Yesterday, I was lucky enough to hear Kathleen Merrigan, Deputy Secretary of the USDA, give the keynote speech at Friedman's Annual Symposium. You *might* recognize her as one of Time Magazine's "100 Most Important People in the World". Well, I wholeheartedly agree. (I might be biased as she was one of my favorite professors during the master's program.)
One of the questions she fielded from the audience was about what the USDA was going to do to address the issue of SOFAs in the American Diet. (SOFAs stand for solid fats and added sugars. Not to be confused with the other "sofa" issue here in the States, mainly that people won't get off them.)
What Dr. Merrigan didn't mention was the checkoff programs currently in existence here in the United States. These are quasi-governmental bodies aimed at increasing consumption of certain key commodities produced in the US. I say they are quasi-governmental because, although they are really a part of AMS (the agricultural marketing service), they are paid for by taxes on industry and the boards of the committees include private sector players.
These programs are responsible for campaigns such as the milk mustache, "Beef. It's what's for dinner." and "Pork: The Other White Meat". All of these programs encourage consumption of products high in saturated (solid) fats. (Saturated fats are those fats that are solid at room temperature and are almost exclusively found in animal products.) This is in direct opposition to government health messages, such as the Dietary Guidelines, which call for Americans to "limit" (you should read that as "avoid") saturated fat. In fact, the current recommendations to the USDA by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee actually calls for even lower recommended intakes for saturated fat (from 10% of daily caloric intake down to 7%).
This makes this report from the NYT especially disturbing. At a time when Americans are eating way too much saturated fat from cheese products, the USDA is teaming up with industry (Dominos, Wendy's, BK) to fund ad campaigns to encourage consumption?
It's enough to make you sick.
Maybe even give you a heart attack, and I do mean that quite literally.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Shape Up Somerville: Eat Smart, Play Hard
Shape Up Somerville is an innovative, comprehensive lifestyle intervention designed to improve dietary habits and increase physical activity. It's a program run out of the research center that I am working for, and PBS just did an excellent report on it.
Check it out! (Reshaping Somerville)
I actually took general nutrition as an undergrad from Dr. Economos...I absolutely credit her with planting the seed that eventually led me back to Tufts for a Master's in Food Policy and Applied Nutrition!
Check it out! (Reshaping Somerville)
I actually took general nutrition as an undergrad from Dr. Economos...I absolutely credit her with planting the seed that eventually led me back to Tufts for a Master's in Food Policy and Applied Nutrition!
Monday, October 25, 2010
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Why Banning Soda Purchases for Food Stamp Users is Misguided
I woke up (early) this morning to the following story: A Push to Ban Soda Purchases with Food Stamps. I just about fell out of my chair, not because of the story itself, but because I had just had a practice exam session with a colleague and we had discussed something very similar.
Essentially, Mayor Bloomberg has requested that the USDA allow NYC to ban the purchase of sodas and other sugary beverages (referred to from here on as SSBs, or sugar-sweetened beverages) using Food Stamps. First, I applaud the stance that Mayor Bloomberg has taken on health and the obesity epidemic. And I agree with him that we need to get the American public to drink less SSBs (but not just those who are using Food Stamps, a program which is now actually called SNAP, which is going to be relevant to my argument). I just don't agree that restricting Food Stamp purchases this way is either the right way to do it (in terms of stigmatization) or the correct way to do it (in terms of behavior change). And here's why...
First, how does Food Stamps, formally known now as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program work? Food Stamps is a nutrition program that is a means-test targeted program, meaning your eligibility to receive benefits is based on your means (your income plus other assets). It's actually got another layer of targeting built in, in that you have to be interested enough in receiving the benefits (need them enough) that taking the time to apply and submit proof of income and assets is worth it. Once you qualify to receive benefits (the main test is having a gross income at 130% of the poverty line or less), then your benefit is calculated.
