Declaration of "added" sugar on the label of packaged foods -What are the implications?

Rightly or wrongly white sugar has been considered as one of the culprits responsible for some of the worst life style disorders including diabetes and obesity. Though there is no unanimity as to the minimum daily need for sugar in human beings, the fact is that it is a major contributor of calories directly or indirectly through both added sugar as well as derived sugar from carbohydrates consumed as a part of the diet. It is more or less agreed that there is a significant difference between empty calories as represented by sugar, HFCS and refined carbohydrates and nutrient dense calorie sources like sugars present in fruits, whole grains, legumes and other natural foods.  Therefore making a distinction between added sugar by the manufacturers during processing and naturally present sugar makes eminent sense. Presence of about 50 grams of added sugar in the food we consume daily is considered harmless by many health experts and therefore asking the industry to make declaration about it in the label will help the consumer to exercise better discretion regarding the purchase of processed foods. This issue is now coming to the fore and whether the industry will voluntarily agree to this just demand remains to be seen. Here is a take on this new development in the labeling area and its implications on consumer well being. 

"Americans have a sweet tooth, and the obesity and diabetes rates to prove it. The best way to help people eat less sugar is to let them know how much of it is in their foods. Yet a sensible plan to inform consumers about the amount of sugar added to packaged products is under fire from the food industry and politicians. The Food and Drug Administration should stand strong and stick with the plan when it issues its final rules later this year. The FDA has proposed requiring a new line in the nutrition label for "added sugars"— just below the line for total sugar. The label may also specify how much of the recommended daily allowance of added sugars the product contains, out of a maximum of roughly 12 teaspoons. Added sugar deserves a line of its own because it's empty calories. Many nutritious products contain natural sugars: A cup of cherries or grapes can have more than 15 grams, and a cup of 1 per cent milk has 13 grams. Yet this sugar comes along with essential nutrients; that glass of milk contains 16 per cent of the protein a healthy adult needs each day, and 30 per cent of the calcium. In contrast, refined cane sugar, corn syrup and the like that are added to foods and drinks during processing (also called "free sugars") offer no additional nutrients. Americans now get about 13 per cent of their daily calories from them, largely through soda and other beverages, breakfast cereals and frozen desserts. A can of Coca-Cola has more than 9 teaspoons (39 grams) of added sugars. But even products not considered sweet contain them; a tablespoon of ketchup has about 4 grams. A study of 80,000 products on supermarket shelves found that 58 per cent contained added sugar. And while total US consumption has declined in recent years, only 30 per cent of Americans eat less added sugar than the latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend. The food industry has three objections to the labelling requirement. The first is that Americans won't know what to make of the information about added sugar. That may be true, but neither were many Americans familiar with trans fats when they were added to nutrition labels in 2006. And since that rule was passed, thanks also to greater media attention and information campaigns, people cut their consumption of trans fats by more than 75 per cent. (Last year the FDA decided to ban them altogether.) In any case, if most consumers won't pay attention, what do food manufacturers stand to lose from the disclosure? Food makers also argue that the science suggesting that added sugars should be limited is not settled. And it's true there's not a lot of good data on added sugar's connection to health problems. But there's significant evidence that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is linked with obesity. And after reviewing the evidence on added sugars, the federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee found there was a strong correlation with diabetes and obesity, and a moderate correlation with hypertension, stroke and dental problems. Finally, food makers object that almost all packaged-food labels already list added sugars. That's technically true, but the industry engages in all sorts of tricks to hide them, for example by including several different types in a single product so that they appear as low as possible in the ingredients list, which is organized by weight in descending order."

