Archives

I was fascinated by the story in yesterday’s New York Times about the problem schools are having as they try to replace the junk foods in vending machines with healthier options.

Students, it seems, prefer to buy the junk foods.

The Times photo says it all:

What are these machines doing in schools at all?

Schools didn’t used to have vending machines.  Somehow kids managed to survive for a few hours not eating between meals.

If schools must have vending machines—a highly debatable point—how about making everything in them be something you’d like your kid to be eating?

Just a thought.

 

 

Here are some of the latest reports on how food marketing influences eating patterns and obesity.

American University’s Kogod School of Business publishes a business magazine, Kogod Now.  It latest CoverStory takes a tough look at at how targeted marketing of foods and beverages contributes to the obesity crisis, especially among minority children and adolescents.

Cornell University’s Pierre Chandon and Brian Wansink ask the question, “is food marketing making us fat?”  Their review of the research leads them to conclude that a “small steps” approach ought to help reverse obesity.   Recent analyses, however, suggest that reversing overweight is likely to take a lot more than small steps, but it’s worth reading what they have to say about marketing practices.

Two reports from Canada indicate that industry self regulation has little effect on actual food industry marketing practices.  Instead, banning the marketing of junk foods, as has been accomplished in Quebec, works somewhat better.

The American Academy of Pediatrics takes a look at how television watching affects obesity in children.  If kids watch a lot of TV–and they have a TV set in their bedrooms—they are at high risk of becoming obese.  The obvious conclusion?  Get rid of the TV!

It is heartening that so much of the research on obesity these days focuses on changing the food marketing environment.  Now if policymakers would just pay some attention!

My once-a-month, first Sunday Food Matters column in the San Francisco Chronicle is about the difficulty of figuring out the health effects of food chemicals consumed in low doses.

_____

Taking steps on food chemicals

Editor’s note: Nutrition and public policy expert Marion Nestle answers readers’ questions in this monthly column written exclusively for The Chronicle. E-mail your questions to food@sfchronicle.com, with “Marion Nestle” in the subject line.

Q: I don’t understand why the FDA does not ban aspartame, food colors, BPA, pesticides and all those other nasty chemicals in food. I can’t believe they are good for us.

A: I can’t, either. But the Food and Drug Administration is required to make decisions on the basis of science, not beliefs.

You eat these chemicals in tiny amounts – parts per billion or trillion. Whether doses this low cause harm is hard to assess for two reasons: science and politics. Scientists cannot easily measure the health effects of exposure to low-dose chemicals. And the industries that make and use these chemicals don’t want to give them up.

Food chemicals elicit plenty of public dread and outrage. But are they harmful?

Controlled clinical trials at normal levels of intake would require vast numbers of subjects over decades. Nobody would fund them.

Instead, researchers use animals consuming much higher doses. I can remember how the diet soda industry ridiculed studies suggesting that saccharine caused bladder cancer in rats: the doses were equivalent to drinking 1,250 12-ounce diet sodas a day.

The difficulties of doing research on low-dose chemicals – and the food industry’s insistence that such doses are safe – explains the FDA’s reluctance to act.

Some examples illustrate the problem.

Aspartame

Some studies suggest that aspartame might cause cancer in rats when consumed at levels typical of diet soft drinks, as well as other problems. But researchers performing better controlled studies have given aspartame a clean bill of health.

Despite public concerns, the FDA’s assessment of the evidence “finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food.”

Food dyes

These have been considered a possible cause of hyperactivity in children since the 1970s. Some studies show improved behavior among children placed on additive-free diets. But behavior is difficult to judge objectively, and even controlled studies gave mixed results.

A recent study funded by the British Food Standards Agency is typical. It found most children to be unaffected by removing additives. But a small percentage seemed to get better.

The FDA can only conclude that there is not enough science to decide whether food dyes cause hyperactivity.

