ColumnDr. Marion Nestle weighs in on new food guidelines and the complexity of food issues.

Doritos, gooey butter cake, and deep fried twinkies – even though we all know that we should be eating plenty of fruits and vegetables and cutting out all that bad stuff, we’re still living in a society desperately struggling with obesity, and very often, putting the wrong thing on our plate.

Resisting temptation has in fact been called the “greatest human strength,” which is why that basket of fries looks so good, even though you know better. But in a developed culture, shouldn’t rationality win over temptation? Shouldn’t we reach for the broccoli instead of the potato chips? Unfortunately it’s not that simple. Throw a dash of socioeconomic issues, a handful of agribusiness subsidies and a pinch of our obsession with flashy marketing and you have a recipe for a broken food system that’s doing some serious harm.

The best way to ensure people eat well? Guidelines of course. What we can’t decide for ourselves, we can at least have other people tell us what to do.

Remember the food pyramid? Earlier this summer, the federal government launched MyPlate to replace the old daily intake suggestion. As the name indicates, it’s a plate; a plate full of the perfect combination of fruits, vegetables, protein and grains to keep you healthy.

But maybe that was a little too simple. Last week the Harvard School of Public Health came out with their own version of a plate, a new and improved version with plenty more specifics. It tells us to to use healthy oils like olive and canola and that we should go for whole grains instead of white bread.

But is this really the solution to our eating woes? What about all the other aspects that are important to food culture? Things like community, sitting down to eat instead of standing, eating fresh foods instead of processed and buying produce from your local farmer.

Guidelines are great, but I often wonder if there’s simply something wrong with how we’re wired when it comes to thinking about food, that we’re not looking at the bigger picture. When was the last time you saw a Frenchmen referencing dietary guidelines while cooking a meal? Never, and that country certainly knows a thing or to about eating well and staying healthy.

Forget my opinions though; in matters of food issues, you have to go to the professionals. I caught up with Dr. Marion Nestle, author of Food Politics, professor at New York University and one of the leading voices on what we eat, how we eat it and the system behind it. She graciously took some time to answer a couple of questions on the new Harvard Healthy Eating Plate, and while I was at it, I asked the ultimate question: what’s the one thing we can all do to improve the food system? Here’s what she had to say:

When USDA’s My Plate came out in June, you were fairly positive to it. Has that attitude stayed the same or has it changed? Why?
It could have been a lot worse and its emphasis on vegetables is a step forward.

What do you think the new Harvard plate does better? Are there any areas where you find it flawed?
It’s better in some ways (“healthy”) but still includes the nutritionally incorrect “protein” category (all unprocessed foods contain some protein and dairy and grains contain a lot). I don’t think it’s helpful to exclude whole categories of foods (dairy, for example) and the emphasis given to oils is confusing.

Someone on your website made a comment about USDA’s My Plate reaching a larger demographic because it was a simpler, more marketable image. Do you agree with this? Why or why not?
The strength of a simple image is that it is adaptable to the way people actually eat.

If you made your own diagram, how would it look?
I don’t think the complexities of healthful diets are amenable to simple images. Most Americans would be healthier if they ate less overall but ate more vegetables and didn’t eat too much junk food. That pretty much sums up nutritional advice but I wouldn’t know how to illustrate that.

When you look at food politics, do you think moving forward is going to come from a top down (more regulation, etc.) or a bottom up approach (more farmers markets, smaller organizations doing their part)?
It’s totally bottom up, grass roots, democracy. That’s why I like it.

Do you think that simplifying foods down to this level is detrimental because it keeps us from looking at food with a more holistic approach? Where does the discussion of organics and agriculture come into play?
Food production and consumption are inextricably linked. If we want people eating more vegetables, we need to change our food production system.

When it comes to food politics, what do you think is one of our main obstacles?
Permitting corporations to fund election campaigns. That’s the source of corruption in American politics. If we elected uncorrupted officials, they might be able to make decisions based on public health, rather than corporate health.

If people could do one thing every day to improve the food system, what would it be?
Vote with your fork. Every time you make a food choice, you are voting for the kind of food system you want. More voting for sustainable, local, organic would be game changing. It doesn’t have to be 100% one way or the other, just more. But I also think people have to vote with their votes. Join organizations, write representatives, run for office!

What do you think? Are campaigns like MyPlate going to improve our eating habits or are they too simple? What do we really need to be doing to change our food system? Answer in the comments below.

Editor’s note: This is the latest installment of Anna Brones’s weekly column at EcoSalon, Foodie Underground, discovering what’s new and different in the underground food movement, from supper clubs to mini markets to the culinary avant garde.

Images: Harvard Health Blog, MyPlate, Food Politics

The post Foodie Underground: Dr. Marion Nestle on the Complexity of Food Issues appeared first on EcoSalon.

I have a friend who refers to the Standard American Diet by the acronym SAD.

This is an apt description indeed. Think about it. We have more colorfully packaged choices on the shelves of our supermarkets, more new flavors of cereal, crackers, and chips than we know what to do with, more fortified, functional foods than ever. Yet, as a nation, we get sicker every year. Diet related diseases are epidemic, especially among young people. In fact, children today are the first generation expected to have a shorter life expectancy than their parents. And it’s all related to our SAD. With all of our medical knowledge and wealth, how did this come to pass?

