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 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

credit: George Burns, Harpo Productions

Today’s episode of Oprah is dedicated to type 2 diabetes. Over 24 million Americans are suffering from diabetes and a staggering 1.6 million are added every year. million of us are “pre-diabetic”, meaning we are on our way to fall off the cliff. This is crazy!

There is a very strong correlation between obesity and diabetes, and that’s why creating good eating habits at a young age is probably your best bet against the disease.

According to USA Today,

Oprah and her health team will encourage viewers to go to their nearest Walgreens pharmacy Friday to get a free blood glucose reading that will tell them whether they could be at risk for type 2 diabetes.

Walgreens is bolstering all its retail locations with nurses and pharmacists who will be on deck to handle as many people as possible.

This is (another) great initiative on Oprah’s part, and some great PR for Walgreens too.

Too bad Walgreens is also a contributor to many people’s obesity and diabetes problems. 100 years ago pharmacies sold medicine, not junk food and soda. Step into a Walgreen’s today and you’ll have to pass through the Snickers and Seven Up before reaching the back of the store to talk with a pharmacist. And waiting for the cashier at the checkout counter, you again have an opportunity to buy some candy.

While we commend Walgreens for the diabetes testing, it would be much braver for them to stop selling junk food altogether. Yeah, right…

What to do at the supermarket:

We will never tire of dishing you this advice – buy less processed foods. Eat more vegetables and fruits. Whole grains. And don’t be tempted to buy (junk) food at places they don’t belong (gas stations, pharmacies, bookstores, and the likes).

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

First Lady Michelle Obama has a legacy she wants to leave behind: drastically reducing childhood obesity. Yesterday at a Mayors Conference in Washington DC,  she announced a new initiative in this spirit, to be formally announced in February.

After presenting the dismal stats (around 18% of kids are obese), Mrs. Obama outlined what is to be a joint effort at the federal, municipal, and non-profit levels.

“The idea here is very simple: to put in place commonsense, innovative solutions that empower families and communities to make healthy decisions for their kids.”

The main points:

• improved school lunches
• more physical activity (including school phys-ed cut due to budget constraints)
• access to fresh and healthy foods in all communities (nutrition deserts are all too common in poor urban areas)
• nutrition education for kids and their parents.

This is a great plan, and Mrs Obama deserves kudos for bringing childhood obesity to our collective attention. No doubt her status as the nation’s number one mom, with personal experiences and challenges in feeding her family, make her one of the best champions for the cause.

However…

I’m sorry, First Lady, your plan, while commendable, doesn’t have a fighting chance.

Here’s why: Read more…

A great article called The Vita Myth appeared earlier this week in online magazine Slate. Science writer Emily Anthes tears apart the $25B-a-year-and-growing supplement industry.

Half of Americans pop a multivitamin or other supplement regularly. But substantial studies in the past few years have shown that for the most part, these supplements did not provide any health benefits, aside from those of the supplement companies:

1. A study of more than 160,000 post-menopausal women, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, found that multi-vitamins supplements did not prevent cancer, heart attacks, or strokes and did not reduce overall mortality. [see here]

2. A 2006 National Institutes of Health panel of experts evaluated evidence that vitamin pills could prevent chronic disease. The scientists that there is no “strong evidence for beneficial health-related effects of supplements taken singly, in pairs, or in combinations.”

3. Antioxidant supplements (vitamins A, C, and E, selenium, beta carotene, and folate) fail to protect against heart disease, stroke, and cancer. But, get this, they actually increase the risk of death, according to a 2007 analysis of research on more than 232,000 people, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

Wow – this boggles the mind.

What you need to know:

The American Dietetic Association just recently reminded us that people should get their nutrients from real food, not supplements. The science of nutrition is relatively young, and for every known nutrient, there are hundreds that scientists have yet to figure out. Interactions between various nutrients in a certain vegetable or fruit contribute differently to your health than if you just take a pill with one or two vitamins.

Some people argue that we must take a daily multi-vitamin because the produce in this nation has been depleted of it nutritional value over the past few decades. This, due to the depletion of nutrient from soil as a result of industrialized agriculture, pesticide use, and monocultures.

Hogwash, according to Joanne Larsen, RD, of Ask the Dietitian: There is no proof that soil is losing its mineral content.  Minerals in soil are pretty stable and don’t migrate unless there is erosion or flooding that washes minerals away.  Soils are replenished with fertilizers (organic or chemical) periodically.

Individual vitamins are created by fruits and vegetables through the oxidative process determined by each plant’s genetics.  Some plants are naturally high in particular nutrients than others. We are not seeing mutations in plant genetics that affect vitamin content. If soils were becoming depleted of nutrients, we would see widespread nutrient deficiencies in the American population.  We are not.

