Search results: dietary guidelines

The World Health Organization (WHO) released two reports within the last week aimed at preventing noncommunicable diseases.  Although the second is all about reducing sugar intake, the first report is about everything but.

1.  The Global Status Report on Noncommunicable Diseases, 2014.* 

The WHO press release points out that the report calls for:

more action to be taken to curb the epidemic, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, where deaths due to NCDs are overtaking those from infectious diseases. Almost three quarters of all NCD deaths (28 million), and 82% of the 16 million premature deaths, occur in low- and middle-income countries.

How?  By working to achieve 9 targets:

• Target 1: A 25% relative reduction in risk of premature mortality from CVDs, cancer, diabetes, chronic respiratory diseases.
• Target 2: At least 10% relative reduction in the harmful use of alcohol, as appropriate, within the national context.
• Target 3: A 10% relative reduction in prevalence of insufficient physical activity.
• Target 4: A 30% relative reduction in mean population intake of salt/sodium.
• Target 5: A 30% relative reduction in prevalence of current tobacco use in persons aged 15+ years.
• Target 6: A 25% relative reduction in the prevalence of raised blood pressure or contain the prevalence of raised blood pressure, according to national circumstances.
• Target 7: Halt the rise in diabetes and obesity.
• Target 8: At least 50% of eligible people receive drug therapy and counselling (including glycaemic control) to prevent heart attacks and strokes.
• Target 9: An 80% availability of the affordable basic technologies and essential medicines, including generics, required to treat major NCDs in both public and private facilities.

Don’t dietary sugars have something to do with diabetes and obesity?  How come no specific target?  This is especially odd in light of the second report.

2. Guideline: Sugars Intake for Adults and Children [see updated, revised publication released March 2015]

The WHO makes three recommendations about intake of added (“free”) sugars:

• A reduced intake of free sugars throughout the lifecourse (strong recommendation).
• Reducing the intake of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake (strong recommendation).
• A further reduction of the intake of free sugars to below 5% of total energy intake (conditional recommendation)

Why no target for sugar reduction to 10% of energy  in the first report?

The omission is glaring.  Could politics be involved?  It’s hard to think of any other explanation.

WHO needs to speak with one voice on NCD targets, guidelines, and recommendations.

* Along with the NCD target report, WHO also released:

• Noncommunicable diseases country profiles 2014
• Fact sheet on noncommunicable diseases
• More on noncommunicable diseases

**Thanks to Dr. Karen Sokal-Gutierrez for alerting me to the lack of a sugar target.

The FDA is taking comments on label proposals until August 1 (see info at end of post).  Here’s mine on voluntary vitamin D labeling.

July 17, 2014

TO:  FDA

FROM:  Marion Nestle, Professor, New York University

RE:  Proposed revision to Nutrition Facts Panel: VITAMIN D

This is to argue against permitting food companies to voluntarily label added “Vitamin” D on the Nutrition Facts panel.  Doing so will not promote—and may possibly harm–public health.

Rationale

• “Vitamin” D is not a vitamin; it is a hormone synthesized by the action of sunlight on skin.  For this reason alone, it does not belong on the food label.
• Vitamin D fortification must be understood as a form of hormone replacement therapy.   As such, it raises questions about efficacy, dose, and side effects that should be asked about all such therapies.
• Fortification and supplementation provide hormone Vitamin D by the oral route.  This is not physiological.  Active vitamin D is synthesized in the body through a series of reactions that begin with the action of sunlight on skin.  Sunlight on skin produces ample Vitamin D, is regulated to promote synthesis as needed and avoid toxicity, and may lead to synthesis of other useful biological components; the unphysiologic oral route does not produce the same benefits.[i]
• As a hormone, Vitamin D is found naturally in very few foods (e.g., fish); in them, it is present in small amounts.  It is present in most foods as a result of fortification.
• Permitting Vitamin D to be listed on food labels will encourage fortification, undoubtedly of foods that would not otherwise necessarily be recommended.  To cite just one example: Yum Bunny Caramel Milk Spread fortified with vitamin D at 10% of the DV.  This product is half sugars by weight, marketed as “a good source of calcium and vitamin D,” and clearly aimed at children. See: http://www.yumbunny.com/about-us.   Whether such products should be considered “good sources” also deserves scrutiny.
• The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes that evidence is insufficient to determine how Vitamin D supplementation (and, therefore, fortification) affects fracture incidence.[ii]^,[iii],[iv] 
• Data from the Women’s Health Initiative also are consistent with largely inconclusive findings about hormone Vitamin D supplements and bone health.[v]
• The Institute of Medicine (IOM) does not consider deficiency of Vitamin D to be a serious problem in the United States, except among certain population groups.  Instead, because of widespread fortification and supplementation, it is concerned about the possibility of adverse consequences from overconsumption through supplementation or fortification.[vi]
• Many scientific debates about hormone Vitamin D are as yet unresolved.[vii]^,[viii]  
• The lack of compelling research has permitted Vitamin D to become “trendy.”  It is advertised on boxes of fortified cereals, has its own pro-supplement advocacy group, and generates millions in annual supplement sales.[ix]

