The potato and the tomato.  They are definitely the two most talked about vegetables in the federally-funded school lunch program.  Right now, the potato is the one being hotly debated.

The USDA proposed changes to the school lunch guidelines which would limit servings of starchy vegetables (white potatoes, corn, green peas, lima beans) to one cup per week. According to a 2007 USDA study, 75% of the vegetables kids eat at school are these starchy ones, with French fries being the top choice.  The concern by the administration and USDA is that this is contributing to the extremely high rates of childhood obesity as estimates suggest that kids are getting about 40% of their total calories from school each day.

On the opposing side of this great potato debate is the potato industry.  Their point-of-view is that at about five cents per serving, potatoes are a cost-effective way to get potassium and fiber in kids as well as help schools meet the calorie requirements of school lunch.  Their efforts have gone so far that the Senate actually blocked the USDA’s ability to limit the servings of potatoes and other starchy vegetables at lunch.  There’s also a website that has cropped up, called Potatoesinschool.com which is owned by the National Potato Council.  The site touts all the benefits of potatoes and includes a consumer lobbying campaign to keep potatoes in school.

In the regulatory arena, it’s often important to consider the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law.  This is one of those examples.  The letter of the proposed law says limit starchy vegetables in the school lunch program.  The spirit of the law says we need to increase the variety of vegetables kids actually eat (which is different than what gets offered), and limiting the servings of potatoes will help do this.  The spirit of the law also addresses the issue that it isn’t the humble potato itself that is the issue, but more often it’s what comes attached to the potato – sodium, fat, sugar (ketchup is often used as a condiment).

Change can be effective if it happens one step at a time, and considering the daunting cost impacts of trying to improve the overall nutrition value of school lunch, making incremental changes over time might be the right approach.

Visit www.nuval.com to see why a whole potato scores a 93 and smiley-face tator tots score a 29.

As has been well communicated through the press and blogosphere over these past several days, the Institute of Medicine Committee on the Examination of Front-of-Package Nutrition Rating Systems and Symbols recommended a new “points” system for the front of food packages, focused on the calories, saturated and trans fat, sodium and added sugars in the product.  Dr. David Katz provided his views in the Huffington Post, Marion Nestle on her Food Politics blog, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s responses has been showcased in several places.

The purpose of my blog today is not to provide a recap of the report or my views on the report, but to talk about what happens now.  With all the media coverage, it’s difficult to understand that the report is simply a recommendation.  The recommendation was made to the two food regulatory agencies in our country – the U.S. Department of Agriculture (which regulates foods that contain meat and poultry) and the Food & Drug Administration (which regulates all other foods).  The IOM Committee’s work is now done.  It is up to the regulatory agencies to decide if any action is taken based on the report.

If is definitely the key word here.  While there has been pressure from the White House for the regulatory agencies to do something to help consumers make more nutritious food choices that will idealistically lead to better health outcomes and lower health care costs that are crippling our country, the IOM recommendations are far from a slam dunk and they’re far from inexpensive.  The IOM report recommends significant research and modeling to actually finalize the criteria to be used in the system, as well as budget for education and promotion of the new system.  In reading the report, it appears that budget for staffing would be needed, too.  Then there’s the point that right now, food safety issues seem to be higher on the priority list than nutrition issues.

All that said, if the FDA and USDA decided the “points” system would be beneficial to consumers, there’s an entire process that must be followed to create new regulation.  First, the FDA would have to propose regulations.  This is then typically followed by 60-90 days of an open comment period, during which time, any individual, company or entity can submit comments and feedback on the proposed regulation.  Then the agencies have to review all those comments, respond in some fashion, and create final regulation.  Then there’s a gap to allow time for implementation.

So despite all the media hype right now, it could be years before this system actually shows up on food packages, if it ever does.

Visit www.nuval.com to see a tool that each and every day is helping consumers make more nutritious food choices.

It’s that time of year when candy dishes filled with mini-candy bars and candy corn start appearing on your co-workers desks.  Then on November 1^st, they’ll be piled with all the Halloween candy their kids don’t like.  Then we transition into cookie season before long. 

