Most people eat some combination of food that is good for them and food that tastes good. Finding the balance between the two is a lifelong journey. This is the story of that struggle.
"Sustainable beef" sounds great. Trying not to be cynical but what does that mean?
McDonald's ads in the United States don't talk about the quality of the beef in the fast food hamburgers. We know McDonald's ads in Canada have a completely different mindset than U.S. ads. This McDonald's ad on sustainable beef ran earlier this spring on Canadian television.
"At McDonald’s Canada, (sustainable beef) it’s a commitment. A commitment to ensuring we preserve Canada’s most valuable resources for future generations to come. To look after the land, to care for animals, and to provide the best quality food we possibly can without compromise."
McDonald's Canada says that the company has "partnered to produce beef sustainably" with Canadian farmers for over a decade. The practice applies to the Mighty Angus Burger but not every burger that McDonald’s Canada sells.
Dr. Reynold Bergen, Science Director, Beef Cattle Research Council, is quoted in the ad as saying "the same pound of beef today produces 15% less greenhouse gas than it did 30 years ago, and so our environmental footprint is shrinking."
Is McDonald's Canada beef grass-fed or grass-finished? The ad implies that the cows eat grass and aren't trapped in pens.
In 2018, McDonald's Canada announced that the Angus beef would be certified sustainable according to standards from the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (CRSB).
From McDonald's Canada:
For example, a few of the indicators a farmer or rancher must achieve include:
Grasslands and grazing are managed in a way that maintains or improves soil health and protects watershed areas.
A&W Canada says the company is a proud member of both the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef as well as the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef.
The chain has touted its stance that it uses beef "raised without any added hormones or steroids." The FAQ does say "our cattle enjoy a mix of different grains and grass" so their beef isn't 100% grass-fed.
When asked about the verifying process, their reply was "We audit all facilities that handle our beef and they are also audited by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency or equivalent regulatory agencies. At A&W, we’ve developed our own animal welfare programs that meet the National Farm and Animal Care Council requirements, adding additional requirements from our own research. This means we also audit our supplies using third-party auditors accredited by the Professional Animal Auditors Certification organization to ensure all our requirements are met."
You might decide that McDonald's Canada or A&W Canada doesn't meet your high standards (e.g., grass-finished). These places might exceed your current level of standards (likely none).
Having a conversation about sustainability in fast food is rather fun, though a few more details wouldn't harm the discussion. We would love to see more fast food places in Canada jump into the conversation. Fast food outlets in the United States? Someone has to take the first step.
Food companies will try to take advantage of buzzwords such as "sustainability." Holding them accountable keeps them on their toes and we all benefit as consumers.
If you need a long-shelf life for your regular milk, you might be excited that you are seeing expiration dates longer into the future. We are seeing this especially in organic milk.
However, those longer shelf-lives come as a result of the milk going through the process of ultra high temperature (UHT) or being ultra-pasteurized. Are the advantages of organic milk being compromised by being UHT?
I learned the different pasteurization techniques via Alton Brown on an episode of Good Eats. The conventional process is 145°F for 30 minutes. Brown referenced HTST pasteurization (high temperature/short time), which is 161°F for 15 seconds. UHT is 280°F for 2 seconds and then cooled quickly.
Brown noted that low and slow is the way to go because it produces better flavor and body.
Nutrition is more important than taste, but a better tasting milk means more milk will be consumed, especially by children. Drinking milk is also about health above and beyond calcium and protein.
Scouring the Internet won't take you long to find articles about the evils of UHT pasteurization, such as altering the milk protein structure is altered and that UHT milk has less folate and could have reduced Vitamin B12, Vitamin C, and Thiamin.
According to Lee Dexter, microbiologist and owner of White Egret Farm goat dairy in Austin, Texas, ultra-pasteurization is an extremely harmful process to inflict on the fragile components of milk. Dexter explains that milk proteins are complex, three-dimensional molecules, like tinker toys. They are broken down and digested when special enzymes fit into the parts that stick out. Rapid heat treatments like pasteurization, and especially ultra-pasteurization, actually flatten the molecules so the enzymes cannot do their work. If such proteins pass into the bloodstream (a frequent occurrence in those suffering from "leaky gut," a condition that can be brought on by drinking processed commercial milk), the body perceives them as foreign proteins and mounts an immune response. That means a chronically overstressed immune system and much less energy available for growth and repair.
