Nutrition Labeling Reform That Isn't

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 17:22:40 PM PST

One (the one Laskawy refers to) is about a new Prevention Institute study of children's foods that identify themselves as healthy in front-of-package labeling. And the findings? "84% of products studied failed to meet basic nutritional standards." Oops. But not surprising. After all, it was marketers, not nutritionists, who decided which foods qualified as "healthy."

How about a more unbiased system, that merely tells consumers the vital stats about each product's nutrition? That's exactly the idea that the FDA has been kicking around, actually. There have been proposals for a red-yellow-green stoplight system (i.e. a product with a red light for fat or calories means "don't eat this") and the food companies did not like that idea. It was too, um, easy to understand.

Recall their last proposal, the Smart Choices "Froot Loops are healthy" (i.e. better for you than a doughnut) program. That was abandoned when it was met with well-deserved ridicule. So now the food industry has proposed "Nutrition Keys." You can see what Marion Nestle, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the blog Fooducate have to say about it at the links. The consensus: Nutrition Keys is no good. It's confusing, and consumers won't pay attention to it. (For the food companies proposing the labels, that, of course, is the point.) Nutrition Keys is just one more lame attempt to keep the FDA from mandating front-of-package labels that actually help consumers detect and bypass unhealthy foods. Let's hope it goes the way of Smart Choices quickly. And that the FDA takes action to get rid of the inaccurate health claims like the ones found in the Prevention Institute and to replace them with a front-of-package labeling system that works. How 'bout that traffic light system?

Dumb Choices on Hiatus

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Oct 23, 2009 at 22:21:52 PM PDT

The Smart Choices program notes the FDA's recent initiatives on labeling, saying:

This move follows an announcement by FDA Commissioner, Margaret Hamburg, M.D. on Oct. 20, 2009 which said that the agency intends to develop standardized criteria on which future front-of-package nutrition or shelf labeling will be based. In a letter captioned, "Guidance for Industry" and posted on its website, the FDA stated: "We want to work with the food industry - retailers and manufacturers alike - as well as nutrition and design experts and the Institute of Medicine, to develop an optimal, common approach to nutrition-related FOP ... that all Americans can trust and use to build better diets and improve their health."

What is not clear is whether we've seen the last of the BS Smart Choices labels on food packages. The press release promised the program "will voluntarily postpone active operations and not encourage wider use of the logo at this time by either new or currently enrolled companies." Apparently it is up to individual companies whether or not to remove the Smart Choices logo from their packaging.

Let's hope the Smart Choices program is dying a slow, quiet death and that this move came as a way to save face before the FDA shut them down. It may not be the case, but my fingers are crossed.

Diet Pepsi: Dumb Choice Compared to Water

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 16:44:36 PM PDT

And about that aspartame, let me remind you about the LA Times recent revelation that artificial sweeteners don't fool your brain, and in fact they may make you eat MORE. From the LA Times: "artificial sweeteners may turn on brain areas that create appetite, but not provide satiation."

An Update on Congress (Including a Batshit Crazy Bill by Ron Paul)

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 06:00:00 AM PDT

• The Senate debated Ag Appropriations
  
• The House debated the Food Safety Enhancement Act (I wrote about this last week but the link here gives you the official transcript).
  
• And debated it some more.
  
• The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) wrote up a report on the Food Safety Enhancement Act
  
• Sen. Schumer wants to get milk protein concentrate out of our dairy products (yay!!!)
  
• Sen. Udall of New Mexico introduced a bill that would authorize the USDA to mandate a recall of tainted foods.
  
• Ron Paul introduced a bill about health claims on food labels.

  The Ron Paul bill reads as follows:

  The Federal Government may not take any action to prevent use of a claim describing any nutrient in a food or dietary supplement (as such terms are defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321)) as mitigating, treating, or preventing any disease, disease symptom, or health-related condition, unless in a final order of a Federal court following a trial on the merits finds clear and convincing evidence based on qualified expert opinion and published peer-reviewed scientific research that--

  (1) the claim is false and misleading in any material respect; and

  (2) there is no less speech restrictive alternative to claim suppression, such as use of disclaimers or qualifications, that can render the claim non-misleading.