BPA (Bisphenol A)

BPA is a component of hard plastic used to make baby bottles and food and beverage cans. It is also an endocrine disrupter. Last year, the FDA concluded that BPA is safe at current exposure levels.

At the same time, the FDA advised children and pregnant women to reduce exposure to BPA. It advised the infant formula and soda industries to find ways to replace it.

The California Legislature has passed AB1319 banning BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups; it’s awaiting Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature.

Recent studies raise concerns about BPA’s effects on the brain and behavior of fetuses, infants and young children, and on cancer, obesity and infertility in adults. Some studies suggest that exposure to BPA is higher than previously estimated. Just last week, the Breast Cancer Fund released a study finding BPA in canned foods designed for children.

Studies by university scientists tend to find harm from BPA at low doses, whereas those by government regulatory agencies and the food industry do not. In the absence of compelling science, regulators have two choices: exercise the “precautionary principle” and ban the chemical until it can be proven safe, or approve it until it can be shown to be harmful.

The United States and European safety agencies – and the food industry, of course – prefer the latter approach.

Pesticides

Research clearly demonstrates that pesticides harm farmworkers exposed to high doses. But recent studies report slightly lower IQ levels in children born to urban women with higher blood levels of pesticides. Although these studies did not control for socioeconomic and other variables that might influence IQ, they raise the possibility that even low levels might be harmful.

What to do?

While waiting for the science to evolve, you can take both personal and political action.

You don’t want potentially harmful chemicals in your foods? Read labels and don’t buy foods with artificial sweeteners or food colors. Kids don’t need them anyway.

Consumer action has already induced baby bottle makers to get rid of BPA. This strategy can work for food colors, too.

Don’t stop eating fruits and vegetables. Their known health benefits greatly outweigh the potential harm of pesticides. Don’t stop eating them.

Buy organic. Pesticides, invisible and unlabeled as they are, constitute a good reason to do so.

Get political. Let your congressional representatives know that more research is needed, but you don’t want to wait for it. You want industry to find healthier alternatives.

_____

Marion Nestle is the author of “Food Politics” and “What to Eat,” among other books, and is a professor in the nutrition, food studies and public health department at New York University. E-mail comments to food@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page G – 10 of the San Francisco Chronicle

 

As I mentioned in a previous post, the United Nations General Assembly met this month to consider resolutions about doing something to address rising rates of “non-communicable” diseases (i.e., chronic as opposed to infectious diseases such as obesity-related coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancers).

The Declaration adopted by the Assembly disappointed a consortium of 140 non-profit public health advocacy groups who issued a statement noting the conflicts of interest that occur when international agencies “partner” with companies that make products that contribute to an increase in disease risks.”

The consortium suggested actions that they hoped the U.N. would recommend, such as:

• Realign food policies for food and agricultural subsidies with sound nutrition science
• Mandate easy-to-understand front-of-pack nutrition labeling
• Ban the promotion of breast-milk substitutes and high-fat, -sugar and -salt foods to children and young people
• Prohibit advertising and brand sponsorship for alcohol beverages
• Increase taxes on alcohol beverages
• Expand nutritious school meal programs

The group also said that the U.N. should still work on:

• Developing tools to navigate the trade law barriers to health policy innovation,
•  Establishing disease-reduction targets and policy implementation schedules
• Instituting mechanisms to keep commercially self-interested parties at arms-length and public-interest groups constructively involved

Food companies and trade associations are actively involved in lobbying the U.N. not to do any of these things.  This consortium has much work to do.

 

 

Are you as puzzled about the latest cantaloupe outbreak as I am?  This time it’s Listeria again (see previous post on this particular pathogen).

According to the CDC, 72 people have been infected with the strains of Listeria associated with the outbreak in 18 states.  Most appalling,  13 people have died.

The CDC says that the people who have become ill range from 35 to 96 years, with a median age of 78 years.  Most are over age 60 or have health conditions that weaken the immune system.  Pregnant women are at especially high risk as are their fetuses.

