The POLITICS of FOOD – Marion Nestle
Source: Uploaded by 7117morris on Feb 5, 2012 to YouTube
http://www.healthandsuperfoods.com/
SPONSORED BY THE EDIBLE SCHOOLYARD PROJECT WWW.EDIBLESCHOOLYARD.ORG WITH SUPPORT FROM STEPHEN SILBERSTEIN AND THE KNIGHT FOUNDATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JOURNALISM LIVE STREAM SPONSORED BY BON APPETIT MANAGEMENT COMPANY INSTRUCTORS: MICHAEL POLLAN AND NIKKI HENDERSON
Expert Eyes – Interview With Marion Nestle
Source: Uploaded by consumereyes on Aug 17, 2011 to YouTube
Marion Nestle discusses food issues.
Are Sugars Toxic? Should They be Regulated?
by Marion Nestle from her blog “Food Politics”
Feb 2,2012
Nature, the prestigious science magazine from Great Britain, has just published a commentary with a provocative title–The toxic truth about sugar—and an even more provocative subtitle: Added sweeteners pose dangers to health that justify controlling them like alcohol.
The authors, Robert Lustig, Laura Schmidt and Claire Brindis, are researchers at the University of California medical center in San Francisco (UCSF).
They argue that although tobacco, alcohol and diet are critically important behavioral risk factors in chronic disease, only two of them—tobacco and alcohol—are regulated by governments to protect public health.
Now, they say, it’s time to regulate sugar. By sugar, they mean sugars plural: sucrose as well as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). Both are about half fructose.
Their rationale?
- Consumption of sugars has tripled over the last 50 years.
- Many people consume as much as 500 calories a day from sugars (average per capita availability in the U.S. is about 400 calories a day)
- High intake of fructose-containing sugars induce metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, insulin resistance), diabetes, and liver damage.
- Sugars have the potential for abuse.
- Sugars have negative effects on society (mediated via obesity).
- Too much of a good thing can be toxic.
Therefore, they argue, societies should intervene and consider the kinds of policies that have proven effective for control of tobacco and alcohol:
- Taxes
- Distribution controls
- Age limits
- Bans from schools
- Licensing requirements
- Zoning ordinances
- Bans on TV commercials
- Labeling added sugars
- Removal of fructose from GRAS status
In a statement that greatly underestimates the situation, they say:
We recognize that societal intervention to reduce the supply and demand for sugar faces an uphill political battle against a powerful sugar lobby, and will require active engagement from all stakeholders.
But, they conclude:
These simple measures — which have all been on the battleground of American politics — are now taken for granted as essential tools for our public health and well-being. It’s time to turn our attention to sugar.
What is one to make of this? Sugar is a delight, nobody is worried about the fructose in fruit or carrots, and diets can be plenty healthy with a little sugar sprinkled here and there.
The issue is quantity. Sugars are not a problem, or not nearly as much of a problem, for people who balance calorie intake with expenditure.
Scientists can argue endlessly about whether obesity is a cause or an effect of metabolic dysfunction, but most people would be healthier if they ate less sugar.
The bottom line? As Corinna Hawkes, the author of numerous reports on worldwide food marketing, wrote me this morning, “there are plenty of reasons for people to consume less sugar without having to worry about whether it’s toxic or not!”
src=”http://pagead2.googlesyndi
Good News! Childhood Obesity Rates Declining in NYC
Marion Nestle / Food Politics
Dec. 16, 2011
Just in time for the holidays, we get some good news. The New York City Health Department reports that rates of childhood obesity are falling.
If the rates were staying constant, I’d consider it a step forward. But these results show rates going down, even if only by a few percentage points.
The Bloomberg administration says the numbers are a result of its anti-obesity initiatives, some focused especially on children. Health Commissioner Dr. Tom Farley told the New York Times that he attributes
the progress partly to the city’s aggressive advertising campaign against sugary sodas, which he said may have altered what parents were providing to their children. The city has also tried to add healthier options to school lunch menus, enacted strict rules on the calorie and sugar content of snacks and drinks in school vending machines, and even put limits on bake sales, a move that caused some grumbling.
As I explained to Bloomberg News, if this trend continues, it will represent the first truly positive development in years.
It also suggests that the health department’s unusually aggressive efforts to address obesity may be paying off. If so, they should inspire other communities to do the same kinds of things. If nothing else, they raise awareness of the problem and help create an environment more conducive to healthy eating.
On the national level, Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move campaign also has raised awareness. Could it be that we are getting to a tipping point?
