I think its bad that FDA cannot mandate studies done on food additives by independent third parties. It seems that if they petitioners have the burden of proof, the proof might be a little bias. It's interesting how Olestra slipped through the cracks, unlike psyllium and artificial sweetners. It fits right into the food industries ideas about "EAT MORE" with its aim being to enable people to eat more of the top of the pyramid snacks and discretionary calories. I definitely remember when Olestra was at its height, I don't think I ate it very much, my mom was really against eating those kinds of snack foods that would contain them anyways. I probably did have some in restaurants though. Its just fascinating (in a bad way), how excited food companies get that they can use health claims to advertise their products. It's kind of a sad state of affairs when people all over have such chronic diseases that this is a useful marketing tool.
The fact about using Olestra to reduce symptoms of dioxin poisoning was fascinating! However, that clearly isn't what you want to happen to most people (clear out all fat soluble substances) and makes Olestra appear way too intense to be a GRAS additive (sounds almost more like a drug if they can use it on dioxin poisoning).
I think its fascinating how much energy we devoted to this low fat diet craze of late. We really know so little about it and very little has proved to significantly enhance lipid profiles of people or reduce risk of heart disease. I think, as Olestra may show, that the low fat diet craze just caused people to eat more refined carbohydrates and this may have led to the obesity spikes. This sums up the problem to me, the quote she includes from an Olestra "user" (interesting choice of words i thought...): "I love olestra. It means I get to eat potato chips--the whole bag."
I whole-heartedly agree with Nestle when she says: No functional foods can ever replace the full range of nutrients and phytochemicals present in fruits and vegetables and grains..."
Monday, November 10, 2008
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Beyond Fortification
I have always been so weirded out by "functional foods", like when they add something, like a vitamin etc, to something that doesn't have that to begin with. The first thing that comes to my mind is Vitamin water. Tasty but come on. It has so much sugar and why do they even need to fortify water. And I'm sure it sells great because it is advertised as such a helpful and panacea-esque.
I had no idea there was so much controversy surrounding oat bran. It seems like it is obviously healthy because of the fiber and it's interesting that they needed another health claim, but heart disease is so rampant it makes sense to attach on to that movement. The information about psyllium was also really interesting. I had no idea that that movement in Kellogg even took place or that some people have reactions to that. It honestly made me laugh too when they were advertising metamucil as something that would decrease heart disease risk. Companies will do anything to try to make money on the lastest health craze.
The soy bean isolate idea also remind me of Pollan's book about whole foods not being a sum of their nutrients. The fact that Asian's eat soy does not mean if you take out the protein that someone in America will be healthier. It's more than that, its about a person's culture and relationship with food as well, not just the nutrient components of the food that they eat.
Overall, these companies obsessions with functional, techno foods is just really amusing to me. Especially the Heinz ketchup as a health food, reminds me of french fries being considered a vegetable. Also, I believe the emphasis on removing fat from the diet is horribly misinformed and many studies also show no effect of saturated fat on increasing heart disease risk. But if there is one study out that that isn't horrible that finds an effect, the food industry will jump on that and ignore the whole body of evidence.
I had no idea there was so much controversy surrounding oat bran. It seems like it is obviously healthy because of the fiber and it's interesting that they needed another health claim, but heart disease is so rampant it makes sense to attach on to that movement. The information about psyllium was also really interesting. I had no idea that that movement in Kellogg even took place or that some people have reactions to that. It honestly made me laugh too when they were advertising metamucil as something that would decrease heart disease risk. Companies will do anything to try to make money on the lastest health craze.
The soy bean isolate idea also remind me of Pollan's book about whole foods not being a sum of their nutrients. The fact that Asian's eat soy does not mean if you take out the protein that someone in America will be healthier. It's more than that, its about a person's culture and relationship with food as well, not just the nutrient components of the food that they eat.
Overall, these companies obsessions with functional, techno foods is just really amusing to me. Especially the Heinz ketchup as a health food, reminds me of french fries being considered a vegetable. Also, I believe the emphasis on removing fat from the diet is horribly misinformed and many studies also show no effect of saturated fat on increasing heart disease risk. But if there is one study out that that isn't horrible that finds an effect, the food industry will jump on that and ignore the whole body of evidence.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Go Forth and Fortify
I don't really have a problem with the fortification of commodities. I think its great that folic acid was put into foods and studies suggest that this fortification has decreased the incidence of neural tube defects. Yes, it would be nice if everyone could obtain enough vitamins and minerals from food. But they just don't more often than not and if we can do something as simple as fortifying a basic commodity, like flour, to be healthier I personally am all for that.
