Food Politics

by Marion Nestle
Apr 16 2008

Judge rules in favor of NYC Calorie labeling

The New York City Health Department’s attempts to get calorie information on menu boards, have been strongly opposed by the New York State Restaurant Association (NYSRA). Today, the judge ruled in favor of the City. In his decision, the judge says he thinks calorie labeling is in the public interest and does not violate the First Amendment. I suppose the NYSRA will appeal this sensible decision, but in the meantime, here’s what chain restaurants have to do to comply. Let’s hope they do. I can’t wait to see whether this works.

And here’s the New York Times account on Friday, April 17, with the law scheduled to go into effect on Monday unless the judge grants the Restaurant Association’s appeal.

Apr 16 2008

Antioxidants in trouble again

Investigators keep trying to find health benefits from taking supplements of vitamins A, E, and beta-carotene but keep coming up with the same conclusion: antioxidant supplements do no good and – worse news – appear to cause harm.   Here we have the single-nutrient problem again.  When in doubt, get nutrients from foods.

Apr 15 2008

Want to work on the new Dietary Guidelines?

The USDA and Department of Health and Human Services are requesting nominations for the committee that will prepare the version of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans to be published in 2010. NutraIngredients.com points out that the committee’s first task is to decide whether the current guidelines need revision. That, of course, is a joke. What’s the point of appointing a committee if it doesn’t do anything. And in this case, the Dietary Guidelines badly need revision. What started out as a simple pamphlet with advice about healthy eating is now a 70-page textbook. The new committee will have some serious pruning to do. How to nominate someone to the committee? Both links explain.

Apr 14 2008

Legal advice to food companies: health claims

As far as I can tell, health claims are completely out of control and food companies can say practically anything they want to about the health benefits of their products or ingredients. Not so, says a lawyer who steers food companies “to the bucks, not the courts.” His ten rules suggest the need for honesty and integrity (what a concept!). My favorite: “Just because others do it, doesn’t mean it’s OK.” Now, if we could just get Congress to agree that health claims ought to have some real science behind them….

Apr 13 2008

Food companies’ actions on obesity: report card

Since 2001, investment analysts in Great Britain have argued that food companies must take responsibility for their contribution to obesity or risk losing business over the long term. The investment analysis, from JP Morgan in the UK, says some companies (Danone, Unilever, Nestlé) are making some progress in some ways, particularly in Europe, but most say they are doing more than they really are–more show than tell. The analysts’ recommendation: food companies should do more–much more–to demonstrate their commitment to the health of their consumers.

But how can they, especially in the U.S., where Wall Street cares about only one thing: growth and more growth.  I don’t see how companies can make real progress until the investment system changes.  A somewhat better junk food is still a junk food, alas.

Apr 11 2008

Pet Food Politics: It’s on the web (but not in print yet)

University of California Press has just put up the web page for my forthcoming book, Pet Food Politics: The Chihuahua in the Coal Mine. It’s official publication date is September 15 but UC Press says it expects to start shipping copies out in mid-July. The page went up on Amazon last week. I’m expect the page proofs with revised figures next week, so it’s really on its way. And I only have one thing to add since the last revision: the announcement of the April 1 settlement of the class action suit against Menu Foods and the other companies involved in the recalls last year. Stay tuned!

Apr 11 2008

UK’s Food Agency takes on color additives

Remember the Southampton study of food colors and hyperactivity that I commented on some months ago? On the basis of that study, the British Food Standards Agency is asking food companies to voluntarily get rid of color additives in food products aimed at young children. Since those products are junk foods anyway, and everyone – especially anti-additive advocacy groups – wishes kids would eat less of them, the study gives the agency some ammunition. The point of color additives, after all, is to make junk foods look like they taste good. Kids don’t need junk foods or color additives, but I wish I felt more confident about the science.

Tags:
Apr 10 2008

Orthorexia? They have to be kidding!

 

Thanks to Eliza McEmrys for telling me about this: 

Hi Dr. Nestle,: Thank you for maintaining such an interesting blog! I thought this article on “orthorexia” from the Chicago Tribune might be of interest since so many of your blog readers might be spotted checking ingredients in the grocery store or avoiding HFCS – which are apparently sure signs of this new disease! I wonder when the drug to treat it will be released….” 

Avoiding junk food is sign of illness?  Who knew?

 


Best,