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 The actual quantity of product per serving is based on outdated consumer surveys, before the era of super-sized meals, big-gulp drinks, and a-pint-at-a-sitting ice creams.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

[Update: see Ocean Spray's response in the comments below.]

More Cranberry news today.

Here’s a dilemma for you. Let’s say you are the CEO of a successful food company that sells products both to consumers and to other food processors. And let’s assume you are being squeezed by your big corporate clients to lower the price of your product. What do you do? Do you stand by the quality of your product and take a hit on the bottom line? Or do you get the food scientists to whip up a cheaper, inferior version?

This is the story of sweetened dried cranberries (SDC), manufactured by Ocean Spray. The consumer product, Craisins, contains dried cranberries, sugar (lots), and sometimes a bit of oil. That’s the package we buy at the supermarket. However, when we buy products with cranberry, such as Nature Valley Fruit Bars and Pepperidge Farm Chewy Granola Cookies, the cranberries inside are different. They come from a new product by Ocean Spray, called “Choice”.

What you need to know:

The “Choice” product has 50% less cranberry (the expensive ingredient) and more of other stuff: sugar, edelberry juice, citric acid. Some say, it barely has any cranberry left.

Here’s what The National Consumers League (NCL), a watchdog organization, wrote to the FDA:

…the cranberry content is so small that Ocean Spray must add color in the form of elderberry juice concentrate and acidity in the form of citric acid to simulate the color and acidity of cranberries. These findings are consistent with Ocean Spray’s own claims that it uses 50 percent fewer cranberries to make “Choice” than the regular product. Ocean Spray’s marketing materials tout “Choice” as a low-cost SDC with the same taste, texture, appearance, and health benefits as other SDCs.

NCL argues that such products should not be called cranberries, because they barely contain any of the original fruit. After sending the “Choice” product to a lab, they also ask that the ingredient label (on bulk packages, we assume) be corrected to state sugar as the first ingredient, not cranberries.

If you’re wondering why some products are full of all strange sounding names and chemicals, this story exemplifies one of the many reasons – manufacturer cost reduction.

Two other well known examples are the use of high fructose corn syrup instead of sugar in soft drinks (HFCS is half the price of table sugar) and the invention of margarine as a low cost alternative to butter (at the behest of France’s Napoleon two hundred years ago).

What to do at the supermarket:

Go for products with ingredient lists that have real, understandable names. Not always the healthiest (i.e too much butter), but at least you know what you are putting in your mouth.

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

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

The December Edition of Consumer Reports, already out, is bringing BPA, a controversial chemical, back to the headlines. The non-profit publisher, Consumers Union, tested various canned foods for BPA and found alarmingly high values in daily staples such as tuna, beans and soups. You can read more about it here.

This is a good opportunity to get reacquainted with a chemical we  all consume in some form, whether we know it, like it, or not.

What you need to know:
1. Bisphenol-A  is a chemical compound used as a building block of several polymers and polycarbonates that in turn are found in plastic bottles and cans. Which means all of us are exposed to tiny amounts, whether drinking canned juice, milk from a baby-bottle, or any other product sold in a plastic container or a can.

2. The chemical has been sold since the 1940’s and starting in the 1960’s has been lining the insides of cans in order to extend shelf life.

3. 7 billion pounds of BPA are produced annually, for use in food packaging, PVC water pipes, electronics, and more.

4. In 2008, more than 22 billion cans for food and more than 100 billion cans for beer and soft drinks were produced with BPA.

5. BPA behaves like the hormone estrogen once it enters the body and disturbs the normal working of certain genes. Estrogen mimicking chemicals like BPA are potentially harmful even at very low doses, such as those found in plastic bottles and cans.

6. Toxicity questions have been around for decades, raising safety issue, especially for babies who ingest a proportionally larger amount due to their small size. Potential problems include hyperactivity, learning disabilities, brain damage, and immune deficiencies.

7. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calculated that people consume 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight every day over the course of a lifetime. Over 40 studies have found adverse health effects in rats given less than one hundredth of that amount!

8. Over 200 animal studies that have linked BPA consumption in tiny amounts to a host of reproductive problems, brain damage, immune deficiencies, metabolic abnormalities, and behavioral oddities like hyperactivity, learning deficits and reduced maternal willingness to nurse offspring.

9. In 2008, Canada added BPA to its list of toxic substances and plans are to ban BPA from all baby bottles.

10. The FDA has zigzagged on BPA safety. In August 2008 it deemed BPA safe. However, in December 2008, the FDA’s own advisory board accused the FDA of weighing 2 industry-backed studies much more heavily than the hundreds of other independent studies. The FDA’s excuse: all the other studies did not meet the FDA’s guidelines for determining safety for human consumption, did not provide raw data, and a host of other “reasons”.

