The commercial where McDonald's seems to claim that you can "eat like an Olympian" by eating Chicken McNuggets makes me just about jump off the couch every time it comes on. I just highly doubt that athletes who take their sports this seriously and have worked this hard to get to the VERY top of the game eat very much food that is high in saturated fats, sodium, carbs, sugar, etc.
NPR addressed this corporate sponsorship just this morning, and Dr. Gary Bennett from Duke University spoke about it. I've worked for Dr. Bennett and have the highest respect for him.
Have a listen here:
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Nestle and Ludwig call for ban on all Front-of-Pack Labeling
There's been a lot of talk about the editorial written by Dr. Nestle and Dr. Ludwig in the latest issue of JAMA. Copies and commentaries can be found on the blogs foodpolitics and fooducate.
In an ideal world, I would love to see that. I think the labels create confusion and are more about marketing than health. A healthy diet is more than this or that single nutrient, but you'd never know it to look at the front of most products...low in this, high in that...compared to what and says who? I don't think these labels help consumers and I have grave concerns that they mislead many.
So what's to stop the government from stepping in? Well, big food for one. They have watched sales of products rise with certain health claims and ridden each wave of the "nutrient du jour" for years. (Remember when all of the sudden "whole grains" and "x grams of fiber" were on every package?) I suspect they will want to protect this valuable form of advertising that appears to be helping consumers to make the "better" choices they desire.
Another issue lies with the FDA. Consumers are confused as to what these claims mean and often assume that the government regulates them. Therefore, they think they are somehow sanctioned. On the flip side, many experts and the media claim these labels are unregulated. The truth is that there are regulations, but not only do some nutrition experts argue that they are not strict enough, they are also mostly unenforced. The FDA is under-funded and under-staffed. Playing label police is one of their many functions. Until they have enough funds and folks to enforce the rules, the rules don't really count. A plus side to banning all F-O-P health claims is that it would be a lot more straightforward to enforce.
While I think we're going to see some changes in health claim regulation in the next year, I expect a more incremental approach than an outright ban. We'll see how the interests of all the different stakeholders play out. But I can't help but hope that such a measure would go through.
Here's a good example of some of the confusion created by the status quo: A girl in my Health Claims class the other day said she bought "Whole Grain Cheezits" the other day (I see part of the problem as just buying Cheezits in the first place, but that's a post for another day). She said the front of the label claimed "5 grams of Whole Grains per serving" or some such. But she said when she flipped the package and looked at the Nutrition Facts Panel, there appeared to be ONE gram of fiber per serving. Now, most people don't often look at the NFP for reasons too varied to go into here. But here's what gets me: Whole Grains is not a synonym for Fiber. Fiber is what counts, and whole grain products should have more fiber. (Fiber added to products normally not containing much often means fiber from sources that are not digested the same, so things like "Splenda with Fiber" should be taken with a grain of salt. Not literally. Eat an apple if you want fiber and use the regular splenda would be my advice.) But there is confusion about whole grains and fiber, and due to current regulations and lack of enforcement, these claims for "whole grains" are at best confusing and, at worst, actively misleading.
In an ideal world, I would love to see that. I think the labels create confusion and are more about marketing than health. A healthy diet is more than this or that single nutrient, but you'd never know it to look at the front of most products...low in this, high in that...compared to what and says who? I don't think these labels help consumers and I have grave concerns that they mislead many.
So what's to stop the government from stepping in? Well, big food for one. They have watched sales of products rise with certain health claims and ridden each wave of the "nutrient du jour" for years. (Remember when all of the sudden "whole grains" and "x grams of fiber" were on every package?) I suspect they will want to protect this valuable form of advertising that appears to be helping consumers to make the "better" choices they desire.
Another issue lies with the FDA. Consumers are confused as to what these claims mean and often assume that the government regulates them. Therefore, they think they are somehow sanctioned. On the flip side, many experts and the media claim these labels are unregulated. The truth is that there are regulations, but not only do some nutrition experts argue that they are not strict enough, they are also mostly unenforced. The FDA is under-funded and under-staffed. Playing label police is one of their many functions. Until they have enough funds and folks to enforce the rules, the rules don't really count. A plus side to banning all F-O-P health claims is that it would be a lot more straightforward to enforce.
While I think we're going to see some changes in health claim regulation in the next year, I expect a more incremental approach than an outright ban. We'll see how the interests of all the different stakeholders play out. But I can't help but hope that such a measure would go through.
Here's a good example of some of the confusion created by the status quo: A girl in my Health Claims class the other day said she bought "Whole Grain Cheezits" the other day (I see part of the problem as just buying Cheezits in the first place, but that's a post for another day). She said the front of the label claimed "5 grams of Whole Grains per serving" or some such. But she said when she flipped the package and looked at the Nutrition Facts Panel, there appeared to be ONE gram of fiber per serving. Now, most people don't often look at the NFP for reasons too varied to go into here. But here's what gets me: Whole Grains is not a synonym for Fiber. Fiber is what counts, and whole grain products should have more fiber. (Fiber added to products normally not containing much often means fiber from sources that are not digested the same, so things like "Splenda with Fiber" should be taken with a grain of salt. Not literally. Eat an apple if you want fiber and use the regular splenda would be my advice.) But there is confusion about whole grains and fiber, and due to current regulations and lack of enforcement, these claims for "whole grains" are at best confusing and, at worst, actively misleading.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Serving Size Chaos
As we head into what will likely (read: hopefully) be a new era of labeling regulations, William Neuman's video for the NYT, "Serving Size Sleight of Hand" is an excellent look at the disconnect between stated serving sizes on packages and what we actually eat.
Check it out here: "Serving Size Sleight of Hand".
Check it out here: "Serving Size Sleight of Hand".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)