clevermanka (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
clevermanka) wrote2009-07-27 09:00 am
clevermanka) wrote2009-07-27 09:00 am
Entry tags:
Food
This was posted to the CRON list to which I subscribe. My comments are in (italics).
'Better' junk food about marketing, not health
Friday, July 24, 2009
Nutrition and public policy expert Marion Nestle (I love that her name is Nestle) answers readers' questions in this column written exclusively for The Chronicle. E-mail your questions to food@sfchronicle.com, with "Marion Nestle" in the subject line.
Q: Every junk food I pick up looks as if it has a sticker telling me how healthy it is. How do they get away with this? (Because corporations have money, and money means power. To me, this does not seem difficult to figure out.)
A: Wait! It's about to get weirder. Soon arriving at a supermarket near you are food packages labeled with Smart Choices logos. These are supposed to guide you to "smarter" food selections.
The program has a philosophical basis: A junk food with a little less sugar, salt, saturated fat or other nutritional evils will be better for you than other junk foods.
I know. Nutritionists are not supposed to call them "junk foods." We are supposed to call them "foods of minimal nutritional value." Whatever we call them, we don't usually recommend them. We advise choosing minimally processed foods with no unnecessary additives.
I also care about how foods are produced and used (Good point, the "how foods are used" concept--wish more people considered that, as well as a food's origin), so I recommend what the Oakland-based Prevention Institute advises: Choose foods that have been produced safely, fairly, sustainably and humanely, and that are available, accessible and affordable to everyone.
For years now, PepsiCo has put green Smart Spot labels on its "better-for-you" foods and drinks. Kraft has used its equally green Sensible Solutions labels to identify "better-choice" options of Lunchables and macaroni and cheese. You might not be able to tell one Lunchable from another, but Kraft can. Like other companies, it sets up its own nutritional standards. Unsurprisingly, hundreds of its products qualify for its self-determined nutritional criteria.
Where is the Food and Drug Administration in all this? Busy elsewhere. (Why are we relying on our government to tell us what to eat, anyway?)
You might wonder what happens if independent experts establish the criteria. This experiment was performed by Hannaford, a supermarket chain in the Northeast. It developed a Guiding Stars program that awards one, two or three stars to qualifying foods. It applied independently determined standards to 27,000 products in its stores.
Oops. Only 23 percent qualified for even one star. Worse, 80 percent of that 23 percent were fresh fruits and vegetables in the produce section. By independent nutritional standards, everything else is a junk food. (Yeah, so? Nobody's forcing people to buy the 77% of crap in the rest of the store.)
Wooing experts
The best way to sell junk foods is to make them appear healthier. The best way to do that is to entice nutrition experts to create easier standards. Enter Smart Choices.
This program is the result of years of food industry consultation with nutrition professionals. It replaces the individual programs of participating companies so you have a "single, trusted and easily recognizable dietary symbol" to help you make "smarter choices within product categories," based on "consensus science." Sounds good, no? (Not really, no. I don't trust Microsoft to tell me how to write a letter. Why would I trust anyone who has an interest in getting more of my money to tell me what I should eat?)
But is a "better-for-you" junk food really a good choice? Of course not. Smart Choices is about marketing, not health.
Its "consensus science" nutritional criteria allow rather generous amounts of sugars and salt so many processed foods can qualify. They reduce the value of food to a few nutrients. The standards do not deal with how foods are produced, how processed they are or how they are used in daily diets.
One underlying purpose of this united program is surely to stave off federal regulations requiring a traffic-light rating system such as that used in England and Australia. (In 2007, 24 per cent of adults in England were classified as obese. Australia's coming in at 21.7%. I don't think either of those should be held up as paragons of good eating choices. ) Consumers prefer this system to those that use check marks and understand that they can freely choose green-lighted foods but should avoid the red-lighted foods. (Please! Someone think for me! Choosing my own healthful food is too much work!) No wonder food companies don't like it. (No wonder we're all a bunch of fucking piggies.)