At this time of year, the temptations as you weave your way to your desk can be daunting.  Most people like to then talk about “will power,” and using it to hold up against the constant temptation of all these treats.   But in reality, I don’t think it has anything to do with will power.

Consider this. . .

“Every time we see the candy jar we have to decide whether we want a Hershey’s Kiss or whether we don’t.  Every time we see it, we have to say no to something that is tasty and tempting.  If we see that temptress of a candy jar every five minutes, it means needing to say no 12 times the first hour, 12 times the second hour, and so on.  Eventually some of those no’s turn into yes’s.  . .. Out of sight, out of mind.  In sight, in mind.”

This is an excerpt from Brian Wansick’s book Mindless Eating.  The book focuses on how visual cues can impact the amount of food we eat in most situations throughout the day and how changing your environment can help you establish and maintain healthier eating habits.  Leaving chicken wing bones on your plate during a Super Bowl party can help you eat less of them.  Stocking your kitchen with smaller cups, glasses and bowls can help you manage portions at mealtime.

But back to your daily strolls through the streets of Candy Land.  The answer, according to Wansick, is to find a new route to walk.  Are there pathways to and from your desk that are candy free?  Or buy your coworker a candy dish this is colored and covered (out of sight, out of mind).  The trick is to change your environment so that you don’t have to say no all those times each and every day for the next two months. 

Visit www.nuval.com to see scores on sweet treats and other foods.

As a dietitian, I have a blind side.  When there appears to be much buzz about a hot new ingredient or food trend, I sometimes quickly discount it knowing inherently there isn’t science behind it.  But then I take a step back, and realize that the crux of my profession is to educate consumers on nutrition, to investigate and understand the science, and to translate the science into practice.

Agave nectar has been one of these food “blind sides” for me.   Everywhere you turn right now, there is concern about sugar consumption (and rightly so in light of the calories it contributes to daily eating habits) and consumers are looking for alternative.  This ingredient has reached high levels of notoriety because it is believed to be a natural sugar with less health impacts.  So I’m moving beyond my blind side today, to share science-based information on agave and other sweeteners it is often used in place of.

The three main sugars talked about today are table sugar, high fructose corn syrup and agave syrup.

Table sugaris the common, powdered white stuff.  Structurally, it is called a disaccharide, a double sugar.  In the body, it is broken down to 50% glucose and 50% fructose.

High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has been more vilified than any other food ingredient and without solid reasoning.  This sweetener is processed from corn, and is about 45-55% glucose and 45-55% fructose.  While it has been suggested that HFCS has contributed to obesity, science does not support this claim.

Agave nectar typically comes from a blue agave plant, grown in the Southern part of the US, Mexico and northern South America.  The starchy part of the plant is made into a slurry and then processed so the starch is converted to fructose and glucose.  Agave nectar can range from 55-90% fructose with the remaining being glucose.  It has been given a “health halo” as it’s perceived to be a natural sweetener.

The one redeeming quality about agave nectar is that it appears to sweeter than other forms of sweetener, suggesting that you can use less of it.  But as for the rest?  As the description of each sugar shows, there isn’t much difference structurally between the various sweeteners.  Agave nectar is even processed somewhat similarly to HFCS.  The bottom line is there isn’t much difference between all the sweeteners, and the real goal is to use less of all of them – those added to foods and those already added to food.

Visit www.nuval.com where all these sweeteners lower the score of a food.

A colleague recently updated me on a consumer study.  Ten years ago, 29% of consumers believed their weight has impacting their health.  Today, ten years later, 29% of consumers believe body weight is impacting health.  Despite escalating rates of obesity in our country, the same number of us believe weight is a health issue.

While at a conference over the summer months, I heard an expert on consumer trends report that the average person has 11 health conditions before they perceive themselves to have health issues.  Not one, not two, but 11. 

It makes me wonder if we are all in a state of denial.  Kubler-Ross has defined the five stages of grief after the loss of a loved one, but perhaps we are moving through these stages in various aspects of our life throughout our lives.  In this model, denial is defined as

“I feel fine.” “This can’t be happening, not to me.”

If we don’t recognize that our weight impacts our health, if we don’t recognize that we have health issues until they total 11, clearly we won’t act to live healthier lives.

