Search results: Cereal

Kraft Foods is selling off Post cereals to Ralcorp Holdings, a company that markets foods under private labels. Kraft had revenues of $34 billion in 2006, of which $21 billion came from U.S. consumers; its profits were about $3 billion. It spent $105 million to advertise Post cereals that year, down 23% from 2005, clearly a sign of disinterest. Kraft used to be owned by Altria which used to be Philip Morris which bought Kraft for $12.9 billion in 1988. Post makes Fruity Pebbles and runs a website for kids. European food analysts speculate that Kraft is doing this because of “the double whammy of high cereal prices and strict legislation on advertising to children.”  Kraft’s products have never been endorsed by the American Heart Association, because that organization does not accepts payments for its HeartCheck certification for products owned by cigarette companies.  My question: will the American Heart Association endorsement now start appearing on Post cereals?

… You can appreciate why I so enjoy the cereal aisle. I like reading the health claims on the processed cereals and wondering what marketers will dream up next. The packages are, in their weird way, fun to look at. They represent the best thinking of marketers about how to get you to eat processed cereals, to believe that they are good for you, and to insist that nothing else will do for breakfast. (more…)

The latest trend in kid’s cereals is to emphasize how many vitamins and minerals they have, but many of these are so high in sugar that they are really vitamin-enriched, low-fat cookies.

Last week, the USDA issued new rules for the nutrient content of school meals and also child care programs.

These apply to sugar and sodium (nutrients), whole grains (ingredient or food),  and milk (food).

The New York Times report on this cut right to the chase

The Agriculture Department announced on Wednesday that it had finalized the regulation it had first proposed in February 2023, having weakened several provisions after feedback from food companies, school nutrition professionals and over 136,000 public comments.

The Update to the standards describes the changes and compares them to USDA’s original proposals.

• Sugars: For the first time (I’m not kidding), the USDA set limits on sugars, starting with breakfast cereals (6 grams per ounce), yogurt (12 grams per 6-ounce serving), and milk (10 grams per 8-ounce serving).  This allows chocolate and other flavored milks if companies get the sugar down to 10 grams.
• Sodium: beginning July 2027, sodium will be reduced by 15% for lunch and 10% for breakfast from current limits (USDA proposed 3 consecutive reductions of 10% over the next five years.
• Whole grains: no change from current standard (USDA proposed that 80% of grains be whole).
• Milk: Allows flavored fat-free and low-fat.

Comment: The sugar rule is an improvement, even though products still are sweetened.  The weakening of the sodium proposal is troubling.  We badly need to reduce sodium in processed and restaurant foods and need federal leadership for doing so.  USDA caved to political pressure here.  The USDA has a long history of captivity by Big Ag.  Now it looks captured by Big Food.

The food industry complaint is that its products won’t meet these standards.  The school food complaint is that the standards are too hard to meet, the kids won’t eat the food, and it will be wasted.

I have a lot of sympathy for school foodservice.  It’s the only thing going on in schools that has to be self-supporting, and school food programs are hugely underfunded.  And lots of schools don’t have kitchens to must rely on food products rather than real food.

But from what I’ve observed, two kinds of skills are needed for successful school meal programs: the ability (1) to prepare and serve edible healthy food, and (2) to get the kids to eat it.  I’ve seen every permutation.

1. Good food, kids eat it
2. Good food, kids won’t eat it
3. So-so food, kids eat it
4. So-so food, kids won’t eat it

Whenever I hear “the kids won’t eat it,” I wonder where the adults are. From what I’ve seen, if adults care that kids are fed, the kids will eat the food—not all, necessarily, but most.

School food is not just about the food.  It’s about the interactions of school food personnel, teachers, and the principal with the kids.  If the adults think it important and necessary to feed kids healthy food, the program has a good chance of success.  The new USDA standards are a step in the right direction but still have a way to go.