It’s pretty clear by now what works. A Cochrane meta-analysis of 55 studies finds strong evidence to support beneficial effects of child obesity prevention programs on BMI, particularly for kids age 6 to 12.
The interventions showing the most promise are just like those in New York City:
- School curriculum that includes healthy eating, physical activity and body image
- School sessions for physical activity throughout the school week
- Improvements in nutritional quality of the food supply in schools
- Environments and cultural practices that support children eating healthier foods and being active throughout each day (see yesterday’s post)
- Support for teachers and other staff to implement health promotion strategies and activities (e.g. professional development, capacity building activities)
- Parent support and home activities that encourage children to be more active, eat more nutritious foods and spend less time in screen based activities
These are showing measurable benefits. Shouldn’t every city start doing them.
Source: Marion Nestle / Food Politics
Food Matters: front-of-package labels again
by Marion Nestle
Currently browsing posts about: IOM (Institute of Medicine)
Nov 6, 2011
My monthly (first Sunday) Food Matters column in the San Francisco Chronicle appears today. This time, it’s about the fuss over front-of-package labels.
Q: I’m completely confused by all of the little check marks and squares on food packages telling me they are healthy. Do they mean anything?
A: The Food and Drug Administration feels your pain. It sponsored two studies by the Institute of Medicine to rationalize front-of-package nutrition ranking systems.
The institute released its second report last month; it advises the FDA to allow front-of-package labels to state nothing but calories and nutrients to avoid: saturated and trans fat, sodium and sugar (go to sfg.ly/sUptQR).
The institute’s proposal gives products one point for not containing too much of each of these nutrients. It suggests displaying the points like Energy Stars on home appliances with zero to three stars, depending on how well the product meets nutritional criteria.
This is a simple system, instantly understandable. I think it is courageous. The institute’s proposal benefits consumers. It does not help companies sell junk food.
Selling or educating?
No food company wants to display nutrients to avoid. For the food industry, the entire point of front-of-package labels is to market products as healthy or “better for you” no matter what they contain. Front-of-package labels are a tool for selling, not buying. They make highly processed foods look healthier.
Will companies accept a voluntary labeling scheme that makes foods seem worse? Doubtful.
Nutrition ranking symbols began appearing on food packages in the mid-1990s, when the American Heart Association got companies to pay for displaying its HeartCheck.
Food companies then established their own systems for identifying “better-for-you” products. PepsiCo, for example, developed its own nutritional standards and proclaimed hundreds of its snacks and drinks as “Smart Choices Made Easy.”
In an attempt to bring order to this chaos, food companies banded together to develop an industry-wide system. Unfortunately, their joint Smart Choices checkmark appeared first on Froot Loops and other sugary cereals. The ensuing ridicule and legal challenges forced the program to be withdrawn.
At that point, the FDA, backed by Congress and other federal agencies, asked the Institute of Medicine for help.
The institute released its first report last year. It revealed inconsistencies in the 20 existing ranking schemes from private agencies, food companies and supermarket chains. Toasted oat cereal, for example, earned two stars in one system, a score of 84 (on a scale of 100) in another, and a score of 37 in a third.
The report said labels should display only calories and to-be-avoided nutrients. Labels should not display “good-for-you” nutrients – protein, fiber, and certain vitamins and minerals – because these would only confuse consumers and encourage companies to unnecessarily add nutrients to products for marketing purposes.
Although the FDA was waiting for the second institute report before taking action, the food industry wasted no time. The Grocery Manufacturers Association and Food Marketing Institute introduced their own system.
Complicated approach
They got their members to agree to a more complicated system, “Nutrition Keys,” based on nutrients to avoid but also including up to two “good-for-you” nutrients.
Food companies immediately put Nutrition Keys’ symbols – well established to be difficult for consumers to understand – on package labels where you can see them today. Now called Facts Up Front, the symbols are backed by a $50 million “public education” campaign.
The reasons for the industry’s preemptive strike are obvious. The second Institute of Medicine report gives examples of products that qualify for stars – toasted oat cereal, oatmeal, orange juice, peanut butter and canned tomatoes, among them.
It also lists the kinds of products that would not qualify for stars, including animal crackers, breakfast bars, sweetened yogurt and chocolate milk.
So the industry argues that consumers “want simple and easy to use information and should be trusted to make decisions for themselves and their families … rather than have government tell them what they should and should not eat.”
But why, you ask, does any of this matter? I view front-of-package labels as a test of the FDA’s authority to regulate and set limits on any kind of food industry behavior. If the FDA cannot insist that food labels help the public choose healthier foods, it means the public has little recourse against any kind of corporate power.
Perhaps Facts Up Front will arouse the interest of attorneys general – just as the Smart Choices program did.
In the meantime, the industry’s pre-emption of FDA labeling initiatives is evidence that voluntary schemes don’t work. Labeling rules need to be mandatory.
Let’s hope the FDA takes the Institute of Medicine’s advice and starts rule-making right away.
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.
Source: Marion Nestle from her blog ‘Food Politics’
Food Corporations Buy Silence from “Partners”
Currently browsing posts about: CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility)
By Marion Nestle from her blog ‘Food Politics’ Dec. 17, 2010
Does corporate social responsibility pay off for corporations? Indeed it does. Corporate money buys silence, if nothing else.
William Neuman of the New York Times provides a perfect example of how corporate sponsorship gets precisely what it is intended to do.
In this particular case:
- The corporations are soda companies, Coke and Pepsi.
- The social responsibility is donations of millions of dollars to a good cause.
- The cause is Save the Children, a group devoted to child health and development projects internationally and domestically.
- The intention? Get Save the Children to stop advocating in favor of soda taxes.
Not long ago, Save the Children was a strong advocate for soda taxes. Now it is not. How come? The group’s website explains:
about a minute ago we said, Corporate donors support us but do not pressure us. Our focus is children not soda tax policy. Back to saving more children now.
The Times, however, suggests a different explanation:
executives at Save the Children were seeking a major grant from Coca-Cola to help finance the health and education programs that the charity conducts here and abroad, including its work on childhood obesity.The talks with Coke are still going on. But the soda tax work has been stopped….In interviews this month, Carolyn Miles, chief operating officer of Save the Children, said there was no connection between the group’s about-face on soda taxes and the discussions with Coke. A $5 million grant from PepsiCo also had no influence on the decision, she said. Both companies fiercely oppose soda taxes.
A mere coincidence? I don’t think so. This is a clear win for soda companies, just as was Coca-Cola’s sponsorship of the educational activities of the American Academy of Family Physicians. You can bet those activities do not involve telling parents not to give sodas to their kids.
Is this a win for Save the Children? The Times reports that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which funds some of the group’s anti-obesity initiatives, is disappointed. Evidently, its $3.5 million donation wasn’t enough to convince the group to continue its anti-soda activities.
In the meantime, soda taxes continue to stay on the radar as a weight control strategy. A new study in the Archives of Internal Medicine suggests that soda taxes could lead to a small but potentially significant weight loss.
According to FoodNavigator’s report about the study,the authors say that applying such taxes throughout the United States could generate a billion dollars or more. It quotes lead researcher Eric Finkelstein: “Although small, given the rising trend in obesity rates, especially among youth, any strategy that shows even modest weight loss should be considered.”
This kind of study is a challenge to soda companies. Watch Coke and Pepsi continue donations to charitable and health groups and watch those groups say not one word about the contribution of sodas to obesity. Cigarettes, anyone?
Source: Marion Nestle, blog ‘Food Politics’
Marion Nestle, Currently Browsing Posts About: Radioactivity
by Marion Nestle, from her blog “Food Politics”
March 20, 2011
Uh oh, Radioactive iodine in Japanese food
Japanese health authorities have found levels of radioactive iodine and cesium in spinach, milk, and water. They detected levels of iodine-131 up to seven times higher than safety limits in spinach collected from six farms as far as 75 miles from the reactors.
How serious a problem is this? From a strictly scientific viewpoint, probably not much. But note the “probably.” From the standpoint of the public, the problem is very serious indeed.
What’s happening with the Japanese food supply gets us into the classic contradictions of risk communication. Consider this response:
After the announcements, Japanese officials immediately tried to calm an already-jittery public, saying the amounts detected were so small that people would have to consume unimaginable amounts to endanger their health. “Can you imagine eating one kilogram of spinach every day for one year?” said State Secretary of Health Minister Yoko Komiyama. One kilogram is a little over two pounds.
Edano [chief cabinet secretary] said someone drinking the tainted milk for one year would consume as much radiation as in a CT scan; for the spinach, it would be one-fifth of a CT scan….Drinking one liter of water with the iodine at Thursday’s levels is the equivalent of receiving one-eighty-eighth of the radiation from a chest X-ray.
Is the Japanese public likely to be reassured by these statements? They remind me of the British minister who went on TV and fed a hamburger to his small daughter during the mad cow crisis of the early 1990s. It didn’t work.
We are talking about food here. Something that people put in their bodies and those of their children.
Specialists in risk communication would view radioactive spinach as a problem ranking high on anyone’s “dread-and-outrage” scale.
Radioactivity is not visible, is not under personal control, and is technological, unfamiliar, and foreign. This makes something like this really, really scary, as I explain in the introduction my book Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety.
So the statements of American experts don’t help much either:
“The most troubling thing to me is the fear that’s out of proportion to the risk,” said Dr. Henry Duval Royal, a radiologist at Washington University Medical School.
Yes it is. Understandably so. And Japanese officials will have a hard time dealing with it unless they are thoroughly forthcoming with information, earn the trust of the public, and take the fears seriously.
Update, March 21: The New York Times account on this issue from March 20. The March 21 story describes the spread of the radioactive materials:
Spinach from a farm in Hitachi, about 45 miles from the plant, contained 27 times the amount of iodine that is generally considered safe, while cesium levels were about four times higher than is deemed safe by Japan. Meanwhile, raw milk from a dairy farm in Iitate, about 18 miles from the plant, contained iodine levels that were 17 times higher than those considered safe, and milk had cesium levels that were slightly above amounts considered safe.
Source: Marion Nestle, “Food Politics”
Energy Shots: what will marketers dream up next? by Marion Nestle
- This article is reprinted from Marion Nestle’s blog, “Food Politics”
Food Politics
by Marion Nestle
Sep-25-2011
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?
Source: Marion Nestle – “Food Politics”
How The Food Industry is Deceiving You: Parts 1, 2 & 3 of 5 – With Peter Jennings
PART 1
Source: Uploaded by herbspecialists on Jan 26, 2010 to YouTube
Terrific Peter Jennings video exploring how billions of dollars are spent to sabotage your health.
PART 2
PART 3
How The Food Industry is Deceiving You: Parts 4 & 5 of 5 – With Peter Jennings
Part 4
Source: Uploaded by herbspecialists on Jan 26, 2010 to YouTube
Terrific Peter Jennings video exploring how billions of dollars are spent to
sabotage your health.
PART 5 (Last)
What to Eat: Sensible Choices in an Era of Food Confusion
Proper nutrition is on all of our minds, but how do we make smart choices in today’s world of savvy marketing? Join us for this eye-opening lecture from one of the leading author’s on how the food industry influences our nutrition and health. Marion Nestle, Ph.D., is an author and professor of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University. Series: “UCSD Moores Cancer Center Presents”
Source: UCtelevision on YouTube
Food Policy – What We Eat is Making Us Sick
Marion Nestle is a Paulette Goddard Professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health (the department she chaired from 1988-2003) and Professor of Sociology at New York University. Marion’s blogsite is www.foodpolitics.com.
Source: Bravenewfilms on YouTube
Marion Nestle Lectures on Obesity and Diabetes – This Video is 61:00 Minutes
Posted July 20, 2009
Marion Nestle lectures on how the food industry in America confuses people about healthy eating. The industry wants to sell you junk food. That is where they make their money. If you watch this video, it will explain how you are being manipulated from your first step inside your local supermarket.
I don’t like to write all negative articles, but this information has to be shared. It is a very delicate conversation with some people when trying to explain how our food industry is very predatory and is driven by the pursuit of corporate profits. Many people are sure that “Tony the Tiger” is their friend.
The food industry has morphed into a dictating Goliath with the opening of regional and national “super markets”. We are now shopping for manufactured foods. Obesity and type 2 diabetes is becoming NORMAL in our young children. We are being told what to eat. Advertisers are not trying to sell us foods for our health. They are advertising the cheapest and most non-nutritious foods to make the most dollars for food company stockholders. Buy a package of Doritos. What is it? So you may wonder why Americans are dealing with a major national health crisis.
Waymon Tisdale the ex-basketball star and jazz saxephone player extraordninaire died this year of complications from diabetes. One of his legs had been amputated below the knee. He died several months later in his early 40′s. That is about the same age as my oldest daughter. Type 2 diabetes can be avoided. This illness is no joke. It will kill you. Young folks in their 40′s are starting to die.
As a young parent 40 years ago I was not aware of the perils of fast food restaurants and “supermarkets”. I could not protect my children from McDonalds. I know more now. So I write this blog.
Marion Nestle is trying to save millions of people from blindness, amputations, heart attacks, strokes and premature death. Obesity, diabetes, the lack of knowledge of nutrition and the deceptions of our food industry in this country is deadly. It is a uphill battle. We must be more aggressive about our knowledge of nutrition for our bodies and we must be aware of the true motives of corporate food companies.
