Shocker - Kids' Foods aren't Healthy

Maybe that's why we're recommending they take cholesterol lowering medications at age 8?

A study, published in the July edition of Obesity Reviews, looked at 367 food products targeting Canadian children (products whose packaging had a cartoon on the front of the box and/or were tied to children's movies, TV shows or toys). The products did NOT include obviously unhealthy fare such as candy, soft drinks and baked goods. What the study analyzed was the food claims made on the label versus the actual product's nutritional value.

The results?

89% of products were classifiable as of, "poor nutritional quality" due to high levels of fat, sodium or sugar.

More importantly, 62% of those products deemed of poor nutritional quality had front of label claims (Health Check?) that made positive nutritional comments about the contents of the package.

The lesson learned here?

Our government needs to do more to regulate health claims on foods. Busy parents with or without a background in nutrition don't necessarily have the time (especially with kids in tow), to analyze each food label for themselves while shopping in a supermarket. Canada needs a robust front of package labeling program based on evidence based nutrition like ONQI to help protect Canadians against the outlandish claims that Health Canada allows on our food packaging.

And we need it yesterday.

Super-duper Yogurt Cures Cancer and Heals Blindness!

Ok, maybe not, but you've seen them - claims like the one in the scan above clipped from this month's Chatelaine. It reads,

"You balance it all and then some. You're a super woman. That's why there's new Maximmunite, a delicious probiotic drink with 10 billion active probiotic cultures per serving that helps strengthen your body's immune system"

Well in the States at least, the Centre for Science in the Public Interest has had enough. Yesterday they filed a formal complaint with the FDA to try to reign in some of the more ridiculous claims made by products including yogurt.

Claims such as Crystal Light Immunity Berry Pomegranate that makes the same claim as the Maximmunite above of helping,

"maintain a healthy immune system"

Minute Maid Enhanced Juice Blend Omega-3 DHA Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of 5 Juices that purports to,

"help nourish your brain"

Sunsweet PlumSmart for Digestive Health Plum Juice Extra with Fiber that claims to,

"keep your digestive system healthy"

And Minute Maid Enhanced Juice Active 750 mg Glucosamine HCL that they report helps,

"protect cartilage and joints"

Basically CSPI wants Big Food to have to prove their product can in fact deliver on their claims. Perhaps they said it best in their press release on the matter,

"When companies claim their products will “maintain a healthy immune system,” consumers believe this means those products will help ward off disease. But while vitamins A, C, and E are important for the functioning of just about every system in the human body, there’s little evidence to suggest that drinking Crystal Light will have any impact on the average person’s immune system."

Wanna read more about baseless and potentially fraudulent yogurt claims? Click here to head over to the websites of Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins LLP to read their press release about the class action lawsuit they've launched against Dannon with regards to their yogurts Activia and DanActive.

Mmmmmmm, brain nourishment....

Restaurants Lie!

Shocker.

Ok, maybe not so shocking.

What am I talking about?

So what's the story?

ABC News in seven cities across the US set out to see if the items they purchased from the low-fat or low-calorie options in Chili's, The Cheesecake Factory, Taco Bell, On the Border, Applebee's and Macaroni Grill actually had the amount of fat and calories the restaurants' nutritional information pages said they did by sending them to an independent lab for analysis.

The results?

Some foods had twice the calories and fat that the restaurants claimed they did, and in a few rare cases some had less.

The lesson here?

When you eat out, even if you order "healthy" choices, even if the restaurant lists the calories, there's still a great chance you're getting more than you paid for.

The other lesson is for public health authorities and that is if in fact you legislate that calories be listed on menus, you'd better put in a mechanism for not only enforcement of the listing, but also validity.

NYC's Starbuck's Calorie-Inclusive Menu Boards in the Wild

Thanks to Flickr users pnoeric and scalleja who kindly shared their photos with the world, below are some shots of New York City Starbucks' menu boards.

Click them to see the more than a Big-Mac calories Venti White Chocolate Mocha, and then the more than a Quarterpounder calories everything baked.

Ya think that might affect orders?

Health Check's Latest Atrocious Product Endorsement

Yup, Health Check, the nationally disgraced Heart and Stroke Foundation front of package labeling program, is at it again.

Today's inappropriately labeled-as-healthy product is Chapman's Dark Chocolate Rapture YogurtPlus.

Per half cup you'll be getting 3 teaspoons of sugar, 3 grams of fat, 85mg of sodium and 150 calories.

I'm sure a great many consumers will be thrilled to have a "healthy", Heart and Stroke Foundation endorsed alternative to ice cream.

Well, they shouldn't get too excited.

Comparing the Chapman's frozen yogurt to another Chapman's product, Chapman's Original Dutch Chocolate ice cream you'll find that the Chapman's Health Check'ed frozen yogurt contains an identical amount of sugar, 2 grams less fat, an identical amount of sodium and 25% MORE calories than an equivalent portion of ice-cream.

Comparing it to Chapman's Premium Vanilla Fudge Chunk ice cream described on Chapman's website as,

"the essence of indulgence"

you'll still find that the Health Check'ed yogurt has an identical amount of sugar, more sodium and more calories.

