to consumers. It may surprise you that manufacturers don’t report this immediately or that up to now companies could have taken weeks to let the FDA know about a health issue. But that’s the sad reality. Hopefully the new measure will help stop the spread of food borne illnesses at an earlier stage, potentially saving lives and suffering.

Kudos, FDA. There’s still much more work ahead. Don’t let the food industry bullies lobbies stop you from protecting consumers.

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

Yesterday we wrote about the preposterous health claims on food and supplement packaging. Apparently they are still insufficient for some manufacturers. They are now suing the FDA to get more lenience in publishing marketing drivel in the guise of scientific recommendations.

We’re happy to learn that in other parts of the world, there is a more consumer friendly approach. Here is what’s happening in Europe:

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is conducting a scientific review of 4,000 health claims made by food producers, including cereal manufacturers. Most of the 60-plus rulings published so far for foods, including pro-biotic drinks and yoghurts, have been dismissive of industry health claims.

The European Commission is also developing a scheme to restrict food manufacturers promoting products on the basis of one or two healthy ingredients if they also contain “high” levels of sugar, saturated fat or salt.

Read more… (UK Times Online)

This means that most cereals will have to remove their misleading health claims, and start concentrating on reducing the vast amounts of sugar present in the most popular breakfast of the Western World.

The FDA would do well to learn from EFSA and UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) that, in this case, have placed consumer interest ahead of that of manufacturers.

Top o’ the morning to you all.

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 at the LA Times Health Blog, Rosie Mestel updates on a new lawsuit targeting the FDA, demanding less stringent standards for placing health claims on foods and supplements.

An example is selenium, which manufacturers would like to embellish to the effect of:

“Selenium may reduce the risk of prostate cancer.”

Here is the disclaimer that the FDA requires on the product package:

“Two weak studies suggest that selenium intake may reduce the risk of prostate cancer. However, four stronger studies and three weak studies showed no reduction in risk. Based on these studies, FDA concludes that it is highly unlikely that selenium supplements reduce the risk of prostate cancer.”

What you need to know:

The above is an example of a Qualified Health Claim. It is different from an Authorized Health Claim, for which there is a substantial body of scientific evidence.

The first appearance of qualified health claims was in the late nineties on dietary supplement packages, as a result of a legal battle between the FDA and manufacturers. In 2003, through the Consumer Health Information for Better Nutrition Initiative, qualified health claims were allowed on foods as well. A petition process was put in place, and ever since manufacturers can file for claims.

The petition process does not automatically guarantee a health claim, and even if approved there are three levels of qualified health claims:

1. Strongest: “Although there is scientific evidence supporting the claim, the evidence is not conclusive.”
2. Medium: “Some scientific evidence suggests …However, FDA has determined that this evidence is limited and not conclusive.”
3. Weakest: “Very limited and preliminary scientific research suggests…. FDA concludes that there is little scientific evidence supporting this claim.”

Obviously manufacturers would like the strongest claims, but can’t cough up the requisite studies, despite many shelling out millions to sponsor research in universities and “independent” labs.

Thus we get funny disclaimers such as:

tomatoes/tomato sauce and prostate cancer: “Very limited and preliminary scientific research suggests that eating one-half to one cup of tomatoes and/or tomato sauce a week may reduce the risk of prostate cancer. FDA concludes that there is little scientific evidence supporting this claim.”

for green tea: “Two studies do not show that drinking green tea reduces the risk of breast cancer in women, but one weaker, more limited study suggests that drinking green tea may reduce this risk. Based on these studies, FDA concludes that it is highly unlikely that green tea reduces the risk of breast cancer.”

If history is an indicator, the new lawsuit will once again result in concessions to manufacturers in the name of First Amendment right of free speech. Our right as consumers not to be BSed by food and supplement producers are unfortunately absent from the Constitution.

What to do at the supermarket:

Ignore any marketing information you see on a product package that is not on the nutrition facts panel. Better yet, buy foods that don’t need a nutrition information panel – fresh vegetables, fruits, grains and legumes in bulk. Tap water needs no nutrition information either.

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

Once upon a time, people ate real food. Food that grew or was raised near their homes, and then prepared at the home. It may have been bland and boring to eat the same food over and over, and it certainly demanded a lot of work, but people intimately knew what was on their plate.

Then came trade and technology and progress and lots of great things happened in the world, including access to new foods and spices and flavors.  Refrigerators and freezer and microwave ovens and TV Dinners followed. And fast food, and food science with additives and preservatives and busy families that forgot what it means to prepare a meal by cooking it from scratch.

