Food and Health News » Labeling

Nutrition buzzwords make hay out of grains of truth

Liesbeth Smit — Thu, 27 May 2010 06:08:05 +0000

Washington Post, Melissa Bell, May 27, 2010

The plastic soup can looks as if it’s a single-size meal, a healthful lunch option for one hurried customer. But the nutrition label on the back says otherwise. Gummy fruit snacks show a shower of strawberries on the label, which reads “naturally fruit flavored.” Customers would be hard-pressed to find any strawberries in the ingredient list.

Because of rising obesity rates and a push for more healthy living, many new products in the supermarket claim to be low-fat, immunity-boosting, vitamin-added foods. Some brands have become more healthful. But many manufacturers are promoting a product’s healthful ingredients while playing down its less nutritional qualities. It is a food label sleight-of-hand that Bruce Silverglade of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit advocacy group, calls a “rip-off” for consumers.

“There are deceptive claims all over the place: low-fat, high-fiber, light. Definitions are used arbitrarily,” Silverglade said, adding that the unclear labeling is “dangerous for public health.”

Margaret Hamburg, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, said last year that the creation of a uniform front-of-package symbol would be one of the agency’s priorities in the coming years. “Some nutritionists have questioned whether this information is more marketing-oriented than health-oriented,” Hamburg said then. “Judging from some of the labels that we’ve seen, we think that this is a valid concern.”

In March, the FDA sent warning letters to 17 food manufacturers, including Dreyer’s, Nestle and Pom, insisting that they change wording on their labels. And recently Michelle Obama and the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity recommended that labeling on food packages be more clearly defined.

Those label changes could take years to go into effect. Until then, be wary of the words and phrases you’re reading in the grocery aisles. Here’s a cheat sheet to the marketing mayhem.

‘Natural’ or ‘organic’

A company can use the term “natural” to mean just about anything. Consumers often assume it implies “organic,” but that’s not the case. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has strict guidelines for a company to meet before it can label a food organic. Example: Silk Soymilk introduced non-organic soybeans to its product line and switched its organic soy milk to a green box. The product that is labeled “original” has the old red packaging with one small change: The word “organic” has been replaced by “natural.” Mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute, a nonprofit organic-industry watchdog group, said many grocery stores stock the “original” product among organic foods, not realizing the change had occurred.

‘Made with whole wheat’
If it does not say 100 percent whole wheat or 100 percent whole grain, then be wary: The food may contain only a trivial amount of whole grain. Example: Thomas’ Hearty Grains English Muffins lists “unbleached enriched wheat flour” as its primary ingredient. That is just a fancy phrase for ordinary white flour.

‘Healthy’

To use the word “healthy,” companies must meet certain FDA regulations per serving size. Some companies increase the number of serving sizes per product, rather than change the ingredients. If a person eats the entire jar or drinks the whole bottle, it would not meet the regulations. Mike Bishop, the executive director of Wellspring, a weight-loss program for young adults, said the manipulation of serving size is the most dangerous problem in food-labeling confusion. “You’ve really got to be careful,” Bishop said. “Is that a realistic serving size for me? Or am I going to eat a lot more than that?”

Example: Healthy Choice Minestrone Soup appears to be a single serving of soup, but the nutrition panel says it contains about two servings. If a person consumes it in one sitting, it would not meet the FDA requirements on healthy sodium content.

‘Support’ or ‘a source of’

These are loose terms that insinuate the food helps protect against a popular health concern. The latest trend is a lack of Vitamin D, because of concerns that a deficiency in Vitamin D may play a role in autism. If a food says it is an “excellent source of Vitamin D,” it may only mean: As a part of a normal diet, in which you get vitamins and minerals, this food will provide a minute amount of Vitamin D. Example: Kashi Heart to Heart Instant Oatmeal says it “supports healthy arteries” because it includes green tea, but Bruce Silverglade of the Center for Science in the Public Interest said there is no FDA-approved evidence that green tea protects arteries.

‘High in fiber’

Many foods contain “isolated fibers” to boost the fiber content. But it is unlikely these isolated fibers, usually inulin, polydextrose and maltodextrin, provide the same health benefits as “intact fibers,” such as whole beans or oats. Example: Fiber One Oats & Chocolate bars say they provide 35 percent of daily fiber, but the fiber comes mainly from chicory root extract, which contains inulin.

