The Food Movement Minute is a top story news analysis for busy foodies. I chew up the top industry and consumer publications each day and spit out only the news that matters most in a quick and entertaining read. I have a very discerning palate.
Today’s topics: American Diets, Natural Colors, Added Sugar, Food Politics
———-
American Diets
The Story
The Standard American Diet (SAD) is still pretty, well, sad. However, a new study finds that it’s a little less sad than it used to be and even the small improvements we’ve managed to make as a society are having a significant impact on health outcomes. Go team U.S.A.!
The Details
Turn that frown upside down. A team from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health conducted the study. How they did it: 34,000 U.S. adults were surveyed twice between 1999 and 2012 to measure subjects’ average intake of fruit, vegetables and whole grains as well as their consumption of sugar sweetened beverages and processed meats. To overlay health impact, the researchers looked at rates of premature death and disease during the same period. What they found: Healthy eating scores increased from 39.9 to 48.2 (the highest score is 110). A reduction in trans-fat intake accounted for about half of the improvement in the dietary scores. The researchers also linked improvements to a 13 percent drop in diabetes type II and an almost 9 percent drop in cardiovascular disease rates.
Why it Matters
The most surprising finding according to the study author, “…even very small amounts of dietary quality improvement actually led to substantial reduction in disease burden.” Although 48.2 out of 110 is still a failing grade according to school rules, it’s moving in the right direction. So, keep up the Meatless Mondays, folks. They might not seem like much, but it turns out they really do have a positive impact.
———-
Natural Colors
The Story
Move over, Yellow no. 6. More natural colors from plants (and some occasional cochineal insects) are coming.
The Details
An increasing number of food companies (Kraft, Panera Bread, General Mills and others) are moving away from synthetic coloring toward plant-based, natural options. Although 2015 seemed like the year of big announcements in this area, work behind the scenes has been ongoing for years, likely since a 2007 study in the Lancet linked artificial colors to hyperactivity in children (and got a whole boat load of press and the attention of a lot of parents). Why the past preference for artificial versions? According to Carol Culhane, president of International Food Focus Limited, “Making food colors from plants is often more expensive than making them in a lab. That’s because when you’re dealing with plants, you have to deal with a lot more fluctuations, thanks to Mother Nature.” Damn, Mother Nature…why do you have to be so inconsistent?!
Why it Matters
Beyond the whole artificial colors make your kids act like wild monkeys thing, the shift to natural colors is a signal that American consumers are beginning to accept (and even prefer in some demographics) the more variable and inconsistent approach that comes from nature…where things look, taste and are just a little bit different every time. Imagine that.
————
Added Sugar
The Story
Food Manufactures remain divided over FDA’s proposal to add a percent daily value for added sugar to nutrition panels. Consumer ability to correctly interpret the proposed label change leads the case for those opposed.
The Details
The FDA proposal would establish a percent daily value for added sugar on the Nutrition Facts panel – set at 10% of total energy intake – in addition to listing the amount of added sugar in grams. Companies like Nestle, Mars and KIND are in the ‘yea’ camp while General Mills, Kellogg and Unilever remain in the ‘nea’ camp. In recent comments, General Mills claims the FDA is cutting corners when it comes to considering the “totality of scientific evidence” and is asking the agency to pause in order to go back and conduct a “deep, evidenced based review”. The other issue cited by General Mills (and many others opposed to the recommendations) is that the change will confuse shoppers. The manufacturer cites studies that show just 66% of shoppers are able to correctly identify the total sugar content of a product with the proposed label, compared to 92% of shoppers who were shown existing labels.
Why it Matters
Following due diligence and established precedent when it comes to a review of science is a valid point (although from what I’ve seen, the science supporting an added sugar callout is well supported). However, challenging a change in process due to consumer confusion over something our society has never seen before is a much weaker point, and brings other motivations that may truly be fueling a resistance to change into question.
———-
Factoid of the Day
Have a friend who needs a quick crash course in food politics? Civil Eats, an online publication focused on food issues, recently posted their recommendations which includes a reading list and a recap of where we’ve come over the past few years. I couldn’t have created a better recap myself. Check it out.