MAY10

Food Label Terminology

For many of us who think a lot about food, how healthy it is, where it comes from, and how it was produced, we tend to rely on food labels to give us at least a little bit of that information. We look for information on nutrition, for instance, in the Nutrition Facts labels, or we read the health and nutrient content claims on food packages. And when it comes to production practices, we might look for terms like “Organic,” “Natural,” or “Farm-fresh.” We might even look for information that might tell us something about animal welfare. The term, “cage-free,” for example, would seem to suggest a hen that has the ability to roam around a pasture and perform its natural behaviors.

The US Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration both have a role to play in regulating some of this terminology. The problem is, some terms are well-regulated, some are poorly regulated, and some are entirely unregulated. And that not only leads to consumer confusion, it opens up a grey area for companies to paint a picture of their food that might not be totally accurate.

So, let’s wade through at least some of the more popular terms out there to get a better idea of what they actually mean, and how they’re regulated.

ORGANIC: Let’s start here because it is probably the most well-regulated by USDA. If you see “100% Organic” on a label, that means the product contains only fully organic ingredients. If you see the word, “Organic,” without any other qualifiers, that signifies the product contains 95% or more organic ingredients. If you see, “Made with Organic Ingredients,” then the product contains at least 70% organic ingredients. So, even if you didn’t know the percentages related to the terminology, you at least get a sense of the organic nature of a product.

NATURAL or NATURALLY RAISED: Things get pretty dicey from here on out. For instance, the term “natural” is really poorly regulated. The Food Safety and Inspection Service of USDA maintains a legal definition for “natural”: that the product contains no artificial ingredients or added coloring and is only minimally processed. There are some requirements to using this term: the food product label must explain what is meant by using the term “natural.” BUT, this definition only applies to meat and poultry products…and that’s it.

“Naturally raised” is a similar term used on food products, but one that means even less than “natural.” Another branch of the USDA maintains the definition for “naturally raised,” meaning an animal is raised without growth promotants or antibiotics. This definition, however, doesn’t require any sort of label with an explanation of the term. AND, an animal can be raised without the use of antibiotics or growth promotants, but could still be raised on feedlots and can be processed into a product that is in no measurable way any “healthier” or more sustainable than a comparable product. So, even though you might think “naturally raised” would proffer some sort of health or other benefit, it doesn’t necessarily.

FARM FRESH: “Farm-fresh” is all together unregulated. It’s just a marketing term, so really if a product originated at a farm and wasn’t spoiled when it was bought, it probably could be considered ‘farm-fresh.’ This is a very nice example of what some people call ‘green-washing.’

GRASS-FED, CAGE-FREE, and FREE-RANGE: Terms like ‘grass-fed,’ ‘cage-free,’ and ‘free-range,’ are all dubious in their usage. Each has some regulation behind it, but that regulation is lax and doesn’t reflect the image most people have when they see these terms on food packaging. ‘Grass-fed’ only means an animal was fed 100% grass (it does not have to be out on pasture all the time; rather it could be fed harvested grass within a feedlot). It could also have been fed hormones and antibiotics. So, even though the term ‘grass-fed’ suggests a cow out on a green hill munching on grass, this is probably not close to the reality in many cases.

‘Cage-free’ and ‘free-range’ are both poorly regulated terms as well. If a hen is cage-free, it is raised and lays eggs outside of cages. However, it is still likely living in a barn or warehouse, quite possibly in very crowded conditions (which often require de-beaking, or the unanesthetized cutting off of the birds’ beaks). It might or might not have actual access to the outdoors, and if it does, it can just as likely be an enclosed concrete area as actual pasture. Similarly, with ‘free-range,’ outdoor access must be provided the animal, but the length of time and the quality of that outdoor area is not regulated.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Since we buy food far from where it was produced, we can probably rely on organic labeling to tell us at least a little bit about how a product was produced. But we can’t rely on terms such as ‘natural,’ ‘farm-fresh,’ ‘cage-free,’ or ‘free-range’ to tell us much about the healthfulness of a food product, its environmental impact, or how animals were treated in the production of the food product. I would go so far as to say you should avoid putting any stock in these green-washing type terms. Instead, and especially for animal products, the best thing to do is to try to purchase from local producers who you can question about production and animal handling practices. When it come to fruits and vegetables, relying on organic labeling is at least a step in the right direction. But better yet, knowing where they come from, who produced them, and how they were produced, is the absolute ideal.

