Food Politics

Oh Prof. Nestle. I know you have friends at the FDA, but a cheer for the FDA? For what? Finally rattling a few chains?

Oh, I know I am such a stick-in-the-mud! But I can’t give a cheer when I am fed up since the 80s for God’s sake, about stupid misleading labels on products (I can’t really call them food) claiming “no added sugars” or “100% fruit juice”, when said products clearly have extra sweetening from highly processed fruit juice syrups (which *are* sugars). I saw through that baloney back when my friends’ now colleged-aged kids were toddling around rotting their teeth from 100% juice filled sippy cups. Why is the FDA just “guiding” now? And over calorie counts, instead of the sugar? Calories that have little hormonal effect, such as fat & protein, are not much of a problem compared to sugar calories that wreak havoc on insulin and glugagon levels.

Now the FDA has their knickers in a wad over what, sugar-free chocolate and the like because it is high in calories? That’s a bit disingenous.

Perhaps they now see the error of their ways and want to make up for being asleep at the wheel in the 80s and 90s during the disasterous “Snackwell effect” that “non-fat”, “fat-free”, and “cholesterol-free” labels had on hapless dieters who stuffed themselves silly because they erroneously thought anything labeled “x-free” is a “free food”. But just because something is sugar-free or low in calories doesn’t mean it is good to eat or will help to control or maintain weight. Plenty of dieters eat copiously of low calorie foods, thinking they are “free”, but it backfires, because it doesn’t satisfy the hunger in the mind or the cells.

Sometimes, eating foods low in sugar, but high in satisfying calories (fat & protein & very nutrient dense) is just what a dieter needs to lose weight (precisely because it satifies the appetite as well as the nutrient needs at the cellular). No, I don’t mean sugar-free chocolate, nor more of the same low calorie, nutrient-deficient boxes of processed junk plastered with the “whatever-ingredient – free” label du jour. People need to get over the marketing labels (hey, eat foods that don’t come with labels or packaging, that’s an idea!) and eat real wholesome foods that nourish and satisfy on every level, not just FDA labeling regulations. That might mean a not-so-low calorie but very nutritious and satisfying arugula, blue cheese, and walnut salad with olive oil and vinegar as well as a 3 or 4 pastured egg omelet cooked in butter with crumbled uncured heritage bacon and slices of avocado on top. That’s how many people who can see the diet paradigm shifting lose or maintain their weight, not shuffling through the mega-store aisle prowling for low calorie, “sugar-free” labeled boxes of stuff that satisfies the FDA.

I got the impression that Dr. Nestle was being facetious when she called for a cheer for the FDA – they’re doing this one thing right out of the obvious hundreds upon hundreds of things wrong (or neglected).

I’m with you that nutrition (more often faux-nutrition) labeling and advertising of this- or that-free isn’t key to healthy eating. I do think that the marketers who lead such campaigns benefit from the public’s perception that e.g. sugar-free means low-calorie, or, like with the oft-cited “Snackwell’s effect,” that fat-free means low-calorie or healthy.

Requiring accountability for this particular claim is a small step in a positive direction, though I’m sure that you and I both agree that the FDA needs to restrict the outrageous health claims that are constantly made on food packaging.

Yesterday I saw a case of Diet Coke in a drugstore that claimed Diet Coke as beneficial to daily health – because “research has shown that all beverages are hydrating.” Seems like a silly act of desperation to the nutrition-savvy, but there are undoubtedly consumers out there who are going to feel better about drinking more Diet Coke, since it’s “hydrating.” The box went so far as to say that “Diet Coke can be a part of your daily hydration needs” – encouraging daily soda consumption.

The FDA needs to crack down on ridiculous nutrition claims that are meant to mislead consumers. Even when the claims are factual (all beverages, healthy or not, are liquids and therefore “hydrating”), it’s easy to see when those claims are used to paint an unhealthy food or drink as a healthy one.

I don’t really have a problem with a food labelled “sugar-free” being high in calories, as long as no sugars are added (no HFCS, no corn syrup). For example, I happen to like no-sugar-added pies if I’m eating a commercial pie – not because they’re lower in calories, but because they taste better.

If anything, I think the disclaimer is sometimes more misleading. For example, I have frozen fruit packages that are marked “no sugar added” and “Not a low calorie food.” But I think anyone dieting can probably eat as much frozen fruit as they want… and 70 calories for 3/4 cup of blueberries is “not a low calorie food”??? Something you shouldn’t be eating?