Another reason to pre-empt the FDA's proposal to require disclosure of the full number of calories in a package on its front label. Smart Choices lists calories per serving and the number of servings, just as the confusing Nutrition Facts label does now. (What is confusing about the current nutrition labels? People can't do math, either?)
The marketing benefits are obvious. Only the health benefits are debatable.
I would dismiss the Smart Choices program (smartchoicesprogram.com) as just another food industry marketing ploy except for the involvement of health professionals in its development. Collaborators include organizations such as the American Dietetic Association and the American Heart Association. To my dismay, they also include the American Society of Nutrition, an organization of nutrition scientists to which I belong. Indeed, the ASN manages the "scientific
integrity" of the project. In effect, the ASN is endorsing products that bear the Smart Choices logo.
Conflict of interest
The ASN is not alone in its financial partnerships with food companies. The American Heart Association endorses sugary breakfast cereals, and the American Dietetic Association allows food companies to sponsor its nutrition information sheets. But the goals of health organizations and of businesses are not the same.
The partnerships put nutrition professionals in a serious conflict of interest. How can they advise the public about food choices when they are paid to endorse products that many nutritionists would agree are nutritionally inferior? How can they argue that eating a marginally better food product will produce a real health benefit, when so many lifestyle choices are involved? (How can they? Well, for one thing, I would guess that it becomes much easier when the food companies pony up money and perks. "Think of all the good you could do with those thirty pieces of silver, Judas!")
This is on my mind because I recently received a letter from the ASN nominating me to join the board of directors of the Smart Choices program. I replied that I appreciated the nomination, but think the program ill-advised.
My letter appeared in the society's newsletter along with a response from its executive director: "Rather than seeing this as a conflict of interest, we see ASN as having a responsibility to help consumers make better food choices. ASN is rooted in science and believes that information provided to consumers should be science based. Unfortunately, there is not a sufficient research base to suggest that any dietary guidance program will be effective in improving the health of the population."
My point precisely. If health benefits are uncertain, it makes no sense to endorse food products simply because they meet arbitrary nutritional criteria.
What is at stake here is the integrity of nutrition advice. People constantly ask me whose nutrition advice can be trusted. I am tempted to say, "Mine, of course," but I understand the dilemma. If the most prestigious nutrition and health organizations have financial ties to food companies, how can you trust them to tell you what foods are best to eat? (I have an idea--don't trust them.)
Smart Choices is coming. Watch for the logos and decide for yourself whether they are useful. (That's the best bit of advice in the whole article.)
Marion Nestle is the author of "Food Politics," "Safe Food" and "What to Eat," and is a professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University. E-mail her at food@sfchronicle.com and read her previous columns at sfgate.com/food.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/24/FDVK18ITKJ.DTL
This article appeared on page K - 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle © 2009 Hearst Communications Inc.
Having checked out Marion Nestle's website at Food Politics.com, I have to say I disagree with a lot of her politics, but her thoughts on food are pretty sound.
'Better' junk food about marketing, not health
Friday, July 24, 2009
Nutrition and public policy expert Marion Nestle (I love that her name is Nestle) answers readers' questions in this column written exclusively for The Chronicle. E-mail your questions to food@sfchronicle.com, with "Marion Nestle" in the subject line.
Q: Every junk food I pick up looks as if it has a sticker telling me how healthy it is. How do they get away with this? (Because corporations have money, and money means power. To me, this does not seem difficult to figure out.)
A: Wait! It's about to get weirder. Soon arriving at a supermarket near you are food packages labeled with Smart Choices logos. These are supposed to guide you to "smarter" food selections.
The program has a philosophical basis: A junk food with a little less sugar, salt, saturated fat or other nutritional evils will be better for you than other junk foods.
I know. Nutritionists are not supposed to call them "junk foods." We are supposed to call them "foods of minimal nutritional value." Whatever we call them, we don't usually recommend them. We advise choosing minimally processed foods with no unnecessary additives.