‘Zero trans fat’

In 2003 the FDA announced that trans fat was a contributing factor to coronary heart disease. If a product says it contains few or zero grams of trans fat, look at the nutrition label. Often it will be loaded with saturated fat, which can be just as unhealthful as trans fat. Example: Edy’s Dibs Nestle Crunch bite-size frozen snacks make the zero trans fat claim on the front of the label, but the Nutrition Facts panel shows it has 17 grams of saturated fat, 80 percent of the daily value of fat a person should consume.

‘Naturally fruit flavored’

Some snacks picture fresh fruit on the front label and state they are “naturally fruit flavored!” But often the real fruit contained in the package comes from a small amount of pear juice concentrate, a highly sugared form of fruit. Example: Betty Crocker Strawberry Splash Fruit Gushers are made primarily from pear juice and contain about 12 grams of added sugar.

‘Contains antioxidants,’ ‘contains vitamins,’ ‘contains omega-3s’

Sometimes foods are fortified with nutrients, such as orange juice with calcium. But fortifying a junk food does not offset the food’s negative qualities. Example: Froot Loops says it “now provides fiber.” But the 26 grams of sugar in each 3/4 -cup serving of the cereal could have far more negative effects than any benefit from the slim amount of added fiber.

Nutrition buzzwords make hay out of grains of truth.

What’s on the menu? Food facts

Liesbeth Smit — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:48:02 +0000

Don Sapatkin, January 31, 2010, The Philadelphia Inquirer

Swati Kapoor, 25, was about to order a double chocolate cake doughnut when she noticed something new on the rack at Dunkin’ Donuts. A tag said 290 calories. In an instant, she switched to a chocolate frosted doughnut (230 calories).

“To prevent obesity,” the skinny medical student explained, munching away at a table in 30th Street Station.

Philadelphia begins phasing in enforcement of its strictest-in-the-nation menu-labeling law tomorrow. This first part, requiring chain restaurants to list calories on food tags and menu boards, is a relatively simple proposition that research shows can influence ordering habits.

A similar law will take effect in New Jersey next year, and dozens of such bills are pending around the country, including in Harrisburg.

What’s different in Philadelphia will become apparent on April 1, when restaurants with individual menus must list saturated fats, trans fats, carbohydrates, and sodium, in addition to calories, with every item.

No one really knows what will come of this broader experiment in attempted behavioral change.

“The majority of people, I believe, will see this as cumbersome and an overreaction and not necessary,” said George McKerrow Jr., president and chief executive officer of Ted’s Montana Grill, who anticipates having to expand the menu at his South Broad Street location from two pages to six.

Still, just two months after Ted’s added calories alone to its menu here, responding to a New York City requirement, McKerrow has noticed a small but measurable change in Philadelphia: “Some people have chosen to eat the healthier items more often.”

Restaurants initially fought all efforts to mandate labels on menus. As the movement spread, with dozens of variations proposed across the country, the industry switched its goal to uniformity: calories, yes; sodium, no.

It has won that fight everywhere except Philadelphia. City Council approved the measure in 2008, after viewing data that showed the impact of chronic diseases related to diet – diabetes is diagnosed in 13 percent of residents, high blood pressure in 36 percent – broken down by district.

Diabetics must manage their intake of carbohydrates (including sugar); too much sodium can raise blood pressure. Both are listed on the familiar nutrition-facts label on all prepackaged goods.

“But it is really hard for people, if they eat out, to know about the sodium content,” city Health Commissioner Donald Schwarz said.

At Olive Garden, for example, nothing on the dinner menu hints at a difference between linguine alla marinara (900 milligrams of sodium, according to its Web site) and pork Milanese (3,100 mg) – or notes that the Food and Drug Administration recommends less than 2,300 mg a day total, a line that must be added by April 1.

“It would make a difference,” said Nashikai Ianscoli, 57, of Center City, who has had to go on a diet to control her blood pressure. She grew up on a farm in the South where her mother got fresh vegetables by the bushel.

Much has changed since she was a child.

“Back in the 1970s, eating out was a special occasion. What people ate didn’t matter as much,” said Margo G. Wootan, nutrition-policy director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Americans now get an estimated one-third of their calories from meals outside the home. And though FDA serving sizes haven’t changed, restaurant portions, especially fast food, have doubled or tripled. Skyrocketing obesity rates – one-third of Americans are obese, about the same as in Philadelphia – defied every big fix attempted.

In 2003, an influential study examined long-term trends and calculated that a difference of 100 calories a day, either ingested or spent, could tip the balance from national weight gain to weight loss. This, the researchers concluded in the journal Science, could be accomplished through small changes that the public would be more likely to embrace.

