Search results: children's nutrition

Can something like this be nutritionally revolutionary?

Kellogg has just launched this cereal with just 6 grams of sugars per serving—half of what’s in most other cereals aimed at kids.

It’s also lower in sodium, but everything else about it looks pretty much the same:

Will Kellogg put money behind this cereal and market it with the millions it spends to market Froot Loops?   Will it reduce the sugars in its other cereals?  Will other cereal companies do the same?

Or will Scooby Doo suffer the fate of Post’s no-added-sugar and otherwise unsweetened Alpha Bits introduced in around 2005?

Post put no money into marketing the cereal and dropped it after just a few months (Alpha Bits now has 6 grams of sugars per serving).

Let’s give Kellogg some credit for giving this a try.   I’ve looked for Scooby Doo in grocery stores but haven’t been able to find it.

I will watch its fate with great interest.

Update: Thanks to Cara for pointing out that with Scooby Doo, Kellogg adds a cereal to its portfolio that meets requirements of the WIC (USDA’s Women, Infants, and Children’s nutritional support program).  As Jessica, a Kellogg rep explains, “The benefit of this cereal is that it’s WIC eligible and boosts several vitamins and minerals, is low in fat, is a good source of fiber and vitamin D and an excellent source of iron.”

And thanks to an anonymous writer for pointing out that Scooby Doo is directly competing with General Mills’ Dora Explorer cereal for the lucrative WIC market, one that should amount to nearly $7 billion in 2013.  WIC specifies what the benefits can be used to buy.  Cereal companies want to be sure they are in that market.

Reports are coming in on the House hearings on the IWG report recommendations.  The IWG, recall from the previous post, is an Interagency Working Group of four federal agencies attempting to set nutrition standards for foods allowed to be marketed to kids.

This first report comes from Broadcasting & Cable:

The first panel of a joint hearing Wednesday on government-proposed food marketing guidelines featured government officials explaining that the principles, announced last April, are only voluntary recommendations to Congress that industry can ignore if they chose, while legislators, primarily Republicans, countering that they represent Big Brother government intruding into meal planning for families and a focus on marketing, without scientific backing, rather than focusing on more physical activity.

Republican lawmakers, it seems, want more science.  That’s always step one in undermining public health proposals: attack the science.  Subsequent steps, you may recall, include attacking critics, focusing on physical activity, and blaming personal responsibility for obesity and its consequences.

According to Healthwatch, Representative Henry Waxman (Dem-Calif)

Compared Republican defenders of unbridled food marketing to children to past champions of the tobacco industry. [He]  drew parallels between Wednesday’s hearing on proposed voluntary marketing restrictions and a 2003 hearing during which some Republicans promoted the safety of smokeless tobacco.

“I just find this an amazing hearing,” Waxman said. “The only thing I can analogize it to is after all the tobacco issues we discussed for many years, Republicans took charge and we never heard anything more about tobacco. Then, suddenly we had a hearing about tobacco.

And the hearing was about how smokeless tobacco should be encouraged as a way for smokers to give up smoking. It was geared to promoting an industry that no doubt supported financially many of the members. I wonder if this hearing is about the same subject.”

What I find most disturbing is the FTC’s backing down on the recommendations which were agreed upon by four federal agencies and voluntary.  CNN reports that David Vladeck, director of the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection, said:

The coalition of government agencies is “in the midst of making significant revisions” to the original proposal.

Among the changes he suggested are narrowing the age group targeted and focusing on children aged 2 to 11 instead of up to age 17 and allowing marketing of the unhealthier foods at fundraisers and sporting events.

Vladeck also said that his agency would not recommend that companies change packaging or remove brand characters from food products that don’t qualify, as was originally suggested in the guidelines.

“Those elements of packaging, though appealing to children, are also elements of marketing to a broader audience and are inextricably linked to the food’s brand identity,” Vladeck said at the hearing.

This, as I keep pointing out, is about protecting corporate health at the expense of children’s health.

Sad.

I keep hearing rumors that food industry opposition is what is holding up release of the FTC’s position paper on nutrition standards for marketing foods to kids.

I titled my previous post on this report “Standards for marketing foods to kids: tentative, proposed, weak,” because I thought they left far too much wiggle room for companies to market products that I would not exactly call health foods.

Now, Melanie Warner points out that even so, the proposed standards will exclude a great many highly profitable food products.  Hence: food company opposition.

Susan Linn of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood quotes an executive of the food industry’s Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative: “There are very few products, period, that meet these standards, whether they’re primarily consumed by adults or children.”

The food industry has consistently opposed giving the FTC more authority over marketing of foods and supplements.  Here is another reason why this agency needs it.