I also care about how foods are produced and used (Good point, the "how foods are used" concept--wish more people considered that, as well as a food's origin), so I recommend what the Oakland-based Prevention Institute advises: Choose foods that have been produced safely, fairly, sustainably and humanely, and that are available, accessible and affordable to everyone.
For years now, PepsiCo has put green Smart Spot labels on its "better-for-you" foods and drinks. Kraft has used its equally green Sensible Solutions labels to identify "better-choice" options of Lunchables and macaroni and cheese. You might not be able to tell one Lunchable from another, but Kraft can. Like other companies, it sets up its own nutritional standards. Unsurprisingly, hundreds of its products qualify for its self-determined nutritional criteria.
Where is the Food and Drug Administration in all this? Busy elsewhere. (Why are we relying on our government to tell us what to eat, anyway?)
You might wonder what happens if independent experts establish the criteria. This experiment was performed by Hannaford, a supermarket chain in the Northeast. It developed a Guiding Stars program that awards one, two or three stars to qualifying foods. It applied independently determined standards to 27,000 products in its stores.
Oops. Only 23 percent qualified for even one star. Worse, 80 percent of that 23 percent were fresh fruits and vegetables in the produce section. By independent nutritional standards, everything else is a junk food. (Yeah, so? Nobody's forcing people to buy the 77% of crap in the rest of the store.)
Wooing experts
The best way to sell junk foods is to make them appear healthier. The best way to do that is to entice nutrition experts to create easier standards. Enter Smart Choices.
This program is the result of years of food industry consultation with nutrition professionals. It replaces the individual programs of participating companies so you have a "single, trusted and easily recognizable dietary symbol" to help you make "smarter choices within product categories," based on "consensus science." Sounds good, no? (Not really, no. I don't trust Microsoft to tell me how to write a letter. Why would I trust anyone who has an interest in getting more of my money to tell me what I should eat?)
But is a "better-for-you" junk food really a good choice? Of course not. Smart Choices is about marketing, not health.
Its "consensus science" nutritional criteria allow rather generous amounts of sugars and salt so many processed foods can qualify. They reduce the value of food to a few nutrients. The standards do not deal with how foods are produced, how processed they are or how they are used in daily diets.
One underlying purpose of this united program is surely to stave off federal regulations requiring a traffic-light rating system such as that used in England and Australia. (In 2007, 24 per cent of adults in England were classified as obese. Australia's coming in at 21.7%. I don't think either of those should be held up as paragons of good eating choices. ) Consumers prefer this system to those that use check marks and understand that they can freely choose green-lighted foods but should avoid the red-lighted foods. (Please! Someone think for me! Choosing my own healthful food is too much work!) No wonder food companies don't like it. (No wonder we're all a bunch of fucking piggies.)
Another reason to pre-empt the FDA's proposal to require disclosure of the full number of calories in a package on its front label. Smart Choices lists calories per serving and the number of servings, just as the confusing Nutrition Facts label does now. (What is confusing about the current nutrition labels? People can't do math, either?)
The marketing benefits are obvious. Only the health benefits are debatable.
I would dismiss the Smart Choices program (smartchoicesprogram.com) as just another food industry marketing ploy except for the involvement of health professionals in its development. Collaborators include organizations such as the American Dietetic Association and the American Heart Association. To my dismay, they also include the American Society of Nutrition, an organization of nutrition scientists to which I belong. Indeed, the ASN manages the "scientific
integrity" of the project. In effect, the ASN is endorsing products that bear the Smart Choices logo.
Conflict of interest
The ASN is not alone in its financial partnerships with food companies. The American Heart Association endorses sugary breakfast cereals, and the American Dietetic Association allows food companies to sponsor its nutrition information sheets. But the goals of health organizations and of businesses are not the same.