If you like raw milk or want to have the milk as little pasteurized as possible, UHT milk goes to the other extreme.
The UHT process doesn’t add nutrition to the process. UHT milk isn’t safer than regular pasteurization. The primary advantage to UHT is that grocery stores can increase profits. Less milk to throw out and more people will buy milk with a longer shelf life.
You can drink regular milk past the expiration date. Unless you take a long time to consume a container of milk, you almost never have to worry about spoilage. And if you need a long-term, shelf-stable milk, you can buy non-dairy milk.
Your food can be “too safe.” The U.S. has allowed irradiation of ground beef since 1999. Health Canada approved irradiation of ground beef last year but that information must be declared on the label. Irradiated ground beef might be "safe" but I wouldn't want to eat that beef.
We praise Europe’s food process, but the UHT wave comes from Europe. You might remember the Parmalat milk from the 1990s. Finding UHT milk is much easier in Europe, but then again, raw milk is easier to find in Europe.
If I’m going to drink milk, I want to get as much complete nutrition as I can in that glass. UHT milk makes buying and drinking milk less worrisome to some people, but provides no worthy reason where nutrition is concerned.
Eating vegetables have many barriers: Texture, raw vs. cooked, cost, taste. Pesticides are a concern but they shouldn't prevent you from eating vegetables.
A dietitian friend of mine had a social media post that said people were not eating enough fruits and vegetables. I would argue that fruits aren't as much of a concern, but we all agree that we aren't eating enough vegetables.
The next part of the post puzzled me: the Dirty Dozen, Clean 15, and other lists were scaring people away from eating fruits and vegetables. I responded online that people weren't being scared away from fruits and vegetables because of the lists.
To clarify, the Dirty Dozen and Clean 15 type lists break down which fruits and vegetables should be bought as organic vs. conventionally grown. The lists are also helpful in what isn't on them. They suggest buying organic for certain fruits and vegetables. If a fruit or vegetable isn't on that list, then the lists tell us you don't have to be as concerned. The lists should increase the consumption of fruits and vegetables by giving consumers information to make safer and better choices.
The reply was that people were scared and this study was the proof.
"We surveyed 510 low-income shoppers to learn about their attitudes about organic and conventional fruits and vegetables (FV) and what would happen if we provided them with information about organic and conventional growing practices from a variety of sources. In general, participants preferred organic FV; however, cost was a significant barrier to purchase them. Informational statements about organic and conventional FV did not increase participants' likelihood to purchase more FV. In contrast, messages naming specific FV with pesticides shifted participants toward 'less likely' to purchase any type of FV regardless whether organically or conventionally grown. The results provide insight about how low-income people view FV and how communications may influence their purchase intention."
The study focuses on the impact of communications on purchase intention. The flaw in the study is that the information is incomplete and without context. Let's look at 3 major areas of concern:
People are scared of the idea of pesticides without knowing a whole lot. Let's start with a dose of reality: conventional-grown produce has pesticides. Organic produce can and often has pesticides. The difference is which pesticides are used, how much of the pesticide is being used, and whether or not those pesticides are outlawed in other parts of the world.
Farmers markets sell produce that often is grown to organic standards without being certified organic in part due to cost and tedious paperwork. Produce at those markets are usually cheaper than certified organic products in a grocery store. Some farmers markets take food assistance funds (food stamps) as payment.
The study doesn't address hydroponic vegetables grown in warehouses without a speck of pesticide.
"In general, participants preferred organic FV; however, cost was a significant barrier to purchase them." We hear this quite often that "organic" means "too expensive." Sometimes, this is true but the marketplace has shifted quite a bit. Trader Joe's, for those who are near one, and even conventional stores carry organic foods at more reasonable prices.
The U.S. consumer complains about high food prices. In a world comparison, U.S. food prices are pretty low compared to similar countries but U.S. wages have been stagnant in terms of buying power for 40 years. The cost difference between conventional and organic may seem too high for some consumers but may depend on accessibility to cheaper organic food.
You have to develop your own system for buying fruits and vegetables that fit your nutritional, physical, and psychological concerns. You might want to support local farmers. You might not care where your fruits and vegetables got their start. The marketplace is large enough for all types of decisions.