Gee thanks Heart and Stroke Foundation.

"A Perfect Portion"

My wonderful wife picked these up for me from the cafeteria at the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

Notice two things - the words, "A Perfect Portion" and the 75g size of the bag.

I imagine most folks when buying the People's Pantry line of "Perfect Portions" (they sell lots of different "Perfect Portions" - other nuts, jelly beans etc.) would assume that they were appropriately sized portions.

Now let's take a look at the back (click it if you can't see):

2 obvious questions here:

If it is a "Perfect Portion" why is it that the nutritional information is per 40g of the 75g serving?

How it it possible that the salt-as-a-second-ingredient, visibly-covered-in-it nuts only contain 1mg of sodium per serving?

The lesson here of course is that you've always, always got to read labels to actually know what you're eating.

In this case the "Perfect Portion" of nuts, if consumed wholly, would provide you with a perhaps not so perfect 460 Calories (more than a quarter-pounder at McDonald's) and who knows how much sodium.

[Given the sale of this product in a hospital, where some patients may well medically be ill-advised to consume too much sodium, I've taken the liberty of writing to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency who I hope might also take issue with the wording, "A Perfect Portion" on the front.]

Front of Cookie Labeling!

So this is a follow-up post to my Stupidest Cookies Ever? post that looked at Voortman's Omega-3 Zeer-Ohs.

A kind reader (who'd like to remain wholly anonymous) was gracious enough to bring me an Omega 3 Zeer-Oh because lo and behold, printed smack dab in the middle of the fake Oreo (click the picture to enlarge it for a better look) are the words,

"Zero Trans Fats"

So Voortman's has basically thrown down the gauntlet here. I challenge anyone to find me a stupider (yes, I realize that's not a real word) cookie!

Health Canada's Latest Debacle - Your Role

Right now Health Canada is sitting down with Big Food and asking them directly how best to display front of package claims that for Big Food will generate sales and for Canadians will generate confusion.

On this blog in the past you've read about the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check and how front-of-package labeling, even when put forth by credible organizations, can in fact do more harm than good.

In the supermarket products scream out at you they're healthy, and not only do you have to navigate Health Check, but you've also got Pepsi Co.'s Smart Spot and Kraft's Sensible Solutions.

So is there anything you can do?

I suppose, if you're really keen, you can read the 124 page discussion paper by Health Canada and then submit your formal response back to them. If you'd like to do that, you can click here to head to the page where you can download the comments form and find the addresses as to where to send it.

The Centre for Science in the Public Interest in their March 2008 issue of Nutrition Action suggests a simpler course.

They invite concerned Canadians to either write or email Tony Clement or fax their MP to demand that at the very least, Health Canada adopt a national front of label program that evaluated ALL of the products available in the supermarket reflecting both nutrition and ingredients.

They have a suggested wording that I've modified slightly and you can click here to email it to Minister Clement. The email will be copied to the folks running the current consultation process, and while of course you can modify the content as you see fit, here's what it will say,

As a concerned Canadian who cares about my health, I urge you to conduct a consultation and then require simple front-of-package nutrition labels on ALL foods. The labeling should reflect both nutrition and ingredients and should have a transparent and evidence-based basis derived in consultations free of the involvement of the food industry.

CSPI will also be mounting a Fax your MP campaign which I'll link here when it's available, but is not quite live yet.

You can also find your own MP and email the letter to them using this site and your postal code to find the appropriate email address.

While I'm not sure an email and fax campaign will help one thing's for certain - doing nothing will certainly do nothing.

Health Canada's Latest Debacle Part III

So today, thanks to a concerned and anonymous tipster, I'm going to take you on a tour of a typical table in Health Canada's latest consultation process involving putting health claims on fronts of packages.

Here's their description of the goings on at this Kangaroo consultation (edited only to remove identifying information),

"I recently attended Health Canada's stakeholder consultation workshops as they traveled around the country. I found out that industry representatives traveled along too to ensure that their voice as stakeholders was consistently heard. Health Canada wanted to know whether it would be a good idea to allow health claims substantiated by lower levels of evidence.

I personally think that health claims are more a marketing tool than a consumer education tool and lower levels of evidence will result in even more confusion for Canadians, who already seem to be confused about nutrition.

After you arrive, you are placed at a table and your table mates are pre-chosen for you, presumably so there is a wider variety of representatives at each table than might randomly occur. After hearing the presentations from Health Canada, you are asked to discuss a very specific question at your table.

One individual from each table (the group reporter) captures the responses on paper, as does a Health Canada staffer, and then this is reported to the larger group. The reporter tries to capture for the larger group what was said by putting it into their own words. If the reporter isn't equitable in capturing your opinion (which is likely given the time constraints), then it doesn't get captured. What this process does, in the end, is whittle away the issues to a few generic type bullet points.

I was shocked to find out that all opinions are not equally captured, and some are overtly ignored. Only those that represent the consensus at the table are. In other words, if your opinion is not mainstream, it isn't really captured. What is the point of having a diverse group of people come together?