What I don't agree with though are all these "nutraceuticals" or foods that aren't even really foods but are just "nutrients". Food is not just a sum of its nutrients. Whole foods are important, as Michael Pollan explicitly points on in his book "In defense of food". I was really annoyed by her discussion of folic acid though. Folic acid is much more biologically available than folate from vegetables. She says she wishes a campaign to eat more fruits and vegetables would have been launched but a person would have to eat ALOT of vegetables to get adequate folate, especially a pregnant woman, and even more so a woman at high risk for NTDs. And it seems doubtful to me that people are going to get folate overdoses. I just feel like she is obsessing over something that is not worth obsessing over because it likely has done more good than harm. Maybe she can afford to buy enough fruits and vegetables to get enough folate from her diet but many people in this world can't.
I do agree with the idea that a single nutrient approach is the wrong approach to take and using nutritional claims to advocate your product seems wrong to me. Nutrition information is constantly changing based on multitudes of studies that come out in the literature. People don't always know how to critically examine studies and food companies jump on whatever ill-supported nutritional fad that comes out of the wood-work. The idea of fast food nutraceuticals is absolutely absurd and disgusting. I also think its sad that fortified cereals have to cost more. Many people who might benefit from these fortified products are likely impoverished and can't afford something like Total, which is much more expensive than other cereals.
I thought her use of those with hemachromatosis to suggest a reason why supplementation could be harmful was unfounded. Yes some people have this problem, but not many. And we can't make decisions for everyone based on these rare people, that would be wrong. I know so many people who eat fortified foods and still have iron deficiencies, so I don't agree with her worries that much based on my personal experience.
What I don't agree with though are all these "nutraceuticals" or foods that aren't even really foods but are just "nutrients". Food is not just a sum of its nutrients. Whole foods are important, as Michael Pollan explicitly points on in his book "In defense of food". I was really annoyed by her discussion of folic acid though. Folic acid is much more biologically available than folate from vegetables. She says she wishes a campaign to eat more fruits and vegetables would have been launched but a person would have to eat ALOT of vegetables to get adequate folate, especially a pregnant woman, and even more so a woman at high risk for NTDs. And it seems doubtful to me that people are going to get folate overdoses. I just feel like she is obsessing over something that is not worth obsessing over because it likely has done more good than harm. Maybe she can afford to buy enough fruits and vegetables to get enough folate from her diet but many people in this world can't.
I do agree with the idea that a single nutrient approach is the wrong approach to take and using nutritional claims to advocate your product seems wrong to me. Nutrition information is constantly changing based on multitudes of studies that come out in the literature. People don't always know how to critically examine studies and food companies jump on whatever ill-supported nutritional fad that comes out of the wood-work. The idea of fast food nutraceuticals is absolutely absurd and disgusting. I also think its sad that fortified cereals have to cost more. Many people who might benefit from these fortified products are likely impoverished and can't afford something like Total, which is much more expensive than other cereals.
I thought her use of those with hemachromatosis to suggest a reason why supplementation could be harmful was unfounded. Yes some people have this problem, but not many. And we can't make decisions for everyone based on these rare people, that would be wrong. I know so many people who eat fortified foods and still have iron deficiencies, so I don't agree with her worries that much based on my personal experience.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Making Health Claims Legal: The Supplement Industry's War with the FDA
It's interesting that the consumer base who takes supplements were appealed to by the supplement industry and that grass roots groups formed against strict regulation. I would think that people would want studies done on drugs to make sure they are safe but perhaps many people are very attached to their supplements that they believe work and if they haven't experienced problems, they probably don't want them taken away due to insufficient evidence.
I loved the labelling quote that she includes: Food package labels were the results of politics, not science and had become "so opaque or confusing that only consumers with the hermeneutic abilities of a Talmudic scholar can peel back the encoded layers of meaning." I thought this quote was really fitting and really shows a huge issue that exists: that politics appears to be more important than science in health related decisions. I don't really know how to deal with the contradictions of our regulatory agencies, how they are supposed to promote health and base information on science but in our capitalistic economy businesses also matter. Its a huge connundrum, and really overwhelming for me to think about sometimes.
Sometimes I feel that our governmental set up is very strange and contradictory, leading to many inefficiencies. It's based on capitalism and people don't want the government to control that area and they want government to preserve this but at the same time we seem to want to take a protectionist approach with health issues and the government. How do you accomplish both these things? It seems near impossible to me. I would think that a government should care more about their constituencies health and safety but apparently they care more about keeping industry happy.
