'Healthy' and 'natural' with a side of skepticism -- May 12, 2016 column

By MARSHA MERCER

After hiking in a beautiful Virginia state park last weekend, friends gathered around a picnic table. As we unpacked our lunches -- virtuous sandwiches on whole wheat and righteous chips of kale and quinoa -- Doug pulled out a bag of trail mix.

“Healthy,” the bag proclaimed in big print. Doug read the small print and frowned.

“How can this be healthy?” he demanded. “It’s got chocolate in it.”

No worries, his pals said. Chocolate is now OK – dark chocolate, anyway. Doug was unconvinced.

“Anybody want chocolate?” he asked.

We’ve all had that moment of feeling misled upon reading the fine print on an ingredient label. What we grabbed off the store shelf, lured by the promise of “healthy” or “natural,” turned out to be loaded with sugar or additives.

The Food and Drug Administration announced Tuesday it will review the definition of “healthy”; it’s already examining what it means to be “natural.”

The process of formulating new rules takes years. So we consumers need to accept the things we cannot change. Think of claims on packaged foods as puffery. Period.

The criteria the FDA uses to judge what’s “healthy” are antiquated. Under guidelines first adopted in the 1990s, canned soups, fat-free puddings and sugary cereals qualify, but not plain almonds, avocado and salmon.

This craziness happened because back then fat was Public Enemy No. 1. 

To be "healthy," a food could have 1 gram or less of saturated fat per serving and no more than 15 percent of calories from saturated fat. It also had to meet criteria in sodium, cholesterol and nutrients such as calcium and vitamin C. Sugar wasn’t even considered. Food science has moved on, and we now know there are good fats, like those in nuts and salmon.

In March 2015, the FDA sent Kind LLC a warning letter, saying it had to stop using the word “healthy” on four of its popular fruit-and-nut bars because the products had too much fat.

Kind fought back, filing a citizen petition with FDA, arguing that the agency should have rules that are consistent with current nutrition science as set forth in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines. Last month, FDA agreed and said Kind could use “healthy and tasty” on its packages as the agency reviews the definition.

 

The kerfuffle was great publicity for Kind, which had to change none of its ingredients. CEO and founder Daniel Lubetzky praised FDA for being “very, very open to listening” and for beginning the conversation to update the rules.

Here’s how Marion Nestle, New York University food science and nutrition professor and author of “Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health,” assessed the situation on her Food Politics blog:

 “The terms `healthy’ and `natural’ help to sell food products. They are about marketing, not health. This makes life difficult for the FDA, which has the unenviable job of defining what the terms mean on food labels.”

Until the 1980s, companies were prohibited from touting foods as a possible way to reduce disease. In 1984, the Kellogg Company, maker of All-Bran cereal, and the National Cancer Institute began spreading the word that a low-fat, high-fiber diet could help reduce the risk of colon cancer. The FDA did not object because the statement was true, Clare M. Haskel wrote in the Journal of Nutrition.

Soon, though, unsubstantiated health claims flooded the market, and in 1989 Business Week magazine ran a cover story, “Health Claims for Foods are Becoming Ridiculous.” Congress passed the Nutrition Labeling and Nutrition Act of 1990, which allows health claims only with FDA approval.

FDA created a system for evaluating foods and has tried to keep consumers informed, but the messages are often confusing.

Chocolate, for example, has been shown in some studies to have antioxidant potential and may lower cholesterol, but its high calorie, sugar and fat content can lead to tooth decay and obesity.

Hardly a day passes without new guidance about what to eat -- or avoid eating -- to stay healthy. The ever-changing advice is frustrating, but one thing is clear:

“When it comes to food labels, `healthy’ and `natural’ are marketing terms,” says Nestle. “Their purpose is to sell food products. Caveat emptor.” 

(c)2016 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

Freedom's not another word for trans fats -- June 18, 2015 column

By MARSHA MERCER

When the founding fathers talked about freedom, they never envisioned artery-clogging trans fats or the microwave popcorn, frozen pizzas and other processed foods that contain them.

But when the federal government started slow-walking toward a ban of artificial trans fats, critics invoked the freedom to eat whatever they please, regardless of the cost to their health, as if it were guaranteed by the Constitution.

The conservative Heritage Foundation warned about “Government Control of Your Diet: Threats to `Freedom to Eat,’” in a 2013 issue brief about the evils of nutrition information on menus and of food bans.

“There are some lines the government should never cross. This certainly includes seeking to control what people eat,” wrote Daren Bakst, research fellow in agricultural policy at Heritage.

Even if you agree, it’s hard to argue with the many medical studies since 1993 that have linked partially hydrogenated oils and heart disease. Trans fats raise LDL or “bad” cholesterol and lower the HDL or “good” cholesterol, increasing the risk of heart disease, the leading cause of death in the United States.  

The federal government estimates that eliminating trans fats could prevent 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 heart-disease deaths a year in the United States.

Other countries -- Denmark, Austria, Hungary, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland – already have set limits on trans fats. In California, a 2008 law limits trans fats in restaurants. The cities of New York, Boston and Philadelphia have similar measures.

But our federal government moves with glacial speed. On Tuesday, the Food and Drug Administration finally ordered food manufacturers to stop using trans fats -- unless they get approval for the additive – by June 18, 2018.

Critics say the new rule is ridiculous and unnecessary. Since 2006, food manufacturers have been required to list trans fats on Nutrition Facts labels, and they voluntarily cut the amount. Heeding consumer demand, many large companies -- including Wal-Mart, Starbucks and McDonalds – have cut trans fats.

Trans fat consumption dropped nearly 80 percent between 2003 and 2012, but current intake is still a health concern as there’s no safe level of trans fats, FDA said.

Public health groups were joyful about FDA’s announcement, and manufacturers were relieved to have three more years to reformulate their products. The cost to manufacturers is estimated at $6.2 billion but the benefit in reduced medical costs is $140 billion over 20 years, FDA estimated.

The idea of adding hydrogen to oil to make a solid fat was a 20^th century invention that brought us Crisco as an alternative to lard. Trans fat won the hearts of food manufacturers, bakeries and restaurants because it inexpensively extends shelf life, improves texture and enhances taste.

At first it was thought that trans fat would also be healthier than natural saturated fats, but over time medical studies showed otherwise.

To avoid trans fats, check a product’s ingredient list for partially hydrogenated oils. Even if the Nutrition Facts label lists “0 grams” of trans fats, the product can have half a gram per serving, and that can add up. Besides pizza and microwave popcorn, trans fats are found in frostings, packaged pies, stick margarines and coffee creamers.   

Conservatives view FDA’s rule as more overreach by the Obama administration, a shove down the slippery slope to give government more power over what we eat.

Critics argue that everything from nutrition labels and calorie counts at restaurants to capping the size of sugary drinks infringes on personal freedom, as former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg learned when he tried to limit drink size. Ultimately, the state’s highest court said no.

Last November, voters in Berkeley, Calif., overwhelmingly passed a 1-cent per ounce tax on sugary drinks to be added to drink distributors’ business license fees.

In Texas, though, the new agriculture commissioner, Sid Miller, favors allowing school districts to bring back deep fat fryers and soft drinks. The state banned both in public schools a decade ago.

“It’s not about french fries; it’s about freedom,” Miller says.

Really? Even Crisco has modernized and greatly reduced its trans fat content. For most of us, freedom means good health.    

©2015 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

30