In the absence of stronger evidence for benefit from fortification, and some evidence for possible adverse consequences, the FDA should not contribute to further commercialization of this misnamed hormone by permitting it to be listed on food labels.

References

[i] Wacker M, Holick MF.  Sunlight and Vitamin D: A global perspective for health. Dermato-Endocrinology 2013;5(1):51–108.

[ii] Cranney A, Horsley T, O’Donnell S, Weiler H, Puil L, Ooi D, et al.  Effectiveness and safety of vitamin D in relation to bone health. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 158. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2007.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK38410. Accessed February 5, 2013.

[iii] Chung M, Balk EM, Brendel M, Ip S, Lau J, Lee J, et al  Vitamin D and calcium: a systematic review of health outcomes. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 183. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2009.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK32603/. Accessed February 5, 2013.

[iv] Chung M, Lee J, Terasawa T, Lau J, Trikalinos T. Vitamin D with or without calcium supplementation for prevention of cancer and fractures: an updated meta-analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(12):827-38.

[v] Prentice RL, Pettinger MB, Jackson RD, Wactawski-Wende J, LaCroix AZ, Anderson GL, et al.  Health risks and benefits from calcium and vitamin D supplementation: Women’s Health Initiative clinical trial and cohort study.  Osteoporosis Int.  2013;24(2):567-580.

[vi] Institute of Medicine.  Dietary Reference Intakes: Calcium, Vitamin D.  Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2011.

[vii] Rosen, Clifford J,  Abrams, Steven A,  Aloia John F. et al.  IOM Committee members respond to endocrine society vitamin D guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97:1146-1152.

[viii] Holick, Michael F,  Brinkley Neil C, Heike, A et al  Guidelines for preventing and treating vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency revisited.  J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97:1153-1158.

[ix] Much growth in vitamin sales driven by vitamin D.  Nutr Business J. 2009;14(6/7):5.

Here’s how to file comments:

The proposed revisions are to:

• Nutrition and Supplement Facts Labels
• Serving Sizes 

The FDA makes it very easy to file comments. It provides:

• All necessary information in one place.
• A short guide and checklist

File comments here

• Nutrition and Supplement Facts Label: Docket FDA-2012-N-1210  Comment here now
• Serving Sizes: Docket FDA-2004-N-0258  Comment here now

While I’m on the topic of sugars (see yesterday’s post), the World Health Organization (WHO) has just called for public comment on proposed new guidelines for intake of “free” (added) sugars:

• Added sugar intake should be less than 10% of total calories per day (50 grams for a 2000 calorie-a-day diet)
• Intake below 5% of calories would confer additional benefits (25 grams)

Although the announcement casually mentions that the draft guidelines reaffirm a previous WHO sugar guideline from 2002, it just as casually fails to mention what happened to that guideline.

