ColumnAre you confused by reading food labels? You are not alone.

In a sea of choices, reading food labels can be the thing that help to guide us in the right direction. Leading busy lives, we don’t always have the time to do all the research on everything we buy, so we look for certain indicators to help us get what we want. Some go for “organic” some go for “non-GMO.” Ultimately food labels should help us to know what we’re buying. Unfortunately, they don’t always serve that purpose.

According to a recent Consumer Reports study, around 60 percent of people look for the “natural” label when they grocery shop because they think that products labeled “natural” are better for them than those products without the label. In fact, 66 percent of Americans believe “natural” means a processed food has no artificial ingredients, pesticides, or genetically modified organisms. But the truth is, it doesn’t mean any of that.

There’s actually no FDA definition of “natural,” but “the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.” Which means you can essentially slap the word “natural” onto a whole lot of things. For example, when it comes to “natural flavors,” you can have “any number of (naturally derived) chemicals concocted to enhance the taste of your snack,” writes Grist. “They’re dreamed up, extracted, and blended by flavorists in labs to preserve what your food would have tasted like before it was processed, frozen, heated, pasteurized, or otherwise addled on the way to your grocery store.” Which is why you get things like Diet 7-Up boasting “100% natural flavors.”

A food marketing word that has come to carry no meaning, Consumer Reports actually launched a petition to ban the use of “natural” on food products.

What is a conscious food shopper to do? Simple. Buy real food.

Let’s go back to the FDA for help. According to the agency, “natural” is hard to define because, “From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is ‘natural’ because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth.”

Ah yes, there we have it, the one phrase that says it all: “food product.” A food product is not the same as real food. It is food that has been processed and made into something else. Some food products can be fairly harmless, a basic granola for example – as long as it’s not hyped up on tons of additives, and other things that are simply weird. Go-gurt anyone? As a rule of thumb, I am sure we can all agree that if a product comes in a flavor of “cool cotton candy” you can go ahead and assume that it’s not real food.

Which brings us to another one of the food labels that causes a lot of confusion: organic.

Organic is different, because it has guidelines and an entire certification process behind it. In a world where we’re ruled by industrial agriculture, organic is better than non-organic. But remember that there are plenty of small-scale farmers that can’t afford the certification, and like with anything, we shouldn’t let the organic label stop us from doing just a little thinking when we shop.

An organic banana is still a banana, and unless you live in the tropics, that banana had to travel a long way to get to you.

An organic apple from New Zealand individually wrapped in plastic, is still an apple from afar that’s protected by a single-use disposable wrapping.

Organic goji berries are still exotic superfoods that could easily be replaced with something more local.

The reality is, you don’t have to master the world of food labels to eat well, you just need to use common sense. Buying something that isn’t whole foods or grains? Turn that box or bag around and look at the ingredients list. If it’s full of a bunch of things you can’t pronounce, don’t buy it. The fewer the ingredients, the better.

We don’t need to overthink what we buy. In fact, the more we simplify what we buy, the better off we are. That means apples and not apple chips. Black beans and not bean dip. Sparkling water with a slice of fruit in it and not a soda boasting “100% natural flavors.” Plain yogurt with a spoonful of jam and not a Go-Gurt.

Don’t be fooled by a natural food label. Eat real food instead.

Related on EcoSalon

Is That Trader Joe’s Junk Food You’re Eating? Foodie Underground

Eating Healthy: 7 Meat and Poultry Labels to Look For

Behind the Label: The Kashi Controversy

This is the latest installment of Anna Brones’ weekly column at EcoSalon: Foodie Underground, an exploration of what’s new and different in the underground movement, and how we make the topic of good food more accessible to everyone. More musings on the topic can be found at www.foodieunderground.com.

Image: Quinn Dombrowski

The post Organic? Natural? The Confusion of Reading Food Labels: Foodie Underground appeared first on EcoSalon.

There’s no denying that the internet age has brought us a wealth of information. However, how well our brains retain all of that information is up for debate; just because we have access to data around the clock does not mean that we’re processing it and putting it to best use.

Read Write Web recently wrote about how consumers stand to benefit from that increased amount of data as it relates to food.