How do we move past denial?

Visit www.nuval.com to see a system that can help us eat healthier and live better when we have moved past denial.

According to the BBC, Denmark has become the first country to implement a tax on unhealthy food.  According to the reports, all foods that have more than 2.3% saturated fat will get taxed.  The tax rate varies; higher saturated fat means a higher tax rate on the food.   Burgers, for example, will carry an increased price by $0.15 and butter by about $0.40 per package.  Parliament passed the tax as they believe it will increase life expectancy of Danes by three years over the next ten years.  The interesting piece in all of this is that Denmark has one of the lowest rates of obesity in the world – running about 10% compared to more than 30% in the United States.  Their life expectancy is just below 79 years of age.

A fat tax, a soda tax – the idea has been bantered about in the US, but amidst the controversy no action has been taken.  The question remains as to what the right ingredients and/or nutrients are that should be taxed.  For instance, not all saturated fat is created equal.  Studies suggest that stearic acid, one type of saturated fat, does not have the same negative effect on health that other types of saturated fat do.  What about sodium?  Should sugar figure into a tax, and if so should it be done by total sugar or added sugar? If obesity is the real issue in our country, shouldn’t the tax then be against calories?  But how would we define nutrient dense calories from non-nutrient dense calories?

Adding complexity to the issue is the fact that no one knows if implementing a fat tax or any tax on unhealthy food will work.  Yes, it worked with tobacco, but as I’ve mentioned before in this blog, the difference between tobacco and food is that you can completely cut tobacco out of your life.  Not so with food.  Will the Danes, who love butter, eat less now due to this tax?

Visit www.nuval.com to use a system that puts the power to make good food choices into the hands of every consumer.

As the current Nutrition Facts Panel was launched in the early 1990’s, there’s no doubt that it needs a refresh, a redesign, something.  Since 2003, the regulatory and policy agencies have been looking at changes that need to be made.  Earlier this year, Good Magazine and the University of California Berkeley launched a competition to rethink the food label.  The winning design, and all the submitted designs, can be seen at http://berkeley.news21.com/foodlabel/designs/renee-walker.  The FDA recently announced it’s going to take a hard look at the label, consider updating the serving sizes, emphasizing calories more, deleting information that is meaningless to consumers.

But back to the question I started with in this post.  There are many consumers who are most interested in how natural a product is, whether it contains preservatives and additives.  Individuals with heart disease are focused on the saturated fat and sodium in a product.  People with diabetes are closely looking at the carbohydrates and sugars.  Others want to know if the product contains gluten.  What about artificial sweeteners – are they in there?

We live in a time of individualization.  I get to choose what is good for me.  I want the information I want to make my own decisions.

At the same time we are in the midst of a public health crisis – startling rates of obesity, startling rates of childhood obesity, heart disease and cancer deaths crippling our health care system.  The federal agencies mission is to protect consumers, and a part of this is providing information that protects consumer health.  But the information the agencies deem important may not be the same as what each of us as individuals deems important.

But can the label do it all?  Can it be the one source of information that meets the regulatory agencies’ goals of consumer protection and at the same time meets my individual needs? 

Visit www.nuval.com to see a system that factors in 30 elements of good nutrition in one score, simplifying and enhancing the information on a label.

Many consumers are dedicated to choosing organic foods, and believe that they are healthier options.

I bring this up because today, two retailers out West are launching the NuVal™ System, the system I work on every day in my job.  What’s intriguing about these launches at King Soopers in Colorado and Raleys in California, is that these markets have a very high interest in organic and natural products.  We’re already seeing many questions from their consumers on how the organic status of a product plays into the product’s overall nutrition, which is what is measured by the NuVal™ Score.

While there are many reasons to buy organic – lower pesticide and chemical use in the growing of organic foods, better conditions for the farmers – science doesn’t support that organic foods are necessarily more nutritious.  Take an apple, for example.  A medium apple has 5 grams of fiber no matter whether it is grown organically or conventionally.  When you move into processed foods it’s even trickier.  There is an example of an organic macaroni and cheese product that has 10 grams of saturated fat, half of what the average person can have in an entire day.  Yes, it’s organic, but is it necessarily a good nutrition choice?