Wouldn’t it be nice if we had food standards rather than nutrition standards?  How about mandating numbers of servings of real foods instead of worrying about grams of sugar and milligrams of sodium.

A thought,

Additional Resources

• Comparison Chart: 2023 Proposed Standards vs. 2024 Final Standards
• Implementation Timeline – School Meals
• Implementation Timeline – CACFP & SFSP
• Media Toolkit
  • Infographic: Final Rule for School Meal Standards
  • Infographic: Implementation Timeline
  • Infographic: How We Got Here
  • Video: Rule Overview
  • Video: Added Sugars
• Federal Register notice 

An investigative report from Public Eye and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN): “How Nestlé gets children hooked on sugar in lower-income countries.”

Nestlé’s leading baby-food brands, promoted in low- and middle-income countries as healthy and key to supporting young children’s development, contain high levels of added sugar. In Switzerland, where Nestlé is headquartered, such products are sold with no added sugar. These are the main findings of a new investigation by Public Eye and the International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN), which shed light on Nestlé’s hypocrisy and the deceptive marketing strategies deployed by the Swiss food giant.

The report points out that Nestlé (no relation) “currently controls 20 percent of the baby-food market, valued at nearly $70 billion.”

Nestlé promotes Cerelac and Nido as brands whose aim is to help children “live healthier lives”. Fortified with vitamins, minerals and other micronutrients, these products are, according to the multinational, tailored to the needs of babies and young children and help to strengthen their growth, immune system and cognitive development….

Spoiler alert: Our investigation shows that, for Nestlé, not all babies are equal when it comes to added sugar. While in Switzerland, where the company is headquartered, the main infant cereals and formula brands sold by the multinational come without added sugar, most Cerelac and Nido products marketed in lower-income countries do contain added sugar, often at high levels.

For example, in Switzerland, Nestlé promotes its biscuit-flavoured cereals for babies aged from six months with the claim “no added sugar”, while in Senegal and South Africa, Cerelac cereals with the same flavour contain 6 grams of added sugar per serving….

Similarly, in Germany, France and the UK – Nestlé’s main European markets – all formulas for young children aged 12-36 months sold by the company contain no added sugar. And while some infant cereals for young children over one year old contain added sugar, cereals for babies aged six months do not.

Do small amounts of sugar like these make any difference to babies’ health?  After all, 6 gram is just a bit more than a teaspoon.

They might make a big difference:

• They get kids hooked on sugars.
• The sugars can add up quickly.

For sure, this report shows is that sugar is not really necessary.  It is there to encourage sales, not health.

The report is getting international publicity:

• The Guardian: Nestlé adds sugar to infant milk sold in poorer countries, report finds
• DE: https://stories.publiceye.ch/nestle-babyfood
• FR: https://stories.publiceye.ch/nestle-bebes
• SP: https://stories.publiceye.ch/nestle-ninos
• PO: https://stories.publiceye.ch/nestle-criancas

Thanks to everyone who flooded my mailbox with this piece from The Guardian: She was fired after not endorsing Splenda-filled salads to people with diabetes. Why?

According to a lawsuit {Elizabeth] Hanna recently filed against the ADA, the organization – which endorses recipes and food plans on its websiteand on the websites of “partner” food brands – tried to get her to greenlight recipes that she believedflew in the face of the ADA’s mission. These included recipes like a “cucumber and onion salad” made with a third of a cup of Splenda granulated artificial sweetener, “autumnal sheet-pan veggies” with a quarter cup of Splenda monk fruit sweetener and a “cranberry almond spinach salad” with a quarter cup of Splenda monkfruit sweetener.

Guess which company gave more than $1m to the ADA in 2022? Splenda.

I also was sent an email from Georgia Warren, the  Guardian’s Interim membership editor: The link between investigative reporting, some nightmarish recipes and the diabetes epidemic.