Food safety is the primary concern of consumers. Yet according to an IBM report, only 1 percent of foods entering the U.S. are inspected. The report further states that imports make up “nearly 60 percent of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the U.S. and 75 percent of the seafood.”

Data about where food was produced and how it has traveled would increase consumer confidence about food safety. Given the choice of two similar food products, but one has more data about how safe it is – as a consumer, which would you choose? That’s an opportunity for food companies to gain an advantage over their competition.

With more data at their disposal, what they do with it will certainly determine food companies’ competitive advantage. However, these advances do beg the question: will we pay attention and will it change our eating habits?

There are plenty of individual sites set up to collect data and track what we eat – Read Write Web cites Health Month and TweetWhatYouEat – which point to individuals’ desire to eat healthier. In getting people excited to really think about what they eat, sites like these are encouraging people to become more conscious consumers, which ultimately translates to healthier palates. On the flip side however, we face the problem of information overload.

Think of the nutrition facts that find their way onto practically everything we consume. When was the last time you paid attention to how much vitamin A and C your granola bar contained? And if you did consider those percentages, did you also consider how much high fructose corn syrup was involved? In an effort to get us to think more about what we’re consuming, too much data can be overwhelming and it can also easily take the focus away from what we should be doing if we’re wanting to be healthier consumers: seek out natural, whole foods that haven’t traveled six times round the world to make it to our plate.

Yes, the day that we can scan a food item and learn whether or not it’s gluten or lactose-free and where exactly it came from, we’ll all have the tools to make smarter eating choices – but will we use technology to replace common sense?

Ask anyone on a diet of mostly vegetables, grains and locally produced meat and they’ll probably tell you that they never bother with labels. They know exactly what’s in their food and where it came from. The need for food data is only necessary in a society dependent on food produced in a research lab, with complex combinations of things like modified corn starch, sodium benzoate and yellow 5. (Note that until I found an old bag of Swedish fish and some electrolyte tablets, I had a very difficult time tracking those down in my pantry).

I’m all for supporting more accountability and transparency in the food industry, but ultimately, we all need to start taking some personal responsibility and teaching others the value of eating the kind of food that we can confidently identify what it is and where it came from. That comes from talking to the people who grow your food and getting the rest of your community inspired to do the same, and no amount of data is going to do that for us.

Editor’s note: This is the latest installment of Anna Brones’s column at EcoSalon, Foodie Underground. Each week, Anna will be taking a look at something new and different that’s taking place in the underground food movement, from supper clubs to mini markets to culinary avant garde.

The post Foodie Underground: Will More Information Make Us Better Consumers? appeared first on EcoSalon.

In March The Center for Science in the Public Interest released a report entitled Food Labeling Chaos.

The report outlined in detail the myriad ways packaged food companies mislead consumers through vague, false, meaningless health claims, and difficult to decipher nutritional panels. The FDA took notice, and since then has issued a number of warning letters to companies making the claims.

Also recently the first lady announced a new commitment to ending childhood obesity in a generation through a renewed focus on exercise and nutrition. One way she plans to do this is to make sure that consumers get reliable nutritional information from food packages. She’s working with industry to rally them to the cause of making the information on food labels more clear for consumers. After all, how can our population hope to be healthier if we are not given reliable health information that will allow us to make smarter choices?

At this point, the first lady is trying to bring the industry to the table voluntarily. It’s a good starting point, but it’s likely that any voluntary engagement will need to be bolstered by a hefty does of regulation. After all, when the food industry gets together to come up with its own packaging schemes we end up with atrocities like the Orwellian Smart Choices program. You know, the labeling scheme under which Froot Loops were considered a smart choice.

For its part, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is one of the government agencies in charge of regulating such claims, has signaled a greater willingness to regulate than under past administrations. As evidenced by the warning letters sent to industry. But it remains to be seen whether these letters will translate into actual regulation. Food Politics expert, Marion Nestle, doesn’t think so. She thinks industry will turn the food labeling cause into a First Amendment fight that the FDA won’t want to engage in.

In the interim between now and the time that regulation comes, it’s good to know when you’re being duped, so here’s a run down of the types of labels to watch out for, and the different categories under which they are likely to occur.