As always, the recall occurred after most of the cases were reported to the CDC.  The cantaloupe were traced to Jensen Farms, which issued a recall on September 14.

Why cantaloupe?  They are, after all, grown in dirt and their skin is rough, textured, and has plenty of places for bacteria to hide.  People pick up Listeria by handling the fruit and cutting into it.  FDA’s information page lists the recalls and press releases on the Jenson Farms outbreak.

The FDA’s advice: throw it out.

Do not try to wash the harmful bacteria off the cantaloupe as contamination may be both on the inside and outside of the cantaloupe. Cutting, slicing and dicing may also transfer harmful bacteria from the fruit’s surface to the fruit’s flesh.

What do food safety experts say you have to go through to avoid getting sick from eating cantaloupe?

• Wash the melon under running water with a clean vegetable brush.
• Blot with paper towels to remove excess water.
• Put melon on a clean surface, one that hasn’t come into contact with meat or poultry or other foods that could cause cross-contamination.
• Cut off the stem end about 3/4 to 1 inch from the end, using a clean kitchen knife.
• Place melon on a clean cutting board, plate, or other clean surface with the cut end facing down.
• Using a clean knife, cut the melon from the blossom end to the stem end.
• Follow this by washing the knife with clean running water and setting it aside.
• Gently scrape out the seeds with a clean spoon and cut the melon into slices or whatever is desired.
• Don’t use dish soap or detergent; cantaloupes can absorb detergent residues.
• Do not allow the rind to touch any part of the edible fruit.
• Melon that isn’t eaten should be peeled, covered and refrigerated.
• Discard any melon that has been at room temperature for longer than 2 hours, or 1 hour when the temperatures are over 90 degrees F.
• Follow these procedures for all melons, no matter where they were grown.

What?  No HazMat suit?

We are talking about cantaloupes here.

How about a food safety system where everyone makes sure—and tests—that Listeria don’t get on cantaloupe in the first place.

Single food agency anyone?

_____

*Translation: Weapon of Mass Destruction

I’ve just gotten an urgent plea from Margo Wootan at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

Please encourage everyone to write to President Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, and federal agencies to support the nutrition standards for marketing foods to kids.

As I’ve discussed previously, these were created jointly by the Interagency Working Group (IWG) of four federal agencies—CDC, FDA, FTC, and USDA.

Under intense pressure from the food and entertainment industries and their friends in Congress, the IWG’s proposed guidelines—voluntary, no less—are in danger of being withdrawn.

Doing that might help corporate health but would do nothing for public health.

CSPI organized 75 researchers (including me) to send a letter to the President urging support of the voluntary guidelines and expressing dismay at the campaign of disinformation aimed at getting them withdrawn.

Junk-food advertisers, in the guise of the Sensible Food Policy Coalition, have attacked the voluntary guidelines as an assault on the First Amendment, a point debunked by top Constitutional experts, and claimed that adopting the voluntary guidelines would result in job losses, based on a flimsy industry “study.”

….It would be a real setback for children’s health if the Administration backed down on strong guidelines for food marketing to children, especially given the transparently specious arguments of junk-food advertisers….Denying the science on food marketing and childhood obesity is like denying the science on global warming or evolution.

But the food industry is dug in on this one.  For example, a reader sent me this letter from Tom Forsythe, Vice President, Corporate Communications, General Mills (excerpts follow with my comments in brackets):

Your email notes that we have lobbied against the Interagency Working Group (IWG) proposal.  That is correct.  We have serious concerns about the IWG proposal.

Our most advertised product is cereal – and we stand behind it.   Cereal is one of the healthiest breakfast choices you can make….If it is a General Mills cereal, it will also be a good or excellent source of whole grains.

Childhood obesity is a serious issue – and General Mills wants to be part of the solution.  But if the issue is obesity, cereal should perhaps be advertised more, not less.