The partnerships put nutrition professionals in a serious conflict of interest. How can they advise the public about food choices when they are paid to endorse products that many nutritionists would agree are nutritionally inferior? How can they argue that eating a marginally better food product will produce a real health benefit, when so many lifestyle choices are involved? (How can they? Well, for one thing, I would guess that it becomes much easier when the food companies pony up money and perks. "Think of all the good you could do with those thirty pieces of silver, Judas!")
This is on my mind because I recently received a letter from the ASN nominating me to join the board of directors of the Smart Choices program. I replied that I appreciated the nomination, but think the program ill-advised.
My letter appeared in the society's newsletter along with a response from its executive director: "Rather than seeing this as a conflict of interest, we see ASN as having a responsibility to help consumers make better food choices. ASN is rooted in science and believes that information provided to consumers should be science based. Unfortunately, there is not a sufficient research base to suggest that any dietary guidance program will be effective in improving the health of the population."
My point precisely. If health benefits are uncertain, it makes no sense to endorse food products simply because they meet arbitrary nutritional criteria.
What is at stake here is the integrity of nutrition advice. People constantly ask me whose nutrition advice can be trusted. I am tempted to say, "Mine, of course," but I understand the dilemma. If the most prestigious nutrition and health organizations have financial ties to food companies, how can you trust them to tell you what foods are best to eat? (I have an idea--don't trust them.)
Smart Choices is coming. Watch for the logos and decide for yourself whether they are useful. (That's the best bit of advice in the whole article.)
Marion Nestle is the author of "Food Politics," "Safe Food" and "What to Eat," and is a professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University. E-mail her at food@sfchronicle.com and read her previous columns at sfgate.com/food.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/24/FDVK18ITKJ.DTL
This article appeared on page K - 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle © 2009 Hearst Communications Inc.
Having checked out Marion Nestle's website at Food Politics.com, I have to say I disagree with a lot of her politics, but her thoughts on food are pretty sound.
no subject
no subject
This is why I roll my eyes every time I hear someone say "Why, there aught to be a law against that!" Bitch, please. More laws are the last thing we need. Well, one of the last things, anyway.
no subject
It will never happen, more's the pity.
no subject
If your grandmother didn't recognize this as food, don't eat it.
Unfortunately, the more I read about modified plant foods, the less I can even trust that small truism.
One thing I would love to see outlawed, however, is the advertising for drugs. (http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20090727/ZNYT02/907273008?Title=Lawmakers-Seek-to-Curb-Drug-Commercials)
$4 Billion annually on advertising prescription medications. Wonder where those costs go, eh?
Or bring back those sexy cigarette and liquor commercials :)
no subject
After watching an episode, I want a cigarette so much.
Jesus, the only time someone doesn't have a ciggie onscreen is when they're flying the actual rocket ships. Even the command room is full of smoke! It's crazy.
no subject
Everyone on my mom's side of the family smoked. They were all good, normal people. My mom quit when she saw me, age 2, playing in the yard pretending to smoke little sticks! I have been fascinated with smoking for a long time.
no subject
no subject
I agree with your point though, and doubly agree on the drug advertising!
no subject
And now that I think about it, maybe we'd better say "great grandmother" since my dad's mom LOVED KFC. It was a treat to her to have someone bring her a bucket "from town." Maybe she was just tired by then of a married lifetime of cooking for a family of eight?
no subject
no subject
I'm still tempted to go into the drug industry and I have several friends in {the drug industry, the academic side of medicinal chemistry, the FDA}, so I'm obviously not going to argue that current/proposed solutions are the right way to go, but we really should do something.
no subject
Our bodies are weird and complex things, and everyone is weird and complex in his own way. Not everyone responds to foods--even healthful ones--the same way. By teaching people that they can rely on a Simple! Easy! Method! that requires no thinking or observation of their own bodies, we're just digging ourselves a new hole.
I agree with you that it's tragic we've gotten to this point. I'm not sure how to get out of the mess, but I am unconvinced that more laws or labels--especially laws and labels created by people getting some sort of financial benefit from the deal--are going to help the problem.
