'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.

Back to school -- and food fights -- Aug. 29, 2013 column

By MARSHA MERCER

It’s back-to-school time, so naturally that means food fights.

The school cafeteria has been an unlikely political battleground since the Reagan administration tried to classify ketchup and pickle relish as vegetables more than three decades ago. The ridiculous proposal was withdrawn but not forgotten.  

Today, the federal government is pushing for healthier lunches in the fight against childhood obesity. Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, championed by first lady Michelle Obama. Congress and Obama deserve praise for standing up for kids’ health.

Starting last fall, the nation’s lunch trays have been filled with leaner, less salty fare, but, as nutritionists say, “It’s not nutrition until it’s eaten.”

Some students have given the new and improved lunches an F. They’re tossing veggies into the trash, chowing down for lunch at nearby fast food restaurants and brown-bagging. As a result, some schools are dropping out of the National School Lunch Program altogether.

“So many students turned up their noses at meals packed with whole grains, fruits and vegetables that the cafeterias were losing money,” the Associated Press reported.

Well, not “so many.” The federal government says the number of students eating cafeteria lunches nationwide dropped nearly 3 percent in 2012-13 from the year before. The decline is mostly among kids who can afford to buy their own lunch. Most can’t; about 71 percent of students received free or reduced-price lunches last May.

Complaints about cafeteria “mystery meat” are as old as steam tables, so it’s hardly a surprise that whole wheat might not win fans after one year. Several news stories picked up a quote by a school board member in Harlan, Ky. You may not want to read what she had to say if you’re having your corn flakes. Fair warning.   

“They say it tastes like vomit,” said Myra Mosley.

The Daily Caller suggested that the quote was a condemnation of the first lady’s efforts to make school lunches healthier. The Caller’s headline read, “Kentucky students to first lady Michelle Obama: Your food ‘tastes like vomit’”

But the students did not say that. The Harlan Daily Enterprise reported that Mosley twice said the kids were complaining about the 1 percent fat milk they now are served. A school official explained they’re using the same brand of milk, but the kids are used to the taste of 2 percent and whole milk.

The Department of Agriculture has a sensible, new “Offer versus Serve” policy. At lunch, instead of serving everybody the same five required foods – meat or meat alternative, grains, fruit, vegetable and milk – schools offer the five and allow each student to choose three and decline two. It’s hoped that will reduce waste, bring kids back to the lunch line and stop school districts from heading for the exits of the lunch program.

A School Nutrition Association survey this summer found 1 percent of school officials planned for at least one of their schools to drop out of the national lunch program in 2013-14. About 3 percent are considering removing a school, said the association, which concluded, “there is no national trend” of schools abandoning the national lunch program.

You might think the problem with school lunches is too much of a good, or healthy, thing. Not so, say Republican Reps. Steve King of Iowa and Tim Huelskamp of Kansas. They say the  “nutrition nannies” have unfairly put the all nation’s students on a diet.

Elementary pupils’ lunches now may contain 650 calories, middle school 700 calories and high school 850 calories. Some high school football players complain their lunches weren’t filling enough to keep hunger pangs at bay during hours of after-school practice.

King and Huelskamp’s “No Hungry Kids Act” would roll back the new rules and prohibit calorie caps. 

Instead of giving up on the new lunch guidelines, smart schools are experimenting with salad bars and attractive fruit baskets. School lunches in Madison, Ala., now include roasted Alabama sweet potato wedges and locally grown cherry tomatoes and watermelon.

More nutrition battles surely lie ahead, though. In 2014, the federal government will require schools to stock healthy foods in school vending machines, snack bars and stores.

I can’t wait to see where the politicians line up in the face-off between gummy bears and granola bars.

© 2013 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

30

Food fight! Nanny state vs. national security -- Sept. 27, 2012 column

By MARSHA MERCER

The nanny state was undiscovered territory when Congress passed and President Harry Truman signed the National School Lunch Act in June 1946.

The law was good for children and farmers, the president said. The military wanted it because it was good for national security.

During World War II, more than 40 percent of rejected military recruits were sent home because they were malnourished.

Today, our platter-sized plates and our gargantuan soda cups runneth over. Rather than being too malnourished, our young Americans are too overweight to enlist. One in four can’t qualify for service.

Obesity, not malnourishment, is our national security issue. More than 300 retired generals and admirals joined a group called Mission: Readiness to goad Congress into taking steps to try to stem the childhood obesity epidemic by improving nutrition in schools.

The group’s 2010 report, “Too Fat to Fight,” pressed Congress for healthier school lunches. For once, Congress listened. The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, supported by first lady Michelle Obama, reforms the school lunch program for the first time in 30 years.

New rules requiring more fruits and vegetables, lower-fat milk and less bread and condiments went into effect this fall in schools around the country. It’s America so naturally there have been protests. Students and teachers at a school in Kansas produced a video that has gone viral. Critics are eager to map -- and disarm -- the nanny state.

''This is the nanny state personified,'' declared Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who said constituents tell him their kids are starving in school and are being rationed on calories. King wants to repeal the law.

Really? Under the new rules, a high school lunch must not exceed 850 calories, compared with 825 calories under the old guidelines. Elementary pupils, in kindergarten through fifth grade, now get up to 650 calories at lunch.

Mission: Readiness wants Congress to take more action to curb obesity. This week the group released a follow-up report, “Still Too Fat to Fight,” asking that the government expel junk food from school. Schools sell more than 400 billion empty calories a year, outside the lunch program, in school stores, snack lines and vending machines, the report said.

Again, the brass says, it’s a national security issue.

The military leaders recognize that parents are their children’s first teachers and role models, but parents can’t control junk food at school. America’s children consume up to half their daily calories at school, so stopping the flow of junk food there could be significant.

For the military, overweight isn’t just a recruitment problem. The United States has the highest rate overweight and obese men among major countries -- three in four men are overweight or obese. The Defense Department spends $1.1 billion a year treating diabetes, heart disease and other medical problems related to obesity for service members, their families and veterans.

And problems with staffing the volunteer military go beyond weight, says Richard B. Myers, a retired Air Force general and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“When weight problems are combined with other disqualifying factors, like failing to finish high school or being convicted of a serious crime, an estimated 75 percent of Americans age 17 to 24 are not able to join the military,” Myers wrote in an op-ed in Politico.

Three in four young Americans can’t qualify to serve? That’s appalling. We must do more to help kids stay in school and qualify for the military training and personal confidence that service can provide.

We can start with soda.

Three studies in the latest New England Journal of Medicine link obesity to sugary sodas. The American Beverage Association insists that the industry already has reduced sales in schools and no single food or drink is responsible for the obesity epidemic.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York has riled many with his quest to ban gigantic sodas. Starting in March, unless a judge intervenes, New Yorkers will not be able to buy supersized sodas at restaurants, on the street or in movie theaters.

To hear some conservatives, you’d think our God-given rights include the freedom to scarf and guzzle vast quantities of anything and everything without any government interference whatsoever.

Seriously, does that make sense -- with health care costs skyrocketing, with three of four American men overweight or obese?

Does anyone really need more than 16 ounces of a soft drink at a time? The original Coca-Cola bottle held about 6 ounces. If you’re still thirsty, drink water.

In this great country, there will always be another soda. But we don’t have to drink it right now.

©2012 Marsha Mercer. All rights reserved.

30