It appears the food safety authorities in the US are considering revamping of the present label content on packaged foods so as to include a provision to declare how much sugar has been added by the manufacturer. This hopefully will make the consumers aware of the same for better selection of products during their visit to the market. The logic is that consumers would shy away from those products containing high levels of sugar prompting the industry to modify the product formulations to reduce added sugar. However such an exercise will have no meaning if the consumers are not informed as to the maximum daily sugar intake that is ideal from the health angle. The highly hostile reaction by the industry can be understood because of the challenge thrown at them to come up with products containing less and less sugar. But in the interest of the well being of the consumer. Industry must fall in line if it has to overcome the trust deficit that is evident to day. Afterall the present technological base is so strong that there is nothing which cannot be accomplished and reformulation of many sugar containing products to reduce the added sugar will not be a major technical problem. One uncertainty is how the regulators can distinguish between natural sugar and added sugar in a product when it comes to regulatory protocols. This issue needs to be considered more carefully before making such label changes mandatory.  
 
V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Authentication of GMO free foods-Newly proposed Government certification to help consumers to choose such foods

Hardly a day passes without some one in some parts of the world speaking for or against genetically modified foods and their safety. Mankind had never faced such a divisive issue when it comes to food safety and GM foods have divided the world vertically into two sides, one favoring them and the other fiercely opposing the same. While many governments have refused planting of GM crops in their respective countries, USA is one of the most ardent advocates of GM foods, its safety authorities taking the stand that GM foods are "practically same" as the natural foods and therefore do not pose any safety hazards. Flowing out of this policy decision is the remarkable growth of GM crops industry in that country where more than 80% of the foods in the market are either made from GM raw materials or contain GM ingredients. Unfortunately the confidence of the citizens on the credibility of the US government agencies in charge of food safety is rather low and this had given birth to a vigorous and sustained campaign to force the food industry to compulsorily declare the presence of GM materials in packed foods as a matter of constitutional right. The powerful GM crop industry with a vice like grip on the law makers has been able to resist any mandatory labeling provision in the statute books. Recent attempt by the government in that country to provide a mechanism for those who want to declare their foods are free from GM materials appears to be a deflective strategy to evade the responsibility of promulgating orders that will require mandatory labeling of all GM foods. Here is a take on this interesting development which may have far reaching implications in that country.

"The Agriculture Department has developed a new government certification and labeling for foods that are free of genetically modified ingredients. USDA's move comes as some consumer groups push for mandatory labeling of the genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
The certification is the first of its kind, would be voluntary — and companies would have to pay for it. If approved, the foods would be able to carry a "USDA Process Verified" label along with a claim that they are free of GMOs. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack outlined the new certification in a May 1 letter to USDA employees, saying it was being done at the request of a "leading global company," which he did not identify. A copy of the letter was obtained by The Associated Press. A USDA spokesman confirmed that Vilsack sent the letter but declined to comment on the certification program. Vilsack said in the letter that the certification "will be announced soon, and other companies are already lining up to take advantage of this service." Companies can already put their own GMO-free labels on foods, but there are no government labels that only certify a food as GMO-free. Many companies use a private label developed by a nonprofit called the Non-GMO Project. The USDA organic label also certifies that foods are free of genetically modified ingredients, but many non-GMO foods aren't organic. Vilsack said the USDA certification is being created through the department's Agriculture Marketing Service, which works with interested companies to certify the accuracy of the claims they are making on food packages — think "humanely raised" or "no antibiotics ever." Companies pay the Agricultural Marketing Service to verify a claim, and if approved, they can market the foods with the USDA process verified label."

According to the above policy, individual manufacturers can get their claim of GM free product verified by USDA, the agency managing safety of agricultural products through a universally accepted methodology and the certificate issued will confirm their products are GMO free. While this is a welcome first step, it does not still obviates the need for declaring presence of GMO in foods that are made from such modified food materials. Probably the present attempt may be to regulate the current practices followed by some manufacturers in including on their label words like "GMO free" putting consumers in a fix as to whether it can be trusted. Though many such products declaring to be free from GMO are certified by non-government agencies, their credibility will be enhanced if such claims are verified and confirmed by government authorities. But there is a perception among impartial observers that this is a ploy by the government to hamper the enthusiasm of a major segment of the population agitating for mandatory labeling. This is confirmed by the proposals now being pursued by the federal law makers to prevent state authorities imposing regulations mandating for compulsory declaration. This raises questions regarding the role of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which is supposed to regulate packed and processed foods industry and it will be interesting to watch out how this is going to be played out. USDA certification must be accepted by FDA in the interest of the consumers and honest food manufacturers.though no one is still sure whether FDA will take a positive stand on this crucial issue. .