Here's where the "Supplemental" aspect of SNAP/Food Stamps comes in. Food Stamps are designed to be supplemental to your food budget. The underlying assumption is that, assuming you have income, you are putting some of that income towards food purchases. The benefit formula is as follows:
Benefit= Maximum Benefit- (0.3 times your income level)
Therefore, as your income goes down, your benefits will go up, and at a level of zero income, you will receive the maximum benefit. The current maximum benefit for a family of four is $668 per month. At levels of income above zero, it is assumed that 1/3 of your income will be spent on food.
This is a crucial point, as there are really two main buckets of people who receive Food Stamps benefits in terms of how the program affects their spending: Constrained and Unconstrained. Unconstrained individuals, because they are spending some of their income on food in addition to the benefits of SNAP, are not changing their spending habits- meaning that they are not spending more than they would like on food, and that Food Stamps is not increasing their purchasing of food to a level greater than they would prefer. In this case, Food Stamps acts as an income transfer: the cash that they would have already preferred to spend on food can now be freed up in their budgets to be spent on other needs. It is like giving these recipients a raise- their budget is increased, and there are no restrictions on their spending (aside from the fact that some things are banned under food stamps: non-food like liquor, and some prepared foods). The key point here is that they are spending more on food than their Food Stamp benefit alone.
Constrained individuals on the other hand are forced to buy food that they wouldn't otherwise buy. This indicates that they have needs greater than food (medical care, housing) but the government has essentially chosen for them that they will spend this benefit on food. It's not an income transfer in this case. Even at the same level of income as someone else, this group has different preferences (higher priorities than food spending) but are forced to spend Food Stamp dollars on food. This group would rather have cash that could be spent on their higher priority items.
The point I am trying to make here is that, for unconstrained individuals, banning the purchases of SSBs using Food Stamp dollars will not have the intended effect. If a given recipient prefers to purchase SSBs, it's simply a matter of shifting their food budget so that their own dollars are spent on SSBs and Food Stamp dollars are spent on something else. This group can still buy Sugar-Sweetened Beverages at the same rate previously, given how cheap SSBs are relative to other foods, particularly nutritious foods, in the diet. Only those very constrained individuals would have their purchases changed by this policy.
This is my first problem with this policy: it won't meaningfully change behavior among the targeted population.
My second issue is that it stigmatizes Food Stamp recipients. It restricts their choices, and in so doing, feels punitive. Food Stamp recipients are not the only Americans who are drinking far too many SSBs. I feel this policy is a lot of noise and attention for one that won't work in the way intended, and that time, money and effort could be better spent on policies that have a more effective design.
If we REALLY want to change the food choices that Americans generally, and Food Stamp recipients specifically, make, then I propose that we make fruits and vegetables cheaper. It's non-punitive. It's got potential to change behavior. One of the complaints that is often heard from Food Stamp recipients is that they would like to buy healthier choices, but that fruits and vegetables (and other non-processed foods) are so much more expensive. I could devote a hundred pages to how this happened (Thank you, Earl Butz), but the bottom line is that people's purchasing decisions are based on the relative costs of different foods, and if we make fruits and vegetables competitive with the reconstituted soy/corn blend junk that it competes with (re: pretty much all processed foods, including SSBs), we just might have the START to a solution. (By no means do I think this will be enough to fix the obesity epidemic in this country.)
Food Stamps, like all policy interventions, is not a perfect solution, but it is a rather elegant one. Like all policies, it's a compromise. It's designed to not distort the markets (by increasing food demand or imposing different consumption choices on the recipients), but at the same time allow the government to put a priority on food spending for low income families. From a free-market perspective, giving cash benefits would be the ideal market solution, but for obvious reasons, this is not politically very popular. Food Stamps tried to bridge this gap, and while it has its flaws, it does the best it can.
