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 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

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

Help the FDA Improve

NUTRITION FACTS LABELS

The FDA is reconsidering the Nutrition Facts Panel. Almost 20 years after the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, and with soaring rates of obesity, one could argue that the goals of a healthier, slimmer America have not been achieved.

The Food and Drug Administration, charged with most foods’ nutrition labeling realizes this. So it has decided to experiment with changes, additions, and omissions in order to improve consumer understanding of what they are about to eat.

But before building the experiment, the FDA is soliciting comments from the public, and that includes us – you, me, and whoever cares about nutrition. Unfortunately, the digital hallways of the federal government are not user friendly and it is not trivial to find the right webpage to comment. This means that in many cases, the only comments come from food manufacturers and trade groups. You can probably guess what their comments will look like.

So here’s some help from Fooducate. Not only did we dig up the single click that takes you straight to the comment page, we’ve also collated Seven Label Improvement Suggestions [see below] that you can suggest to the FDA.

The invitation to comment by the FDA can be downloaded [PDF] or viewed online.

You need to submit your comments by January 19, 2010. For reference, the docket number is FDA–2009–N–0532 and you can submit your comment here.

Seven Suggested Label Improvements:

If you are contemplating what improvements the FDA should undertake, let us help with a few examples. Feel free to “copy paste” when you file your comment with the FDA.

1. Show REAL serving size. Have you ever noticed the ridiculously small serving sizes on packages – 3 Oreos? 15 potato chips? Or a single serve 20 fl oz bottle of cola written up as containing 2.5 servings? Manufacturers like to minimize the servings to toddler size portions so that the nutrition facts per serving won’t seem too bad (calories, sugar, etc…). This is misleading and needs to change to reflect how people really consume food and drink.

2. How much ADDED sugar? 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, occurs naturally, or both. Caloric-ly, there is no difference between added sugar and sugar found naturally in fruits and vegetables. But the benefit of fruits containing naturally occurring sugars is in the additional vitamins, minerals, fiber, antioxidantss and phytochemicals they provide. Added sugars provide no health benefits. They are truly empty calories. People should choose products with as little added sugar as possible. Unfortunately, today consumers can only guess how much sugar has been added to a product.

3. Daily Values for Protein, Sugar. These numbers don’t appear on nutrition labels today and consumers can only guess if 5 grams of protein are a lot or a little. As most people consume plenty of protein daily, this will decrease the marketing hype around high protein bars and snacks. As for sugar, people don’t know what amount is an acceptable daily intake of total sugar, and of added sugar.

4. Zero should be zero. Did you know that if a product contains trans fat, but less than 0.5 grams per serving, it can legally be labeled as 0 gram of trans fat? This is ridiculous. Knowing this, manufacturers can “calibrate” serving sizes to be just under half a gram’s worth of trans-fat, thus earning the right to place the coveted zero number on the nutrition label. But when wolfing down a snack bag (real serving size much larger than labeled – see #1 above), you could be getting even 1.25 grams of trans-fat, all while thinking that the product contains none at all.

5. Caffeine content. Products that contain caffeine should clearly state the amount. People are often surprised to discover caffeine in soft drinks, cakes, and other snack items. Some energy drinks contain ridiculously high amounts. Physicians have asked the FDA to require caffeine labeling on energy drinks.

6. Allow rBGH-free labels. rBGH / rBST is a hormone injected into cows to increase their milk output. The hormone has been associated with various health risks for humans consuming the milk. People should know if their milk comes from cows treated with these hormones.

7. Label Booz. Alcoholic beverages should be labeled as well. At a bare minimum, provide serving size and calories.

Click HERE to submit your comments to the FDA.

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

IFIC, The International Food Information Council, is a trade group representing the interests of food, beverage, and agricultural industries mostly in the US. Recently IFIC published a report entitled “2009 Food & Health Survey – Consumer Attitudes toward Food, Nutrition & Health”. The consumer survey was conducted earlier this year and a summary presentation may be downloaded here [PDF].

There are many interesting statistics, but we’d like to first discuss the findings regarding the nutrition fact panel:

According to IFIC, these are the top 3 “challenges” consumers face with the nutrition panel:
1. Misleading serving size. We agree. See our recent post on this topic.
2. Consumers do not consider their consumption of foods and beverages in the context of their daily intake. This is also true, as 63% of consumers do not know what their daily calorie intake should be. Do you know yours?
3. Consumers do not realize information to help them interpret daily context exists on nutrition panels. There is lots information in there, but it is obfuscated, and for a good reason – vagueness in the details alongside clarity in the headlines (Immunity Cereal) helps sell more products.

The recommendations to manufacturers are:
1. Clarify serving size. Fooducate addition:  Please adjust serving sizes to what people really eat, rather explain why the tiny serving size is reasonable.
2. Call attention to daily intake . Fooducate note: People should know what their daily intake should be. However, if this information will be used to make a 400 calorie sugary snack seems less harmful because it’s part of the larger picture – a 2,500 calorie diet, then people will just keep getting fatter.
3. Mention the FDA boldly in the nutrition panel – to increase trustworthiness. But of course…

Read more…

Supervalu is one fo the largest grocery retailers and wholesalers in the US. IN January they jumped on the front-of-package-nutrition-labeling wagon when they introduced NutritionIQ at some of their Albertson’s locations.

Now the company is introducing a different scheme, named Healthy Elements, for its independent grocer partners. There are about 2,500 independents being supplied through Supervalu, and this is supposedly a good way to help their cutomers get a clearer picture of some products’ nutritional value.

What’s not clear is why Supervalu would create a new scheme when it already has one not even 6 months old.

What you need to know:

We’ve been covering front of package labelling almost religiously in the past year. Most of the big manufacturers and supermarkets are affiliated with one scheme or another (see Guiding Stars, Smart Choices), and there are a few relatively independent ones as well, such as NuVal.

While the basic ideas of simplyfing the nutrition label for consumers is to be welcomed, there are a few problems:

1. Too many logos and labels serve to confuse consumers even more, rather than help them figure out what’s healthy and what’s not.

2. The benchmark for deciding which product is healthy and which is not is set differently in each system based on the marketing and sales needs of its supporters. These systems, where financial considerations are mixed with nutrition calculations, do not serve to instill a lot of faith in consumers. Some consumer advocate consider these labeling schemes as more marketing by firms.

What to do at the supermarket:

Buy less processed foods, the kinds that don’t even need ingredient lists (fruits, vegetables, lean meats, grains and legumes in bulk). Spend time reading the nutrition label and the ingredient list of processed products. If it seems too difficult, try to gradually learn about nutrition by going online and – shameless plug – reading this blog. Fooducate provides plenty of tips on how to navigate through food market-speak to get to the truth behind the labels.

And if you feel stumped, drop us a line [blog at fooducate dot com], we’ll be happy to answer any question.

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