Update, July 24: The missing FTC report is front-page news!  William Neuman is on the front page of the New York Times with a detailed account of the Federal Trade Commission’s lack of action on food company advertising practices.  The FTC standards were expected last week but nobody seems to know when, if ever, they will be released.

Update, July 30: Here is Colbert’s take on the delaying of FTC standards.

Readers have filed corrections to previous postings on industry-funded studies (see here and here).  I am most grateful for their sharp eyes.  No excuses, but I’m having a hard time keeping them straight because there are so many, some are published first online and then again in print, and sometimes I just get them wrong.  Apologies.

The corrections reduce the count to 132/12.  But here are three more to bring it back up to 135/12.

Management of obesity.  George A Bray, Gema Frühbeck, Donna H Ryan, John P H Wilding.  The Lancet.  Published online February 8, 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00271-3.

• Conclusion: For patients who struggle with weight loss and who would receive health benefit from weight loss, management of medications that are contributing to weight gain and use of approved medications for chronic weight management along with lifestyle changes are appropriate. Medications approved in the USA or European Union are orlistat, naltrexone/bupropion, and liraglutide; in the USA, lorcaserin and phentermine/topiramate are also available. Surgical management (gastric banding, sleeve gastrectomy, and Roux-en Y gastric bypass) can produce remarkable health improvement and reduce mortality for patients with severe obesity.
• Declaration of interests GAB is a consultant to Herbalife International and Medifast; a member of the Speakers Bureau for Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals and Takeda Pharmaceuticals; and receives royalties from Up-to-Date and Handbook of Obesity. GF is a consultant to Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals. DHR is a consultant to Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Eisai Pharmaceuticals, Vivus Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Amgen Pharmaceuticals, Real Appeal, Gila Therapeutics, Tulip Medical, and Scientific Intake; is on the speakers’ bureau for Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Eisai Pharmaceuticals, and Vivus Pharmaceuticals; and has equity ownership in Scientifi c Intake. JPHW received grant funding from Novo Nordisk and AstraZeneca, and is a consultant to Novo Nordisk, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, and Pfi zer Pharmaceuticals.

The effects of potatoes and other carbohydrate side dishes consumed with meat on food intake, glycemia and satiety response in children.  R Akilen, N Deljoomanesh, S Hunschede, CE Smith, MU Arshad, R Kubant and GH Anderson.  Nutrition & Diabetes (2016) 6, e195; doi:10.1038/nutd.2016.1

• Conclusions: The physiological functions of CHO foods consumed ad libitum at meal time on food intake, appetite, BG, insulin and gut hormone responses in children is not predicted by the GI [glycemic index].
• Acknowledgements: This study was supported by the Alliance for Potato Research and Education (APRE).
• Comment: David Ludwig, M.D., PhD says: “Potatoes are at the top of the list for weight gain according to the best epidemiological research studies. A small new study claimed that potatoes actually had beneficial effects on appetite. There’s just one thing: The study was fully funded by the Alliance for Potato Research and Education, whose mission is to ‘recognize the role of all forms of the potato in promoting health for all age groups.’”  Here’s the press release from the Alliance for Potato Research & Education.

Nutrient Intakes and Vegetable and White Potato Consumption by Children Aged 1 to 3 Years.  Maureen L Storey and Patricia A Anderson.  doi: 10.3945/​an.115.008656.  Adv Nutr January 2016 Adv Nutr vol. 7: 241S-246S, 2016.

• Conclusion: The consumption of all vegetables, particularly those that are excellent sources of potassium and DF, such as potatoes, should be encouraged.
• Funding: Presented at the Roundtable on Science and Policy: Adopting a Fruitful Vegetable Encounter for Our Children. The roundtable was sponsored by the USDA/Agricultural Research Service Children’s Nutrition Research Center, Baylor College of Medicine, and was held in Chicago, IL, 10–11 November 2014. The roundtable and supplement publication were supported by an unrestricted grant from the Alliance for Potato Research and Education. The roundtable speakers received travel funding and an honorarium for participation in the meeting and manuscript preparation. Author disclosures: ML Storey is a paid employee of the Alliance for Potato Research and Education; PA Anderson is a paid consultant for the Alliance for Potato Research and Education.
• Comment: Potato trade associations must be really worried about views like those of Dr. Ludwig.  Personally, I love potatoes and think they are delicious but should be eaten in moderation of course, and not in the form of French fries.  Speculation: I wonder if frequent consumption of French fries could be a marker of unhealthful diets in general?

A few weeks ago,  the FDA announced  volunary recalls of  3 brands of baby pouches containing apple sauce with cinnamon, because they contained excess lead.

Lead is poisonous to children’s nervous systems and brain development; there is no safe level of lead intake.

DO NOT LET YOUR KIDS EAT THESE PRODUCTS!

The FDA inspected the plant in Ecuador where cinnamon apple sauce is made; the amounts of lead were shockingly high.  Food Safety News reports:

The applesauce, sold in pouches packaged for children, has been found to have a lead content of 5110 parts per million (ppm) and 2270 ppm. The international Codex body is considering adopting a maximum level of 2.5 ppm for lead in bark spices, including cinnamon.

What is even more shocking about this situation is how the FDA found out about the lead—not by testing but because

…a developing investigation by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services and the North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services [found] about four children with elevated blood lead levels, indicating potential acute lead toxicity.

The state investigation identified WanaBana apple cinnamon fruit puree pouches as a potential shared source of exposure. As part of their investigation, the department of health and human services analyzed multiple lots of WanaBana apple cinnamon fruit puree, detecting extremely high concentrations of lead.

The FDA then announced it was investigating cinnamon as a source of the lead.

It traced the cinnamon to a supplier in Ecuador.

The FDA suspects that somewhere along the supply chain, someone deliberately added lead to the cinnamon to maintain its color and increase its weight.

This reminds me of the addition of Chinese melamine to pet food and infant formula in 2006 and 2007 (I wrote about the pet food scandal in Pet Food Politics: The Chihuahua in the Coal Mine).

This also points to the need for strengthening the FDA.  It is not required to test products for lead and neither are manufacturers.

The FDA has proposed action levels for lead in foods, but these are neither final nor implemented.

The New York Times quoted Tom Neltner, safety expert at the Environmental Defense Fund:

That the levels of lead in children’s blood tends to be the first line of detection for lead in food is “effectively using kids as canaries…What this shows is a breakdown in the agency, and an industry that needs to be fixed.”

By industry, I’m assuming he means baby food and I could not agree more.

Pouches may be convenient for parents, but they promote sweet tastes and don’t teach kids how to eat real foods.  One study concluded:

Squeeze pouch products available in Australia are nutritionally poor, high in sugars, not fortified with iron, and there is a clear risk of harm tothe health of infant and young children if these products are fed regularly. The marketing messages and labelling on squeeze pouches are misleading and do not support WHO or Australian NHMRC recommendations for breastfeeding or appropriate introduction of complementary foods and labelling of products. There is an urgent need for improved regulation of product composition, serving sizes and labelling to protect infants and young children aged 0–36 months and better inform parents.

That goes for U.S. products too.

Caveat emptor.

I saw this question on The Lunch Tray, Bettina Siegel’s column on Substack.

Turns out that lots of people have no idea what’s in these things.

That’s what my NYU colleague Jennifer Pomeranz and Jennifer Harris of the University of Connecticut’s Rudd Center found in their recent study,  Misperceptions about added sugar, non-nutritive sweeteners and juice in popular children’s drinks: Experimental and cross-sectional study with U.S. parents of young children (1-5 years)

Their overall finding: Most parents in their survey did not know what was in these drinks.

• 62% could not identify most drinks that contained diet sweeteners, even when shown the information panel with nutrition and ingredient information.
• Parents overestimated the average percent juice content in sugar-sweetened drinks, believing that these drinks contained 22% juice, when they actually contained 3% juice on average.
• Even with the nutrition information and ingredient list on the information panel, 53% incorrectly believed that unsweetened 100% juice and/or juice/water blends contained added sugar.
• Parents were more likely to believe that statements of identity with the words “natural” and “water beverage” meant the drink did not contain added sugar or diet sweeteners and did contain juice, although they are commonly used on children’s flavored water drinks that contain added sugar, diet sweeteners, and no juice.

These drinks are confusing (deliberately, I’m guessing) and it’s understandable why their contents are obscure.

The authors recommendation is a  good one, in my view.

Put on the front label of juice drinks:

• Added sugars (this is currently buried in the Nutrition Facts label)
• Diet sweeteners
• Juice content

Foods marketed to kids are an enormously profitable enterprise, but most foods marketed to kids are ultraprocessed junk foods.  Companies are scrambling to come up with profitable food items for kids that might actually be good for them.  Hence: “healthy” kids food.

By the way, kids don’t need special foods designed for them; they are perfectly capable of eating anything that adults eat, cut or smashed to size and in smaller portions, of course.

This collection of articles is from FoodNavigator.com, an industry newsletter that I find highly informative.

Special Edition: Healthy kids food

From fussy eaters, to early years nutrition, allergies and healthy snacks for kids, we take a look at the latest developments in children’s food and profile innovation for the next generation.

• Danone talks early life nutrition: The first 1,000 days can influence health for a lifetime:  Early life nutrition – from pregnancy to around two years – is a ‘critical period’ that can ‘positively influence health for a lifetime’, Danone Senior Medical Affairs Manager of Specialised Nutrition UK & Ireland, Zoe Ellis, tells FoodNavigator. What research, trends and opportunities does the French food giant believe will shape future innovation?.. Read
• Fruit snacks under fire: Is Action on Sugar’s call for ‘honest labelling’ justified?  Action on Sugar wants a ban on the use of claims such as ‘one of your five a day’, ‘naturally occurring sugars’ or ‘made from real fruit’ on fruit snacks for children that can contain the equivalent of five teaspoons of sugar. Are these misleading or truthful statements?.. Read
• Bite-sized NPD: The latest in kids snacking to hit UK shelves:  How can brands encourage children to eat ‘healthier’ snacks? Nestlé’s approach is to create breakfast cereal in the shape of a bear, Cadbury is shrinking its portion sizes to cut calories, and Kellogg is personalising covers on Corn Flakes and Rice Krispies. Swipe through the photo gallery for the latest innovations in bite-sized NPD… Display
• Children with food allergies face ‘staggering’ lack of choice:  With one in 40 kids suffering from cow’s milk allergy alone, and with food allergies more prevalent in children than adults, food companies are way behind in servicing the demand for healthy free-from children’s products, says the founder of UK dairy-free children’s brand Little Bandits… Read
• Challenger baby food brand spots gap for ‘truly organic’ premium baby formula:  Piccolo is countering falling baby food sales in the UK as a whole by successfully tapping into the desire for ‘truly organic’ baby products from consumers prepared to pay a premium for it… Read
• Baby food sector is neglecting infants’ nutritional needs, says start-up:  Little Tummy hopes to disrupt the UK baby food sector with paediatrician-developed meals with more micronutrients and less sugar than other brands on the market… Read
• Milking it? Free school milk under fire from plant-based backers:  A group of UK doctors has hit out at the provision of milk in schools arguing dairy is ‘not an essential part of school nutrition’. But do their claims about health and sustainability stack up – or would children lose out?.. Read
• Kids most exposed to junk food advertising in France, finds public health agency:  A fresh study has revealed that children in France are most exposed to advertising for products with a Nutri-Score ranking of D and E – meaning foods of lower nutritional quality. The findings, says Santé Publique France, support the need for food marketing restrictions… Read
• Study: Kids’ ‘pester power’ can promote healthy family eating habits:  Could children’s pester power (the influence kids have over their family’s eating behaviors) be a force for promoting positive and healthy eating behaviors at home?.. Read
• Children and adolescents are ‘less sensitive’ to sweet taste: study:  Children and adolescents are less sensitive to sweet taste than adults, new research finds… Read
• Pester power: ‘Peppa Pig, Disney, and Star Wars have no place on unhealthy food and drink’:  The association of cartoon characters with HFSS food and drink must end, according to a fresh report out of the UK which has called on parents to share their view on child-friendly marketing… Read

And while we are on the subject of “healthy” kids foods, what about what General Mills is doing?

General Mills is bringing back its classic recipes for four of its cereals: Cocoa Puffs, Golden Grahams, Cookie Crisp and Trix, according to a release. This reformulation back to retro ’80s recipes is permanent and is now available at retailers nationwide.

Just what kids do not need.  Sigh.

On World Obesity Day, I posted links to three recent reports.

An editorial in The Lancet made me realize that I had not read this one nearly carefully enough.  It deserves careful reading.

It comes from Sallie Davies, who just stepped down as Britain’s Chief Medical Officer.  In another Lancet piece, she and her colleagues insist that children have a right to live in a healthy environment:

Today, government legislation is necessary not simply because we have an obligation to protect vulnerable children, but because children have rights. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), the most widely ratified international human rights treaty, sets out children’s rights to protection, education, health and health care, shelter, and good nutrition…a child rights approach requires us to recognise childhood obesity as the responsibility of the state and as an issue that must be addressed across society…It is time to address childhood obesity as a rights issue.

In her report, she insists that government should enact legislation to ensure a healthy food environment; Annex A lists recommendations:

• Increase taxes on sugary drinks
• Require product reformulation to reduce sugar and calories
• Tax unhealthy foods
• Label calories
• Provide free drinking water
• Remove tax exemptions for advertising
• Phase out marketing of unhealthy products
• Ban eating and drinking on public transport
• Only permit healthy options at sports facilities
• Promote smaller portion sizes

Her report also suggests ways to promote physical activity.

Worth a try?  I think so.