I was really astounded by the changes to how reduced fat things are labelled. Three grams less of fat doesn't appear to me to be a huge health difference. Wow, very misleading to consumers. I was also really upset when I read about the flagrant use of the world healthy. I feel like we focus too much on individual nutrients without looking at the food as a whole. Yes, some candy may be low in fat, for instant, Twizzlers. BUT they are really high in sugar which can be converted to fat if you eat too many calories. So its kind of like it does have fat but the general public is unaware of this and the food companies know that and take advantage of it. It seems to me also that the industry was way too alarmist about the FDA's intentions but people tend to be moved by alarmist things.
It does worry me though that regulation of supplements could increase the prices of them (especially if they become "drugs"), and some people probably really do benefit from some supplements, especially things like folic acid and I would want them to be pretty affordable. It also would become confusing with things like Total cereal and whether that would be considered a drug, which seems silly to even think about that happening but it really is a supplement.
I will say that I think its sad that so many people "rely" on dietary supplements. I really don't think that its necessary in most cases and that people really can get much of their nutrients from food, possibly barring folic acid and calcium for lactose intolerant people. To use myself as an example, I spent very little money on food but I eat a lot of fruits, vegetable, beans, grain and meat sometimes and I've done dietary analysis with computer programs on myself and I'm barely deficient in anything. So i think it's definitely possible to be healthy for cheap if people were willing to commit to it.
I loved the labelling quote that she includes: Food package labels were the results of politics, not science and had become "so opaque or confusing that only consumers with the hermeneutic abilities of a Talmudic scholar can peel back the encoded layers of meaning." I thought this quote was really fitting and really shows a huge issue that exists: that politics appears to be more important than science in health related decisions. I don't really know how to deal with the contradictions of our regulatory agencies, how they are supposed to promote health and base information on science but in our capitalistic economy businesses also matter. Its a huge connundrum, and really overwhelming for me to think about sometimes.
Sometimes I feel that our governmental set up is very strange and contradictory, leading to many inefficiencies. It's based on capitalism and people don't want the government to control that area and they want government to preserve this but at the same time we seem to want to take a protectionist approach with health issues and the government. How do you accomplish both these things? It seems near impossible to me. I would think that a government should care more about their constituencies health and safety but apparently they care more about keeping industry happy.
I was really astounded by the changes to how reduced fat things are labelled. Three grams less of fat doesn't appear to me to be a huge health difference. Wow, very misleading to consumers. I was also really upset when I read about the flagrant use of the world healthy. I feel like we focus too much on individual nutrients without looking at the food as a whole. Yes, some candy may be low in fat, for instant, Twizzlers. BUT they are really high in sugar which can be converted to fat if you eat too many calories. So its kind of like it does have fat but the general public is unaware of this and the food companies know that and take advantage of it. It seems to me also that the industry was way too alarmist about the FDA's intentions but people tend to be moved by alarmist things.
It does worry me though that regulation of supplements could increase the prices of them (especially if they become "drugs"), and some people probably really do benefit from some supplements, especially things like folic acid and I would want them to be pretty affordable. It also would become confusing with things like Total cereal and whether that would be considered a drug, which seems silly to even think about that happening but it really is a supplement.
I will say that I think its sad that so many people "rely" on dietary supplements. I really don't think that its necessary in most cases and that people really can get much of their nutrients from food, possibly barring folic acid and calcium for lactose intolerant people. To use myself as an example, I spent very little money on food but I eat a lot of fruits, vegetable, beans, grain and meat sometimes and I've done dietary analysis with computer programs on myself and I'm barely deficient in anything. So i think it's definitely possible to be healthy for cheap if people were willing to commit to it.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Science Vs. Supplements
I really had no idea until fairly recently that supplements were not regulated. That is just scary. It just seems obvious that they would be, since other medicines and food are. I don't think people know this in general, I have friends and acquaintances that swear by certain herbal supplements and if you try to tell them they aren't proven to work they scoff. The fine distinctions Nestle points out between disease claims and health claims may make sense to a scientist or politician involved in this but it's not going to be obvious to the average consumer who will think that a supplement might diagnose or treat something.