11. In March 2009, six manufacturers announced that they would voluntarily stop manufacturing bottles with BPA. Playtex Products, Gerber, Evenflo, Avent America, Dr. Brown and Disney First Years decided to so in order to preempt legal action being considered at the time by several state attorney generals.

12. In May 2009, Chicago became the first city to ban sales of baby bottles and sippy cups with BPA. Denmark became the first European country to do the same.

13. Many other European countries conducted reviews in the past 2 years but decided to maintain BPA’s safe status for now.

14. If you think you’re safe, 93% of the population has BPA in their bodies, according to urine sampling conducted by the Center for Disease Control, CDC.

15. There’s hope – Many Japanese manufacturers voluntarily stopped using BPA in 1997. In a 2003 study, BPA levels in people’s urine had dropped by 50%.

What to do at the supermarket:
Here are some tips on how to reduce your family’s  BPA intake:
1. if you have a baby or toddler, purchase BPA free plastic bottles.
2. If microwaving formula, do so in a glass bottle.
3. Opt for fresh or frozen products less than canned.
4. Drink tap water instead of bottled 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

It’s unbelievable how the $50 billion beverage industry keeps coming up with new products and inventions to entice consumers with. The fastest growing segment in the past few years has been energy drinks, but it’s beginning to flatten. Will relaxation soft drinks, the new up and coming niche, prove successful?

Most likely yes. Sadly.

But before you run off to unwire with a “vacation in a bottle”, we want you to take a look at a sample product, Purple Stuff, with us. Read more…

The word salad conjures, for most people, mounds of iceberg lettuce, a few other veggies, and a hefty ladle of dressing. As with many things, the US did not invent it, but in the last 50 years we have elevated salad dressing to a billion dollar industry with hundreds of varieties awaiting us in a special condiments aisle in the supermarket. You know something is big when it has its own trade organization.

In southern Europe and the Mediterranean, a salad is dressed by mixing some fresh lemon juice, a bit of olive oil, salt and pepper, and drizzling on top of a freshly cut salad. It seems that here, though, folks cannot complete that basic task and therefore gladly pay $3.00-$4.00 for a bottled solution. The price paid isn’t just monetary, as there are ingredients in some commercial dressings that are better kept away from our bodies.

Read more…

One of the most popular claims on food packaging in the past few years is “Natural”. From sugary snacks to TV dinners to drinks, you’ll find this unregulated term appear on processed food-like products that are as far from being natural as Manhattan is from the Grand Canyon. But since the FDA did not define when and how the term should be used, it has become a very easy to lure consumers with the associated health auro.

No surprise then to find that liquid candy, aka soft drinks, are joining the Natural Revolution:

Vice president of Sprite and flavors at Coca-Cola North America Santiago Blanco said: “The introduction of this new formulation and the new look of the Fanta line are part of our ongoing efforts to reinvigorate the sparkling beverage category in the US.”

Read article…

What you need to know:

Natural does NOT mean healthy. In soft drinks, natural means that high fructose corn syrup has been replaced with sugar. Lots of sugar, that your body definitely doesn’t need.

Switching from artificial food dyes to natural colorings is to be commended, but then we ask, why did Coke been use artificial colorings all these years in the first place? [Answer: it was fractions of a cent cheaper per bottle, never mind the disturbing medical research]

What to do at the supermarket:

Our steadfast advice -  save your family of 4 over $500 a year by skipping the beverage aisles at the supermarket and learning to enjoy water. It’s cheaper, healthier, and lets the flavors of your home cooked meal express themselves best.

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: matski_98

1. It has many names – Tartrazine, E102 , FD&C Yellow 5, C.I. 19140, or just plain Yellow 5.

2. Yellow #5 is a synthetic, water soluble, lemon yellow dye used as a food coloring.

3. A partial list of foods including Yellow #5: cotton candy, soft drinks, energy drinks, instant puddings, flavored tortilla chips such as Doritos, breakfast cereals, cake mixes, pastries, pudding powders, soups, sauces, flavored rices such as paella,  powdered drink mixes, sports drinks, ice cream, ice pops, candy, chewing gum, marzipan, jam, jelly, gelatins, marmalade, mustard, horseradish, yogurt, noodles, and pickles.

4. Yellow #5 is one of the cheapest synthetic colors available, and sold all over the world.

5. The more expensive, natural food colorings are turmeric (a spice) , annatto (tropical tree derivative), betacarotene (think carrots’ orange pigments), or malt color.

6. Various levels of allergic reactions and intolerance reactions have been caused by this food coloring, especially among asthmatics and people with aspirin intolerance.

7. Some studies have linked various immunologic responses to tartrazine ingestion, including anxiety, migraines, clinical depression, blurred vision, itching, general weakness, heatwaves, feeling of suffocation, purple skin patches, and sleep disturbance.