Essentially, Mayor Bloomberg has requested that the USDA allow NYC to ban the purchase of sodas and other sugary beverages (referred to from here on as SSBs, or sugar-sweetened beverages) using Food Stamps. First, I applaud the stance that Mayor Bloomberg has taken on health and the obesity epidemic. And I agree with him that we need to get the American public to drink less SSBs (but not just those who are using Food Stamps, a program which is now actually called SNAP, which is going to be relevant to my argument). I just don't agree that restricting Food Stamp purchases this way is either the right way to do it (in terms of stigmatization) or the correct way to do it (in terms of behavior change). And here's why...
First, how does Food Stamps, formally known now as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program work? Food Stamps is a nutrition program that is a means-test targeted program, meaning your eligibility to receive benefits is based on your means (your income plus other assets). It's actually got another layer of targeting built in, in that you have to be interested enough in receiving the benefits (need them enough) that taking the time to apply and submit proof of income and assets is worth it. Once you qualify to receive benefits (the main test is having a gross income at 130% of the poverty line or less), then your benefit is calculated.
Here's where the "Supplemental" aspect of SNAP/Food Stamps comes in. Food Stamps are designed to be supplemental to your food budget. The underlying assumption is that, assuming you have income, you are putting some of that income towards food purchases. The benefit formula is as follows:
Benefit= Maximum Benefit- (0.3 times your income level)
Therefore, as your income goes down, your benefits will go up, and at a level of zero income, you will receive the maximum benefit. The current maximum benefit for a family of four is $668 per month. At levels of income above zero, it is assumed that 1/3 of your income will be spent on food.
This is a crucial point, as there are really two main buckets of people who receive Food Stamps benefits in terms of how the program affects their spending: Constrained and Unconstrained. Unconstrained individuals, because they are spending some of their income on food in addition to the benefits of SNAP, are not changing their spending habits- meaning that they are not spending more than they would like on food, and that Food Stamps is not increasing their purchasing of food to a level greater than they would prefer. In this case, Food Stamps acts as an income transfer: the cash that they would have already preferred to spend on food can now be freed up in their budgets to be spent on other needs. It is like giving these recipients a raise- their budget is increased, and there are no restrictions on their spending (aside from the fact that some things are banned under food stamps: non-food like liquor, and some prepared foods). The key point here is that they are spending more on food than their Food Stamp benefit alone.
Constrained individuals on the other hand are forced to buy food that they wouldn't otherwise buy. This indicates that they have needs greater than food (medical care, housing) but the government has essentially chosen for them that they will spend this benefit on food. It's not an income transfer in this case. Even at the same level of income as someone else, this group has different preferences (higher priorities than food spending) but are forced to spend Food Stamp dollars on food. This group would rather have cash that could be spent on their higher priority items.
The point I am trying to make here is that, for unconstrained individuals, banning the purchases of SSBs using Food Stamp dollars will not have the intended effect. If a given recipient prefers to purchase SSBs, it's simply a matter of shifting their food budget so that their own dollars are spent on SSBs and Food Stamp dollars are spent on something else. This group can still buy Sugar-Sweetened Beverages at the same rate previously, given how cheap SSBs are relative to other foods, particularly nutritious foods, in the diet. Only those very constrained individuals would have their purchases changed by this policy.
This is my first problem with this policy: it won't meaningfully change behavior among the targeted population.
My second issue is that it stigmatizes Food Stamp recipients. It restricts their choices, and in so doing, feels punitive. Food Stamp recipients are not the only Americans who are drinking far too many SSBs. I feel this policy is a lot of noise and attention for one that won't work in the way intended, and that time, money and effort could be better spent on policies that have a more effective design.