Why would a public health charity promote a product that its own science shows contributes to the disease it is fighting? Well, as Neil Barsky reported for us this week, the ADA took more than $1m from Splenda in 2022 – and then fired their chief nutritionist when, according to a lawsuit she recently filed, she refused to sign-off on the Splenda-based recipes that her bosses wanted the ADA to publicly endorse.

Neil – creator of our new series ‘Death by diabetes: America’s preventable epidemic’ – told me…“The ADA has bought into a system that requires them to raise money from corporations to fund their research. I don’t for a second doubt that every single person who works there cares about people with diabetes and wants to do the right thing, but being beholden to these groups distorts your judgment.”

..And what else is pharma funding? The ADA. The organization – whose guidance doctors rely on when treating their diabetes patients – boasts a $100m annual budget. Between 2017 and 2024, pharmaceutical and device manufacturers contributed over $134m to the organization – or roughly 20% of its total funding.

Comment: The ADA has long appeared to be in thrall the the drug industry.  I well remember the talk I gave at one of its annual conventions years ago.  I was one of two speakers about diet and diabetes (the other was a session on the role of sugar in diabetes sponsored by Coca-Cola—truly you can’t make this stuff up).  The other talks, hundreds of them, were about drugs.  At that time, the ADA said virtually nothing about diet on its website.

It’s gotten much better.  Here’s what it says about carbohydrates:

• Try to eat less of these: refined, highly processed carbohydrate foods and those with added sugar. These include sugary drinks like soda, sweet tea and juice, refined grains like white bread, white rice and sugary cereal, and sweets and snack foods like cake, cookies, candy and chips.

And here’s what the ADA says about artificial sweeteners:

It’s also important to know that at this time, there is no clear evidence to suggest that using sugar substitutes will help with managing blood sugar or weight or improving cardiometabolic health in the long run. So here’s the bottom line:

• Sugar substitutes are effective alternatives to sugar for some people, but not a perfect fit for all—it’s a personal choice.
• If you’re looking to reduce your intake of sugar or sugar substitutes, start slowly. For example, start by replacing one soda or juice with water or a no-calorie drink at a time.
• Water will always be a great choice! If you start feeling yourself get bored with just water, you can always spruce it up with fruits or herbs like this sparkling strawberry mint infused water.

And, finally for now, here are the ADA’s corporate sponsors, and its national sponsors.

Conflicted?  Sure looks like it.

The USDA has made some changes to food packages for participants in the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

In a Q and A, the USDA explains the changes and why it made them.

What are the WIC food packages?

The WIC food packages provide supplemental foods designed to address the specific nutritional needs of income-eligible pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum individuals, infants, and children up to five years of age who are at nutritional risk.

WIC participants receive a monthly benefit from one of seven science-based food packages, according to their life stage nutritional needs. Participants then use their WIC electronic benefit transfer (EBT) card to buy the food and beverages in their package.

If you want to know what’s actually in the package, it’s a lot easier to go to state sites; the USDA site does not help much.

Try New York State’s WIC site. Women with children can use their EBT benefits to buy these foods (women with infants can also get formula and baby food):

• Low fat (1%) or nonfat (skim) milk for women and children two years of age or older
• Whole milk for children one to two years of age
• Cheese, yogurt, evaporated milk, evaporated goat’s milk, or dry milk as milk substitutions
• Soy beverage and tofu as milk alternatives
• Dry beans, canned beans or peanut butter options
• Whole wheat bread or other whole grain options (whole wheat tortillas, brown rice, whole wheat pasta) for children and pregnant and mostly or fully breastfeeding women
• Cash value benefit for fresh, frozen or canned vegetables and fruits
  • Women receive $11.00-$16.50 depending on breastfeeding status
  • Children receive $9.00
• Eggs
• Whole grain cereals
• 100% unsweetened fruit juice
• Canned fish for fully breastfeeding women

Going back to the USDA site. I looked at the changes, lots of them excellent. 

One is expanded benefits in general, and for fruits and vegetables in particular.

Another is improved benefits for women who are breastfeeding.