You might enjoy rinsing and cleaning your fruits and vegetables and figure this is the price you pay for buying relatively cheaper produce. You can choose to follow the clean organic lists such as the Dirty Dozen and Clean 15 for some produce and be more open in other areas of produce.
You might not have enough time or money to do anything more than shop in one huge place where organic is a pipe dream. Everybody in all these scenarios and more have an obligation to themselves to consume fruits and vegetables.
Frozen or canned fruits and vegetables can be a wonderful option for consumers. With canned fruits and vegetables, rinsing canned fruit (for ingredients that aren't juice) and vegetables (too much sodium) is a really good idea. Fresh fruit and vegetables can be an amazing supplement when in season whether growing them yourself, getting them at farmers markets, or at the local supermarket.
The ultimate reason you will eat those fruits and vegetables is taste. People who pick organic or farmers markets usually find that the taste of fruits and vegetables is better. They might pay more but they are more likely to eat those fruit and vegetables. Nutrition only counts if you eat what you buy.
For those 510 low-income people in Chicago (a significant scientific flaw in the study for using 510 people all from one location: Chicago), we have good news. You can use food assistance funds in select farmers markets. There are beautiful hydroponic vegetables growing in warehouses in your city without a drop of pesticides.
The United States makes food shopping rather difficult because of the Wild West mentality that food companies can try to sneak things past you that you don't want in your family's food supply. Being diligent has to be a part of the food shopping process. You have to learn about what is out there and make your own smart decisions that work with your core values. And yes, you have to eat your fruits and vegetables.
"(Monsanto) should have been more transparent (about GMOs) in reaching the public." — Dr. Robert T. Fraley, Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer at Monsanto.
This statement may win the "duh" award. Monsanto's actions have been a huge force behind people's concerns over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) since they came into force in 1996.
The primary purpose of the Food Evolution film is to make fun of those people who see GMOs as a threat and mocking them for not understanding the nuances of genetic engineering.
The film starts out with the story of the rainbow papaya in Hawaii. The rainbow papaya was nearly wiped out until scientists put a gene into the rainbow papaya and ended up saving the crop. The film notes that one Hawaii county voted to ban GMOs while leaving an exception for the rainbow papaya. The scientists in the film mock their ignorance over not seeing that GE and GMOs are the same technology.
Food Evolution talks about the advantages of genetic engineering such as golden rice, where Vitamin A is added to rice in areas that are deficient in that vitamin, a potential allergy-free peanut, disease-resistant crops, and drought-tolerant crops. The film also explores Uganda bananas with a similar concern as the rainbow papaya in Hawaii. The film puts the blame on anti-GMO proponents for why bananas can't be saved in Uganda.
The people behind Food Evolution don't understand the confusion behind genetic engineering as a concept but you don't have to read too much into the film to see there are some benefits to genetic modification of food. Neil Degrasse Tyson, who narrates this film, should make his own film about the science to help people understand the concept.
Michael Pollan and Marion Nestle are in this film. Their excerpts in the film make them look more like hostages reading off a script. The statements are brief and offer absolutely no context to anything else they might have said in the interview. Both Pollan and Nestle have complained about the editing of the film.
Director Scott Hamilton Kennedy employs a number of questionable edits and choices in the film to put opponents in bad light that make viewers uncomfortable, even if you are likely to agree on the subject.
The Washington Post science journalist Tamar Haspel is in the film. I don't always agree with Haspel but was curious to see where she was on the topic. Haspel tells us that "we make decisions based on our gut." Not very scientific. Haspel doesn't contribute anything of science in the film, an odd omission and a bit disappointing. Given that she has an opinion on most everything, viewers can infer that her answers didn't suit the message of the film.
Kennedy brushes off the story of Monsanto suing farmers over the patents of their seeds. He implies that this really comes down to one case in Canada and that farmer had a lot of Monsanto seeds that he just didn't want to pay for. A very simple Google search with legitimate news sources would tell you Monsanto has sued hundreds of farmers in the United States over the patents of seeds. One case involving Indiana soybean farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman went to the Supreme Court of the United States; Monsanto won that case. Again, the facts are easy to prove. So why lie about a small thing such as this?
