Have you noticed the slough of  “quick glance” nutrition information we’ve been bombarded with this year? Whether it’s the calorie count on menu items at fast food chains, or on products or shelves at the supermarket, many new nutrition graphics, icons, and slogans have entered our vocabulary in 2009. NuVal, Smart Choices, Traffic Lights, and a host of other front of pack labels stormed into shoppers’ lives this year (some earlier).

But did they help us improve our choices?

That’s the billion dollar question, which unfortunately does not have a simple answer. Hannaford, a grocery retailer that introduced Guiding Stars several years ago, claims that products marked with at least one “star” showed an uptick in sales. The system provides a score of zero, one, two, or three stars to each an every product sold in Hannaford supermarkets, based on its nutritional value.

NuVal, on the other hand, scores products from 0-100, and is currently offering nutrition information in less than 1000 supermarkets, mostly in the midwest. Anecdotal evidence shows that people are slightly improving choices.

In New York, where calorie labeling in fast food chains such as McDonald’s and Pizza Hut went into effect last year, no changes in people’s habits were recorded so far. And in the UK, where the Traffic Light System has been in use for several years on packaged foods, the verdict is mixed. One study, published by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), the British equivalent of the FDA, showed an improvement in people’s choices. But a recent study by Oxford University researchers showed no correlation between the traffic light symbols and people’s choice of a ready to eat sandwich.

What you need to know:

While the quick glance label may give you quick info, the “information” may not always be in your best nutritional interest. You need to understand that many times the front of pack (FOP) nutrition info is just another marketing tool used by food manufacturers and retailers to get you to think that a product is healthy, when in fact it’s not. The best example is Froot Loops, which received a “Smart Choice” accolade by a consortium of manufacturers and fig-leafs scientists from top universities. This for a cereal with 40% sugar by weight, controversial artificial colors, and trans-fat. Luckily the Smart Choices program was nixed several months after it launched.

There is one very important effect that front of pack nutrition labeling has had though. It has caused food manufacturers to take a look at their products and reformulate them to some extent in order to qualify as many as possible as nutritious. Even Froot Loops lost a bit of sugar and gained a bit of fiber. Granted, these are baby steps, but at least they are in the right direction.

What to do at the supermarket:

Since the front of pack labels have not been approved by the FDA and are not really regulated, there is a lot of wiggle room for manufacturers to sell you a “healthy story” rather than a healthy product.

We recommend that you read the nutrition label itself, along with the ingredient list. It will take another moment of your time, but you will know exactly what you’re getting. And if you need advice or help in choosing a product, Fooducate is always here to help.

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

Happy 4th of July everyone. We’d rather it be called Independence Day, because that is what we have been celebrating for the past 200 years, not a date 7/04.

As we head to cookouts, picnics, bar-b-ques and other food related festivities, we should consider ourselves the luckiest people in the world. Democracy is not the default state of rule in many places around the world. Many countries are art war, some with neighbors, some with themselves. Our nation’s wealth has enabled many of us to lead very comfortable lives, beyond comprehension to many of the world’s denizens, who survive on but a few dollars a day.

Is it any wonder that the number one country people dream of immigrating to is the United States of America?

But we shouldn’t rest on our laurels. Our country isn’t perfect, and neither are we. Although we live in a free country, our choices are often limited. Without even thinking about it, we are steered in ways that are hard for us to resist. Say What?

We’ll take food as an example (surprising, heh?)

1. If you want to eat healthfully at a rest stop along an interstate highway, you can’t, because it’s all fast food. How much of a difference is there between Wendy’s, Burger King, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut? They’re all different flavors of obesity-to-arrive-soon and heart-disease-right-after. And they all serve either Coke or Pepsi.

2. How free are families to choose the food they put on the table? With supermarkets stocking 45,000 items, most people would say very free. But a close look reveals that in each aisle there are a few dominant companies, or a few dominant types of food. In breakfast cereals, most of the 400+ boxes are manufactured by just a handful of corporations (General Mills, Quaker, Kellogg’s). Sure, you could buy that healthier brand but

a) it costs 30% more,

b) your kids won’t eat it because there’s no superhero endorsement on the package.

3. You’re at the ballpark, 4th inning, getting hungry. What about some food and drinks? No problem. That is if food=hot dogs, drinks=Coke or Pepsi. If you want to choose freshly squeezed juice, you can’t. A salad? Who are you kidding.

OK, these are just a few example of the limited choices we have.

Limited, unless we decide to swim against the current. We urge you to try, just so you can feel what it’s like to be truly independent. And if enough of us swim against the current, soon the current will follow us. (And that’s what makes this country great).

God bless America!

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 by quaziefoto via Flickr

In several cities and states across the country, people are encountering menus labeled with calorie counts at chain restaurants and fast food joints. These are the results of local or state ordinances that came into effect in the past year.

While some argue over the efficacy of such measures, claiming that they have not resulted in people shifting to lower calorie options, there is no doubt that increased transparency can do no harm. Although restaurants originally objected to such laws, some embraced them proactively. YUM brands, the parent company of KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut chains announced recently that they would voluntarily post the information in all their locations nationwide.