I, however, have perfect recall, particularly because I wrote about these events in the Afterword to the 2013 edition of Food Politics:

In the early 2000s, the World Health Organization (WHO) began work on a global strategy to reduce risk factors for chronic disease, obesity among them. In 2003, it published a research report that advised restricting intake of “free” (added) sugars to 10% or less of daily calories. Although this percentage was similar to that embedded in the USDA’s 1992 Pyramid (7–13% of calories, depending on total intake), sugar industry groups strenuously objected, enlisted senators from sugar-growing states to pressure the DHHS secretary to withdraw funding from WHO, and induced the DHHS chief counsel to send a critique of the report to WHO that had essentially been written by industry lobbyists. When released in 2004, WHO’s Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity, and Health omitted any mention of the background report or the 10% sugar recommendation.

“Strenuously objected” vastly understates what happened.

Why was the sugar industry so concerned?  One 12-ounce Coke or Pepsi contains about 40 grams of sugars.  Have one, and you’ve just about done your added sugars for the day.

WHO must either think that the research basis of the 10% sugar guideline is much stronger now (see references below), or that the political landscape has shifted so far in the direction of reducing sugar intake that governments will ignore industry groups this time.

I’m not so sure.  I think WHO needs all the help it can get with this one.

Submit comments here.  Now!

References

Reports commissioned by WHO

• Dietary sugars and body weight: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies
• Effect on caries of restricting sugars intake: Systematic review to inform WHO guidelines

What happened to the previous guideline

• Waxman A. The WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health: the controversy on sugar. Development 2004;47:75–82
• Zarocostas J. WHO waters down draft strategy on diet and health. Lancet 2004;363:1373.
• Kaiser J.  The man behind the memos.  Science 2004;305:1552-1553.

The American Journal of Hypertension has published a series of point-counterpoint articles on the salt debate: are public health campaigns to reduce sodium intake warranted by the data?  Public health agencies argue yes.Others argue to the contrary.

This debate is not easily resolved, mainly because everyone eats a high-salt diet; most salt is already in processed and restaurant foods and eaters have no choice.

So the issue really becomes one of whether it makes any difference to high blood pressure to reduce high salt intakes and, if so, to what level—questions difficult to answer with current methods.

Introduction

The Salt Discourse in 2013
Theodore A. Kotchen

CDC Response

Sodium Reduction Is a Public Health Priority: Reflections on the Institute of Medicine’s Report,Sodium Intake in Populations: Assessment of Evidence
Janelle P. Gunn, Jessica L. Barron, Barbara A. Bowman, Robert K. Merritt, Mary E. Cogswell, Sonia Y. Angell, Ursula E. Bauer, and Thomas R. Frieden

NYC DOHMH Response

Getting the Message Right: Reducing Sodium Intake Saves Lives
Jenifer E. Clapp, Christine J. Curtis, Susan M. Kansagra, and Thomas A. Farley

Editorial

The IOM Report Fails To Detect Evidence to Support Dietary Sodium Guidelines
Michael H. Alderman and Hillel W. Cohen

Researcher Responses

Physiology, Not Policy, Drives Sodium Intake 
David A. McCarron

Extreme Sodium Reductions for the Entire Population: Zealotry or Evidence Based?
Andrew Mente, Martin J. O’Donnell, and Salim Yusuf

Flawed Evidence Should Not Derail Sound Policy: The Case Remains Strong for Population-Wide Sodium Reduction
Lawrence J. Appel and Paul K. Whelton

Sodium: How and How Not to Set a Nutrient Intake Recommendation
Robert P. Heaney

Here’s another one of those occasional queries from Kerry Trueman.  This one, posted at Huffington, is about FDA regulations for labeling sugars.

Trueman: I’ve just begun to sink my teeth into Michael Moss’s extraordinary food industry exposé, Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us, a book you’ve rightly lauded as a “breathtaking feat of reporting.” As Moss points out, the FDA is happy to give us guidelines on how much salt and fat to include in our daily diets, but–as a glance at any nutritional label shows–they’ve declined to make any recommendation at all about sugar.

Does this mean that:

(a) It’s OK to eat as much sugar as you like, or:

(b) There may be an unsafe level of sugar consumption, but the FDA just doesn’t have the resources to figure out what that level is, or:

(c) The FDA knows how much sugar we can eat without harming our health, but the food industry won’t let them tell us.