8. Despite mounting evidence, The FDA considers Yellow #5 a safe food coloring. Let it be noted that, in the past, the FDA banned the use of other food colorings. This, after research showed them to be carcinogenic.

9. A major study published in the UK in 2007 linked food colorings with hyperactive behavior in children. As a result, the FSA (UK’s FDA) has called manufacturers to voluntarily ban food colorings in their products. Most companies are obliging,  due to consumer pressure and FSA encouragement.

10. Consumer groups in the US, especially the Center for Science in the Public Interest, have called food colorings, and especially Yellow #5, the “Secret Shame” of Food Industry and Regulators. A ban from all foods is their request.

11. Yellow #5 may also be also found in vitamins, antacids, soaps, cosmetics, shampoos, moisturizers, and crayons.

12. Organic foods may also contain Yellow #5 or other food colorings, because the USDA considers a processed food organic if it as at least 95% organic by weight. Since food colorings are used in tiny amounts, a bran muffin with a touch of artificial yellow is still considered organic.

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

From across the Atlantic, an interesting study conducted in the UK found an overabundance of junk food adverts in magazines, even those providing health advise and suggestions. From Medical News Today:

Newcastle University researchers collected and compared data on the nutritional content of the foods advertised in 30 most widely-read weekly magazines during November 2007.

Almost one quarter (23%) of the foods advertised were categorised as “containing fat or sugar” including products such as ice-cream, chocolate bars, sweets and full sugar soft drinks. Government guidelines recommend these should be eaten only “sparingly”. More of these adverts were found in magazines with a higher proportion of women readers or readers of a lower social class. In contrast, very few of the ads, only 1.8%, were for fruit and vegetables and these were mainly in high-end magazines.

“Nearly every magazine contains advice on a healthier lifestyle, yet we found the food adverts were for products high in sugar and salt and low in fibre such as ready meals, sauces and confectionary,” explains Dr Jean Adams, lecturer in public health at Newcastle University, who led the study.

“Obviously, it’s up to each of us to decide what we eat but if we’re constantly bombarded with images of unhealthy food every time we pick up a magazine then we’re going to be swayed in what we choose,” she adds.

Read the entire article…

What you need to know:

Unprocessed foods, mostly produce such broccoli, are the orphans of the advertising industry. They don’t have rich sponsors that can plaster ads every which way you turn. Manufactured, packaged foods, are priced to include a profit for the manufacturer after cost of advertising. Some brands of sweets have campaigns costing millions of dollars.

Consumers are thus unevenly exposed to some foods much more than others. And these marketing messages do work, otherwise manufacturers wouldn’t pay. This is especially critical with children, who as a result of creative marketing ads deem a bag of chips much cooler than a piece of fruit as a snack.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

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

This was the week of stevia, a new zero calorie sweetener, that got FDA approval as a safe food additive, and will shortly find its way into soft drinks and other products scattered about our supermarket aisles. If you are confused about all the different sweetening options out there, you are not alone. Once upon a time, it was either honey or cane sugar. But then came the industrial revolution…

(Grab a cup of coffee, take a deep breath, this is a long post) Read more…

High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS), the sweetener everybody loves to hate, has starred in headlines recently, as well as in commercials sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association. Many believe that it is the reason we are all getting fatter. In fact, a 2004 study even suggested such a link.

ut now, USA Today reports, five new studies are showing the opposite – no link between obesity and HFCS consumption:

This week, five papers published in a supplement to Clinical Nutrition find no special link between consumption of high-fructose corn syrup and obesity. One paper was written by Barry Popkin, a co-author on the original 2004 paper.

“It doesn’t appear that when you consume high-fructose corn syrup, you have any different total effect on appetite than if you consume any other sugar,” he says.

Read the article…

What you need to know:

High fructose corn syrup is cheaper than regular (refined) white sugar. That is why it has become very popular in the food industry, as it lowers the cost of manufacturing “processed foods”. The low cost, though, is artificial, and due to heavy government subsidies US farmers receive to manufacture corn. The huge excesses of corn lead to low market prices that wouldn’t make economic sense had the farmers not received their subsidy. Non diet soft drinks used to be sweetened with sugar, now it’s almost all HFCS.

Whether it’s sugar or HFCS, Americans are getting fatter, and one of the reasons is too many empty calories derived from sweeteners found in processed foods. The best approach is to try and reduce overall sugars consumption by looking out for sweet in food labels.

By the way, you can’t buy a jar of HFCS at the grocery store.

What to do at the supermarket:

Watch for sugar, HFCS and their many synonyms (Dextrin, Maltose, see more…) on food labels. You’d be surprised at the places sweet pops up. Always better to choose less processed foods and add your own sugar at home.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription