Food Politics

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Marion Nestle, SF Sustainable Food, Bret Thorn, Sarah Isenberg, sarah h. and others. sarah h. said: RT @FoodWriterDiary: RT @marionnestle: The 2010 Dietary Guidelines: Enjoy your food, but eat less!: http://bit.ly/dVOr8e [...]

This is great news. Whilst I would not approve of their guidelines to the letter, it’s really good that they’re moving in the right direction.

At the end of the day, this is the best that could be hoped for from the government. There are too many interests and too much conservatism to come out and say what they really know about what we should and shouldn’t be eating.

Wow, that sounds like actual progress to me!

In regards to the focus on personal responsibility, the DGAC provided some insight on what may be done in order to help Americans make healthy personal decisions.

Here are some quotes:

“The DGAC also hopes that the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans will encourage the food industry to grow, manufacture, and sell foods that promote health and contribute to appropriate energy balance.”

“Because approximately 75 percent of dietary sodium is added during food processing, food manufacturers and restaurant industries have a critically important role in reducing the sodium intake.”

On the failure to reduce obesity: “Substantial, high-level barriers appear to impede achievement of these goals, including certain government regulations and policies. Chief among these are land use policy and economic incentives for food manufacturers.”

On creating a better food environment: “Emphasis could be placed on increased production of vegetables and fruit and a shift in manufacturing toward more whole grains (specifically high-fiber, whole wheat products) and fewer refined grain products.”

On truth in labeling: “There is urgent need for an international definition for whole grain and methods to measure the whole grain content of foods (Frolich & Aman, 2010).”

On the inadequacy of relying on individual consumer decisions: “A comprehensive approach is needed. The food industry will need to act to help Americans achieve these goals. Every aspect of the industry, from research and development to production and retail, needs to contribute healthful food. Sound health and wellness policies at the local, state, and national level also can help facilitate these changes.”

On what the government can do to help children: “Develop and enforce effective policies regarding marketing of food and beverage products to children.”

A taste for independent research: “Conduct feeding studies using cholesterol from sources other than eggs and funded by non- industry sponsors.”

I do not like the “Eat Less” message. That message, along with Exercise More has failed.

First, I say: “Eat more” of the proper foods and a lot of it. And, people who are eating in a healthy/proper manner know this to be true.

Try this experiment: Tell an overweight person that to lose weight they should eat less. Here’s what that implies: deprivation and willpower. Um. that’s the reason for such a high failure rate … you can only use willpower and deprivation for a short time-frame.

So, I recommend eating more of the right foods and never go hungry. Snack, snack, snack … but not on Snickers, Snackwells, and Skittles.

Ken Leebow
http://www.HighSatiety.net

Although the general outline seems sensible at first glance, one detail caught my attention: the USDA/HHS guidelines now recommend the lower sodium limit of 1500 mg/day for people 51 and over. Maybe I’m wrong, but wasn’t this “40 and over” in the last round of guidelines? A 10-year delay in implementing the shift means a lot more cases of incipient and actual hypertension and kidney disease in the population as a whole. I have to wonder whether the higher starting age was a way to keep the processed food and restaurant industries happy–people 40-50 are a big chunk of their target audience. And the USDA wasn’t exactly emphasizing the other main lower-sodium criterion, overweight. If 2 out of 3 adults, say age 20 and over, are overweight, really the majority of everyone should be going for less than 2000 mg sodium per day. You simply can’t do that while eating at a chain restaurant or eating from the middle aisles at the supermarket.

[...] nutrition professor Marion Nestle praises that first bit of “enjoy … but eat less” advice on her Food Politics blog, noting that it’s the first time the guidelines, which are produced [...]

[...] in shock,” writes Marion Nestle, an author and New York University professor who has followed these proceedings and written about [...]

About “middle-aged”–you’re right, the USDA guidelines from 2005 didn’t specify 40 and up for the low-sodium group, but according to the CDC MMWR report this June (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5924a4.htm) the NHANES 2005-6 study on sodium intake from the same years divided the risk and recommendation groups that way and cited the USDA guidelines in the box with the two-tiered study setup. When I was at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in the mid-1990s, 40-and-up was our working definition of “middle-aged” for the lower-sodium recommendation, and I think that was based at least in part on the NHANES III (and earlier) data.

So what, specifically, were the (perhaps dodgy) reasons given for avoiding the meat question?

[...] “Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition at New York University and a critic of government nutrition guidance” (PhD UC Berkeley molec bio; MPH public health nutrition, also UCB) [...]