The FDA versus the FTC seems to fit well into a theme in our government that I see after reading this book: that there is so much conflict between regulatory agencies and that one regulatory agency has interests that completely contradict the other regulatory agency. This seems really inefficient and dangerous. The discrepancy between what can be advertised and what can be on a label seems problematic. The average consumer I can guess will be more swayed by the advertising and less likely to critically examine the label, causing the consumer to be misled. Its just so interesting how semantics come into play so often in policy making, it can be seen in the acceptable claims vs. the unauthorized claims. This reminds me of the wording issues surrounding the dietary guidelines earlier in the book.
Her outline of the two cultures regarding supplements was really interesting. I think I fall more into the science-based approach but I can definitely see the rationale for the other approach. It just seems like the industry and DSHEA have taken the belief model way out of context and have mis-interpreted it in order to fit their needs.
In some ways, I can see how having to regulate every supplement would be near impossible given the sheer volume of herbal and botanical remedies out there. It would have been nice if from the very beginning regulations had been really strict so that only the best supplements were even allowed to be sold. But now there are just so many that having to regulate them all and prove them all safe and effective seems like a ridiculous task that is not government's top priority and probably rightly so at the moment. It's really interesting how Kellogg managed to evade FDA restrictions. It just seems that the industry and FDA could work together to promote actually healthy products that they would both benefit from, instead of fighting each other.
The FDA versus the FTC seems to fit well into a theme in our government that I see after reading this book: that there is so much conflict between regulatory agencies and that one regulatory agency has interests that completely contradict the other regulatory agency. This seems really inefficient and dangerous. The discrepancy between what can be advertised and what can be on a label seems problematic. The average consumer I can guess will be more swayed by the advertising and less likely to critically examine the label, causing the consumer to be misled. Its just so interesting how semantics come into play so often in policy making, it can be seen in the acceptable claims vs. the unauthorized claims. This reminds me of the wording issues surrounding the dietary guidelines earlier in the book.
Her outline of the two cultures regarding supplements was really interesting. I think I fall more into the science-based approach but I can definitely see the rationale for the other approach. It just seems like the industry and DSHEA have taken the belief model way out of context and have mis-interpreted it in order to fit their needs.
In some ways, I can see how having to regulate every supplement would be near impossible given the sheer volume of herbal and botanical remedies out there. It would have been nice if from the very beginning regulations had been really strict so that only the best supplements were even allowed to be sold. But now there are just so many that having to regulate them all and prove them all safe and effective seems like a ridiculous task that is not government's top priority and probably rightly so at the moment. It's really interesting how Kellogg managed to evade FDA restrictions. It just seems that the industry and FDA could work together to promote actually healthy products that they would both benefit from, instead of fighting each other.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Pushing Soft Drinks "Pouring Rights"
It seems that there is nowhere anymore that advertising is not infiltrating. Even school, which seems like it should be an unbiased place where students can explore many topics and learn many sides of issues is rampant with ads. My HS and middle school had soft drink machines, specifically Pepsi ones right outside the cafeteria. They locked the machines all day except during the lunch periods but I don't really know what that accomplished. I think it was just to prevent kids from leaving class to get soft drinks. Hearing about Channel One in the previous chapter and pouring rights in this chapter solidified this idea for me. Her discussion of "guerrilla marketing tactics" was interesting. It is upsetting that soft drink companies are heavily marketing in poorer, urban areas, especially because these areas often have less access to health care and have a large chronic disease burden, many of which may be related to diet.
Another thing that was appalling to me is the fact that Coca-Cola and Pepsi put their logos on infant bottles. It's upsetting because of the studies that show that people who buy these bottles are more likely to feed soft drinks to their children, which makes sense.
It's bothersome that schools may be in such need of funds that they take pouring rights contracts in order to get lump sums of money. It's sad that they can't get this money some other way so that they can buy nice things for the school, etc.... Poor schools seem like they would be especially likely to take these contracts.
Another thing that was appalling to me is the fact that Coca-Cola and Pepsi put their logos on infant bottles. It's upsetting because of the studies that show that people who buy these bottles are more likely to feed soft drinks to their children, which makes sense.
It's bothersome that schools may be in such need of funds that they take pouring rights contracts in order to get lump sums of money. It's sad that they can't get this money some other way so that they can buy nice things for the school, etc.... Poor schools seem like they would be especially likely to take these contracts.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Starting Eary: Underage Consumers
It is really interesting that the purchasing power of children has increased so much in recent years. I can understand why advertisers try to take advantage of them, it is a very natural business thing to do. It just seems dangerous because kids have more power but are not necessarily educated properly about media and choices, making them easy targets for advertisers. The increase in "latch key kids", coupled with advertising and sedentary lifestyles is toxic. A lot of unhealthy things coming together at once to produce bad effects. I guess I just don't understand why parents are even letting their kids buy so much food, I suppose its hard to completely control your kids and I have no idea what parenting is like so I guess I don't really know. I just know from my childhood that my mom had most of the say in what we ate and thank god she was into being healthy. I remember begging for Lunchables because they were so taboo but I didn't get those except on special occasions. I guess it is really up to parents but parents are a hard population to control because you can't really go into a house and tell people's parents to make their kids eat healthy, especially if they don't themselves.