The film spends a bit of time about a Gilles-Eric Seralini study on tumors in rats. The scientists blame GMO fears off this specific study. The scientists make a common mistake assuming regular people have a specific study as a reason for being concerned about GMOs. Maybe their concerns about the study are quite legitimate. The problem is that refuting one study or so-called expert doesn't win you an argument.
Food Evolution goes after Dr. Oz a lot. A Venn diagram would find some common areas of those who question Dr. Oz and are anti-GMOs. The film goes out of its way to mock people such as Zen Honeycutt of Moms Across America, Jeffrey Smith, and the Food Babe.
The folks with March Against Myths challenge Honeycutt on the streets in downtown Chicago. The filmmakers think March Against Myths won the argument hands down, but the consensus is that neither side dealt well with their argument.
A primary argument against Moms Against America and the Food Babe revolve around products they sell on their Web sites. This is one of many moments in the film where the viewers would shrug and say "so what."
Mark Lynas is a food science journalist who switched from being anti-GMO to now being pro-GMO. Lynas apologized for vandalizing field trials of genetically engineered crops. He says in the film that if we were totally organic, we would have to get rid of the rainforest to feed the world's population. That last sentence seems more hyperbole than science not to mention that the rainforest is already being destroyed even with GMOs.
Food Evolution does reflect briefly on the dominance of Monsanto and other similar players with 90%-93% of GMO dominance of corn, soybeans, and cotton. You can like Monsanto and still be concerned about those statistics.
Food Evolution makes the argument that glyphosate is better than other pesticides. The film mentions that glyphosate has a LD50 mark of 5600 mg/kg, which by that measurement makes it less toxic than either caffeine or table salt. That sounds too impressive. But this is the only measurement that is in the film.
The film spends about 2-3 minutes on organic farming. The talk is positive about organic but does point out that the "challenge is producing food on a large scale." This speaks to the theoretical advanced yields of GMOs, which relates back to the Lynas rainforest comment.
The film concludes with a debate from Intelligent Squared in New York City in late 2014. The question is over genetically modified food: yes or no.
Status
Agree
Disagree
Undecided
Before
32
30
38
After
60
31
9
Those numbers look really great for the pro-GMO side. The debate parallels the film in that the acceptance of genetic modification is an implied consent to glyphosate and Monsanto. You can watch the full debate and see for yourself.
The film runs a graphic about net sales of Whole Foods vs. Monsanto. The Whole Foods number is slightly higher. No context is given but the implied message is along the lines of Whole Foods is also a big scary corporation.
The companies are set up very differently. Whole Foods has to deal with brick-and-mortar locations, delivery issues, petty theft, and dealing with consumers. Monsanto and other similar players have a 90%-93% dominant market share where farmers are forced to buy their product every year. And the more resistant weeds are developed, the more Roundup has to be bought, increasing sales.
This "liberals are afraid of large corporations" argument is confusing at best. Apple Corporation is only one of many arguments against the concept. Liberals might be afraid of some large corporations but they are very afraid of Monsanto.
Nothing in this review or the film spells in a definitive manner whether glyphosate, Roundup, or Monsanto is beneficiary to the public. Food Evolution makes a good and fairly solid reasoning for exploring genetically modified food and the potential benefits. Past that, the film suffers from bad or awkward editing to make opponents look clueless and stupid. At other points, the film is plain dishonest.
Most films on food do promote organic and similarly grown methods. The difference with those films is that they are more positive about the attributes of their leanings and they want to inform those who do not believe instead of making fun of them. Food Evolution could use some of that etiquette and a lot nicer editing process.
The more knowledgeable you are about the food supply, the easier you can follow the truth and the hype in Food Evolution. But if you already are that smart about the food supply, chances are you won't learn much from the film.
I've seen a number of films that profess the wonders of growing organic. Being anti-GMO is part of the drill.
Food Evolution is a film that tells us GMOs are good. The truth lies somewhere in between but is that closer to this new film?
As part of a lunch-and-learn series this month, we will see the film broken up in 2 different sessions followed by a discussion on the topic.
The films I've seen want the truth. Food Evolution wants the truth. As we've learned about freedom on this food blog, truth seems to be in the eye of the beholder. While the definition of freedom will always have different hues, truth should be black and white.