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Calorie counting in foods-Uncertainties regarding label declaration!

Why should the food industry print on the label the so called nutrition information? Those who came up with the idea of nutrition labeling were honest in their intention that such information would help the consumers to select the best foods from the market from the health point of view. But does it really happen the way it is intended to be?  Probably not! Why? The human biological system varies from person to person and the efficiency of utilizing the nutrients also will also vary. Therefore the figures printed on the food pack can at best indicate maximum efficiency without taking into consideration the individual variations or the extent of processing the food has undergone. Calorie values exemplify this paradox. The calorific value of food declared is based on the estimates arrived at through the Bomb calorie meter test where food is burned under controlled conditions to find out the calorific value. Unfortunately the human system cannot be expected to be as efficient as a bomb calorie meter with the digestion system depends on the compliment of enzymes and the microbiome that inhabit the GI tract. As a thumb rule more the food is processed or cooked more efficient is the digestion efficiency. Why this factor is important can be understood in the context of the critical role played by food calories in leading to over weight and obesity. Here is an interesting expose regarding the role of processing and cooking in calorie generation once the food is ingested and their fate within the system   . 

"Unfortunately, of course, in today's overfed and underexercised populations, nature's way is not the best way. If we want to lose weight we should challenge our instinctive desires. We should reject soft white bread in favor of rough whole wheat breads, processed cheese in favor of natural cheese, cooked vegetables in favor of raw vegetables. And to do so would be much easier if our food labels gave us some advice about how many calories we would save by eating less-processed food. So why are our nutritionist advisers mute on the topic? For decades there have been calls by distinguished committees and institutions to reform our calorie-counting system. But the calls for change have failed. The problem is a shortage of information. Researchers find it hard to predict precisely how many extra calories will be gained when our food is more highly processed. By contrast, they find it easy to show that if a food is digested completely, it will yield a specific number of calories. Our food labeling therefore faces a choice between two systems, neither of which is satisfactory. The first gives a precise number of calories but takes no account of the known effects of food processing, and therefore mismeasures what our bodies are actually harvesting from the food. The second would take account of food-processing, but without any precise numbers."

Ideally a healthy person must derive full benefit from the food he consumes and the nutrition guidelines do not make a differentiation between cooked foods and raw foods, the values of the latter being used universally in all guidelines across the world. If calorie needs are determined based on the theoretical calorie yield and if the calories contained in the diet are not absorbed, naturally the question arises whether man really needs so much calories as being recommended? Obviously consumers looking for 2000 kC from the food they consume will go by the theoretical values presented to them in the label. While a consumer eating minimally cooked or refined food will not derive the theoretical values because of the digestion inefficiency, those consuming highly processed foods will get almost 100% of the calories declared on the label. Another dimension to this paradox is that refined foods require less energy expenditure for the biological digestion system, eating minimally cooked foods calls for comparatively higher energy input by the body leaving very little for conversion to fat and consequently to weight gain. Sounds confusing? Well that is the reality and that is why health pundits universally condemn highly refined and over cooked foods because of their higher energy mobilization and fat deposition potential. No wonder consumers are realizing this "unpalatable" truth and shifting towards whole cereals and pulses and raw fruits and vegetables to avoid many life threatening health afflictions and improve the quality of life.  

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

Infant foods becoming less and less healthy? An alarming trend.