I am bothered by the fact that: 1) The questions are so narrow that the answers are almost as well 2) The process captures only what the mainstream agrees on 3) Discussion about whether health claims actually do what they were intended to do - help Canadians eat better, is not addressed. 4)The most frequent responses carry the weight and the food industry is present at every meeting, not the average person.

And that's actually not even the meatiest parts.

Unfortunately my tipster is very concerned about remaining anonymous and therefore some of the more shocking bits had to be removed so as to ensure no identifiable information remained.

So to summarize, if your view differs from the majority at the table it will be as if you weren't even there as your view will not make it back to the official consultation record. And if the majority at the table represents Big Food, can you guess what the outcomes of these consultations will be?

No?

Well I'll tell you.

Health Canada will be able (just as it did with the Food Guide) to point at a poorly designed consultation process as proof that all views were heard, while Big Food will be allowed to ensure the best possible chance to have their positions adopted as a reflection of what the consultation process itself suggested was consensus.

Stay tuned tomorrow to hear about what you can do to make yourself heard (though after watching how Health Canada operates, unfortunately I'm not sure how much good it'll do).

Health Canada's Next Debacle?

First we were handed a Food Guide that encouraged Canadians to consume cancer-causing red and processed meat, metabolic syndrome promoting refined carbohydrates, all the while giving no guidance whatsoever on how to control, look for, or understand obesity inducing calories.

So what now?

Currently Health Canada is in the midst of a "public" consultation process involving whether or not to increase the available claims that Big Food can place on packaging and thereby create as Dr. Brian Wansink would state, a Health Halo around the food and of course in so doing, increase its sales.

The consultation process is entitled, "Managing Health Claims for Foods in Canada: Towards a Modernized Framework" which by itself to me is worrisome as I'm not sure what "modernized" means but I'm pretty sure it's not synonymous with "evidence-based".

So what are we talking about here?

According to Health Canada a health claim is,

"any representation that states, suggests, or implies that a relationship exists between a food (or a constituent of that food) and health."

So what's the issue here?

Well of course Big Food wants it to be easier to put claims on foods while health professionals like me and nutritional advocacy groups like the Centre for Science in the Public Interest want it to be more difficult.

It absolutely boggles my mind that Health Canada has determined that we need a 2 year long process to sort out what's more important - the interests of industry or the interests of health?

In the 124 page discussion paper they spell out this conundrum directly on page 11 and although it's a long quotation, I'm going to put it all in,

"Some stakeholders feel that current standards are too uniformly rigorous, and should vary according to the level of risk represented by the product and the nature of the claim. This view is supported by industry pressure worldwide and, in Canada, by current application of the newly introduced Natural Health Products Regulations. According to this view, consumers would benefit from access to safe food products carrying health claims, even when their health benefits cannot be demonstrated with a high level of certainty.

Others believe that application of clear, consistent, high standards of evidence is the cornerstone of a credible health claim system. Their view is supported by international standards, by research that shows that consumers do not differentiate among claim wordings and do not necessarily respond to disclaimers and qualifications, and by concern that less well-substantiated claims may need to be withdrawn at a later date, and which may erode public confidence in the system.

Health Canada is seeking input on the appropriate level of substantiation for claims in light of the obligation not to mislead consumers."

My jaw hurts from hitting the floor every time I read those paragraphs.

So to paraphrase - Big Food is pressuring Health Canada to allow unsubstantiated health claims on food that international standards, a credible health care system and peer-reviewed research have shown consumers naively would accept whether accurate or not AND YET Health Canada is holding 2 years of public consultations to figure out which view to listen?

Wow that's messed up.

Stay tuned Monday to learn more about the actual consultation process from someone who's had the intestinal fortitude to sit through one of the regional consultation meetings.

Stupidest Cookies Ever?

"Zero trans fat!"

"Zero Cholesterol"

"Low in Saturated Fat!"

"A Source of Omega-3 Polyunsaturates!"

Yup, those are all the claims currently on the front of Voortman's phenomenally stupidly named, "Omega-3 Zeer-Ohs!" cookies and if the food industry has its way, there will soon be more.

Stay tuned tomorrow when I introduce you to the goings on behind the scenes at the current Happy Corporations (Health Canada) consultations into food labeling where surprise, surprise, the food industry has an invited seat to the table, the process is skewed dramatically in their favour, and with industry of course wanting it be made easier for them to make outlandish health claims on foods (health sells) in the absence of real evidence to support them.

When they have their way (unfortunately, I don't say if - I think it's likely a forgone conclusion that Health Canada will bend over for Big Food again) perhaps these cookies will have a statement to the effect of,

"Supportive but not conclusive research shows that consumption of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. One serving of Omega-3 Zeer-Ohs! provides 0.5 grams of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids."

And then perhaps Voortman's will rename them, Omega-3 Super Heart Healthy-Ohs!.

Yum.

[Nutritionally per 2 cookies: 120 Calories and sugar is the first ingredient while the source of the omega 3s is ground flax which has not been shown to be as helpful as marine based omega 3s in cardiovascular disease prevention.]

[Hat tip to my lovely wife for buying the cookies, scanning in the package and ultimately returning them unopened to the store]