…You can be assured than food and beverage companies have studied every letter, comma and period in the proposal.  We know what it says, and what it does not.

For example, we know that 88 of the 100 most commonly consumed foods and beverages could not be marketed under the IWG guidelines.  The list of “banned” items under the guidelines would include essentially all cereals, salads, whole wheat bread, yogurt, canned vegetables, and a host of other items universally recognized as healthy [Note: I’m not at all sure this is true–MN].

Despite the characterizations used to advance them, the IWG guidelines would not be voluntary, in our view.  The IWG guidelines are advanced by two of the agencies most responsible for regulating the food industry, as well as the agency most responsible for regulating advertising.  Ignoring their “voluntary guidance” would not be an option for most companies.

Regulation has already been threatened (even demanded) should companies choose not to comply – and litigation would inevitably follow.

The IWG guidelines also conflict with most existing government programs and definitions relative to food.  For example, many products that meet the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s current definition of “healthy” could not be advertised under the IWG guidelines [It would be interesting to see examples].

Many products included in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program fail the IWG standards, as do most products encouraged and subsidized under the USDA’s Women, Infants and Children Feeding Program (WIC) [If so, this is a sad commentary on what we encourage low-income mothers and children to eat].

Finally, your email suggests companies should focus on providing feedback via public comment.  We agree.  We have reviewed every detail of the IWG proposal – and we remain opposed, as our public comment explains.

My interpretation: if food companies are this upset, the guidelines must be pretty good.

Companies have the right to sell whatever they like.  But they should not have the right to market it as healthy or to kids.

Tell the IWG you support their guidelines.  Tell the White House to protect the guidelines.  Now, please.

 

 

Does a name change make a difference?  The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) and the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) evidently think so.

They are changing the name of their preemptive front-of-package (FOP) labeling scheme from “Nutrition Keys” to “Facts Up Front.”

The new name comes with a new website, a new organization (FactsUpFront.org), and a $50 million marketing campaign.

Its purpose?  As I have discussed on more than one occasion (see here and here, for example), GMA and FMI are engaged in a blatant, in-your-face attempt to undermine the FDA’s current efforts to rationalize FOP labeling.

The FDA engaged the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to produce two research reports on FOP labeling.  The first IOM report, released a year ago, concluded that FOP labels should disclose only calories and three “bad-for-you” nutrients: saturated fats, trans-fats, and sodium.  I thought the report made sense but that the omission of sugars was a mistake.

The IOM also said that information about good-for-you nutrients—protein, fiber, vitamins, and minerals—would only confuse consumers and would be likely to encourage food companies to unnecessarily fortify products with these nutrients as a marketing strategy.

The second IOM report, according to press accounts, is due out sometime in October.  The FDA is waiting for this report before starting rulemaking on FOP labels, an interminable process at best.

In the meantime, the food industry has jumped the gun.  The Facts Up Front website justifies this scheme on the basis of the Dietary Guidelines:

To ensure that consumers receive consistent and reliable information, the labeling system also adheres to current guidelines and regulations from FDA and USDA Food Safety and Inspection Services.

…Manufacturers may also choose to include information on up to two “nutrients to encourage.” These nutrients – potassium, fiber, protein, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin D, calcium and iron – are needed to build a “nutrient-dense” diet, according to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Yes they are, but not on the front of food packages.  It’s obvious why GMA and FMI are doing this—they know that nobody will look at or understand the label.

But they should not be doing this.  It is the wrong thing to do.

On the topic of name changes:  The American Dietetic Association (ADA) has just changed its name to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND).  I’m not a member of the ADA, can only speculate on what this is about, and have no comment.

 

 A few months ago, the Committee on Nutrition of the American Academy of Pediatrics published  a position paper on sports and energy drinks in the diets of children and adolescents.

The committee distinguished sports from energy drinks:

Sports drinks: beverages that may contain carbohydrates, minerals, electrolytes, and flavoring and are intended to replenish water and electrolytes lost through sweating during exercise.