Definitely not a fan of the switching to MORE heavily processed milk products. I am amazes they even mentioned refined grains, but sad they want to label the Whole Grain content of foods. How about labeling when its NOT whole grain or would that be to easily understandable. People still don’t get that whole grains are only good IN PLACE OF refined grains… not in and of themselves.

@ Ken Leebow

Sorry, Ken, but in order to lose weight, people HAVE TO EAT LESS.
You can eat all the healthy foods you want, but if you exceed the amount of calories that your body needs, then you will not lose weight. For instance, I only eat half an apple usually, even though I’d like to have the whole thing–but that would put me over my daily limit, and if I do that every day, I will soon add a pound, and over time–well, you see where that goes.

You can CHOOSE how to think of that. I think of it as health, fewer medications, normal blood sugar, better cholesterol and blood pressure readings. That’s not deprivation, its just good sense. Clothing fitting better is nice too!

I would much rather continue my “deprivation” than return to my former fat self and all the pills and self-loathing! It’s great to eat healthy food, but too much of it will make you just as fat as the junk. All things considered, you’d be better off eating better food, but maintaining a healthy weight is the very best thing you can do for your health.

It’s really not that hard to eat less. You adjust rather quickly and soon wonder how you ever used to eat so much! Once you lose weight, you can make some exceptions and give yourself a “free” day here and there (once a week if you don’t go crazy).

=======

@ Michael Bulger

What is DGAC? Sorry, I feel really silly, but can’t place this acronym.

=======

@Marion

Saw that you were quoted in NY Times where I saw this announcement first. I think your work and perseverance have contributed to this much improved result. Keep it up!

What about the fact that “low fat” diets are proven to be much less successful than “low carbohydrate diets”? Not only are research participants and patients more satiated on a higher-fat diet, but they end up eating LESS CALORIES overtime (even when allowed to eat ad libitum), and most importantly: low-carb/high-fat dieters lose the most weight, long-term. Not to mention the fact that full-fat dairy is linked to less heart disease (plus the fat has all the good nutrients).

Needless to say, the dietary recommendations are still based on old, incorrect nutritional assumptions about food. Until the government starts using science, and not politics, to decide its recommendations, it will continue to set the American public up for failure and continued weight gain.

some sources:

http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v64/n6/abs/ejcn201045a.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21118562

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html

@Anthro:

Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. They write a report (which was published in 6/10), the USDA opens it up for public comment (and industry lobbying) and then offers the shortened, edited, and revised guidelines as the official Dietary Guidelines.

The original report was some 700 pages long, but it really is a great read if you’re interested. I found it quite informative. Here is a link to a downloadable .pdf: https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzhNaP8jBl4rYjc1Y2RhNDMtMDYxZi00NzcwLTg5NGQtNTRlZGNmYzk1YjIw&hl=en

It might also be fun to search through it for your favorite nutrition subjects. Enjoy.

[...] The 2010 Dietary Guidelines: Enjoy your food, but eat less! (Food Politics) Drink water instead of sugary drinks. That’s a brave thing to say. But the guidelines are afraid to say “eat less meat.” And they’re all about personal responsibility. What about the “toxic” food, obesogenic environment. [...]

I’m working my way through Food Politics and have been pretty
despondent and helpless regarding what could be done about the food industry juggernaut. Then I read this morning’s NY Times
about “eat less” finally making it into the Guidelines. Still feeling rather hepless though.

@Anthro -

I’m sorry sir but you can certainly eat as much broccoli as you want and lose weight. Cauliflower, zucchini, spaghetti squash, peppers, spinach… eat them until you can’t move. Count all you other calories. You will lose weight. Cut out sugar and refined grains you’ll lose more. Cut out fructose, even more.

@Cynthia: Write to your representatives in government and ask them to regulate the industry on behalf of consumers. Donate to or volunteer with an advocacy group of your choice. I find one of the most satisfying things is shopping for healthy food and making good decisions for myself.

One of my favorite quotes of all time is from Margaret Mead. “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

This is good progress, but unfortunately the political aspect of it still trumps the nutritional clarity that is needed for American’s to actually eat more of the healthy foods that will help reduce the prevalence of obesity (not to mention all the other health disparities that arise from obesity).
Clarity is needed, not a bunch of mumbo-jumbo “eat-less” or “eat more” of non-specific nutrients and foods. Can’t you see that hasn’t been working with the increasing rate of obesity since the 80′s?
Yes this is a good step in a good direction, but the social forces haven’t been addressed; personal accountability goes down the drain about a month or two into the New Year along with fitness and diet goals.
Address the social forces, make the industries that produce these products (solely for profit only) accountable (it helped with the smoking trend), and maybe, maybe the obesity trend will start to decline!