Structure Function Claims: Structure function claims are statements about a food’s ability to cure or prevent disease and are one of the most commonly used misleading claims on food packages. The FDA regulates such claims on dietary supplements, but has not established rules for structure/function claims on food. This means companies are allowed to do pretty much whatever they want. Occasionally a company is slapped down by a warning letter, public outcry, or a lawsuit by someone outside of the government, but usually it’s up to the consumer to view such claims with a critical eye.

Rice Crispies Boost Immunity – Last summer, Kellogg rolled out new artwork on its Rice Crispies (and Cocoa Crispies) boxes. The new box carried a giant banner saying that it helps support your child’s immunity. The basis for this claim was higher amounts of added vitamins A, B, C, and E. It took a letter from the San Francisco city attorney asking for substantiation of the claim for the company to back away from it. With no help from the FDA.

Pom Wonderful Fights Prostate Cancer – This ubiquitous pomegranate juice product claimed that it can lower blood pressure and cholesterol, and help fight off prostate cancer. The FDA slapped the company with a warning letter.

Diamond Walnuts Shrink Tumors – This product made packaging claims that it can inhibit tumor growth, protect against stroke and help treat depression due to the presence of omega-3s. This claim earned Diamond a warning letter from the FDA.

A good egg, but not that good – While we’re on the subject of Omega-3 claims, almost all egg packages imply that the Omega-3 present in eggs will bestow upon the eater health benefits. Any specific claims to this effect are entirely bogus. In fact, the FDA has specifically denied a petition for a qualified health claim for omega-3 eggs. But industry gets around it simply by including the words Omega-3 prominently on the egg cartons, without making any specific claims. Do you think consumers pick up on these subliminal cues? You bet they do. Next time you’re in the egg aisle, take a look.

Cheerios Lower Cholesterol – A claim on General Mill’s Cheerios had stated that the cereal can lower your cholesterol four percent in six weeks. The claim was in use for more than two years before the FDA sent a warning letter to the company in May 2009 stating that such claims would make the product a drug under federal law.

Crystal Light Boosts Immunity – Crazy I know that a drink comprised mostly of sugar and chemicals can make you healthier. According to Food Labeling Chaos, Kraft Foods’ Crystal Light Immunity Diet Beverage claims that vitamins A, C, E help maintain a healthy immune system. As far as I know, the FDA has not challenged this claim.

Minute Maid Active orange juice protects joints – This also from Food Labeling Chaos. It’s the juice’s presence of glucosamine HCI. But studies have shown that this type of glucosamine, most often added to beverages, is not effective in relieving joint pain.

Nestle Juicy Juice Makes Your Kid’s Brain Bigger – Late last year, the FDA sent Nestle a warning letter about its claim that its juicy juice line of drinks makes structure/function helps support brain development in children under two years old.

Nestle also got into trouble for the non-Stucture/Function implication that the products are 100 percent juice when they are actually juice blends with added flavors. Also the product makes a “no sugar added” claim, which are not allowed on products intended for children under two years of age because appropriate dietary levels have not been established for children in this age range.

Improper Portion Listings: Companies often are able to tout their products as low sodium, low sugar, or low calorie, solely because the number of portions listed on the container is nowhere near the amount people actually eat.

Healthy Choice Salt Lick – The Healthy Choice Minestrone Soup sold in a microwaveable bowl is said to contain about two servings, but it is clearly something to be consumed by one person in a single sitting. This unrealistic serving size allows the company to claim only half of the amount of sodium that the soup contains. If the label had to disclose all the sodium for the entire package, it would no longer be eligible to identify the soup as a “healthy choice” due to the presence of large amounts of sodium.

Sugars: You might notice the term “lightly sweetened” on breakfast cereals. This is an industry term unregulated by the FDA. Watch out for this one because a “lightly sweetened” cereal can actually be laden with added sugar.

Kellogg’s Frosted Mini-Wheats Barely Frosted – According to the package, the frosted mini wheats are “lightly sweetened” but according to Food Labeling Chaos, they are actually about 20 percent sugar by weight.