Energy drinks: also contain substances that act as nonnutritive stimulants, such as caffeine, guarana, taurine, ginseng, l-carnitine, creatine, and/or glucuronolactone, with purported ergogenic or performance-enhancing effects.

The operative word is “purported.”  The committee’s tough conclusion: 

The use of sports drinks in place of water on the sports field or in the school lunchroom is generally unnecessary.

Stimulant-containing energy drinks have no place in the diets of children or adolescents.

For the record, PepsiCo spent $113 million to market Gatorade in 2010 (says Advertising Age). 

The committee was concerned about the effects of high-dose caffeine on kids.  Although its report did not distinguish energy drinks from energy shots, its conclusion undoubtedly applies to those too.  Energy shots are more concentrated versions of energy drinks.

This is a big issue because pediatricians are concerned about the marketing of all of these caffeine-laden drinks to kids.   Marketers, the Nutrition Committee says, are pushing energy drinks to kids as low-calorie “healthier” alternatives.

BeverageDaily.com asked Red Bull, the leading energy shot seller, about its marketing practices.  The company denies marketing its shots to kids.

We do not market our product to children and other caffeine sensitive people…The authors of this report seem to be unaware that the American Beverage Association (ABA) and also the European Beverage Association (UNESDA) have already agreed codes of practice for the marketing and labelling of energy drinks.

Maybe, but energy shots are the new hot product, so hot that FoodNavigator-USA.com has just devoted a special report to them.  Sales are booming.  The only concern?  Can they continue?  Or, will they be replaced by the even hotter new thing: energy strips?

 Energy shots special edition: Flash in the pan or the runaway success story of the decade?  Cynics said they would never catch on. Who would cough up $2.99 for a mouthful of caffeine, taurine and vitamins when you can enjoy a coffee and a snack – or a whole can of your favourite energy drink – for the same price?.. Read 

Energy shot market still has significant growth potential, say researchers: While it might not be able to sustain its early “meteoric” growth rates, the energy shots market still has significant growth potential and can potentially target a far wider audience than energy drinks, market researchers have predicted… Read 

5-hour Energy increases grip on energy shots market: 5-hour Energy’s grip on the US energy shot market has tightened further in the past year, with the brand now accounting for nine out of every $10 spent in the burgeoning category… Read

 Hain Celestial scores industry first with refrigerated energy shot: Hain Celestial will break new ground in the burgeoning shots market this fall with the launch of the first refrigerated energy shot… Read 

Does the energy shot market have room for a new player?  A David vs Goliath battle is set to be waged in the US energy shots sector as two ex-Marines seek to carve out a niche in a market so competitive that even Red Bull has thrown in the towel and made a sharp exit… Read 

5-Hour Energy ramps up from seven to nine million bottles a week: 5-Hour Energy is now selling nine million bottles of its energy shots a week compared with seven million last year, a 28% rise in volume, the firm has revealed… Read 

Monster Energy maker: Continued growth of energy drinks ‘remarkable’: The US energy drinks sector is continuing to generate “quite remarkable” growth despite the depressing economic climate and high gas prices, according to the owner of Monster Energy drinks and Worx Energy shots… Read 

Red Bull cans energy shots and Cola in US (but not Europe): Global energy drink leader Red Bull has taken a rare step back by withdrawing Red Bull Cola and Red Bull Energy Shots from the US market – but says it has no plans to withdraw the products from the other 20 markets where they are sold… Read 

Entrepreneur: Energy strips could be worth $1bn in 3-5 years: The entrepreneur behind Sheets Energy Strips – novel dissolvable strips delivering an instant hit of caffeine and B vitamins – says the category could be worth $1bn in the next three-to-five years… Read

These products are about making a fortune selling potentially harmful beverages under the guide of “healthy” to anyone wanting a quick caffeine fix.

They are about marketing, not health.

Water anyone?