FDA orders industry-funded food labeling program to stop labeling foods!

Have you ever seen the green check next to the words Smart Choices and bought a product as a result? If so, you’re not alone... Many (savvy!) clients have told me that they have done this themselves. Problem is that the check and those words were industry driven and not necessarily truly smart choices...

Here is an excerpt from a recent NYT article, "Food Label Program to Suspend Operations" (October 24, 2009) by WILLIAM NEUMAN

"Under pressure from state and federal authorities who feared consumers would be misled, the food industry on Friday started backing away from a major labeling campaign meant to highlight the nutritional benefits of hundreds of products. PepsiCo said that it was cutting its ties with the program, called Smart Choices, which features a green checkmark on the front of products that meet its nutritional criteria.

Kellogg’s, which makes Fruit Loops and other sugary cereals that received the program’s seal of approval, said that it would begin phasing out packaging bearing the program logo as its inventories ran out. Officials with the program said that Smart Choices would suspend most of its operations while they waited for the Food and Drug Administration to devise regulations for package-front nutrition labeling. Those rules could differ from the program’s criteria...."

Here is more about the Smart Choices program: http://www.smartchoicesprogram.com/index.html and here is more about the letter dated August 19, 2009 (http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/LabelClaims/ucm180146.htm ) sent by the FDA in August asking the organization to stop using the flawed system... Hmm.. interesting lag time...

Check out the attached chart here to see what the definitions are for the Smart Choices program. http://www.smartchoicesprogram.com/pdf/Smart%20Choices%20Program%20Nutrition%20Criteria%20Matrix.pdf  You will probably be struck by the added sugars column as I was. In my opinion, cereals should have fewer than 5 grams of added sugars and the total sugar content of the diet should be at a level less than 10 percent of total calories when possible, not the 25% stated here (and recommended by the current USDA guidelines).

According to a newly released AHA scientific statement, (August 2009) published in Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association, "most American women should consume no more than 100 calories of added sugars per day; most men, no more than 150 calories. That’s about 6 teaspoons of added sugars a day for women and 9 for men. The 2001-2004 NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) database showed the average intake of added sugars for all Americans was 22.2 teaspoons per day or about 355 calories. (For comparison,...) soft drinks and other sugar-sweetened beverages are the No. 1 source of added sugars in the American diet. A 12-ounce can of regular soda contains about 130 calories and 8 teaspoons of sugar."

Back to the "Smart Choices" program...

Now check out the Board of Directors below. What do you notice? I notice that the non-industry members don’t have any affiliations listed there. That is VERY surprising and frankly, I haven't seen that done before. If these members are being touted as non-industry, NGO (non-governmental agencies) and/or Academics, then what are their affiliations and credentials?

Board of Directors Representing Non-Industry (NGOs, Academics):

Dr. Dennis Bier
Houston, TX

Dr. Mary Hager
Washington, DC

Dr. Richard Kahn
Alexandria, VA

Dr. Eileen Kennedy
Boston, MA

Board of Directors Representing Industry (Participating Smart Choices Program™ Companies):

Dr. Celeste Clark
Kellogg's
Battle Creek, MI

Dr. Susan Crockett
General Mills
Minneapolis, MN

Mr. Chris Doherty
Kraft Foods North America
Northfield, IL

Ms. Nancy Schnell
Unilever U.S.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ

In addition, Mr. Michael Hughes of The Keystone Center, Denver, Colorado will hold a seat on the Smart Choices Program Board of Directors

As it turns out, for instance, Dr, Eileen Kennedy is a professor at Tufts University’s Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, a highly respected university. She did work at the USDA. (Kennedy bio: http://provost.tufts.edu/1174149600661/Provost-Page-prov2w_1174149601179.html )

Dr. Richard Kahn is the retired Chief Scientific and Medical Officer of the American Diabetes Association in Alexandria, VA (http://www.diabetes.org/for-media/pr-kahn-retirement.jsp )

Dr. Bier is a pediatric endocrinologist at Baylor Medicine. As it turns out, these are all highly respected individuals… still left wondering why their affiliations are not listed....

The bottom line is that the system is flawed if foods such as Fruit Loops and Cookie Crisps meet this criteria and this is confusing for consumers. One of my nutrition clients, for instance, said that she specifically purchased those cereals because of the green check...

There are too many things a smart consumer needs to know when trying to make a good decision at the supermarket. Until a system is designed and supported by an objective organization, such as The Center for Science in The Public Interest, for instance, let's stick with just the facts... such as the Nutrition Facts Panel on the food label... as long as you know how to read them.

Just to clarify some confusing items on the food labels...

Nutrient Content Descriptors...The following terms may be listed to describe the level of a nutrient in a food:

Some tricky ones first...

Light - this term could mean two things! First, the nutritionally altered product could contain one-third fewer calories or half the fat of the reference food. Second, that the sodium content of a low calorie, low fat food has been reduced by 50 percent. Beware - the term "light" still can be used to describe such properties as texture and color.