AUG5

The Case for Healthy Defaults

It’s no major revelation to point out that our government currently suffers from dysfunction and division. Even so, I think it’s interesting to take a close look at why the division exists and to see how it directly relates to food in the US. Because if you weren’t aware, food is wildly politicized in every way (remember Freedom Fries?). And often, the politics track along the same partisan lines as other major issues.

From http://www.agathoune.com/

Underlying most debates between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, the left and the right, is the extent to which government should be involved in our lives. Most agree that the federal government should be directly and heavily involved in major national priorities, like defense or international relations. After that, consensus goes away. And so we fight over how big the government should be and how much we should pay in taxes for its size.

When it comes to food, the same debate rages. How much should the government be involved in our food choices? Most probably agree that the government should protect the food supply (the FDA therefore can shut companies down and prosecute those who put products onto the market that make us sick). But what about products that might make us sick, but don’t necessarily do so? For instance, consistent intake of foods that contain high levels of trans fats is associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease. trans fats have no redeeming nutritional qualities, and their impact on chronic disease exceeds that of other harmful food ingredients. Well, some municipalities and states have begun regulating use of trans fats in fast food products. As a result, chain restaurants of a certain size cannot serve foods containing trans fats in places like New York City and California.

This is where things get sticky, because now regulation actually affects consumer choice (what if I want to eat a food with trans fat because I think it’s tastier?). And this is where the right can get riled. Something that might be good for public health can at the same time limit personal choice. It’s the same set of arguments one might make regarding wearing a seat belt or a helmet.

Despite the rancorous debate we all recently witnessed over the debt ceiling, it might be possible to find a happy medium between big and little government, and more and less regulation, at least when it comes to food. We can do it through ‘healthy defaults.’ First proposed by Kelly Brownell, a researcher at Yale University, the idea of healthy defaults suggests making the healthy food choice the easiest choice. Short of taking away unhealthy foods, this concept would mean, for example, making bottled water or diet sodas cheaper and more prevalent in vending machines compared to full-calorie sodas. Or making a salad the default side as part of a restaurant meal rather than fries. In other words, with healthy defaults we manipulate our environment to encourage healthier choices rather than mandating healthier choices.

This option still doesn’t appease everyone, especially those food and beverage companies whose sales might be affected. But I back it. If we hope to establish social norms that help support healthy eating, we need a food environment to match. Couple a healthy environment with strong nutrition education, and we might actually make some headway in improving eating behaviors.

AUG2

Who Teaches Us What to Eat?

Here’s a little test of your food knowledge.

Question #1:
Complete the following phrases:
1. Snap, crackle,…
2. Silly rabbit,…
3. I’m coo-coo for…
4. They’re magically…
5. Theeeeey’re…

Question #2:
How many servings of fruits, vegetables, grains, proteins, and dairy do the US Dietary Guidelines suggest you need to eat each day?

Question #3:
Which of the first two questions was infinitely easier to answer, and what does this say about how we learn what to eat in the US?

JUL30

The Many Faces of Mini-Wheats

I have a particular obsession with Mini-Wheats. Tasty though they are, it’s not the flavor that transfixes me. Rather, the variety of flavors available in grocery stores is what astounds. There are no fewer than ten types of Mini-Wheats available to those who wonder just how many ways a little wheat biscuit can be creatively sweetened.

If you don’t find this all that amazing, there’s more. Mini-Wheats, as their eponymous name suggests, should be of a certain size: ‘mini.’ This, however, is no longer the case. In fact, if you weren’t entirely happy with the mini-ness of your Mini-Wheats, there are now “Little Bites” Mini-Wheats. And don’t feel excluded, those of you with mouths of greater capacity, because Kellogg’s also offers, quite oxymoronically, “Big Bite” Mini-Wheats.
So now we have lots of flavors of Mini-Wheats, and weirdly we have a few different sizes, too. I have to ask: do we really need this much variety in our Mini-Wheats offerings? I would say no. I don’t believe the market for tasty cereals would be all that affected if we’d limited our ‘Wheats offerings to five, say, or even three. I feel fairly certain there isn’t anyone out there now thinking, “How is it possible, in this day and age, that we don’t have Raspberry Truffle-Vanilla Creme-Almond Mini-Wheats? What is it with this limited choice??”