So if real food has all the vitamins and minerals we need, and supplements could actually be detrimental, how is it that we are paying  twenty five billion dollars a year for what amounts to smoke and mirrors?

Note: There are people that require specific boosts in certain nutrients. We’re not referring to those needs here.

What to do at the supermarket:

If you are a healthy person, get your nutrition from real food. Plenty of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, dairy and meat. The less processed the better. You never know what “benefits” the presence of industrial additives and artificial chemicals will amount to once inside your body.

And foods that are fortified with lots of vitamins and minerals, for example breakfast cereals? A secondary consideration compared to the importance of whole grains and low sugar content.

Says Emily Anthes – we should stop treating supplements like health candy and more like prescription meds, to be used only when there’s a demonstrated need.

(hat tip to Dan Mitchell of The Daily Bread for the story)

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 Pollan’s new book Food Rules: An Eater’s Manual came out over the holidays. For those of you not familiar with his work, Mr. Pollan, a professor of journalism and an author, is considered one of the grass roots leaders in the quest for better food and better food production system.

His previous books The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals and In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto exposed millions of readers to the ills of the Western Diet and the uber-capitalistic food industry. The result of constant pressure to increase profitability of food companies has wreaked havoc on our collective health, and created a country with 100 million obese people. Where Pollan’s previous books were more academic and philosophical observations and recommendations, Food Rules gives practical advice for day to day perusal.

The preface to the book argues against our obsession with this or that nutrient (fat, vitamin E, calcium) and pretty much disses “nutritionism” as something that has not helped, rather caused confusion among consumers. If we eat real food, in small portions, and mostly from plant sources, we won’t have to worry about saturated fat, added sugars, antioxidants and lycopenes, Pollan argues. Though he’s not a scientist, he did consult experts and researched substantially in preparation of this manual.

Pollan writes very well – some of the rules sometimes seem more like poetry than practical advice:

#19 If it came from a plant, eat it; if it was made in a plant, don’t.

#6o Treat treats as treats.

Others are so simple and smart that even a 4 year old can grasp:

#25 Eat your colors.

#36 Don’t eat breakfast cereals that change the color of the milk.

As a brownie lovers, we particularly connected with

#39 eat all the junk food you want as long as you cook it yourself

The gist of the book is not surprising. Most food at the supermarket is not really food, rather an “edible foodlike substance”:

#11 avoid foods you see advertised on television.

An important rule for families, not just for nutritional purposes:

#58 Do all your eating at a table.

and so forth…

The book is a quick light read. There are no big surprises here. It is the framing of what we all know to be true into a simple guiding rules that makes Food Rules an enjoyable hour or two spent.

The last rule is very important, we’re humans after all, and we celebrate a birthday once a year:

#64 Break the rules once in a while.

What to do at the supermarket:

It’s hard to summarize everything into on sentence but Pollan minimized his thesis into 7 words:

Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly Plants.

To which we add – Buy minimally processed products, mostly plants and whole grains, but also dairy and meat. Prepare meals yourself, enjoy food with your family at the dinner table, have small portions, drink water, and don’t obsess.

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

Santa Claus, one of the most popular children’s icons, is not an appropriate role model for kids these days, a comical holiday report from the British Medical Journal says.

A review of literature found that:

Santa made a reckless role model, noting his frequent cookie snacks, occasional cigars and refusal to don a helmet during “extreme sports such as roof surfing and chimney jumping.”

“Santa promotes a message that obesity is synonymous with cheerfulness and joviality” (Ronald McDonald took that theme to new heights)

We still love you Santa, but this year we’ll leave you carrots and lowfat dip on the kitchen table instead of cookies and milk.

Merry Christmas everyone!!!

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

Have they gone mad in Great Britain?

SACN, the UK’s Scientific Advisory Council on Nutrition, has just released a draft proposal [download] which claims that the dietary guidelines for daily caloric intake should be revised UPWARDS by up to 16%. In a country where 60% of adults are overweight or obese (2nd after the US), this is quite the shocker.

From the UK’s Times Online:

According to a draft report by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN), the recommended daily intake of calories — currently 2,000 for women and 2,500 for men — could be increased by up to 16 per cent, suggesting that some adults could safely consume an extra 400 calories a day (equivalent to an average-sized cheeseburger, or two bags of ready-salted crisps). read more…

How could this be?

What you need to know:

The members of SACN are all highly regarded scientists in the UK and there are no apparent food industry affiliations. So why would they propose something outrageous as this? Shouldn’t this kind of data better be “swept under the rug”?

Well, scientists are not politicians, they look at facts. Going back to the early 90’s when the exiting guidelines were set, they discovered that the tests used to measure people’s energy output were underestimating the actual values. Since energy in = energy out, that means that the calorie recommendations were too low as well.