How is the average American supposed to interpret this absence of information?

Nestle: Whoa. Slow down. Let’s back up a minute. The FDA sets nutritional standards for food labels, but the Institute of Medicine (IOM) sets nutritional standards for dietary intake. To understand what’s happening with the FDA and food labels, we have to talk about what the IOM used to call the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) but now calls Dietary Reference Intakes (which, confusingly, include RDAs and other standards, such as Upper Limits).

In 2002, the IOM set standards for total carbohydrates–sugars and starches (which are converted to sugars in the body). In its review of the evidence, the IOM set the RDA for total carbohydrates at 130 grams a day (roughly 4 ounces) to meet the needs of the brain for fuel. This amount is much less than typically consumed by adults.

As for sugars, the IOM noted that the average intake of sugars among adolescent males was 143 grams per day, and that the heaviest users were consuming 208 grams per day–much more than the amount of total carbohydrate needed.

Since sugars are not required nutrients, the IOM could not set an RDA. And although it did not have enough evidence to set an Upper Limit, the IOM suggested that the maximum level of intake of added sugars (as opposed to those naturally present in foods) should be a whopping 25% or less of calories.

Americans typically consume around 20% of calories from added sugars. Taken at face value, the IOM suggestion made it sound as if current intake levels were just fine. The sugar industry happily viewed 25% as a recommendation, not a maximum.

Before the sugar industry got after them, many countries recommended an upper level of sugar intake at 10% of calories. That’s what the U.S. Pyramid did in 1992.

The sugar industry does not like the 10% recommendation. It means, for example, that just one of Mayor Bloomberg’s 16-ounce sodas takes care of recommended sugar intake for the day.

Robert Lustig, who is largely concerned about what too much fructose does to us, thinks that 50 grams of sugar (sucrose or HFCS) is a reasonable Upper Limit for most people. This would provide 25 grams of fructose, which the body can handle with relative ease. What’s interesting about his cut point is that it means 200 calories a day, or 10% of calories for a 2000 calorie diet. So there we are at 10% of calories again.

If the FDA wanted to be helpful, it could do two things.

1. Require companies to list added sugars under the carbohydrate category on food labels.

2. Set a DV for sugars at 50 grams.

In the meantime, everyone would be healthier eating less sugar. 

Malden Nesheim and I wrote an editorial for the Annals of Internal Medicine that has just gone online, and is likely to elicit plenty of discussion.  We comment on the highly conservative, evidence-based recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force for taking supplements of calcium and vitamin D as a means to prevent osteoporosis.

Our commentary: “To Supplement or Not to Supplement: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations on Calcium and Vitamin D.”  Here’s what we said:

In this issue, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) plunges headlong into ongoing debates about whether healthy adults—those who show no signs of vitamin D deficiency or osteoporosis—should be advised to take combined supplements of calcium and vitamin D to prevent bone fractures and, if so, at what level (1).

In terse statements unlikely to settle the debates, the Task Force states first that insufficient evidence makes it impossible to determine how supplementation affects fracture incidence in men or premenopausal women. Next, it deals with postmenopausal women. For this group, the Task Force says that evidence is insufficient to assess the effects of daily supplementation with greater than 400 IU of vitamin D₃ and greater than 1000 mg of calcium. The Task Force’s unambiguous conclusion: Supplementation at or below those levels does not prevent fractures. Because supplementation at or below 400 IU of vitamin D₃ and 1000 mg of calcium seems to convey a slightly increased risk for renal stones, the USPSTF recommendation for postmenopausal women is also unambiguous: “do not supplement.”

The Task Force based these decisions on 2 commissioned evidence reviews and a meta-analysis  (2 – 4). More recent data from the Women’s Health Initiative also are consistent with inconclusive findings, except among a subgroup of long-adherent supplement recipients who experienced a reduced risk for hip—but not total—fractures (5).