If we REALLY want to change the food choices that Americans generally, and Food Stamp recipients specifically, make, then I propose that we make fruits and vegetables cheaper. It's non-punitive. It's got potential to change behavior. One of the complaints that is often heard from Food Stamp recipients is that they would like to buy healthier choices, but that fruits and vegetables (and other non-processed foods) are so much more expensive. I could devote a hundred pages to how this happened (Thank you, Earl Butz), but the bottom line is that people's purchasing decisions are based on the relative costs of different foods, and if we make fruits and vegetables competitive with the reconstituted soy/corn blend junk that it competes with (re: pretty much all processed foods, including SSBs), we just might have the START to a solution. (By no means do I think this will be enough to fix the obesity epidemic in this country.)
Food Stamps, like all policy interventions, is not a perfect solution, but it is a rather elegant one. Like all policies, it's a compromise. It's designed to not distort the markets (by increasing food demand or imposing different consumption choices on the recipients), but at the same time allow the government to put a priority on food spending for low income families. From a free-market perspective, giving cash benefits would be the ideal market solution, but for obvious reasons, this is not politically very popular. Food Stamps tried to bridge this gap, and while it has its flaws, it does the best it can.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Birthday Post
I can't come up with an adequate introduction to this video from the TED conference. Just go watch and see for yourself!
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
A lot of talk about food in the NYT today
Check it out....
An editorial on antibiotic use in livestock.
The first paragraph of Thomas Friedman's op-ed highlights the way we're viewed by other countries.
More updates on the egg recall.
And more on the debate between sugar and HFCS (bottom line: no evidence they're significantly different...sugar is sugar and we need to eat A LOT less of it).
It's nice to see food politics taking center stage.
An editorial on antibiotic use in livestock.
The first paragraph of Thomas Friedman's op-ed highlights the way we're viewed by other countries.
More updates on the egg recall.
And more on the debate between sugar and HFCS (bottom line: no evidence they're significantly different...sugar is sugar and we need to eat A LOT less of it).
It's nice to see food politics taking center stage.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
If PopTarts didn't exist.....
what would you eat instead? That's the question that a brand manager for PopTarts claims that most consumers struggle to answer.
Let me help you out with this one: fruit and granola. Or some oatmeal with fruit? Or how about whole wheat toast with some delicious jam even?
Check out the report on CNN.
I'm off to go bemoan the state of the American diet.
My report on the recs for the 2010 DGs is coming. There are some interesting updates....
Let me help you out with this one: fruit and granola. Or some oatmeal with fruit? Or how about whole wheat toast with some delicious jam even?
Check out the report on CNN.
I'm off to go bemoan the state of the American diet.
My report on the recs for the 2010 DGs is coming. There are some interesting updates....
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
New Dietary Guidelines Advisory Report Released
The US Dietary Guidelines Advisory Report has been released!
....and everyone has something to say about it:
The LA Times
US Food Policy (Parke Wilde's Blog)
Food Politics (Marion Nestle'sBlog)
Even Gawker has a post.
I'm still digging through it and will post my take on it shortly.
....and everyone has something to say about it:
The LA Times
US Food Policy (Parke Wilde's Blog)
Food Politics (Marion Nestle'sBlog)
Even Gawker has a post.
I'm still digging through it and will post my take on it shortly.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Compelling Arguement for Nationwide Salt Reduction Plan
Salt has been in the news an awful lot lately, and many companies are moving to reduce levels in processed foods. Here's why this makes sense from a public health standpoint, as written by Dr. Katleen Wolin at the Siteman Cancer Center at Washington University's School of Medicine:
Why is reducing Salt in Our Food Important?
Why is reducing Salt in Our Food Important?
Not THAT again
Food companies love, and I mean LOVE, to trot out the old "It's not us, it's you" argument about obesity. It's not our delicious, salty, high fat, high sugar, tasty snacks and sodas that are making you fat...it's that you are not exercising enough! Pepsico's Indra Nooyi is just the latest in a long line of companies making some version of this claim. The Wall Street Journal's health blog has a great piece on exactly why the math on this doesn't work.
Food companies don't want to admit that the hard sell they are giving us every day to buy their snack foods are part of the problem.