  Translation: If this bill were to pass (it won't), you would be able to label a package of Twinkies to say that they cure AIDS, so long as nobody takes you to Federal court and proves that you're lying. And even then, the result might be that you are allowed to keep the claim so long as you add a disclaimer like "Scientific evidence has not found any evidence that this is true."

Do Menu Labels Help Us Eat Better?

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 11:45:25 AM PDT

Rick Berman, food industry shill, says that menu calorie labels don't reduce obesity. Berman backs up his point by saying that customers don't look at the labels. But that isn't proof that the labels don't work.

How can that be? After all, if they aren't reading the labels (and quite frankly, I question Berman's statistics... but let's assume this is true for the time being) how is it possible that the labels could be effective? Marion Nestle, professor at NYU and author of 4 of the best books about food you'll ever read, has the answer. Restaurants, scared to reveal how truly sinful their foods actually are, are cutting calories in their dishes! She says:

For starters, calorie labeling in California is having a big effect - on the companies, if not customers.  The chains are madly cutting down on calories.  The most impressive example is a Macaroni Grill 1,270-calorie scallop-and-spinach salad (I can't even imagine how they did this), which is now just a normal 390.

She later added to the post:

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is keeping track of the research along with policy implications.  The bottom line to date?  Menu labeling is having some effects, but there's more work to do.

Another Nestle post about Kaiser-Permanente's menu labeling effort says:

Kaiser-Permanente hospital cafeterias in California, Oregon, and Hawaii will soon be displaying  information about calories and nutrition on menu boards.  This huge not-for-profit HMO has a huge not-for-profit focus on preventive health.  It figured out a long time ago that healthy people don't cost as much to take care of, and it constantly seeks new ways to encourage its members to stay healthy.  That's why it sponsored a study to find out whether menu labeling helps people make healthier food choices.  Guess what: it does.

Oops. Rick Berman, I guess you've now been proven wrong. And I agree with Nestle's point about the trustworthiness of KP's data. They are an HMO looking to cut costs by helping their patients stay healthier. They've got every possible incentive to conduct valid research on how to help people make healthier choices, since it goes to their bottom line.

I would add to this that regardless of calorie labeling's effectiveness, consumers have a right to know what's in their food. Period. If they aren't going to pay attention to the labels, that's their business. But the labels should be there so the consumers CAN find out what's in their food if they wish. As for the idea that few people actually read the labels - has Rick Berman ever met anyone on Weight Watchers? Those guys OBSESS over calorie counts (as well as fat and fiber).

Want a LEAN MEAL? Menu Labeling Might Soon Help You Achieve That

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 03:07:31 AM PDT

I wasn't shocked when I saw this post about the National Restaurant Association supporting LEAN... but then the post talked about CSPI's support for the same bill. What???! Turns out, there's been a compromise between the two bills:

Legislation that would require calories on chain restaurant menus and menu boards now has the support of the restaurant industry as well as health groups thanks to an agreement struck among senators who were previously supporting separate labeling bills. Besides requiring calories on menus, menu boards and drive-through displays, the new legislation would require chains with 20 or more outlets to provide additional nutrition information upon request.

That language is included among other prevention measures in the draft health reform legislation released last night by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.

But note that the new compromise has been tucked neatly into the Senate version of the health care reform bill. So we need to pass the health care bill if we're gonna get our menu labeling. Another important thing to look at: When does the menu labeling law go into effect in the compromise bill vs. in the stricter MEAL Act? I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to push out its enforcement for a year or two as a means of evading the new law.

Also, I wonder about the effects of consumers seeing 1900-calorie entrees (like Friday's Jack Daniels Ribs & Shrimp) on the menu next to 700-calorie meals (like Friday's Grilled Cedar Salmon)... does that make the salmon look comparatively low-cal? And would it influence the diner to perhaps splurge on a Coke (with free refills) and maybe even appetizers and dessert? Menu labeling is a good first step, but at some point we've got to get our freaking food under control. 1900 calories is not an acceptable meal - it's nearly an entire day's worth of food.

rbGH-Free Labeling: Still An Issue in Ohio

by: Jill Richardson

Sat Jun 06, 2009 at 05:27:44 AM PDT

"Transitional Organics" Labeling?