I think in this capitalistic, business oriented economy, it is going to be hard to effectively curb advertising to children. Thus, I think from a very young age, children need to be exposed to media influences in an educational manner and have to learn to analyze messages that they receive. I don't know exactly how effective this would be but I can imagine that children who often have to critically think about advertising will be much more critical when they see an ad.
A group in one of my classes, NUTR 611, discussed advertising to children. They noted that many of the ads they saw did not even show the product except for the very end. Most of the commercial showed children having fun or being with friends and being happy. Thus, those messages get linked to a product; this holds up with the research that Nestle discusses about sensual gratification being important to children.
I have to say I am pretty appalled by the counting books that Nestle discusses that endorse eating a lot of sugary products. Why can't the teachers have the children count baby carrots?
I am also intrigued by Channel One, I never have heard of this until I read this chapter. I don't remember seeing anything like this in school. It seems like such a horrible idea. One thing that definitely sticks out in my mind about my schooling is that in HS there were soft drink machines all over the school property and the lunches were really unhealthy, even though at the time I liked them. Also, the free or reduced lunch line was very separate from the a la carte line, which made it horribly awkward and obvious if you wanted to go to the cafeteria school lunch line (which I did because sometimes I wanted vegetables).
It is going to be difficult to help children be healthier if school and home do not match up in regards to healthy choices, which is more often than not the case.
I think in this capitalistic, business oriented economy, it is going to be hard to effectively curb advertising to children. Thus, I think from a very young age, children need to be exposed to media influences in an educational manner and have to learn to analyze messages that they receive. I don't know exactly how effective this would be but I can imagine that children who often have to critically think about advertising will be much more critical when they see an ad.
A group in one of my classes, NUTR 611, discussed advertising to children. They noted that many of the ads they saw did not even show the product except for the very end. Most of the commercial showed children having fun or being with friends and being happy. Thus, those messages get linked to a product; this holds up with the research that Nestle discusses about sensual gratification being important to children.
I have to say I am pretty appalled by the counting books that Nestle discusses that endorse eating a lot of sugary products. Why can't the teachers have the children count baby carrots?
I am also intrigued by Channel One, I never have heard of this until I read this chapter. I don't remember seeing anything like this in school. It seems like such a horrible idea. One thing that definitely sticks out in my mind about my schooling is that in HS there were soft drink machines all over the school property and the lunches were really unhealthy, even though at the time I liked them. Also, the free or reduced lunch line was very separate from the a la carte line, which made it horribly awkward and obvious if you wanted to go to the cafeteria school lunch line (which I did because sometimes I wanted vegetables).
It is going to be difficult to help children be healthier if school and home do not match up in regards to healthy choices, which is more often than not the case.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Playing Hardball
As for the "McLibel" case, I think both parties are at fault and just kind of ridiculous. I think it was a little wrong for private citizens to be printing materials against a whole company because likely they are very bias and their are falsehoods in what they are printing up for people. Also, I think it is ridiculous to claim that it is a fast food restaurants fault for "tempting customers with food too high in fat, sugar and salt...." It is not the job of a restaurant necessarily to keep in mind the health of the customer. People should have the choice to eat unhealthy food. Although in general I agree with a trans fat ban, I also see why is it a person's choice to eat unhealthy food and McDonalds is a business not everyone's parent and doctor. On the other hand, McDonalds was completely ridiculous by sueing over this. There is no way this small pamplet was going to bring their company down and it was just a waste of money on both sides. I understand if it had been just completely innaccurate (the pamphlet) but since it had accuracies they shouldn't have gone out and sued. They could have tried to counteract the claims in better, more productive and less embarassing ways.