According to Marion Nestle, Professor and Chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at NYU and author of the classic book, Food Politics, the problem is that our heavily subsidized, highly efficient food industry produces too many calories – twice as many as we need. Because of this surplus, food companies must work hard to get us to EAT MORE. Hence the millions of dollars in advertising spent every year to get us to Supersize It.

Though Food Politics was published back in 2002, it’s just as relevant today. Besides advertising, the Food Industry influences our diets in many ways that most of us are not even aware of.

1. Food industry lobbyists influence USDA’s food guidelines.

Chapter 2 of Food Politics provides readers with an instructive history of the development of the USDA Food Pyramid and how food industry lobbyists influenced the final product. For example, meat and dairy producers did not like the implication inherent in the pyramid design that some foods were better than others. They preferred a design that presented each food group as visually equal. The food industry spent over a year fighting the design and wording. In the end, the pyramid won out, but the meat and dairy industries succeeded in getting many minor changes made. The biggest change was that, instead of recommending a straight number of servings (2-3), the wording was changed to “at least 2-3 servings” to encourage people to eat more.

2. Food industry sponsorships

The food industry regularly sponsors research studies, nutritional journals and conferences, and sometimes, entire university departments. How much does this corporate money influence the findings and recommendations of research? Surveys cited in Food Politics show that researchers often have financial or professional ties to the companies they are researching, which certainly creates the impression of bias. And when food companies use the findings of a study in its advertising, as a way to sell more product, the appearance of bias is even harder to ignore. Also, when a corporation has an exclusive partnership with a university research department, as is becoming more common, there is a very real concern that these partnerships will interfere with academic freedom.

3. Endorsements and labeling rackets

When professional societies develop partnerships with food companies in order to provide nutritional information to consumers or develop labeling schemes for certain foods, the net outcome is not always good for consumers. Food Politics offers many examples of this phenomenon, including one in which the American Heart Association charged food companies enormous fees to be a part of its Heart Check labeling program. The program resulted in the labeling of foods like pop-tarts as heart healthy. Such labeling schemes that isolate one aspect of a food product, such as cholesterol, while ignoring sugar content and other less healthy aspects of the food in question, only confuse consumers. The program was eventually discontinued and fees returned.

4. Revolving doors

When industry executives get jobs in government things tend to go the way industry wants them to. This happens in every sector (think banking!) and the food industry is not an exception. Two recent examples of revolving door appointees in the Obama administration include Dr. Islam Siddiqui, chief agricultural negotiator and former lobbyist and vice president for science and regulatory affairs at CropLife America, a US trade association representing the major manufacturers, formulators and distributors of crop protection and pest control products. In September Catherine Woteki was named Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics at the USDA. Previously she served as global director of scientific affairs for Mars, Inc., where she managed the company’s scientific policy and research on matters of health, nutrition, and food safety.

5. PR

Remember the Smart Choices labeling scheme, an industry-driven label designed to make consumers think that Froot Loops are healthy? An earlier example given in Food Politics is that of Nestle’s efforts to convince women in developing countries that formula is better for babies than breast milk. When its reputation in the US suffered as a result of these efforts, the company hired a well-known PR firm to help it out of the mess. The book includes a chart that outlines the company’s actions including issuing opinion papers on the subject, sponsoring conferences, and urging journalists to write favorable articles on the subject of formula feeding.

6. Lawsuits against critics

Remember Oprah vs. The National Cattleman’s Association? Have you heard of the veggie libel laws that exist in 13 states? The prospect of an expensive lawsuit can really have a chilling effect on anyone considering speaking out against a specific food or production practice.

7. Marketing to children and in schools

Not only do packaged and fast food companies spend millions to target children through advertising on television, in magazines, on the Internet, through movie product placements, and toy campaigns, they also have an incredible grip on the visual space inside schools. Food Politics outlines how companies use advertisements in hallways, on buses, and in teaching materials to reach children. And also how club and sports teams sponsorships, contests, school meal programs, and “pouring rights” contracts get company logos and products in front of children. If you don’t know what a pouring rights contract is, it’s a program in which a packaged good or soft drink company gives cash-strapped schools money for sports and other programs in exchange for an exclusive right to sell their products in the school.

I caught up with Marion Nestle, author of Food Politics, over email and asked her a couple of questions about the current landscape of food politics.

Q: How have things changed for better or worse since you wrote Food Politics?

A: “The Food Movement!  When I wrote the first edition of Food Politics, all people talked about was personal responsibility. Now just about everyone understands that the food environment discourages healthful eating.”

Q: What do you think of the USDA and FDA under the Obama administration?

A: “The USDA has a complicated job. Historically it has favored industrial agriculture. That has not changed, but Vilsack has introduced new initiatives that favor organic and local producers. That’s a start. USDA’s work is governed by the Farm Bill and advocates for sustainable agriculture need to start working now to get that bill to do a better job.”

Q: What is the biggest hot button issue emerging today in food politics?

A: “It depends on what concerns you, I suppose. Mine is election campaign laws, the root of corruption in our political system.”

To keep up on developments in food politics, check in on Marion’s 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: Ben McLeod

The post How the Food Industry Influences What We Eat 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.