Sugar is in the news for all wrong reasons. Though it is a taste maker for beverages and all sweetish products, its role in causing some diseases has made it a great villain. In fact to day's obesity epidemic is being attributed to greater consumption of white sugar. Whether there is universal agreement or not, sugar is considered by many as an addictive substance and its continued use is difficult to curbed because of this fact. It is for nothing that health experts are advocating putting restrictions on levels of added sugar present in processed products realizing the damage of potential of this "white demon"! though food industry is being pressured to cut down on added sugar in their product portfolio, such voluntary efforts cannot bring any dramatic results. From the industry view point consumer liking forms the basis of their product formulations and in a fiercely competitive market all players have to agree to restrict sugar levels in their products. What is alarming is that even children's foods are not spared when it comes to addition of sugar in their formulations. almost 30-35% of the products targeted at infants and young children have more sugar than necessary, obviously to attract more and more of their targets to their products. Even healthy products containing many nutritive ingredients are rendered unhealthy due to loading with sugar. Here is a take on this alarming situation in a country like USA where reliable data is available

A new CDC study, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, tells us something about infants and sugar that is worrisome, though not especially surprising if you've been following the food industry's efforts to mislead the public and influence the science and policy on added sugar. The study examined the salt and sugar content of commercial infant and toddler food in the U.S. Researchers looked at a 2012 dataset of 1074 infant and toddler foods and beverages. Among infant products, they found that 41 of 79 mixed grains and fruits—i.e. healthy seeming items—contained more than one added sugar; in 35 infant items, more than 35 percent of calories came from sugar. Among toddler products, the researchers found that 72 percent of dinners and most cereal bars, breakfast pastries, fruit, snacks, desserts, and juices contained more than one added sugar. Given the American Heart Association's recommendations on added sugar, it's pretty clear from the CDC study that many very young children are getting too much.  How do parents know how much is too much?
The study concludes with advice to pediatricians. Namely, counsel parents to pay attention to labels on the food and drink products they buy for their infants and toddlers and try to limit the added sugar.  An added sugars declaration on the Nutrition Facts label would empower consumers with knowledge of how much sugar has been added to foods. Currently, the Nutrition Facts label does not provide parents with enough information to truly make informed decisions. Total sugar is listed in grams—not the more familiar teaspoons—and neither the amount of added sugar nor the percent daily value are provided. So parents, who may be trying diligently to follow their pediatricians' science-informed advice, cannot know how much sugar has been added to the foods and beverages they are feeding their infants and toddlers—or how much is too much.
As the FDA considers its proposed rule to update the Nutrition Facts label to include added sugar, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services are concurrently developing the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. A forthcoming report from the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee—an independent scientific body tasked with providing guidance to the agencies—is expected to contain recommendations on limiting added sugar to a maximum of 10 percent of daily calories and including added sugar and percent daily value on the Nutrition Facts label. It would be an important, science-based step forward not only for parents of young children but for all Americans if the agencies decide to adopt the DGAC's recommendations on limiting and labeling added sugar.

The fact that early childhood eating practices have an important bearing on the body weight when they grow up, it is necessary that the nutritional standards of children's foods, especially infant foods are made stiff so that industry is not allowed a free hand in making and marketing whatever they feel like doing. When new guidelines are made there should be restrictions regarding use of the two white "poisons" viz, sugar and salt so that the future generations are not exposed to unnecessary dangers during their evolution into adulthood. Strict compliance must be insisted upon in stead of leaving them as just guidelines because voluntary efforts in a fragmented industry like food processing does not work as shown by past experience.

 V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

"HIDING" VEGETABLES IN PROCESSED FOODS-WILL THE STRATEGY WORK?

It is well known that kids, given a choice, invariably do not like to eat vegetables, whether they are in India or the US while governments world over make conscious efforts to encourage vegetable consumption at least to the minimum level recommended by nutritional experts. Vegetables are considered protective foods because they are rich sources of minerals, vitamins and health promoting phytochemicals. Without getting into the controversial issue as to how this vegetable "shunning" habit is formed, for which there are many reasons, the need to change the kids' diet composition is universally recognized. If willingly this cannot be accomplished, there has to be alternate strategies to protect their health. Blaming the industry solely for the current situation where kids are hooked on to calorie rich, high fat and high sugar foods, is not a solution as parents and the school system also have to bear part of the responsibility. The latest move by some members of the US food industry to increase the content of vegetables in their processed food products is a welcome move in the long run. Though they are being criticized for not being transparent, the end probably will justify the means!