Fats: You’ve probably seen the term, “no trans fats” on various food items – from cookies, to chips, to frozen foods. What this doesn’t let you know is how much saturated fat the product might contain.

Gorton’s Crispy Battered Fish Fillets – The verbiage states “0 grams trans-fats” on the package, yet the product contains 23 percent of the daily value of saturated fat. High for a single serving.

Whole Grains: Companies often tout the inclusion of whole grains on labels for breads, cookies, crackers, and other baked goods. In fact, there is no federal guideline for how much whole grains have to be included in the food to qualify for this claim. Often, packaged foods making this claim are heavy on the processed white flour with only the tiniest amounts of whole grains included.

Keebler’s “Multi-Grain” Crackers Contain More Sugar than Whole Wheat – The label of Keebler’s Town House Multigrain Crackers says that they are made with “toasted whole wheat,” but the small print in the ingredient list indicates that the product contains more sugar than whole wheat. One could wonder why crackers, a savory food, need sugar at all, but that’s another subject.

Fruits and Vegetables: Often, in an attempt to make a processed food product sound healthier than it is, a food company will try to convince consumers that there are actual fruits and vegetables in the food product, when in fact, it’s made up of simple starches, sugars, sodium, and chemicals.

“Chicken” and “Broccoli” – Knorr Lipton’s Chicken Flavored Broccoli Pasta Side Dish package indicates that broccoli is a major ingredient (let’s not even talk about that “chicken flavor”) yet, the nutrition label shows more salt than broccoli.

Now that you are armed with information about the ways that food companies mislead consumers into thinking what they are buying is healthier than it actually is, perhaps you will find yourself reading labels more carefully. But there’s a better way to ensure that the food you buy is as nutritious as possible. Stay away from packaged foods altogether. Shop the perimeter and buy fresh fruits and vegetables, meats and poultry, whole grains and beans, and unflavored, unprocessed dairy products. Only then will you know that the food you are eating is actually food.

In writing this article I relied heavily on the report, Food Labeling Chaos (referenced above) by the Center for Science in the Public Interest and also the excellent Wall Street Journal Health Blog.

This is the latest installment in Vanessa Barrington’s weekly column, The Green Plate, on the environmental, social, and political issues related to what and how we eat.

Image: Clean Wal-Mart

The post The Bad, the Bold and the Bogus: Food Industry Health Claims to Watch Out For appeared first on EcoSalon.

Buying food really was a whole lot easier a hundred years ago. There was less choice, the food was usually homegrown or locally grown, and there was little in the way of additives and preservatives. Plus, the shoppers back then didn’t have to read the food labels to find out how many nutrients, calories or fat content a product contained.

Today’s shopper, on the other hand, is spoilt for choice. But along with the choice come responsibilities and obstacles – the 100 mile rule, organic vs. non-organic, food labels, sugar content, trans fats, preservatives, packaging, BPA – that can make a trip to the supermarket seem more like a university exam than a shopping expedition.

And just when you thought it couldn’t get more complicated, the Swedes, who have been at the forefront of many new carbon emission reduction initiatives (including burning bunnies for fuel) have come up with new food guidelines and labels that will list a food’s carbon-emissions rating.

It’s part of an experiment that the Nutrition Department at the Swedish National Food Administration is running in an attempt to encourage people to consider not only their health but the health of the environment when they are choosing the food they eat.

This experiment came about following a 2005 study by Sweden’s national environmental agency that determined that a quarter of their national per capita emissions was directly attributable to the food Swedes ate, such as meat, farmed salmon, greenhouse tomatoes, bananas, rice, bottled water and soda.

As a result, the National Foods Administration has created food guidelines that highlights better food choices that work for both the environment and people’s health.

If all Swedes were to follow the guidelines set out by the National Foods Administration, it is estimated that Sweden could cut carbon emissions that result from food production by 20 to 50 percent.

Along with the guidelines, new “climate declared” food labels will be appearing on food products found in grocery stores and on restaurant menus around the country. Each label will list the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that result from the production of each food product.

It will be worth watching to see how effective Sweden’s new food guidelines and labels actually are.

To find out more, read this New York Times article.

Image: timsamoff

The post Sweden to Label Foods’ Footprints appeared first on EcoSalon.