There may be a section of anti-GMOs proponents who are also against genetic engineering of any kind. Most of the anti-GMO crowd can handle what happened to the rainbow papaya in Hawaii, where inserting genes from another plant helped bring back the plant to life. Given that GMOs work in a similar way to genetic engineering (GE), you might wonder about splitting hairs but this argument isn't as much about the technology but how that technology is being used. In other words, genetic engineering has some validity; Monsanto's use of said technology doesn't have validity.
Golden rice, adding beta-carotene (Vitamin A) to rice, as well as developing disease-resistant and drought-tolerant crops are examples of genetic engineering that have great potential, with the emphasis on potential to be a positive force in improving nutrition around the world.
These films have a point of view. How that point of view is presented speaks volumes about their own case. If you have the truth on your side, using propaganda techniques doesn't help your cause. BalanceofFood is a journalism blog so we don't like propaganda even if we agree with the message.
We will have a review of the film later this month as well as a wrapup of the discussion early in April.
20 grams of plant-based protein. Red like a beef burger looks. Does the Beyond Burger go beyond other veggie burgers? And if it does, do you want to give up meat for this burger?
The argument with a veggie burger is the protein level of a meat burger without the meat. But does that protein have to come from something that looks like a burger?
You can buy the Beyond Burger in the store for home cooking. Since Epic Burger sells the Beyond Burger in its restaurants, I wanted to try out the Beyond Burger under the guise of a typical eating out scenario.
The chain is known for its quality ingredients. The regular burger is $4.99 while the Beyond Burger is $7.29. The veggie burger would have to be really good at that price level.
I ordered the burger the same way I would eat an Epic Burger, but did substitute a brioche bun instead of the usual wheat bun.
The veggie burger looked similar to the flat regular burger that the restaurant serves. Like most fast food pictures, the product didn’t match up: the redness touted in the ads was not there. The Beyond Burger did look like a burger more than other veggie burgers. Then again, looks matters less than frosting on a cupcake.
If you stack a veggie burger with actual vegetables, you don’t get a sense of taste of the veggie burger. Since I eat the regular Epic burger with few to no toppings, I chose to get the true taste of the veggie burger.
The initial reaction to the taste is the sensation of crunchy. The crunching isn't bad but a bit disorienting in eating a burger.
The taste was very neutral but also tasted like an overcooked burger. Comparing a veggie burger to a regular burger is easier if you overcook your burgers. For those of us with love a medium-rare burger, crunchy isn’t going to work.
As a meat eater, you can't mistake this Beyond Burger for a meat burger. If you haven't had a beef burger in years, you might think this burger could be a beef burger if you ignore the crunching and visible pieces.
As a veggie burger goes, and that may be the only viable comparison, this burger does have some good non-crunchy points. The taste isn’t bad. The burger held together well.
The nutrition element in the comparison chart is surprising for a vegetarian burger. The comparison notes that the veggie burger is only 1g of fat (23g vs. 22g) behind the beef burger. The beef burger has 9g of saturated fat but the veggie burger has 5g of saturated fat. The nutrition comparison makes the beef burger seem not that bad.
The nutrition numbers are comparable while the price point isn't. That difference can change over time, especially if climate change affects the price of cattle and innovation reduces the cost of the veggie burger. For $7.29, you could make an amazing vegetarian lunch and have plenty of change.
I have tried a few veggie burgers with a general consensus: I could eat this burger, but why would I want to do so? If I were a vegetarian, I would rather put a grilled portabella mushroom in a brioche bun with thin slices of roasted red pepper, sautéed spinach, and a nice whole grain mustard.
You can easily argue that I am biased against veggie burgers and you would likely been right. The Beyond Burger will not sway an omnivore, but if you are leaning toward being a vegetarian, try it out with lots of toppings. And if you convince yourself you aren’t eating a burger, you might enjoy the Beyond Burger.
"Twitter archives also show that the clique has ganged up on colleagues who criticize the conventional food system: questioning their credentials, accusing them of taking money from special interests, and hounding conference organizers and academy chapters that have worked with them.
"Victims say the campaigns are typically sparked by philosophical disagreements, and not scientific ones, as instigators claim. The predominant organizer of these campaigns, who tweets in a personal capacity, declined to speak to The Post about them, referring questions to the academy (Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics)."