When it comes to food, there are multiple elements that contribute to the overall health – portion size, nutrition quality, and organic status are just a few.  But you can’t assume that the USDA organic seal on the product label means the food is more nutritious.  If you’re an organic shopper, it’s important to also consider the overall nutrition of these foods as well – is the product lower in saturated fat, free of trans fat, higher in fiber and calcium, lower in sodium? Shoppers in Denver and California now have a way to find organic foods that also have the best overall nutrition quality.

Visit www.nuval.com to find a retailer near you that helps you find foods of higher overall nutrition quality.

When I started my career, there were still smoking rooms in workplaces.  But since then, we have seen taxes on cigarette packages, bans on smoking in all public places, increased insurance premiums for smokers, and in some cases, companies that now refuse to hire smokers.  Government intervention, environmental and policy change were all effective in making huge strides in this public health issue.

There is much debate today as to whether the same approach should be taken with food.  Should a “fat tax” be assessed against junk foods?  Should obese individuals be assessed higher insurance premiums?

I read quite a bit on this topic, and understand the rationale.  We have an obesity epidemic in our country, and our behaviors are contributing significantly to this problem.  Obesity and its related disease are burdening our health care industry and national debt.  Individuals don’t appear to be taking responsibility for the issue.

But the issue for me in this argument has always been that cigarette smoking and food are not the same.  You can completely cut cigarettes out of your life.  You can stop cold turkey one day and never go back.  You can never start and live your whole life without ever smoking.

But food is necessary to live.  We need to eat food every day.  Several times a day in fact.

So the real issue is treating food responsibly.  Managing food in order to manage our health, and it gets tricky to understand how government involvement would help us with this task.  Take a fat tax, for example.  What foods would get taxed?  Many entities have tried to suggest soda pop should get taxed.  But then shouldn’t you also tax fruit juices, as they often have the same or more calories per serving and not any nutritional value to mention?  Does chicken at KFC get taxed but not the fried chicken you make at home?

Then there’s the genetic component of obesity, with experts suggesting that our genetic make-up contributes to about 30% of obesity.  Should the individual be penalized for their family history?

It’s a complicated issue, with many sides to it, which will continue to be debated until the health crisis in our country changes.

Visit www.nuval.com to see a system that can help you take personal responsibility to manage your food choices and manage your health.

As a part of my day-to-day job, a lot of questions have been popping up lately on foods with a natural claim, so I wanted to address it here.  Without a doubt, natural foods – as well as organic foods – are a hot trend these days. 

But the question is what are natural foods?  It seems intuitive and obvious, right?  When you hear the word natural, visions of wheat fields and fresh grown veggies at a farm down the street are in your mind.  But sometimes, you see a natural claim on foods that appear to be processed.  All foods are grown or raised, so where do you draw the line on what is or isn’t natural?

Both the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) – the agencies that regulate food and food labels – have fairly loose definitions of this term, with FDA having guidelines but no official policy.  FDA doesn’t object to a natural claim on a food as long as there are no added colors, artificial flavors or synthetic substances.  USDA would add that a natural product can only be minimally processed (roasting, freezing, smoking, drying and fermenting of meats and poultry are allowed).  Because the definitions are loose, food companies interpret the definition of natural, and therefore the message isn’t necessarily consistent across all brands and foods. 

The interesting thing about the questions I’ve been getting is that they aren’t related to how natural foods are defined.  The point I’m hearing is that natural claims should be a primary decision factor in purchasing foods. 

As a health professional, I’m not opposed to people choosing foods with natural claims.  What I’m opposed to is the choosing of natural foods at the expense of all other nutritional contents of the food.  In reality, foods may carry a natural claim, but be high in saturated fat, sodium and/or sugar and lack positive nutrients like fiber, calcium, vitamin D and/or omega-3 fats. 

Natural is not necessarily synonymous with healthy or nutritious. Simply using the natural claim as a marker does not guarantee a shopping cart filled with vegetables and fruits, lean means, whole grains, low-fat dairy and vegetarian protein sources.  Choosing natural foods works, but only if combined with the nutrition quality of the food.

Visit www.nuval.com to see scores on natural, organic and conventional foods.