Low - The product can be eaten frequently without exceeding dietary guidelines. For example: low fat: 3 grams or less per serving. But, beware, reduced fat is very different! Reduced fat means that the product is nutritionally altered to contain 25 percent less fat than the regular or reference product.

Lean and extra lean are terms used to describe meat poultry, seafood and game meats only. Why do they need their own category? I am not sure either.
       - Lean: less than 10 g fat, less than 4 g saturated fat and less than 95 mg cholesterol per serving and per
       100 g.
       - Extra lean: less than 5 g fat, less than 2 g saturated fat and less than 95 mg cholesterol per serving and
       per 100 g.

These definitions are as you might expect....

Free - The product contains no amount of, or "physiologically inconsequential" amounts of one or more of the following: fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, sugars and calories. Synonyms for "free" include: "without", "no" and "zero".

*Low - The product can be eaten frequently without exceeding dietary guidelines. For example:

Low saturated fat: 1 g or less per serving

Low sodium: less than 140 mg per serving

Very low sodium: less than 35 mg per serving

Low cholesterol: less than 20 mg per serving

Low calorie: 40 calories or less per serving

High - The food contains 20 percent or more of the Daily Value for a particular nutrient in a serving.

Good source - One serving of the food contains 10 to 19 percent of the Daily Value for a particular nutrient.

Less - The food, whether altered or not, contains 25 percent less of a nutrient or of calories than the
reference food. For example, pretzels that have 25 percent less fat than potato chips could carry the term.

"Fewer" is also an acceptable synonym.

More - The food, whether altered or not, contains a nutrient that is at least 10 percent of the Daily Value more than the reference food.

Be sure to read labels carefully so that you know you are making the best choice for your health.

What do you look for in a cereal? Any favorite brands to share with other readers? What do you think about the new sugar recommendations? Please share your thoughts. If you’ve learned something interesting, let me know...

Exercise at the workplace works!

Here is an interesting article about the benefits of bringing exercise to the workplace...

On-the-job exercise good for employee and employer

Wed Oct 28, 2009 3:57pm EDT
By Anne Harding

 

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Programs in the workplace designed to get people to exercise can improve fitness, cut cholesterol levels, reduce job stress and even improve attendance, a new analysis of the medical literature shows.

 

But it's still not clear what makes for the most effective type of program, Dr. Vicki S. Conn of the University of Missouri in Columbia, the lead author of the research, told Reuters Health.

 

"We do have really good evidence that the interventions do work," she said. "What we couldn't say from this is that this intervention works better than that intervention."

 

Conn and her colleagues looked at dozens of studies of workplace physical activity interventions. The studies included about 38,000 people.

 

They found significant positive effects for the interventions on "physical activity behavior," meaning whether or not people became more active, and also on fitness level. The programs also helped fuel healthy changes in lipids (meaning harmful fats in the blood such as triglycerides), measures of body size, work attendance, and job stress, the researchers report.

 

The more effective programs had several characteristics in common: a facility for exercising on site; they were developed with the help of the company; and people were able to exercise during the workday rather than having to come in early or stay late. But it wasn't clear whether offering rewards helped.

 

While evidence is scarce on the long-term costs of workplace physical activity interventions, Conn noted, the fact that they reduce absenteeism suggests they could indeed save money.

 

The current investigation is part of a larger, National Institutes of Health-funded study of physical activity interventions in general, Conn noted. While there's no lack of evidence to show that exercise is good for you, she added, "what we don't know is how to get people to exercise," and the study may help answer that question.

 

SOURCE: American Journal of Preventive Medicine, October 2009.
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved


Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE59R52K20091028

• Do you exercise during the workday?  
• Does your company offer you flex time to do so?
• Have you been asking for an onsite exercise facility but to no avail?  

Please share your thoughts and ideas...

A funny thing happened to me on a recent trip to our nation's capitol. I was on a plane, on my way to DC, while preparing for a lecture I was going to present at Mitre on Super Foods. I had a printout of my slides that I was reviewing when the flight attendant (I was flying Jet blue) offered a snack of either cashews or animal crackers. I wasn't going to eat either but I thought I'd bring home the animal shaped crackers for my kids (thinking they'd think they were cute). As I asked for them, the man sitting next to me said "now those are not a super food!". I had to laugh. Firstly, because he was absolutely right. But, secondly, because he just admitted to reading over my shoulder! He turned out to be a very nice man. (And if he's reading this now, I hope he is laughing too. I don't want any nasty letters.)

And what are the Super Foods I spoke of in my lecture? Here are a few of them....

avocado, broccoli, butternut squash, edamame, flax, french fries (just kidding -- ok you ARE paying attention), kale, kiwi, quinoa and walnuts.

Dannon Settles Activia Lawsuit

Oh, the irony! I was just thinking about the lawsuit against Dannon yogurt's Activia brand when, I walked into a lecture this morning and one of the first questions was just about this subject. The woman said that she had just seen a commercial about Activia and wondered if it was true -- that this Dannon product could improve her digestive system and improve her imunity.