Social media battles are all too commonplace. Despite being experts in their field, dietitians don't always agree. A recent article in The Washington Post gave us an insight into some of the food industry battles.
As much as I love dietitians, their conflicts of interest can be a real problem. So some of these social media arguments stem from a need to defend their territory. The other dynamic, given that most dietitians are female, is that women usually have a worse experience on social media, such as Twitter.
The Washington Post article particularly noted the attacks received by those who raised concerns about GMOs and the conventional food system. At BalanceofFood.com, we heartily challenge the current food system, especially in the United States and Canada. They are also the only major countries that don't label GMOs.
Here are some tips for dietitians to avoid the temptations of being a social media bully:
List your conflicts of interest in your Twitter bio. If you aren't proud of it and can't list them, maybe you should reconsider them.
If you are certain of your beliefs, state them calmly. You will look like the better person with a calm or subtle reaction.
Food issues are always going to be up for debate. Listen more and you might be surprised what you can learn.
If your employer or other conflict of interest puts pressure to react badly on social media, remind them that their reputation decreases in prominence with online bullying.
Don't be tied down to conventions that you don't see concerns that might fall out of the nutrition norm, such as the environmental impact.
Remember that your vocation is designed to help people eat better. If your fight isn't about that, remember what is truly important about being a dietitian.
With my interest in food and nutrition, some have asked why I didn't want to be a dietitian. I like the concept of a dietitian: what they know and the good they can bring. But too many of them seem caught up in serving other masters rather than trying to inform. Guess I could say the same thing for journalists sometimes.
The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly American Dietetic Association) did come out recently with a social media guidance in the academy’s Food and Nutrition magazine. Members are presented with a Pledge of Professional Civility that promotes constructive dialogue and avoids personal attacks.
Dietitians have the knowledge and power to help improve the way people look at food. Conflicts of interest, perhaps a financial evil, often cloud the perception and reputation of the dietitian vocation. Dietitians who are forcibly negative to their fellow dietitians make this perception even worse.
Dietitians: help out your profession and tone down your social media reactions. Feel free to respond with your own thoughts. A thoughtful discussion will bring out your considerable nutrition knowledge, something that regular people may not know dietitians have in their repertoire.
Donald Trump went off on the Canadian dairy industry to a target audience of Wisconsin dairy farmers last week.
The dairy farmers are upset because Canada is offering incentives to its producers to use local milk instead of the flood of cheap ultra-filtered milk from the United States.
Canada responded because the United States was sneaking in the ultra-filtered milk, not subject to the up to 300% tariff on U.S. dairy products.
The Trump rant may be a salvo that has little to do with cheese and more to do with softwood lumber. Trade between the 2 countries is much more complex than simplistic rants from someone living in the world of reality TV.
We wrote about ultra-filtered milk marketed in 2015 under the Fairlife name by Coca-Cola.
Ultra-filtered milk is a concentrated ingredient designed to increase protein in cheese and yogurt. The U.S. is flooding Canada with ultra-filtered milk since, unlike other U.S. dairy products, isn't subject to as much as a 300% tariff.
The Canadian dairy producers were losing money on the cheaper milk product and introduced a policy giving incentives to Canadian processors to buy domestic milk.
Part of the anguish on the U.S. side is that the U.S. has been overproducing milk and the sudden change leaves them high and not so dry.
The United States is scheduled to list added sugars on nutrition labels by July 26, 2018 unless you have fewer than $10 million in annual sales. Added sugars distinguish from naturally occurring sugars (fruit, milk) versus high-fructose corn syrup.
Canada had a chance to make its mark on added sugars but succumbed to food industry pressure. The Trudeau Government had been expected to utilize the added sugars requirement, which had been dropped by the Harper Government. To the surprise of many, Federal Health Minister Jane Philpott didn't include added sugars.
The added sugars proposal was popular among consumers as well as health professionals. Industry officials claimed the body metabolizes naturally occurring and added sugars in the same way.
The decision was made more on politics rather than science, but the oddity is that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau cites added sugars specifically in the mandate letter to Philpott. Unlike their conservative counterparts in Canada and the United States, the Liberals aren't heavily biased toward corporations.