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 11:12:12 AM PDT

Here in the U.S. it takes 3 years for a farm to become certified organic. After they stop using pesticides and ammonia fertilizer, they are not considered organic because, presumably, residues of conventional chemicals remain in the soil. While it's fair to consumers (and existing certified organic farmers) that produce grown on land that may have been sprayed with non-organic chemicals the year before is not sold for organic prices, the three year waiting period also makes for a roadblock to would-be organic farmers.

According to the article about the EU:

During this period they tend to incur additional costs for investment and labour and see lower yields and lower livestock density. Generally speaking, these costs are not yet off-set by the premiums obtained for organic goods.

While government supports exist to help farmers through this tricky period and encourage conversion, financial considerations do tend to be a barrier to making the move. The EU is a net importer of organic produce, but increasing demand indicates the need for more EU-grown organic produce.

Likewise, here in the U.S. the 3 year waiting period to become certified organic slows down farmers' ability to keep up with consumer demand for organics. It also represents a financial restriction to those who wish to become organic. The first years of organic conversion are a time when a farmer will see decreased yields. They will receive higher prices once they achieve organic status, but the promise of future income might not be enough to help some farmers get through the financial hardship of the three year waiting period.

The way I see agriculture, there are two essential ways to go about growing food. You can let the microbes in the soil do the work for you, or you can kill the microbes and replace the jobs they do with chemicals. During the organic conversion period, the microbes are coming back but they aren't all the way there yet. So they aren't entirely doing their jobs. And the chemicals are gone so they aren't doing their jobs. Hence the loss in yields over that time period - particularly in the first year of the transition.

Do you think transitional organics labeling is a good idea? Would consumers accept it? And would it cannibalize business from certified organic farmers?

Sampler Platter 05.22.09

by: Jill Richardson

Fri May 22, 2009 at 22:08:08 PM PDT

• Hard plastic drinking bottles leach the endocrine disruptor BPA. So says a Harvard study. Let me remind you that there is an anti-BPA bill in Congress right now, cleverly named the Ban Poisonous Additives (BPA) Act. Write your Congresscritters to ask them to co-sponsor it!

• Really, I just like the title of this one: The House Aghghghghg! Committee. That's exactly how I feel about the House Ag Committee and it's asshat chairman, Rep. Peterson (D-MN). As Tom Philpott puts it, Peterson is declaring Waxman-Markey is mine, all mine. He wants to derail the Waxman-Markey climate change bill unless the EPA stops using sound science to assess the environmental impacts of ethanol. Of course, if you listen to what Public Citizen has to say about the current state of Waxman-Markey, it might be so watered down already that Peterson isn't really making much of a threat.

• Here is a really brilliant point: How many people out there pay the equivalent of $10/gal for bottled water (which is free from the tap) and then say they can't afford organic milk?

• Civil Eats takes a fantastic look at how farmworkers are treated. A Slow Food chapter actually highlighted the issue by going as a group to have lunch with some farmworkers. What a great idea!

• I am very curious about the film The Garden, about the fight to preserve South Central LA's community garden. It sounds absolutely amazing. If you haven't gotten a chance to see it yet, read a Q&A with the director here.

• Farmer Carol Ann talks about whether small farming can feed the world.

• Lucky Massachusetts residents now live in the only state that has gay marriage AND calorie labeling on menus at chain restaurants.

• Very sad but true graphic: Your waistline in charts.

• This picture just drives me nuts. It's a supermarket trying to pretend its a farmers market. Sort of.

• Well holy shit. Did you hear about the salmonella/pistachio recall? Turns out Rep. Dennis Cardoza was one of the victims. So that means that at least ONE member of Congress REALLY GETS IT about the need to update food safety laws.

The Best Nutrition Labels Are Traffic Light Symbols

by: Jill Richardson

Tue May 12, 2009 at 07:35:30 AM PDT

While this study made news this week because it was presented in Europe, it's not entirely brand new. Marion Nestle reported on it last month and before that, in February when she told us that food companies are strongly opposed to such labels. According to her, the Institute of Medicine is looking into it and the FDA is using a favorite stall tactic to avoid doing anything - calling for more research. I'm hoping that once Margaret Hamburg gets in there (her confirmation hearing was last Thursday so presumably it will be soon), she might be able to push this issue forward.

By the way, the UK's Food Standards Agency agrees with the Australians, recommending a traffic light system for adoption in the UK.