I recently made a similar point in one of my take-home finals (the books I referenced are listed below):
Food companies don't want to admit that the hard sell they are giving us every day to buy their snack foods are part of the problem.
I recently made a similar point in one of my take-home finals (the books I referenced are listed below):
§ All that time we’re saving by eating more convenient processed foods? We’re not using it to exercise. The modern world has done an amazing job of making our lives easier. In fact, maybe it has made it too easy. A lot of these books make a strong case for unprocessed, home cooked whole foods- all foods that, by nature, don’t carry health claims. I strongly support this stance. And yet, we haven’t found the right balance between convenience and health. As big box supermarkets open in parts of the world primarily dependent on open air markets, there is a strong desire to press pause and prevent this occurrence. However, as Dr. Popkin implies, denying these folks the ability to shop in a convenient, climate controlled environment is denying them an improvement in standard of living, as well as ensuring population weight gain. The advent of processed foods, prepared foods and takeaway meals was both a reaction to more women in the workforce and a necessary factor for it. This, coupled with great strides forward in technology, has greatly increased our standard of living in the
Books referenced: Barry Popkin's "The World is Fat", David Kessler's "The End of Overeating", Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma", Kelly Brownell's "Food Fight" and Marion Nestle's "Food Politics"
Interesting quote in the most recent New Yorker
In "The Talk of the Town" section of this week's New Yorker, there was a bit about different groups of Europeans stranded in the States due to the volcano eruption in Iceland. One such group was composed of Belgian college students. One of them, Jolien Demanet, said they were all missing vegetables, having subsisted on "burgers and paninis". She said, "If you want to eat a normal meal with vegetables here, you have to spend money".
Well, that just about sums it up. Junky food-like substances? Cheap. Actual vegetables? Not so much.
Well, that just about sums it up. Junky food-like substances? Cheap. Actual vegetables? Not so much.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Introducing Sick Delicious
I have two people whom I call regularly on to mitigate kitchen disasters, often as they are occurring. These people are Kate and Rachel Hull (have to distinguish her from my other best friend from high school, Rachel Phillips...yep, a pair of Rachels and they're awesome). This does mean I am often borderline hyperventilating and covered in flour at the time of the call, like the time Rachel helped me get the consistency for my gnocchi dough right by walking me through it, long-distance. Despite the fact that she could only hear my best-guess description of what was going on, the husband and I ate gnocchi that night. And now, this culinary goddess (well, she's a goddess of all things to me!) has her own blog:
Sick Delicious
She's an amazing cook. I love eating at her house. In fact, here are the beautiful desserts she made me for my bachelorette party. Yep, she REALLY loves me.
If you want to seriously improve your life by eating the best food ever, I suggest you get on over to Sick Delicious.
Sick Delicious
She's an amazing cook. I love eating at her house. In fact, here are the beautiful desserts she made me for my bachelorette party. Yep, she REALLY loves me.
If you want to seriously improve your life by eating the best food ever, I suggest you get on over to Sick Delicious.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Dr. Miriam Nelson talks about women's fitness in USAToday
I'm a big (read: HUGE) fan of Mim Nelson and this article from USAToday discusses the importance of physical activity and counting calories (have to do both to lose weight, and both are important in weight gain prevention).
Read it here: Women: Walk your way to life-long fitness
Read it here: Women: Walk your way to life-long fitness
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Ready to take control of your health?
Want to take a proactive approach to your health? Check out yourdiseaserisk.com- an excellent online assessment tools with steps you can take to reduce your risk for various cancers, osteoporosis, heart disease, and stroke.
This was developed in part by a good friend of mine, Dr. Kathleen Wolin. She's a rock star!
This was developed in part by a good friend of mine, Dr. Kathleen Wolin. She's a rock star!
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Saving the world....one lentil at a time
Sometimes, I feel like all anyone does is point out all the things that are wrong in the world but no one wants to take the time to figure out what can be done...and even if they did, how would that apply to you, the individual? What can you do?
