Image via Wikipedia

The first decade of the millennium brought both good and bad developments in the food and nutrition space. Mostly, this decade was a wake up call for many families and individuals that they cannot blindly trust government and market powers to provide the healthy food that they deserve.

2001 – Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal, by investigative reporter Eric Schlosser, is published. People begin to understand that there is a very high price society is paying for cheap food.

2003 – The FDA announces plans to permit food manufacturers to make “qualified health claims”. Industry can now rely on “Some scientific evidence” or “Very limited and preliminary scientific research” to make a health claim. Opponents criticize it as opening the door to ill-founded claims. Advocates believe it will make more information available to the public. We shoppers get more confusing marketing messages than ever.

2003 – the low carb diet craze is launched with the publication of the South Beach Diet. The trend peaked in 2004 and pretty much died off by the end of 2005.

2004 – Morgan Spurlock’s Supersize Me, a documentary film following the health of its director eating only McDonald’s for an entire month, is released and meets with mixed reactions. Fast food chains duck for cover.

2004 – Passage of the Food Allergy Labeling and Consumer Protection Act. Requires labeling of any food that contains one or more of: peanuts, soybeans, cow’s milk, eggs, fish, crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, and wheat. People suffering from allergies still confused over statements such as “produced in a factory which also processes peanuts”.

2005 – Blogging goes mainstream, and people find new and useful sources of information on any subject, including food, nutrition, and health.

2006 – Wal-Mart joins the Organic Food bandwagon, signaling the mass acceptance of a once hippy movement.

2006 – Trans-fat is proclaimed the new evil. It’s labeling is required on all packaged foods. As a result, many manufacturers reformulate their products.

2007 – Author, professor, and food lover Michael Pollan publishes The Omnivore’s Dilemma, and continues the theme of Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation. The result is a mass yearning for organic, sustainable fare. A follow-up book in 2008, In Defense of Food, argues against the “nutritionism” and suggests a creation of a food culture where  we “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”

2008 – COOL (country of origin) Labeling goes into effect. fresh beef, pork, and lamb. After repeated debilitation and stakeholder pressures, the law that was enacted in the 2002 Farm Bill finally went into effect on Oct 1, 2008, and even then with many loopholes.

2008-9 – Front of Pack Nutrition Labeling becomes a food industry pastime, with over 15 different systems competing who will become the dominant player. In late 2009, the FDA decides to start thinking of maybe possibly beginning a process of evaluation which could eventually lead to government regulation in this area. While Guiding Stars and NuVal still survive, Smart Choices is nixed.

2009 – In January, a salmonella outbreak caused by a dirty peanut butter processing plant in Georgia, leads to one of the largest recalls of products in the history of supermarkets. Hundreds of products are recalled after the unnecessary deaths of innocent peanut butter aficionados.

2009 – As the recession takes hold, many  turn to comfort foods. Although home cooked meals are generally healthier and cheaper than restaurant fare, McDonalds’s stock has never done better. Coupon usage increases for the first time since 1992.

Here’s a graph of McDonald’s (red)  vs. Whole Foods Market (blue) stock performance over the course of the decade. How’s your (nutrition) performance changed over the last 10 years?

Note #1 : Apologies for not mentioning any TV shows, of which surely some deserve mention, as we have not watched TV since the late 1990’s. Perhaps a fastidious reader would like to add these in the comments section.

Note #2:  many good ideas for this post appeared in Delish.

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…

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

It’s been almost 20 years since the nutrition label as we know it was introduced. The intent was to empower consumers to make more informed (read: healthy) purchasing decisions. Unfortunately, the labels have not helped, as America continues to grow, and not in a good way.

While blaming the inadequacy of the nutrition panel is a naive approach to America’s relationship with its food, there are certain oversights or loopholes in the way packaged food information is provided to consumers today. For example, health claims or nutrient claims, which appear in large font on the front of package, embellish one positive trait, say “low-fat”. The nutritional cost may be a product high in sugar content as compensation. But such details appear in the side panel (the nutrition label is never up front), and consumers don’t always bother to check.

We’ve compiled a list of improvements that can make labels and packaging even more informative, hopefully providing consumers with  better tools to make a decision. Consumers will benefit from increased transparency of nutrition and ingredient information. Read more…