The International Food Information Council Releases New Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labeling Research To Help Consumers Make Healthier Food and Beverage Choices 

(Washington, D.C.) — The use of Front-of-Package (FOP) nutrition labeling schemes has increased dramatically worldwide in recent decades. In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has initiated qualitative and quantitative consumer research to explore the development of a FOP nutrition labeling scheme. Given the multiple FOP initiatives underway at the FDA and health agencies throughout the world, the International Food Information Council (IFIC) has released the results of its most recent quantitative consumer study on FOP nutrition labeling, Front-Of-Package (FOP) Nutrition Labeling: Front & Center Food Information To Encourage Healthy Choices.    “Nutrition communications are ever-evolving, and so must on-label communications if we want to keep pace with today’s consumer. Too often, the consumer’s voice is left out of food policy conversations. That is why IFIC’s new Front-of-Pack labeling study and the work currently being done by FDA to understand consumer interpretations of Front-of-Pack nutrition labeling concepts is so critical,” said Wendy Reinhardt Kapsak, MS, RDN, President & CEO of the International Food Information Council (IFIC).     IFIC is one of the first to publish results on consumer reactions to FOP labels being considered by the FDA for a potential standardized FOP scheme on food packaging. IFIC’s study also included FOP labels with calorie and dietary fiber information, two elements not included in the FDA’s current prototype FOP labels.    “One of the many intriguing findings from our new research is that no single FOP scheme was best for helping people identify the healthiest and least healthy food label,” said Kris Sollid, RDN, IFIC Senior Director of Research & Consumer Insights. “However, people found it easier to select the healthiest choice when calories and fiber, a health-promoting nutrient that Americans do not eat enough of, were included on Front-of-Pack labels. By including this information front and center on food packaging, consumers may […]

Media

Two 2015 Trends that Explain the Challenge of Health Communication

Does having access to unlimited information make it easier for consumers to be informed or does it lead to more confusion? There’s persuasive evidence that it leads to confusion. In the IFIC Foundation Food & Health Survey, three out of four consumers reported that changes in nutritional guidance make it hard for them to know what to believe.  That’s the issue that nutrition communicators are struggling to address as we move into 2015.  Last week, I stumbled on to the ConscienHealth.org list of Nutrition, Health and Fitness Trends for 2015, and I found two of the predicted trends to shed some light on this important question: The more I thought about these predicted trends, the more I thought that these issues relate heavily to the confusion that pervades nutrition communications. Cherry-picked statistics Increasingly, cherry-picked statistics have been used by talk show hosts and public figures who want to capture the public’s attention with sensational stories that lack common sense. Perhaps the public knows that these TV shows are merely entertainment, but it’s getting harder and harder for the public to distinguish between scientific evidence and the beliefs of public figures. Eventually, I predict the public will hone their ability to separate out these claims and determine who should be trusted. In fact, many consumers already say that they are the most likely to trust health professionals, as opposed to media outlets, for nutrition information (check out the infographic below). Until that time, it can feel like the wild west of nutrition information. Thankfully, in the meantime, organizations like ours do their best to present facts that can help consumers with science-based food information. Focusing on Outcomes Unlike cherry-picked statistics, a focus on health outcomes will be a welcome change in 2015. For many years, regulators have had to depend on short-term […]

article

What Paying Taxes has to do with Your Diet

Happy Tax Day everyone! I hope you all enjoyed the perils of receipt sorting and reporting our 2014 home economics. This annual exercise has me thinking about economics too, but maybe not about the type of economics you’d expect. I’m thinking about behavioral economics- the reasoning we use to make numerous decisions every day. A couple of months ago, I was driving. It was a slow Monday morning commute – the kind talk radio was made for. An NPR radio segment discussed Americans’ retirement savings. Average retirement savings were much less than you’d imagine, and economists are concerned. With something as important as retirement savings, why is it so hard to make the ‘right’ choice? NPR could just as easily have been discussing food and health. Even the same language would apply: “An NPR segment discussed Americans’ diet choices. Average calorie consumption is much more than you’d imagine, and dietitians are concerned. With something as important as our diet, why is it so hard to make the ‘right’ choice?” Most Americans understand that retirement is expensive, yet we’re not saving enough for it. The same can be said of our dietary habits. People know what to eat, they just have trouble making it happen. Why is it that we can verbalize what’s good for us (i.e. save money, eat a balanced diet), yet we struggle to act on our own advice? We are a stubborn sort. It’s difficult for us to deny short-term satisfaction in favor of long-term benefits. Perhaps this, in part, explains why 35 years of well-intended dietary guidance has had a relatively small impact on altering American eating patterns. We eat what we like. No matter how nutritious something is, or how beneficial it is to our long-term health, we won’t sacrifice our taste buds. Taste is “king,” after all. This pull for taste pushes us in a clear direction: don’t try […]