"Don't tell the kids! Kraft Foods is the latest large food manufacturer to try hiding additional veggies in packaged foods, an effort to ride a renewed interest in healthy eating to fatter profits. It's a slowly growing trend, and it's one that is dividing food industry experts. In June, Wal-Mart and Target stores started stocking Kraft Macaroni & Cheese Dinner Veggie Pasta across the country, alongside boxes of the traditional recipe and other alternative versions, including organic and whole grain. Every neon-orange cup serving of the new recipe packs a half-serving of cauliflower. Kraft joins brands such as ConAgra Foods' Chef Boyardee, which includes enough tomato in some of its canned pasta to claim half a cup of vegetables per serving, and Unilever's Ragu pasta sauces, which says it has two servings of veggies for every half cup of sauce. "We know moms are always looking to please their kids and wanting to not make meals a big ordeal, insofar as being able to get them to eat their food," said Alberto Huerta, who oversees the Kraft Macaroni & Cheese brand at Kraft. "Mom is looking for ways to sneak veggies into her kids' diet."In the Kraft product, the company freeze-dries cauliflower and pulverizes it into a powder, then uses that powder to replace some of the flour in the pasta".

Strict interpretation of the food law might not condone such a practice because of the legal provision, mandating the manufacturers to declare each and very ingredient in the packed food to be listed in the order of their concentration. If there is indeed a legal hitch, the food authorities must change the law to encourage more manufacturers to adopt such a practice. As long as the vegetables incorporated are edible, there should not be any objection and if there has to be a monitoring need a provision to just inform the regulatory authorities will meet with that requirement.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com

THE WHOLE GRAIN "STORY"-A CONVICTION OR A BOGEY?

The explosive knowledge generated during the last 3 decades about the role of dietary fiber has spurred the food industry to develop many "designer" products containing whole grains which are considered high in fiber. Besides whole grains are also supposed to be rich in other nutrients like vitamins and minerals though some of the fiber fractions have the tendency to retard intestinal absorption of some mineral nutrients. While products containing whole grains in significant proportion are beneficial to the consumer, the tendency to add small quantities in a product and claim health benefits is to be frowned upon.

"Whole grains are good (although not the only) sources of B vitamins (which include riboflavin, folate and niacin), vitamin E, iron, selenium and magnesium. One cup of whole-wheat flour has 26% of the recommended daily value of iron, 36% of thiamine, 38% of niacin, 20% of vitamin B6, 13% of folate and 121% of selenium. Putting more whole grains in food usually translates into more fiber, but not always. If a product has just a bit of whole grains, chances are the fiber content will be low. For example, a serving (55 pieces) of cheddar Goldfish crackers made with whole grain has only 2 grams of dietary fiber. The trend toward adding more whole grains to food has been growing steadily since the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services revised the dietary guidelines in 2005, recommending that at least half of all grains eaten be whole grains and that 3 or more ounces of whole grains be consumed per day. As a 1-ounce equivalent of whole grains has about 16 grams of whole grains, the recommendation is to eat 48 grams of whole grains a day".

Though a few manufacturers may be guilty of practicing such devious means to attract gullible consumers, strict labeling regulations can stop them from doing so. As the labeling rules in many countries do not demand exact proportion of ingredients in a product, the consumer may find it difficult to assess the validity of claims about use of whole grains. However, declaring the ingredients in the descending order on the label, with the highest one coming first, can still give a clue regarding the extent of healthy ingredients present in a packed food product. Branded foods with bloated claims must be shunned by the consumers as a part of a sustained campaign to punish the guilty without looking to the government for socour.

V.H.POTTY
http://vhpotty.blogspot.com/
http://foodtechupdates.blogspot.com