Hannah covered a lot with her Friday Round up, so here’s a mini corral of issues that might influence our shopping baskets.

Bad news first: Bisphenol-A

BPA was in the news throughout 2008, triggering a shift away from the then ubiquitous Nalgene bottles to the now ubiquitous Sigg-style metal canisters. Bisphenol-A is back and this time it’s in our soup…and green beans…and Juicy Juice.

Nicholas Kristof and Marion Nestle both address the recent Consumer Reports story about the presence of synthetic estrogen in canned foods. Kristof’s piece summarizes key reasons we don’t want BPA in our bodies. The Consumer Reports article discusses its findings in comparison to typical dietary exposure, as defined by the FDA:

“Consumers eating just one serving of the canned vegetable soup we tested would get about double what the FDA now considers typical average dietary daily exposure.”

That we even have formulas detailing normal exposure and upper limits is an unfortunate necessity.

Consumer Reports found that similar products in alternate packaging posed either very low levels of BPA (in plastic pouches of frozen beans, or plastic soup containers) or no measurable risk (tuna pouches, juice boxes). To decrease exposure to BPA, the report also recommends reheating food in glass containers whenever possible. I wonder how all of this will influence canned food donations/pantry unloading and the diets of already vulnerable, food insecure populations.

If there is a silver lining (Get it? Contaminated can liners? Cans are metal and shiny?), it’s having yet another incentive to purchase fresh and frozen foods instead of canned. The high heat processing inherent in canning already degrades the nutrient content of many fruits and vegetables. Heating to sterilization also makes things mushy.

(More) Good News: Nutrition Claims on Foods

Kellogg’s is withdrawing the Immunity claim ["Now helps support your child's immunity”] that, critics say, is peddling Rice Krispies and Cocoa Krispies to H1N1 fearing parents. Kellogg’s states that it had increased the vitamin content of its cereal in advance of flu pandemic concerns and that it plans to continue this formulation even after removing the claim. The marketing tactic generated negative media attention last week (see CBS, USA Today) and a letter from San Francisco’s city attorney requesting evidence that supports the claim. Marion Nestle has a nice discussion on her blog about the wiggle-room inherent in ’structure-function’ claims for food products.

The most recent issue of The Economist has not one, but three articles addressing the regulation of health claims on foods. The European Food Standards Agency (EFSA), the European Union’s counterpart to the FDA, is critically reviewing the scientific evidence, or lack thereof, behind proposed claims. Tighter regulation of health claims on ‘functional foods’ is critical, especially since fortification often lends packaged foods a virtuous makeover, complete with an ‘eat-more’ message.

The proof of the pudding: Short piece about EFSA and FDA tightening their evaluations of nutrition claims on food labels. The authors rebuff claims that stricter standards will stifle innovation:

“Those firms making misleading claims will suffer; those prepared to invest in proper scientific studies to back up their supposed breakthroughs will benefit….Extraordinary claims, after all, require extraordinary evidence.”

What this also means is that companies with the money to invest in studies, can essentially buy their rights to claims by funding research. Independent research that leads to applicable findings will be ‘fair game’ for all parties. How consumers value these claims and use them in purchasing decisions is another issue altogether, and one that is likely to vary by consumer demographics.

Nestle: The unrepentant chocolatier
This longer piece investigates Nestle’s big investment in functional foods and a ‘wellness’ focused strategy. Nestle is looking to modify its foodstuffs to increase nutrient content, validating the purchase of these foods among the health conscious and thereby fortifying the company’s bottom line. Everyone wins!

It’s a business-heavy article that is interesting in the context of the current regulation debate. With Nestle, the largest food company in the world, putting so much stock in the future of functional foods, I find myself wondering whether they see regulation as a flash in the pan. Or is the company buoyantly confident that both science and consumers will come to embrace products like Nescafe Frappe with lutein? (That’s a hypothetical example.)

The authors wonder how this strategy fits with Nestle’s identity in Western countries. “If a company known for selling indulgence wants to reinvent itself to symbolize wellness, does that not send mixed messages to the consumer?,” the article asks.

Food, glorious food
Another short article. This one uses European regulation of omega-3 claims to discuss the tension between science and sales in the marketing of health claims. The article focuses on omega-3s claims, which largely fail to disclose whether the product has been manufactured with shorter chain alpha-linolenic fatty acids (abundant in flax seeds, pumpkin seeds, walnuts) or the more efficiently utilized, longer chain, Docosahexanoic Acid (DHA) and eicosaphentanoic (EPA) omega-3s (found in oily fish like salmon, herring, mackerel), which are markedly more expensive.

More Halloween Candy Leftovers:

(hat tip to Sabrina Lopez)

Corby Kummer on the All-Candy Diet

Leftover Halloween Candy Pie from Serious Eats/Cakespy

photos by: EraPhernalia Vintage, fooducate, Cakespy

Email