Victory in Kansas!!!!!! Gov. Sebelius Vetoes rbGH Labeling Bill

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 18:11:57 PM PDT

Kansas farms, consumer groups and businesses Catalpa Grove Gardens, Pretty Prairie, Community Mercantile Consumer Coop, Creek Four Mill, Iwig Family Dairy, Janzen Family Farms, Kansas City Food Circle, Kayala Emu Estates, Hesston, Larson Acres, Little Red Hen Bakery, Norm's Flour, Sierra Club Kansas Chapter, Spring Creek Ranch, Wichitaw Food Coop, AllergyKids, Breast Cancer Action, The Cornucopia Institute, Organic Consumers Association, Center for Environmental Health, Center for Food Safety, Center for Media and Democracy, Consumers Union, Family Farm Defenders, Food and Water Watch, The Humane Society of the United States, Institute for Responsible Technology, National Family Farm Coalition, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, Organic Farming Research Foundation, Sierra Club, and Stonyfield Farm, Inc.

... and me) have been asking Sebelius to veto this bill since it passed the Kansas state legislature a few weeks ago. I, for one, did not expect her to actually veto it. I am THRILLED that she did veto it and even more thrilled that a public servant who obviously listens to citizens' opinions as well as science will soon take the reins at the Department of Heath and Human Services, which overseas the FDA. The FDA is the agency that legalized the growth hormone rbGH in the first place and I hope to see that decision reversed under Sebelius based on all of the facts that have been revealed since the hormone was first legalized in the early 1990s.

Sebelius' statement from her veto as well as several reactions from various leaders in the food community are posted below.

Sebelius Has a Double Helping of Artificial Bovine Growth Hormones On Her Plate

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Apr 07, 2009 at 21:47:05 PM PDT

The measure requires dairy products claiming to be from cows that don't receive injections of artificial bovine growth hormone to include a disclaimer on their labels.

The qualifier must state that the Food and Drug Administration has found no significant differences between milk from cows supplemented by the hormone, commonly known as rbST or rBGH, and milk from cows that are not.

But Sebelius is headed to the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the FDA. And the FDA legalized rbGH back in 1993. A lot of new science has come out about the hormone in the last decade and a half, and Sebelius might have to revisit the issue once she gets to DC. Will her decision on signing or vetoing the bill be a hint about how she'll act at HHS?

Restaurants Telling Their Dirty Little Secrets

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Apr 06, 2009 at 17:24:45 PM PDT

Breadsticks: 150 cal apiece
Minestrone: 100 cal per serving
Garden-Fresh Salad: 350 cal with dressing

OK, so I wasn't doing so bad. But check THIS out:

Caesar Salad without croutons: 800 calories
Spinach & Artichoke dip: 660 calories
Smoked Mozzarella Fonduta: 940 calories
Calamari: 890 calories

SEVEN of the pasta dishes top 1000 calories, like the fettucine alfredo (1220 calories with 75g of fat). The healthiest pasta is the Linguine alla Marinara with only 430 calories (but molto sodium). It's amazing, but you could order a 3 course meal and have your dessert be the lowest in calories of your 3 courses.

No wonder restaurants are willing to put calorie information just about anywhere except on the menu!!!

Bad News in Kansas on rbGH-Free Labeling

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 15:16:17 PM PDT

If you live in Kansas, I recommend sending a letter to your state representative and signing up for email alerts by Food & Water Watch so you can follow this issue. If you do NOT live in Kansas, I don't recommend sending emails to the KS state leg at this time.

Pro-rbGH Crowd Up to Its No-Good Tricks Again

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Mar 04, 2009 at 13:06:35 PM PST

Most of these fights have died down, but there is one that is absolutely RAGING right now. It's in the Kansas legislature. If HB 2295 passes:

labels that claimed milk was "hormone free" or "rbST free" or "rbGH free" or "BST free" would be prohibited outright. Labels that claimed the milk came from cows "not supplemented with rbST," or something similar, also would be banned unless the processor or bottler had an affidavit from the farmer and other "written documents that support the claim."

Labels also would have to carry these precise words in the same font and color: "The FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-supplemented and non-rbST supplemented cows."

The Kansas House held a hearing last week. The next step is a vote within the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, which will only take place if it's likely to pass. We're hoping this will die in committee but we aren't counting on that yet. You can also see editorials on the matter here and here.