FoodSpook
Source: Authors@Google: George Soros
Marion Nestle, Politics and the Food Industry in America – video 58:40 min.
Posted June 13, 2009
Marion Nestle lectures on how the food industry and politics have designed a campaign to confuse the American public about what is good food. It takes some patience to watch this video (58 min.) but you will find it very informative. It will give you some great insights on how supermarkets really work. Marion Nestle is the author of the best selling book, “Food Politics”. She has many other publications concerning politics, food and our health.
FoodSpook
Source: uctelevision on YouTube
Food Industry Secrets
U.S. News & World Report
10 Things the Food Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know
By Adam Voiland – Mon Oct 20, 2008
Two nutrition experts argue that you can’t take marketing campaigns at face value.
With America’s obesity problem among kids reaching crisis proportions, even junk food makers have started to claim they want to steer children toward more healthful choices. In a study released earlier this year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that about 32 percent of children were overweight but not obese, 16 percent were obese, and 11 percent were extremely obese. Food giant PepsiCo, for example, points out on its website that “we can play an important role in helping kids lead healthier lives by offering healthy product choices in schools.” The company highlights what it considers its healthier products within various food categories through a “Smart Spot” marketing campaign that features green symbols on packaging. PepsiCo’s inclusive criteria–explained here–award spots to foods of dubious nutritional value such as Diet Pepsi, Cap’n Crunch cereal, reduced-fat Doritos, and Cheetos, as well as to more nutritious products such as Quaker Oatmeal and Tropicana Orange Juice.
But are wellness initiatives like Smart Spot just marketing ploys? Such moves by the food industry may seem to be a step in the right direction, but ultimately makers of popular junk foods have an obligation to stockholders to encourage kids to eat more–not less–of the foods that fuel their profits, says David Ludwig, a pediatrician and the co-author of a commentary published in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association that raises questions about whether big food companies can be trusted to help combat obesity. Ludwig and article co-author Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University, both of whom have long histories of tracking the food industry, spoke with U.S. News and highlighted 10 things that junk food makers don’t want you to know about their products and how they promote them.
1. Junk food makers spend billions advertising unhealthy foods to kids.
According to the Federal Trade Commission, food makers spend some $1.6 billion annually to reach children through the traditional media as well the Internet, in-store advertising, and sweepstakes. An article published in 2006 in the Journal of Public Health Policy puts the number as high as $10 billion annually. Promotions often use cartoon characters or free giveaways to entice kids into the junk food fold. PepsiCo has pledged that it will advertise only “Smart Spot” products to children under 12.
2. The studies that food producers support tend to minimize health concerns associated with their products.
In fact, according to a review led by Ludwig of hundreds of studies that looked at the health effects of milk, juice, and soda, the likelihood of conclusions favorable to the industry was several times higher among industry-sponsored research than studies that received no industry funding. “If a study is funded by the industry, it may be closer to advertising than science,” he says.
3. Junk food makers donate large sums of money to professional nutrition associations.
The American Dietetic Association, for example, accepts money from companies such as Coca-Cola, which get access to decision makers in the food and nutrition marketplace via ADA events and programs, as this release explains. As Nestle notes in her blog and discusses at length in her book Food Politics, the group even distributes nutritional fact sheets that are directly sponsored by specific industry groups. This one, for example, which is sponsored by an industry group that promotes lamb, rather unsurprisingly touts the nutritional benefits of lamb. The ADA’s reasoning: “These collaborations take place with the understanding that ADA does not support any program or message that does not correspond with ADA’s science-based healthful-eating messages and positions,” according to the group’s president, dietitian Martin Yadrick. “In fact, we think it’s important for us to be at the same table with food companies because of the positive influence that we can have on them.”
4. More processing means more profits, but typically makes the food less healthy.
Minimally processed foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables obviously aren’t where food companies look for profits. The big bucks stem from turning government-subsidized commodity crops–mainly corn, wheat, and soybeans–into fast foods, snack foods, and beverages. High-profit products derived from these commodity crops are generally high in calories and low in nutritional value.
5. Less-processed foods are generally more satiating than their highly processed counterparts.
Fresh apples have an abundance of fiber and nutrients that are lost when they are processed into applesauce. And the added sugar or other sweeteners increase the number of calories without necessarily making the applesauce any more filling. Apple juice, which is even more processed, has had almost all of the fiber and nutrients stripped out. This same stripping out of nutrients, says Ludwig, happens with highly refined white bread compared with stone-ground whole wheat bread.