New legislation is now being pushed on Capitol Hill to mandate this labeling nationally. The Menu Education and Labeling Act (MEAL for short) will also require food establishments to disclose information on fats, sodium, and carbs for each menu item.

According to the LA Times, others are promoting an alternate bill:

The restaurant industry is pushing a competing bill. The Labeling Education and Nutrition Act, nicknamed the LEAN Act, would require chains with more than 20 units to post calorie counts. It also would nullify state and local measures now in effect and preempt future regional measures.

Why would the restaurant industry want to push for an alternate bill? At first, they were strongly against any sort of labeling. But when they realized the consumer tide had turned and there was no way to stop labeling, they wanted to be involved as much as possible in order to “mitigate the damage” such measures could cause.

For example, require that just calories be labeled, not any other nutrient. Or require that the label appear on a printed menu, and not on the menu boards, which is where most people look.

Another approach is to reduce the number of establishments affected by the law. In NY you don’t have to post calorie info is your chain has less than 15 locations. By increasing the minimum number of restaurants to 20 or more, additional restaurants will be off the hook.

Not to mention that simply by introducing an alternate bill, the restaurant industry and its lobby are buying time. For surely there will be discussions, negotiations, and back and forth dealmaking until a watered down version of the original legislation will be enacted in a few years.

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

flickr photo: tristanbrand

In round one, table sugar was the bad boy. Empty calories, with no nutritional benefits.

In round two, High Fructose Corn Syrup got heat, because of the perception that it is unnatural, and promotes obesity as well.

In round three, instead of both sugar and HFCS slowly disappearing from products, good ol’ sugar is back in many products that have long used HFCS, a cheaper sweetener derived from corn.

According to a recent New York Times article:

Sugar, the nutritional pariah that dentists and dietitians have long reviled, is enjoying a second act, dressed up as a natural, healthful ingredient.

From the tomato sauce on a Pizza Hut pie called “The Natural,” to the just-released soda Pepsi Natural, some of the biggest players in the American food business have started, in the last few months, replacing high-fructose corn syrup with old-fashioned sugar.

ConAgra uses only sugar or honey in its new Healthy Choice All Natural frozen entrees. Kraft Foods recently removed the corn sweetener from its salad dressings, and is working on its Lunchables line of portable meals and snacks.

Read the entire article…

What you need to know:

So which is better for you – Sugar or HFCS?

Neither.

Calorically, they are the same. Nutritionally, they are also the same – no nutrients whatsoever.

Although a recent study found trace amounts of mercury in HFCS, they are smaller than what you get from going outside and breathing in exhaust fumes from cars and factory smokestacks.

What to do at the supermarket:

Look for sugar , HFCS, and other synonyms on food labels. You’d be surprised in how many places sweeteners have found a place. In many cases, there is more than one sweetener in the ingredient list. Shy away from products who list sweeteners as one of the first ingredients in the ingredient list. As Pat Crawford of the Center for Weight and Health at the University of California, Berkeley says – “Keep sugar for the desserts”.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

The Milbank Quarterly, a peer-reviewed journal of population health and health policy, provides an assessment of the social, legal, and ethical dimensions of health care policy in the US.

Their March issue is dedicated to obesity, a disease that has become a top priority due to the heavy toll it is putting on us both financially and medically.

One of the interesting articles is entitled The Perils of Ignoring History: Big Tobacco Played Dirty and Millions Died. How Similar Is Big Food?

In 1954 the tobacco industry paid to publish the “Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers” in hundreds of U.S. newspapers. It stated that the public’s health was the industry’s concern above all others and promised a variety of good-faith changes. What followed were decades of deceit and actions that cost millions of lives.

The article was written by two well respected public health researchers – Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, and Kenneth Warner, dean of the University of Michigan School of Public Health. Here’s what the researchers found.

Tobacco companies:
1. emphasized personal responsibility rather than industry responsibility.
2. criticized “junk” science that found harms associated with smoking.
3. paid scientists to produce counter-studies.
4. created self-regulation to preempt stricter government control.
5. lobbied with huge financial forces to stifle government action.
6. introduced “safer” products.
7. Denied the addictive nature of their products.
8. Denied the fact that they were marketing to children.

What you need to know:

Food is very different and much more complex than cigarettes. Our bodies need food, whereas they certainly don’t need cigarettes.

There is also a huge variation in food products and their nutritional values, whereas tobacco products are very limited in scope.

Therefore it is very difficult to pinpoint one specific product as so dangerous that it warrants the same treatment as a cigarette. Many foods have both beneficial nutrients along those better to restrict.

In addition, some nutrients are required up to a point and then become dangerous. For example, our bodies must get a daily dosage of sodium in order to function properly, whereas no nicotine is required at all.