The Task Force’s recommendations must be interpreted in the light of ongoing disputes about the most effective method for assessing vitamin D deficiency, whether calcium and vitamin D supplements are needed by a large portion of the population, and what level of supplementation might best maximize benefits and minimize risks.

In 2011, after reviewing more than 1000 studies, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that vitamin D and calcium are indeed critical to bone health but their role in other diseases—cancer, heart disease, diabetes, immune function, and reproductive health, for example—remains uncertain. The IOM did not consider deficiencies of either calcium or vitamin D to be serious problems in the United States, except among certain population groups. Instead, because of widespread fortification and supplementation, the IOM was concerned about the possibility of adverse consequences from oversupplementation (6).

With risks as well as benefits in mind, the IOM established the average adult daily requirement for calcium at 800 to 1000 mg depending on age, the Recommended Dietary Allowance (the amount needed to meet the needs of about 97% of the population) at 1000 to 1200 mg, and the safe upper level of intake at 2000 to 2500 mg. Its corresponding recommendations for vitamin D were 400 IU, 600 IU (800 IU for older adults), and 4000 IU, respectively. The IOM viewed these levels as sufficient to maintain blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D at or above 20 ng/mL, a level it considered adequate to meet population-based needs regardless of amounts synthesized as a result of sun exposure.

Vitamin D, of course, is not a vitamin in the usual sense. It is a hormone produced in response to the action of sunlight on skin. Like other hormones, vitamin D has multiple roles in the body, not all of them well-understood. Vitamin D supplementation, therefore, must be considered a form of hormone replacement therapy. As such, it raises all of the questions about efficacy, dose, and side effects currently asked of such therapies.

In that light, the 2011 recommendations of the Endocrine Society deserve special scrutiny (7). The Society approaches questions about vitamin D from a standpoint quite different from that of the IOM. It appointed its own task force to make recommendations based on the premise that vitamin D deficiencies are common among all age groups. The Society prefers 30 ng/mL of 25-hydroxyvitamin D as the target level for maximum benefits. By that criterion, virtually all U.S., Canadian, and European adults are deficient in hormone vitamin D and require daily supplements of 1500 to 2000 IU. For adults with demonstrated deficiency, the Society recommends treatment with 50 000 IU of the hormone once a week or daily supplementation of 6000 IU for 8 weeks, followed by 1500 to 2000 IU for maintenance.

This clinical endocrinology perspective differs from the nutrition science perspective of the IOM committee, whose members tend to interpret studies of single nutrients within the context of the diet as a whole. From this standpoint, the amount of hormone generated by the action of sunlight on skin (which ought to be more than adequate for people who spend time outdoors in latitudes as far north as Boston) is crucial to decisions about supplementation. The IOM and Endocrine Society debated their conflicting perspectives in an exchange published in 2012 (8 – 9). The insufficiency of research to resolve such arguments has permitted vitamin D to become “trendy.” It is advertised on boxes of fortified cereals, has its own prosupplement advocacy group, and generates millions in annual supplement sales (10).

The USPSTF’s recommendations can be understood as an attempt to clarify the present situation with respect to one specific outcome of supplementation. In doing so, its recommendations have a substantial advantage. They depend on hard end points—fractures—rather than on blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, at best an indirect measure of vitamin D adequacy. The USPSTF uses the same precautionary approach as did the IOM. In the absence of compelling evidence for benefit, taking supplements is not worth any risk, however small.

A previous attempt to sort through the various claims for vitamin D noted an urgent need for further research to answer fundamental questions about the risks and benefits of sun exposure, fortification, and supplements, and the hormone’s role in body functions beyond bone mineralization (11). The USPSTF plans to publish further recommendations on the role of vitamin D in cancer prevention. When it does, we hope it will keep in mind the value of making a single recommendation about vitamin D and calcium supplementation that will encompass all potential benefits and risks. Multiple recommendations by condition confuse practitioners and the public. While we wait for the results of further research, the USPSTF’s cautious, evidence-based advice should encourage clinicians to think carefully before advising calcium and vitamin D supplementation for healthy individuals.