Probiotics are good bacteria that help maintain a healthy intestinal system. A healthy digestive tract has over 400 different kinds of probiotic bacteria that reduce the growth of harmful bacteria. According to research in the American Journal of Clinicial Nutrition, certain probiotics may restore normal bowel function and may help reduce:

• Diarrhea that is a side effect of antibiotics.
• Certain types of infectious diarrhea.
• Inflammation of the ileal pouch (pouchitis) that may occur in people who have had surgery to remove the colon.

These results suggest that eventually probiotics may also be used to:

• Help with other causes of diarrhea.
• Help prevent infections in the digestive tract.
• Help control immune response (inflammation), as in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
  Researchers are studying the use of probiotics for inflammatory bowel disease, colon cancer, and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

Remember, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not regulate dietary supplements in the same way it regulates medication. A dietary supplement can be sold with limited or no research on how well it works or on its safety. In fact, I have often felt that many companies go a bit too far in their claims that such-and-such product will "boost" or improve immunity. The immune system is such a complex system that such claims are nearly impossible to evaluate much less prove. While there are benefits to probiotics, the lawsuit outlined below states that Dannon just made claims that were a bit too far reaching without adequate science to back them.

As part of the $35 million settlement, the company agreed to make changes to the labeling and advertising of Activia and DanActive by increasing the visibility of the scientific names of the "probiotic" cultures in the yogurts, court documents said. Dannon also agreed to remove the word "immunity" from its DanActive products. The current labels that say the yogurt has "a positive effect on your digestive tract's immune system" will be reworded to say the yogurt will "interact with your digestive tract's immune system."

Dannon Settles Activia Lawsuit
And just as another side note... as I was looking into this topic, I came across a website which I thought might provide some interesting and UNBIASED information on probiotics... The site is: www.usprobiotics.org. But, then I checked to see who they were and found that they are sponsored by the California Dairy Research Foundation AND Dairy and Food Culture Technologies! So... I kept looking...

More reliable places to look for good info on probiotics...

New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/health/29well.html

Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology:
July 2008 - Volume 42 - Issue - pp S104-S108:
http://journals.lww.com/jcge/Abstract/2008/07001/Recommendations_for_Probiotic_Use_2008.12.aspx

WebMD

http://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/tc/probiotics-topic-overview

Shared via AddThis

One bad burger! Are there more?

Still thinking about this weekend's NYT article on how an otherwise healthy 22 year old dance instructor became paralyzed from E Coli after having dinner with her family. She had eaten a burger tainted with E. coli.

A small (but scary) excerpt from the article follows:

"Stephanie Smith, a children’s dance instructor, thought she had a stomach virus. The aches and cramping were tolerable that first day, and she finished her classes. Stephanie Smith, 22, was paralyzed after being stricken by E. coli in 2007. Officials traced the E. coli to hamburger her family had eaten. Then her diarrhea turned bloody. Her kidneys shut down. Seizures knocked her unconscious. The convulsions grew so relentless that doctors had to put her in a coma for nine weeks. When she emerged, she could no longer walk. The affliction had ravaged her nervous system and left her paralyzed.

Ms. Smith, 22, was found to have a severe form of food-borne illness caused by E. coli, which Minnesota officials traced to the hamburger that her mother had grilled for their Sunday dinner in early fall 2007........."

"Ms. Smith’s reaction to the virulent strain of E. coli was extreme, but tracing the story of her burger, through interviews and government and corporate records obtained by The New York Times, shows why eating ground beef is still a gamble. Neither the system meant to make the meat safe, nor the meat itself, is what consumers have been led to believe.

“Ground beef is not a completely safe product,” said Dr. Jeffrey Bender, a food safety expert at the University of Minnesota who helped develop systems for tracing E. coli contamination. He said that while outbreaks had been on the decline, “unfortunately it looks like we are going a bit in the opposite direction.”

Food scientists have registered increasing concern about the virulence of this pathogen since only a few stray cells can make someone sick, and they warn that federal guidance to cook meat thoroughly and to wash up afterward is not sufficient. A test by The Times found that the safe handling instructions are not enough to prevent the bacteria from spreading in the kitchen."

Burgers made with 100% beef (whoever thought I'd be saying anything good about a Bubba burger, Marty?) and fewer processed parts as well as safe handling practices may be an important part of protecting yourself if you are still going to eat burgers... makes me worry! But so did the spinach scare....

Sticking with the vegetarian option, though.....
Let me know if you still feel ok eating burgers that you have NO idea where the meat comes from after reading this article. In the burger that paralyzed Ms. Smith, the "meat", made from a mix of slaughterhouse trimmings and a mash-like product derived from scraps that were ground together at a plant in Wisconsin, came from four slaughterhouses from the US and South America, all of which had little or no testing. While I don't want to discuss the processing here, (for fear of upsetting the queasy) you MUST read the article to learn about the contamination that can go on under these circumstances.

I'd be interested in your thoughts. Here is the full article. Please read it!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/04/health/04meat.html