But why then is everyone getting fatter and fatter?

For one thing, people are still way above their target daily values for calorie intake. In the US, the average intake is 3,700 calories per day! And the UK can’t be far behind. So the daily recommended value is really just a theoretical number with no grounded basis in real life for real people?

Or is it?

The groups most likely to gain from raised calorie allowances are food manufacturers. The nutrition labeling laws require them to display the values of naughty nutrients as saturated fat as both grams and percent-of-daily-allowance. The percentage is derived from the total number of calories per day.

For example – in a 2000 calorie a day diet you can have just 20 grams of saturated fat. But at 2500 calories a day, the magic number is up to 25 grams. Which means that a trashy meal with 5 grams of saturated fat, previously labeled as 25% of the daily max, will now appear as only 20%.

If you think that is insignificant, consider Britain’s Traffic Light System for nutrition labeling. In stores for the past 2 years, the color coded system give shoppers a quick glance at values for sugar , sodium, and fats. Green means low, amber is so so, and red means high. Manufacturers hate this system because products with red are stigmatized as bad.  The colors are based on thresholds of percent-of-daily-allowance. Guess what happens when the percents go down? More greens and yellows, less reds.

What to do at the supermarket:

Folks, don’t party at the junk food aisles just yet. Whether the theoretical-for-most daily recommendations will change or not, people need to cut down on calories not add to them. A good place to start is the beverage aisles – just skip them and go for tap water. Good for you, your wallet, and the environment

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 recent study published Ohio State University’s Center for Human Resource Research says YES.

The findings:

the average user of food stamps had a Body Mass Index (BMI) 1.15 points higher than non-users. The link between food stamps and higher weight was almost entirely based on women users, who averaged 1.24 points higher BMI than those not in the program, the study found. For an average American woman, this would mean an increase in weight of 5.8 pounds.

The study also found that people’s BMI increased faster when they were on food stamps than when they were not, and increased more the longer they were in the program.

“We can’t prove that the Food Stamp Program causes weight gain, but this study suggests a strong linkage,” said Jay Zagorsky, co-author of the study

Read more at Science Daily…

Without getting into the specifics here, one thing is certain – the poorer you are, the lower your chances of eating healthily. Whereas one hundred years ago the poor starved to death, many are now literally being stuffed to obesity.

What you need to know:

The food stamp program, now officially called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) serves more than 10% of the US population (over 31 million people). Half are children 18 and younger. The program is administered by the USDA.

There are no limitations on what food people can buy (tobacco and alcohol are excluded) and no incentives to buy healthy foods over processed and junk foods.

Unfortunately, many people spend the limited allowance on the cheaper, prepared, tummy filling products that tend to be high in fat, sodium, and sugar, but low in essential nutrients such as fiber, vitamins and minerals.

Is it because of food stamps, or are food stamps an indicator? This is a chicken and egg question that we don’t wish to address. What we’d like to see is how the USDA restructures support programs to empower the recipients to improve their food purchases.

Just imagine if the program created a financial benefit to purchase more fresh fruit and vegetables, bulk grains, and other less processed products. Combining such an incentive along with nutrition education and food preparation education could help people on  alow budget eat healthfully.

You don’t need to be rich to eat well (though it certainly helps). If you are financially challenged, you will need to invest time in finding the cheaper yet nutritious products (usually unprocessed) and then more time in preparing meals at home.

What to do at the supermarket:

Buy more fruits and vegetables. Fresh, frozen, or even canned.

Stop buying soft drinks. A family of four switching to water can save $500 a year.

Instead of buying prepared meals filled with sodium, fat, and additives, learn to prepare your own dishes. There are plenty of simple recipes and resources to learn from on the web.

More suggestions here.

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

The blogosphere is in a frenzy. A new, comprehensive study from the UK, has proclaimed that there is no nutritional benefit to organic food, nor is there any health benefit. Organic supporters are tearing apart at the conclusions, while many conventionalists are reveling in the news.

The study was conducted by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and is summarized by one of the researchers: “Our review indicates there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organic over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority.”

Surveying 50,000 studies conducted over 50 years, the authors focused on 55 that met their standards of scientific rigor. The studies that led to the group’s controversial conclusions covered a wide range of crops and livestock that are raised and marketed under organic standards. For 10 out of 13 food crops studied, the researchers found no significant differences. Where they did find differences, those were attributed to differences in fertilizer use (say, the use of nitrogen vs. phosphorus) and the ripeness level at which the crops were harvested. The authors judged the differences observed “unlikely” to “provide any health benefit” to consumers.

read more [LA Times Blog]…

Not wanting to take sides on whether the finding are legit or not, we’d like to present the case that, from a personal nutritional perspective, most people have more immediate issues to take care of.

Read more…