I honesty am a little appalled that the NRDC jumped on such a claim from an animal study and put it out like it was a fact. Having learned a lot about trials and chemicals with animals, they give animals excessive, unnaturally large doses in order to induce an effect. There are alot of ways that animal studies do not match up to human results. Although I think pesticides and herbicides are bad and we should pursue more sustainable methods, I think that the NRDC should look into things more before they become alarmist. No child is drinking enough apple juice to give them cancer and there are much more things to worry about that are more important, like a healthy diet overall and exercising. However with the Oprah thing, it is just true that they feel ground up cattle, they may not have mad cow disease and I"m sure if they knew they did they might not use the cows, but that is a fact that they feed other cows. I think that it was ok for Oprah to talk about this and it is just her choice to not eat ground beef if she thinks its gross. Unfortunately since she is so influential, more people hear it, but thats the nature of celebrities making comments. They should be care though before they do it because they are so influential and they should make sure they really have all the facts.
However, if these reporters and citizens did not commit libel or whatever, we might not have any information about bad practices so I guess it is good that they take the risk to get out information, as long as it is accurate and not too alarmist in nature.
I had no idea that price fixing was going on, I remember learning about it in economics in high school but I never really thought about it after that. In my opinion companies should have to compete for business, that is the essence of our economy to me. I understand how formulas cannot be very different for each other and price fixing helps to ensure they make money but it makes me feel a bit indignant that companies could be forcing up prices higher than they should be. Although I doubt consumers would care so much if they somehow price fixed down....
I honesty am a little appalled that the NRDC jumped on such a claim from an animal study and put it out like it was a fact. Having learned a lot about trials and chemicals with animals, they give animals excessive, unnaturally large doses in order to induce an effect. There are alot of ways that animal studies do not match up to human results. Although I think pesticides and herbicides are bad and we should pursue more sustainable methods, I think that the NRDC should look into things more before they become alarmist. No child is drinking enough apple juice to give them cancer and there are much more things to worry about that are more important, like a healthy diet overall and exercising. However with the Oprah thing, it is just true that they feel ground up cattle, they may not have mad cow disease and I"m sure if they knew they did they might not use the cows, but that is a fact that they feed other cows. I think that it was ok for Oprah to talk about this and it is just her choice to not eat ground beef if she thinks its gross. Unfortunately since she is so influential, more people hear it, but thats the nature of celebrities making comments. They should be care though before they do it because they are so influential and they should make sure they really have all the facts.
However, if these reporters and citizens did not commit libel or whatever, we might not have any information about bad practices so I guess it is good that they take the risk to get out information, as long as it is accurate and not too alarmist in nature.
I had no idea that price fixing was going on, I remember learning about it in economics in high school but I never really thought about it after that. In my opinion companies should have to compete for business, that is the essence of our economy to me. I understand how formulas cannot be very different for each other and price fixing helps to ensure they make money but it makes me feel a bit indignant that companies could be forcing up prices higher than they should be. Although I doubt consumers would care so much if they somehow price fixed down....
Working the System
I don't understand why Congress is allowed to take gifts and regulatory officials are not. It seems to be that no one should be allowed to take gifts. Congress is very influential too, alongside regulatory officials and it just seems like a weird system to me. It's a little unnerving to see how easy it was to influence an official, I am unsure how representative Mr. Espy's case is of all officials, I feel like she could have just focused on this one because it was particularly unsettling.
I don't know how I feel about the check-offs. I don't know what the author expects these companies to do though, they are businesses who obviously want to promote their products and our economic is capitalistic so what else could a business be expected to do? I suppose it would be better if government and business were separated more, I just don't know how that would come about, especially in times like these when the economy is hard and the government might have to help out businesses. It is weird to me that different commodities feel the need to compete with each other, like beef vs dairy, since they are really different and could both be construed as part of a varied, healthy diet. Its just such a conflict of interest between food industry and the USDA, I cannot even begin to fathom how to reconcile it.
I do agree with the underlying premises regarding breastfeeding as superior to infant formula. I definitely disagree with heavy formula advertising, especially in developing countries where it is vital that babies receive the immunological and health benefits of breast milk. There is just too much to worry about in developing nations with using formula. I do think the quote Nestle uses about "deliberate infanticide" is completely over the top though. I get pretty appalled when I see formula adds suggesting that its as good as breastmilk and then say in really tiny print that breastmilk is best. It's pretty unsettling how much effort Nestle went to to try to convince people that a fact that is so clearly wrong is right. However, I do not agree with the idea that some people posited in one of my classes that their should be no formula advertised or given out. Some women simply just cannot afford the implements or have the time to spend breastfeeding for 6 mos to a year like advised. Especially poor women. Yes it is true that everyone can usually breastfeed but that doesn't mean that its a very viable option for them, and formula is better than nothing. Its wrong in my opinion to chastise a mother too much about not breastfeeding, especially because if she is having trouble with it and the baby is not thriving, stress about it can make the feeding even harder. So I think formula does have its place, but not in developing countries.
