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

Taxing soda pop, which seemed like a crazy idea just 12 months ago, is gaining traction with academics and politicians.

Recently, President Obama said a soda tax is “an idea that we should be exploring.” And in a research paper published yesterday by the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), a team of 7 scientists recommend taxing every fluid ounce of sugary soft drink by one penny. Those pennies add up to $15 billion annually that the federal government can spend on consumer education and healthcare.

The recommendations are based on research that shows:

1. consumption of sugary drinks has directly contributed to obesity in the US.

2. raising the price of soft drinks will reduce its consumption.

Of course the beverage industry is all over this, and in it multimillion dollar campaign, including a website nofoodtaxes.com, states:

Discriminatory and punitive taxes on soda and juice drinks do not teach our children to have a healthy lifestyle and have no meaningful impact on child obesity or public health. They just further burden working families already struggling in this trying economy.

Muhtar Kent, CEO of the Coca Cola Company calls a soda tax “outrageous” and likens the very thought of it to a communist conspiracy:

“I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink. It if worked, the Soviet Union would still be around.”

Mr Kent is right, the government shouldn’t decide for consumers what to eat or drink.

But it should protect consumers from unscrupulous corporations who are literally shoving junk food and drinks down our throats. Everywhere we turn, soft drink machines, snack dispensers, candies, chocolate bars, more soda, more snacks. Not to mention the endless commercials, advertisements, and other branding brainwashing activities all aimed to increase our consumption and their profit.

However, as we have suggested in the past, taxing the consumer is not the way to go.

What the government should do is to tax these corporations, big time. This, through mechanisms similar to carbon offsets in the industrial sector. Let’s call these calorie offsets for now.

Here’s how calorie offsets would work:

for every ton of added sweetener (sugar or corn syrup), a company would contribute $3000 to government programs aimed at obesity reduction. Three thousand dollars is equivalent to the penny per ounce tax suggested by the NEJM.

This suggestion will likely infuriate Mr. Kent and his friends at the ABA even more than taxing consumers. So what. Coca Cola and PepsiCo are among the most profitable companies in the food industry. The Coca Cola company, worth $120 Billion, had a net profit of $6 billion last year on sales of $30 billion. Not bad for a company that sells water and fizz mixed with high fructose corn syrup and artificial colors.

What are the advantages of Calorie Offsets?

1. They reduce the profitability of sugary drinks and encourage manufacturers to shift to healthier products.

2. If a company chooses to raise prices of soft drinks to maintain margins, that’s perfectly fine. Market forces will work for the benefit of the consumer. Shoppers will now revolt against said company by buying from its competitor. The government won’t be the scapegoat. We’ll see then who’s accused of discriminatory and punitive taxes.

3. The offset money will be marked and used, of course, to undo the the damage to the public health and to educate the public.

To summarize, as their customers are getting fatter and sicker, beverage industry shareholders are getting richer and richer. The government should require these companies to directly foot the bill for the damage that they are causing to the public.

What to do at the supermarket:

A suggestion for those of you concerned about a potential soda tax – A family of 4 can save $500 a year just by switching from soft drinks to tap water.

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

Is the massive peanut recall (still ongoing) replaying itself, this time with pistachios?

Could be.

Last night, the FDA issued a consumer alert, warning consumers that

The FDA and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) are investigating Salmonella contamination in pistachio products sold by Setton Pistachio of Terra Bella Inc, Calif. The company has stopped all distribution of processed pistachios and will issue a voluntary recall involving approximately 1 million pounds of its products. Because the pistachios were used as ingredients in a variety of foods, it is likely this recall will impact many products. In addition, the investigation at the company is ongoing and may lead to additional pistachio product recalls.

Read the full alert..

The first incident was reported last week by Kraft, whose Back To Nature Trail Mix was found to contain salmonella.

This is just another example of how one processing plant selling tainted raw materials to hundreds of manufacturers  can create a huge mess for consumers, supermarkets, and the manufacturers themselves. Not to mention hospitalizations and even death.

Until an overhaul of the US food safety system is enacted, we will continue to see these massive recalls.

What to do at the supermarket:

The US manufactures about 136 million metric tons of pistachios a year, so the amount recalled (500,000 metric tons) is less than half a percent.

Do you want to take a chance?

Stay away from pistachio products for now. It may take weeks or even months for all manufacturers to “voluntarily recall” tainted products.

Update: The voluntary recall by Setton Pistachio has just been announced by 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