I received this note yesterday from Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, about his latest column in The Huffington Post:

How would you feel if you had to pay $8.50 a gallon for gasoline?

Then why on Earth would you pay that much for water and high-fructose corn syrup?

That’s how much Coke costs in those new 7.5-ounce, 90-calorie cans.  Calorie-counters may appreciate the small size (90 calories) but dollar-counters beware:  We did a little math and it turns out that Coke in the new can costs between 50- and 140-percent more than Coke in the old 12-ounce cans.  Basically, Coke is charging two or three cents more per ounce for Coke in a smaller can—and this from a company that throws temper tantrums when lawmakers propose a one-cent-per-ounce tax on soda!

I once asked a group of retailing executives why the cost of smaller size containers was so high (surely the containers don’t cost that much.  They said: “if customers want smaller portions they ought to be willing to pay for them.”  Oh.

Since Mayor Bloomberg started going after salt, my inbox is overflowing with commentary on all sides of the salt debates.

First a review of the research: FoodNavigator.com has published a series of pieces on the importance of salt reduction to health and the implications of doing so for the food industry:

• January 15: a summary of a Japanese study linking high salt diets to cancer.
• January 26: a review of studies on several conditions affected by salt intake.
• January 27: a discussion of the economic effects of reducing salt intake.
• January 28: an overview of how the salt issues are viewed in Europe.
• January 29: a discussion of the purported benefits of sea salt.
• Also on January 29: a report on Kellogg’s salt-reduction initiative in Europe.
• February 1: a review of the arguments over the science.
• February 2: an account of how Ireland is dealing with the salt issue.

Jane Brody of the New York Times weighed in on the benefits of salt reduction.

Salt in restaurant meals: On January 31, an intrepid New York Times reporter had the bright idea of sending some restaurant meals off to a lab to test for sodium.  Ouch.  Large clam chowder 3100 mg, two slices of pizza 2240 mg, steak with creamed spinach 2660 mg, Katz’s corned beef with pickles 4490 mg.  Stroke anyone?  No wonder it’s so hard to avoid sodium.

The “leave salt alone” crowd: JAMA has just run an editorial from Michael Alderman arguing that salt reduction does no good, might do harm, and should be tested in clinical trials before moving forward.  And Greg Miller of the National Dairy Council sent me this piece from Dr. Judith Stern of U.C. Davis, a member of the advisory board of the Salt Institute, saying much the same thing.

These are old arguments. What I find remarkable about them is that despite such individual opinions, every committee that has ever reviewed the research over the years has consistently come to the same conclusion: salt reduction is a good idea.  Are the committees delusional?  I don’t see how.  As for clinical trials, how could anyone do one?  There is already so much salt in the American diet that it will be hard to find a population of people able (even if willing) to reduce salt intake to a level where differences in health will be measurable.  The research disputes are difficult to sort out I don’t see how they can be easily resolved.

Under these circumstances, you could take your pick of whose research interpretation to believe – if you actually had a choice.  But you don’t.  If you eat processed food or in restaurants, you are eating a lot more salt than you need.

I’d like the default to  be a lower salt environment.  Drs. Alderman and Stern can always add more salt to their food.  I have no way of removing it from mine.

Stay tuned.  We will be hearing a lot more about this one.

Thanks to Dr. Yoni Freedhoff for keeping me current on Canadian food politics. His latest post is about the Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation’s new program to heart-check fast food meals.  The Foundation hasn’t officially announced the program yet, although you can  find it buried in an obscure questionnaire on its website.  Pizza Hut also mentions its participation in the program on its website.   [Update February 3: Pizza Hut has now announced its participation in the program]

The program is coming soon and here’s Dr. Freedhoff’s political cartoon of what it is likely to look like .  No, this isn’t real.  Dr. Freedhoff’s point is that it could be.

What, you might ask, are the criteria for the heart check?  Let’s just try sodium: 720 mg per serving.   Even the late and not lamented Smart Choices program did better than that (480 mg per serving).

You think Dr. Freedhoff is exaggerating and this is improbable?  Alas, not so.  In Australia a couple of years ago, I took this snapshot at a McDonald’s on the Adelaide beach.

The check marks come from the Heart-Tick program of the National Heart Foundation of Australia.  So Canada is just now catching up.  Canadian readers: can’t you do something about this?  And American Heart Association: clean up your act too!

Addendum: Thanks to Lisa Sutherland for pointing out that what gets heart-checked in Canada is comparatively low in U.S. terms.  She sends McDonald’s nutrition information as proof.   Practically everything is higher in sodium than 720 mg.  When it comes to sodium, everything is relative, I guess, but all of it is way high.

I commented earlier on the Supreme Court’s decision to allow unlimited corporate spending on election campaigns on the grounds of free speech.  If a picture is indeed worth a thousand words, try this (I wish I knew its source):

Update February 2: Thanks for Dan M. for posting this site as the source: “The Future in History.”

The New York City Health Department has produced a handy guide – a tool kit, actually – to soda tax legislation.    It explains the rationale, reviews the evidence supporting the use of such taxes, provides fact sheets, and answers Frequently Asked Questions.  For the academics among us, it provides loads of reference citations.  Take a look and put it to good use!