article

The DASH Diet Secret: 5 Steps for this Science-Backed Plan

People seem to have a love-hate relationship with eating. To illustrate, I wrote two haikus: “I can’t eat bagels.”  “Fermented foods only, please.” “Only on cheat days.”   “I am eating clean.” “I am avoiding gluten.” “Fat is bad for you.” And then there’s always the simple statement that is circulating these days: “Sugar kills.” Be wary of fad diet trends. Good reasons exist to restrict certain types of foods from your diet, but in many cases, people flock to fad diet trends as a way to lose weight, not because of a particular medical condition.  The biggest drawback to fad diets: they don’t alter long-term eating behavior and are not sustainable for a lifetime. If you’re looking for an easy to follow, evidence-based diet that you can stay on forever, The DASH Diet could your ticket to better health.  The secret? It’s proven. Due to its namesake, Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension, the research for this diet began as an approach to lower blood pressure.  But what’s really cool is that after several research trials, it was also recognized to support weight loss, diabetes control, and even bone health.  Eating the DASH way is sustainable too (as in, you can keep it up long-term) – something that many fad diets can’t brag about. We all want instant gratification sometimes, but eating well is something that we have to do for a lifetime. Focus on adding foods to your diet, like a variety of fresh fruits and vegetables, fat-free or low-fat milk products, whole grains and lean meats, instead of taking away!   5 Easy Tips for Starting DASH Today: 1. Add fruit, protein and fiber to your breakfast. Add sliced banana or blueberries to your oatmeal. Top with a tablespoon of chopped nuts. 2. Enjoy 4-8 ounces of yogurt for a mid-morning or mid-day snack 3. At lunchtime, add protein to a salad – try 3-4 […]

article

What You Need to Know About Coffee and Your Health

Our favorite morning beverage and afternoon pick-me-up was evaluated for how it impacts the risk of cancer in people. Well, good news! Coffee is no longer deemed as a possible carcinogen and recent research even shows drinking coffee might help prevent cancer.  What is IARC and what do they have to do with coffee? IARC, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, headquartered in Lyon, France, operates as part of the World Health Organization (WHO). Three times a year, IARC forms working groups to evaluate how something (like certain occupational chemicals, foods, or even the sun) impacts the risk of cancer in people. This quarter, they reviewed coffee and released their report on June 15 classifying coffee as ‘Group 3.’ Previously, coffee was classified as ‘Group 2B’ or as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”  What does a ‘Group 3’ classification mean? IARC classifies agents into one of 5 different categories.  The ‘Group 3’ category is used most commonly for agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans and inadequate or limited in experimental animals. James R. Coughlin, Ph.D. CFS, an independent consultant in Food/Nutritional/Chemical Toxicology, Safety & Regulatory Affairs for Coughlin & Associates, said: “While IARC’s Working Group classified coffee as Group 3, not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans, what this really means is that IARC was not able to find even limited evidence of coffee drinking causing human cancer. What I truly believe, based on my 35 years of study on coffee and cancer, is that coffee drinking does not cause human cancer, and in fact, it actually helps to reduce the risk of several forms of human cancer.” What does the research say about coffee and cancer? Recent research related to coffee and cancer is encouraging. A recent meta-analysis of 59 studies suggested that consuming coffee can actually “reduce the […]