6. Many supposedly healthy replacement foods are hardly healthier than the foods they replace.
In 2006, for example, major beverage makers agreed to remove sugary sodas from school vending machines. But the industry mounted an intense lobbying effort that persuaded lawmakers to allow sports drinks and vitamin waters that–despite their slightly healthier reputations–still can be packed with sugar and calories.
7. A health claim on the label doesn’t necessarily make a food healthy.
Health claims such as “zero trans fats” or “contains whole wheat” may create the false impression that a product is healthy when it’s not. While the claims may be true, a product is not going to benefit your kid’s health if it’s also loaded with salt and sugar or saturated fat, say, and lacks fiber or other nutrients. “These claims are calorie distracters,” adds Nestle. “They make people forget about the calories.” Dave DeCecco, a spokesperson for PepsiCo, counters that the intent of a labeling program such as Smart Spot is simply to help consumers pick a healthier choice within a category. “We’re not trying to tell people that a bag of Doritos is healthier than asparagus. But, if you’re buying chips, and you’re busy, and you don’t have a lot of time to read every part of the label, it’s an easy way to make a smarter choice,” he says.
8. Food industry pressure has made nutritional guidelines confusing.
As Nestle explained in Food Politics, the food industry has a history of preferring scientific jargon to straight talk. As far back as 1977, public health officials attempted to include the advice “reduce consumption of meat” in an important report called Dietary Goals for the United States. The report’s authors capitulated to intense pushback from the cattle industry and used this less-direct and more ambiguous advice: “Choose meats, poultry, and fish which will reduce saturated fat intake.” Overall, says Nestle, the government has a hard time suggesting that people eat less of anything.
9. The food industry funds front groups that fight antiobesity public health initiatives.
Unless you follow politics closely, you wouldn’t necessarily realize that a group with a name like the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) has anything to do with the food industry. In fact,Ludwig and Nestle point out, this group lobbies aggressively against obesity-related public health campaigns–such as the one directed at removing junk food from schools–and is funded, according to the Center for Media and Democracy, primarily through donations from big food companies such as Coca-Cola, Cargill, Tyson Foods, and Wendy’s.
10. The food industry works aggressively to discredit its critics.
According to the new JAMA article, the Center for Consumer Freedom boasts that “[our strategy] is to shoot the messenger. We’ve got to attack [activists'] credibility as spokespersons.” Here’s the group’s entry on Marion Nestle.
The bottom line, says Nestle, is quite simple: Kids need to eat less, include more fruits and vegetables, and limit the junk food.
Source: Adam Voiland, Reprinted from U.S. News and World Report
‘Food Politics’
Food companies will make and market any product that sells, regardless of its nutritional value or its effect on health. In this regard, food companies hardly differ from cigarette companies. They lobby Congress to eliminate regulations perceived as unfavorable; they press federal regulatory agencies not to enforce such regulations; and when they don’t like regulatory decisions, they file lawsuits.
Like cigarette companies, food companies co-opt food and nutrition experts by supporting professional organizations and research, and they expand sales by marketing directly to children, members of minority groups, and people in developing countries–whether or not the products are likely to improve people’s diets”. Quote from Marion Nestle, author of “Food Politics”, University of California Press, 2002.
If you want to understand how politicians, lobbyists and food companies have totally corrupted our food chain in America, you should read Marion Nestle’s books. At the time “Food Politics” was printed, the author was the chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at New York University. When I finished reading this book six years ago, I was truly blown away.
Everything I suspected about fast food restaurants in my neighborhood, raising rates of obesity, type 2 Diabetes appearing in children under the age of five and our government not protecting it’s citizens was revealed to be TRUE. Our government actually helps food companies to deceive to us. Even reading a food label in the grocery is no guarantee that that you are being told the truth. I always laugh when I pick up a box of cereal and find “Dehydrated Cane Juice” listed as the second ingredient on the label. Folks this means that the 2nd highest percentage of ingredients in this box of cereal is plain old SUGAR!
Your government allows this corporate game playing with our foods. In the mean time, people are becoming diseased and are dying and don’t know why. Tell me why are two and three year old children developing type 2 Diabetes during the past 30 years at a rate that this country has never seen before? Why have heart attacks for women between the the ages of 34 and45 increased by 30% over the last 30 years. Look at our food industry in America. It is not your friend.
FoodSpook
Subcribe Here