Update January 30: FoodNavigator.com did a report on reaction to the soda tax bill, “Fresh New York soda tax plans stir up the obesity debate.”  It’s got a great quote from the American Beverage Association:

What’s particularly disconcerting about this proposal is that the tax on a 12-pack of non-alcoholic beverages, like soft drinks, would be more than 9 times higher than the state tax on a 12-pack of alcoholic beverages, like beer.

This, as you might expect, has stirred up some counter-proposals, the most obvious being to increase the tax on alcoholic beverages.  Now that ought to generate some additional revenue!

While we are on the subject of alcohol, a forthcoming paper by Barry Popkin is said to have some interesting trend data:

Among adults aged 19 and over, SSB [sugar-sweetened beverage] consumption had almost doubled from 64 to 142kcal/day and alcohol consumption had increased from 45 to 115 kcal/day [from 1977-2006].

Popkin’s conclusion: “The consumer shift towards increased levels of SSBs and alcohol, limited amounts of reduced fat milk along with a continued consumption of whole milk, and increase juice intake represent issues to address from a public health perspective.”

The fuss about acrylamide continues.  This, you may recall is a carcinogen formed when foods containing sugars and the amino acid asparagine are cooked at high temperatures.  Acrylamide is formed during the Maillard reaction, which causes baked, fried, and toasted foods to turn attractively brown and taste yummy.

Obviously, acrylamide has been around in foods for a long time.  But now that everyone knows how bad it is, what should be done about it?

A new toxicology study provides estimates for an upper level of intake that can be considered safe: 2.6 micrograms per kilogram of body weight. This would be equivalent to 182 micrograms for a 70 kg human to prevent cancer.  Much higher levels are required to cause neurological problems: 40 micrograms per kg per day, or 2,800 micrograms per day for a 70 kg human.  But since you have no idea how much is in the foods you are eating, these figures don’t help much.

But maybe you don’t need to worry?  Even the lower of the toxic levels is much higher than intake levels estimated by health agencies.  The average exposure of adults to acrylamide in food has been estimated to be below 0.5 micrograms per kilogram of bodyweight, which is five times lower than the upper limit considered safe.

That is somewhat reassuring but how come a European Expert Panel has unanimously decided to put acrylamide on the list of “substances of very high concern?”  This makes it sound as if acrylamide is well worth avoiding at any level of intake.

How to avoid?  A recent study points out that foods low in sugars and high in antioxidants have lower levels of acrylamide.  This translates into standard dietary advice.  Eat lots of fruits and vegetables, and don’t eat too much junk food, and you can cross acrylamide off the list of food issues you need to spend much time worrying about.

To anyone following the ins and outs of food industry “self-regulation” of marketing to kids, here is a gift – courtesy of Margo Wootan of Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).  Margo forwards a set of background papers and speeches on the topic.  I’ve posted some of these earlier, but it is good to have them in one place.

1. The study of food marketing by Dale Kunkel for Children Now

2. Elaine Kolish’s December speech in response to the Children Now study.  She is the head of the industry kids’ self-regulation unit at the Better Business Bureau.  Her conclusion: self-regulation is working.

3. The Rudd Center’s cereal marketing study summary

4. CSPI’s studies on food industry self-regulation

Enjoy, but also put to good use!

As always, I am indebted to Bill Marler for staying on top of the latest food safety scandals.  This one is even more complicated than most.  According to the CDC, 187 people in 39 states have become ill from Salmonella Montevideo (for some reason, I’m unable to get into the CDC site today although the map of the distribution of cases is available and Marler has yesterday’s version posted in full on his site).

Here’s what I find especially interesting about this one:

• Cases have been reported at a relatively steady rate since the beginning of July – more than six months ago.

• Athough the food source is still questionable, a company in Rhode Island, Daniele International, recalled 1.24 million pounds of pepper-coated salami.

• In January (did they not do any of this earlier?), the CDC conducted a study to compare foods eaten by 39 sick and 39 healthy people.  Among those who were sick, 51% said they were more likely to have eaten Daniele salami than people who were not sick (15 percent).  In addition, 11 other people said they bought Daniele salami before they became ill.

• These kinds of studies are really hard to do.  As William Keene, senior Oregon epidemiologist explained (quoted on the Marler blog), people “were questioned left and right and they were asked about salami and very few of them said yes….Investigators re-interviewed people who were thought to be part of the outbreak, such as members of a hunting party from the South who had been to the Great Plains and responded to new questions with answers such as, “Now that you mention it, we did stop at a Wal-Mart in South Dakota and buy some salami.”

• Daniele issued the recall because a private testing lab identified Salmonella in one of its salami products.  But that Salmonella strain was not Montevideo.  Could multiple strains be involved?

• Daniele did the recall anyway and mentioned that pepper might be the source of the Salmonella.  Was it?  If so, this is by no means the first time that Salmonella has been associated with pepper, as Marler explains.

• The public relations firm that has attempted damage control on previous food outbreaks is doing this one too.

Is this salami or pepper, Daniele salami or not?  So far, we still are dealing with guilt by association, but public relations?  How about just producing safe food in the first place?

And in more food safety news, let’s all congratulate President Obama for finally appointing someone to lead food safety efforts in USDA – Dr. Elizabeth Hagen.  Dr. Hagen has been at USDA and knows how that organization works.  Let’s hope she starts making waves today!

Congress: now it’s your turn.  Pass that food safety bill!