We did say scheduled for the United States since the orange one may try to divert any progressive legislation on food labels. But the fact that the United States has a policy in place should have given inspiration to Canada. We've argued the countries should have food sovereignty but this was one of the few cases to follow the lead of the United States.
The theory from the food industry in Canada is that the body processes all sugars the same way. Eat a cup of blueberries. Drink a 12 oz. soft drink. Your body can tell the difference. Dietitians have been telling me this for awhile. Hard to believe when Canada can't even get a basic concept that the United States clearly acknowledges.
The other major advantage to listing added sugars is that food companies would be compelled to reduce or eliminate ingredients not conducive to the product such as glucose-fructose in hamburger and hot dog buns. [Glucose-fructose is what Canada calls high-fructose corn syrup.]
Since Canadians who live near the U.S. border often go food shopping in the U.S., they can bring back food with labels so they'll know or take pictures so when they buy the Canadian version, they'll have some clue as to what are the added sugars are in the Canadian food product.
We are that much closer to the new food labels featuring added sugars, thanks to the Food and Drug Administration announcement on Friday. In typical FDA tradition, the changes won't kick in for some time: July 26, 2018 is the ultimate deadline for most businesses; July 2019 for small businesses with fewer than $10 million in annual sales. When you combine the FDA ruling on trans fats, the last half of 2018 will be as close to mecca as the U.S. food supply might get.
The best news from Friday's announcement was that nothing got messed up. No last-minute changes. No "hey let's do teaspoons instead of grams." What was promised is what we will get, something you don't always get from the alphabet soup that is department agencies.
Added sugars is the area to circle for improvement. The label is clear of the added sugars within the sugars category: this will be really useful of yogurt with fruit. That product contains milk sugars and fruit sugars as well as added sugars. You will finally get a breakdown of the extra sugars in that product. Before, we were clueless.
The word "includes" is the only major change from the proposed food label change. This is a positive note to help draw attention and not confuse consumers who might wonder if the added sugars are extra beyond total sugars (they aren't).
The other nice touch is we finally get a percentage breakdown of added sugars as far as how much we should have in a day. A treat of 20% of a day's requirement of added sugars is a treat; 130% of a day's added sugars isn't so much of a treat as it is more sugar that your body doesn't need.
The ideal hope, though likely a pipe dream: food manufacturers will work to reduce or eliminate the prevalence of high-fructose corn syrup in foods, especially in ones that aren't normally sweet (e.g., hot dog buns). A bright light will be shined on high-fructose corn syrup for the first time ever. And the percentages could give food manufacturers incentive to not substitute sugar for high-fructose corn syrup to distract us (though sugar is better than high-fructose corn syrup). Again, this is a pipe dream, but I know I'm not the only one.
Added sugars isn't the only big change on the labels. Serving sizes will be changed to reflect what consumers actually eat. FDA said about 20% of all package labels will be adjusted. This is related to added sugars in the sense that consumers will have to do less math to understand how much sugars they are consuming.
I confess to preferring the way Europe does their serving sizes by "per 100 g" since that makes the sizes uniform. Food companies get to pick their serving sizes; if you've been in a grocery aisle comparing cereals, you know that headache.
One thing that will be missing from the new food labels is "calories from fat" since the type of fat is more important than the amount, according to the FDA. A minor loss, but we'll take it for what we do get.
We lose the overall breakdown of what people should consume in terms of fat, cholesterol, sodium, and carbohydrates, but we do get a breakdown of the actual amount of Vitamin D, calcium, iron, and potassium. The overall guidelines were useful to remind you of where this food would help in the overall day, but if you worry about this less, you might concentrate on enjoying food.
It does seem like if we want people to relax about food the way Europeans do, using more European style information would help. You often see on European labels a breakdown in percentages of what is in the container. U.S. labels rank foods by the amount but that isn't enough to determine how much of a food is inside. For example, if high-fructose corn syrup is the 2nd-largest ingredient in a food, is that amount 40% or 20%? Shouldn't we know that?
The overall food label changes are giant steps ahead of where we were but the ideal is light years away.
There is no right way to finding the balance of food, just your way. My typical breakfast is whole wheat spaghetti with homemade sauce, sautéed mushrooms, and a naturally low-fat Italian cheese sprinkled on top. Works for me.