article

How GMO Technology Saved the Papaya

Oh, sweet summertime. These long, hot days are the perfect chance to enjoy cool, refreshing fruits and vegetables. They keep you hydrated, are chock full of vitamins and are, of course, delicious. Pineapple. Watermelon. Strawberries. I could go on. But one popular summertime fruit, the papaya, was almost wiped out. June is National Papaya Month and a great time not just to enjoy papayas, but also to learn about how it’s only thanks to biotechnology that we’re all able to eat Hawaiian papaya today. Without biotechnology, “There’s no papaya industry. Simple as that,” said Dennis Gonsalves, the scientist who developed the GMO papaya. The papaya ringspot virus nearly wiped the crop out. The virus first hit Hawaii in the 1940s and by the 1990s had reached almost every area that grows papaya. Production fell 50 percent between 1993 and 2006. Thankfully, Gonsalves, a Hawaiian-born scientist at Cornell University, developed a genetically modified papaya, known as the Rainbow papaya, designed to be resistant to the virus. Gonsalves and his team planted a trial of the Rainbow papaya on the island of Puna. Within 11 months, the non-GMO papaya became infected with the virus. After 27 months, The New York Times explains, “Standing dark green and papaya-laden, the trees provided 125,000 pounds of fruit per acre in a year; the conventional trees, stunted with yellowed, mosaic leaves, average 5,000 pounds.” The team of scientists then worked with a public-private partnership to help make the seeds commercially available to farmers. Within two years, more than half of all the papaya grown on Hawaii was GMO. A decade later, GM papaya accounted for over 90 percent of papaya production. For farmers, the GMO papaya has made a world of difference. “GM papayas mean sustainability for our family farm. The farm started with my grandfather […]

article

Cutting Down on Sodium: 6 Alternatives to Salt

Sodium is essential for our bodies to maintain many basic activities — such as muscle contraction and a properly functioning nervous system. However, consistently consuming too much sodium can increase blood pressure and lead to negative health consequences. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend that adults and children 14 years of age and older consume less than 2,300 milligrams (mg) of sodium per day, yet Americans consume about 3,400 mg of sodium per day. More than 70% of our sodium intake comes from packaged or prepared foods. The other 30% of the sodium that we consume is added during home cooking, added at the table and naturally present in certain foods and beverages. But there is good news to report. Substituting salt and sodium-containing seasonings with herbs, spices and low-sodium condiments can help to reduce the amount of sodium that we use when cooking at home. Here are six alternatives to salt that don’t fall short on flavor. Garlic: Garlic is one of the most versatile ingredients that you can keep in stock in your kitchen. Garlic goes well with chicken, fish, meats, pasta and vegetables. Using raw garlic adds pungency and zest, while roasting it provides a sweet and nutty flavor. If you want the flavor of garlic but don’t want to spend the time peeling, chopping and/or roasting it, opt for garlic powder instead. Remember, garlic powder does not contain sodium, but garlic salt does. Peppercorns: While most people only know peppercorns as the darker salt sidekick, peppercorns are actually dried berries produced by the peppercorn plant, Piper nigrum. Black peppercorns are the most common peppercorn, but they can also be red, green and white depending on when they are harvested and how they are processed. Peppercorns can add welcomed flavor and subtle heat to almost any recipe. Lemon […]

article

Fast Take: Glyphosate – Let’s Communicate

This week, self-proclaimed consumer product “experts” released a report that examined the residue presence of glyphosate, an herbicide that is widely used by growers (as it is the main ingredient in many commercial weed-killers, such as Roundup), in a variety of common foods. Before you “join the frenzy” that these groups and others are trying to create, let’s insert some logic into the conversation and ask and answer a few simple questions. What is glyphosate? Glyphosate is an herbicide that has been used for crop protection since 1974. It is widely used because it is non-toxic to humans and animals; does not persist in the environment; and is notably effective for broad-range weed control, which increases yield and quality of crops, reduces soil erosion, and enhances harvesting efficiency. As one of the most widely used agricultural compounds, it has been the subject of numerous toxicological research experiments. For the past 40 years, the safety of glyphosate has been reviewed and confirmed by science and multiple government agencies. The findings from these reviews reveal that glyphosate is not a carcinogen, an endocrine disrupter, or a developmental toxicant. Isn’t the use of glyphosate regulated? These “experts” want us to believe that glyphosate is used irresponsibly and the government is not involved in the oversight and regulation of our food system, but that could not be further from the truth. The use of pesticides is closely monitored and regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). In addition, these agencies ensure that we do not consume pesticide residues at harmful limits. Has the safety and potential health impact of glyphosate exposure been examined? Yes, time and time again. You may recall the March 2015 scientifically controversial conclusion by the International […]

article