Here's an elegant summary of the global food market and its issues, as well as a step you can take to turn the tide:
How to feed the world?
I especially like how there is no implied good vs. evil in this clip. The message allows you to be the hero, and if we're going to fix the issue of how to feed the world (and feed them WELL), it will take all of us!
(What an excellent piece of social marketing.)
The only thing that the video neglects is that if you choose lentils over beef, the benefit is twofold: the planet AND your waistline. It's a win-win! (And lentils can be delicious. Scroll down past the enticing cookies and milk photo to get to the lentil soup at Pane e Pomodoro.)
Here's an elegant summary of the global food market and its issues, as well as a step you can take to turn the tide:
How to feed the world?
I especially like how there is no implied good vs. evil in this clip. The message allows you to be the hero, and if we're going to fix the issue of how to feed the world (and feed them WELL), it will take all of us!
(What an excellent piece of social marketing.)
The only thing that the video neglects is that if you choose lentils over beef, the benefit is twofold: the planet AND your waistline. It's a win-win! (And lentils can be delicious. Scroll down past the enticing cookies and milk photo to get to the lentil soup at Pane e Pomodoro.)
Monday, March 15, 2010
School Lunch and Weight
A new study indicates a link between school food and overweight/obesity, as discussed by Ed Bruske in today's Cafeteria Confidential article. (Ed Bruske also wrote an excellent series on cafeteria meals, Tales from a D.C. School Kitchen.)
I pulled this quote as I felt it said so much about this issue:
But this latest study points to something even more ominous that should occupy the attention of federal lawmakers: a growing bifurcation of the food system wherein poor kids are routinely subjected to cheap processed food that damages their health, while kids from wealthier families get access to the best our local farms have to offer. That is the underlying message of the growing Farm to School movement: that all kids deserve fresh, wholesome food, not just the ones whose parents shop at Whole Foods or the farmers market.
More studies like this one will undoubtedly show that school food quality is a social justice issue that demands immediate attention. And while some politicians might be loathe to pay for improving it -- that is, if they think about it at all -- it is also a health issue with potentially devastating consequences for the national budget.
I pulled this quote as I felt it said so much about this issue:
But this latest study points to something even more ominous that should occupy the attention of federal lawmakers: a growing bifurcation of the food system wherein poor kids are routinely subjected to cheap processed food that damages their health, while kids from wealthier families get access to the best our local farms have to offer. That is the underlying message of the growing Farm to School movement: that all kids deserve fresh, wholesome food, not just the ones whose parents shop at Whole Foods or the farmers market.
More studies like this one will undoubtedly show that school food quality is a social justice issue that demands immediate attention. And while some politicians might be loathe to pay for improving it -- that is, if they think about it at all -- it is also a health issue with potentially devastating consequences for the national budget.
Caring about the Why
This morning, I was reading the article about the host of issues confronting the nation's sewer and water supplies (Toxic Waters- Saving the U.S. Water and Sewer Systems Would Be Costly) and it got me thinking. There are a lot of services that people want- and rightly believe- the government should provide (clean water, an education, public transportation, etc). But people balk at any increase in paying more than they already are. I worry that we're pushing off paying for needed repairs and maintenance onto the next generation. In the States, you get to have a say, but you also have to pay. You can't have better services without paying for them. When one of the residents, as quoted in the NYT article linked above, said that he didn't care WHY the water wasn't working, it fills me with a sense of defeat.
We should care why. We should care about the why of everything. Better solutions, a better tomorrow, all of this is built on the answers to the who/what/when/why/how of now.
(And yes. It's probably going to cost something.)
We should care why. We should care about the why of everything. Better solutions, a better tomorrow, all of this is built on the answers to the who/what/when/why/how of now.
(And yes. It's probably going to cost something.)
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Olympians and their McDonald's Meals
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:
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:
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)