So why the great variety? The fact is, the food industry makes much of its money on innovation. If companies aren’t pumping out new food products at a constant rate, they have a pretty hard time remaining fresh in the minds of consumers. That makes it harder to maintain their margins and bring in revenue.

Unfortunately, this means our food environment is constantly inundated with new food products, the vast majority of which are processed. Now I’ll admit, it’s nice to have variety, and it’s exciting to try new flavors of things. But, lost in the flood of food novelty are the healthiest whole foods that, from a marketing perspective, are quite unexciting. And as companies constantly drive consumer interest to their newest, processed, packaged goodies, it becomes ever easier for consumers to build a diet based almost entirely on processed foods. Most of the time, that happens at the exclusion of unprocessed fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.

This isn’t the recipe for healthy eating. Every bit of nutrition science, conducted here and abroad, suggests maintaining a diet high in unprocessed or minimally processed whole foods. Our food “innovations” don’t reflect that sound, time-honored, advice.

Enter the new-found interest in local foods, a movement that makes fruits and vegetables interesting again. If you wonder why so many public health advocates, researchers, and recently, politicians, have been so supportive of the movement, it’s because the excitement about local foods is really excitement about whole, healthy foods. And there are lots of other good reasons to be excited, as well. It’s not just local broccoli you’re buying; it’s broccoli from a farmer you get to meet, or at least learn about. It’s not just nutritious food you’re buying; it’s a purchase that helps support local agriculture, your local economy, and a diversified food system. And if you’re buying locally, you’re probably buying foods that supplant processed products you might otherwise have bought at the grocery store.

Fruits and vegetables, quite excitingly, are back on the food scene. So take advantage, and get them back in your diet!

JUL22

‘Eat in Moderation,’ or, ‘A Very Good Excuse to Eat Whatever You Want’

One often hears the advice to eat in moderation. In fact, my professional organization, the American Dietetic Association, would argue that there is no such thing as a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ food, and that all foods can fit into a healthy diet.

I beg to differ, and so do researchers at Harvard University. Drs. Dariush Mozaffarian, Frank Hu, and Walter Willett, all juggernauts in the world of nutritional epidemiology (the study of nutrition at the population level) recently published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that helps identify specifically those foods most closely associated with weight gain and poor health. The results are not groundbreaking, but the interpretation of the results is well worth consideration.

Let’s start with the results: french fries, potato chips, sugar-sweetened drinks (i.e., sodas), red and processed meats, refined grains, 100% fruit juice, and other processed foods were all the worst offenders. These foods were associated with between 0.3-3.4 pounds of weight gain across 4 years. Foods related to weight maintenance or weight loss included unprocessed or minimally processed fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Interestingly, the highest intakes of yogurt and nuts (including peanut butter) were associated with the greatest weight loss across 4 years. This might be surprising to some given the generally higher fat (and thus calorie) content of nuts and nut-based foods.

On, then, to the interpretation. The lab out of which this research was conducted runs some of the most important diet-related epidemiological studies in the US. They are large, well-controlled studies, which means we can have quite a bit more confidence in their results than less well-controlled studies with small sample sizes. The broad conclusion of the authors, taking all results into consideration, is that processed foods (specifically those that were fried or otherwise high in saturated fats, and those high in refined carbohydrates) are probably the worst items to include in one’s diet, perhaps even in moderation. Better to replace those sorts of foods with unprocessed or minimally processed whole foods (even if they are comparatively high in naturally occurring fats or sugar, like nuts and fruits).

What’s the best way to do that? Well, a good place to start would be to minimize or stop buying refined grains (like white breads, for example). Instead, buy whole grain breads, cereals, and pastas, and you will enjoy more taste and nutrition (including fiber, a chronically underconsumed nutrient). Also, don’t deep fry your veggies or drink you fruits. Eat them raw, baked, stir-fried, microwaved, or any other way that minimizes the exchange of nutrients for bad fats or refined sugars. If you do that, you will begin to shift from a diet filled with foods that could easily be categorized as ‘bad’ to one filled with foods that science consistently says are ‘good.’