Wootan’s Washington center, meanwhile, had been pondering how to get people to eat better. At a conference, she recalled, dietitians were presented with hamburgers, onion rings, and other fare from sit-down restaurants and asked to estimate caloric content. Even with nutrition degrees, they were off by hundreds of calories, always on the low side.

Wootan developed a model menu-labeling law and started calling dozens of policymakers around the country: Maine (the first to introduce a bill), New York City (the first to pass it), Philadelphia (the fourth to implement it).

Calorie Postings Don’t Change Habits, Study Finds

Liesbeth Smit — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:10:29 +0000

The New York Times, October 6, 2009. Anemona Hartocolis

The study, by several professors at New York University and Yale, tracked customers at four fast-food chains — McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken — in poor neighborhoods of New York City where there are high rates of obesity.

It found that about half the customers noticed the calorie counts, which were prominently posted on menu boards. About 28 percent of those who noticed them said the information had influenced their ordering, and 9 out of 10 of those said they had made healthier choices as a result.

But when the researchers checked receipts afterward, they found that people had, in fact, ordered slightly more calories than the typical customer had before the labeling law went into effect, in July 2008.

The findings, to be published Tuesday in the online version of the journal Health Affairscome amid the spreading popularity of calorie-counting proposals as a way to improve public health across the country.

“I think it does show us that labels are not enough,” Brian Elbel, an assistant professor at the New York University School of Medicine and the lead author of the study, said in an interview.

New York City was the first place in the country to require calorie posting, making it a test case for other jurisdictions. Since then, California, Seattle and other places have instituted similar rules.

Calorie posting has even entered the national health care reform debate, with a proposal in the Senate to require calorie counts on menus and menu boards in chain restaurants.

This study focused primarily on poor black and Hispanic fast-food customers in the South Bronx, central Brooklyn, Harlem, Washington Heights and the Rockaways in Queens, and used a similar population in Newark, which does not have a calorie posting law, as a control group. The locations were chosen because of a high proportion of obesity anddiabetes among poor minority populations.

The researchers collected about 1,100 receipts, two weeks before the calorie posting law took effect and four weeks after. Customers were paid $2 each to hand over their receipts.

For customers in New York City, orders had a mean of 846 calories after the labeling law took effect. Before the law took effect, it was 825 calories. In Newark, customers ordered about 825 calories before and after.

On Monday, customers at the McDonald’s on 125th Street near St. Nicholas Avenue provided anecdotal support for the findings.

William Mitchell, from Rosedale, Queens, who was in Harlem for a job interview, ordered two cheeseburgers, about 600 calories total, for $2.

When asked if he had checked the calories, he said: “It’s just cheap, so I buy it. I’m looking for the cheapest meal I can.”

Tameika Coates, 28, who works in the gift shop at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, ordered a Big Mac, 540 calories, with a large fries, 500 calories, and a large Sprite, 310 calories.

“I don’t really care too much,” Ms. Coates said. “I know I shouldn’t, ’cause I’m too big already,” she added with a laugh.

April Matos, a 24-year-old family specialist, bought her 3-year-old son, Amari, a Happy Meal with chicken McNuggets, along with a Snack Wrap for herself. She said with a shrug that she had no interest in counting calories. “Life is short,” she said, adding that she used to be a light eater. “I started eating everything now I’m pregnant.”

Nutrition and public health experts said the findings showed how hard it was to change behavior, but they said it was not a reason to abandon calorie posting.

One advocate of calorie posting suggested that low-income people were more interested in price than calories.

“Nutrition is not the top concern of low-income people, who are probably the least amenable to calorie labeling,” said Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit health advocacy group in Washington.

New York City health officials said that because the study was conducted immediately after the law took effect, it might not have captured changes in people’s behavior that have taken hold more gradually.

A year ago, officials pointed out, the city began an advertising campaign telling subway riders that most adults should eat about 2,000 calories a day, which might put the calorie counts in context.

While the N.Y.U. study examined 1,100 restaurant receipts, the city is doing its own analysis of 12,000 restaurant receipts, which it plans to release in a few months, said Cathy Nonas, director of nutrition programs for the City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

People sometimes confuse intentions with actions, said Marie Roth, a registered dietitian with Blythedale Children’s Hospital in Valhalla, N.Y.

“Just by contemplating healthier choices, they feel like they could have done it and maybe they will the next time,” Ms. Roth said.

The findings, to be published Tuesday in the online version of the journal Health Affairs come amid the spreading popularity of calorie-counting proposals as a way to improve public health across the country.