For a while, the abundance led to great things. People were not hungry anymore. They lived longer. They could spend time on other things rather than food preparation.

But as a society we took things too far.

And the results of abandoning our kitchens are evident all around us. The “food” we consume today is making us live shorter lives than we potentially could. We are consuming too many food-like products and too little real food. So we try to educate ourselves on nutrition and nutrients and what to eat and what not to eat. We buy diet books and diet products.

And in the last few years, we are buying more and more functional foods. Manufacturers don’t want us to stop buying their products, and so the big trend is dressing up these pretend foods with a healthy image. This is done by adding vitamins to soft drinks, calcium to ice cream, and various other fortifications that create a health halo for products that are mere snacks.

And unfortunately, we as consumers are falling for this trick:

The industry calls these products “nutraceuticals” or “functional foods.” Critics say they could lead people to consume too much of certain nutrients, plus too many calories and fats.

New York University food scientist Marion Nestle calls them “calorie distractors.”

“Functional foods are about marketing, not health,” she said. “They delude people into thinking that these things are healthy,” and they often eat more than is wise, she said.

What to do at the supermarket:

Don’t get fooled or confused by slick packaging and health claims. The more you cook and prepare meals at home, the healthier you’ll eat. The less processed your raw materials, the more nutritious your meals. And the more water you drink instead of all the vitamin/energy/soft drinks, the better off your wallet and your body will be.

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 served as a punching bag for this blog and other critics for a long time. In retrospect, deservedly so. Weakness in the face of the food industry, revolving doors of top personnel and corporate conglomerates, ineptness in preventing food contamination and handling the ensuing recalls, etc…

We’re hoping all this will change with new FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg starting her first full week in office today. Welcome Dr. Hamburg.

Here is a partial wish list of things we’d like to see fixed in the food regulation arena.

1. Revoke the GRAS (generally regarded as safe) status of harmful food additives such as artificial colorings, potassium bromate, and others.

2. Free packaged foods of “health claims“, which are actually marketing claims, by banning them altogether. A reminder to our readers, “health claims” are a concession that the US lawmaker gave to the powerful food industry lobby in the early 90’s when the Nutrition Education and Labeling Act was being negotiated. The result of that law is the nutrition label as we know it today.

3. Speaking of nutrition labels – please stop the practice of rounding down to zero. Manufacturers are legally allowed to claim a product has 0 trans fat even if a serving contains 0.49 grams. And since we all know people consume much more than the formal serving size, they can get much more than the 0 trans fat they were expecting.

4. Serving Size – Here are some ridiculous examples – 11 potato chips, 2 Oreo cookies. Come on, even 3 year olds eat more than that in a sitting. The reason serving sizes are so minute is to make them appear less caloric/fat/salty/sweet in the nutrition label. Please help manufacturers give us  accurate info.

5. How about a unified front of package label? These labels are supposed to be a quick glance way for a consumer to decide if a product is nutrtious enough ro not. With all the new formats sprouting like mad (NuVal, Smart Choices, Guiding Stars, etc..), consumers are more confused than ever. Why not adopt a system such as UK’s Traffic Lights? Yes, it irritates food manufacturers, but hey, you are supposed to protect us consumers.

6. We know you need Congress for this, but isn’t it ridiculous that the FDA can’t mandate a company to stop shipping tainted food? Today, all recalls are voluntary.

7. While we’re at it, ask Capitol Hill to allow prosecution of CEOs and processing plant managers who knowingly continue to ship poisoned products. Nothing like the fear of jail time to get folks thinking straight.

8. Back to food labels – it would be great to know how much sugar has been added to a product. The nutrition label states the amount of total sugar in a serving, but it does not indicate whether the sugar is added to the food or occurs naturally. Caloric-ly, there is no difference between table sugar and sugar found naturally in fruits and vegetables. But the benefit of fruits and vegetables is in the additional vitamins, minerals, fiber and phytochemicals they provide. Added sugars provide no health benefits. They are truly empty calories. Today, consumers can only guess how much sugar is added.

9. Lastly – Food safety is divided among too many government bodies, including the FDA, USDA, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and others. At times there is overlap between the regulatory bodies, and sometimes the opposite. Wouldn’t it be smarter to have all food safety issues handles under one roof?

Any more suggestions folks? Please comment below.

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