[...] • Enjoy your food, but eat less. - Food Politics [...]

[...] writer and activist Marion Nestle has a good post parsing the just-released USDA 2010 food guidelines: Here are the take-home messages: Balancing [...]

I was actually very sad to see Marion on the low-fat, anti meat bandwagon here. So much for eating real food. Ironically, Marion criticizes the report for euphemisms, but in reality, “low fat” is a euphemism for processed foods and a demonization of real healthy foods. So much for her support of the slow foods movement. Frankly, if a crackpot vegan activist like Neal Barnard is agreeing with you, you can be pretty certain that you are wrong.

People who eat real foods, and that includes saturated fat, are healthier than people on low fat diets. Here is one of many studies showing exactly that:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/08/03/128958420/low-carb-diet-matches-low-fat-diet-results—-with-a-heart-bonus

By demonizing real food, Marion makes herself the enemy of small scale, sustainable farmers growing real food across America.

I like Michael Pollan’s iteration: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

[...] “- Enjoy your food, but eat less.” and related posts (foodpolitics.com) [...]

[...] The 2010 Dietary Guidelines: Enjoy your food, but eat less! (Marion Nestle at Food Politics) [...]

Being late to the game and not to pick on Mr. Coats, I’m going to confine myself to his comments.

1. I think obesity is a societal problem. Helicopter parents, 24/7 news cycle that leaves the impression that every child alone on the street is kidnap bait. “Protecting” children by keeping them inside after school and in the early evenings; driving them ever which where.

2. Why do we need ‘clarity?’ And why are food producers responsible for infinitely detailed labeling? A broad message was sent far and wide yonks ago. Kcals in, Kcals out. I get ample info from product labeling of processed foods. Don’t you? What more do you need? People who care about this stuff read labels. People who don’t… well, just don’t.

3. Of course industries look for profit (it’s their mandate to care for their stockholders’ interests). That doesn’t make them part of an Evil Empire. If I make cookies and sell them to you, it’d be nice to get more from you than I put into ingredients and account for my labor. If I buy widgets from you, I’d expect the same.

4. Watch out for the smoking trend. The nation has a financial need for at least 22 million smokers to continue funding education, SCHIP and Dog knows what else. Following that thought, if smokers are banned from public venues (I’ve problems with proprietors’ rights here) why can’t the obese be banned from fast food venues? As an aside, the smoking rates have leveled off at approx 24% of adult smokers. More taxes are confiscatory and rather cruel. A vast majority of smokers have relatively low incomes. There’s something wrong with this picture. It’s my impression that a significantly higher percentage of overweight people are of a lower socioeconomic standard. Seems like lighting another candle in the row of Pigovian taxes. Latest is proposed taxes on various sugary drinks. Enough already.

Again, Mr. Coats, I’m not picking on you. Just addressing your pointed and informative comments.

[...] “- Enjoy your food, but eat less.” and related posts (foodpolitics.com) [...]

Yes, obese people are obese because they are gluttonous and slothful. They eat too much and move too little. Right? So we can feel morally superior if we aren’t obese, because we haven’t succumbed to the sins of gluttony and sloth.

On the other hand, maybe people move less because all the food energy they ingest is moved quickly into fat cells, so they don’t have any energy for moving around and exercising. And of course at the same time, because their calories are stored immediately as fat, they’re hungry all the time, even after they eat.

And then we blithely come along and tell them to just eat less, unaware, or uncaring of the fact that all the signals they are getting from their bodies is that they are starving. And we tell them to get off the couch and jog, ignoring the fact that they literally don’t have the caloric resources to do so, as all the calories they eat are locked away in their fat cells.

Oh, and if we do get them to exercise, they get even hungrier, so the signals to eat more are even stronger. And if we haven’t changed how their bodies store or burn calories, exercising doesn’t work, and just telling them to eat less doesn’t work either. And that’s not opinion, that’s fact and proven time after time.

You don’t get fat because you eat too much, you eat too much because you have gotten fat. How did that happen? I leave that to the reader to investigate what factors might cause that biochemical/bioenergetic malfunction, and what might mitigate and rebalance it.