The Food Movement Minute is a news roundup for busy people who care about people and planet health.
Added Sugar
The Story
Last Friday, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed that nutrition labels on packaged foods list the amount of added sugars per serving and set the recommended level per day at 10% of total calories or 200 calories for a recommended 2000 calorie diet. Turns out, the new recommendation on the sweet stuff is making some industry folks sour.
The Details
The recommendation brought swift criticism from industry groups who claim the added information will confuse consumers and isn’t scientifically justified anyway. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a leading group representing the Food and Beverage Industry, states the approach may mislead consumers to believe that added sugars are somehow different and less healthy from sugars inherent in food. Not surprisingly, the Sugar Association isn’t happy about the announcement either and claims the recommendation is “misguided” and not based in adequate scientific evidence. However, health advocacy groups such as the American Diabetes Association and American Heart Association believe the label change will help consumers identify foods containing empty calories and make better choices.
Why it Matters
Ten percent of calories, based on a 2000 calorie daily diet, is equivalent to the added sugar in just one 16-ounce soda. Most Americans consume way more than 200 calories worth of added sugar each day and many believe this is partially due to a lack of awareness of the levels of added sugars in a wide range of packaged and processed foods and beverages. Given that the leading diseases in the U.S. (obesity, heart disease and diabetes) are directly linked to poor dietary choices, having more information seems like a pretty obvious choice.
—
GMO Labeling
The Story
The GMO labeling bill known as The Safe and Accurate Food Act (HR 1599) and referred to by opponents as the Deny Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act, passed in the House last week. Groups opposed to the bill are claiming campaign contributions by special interest group played a primary role in House votes.
The Details
Show me the money. Turns out, GMOs may add new meaning to the term “cash crops”. Open Secrets Blog, investigating money in politics, found that House members voting in favor of the bill received, on average, three times the amount of money from agribusiness than those members voting against. Reps. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), two original sponsors of the legislation, topped the list of House members receiving money from the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a leading group representing the food and beverage industry, in 2014. The 230 Republicans and 45 Democrats who voted to pass the bill received an average of $108,900 each from the Agribusiness and Food and Beverage Industries during the 2014 cycle, close to three times as much as the average $38,977 received by lawmakers voting against the bill. The bill bans states from adopting individual GMO labeling laws and overrides any that are currently in place.
Why it Matters
Recent polls show the vast majority of responders want to know what’s in their food and believe that GMO labeling should be mandatory. Maybe all the bookkeeping required to keep up with those financial contributions is distracting politicians from paying attention to the requests of their voting constituents.
—
Organic Produce
The Story
A new review published in the British Journal of Nutrition found that organic crops and foods made with them (such as cereal) pack 17 percent more antioxidants on average that conventional versions.
The Details
Ever since the USDA began its National Organic Program, groups have debated the nutritional merits of organic agriculture. The review, which looked at 343 studies, found that organic crops not only contained higher levels of antioxidants but four-times less pesticide residue than conventionally grown crops.
Why it Matters
One of the biggest challenges facing the Organic Industry is getting consumers to believe that the increased price for organic is worth it. An established body of research now demonstrates the health benefits of antioxidants and emerging research suggests exposure to pesticides may be linked to cancer and other serious neurologic diseases. This review helps to connect the dots and communicate a higher level value for organic food.
—
Factoid of the Day
How about a side of herbicide with those Cracker Jacks? A recent Environmental Working Group (EWG) survey of athletic fields and parks in a six-state sample of small-town America found that more than 90 percent of these areas are within 1,000 feet of a corn or soybean field where herbicides, linked to cancer and serious neurologic diseases, are sprayed.
Image by Moyan Brenn