I don't know how I feel about the check-offs. I don't know what the author expects these companies to do though, they are businesses who obviously want to promote their products and our economic is capitalistic so what else could a business be expected to do? I suppose it would be better if government and business were separated more, I just don't know how that would come about, especially in times like these when the economy is hard and the government might have to help out businesses. It is weird to me that different commodities feel the need to compete with each other, like beef vs dairy, since they are really different and could both be construed as part of a varied, healthy diet. Its just such a conflict of interest between food industry and the USDA, I cannot even begin to fathom how to reconcile it.
I do agree with the underlying premises regarding breastfeeding as superior to infant formula. I definitely disagree with heavy formula advertising, especially in developing countries where it is vital that babies receive the immunological and health benefits of breast milk. There is just too much to worry about in developing nations with using formula. I do think the quote Nestle uses about "deliberate infanticide" is completely over the top though. I get pretty appalled when I see formula adds suggesting that its as good as breastmilk and then say in really tiny print that breastmilk is best. It's pretty unsettling how much effort Nestle went to to try to convince people that a fact that is so clearly wrong is right. However, I do not agree with the idea that some people posited in one of my classes that their should be no formula advertised or given out. Some women simply just cannot afford the implements or have the time to spend breastfeeding for 6 mos to a year like advised. Especially poor women. Yes it is true that everyone can usually breastfeed but that doesn't mean that its a very viable option for them, and formula is better than nothing. Its wrong in my opinion to chastise a mother too much about not breastfeeding, especially because if she is having trouble with it and the baby is not thriving, stress about it can make the feeding even harder. So I think formula does have its place, but not in developing countries.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Co-opting Nutrition Professionals
I found this chapter to be very interesting. I was reading through the ADA Journal that I received recently in the mail and I noticed a huge insert from soy producers talking about their product. This is what I was reminded of while reading Nestles section on Journals and advertising/ monetary contributions. I also noticed other food related ads in the journal, which I remember being surprised about. This also reminded me of how many brochures on the importance of breastfeeding are produced by formula companies. Seems a little contradictory...
I am completely astounded by how entrenched business is within the nutritional science world. I did not know that the FNB is sponsored by food industry; I was so surprised. Also, the section on conflicts of interest is scary. Research is what we often look to to make decisions and if the validity of the results is being compromised more or less over monetary interest then our decisions will be based on inaccuracies. This could be hurtful to us, both health wise and money wise. Her list of studies that were sponsored by food industry and just happened (likely not coincidental) to have favorable outcomes for the company was really interesting to see and made me realize the importance of finding out about sponsors when reading and evaluating studies. I also had NO idea that companies could enter partnerships with universities and effectively control the research. It seems like scientific integrity is really being compromised all over the place in the nutrition field, how are we supposed to get accurate information to make solid, informed decisions?
I am completely astounded by how entrenched business is within the nutritional science world. I did not know that the FNB is sponsored by food industry; I was so surprised. Also, the section on conflicts of interest is scary. Research is what we often look to to make decisions and if the validity of the results is being compromised more or less over monetary interest then our decisions will be based on inaccuracies. This could be hurtful to us, both health wise and money wise. Her list of studies that were sponsored by food industry and just happened (likely not coincidental) to have favorable outcomes for the company was really interesting to see and made me realize the importance of finding out about sponsors when reading and evaluating studies. I also had NO idea that companies could enter partnerships with universities and effectively control the research. It seems like scientific integrity is really being compromised all over the place in the nutrition field, how are we supposed to get accurate information to make solid, informed decisions?