Having said that, there certainly are similarities between the two industries:
* Personal responsibility is a biggie – you’re fat because you have no willpower to stop eating, not because an entire system has been built to offer you something fat/sweet/salty to stuff in your mouth every single minute of every single day.
* Many industry sponsored studies have lead to health claims on food labels that are questionable at best.
* Self regulation – take a look at the various industry initiatives to create front of label nutrition scoring (Smart Choices, Guiding Stars, etc…) as well as voluntarily providing calorie information on menus at Pizza Hut in order not to have to provide much much more.
* Lobbies – Ask the folks at the USDA and Capitol Hill about the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the power it wields, just as an example.
* Safer products – those would be, for example, low-fat, low-carb, reduced-sugar (but how safe are some artificial sweeteners), and omega-3 fortified products.
* Marketing to children – Any parent taking a kid to a supermarket knows that those cartoon characters on cereal boxes, yogurts, and ready-pastas are not there for our pleasure, rather for our kids to be able to nag us till we give in.

What to do at the supermarket:

Our usual recommendation is to choose minimally processed foods, those that have been around before Big Food. Sticking to the perimeter of the supermarket, where you can find fresh produce, meat and milk, as well as grains, is a good start.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

Image via Wikipedia

We’ve posted several times about salt recently, including  Nine Tips for Reducing Your Salt Intake. In today’s San Francisco Chronicle, Marion Nestle outlines three strategies food manufacturers adopt to address the issue of excess salt in their products:

Strategy No. 1 is to try to reduce sodium. Manufacturers say they can’t do this easily. Unless products are salty enough – reaching what the industry calls the “bliss point” – people will not buy them.

Strategy No. 2 is to spin the science. The salt industry lobbies hard to convince you that salt raises disease risk in only a small percentage of the population; that even modest reductions in salt intake could be dangerous to health; and that scientists disagree so strongly about the evidence that restrictive advice is unwarranted.

Strategy No. 3 is to pre-empt “eat less” messages by establishing generous criteria for “better-for-you” food choices. Witness the new industry-sponsored Smart Choices.

Read the entire article…

What you need to know:

The recommended daily intake is 2300mg of sodium (salt is 40% sodium). This is equivalent to a teaspoon. Most Americans consume far more than that, even twice as much. For example, there are more than 4,500 milligrams of sodium in a Dunkin’ Donuts salt bagel. Just two slices of Pizza Hut’s Thin ‘n Crispy Supreme Pizza have 1,460 milligrams.

75% of our salt comes from eating out and from packaged foods, and only a small amount from home cooked meals.

What to do at the supermarket:

Sodium content appears on food nutrition labels, so be sure to check for low values (less than 300mg per serving). Watch out for salt in surprising places such as cookies and breakfast cereals (10% of daily value!). The snack and frozen TV dinner aisles are notoriously salty, although there are new low-sodium products emerging. Look for them. Kosher meat and poultry is usually salted; best to thoroughly rinse at home before cooking. If buying veggies, opt for frozen over canned and save yourself the extra salt. Eating more meals prepared at home is a surefire way to control salt intake.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

flickr photo: iambarr

Philadelphia has joined New York City, the state of California, and several other counties in requiring chain restaurants to disclose nutrition information. CSPI reports:

Beginning on Jan. 1, 2010, chain restaurants with more than 15 outlets will have to disclose calories on menu boards, and calories, saturated and trans fat, sodium and carbohydrates on printed menus. The measure passed today by the Philadelphia City Council is the strongest in the nation so far, and we hope it is used as a model for other jurisdictions.

Read more…

You can download the resolution here [PDF].

What you need to know:

For every dollar spent on food in the US, 45 cents are for fare consumed outside the home. This includes many chain restaurants. Unlike packaged foods at the supermarket (which include nutrition information that helps consumers make better decisions), food served at restaurants is health information-free.

The logic behind the recent legislation is that by informing consumers about the nutritional value of items on the menu, they’ll be able to make better personal choices. Many see this as an opportunity to help battle obesity; others claim it will take the joy away from dining out.

Does transparency of information empower consumers to make better choices? Will the new data change ordering patterns at Starbucks and McDonald’s? Will Pizza Hut reformulate leaner dishes? It will be interesting to watch as the statistics pile up in the coming years.

Remember, nutrition labels have been around in supermarket foods for over 15 years, a time period when America has gained more weight than ever. Sadly, it seems like access to knowledge does not always translate to action.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

flickr photo: markhillary

Americans spend over 40% of their food dollars outside the home, in restaurants and fast food chains. Many experts see these meals as a prime contributor to the obesity epidemic, as fast food tends to be nutritionally inferior to home cooked meals. New York City enacted a menu labeling law earlier this year, and several other cities followed suit. Each menu item now includes information about calories, fat, sodium, and sugar, helping consumers make more informed meal choices.

Yesterday two more milestones in menu labeling were achieved:

1. California became the first state to enact a menu labeling law. From the LA Times:

Consumers are typically unable to correctly guess the nutritional content of fast food. One study found nine of 10 people underestimated the calorie content of certain restaurant foods by an average of 600 calories. Another study found that even professional nutritionists underestimated the calorie content of restaurant food by 220 to 680 calories.

2. Yum Brands, the owner of Pizza Hut, KFC and others will start adding calorie counts to all food on the menu, in company owned branches across the nation.

Now lets see if consumer habits will begin to change…