References

1  Moyer VA; U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.  Vitamin D and calcium supplementation to prevent fractures in adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2013. [Epub ahead of print]

2  Cranney A, Horsley T, O’Donnell S, Weiler H, Puil L, Ooi D, et al.  Effectiveness and safety of vitamin D in relation to bone health. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2007:1-235. [PMID: 18088161]

3 Chung M, Balk EM, Brendel M, Ip S, Lau J, Lee J, et al.  Vitamin D and calcium: a systematic review of health outcomes. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2009:1-420. [PMID: 20629479]

4 Chung M, Lee J, Terasawa T, Lau J, Trikalinos TA.  Vitamin D with or without calcium supplementation for prevention of cancer and fractures: an updated meta-analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:827-38. [PMID: 22184690]

5 Prentice RL, Pettinger MB, Jackson RD, Wactawski-Wende J, Lacroix AZ, Anderson GL, et al.  Health risks and benefits from calcium and vitamin D supplementation: Women’s Health Initiative clinical trial and cohort study. Osteoporos Int. 2013;24:567-80. [PMID: 23208074]

6 Institute of Medicine.  Dietary Reference Intakes: Calcium, Vitamin D. Washington, DC: National Academies Pr; 2011.

7 Holick MF, Binkley NC, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Gordon CM, Hanley DA, Heaney RP, et al; Endocrine Society.  Evaluation, treatment, and prevention of vitamin D deficiency: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96:1911-30. [PMID: 21646368]

8 Rosen CJ, Abrams SA, Aloia JF, Brannon PM, Clinton SK, Durazo-Arvizu RA, et al.  IOM committee members respond to Endocrine Society vitamin D guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97:1146-52. [PMID: 22442278]

9 Holick MF, Binkley NC, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Gordon CM, Hanley DA, Heaney RP, et al.  Guidelines for preventing and treating vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency revisited. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97:1153-8. [PMID: 22442274]

10 Supplements stand out as 2008 sales bright spot for U.S. nutrition industry. Vitamins: D still shines. Nutrition Business Journal. 2009;14(6/7):5. Accessed athttp://newhope360.com/research-and-insights/supplements-stand-out-2008-sales-bright-spot-us-nutrition-industry on 15 February 2013.

11 Brannon PM, Yetley EA, Bailey RL, Picciano MF.  Overview of the conference “Vitamin D and Health in the 21st Century: an Update”. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008;88:483S-490S. [PMID: 18689388]  

Here’s the first objection:

• From the Natural Products Association

I don’t get many fan letters (as you can tell from reading the comments to posts).  When I do, they mean a lot.  Here’s an especially lovely one from a reader this week:

I cannot help but think of you and the work that you do having a great impact on the first signs of child/youth obesity declining.  Although the “researchers” indicate they are not sure of the reasons for the decline, I think many within the food / food politics community know that the work you do, the awareness you spread and the advertising you expose, greatly affects the way we feed our children.  As a real food advocate and parent, thank you for the work you do.

Thanks but I can take no credit (much as I would love to).

The writer is referring to a front-page, right-hand column story—the most important of the day—in the December 11 New York Times.   The article said that several cities are reporting drops in childhood obesity rates.

The drops may be small, just 3% to 5%, but any reversal in obesity trends is excellent news.

Last September, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation first reported such drops.

It noted that the declines were occurring in places that had taken comprehensive action to address childhood obesity.

New York City, for example, has engaged in major efforts to make healthy dietary choices the easy choices.  Health Commissioner Tom Farley recently reported a 5.5% decline in childhood obesity.

The Foundation says that Philadelphia:

has undertaken a broad assault on childhood obesity for years. Sugary drinks like sweetened iced tea, fruit punch and sports drinks started to disappear from school vending machines in 2004. A year later, new snack guidelines set calorie and fat limits, which reduced the size of snack foods like potato chips to single servings. By 2009, deep fryers were gone from cafeterias and whole milk had been replaced by one percent and skim.

Broad policies like these are exactly what the Institute of Medicine recommends (me too).

And now, it seems, these actions are actually having the intended effect.

That’s the best news ever.

And I don’t care who gets credit for it.