Sunday, September 28, 2008
"Deconstructing" Dietary Advice
I was unaware that every five years the Guidelines have to be examined. It seems weird to create a committee if nothing is particularly wrong with something, of course they will feel pressured to make some sort of change. It appears to me that sound, good, dietary advice really has not changed all that much in years: eat lots of whole grain, fruits and vegetables and less meat that is high in fat. But committee's feel the need to tinker and mold guidelines based on relationships with industry. No wonder everyone in the public is so confused about dietary advice. I would say, if it ain't broke don't fix it. The part about the tiers was really interesting. Its fascinating how much psychology goes into these guidelines and how important semantics can be. Her deconstructions of the 2000 guidelines is fascinating. It's so complex, how can policies and guidelines possibly please everyone? I wonder how I would interpret the 2000 Dietary Guideline tiers if I had never heard of them or discussed them in class. Now I am bias after reading this article. I suppose it is only natural to think that A is most important out of A, B and C. A is the best grade on a test or the best quality in food industry so it only seems fit that it is the most crucial of the recommendations. It is unrealistic though for readers to think that they can only exercise and lose weight and be healthy. I also find it fascinating how the industry realizes that talking about limiting certain nutrients is ok for their companies; they probably realize that many people won't understand or take the time to read labels thoroughly and they take advantage of that fact. The section on dairy was interesting, especially in the light of so many discussions about WIC and how much milk they provide people. Its amazing how much history and industry can affect our perception of the health of a beverage (milk) that may not even be that crucial after a certain age, given the huge proportion of humans that cannot digest lactose into adulthood. Lastly, I understand that it is important to distinguish between different kinds of fat for example, but how is one to get all that differentiation on one easily understandable diagram for the general public? Quite the connundrum.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Politics Versus Science: Chapter Two
I actually laughed out loud when I read that Madigan blocked the printing of the Food Pyramid in 1991 because it was "confusing to children." I was 6 when this was occurring and I remember soon after that learning about the food pyramid. I have always thought it was incredibly un-confusing, there is really very little interpretation of what the hierarchical structure would mean, unless one thought the top of the pyramid meant the best or something like that. I think that the meat and dairy producers revealed how not confusing the pyramid was in their worries about the pyramid stigmatizing their products, making people eat less as a result. So clearly Madigan's concerns about it being confusing were not really validated by the industry either which can be inferred from their worries about stigmatization. When I was reading about how confusing he thought it might be, I was asking myself, ok, so exactly who was pushing him towards blocking it. Finding out it was the meat and dairy industry wasn't very surprising, especially after learning that the dairy industry often has problems, for example with the WIC program trying to cut down on milk consumption.
I am so disconcerted with the quote, " the USDA is in the position of being responsible to the agriculture business. That is their job. Nutrition is not their job." However, they fought to have to jurisdiction over nutrition. Was this because they care or because it would allow them to control it more. I unfortunately assume it is the later, although it seems to me that the actually professionals in the USDA have a much different idea of how the USDA should work than the leading officials in it who are more tied to industry. Seems like everything comes down to money, from initiating the process to create a guide (to cut health care costs) to blocking it because of certain industries.
The idea of a food guide bowl was humorous to me. Personally, if I had seen that as a child I know I would have been more confused because its harder to tell the difference sizes between the groups and the fats, oils and sweets make up the base of the bowl, which looks like it is holding it together or something. But I was also fascinated to see the data about how the food pyramid was also not particularly effective. The bowl design actually reminds me a little of the new MyPyramid, which in my personal opinion is a step down in quality of design than the original because it is not very obviously hierarchical and it was nice to have the pictures. Also the colors don't make that much sense for the groups (but this is a bit of a tangent). I wonder who put in a lot of input on the new food pyramid? Lastly, I really have noticed from this chapter, and from Dr. Siega-Riz's discussion, how important very sound science is in making these policy choices. Even Madigan had to cede in the face of the 850,000$ facts.
I am so disconcerted with the quote, " the USDA is in the position of being responsible to the agriculture business. That is their job. Nutrition is not their job." However, they fought to have to jurisdiction over nutrition. Was this because they care or because it would allow them to control it more. I unfortunately assume it is the later, although it seems to me that the actually professionals in the USDA have a much different idea of how the USDA should work than the leading officials in it who are more tied to industry. Seems like everything comes down to money, from initiating the process to create a guide (to cut health care costs) to blocking it because of certain industries.
The idea of a food guide bowl was humorous to me. Personally, if I had seen that as a child I know I would have been more confused because its harder to tell the difference sizes between the groups and the fats, oils and sweets make up the base of the bowl, which looks like it is holding it together or something. But I was also fascinated to see the data about how the food pyramid was also not particularly effective. The bowl design actually reminds me a little of the new MyPyramid, which in my personal opinion is a step down in quality of design than the original because it is not very obviously hierarchical and it was nice to have the pictures. Also the colors don't make that much sense for the groups (but this is a bit of a tangent). I wonder who put in a lot of input on the new food pyramid? Lastly, I really have noticed from this chapter, and from Dr. Siega-Riz's discussion, how important very sound science is in making these policy choices. Even Madigan had to cede in the face of the 850,000$ facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)