Edit: Maybe if someone developed a food rating system that had no ties to any for-profit group. No political involvement. No input from people who grow, produce, or sell food. Absolutely no financial ties to anyone whatsoever. But good luck finding people and money to do that.
no subject
I also agree with you that we should invest time into teaching people how to make these decisions for themselves. Honestly, I don't know what most of school is preparing people for. I really wish you came out of high school with a solid (basic) understanding of
- personal finance
- nutrition
- statistics
- child development/child care
- (pushing it now) different religions and political systems
Also, in reference to your edit: good luck indeed. I'm pretty sure I remember some credible story about how the regulations related to an "Organic" label are much more lax than you'd expect, but yet the law prevents you from mentioning compliance with stricter standards on a label.
Slightly related note: did you ever go gluten-free? If so, do you have any particularly good recipes? One of the families in our dinner coop (Best Idea Ever) is gluten-free. I make tasty food in general, but I'm always looking for more gluten-free suggestions.
no subject
I was wheat and gluten-free for nearly a year. Have I pimped Super Natural Cooking (http://www.101cookbooks.com/supernatural/), by Heidi Swanson? She makes great use of alternative flours in several of her recipes. And her website has a whole section of gluten-free recipes (http://www.101cookbooks.com/gluten_free_recipes/) available for free.
no subject
I can't get over the idea of you as a home ec teacher. On the one hand, I think you'd obviously be fantastic at it. On the other hand, I'm not sure what the school would make of the huge influx of teenage boys into the home ec classes ;).
no subject
no subject
Schools are still scary...
Sadly, it's still merely to become mindless workers. (http://odeo.com/episodes/24706306-US-Schools-Are-Creating-Worker-Robots-Not-Human-Beings)
no subject
I wonder if they still read that.
Re: Schools are still scary...
Dear schools: the industrial revolution is over. If you just want worker drones, our economy would be better served by worker drones who understand basic science. If, on the other hand, you want useful humans ... well ... let's talk :).
Re: Schools are still scary...
I'm really beginning to understand some folks' reasons for home schooling these days.
Let them learn that what interests them and will best serve them in adulthood.
Re: Schools are still scary...
no subject
My job is also developing a nutrition rating system for all the food they distribute to soup kitchens and food pantries to assist people in making better decisions.
no subject
no subject
You know, I get so excited when I hear the phrase 'food politics'. Then I read the crap that spews forth and I really want to just punch someone. Really.
Everyone knows that the shit in the middle of the grocery store is crap food. Everyone knows that the chickens live in a tiny cell on their own version of death row. Now we are going to toss in the ethics of organic food (which often- it is the large companies treating humans worse than the factory farmers treating their baby cows.) Seriously? If people don't care that that we fill out grind up sick animals and feed them to the orverly medicated ones- why would we care that some migrant worker has no rights and is over worked? Why?
We have long stopped caring about what our food tastes like or where it comes from. We what pretty colors and words that mean nothing on our boxes! We demand it!
Smart choices is another marketing ploy (just the the current sensible solutions crap- or the best life endorsed crap) that the soccer moms in their SUV's (but they bring their own bags to the grocery store) will completely buy into. And those little check marks or other logos will be enough of a reason to increase the price of the goods. So while the goods are crap food- they are, sometimes, better choices than the cheaper crap food (an apple is more expensive than a twinke)- that people have access to on a regular basis. Thus putting more of a wedge between people who choose to eat like crap because they can and those that do it because that is what they are given.
no subject
no subject
Well, no. They don't. Not everyone.
Everyone knows that the chickens live in a tiny cell on their own version of death row.
Again, no. They don't. They really don't! Honestly. Maybe all our friends and the people with whom we associate (probably even out to the third degree of separation) know this, but it doesn't mean that everybody knows this.
For example, I will bet you ten dollars that the secretary down the hall from me (the one who pronounces it "Eye-talian") thinks that the things with a little green dot really are healthy for you. And I'm also pretty certain she has no idea of what goes on in factory farms.
no subject