But for Breakfast Cereals, here’s what the USDA proposed.And here’s what it got, post lobbying.

The bottom line: less whole grain, and more sugar.

Does this make any difference?

In principle, yes. The USDA should not make decisions based on the food companies’ demands to make their products qualify more easily for WIC purchases.

It would be good to keep as much ultra-processed junk food as possible out of the WIC package.

These cave-ins are unlikely to make any noticable difference to health, but set a bad precedent.

Here’s what happened with the rest of the package, mostly to the good.

• Fruits and Vegetables
• Juice
• Milk and Milk Substitutions
• Infant Foods
• Add Infant Formula Flexibilities and Create a Separate Food Package for Partially (Mostly) Breastfeeding Participants
• Whole Wheat Bread,
• Whole Grain Bread, and Whole Grain Options
• Canned Fish
• Legumes and Eggs
• Maximum Monthly Allowances

I don’t say much about potentially harmful agricultural or other industrial chemicals in food for several reasons:

• There are so many of them—hundreds to thousands
• They are present in food in small amounts
• The extent of their harm is not well established

BUT (in capital letters because it is a bit one):

• They are not well regulated
• What is known about their health effects suggests harm

Studies of three chemicals illustrate these problems.

DICAMBA 

What it is: A herbicide used to kill broadleaf weeds that grow in fields of corn, wheat, and dicamba-tolerant soybeans.

Why it’s a worry: It can cause immediate toxic effects and might be carcinogenic.  It is highly volatile and can damage non-target plants through drifting, causing constant complaints from neighboring farmers.  The courts have overturned the EPA’s approval of dicamba use.  Even though the EPA admits dicamba has adverse effects on handlers as well as “birds, mammals, bees (larvae), aquatic plants and non-target terrestrial plants,” it is allowing existing stocks of dicamba to continue to be used.

The recent study: The headline: Alarming levels of weed killer found in study of pregnant women.  The study examined changes in the the number of pregnant women with dicamba in their urine and the amounts excreted from 2020-2012 to 2020-2022.  It found increases in both measures.

Conclusion: “Reliance on herbicides has drastically increased in the last ten years in the United States, and the results obtained in this study highlight the need to track exposure and impacts on adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.”

PHTHALATES

What these are: Chemicals used to soften polyvinylchloride plastics.

The concern: Phthalates leach into food from plastic packaging materials.  They disrupt endocrine function.

The recent study:  Exposure to phthalates is associated with adverse birth outcomes such as decreased gestational age and increased risk of preterm birth.

Conclusion: “The $1·63–8·14 billion costs of preterm birth described here …add to the disease burden and costs of plastic in the USA, which were recently estimated to be $250 billion annually….Our findings also support individual behavioural interventions to reduce exposure. These include choosing personal care products labelled to be free of phthalates, and replacement of packaged foods with fresh foods.

CHLORMEQUAT

What this is: a plant growth regulator used on wheat, oats, and barley to decrease stem height, making the plants easier to harvest.

Why it’s a worry: Chlormequat has been linked to reduced fertility, altered fetal growth, and delayed puberty in animals.

The recent study: The headline: 80% of Americans test positive for chemical found in Cheerios, Quaker Oats that may cause infertility, delayed puberty.   The study found increasing amounts of this chemical in food and urine samples.

Conclusion: “These findings and chlormequat toxicity data raise concerns about current exposure levels, and warrant more expansive toxicity testing, food monitoring, and epidemiological studies.”

Comment: These are only three of all the chemicals out there that get into our food and appear in our bodies.  Yes, more research is needed to find out just how harmful they are.  But I see no evidence that they are good for us.  I think we need:

• Much greater urgency and attention from FDA and EPA on getting these chemicals out of the food supply
• More information about how to avoid the chemicals, especially in pregnant women and young children
• Coalition advocacy for more stringent regulation (the Environmental Working Group is doing a great job but cannot do this alone)