Study: Foods To Lower Cholesterol WSJ 8/24/11

Study: Foods To Lower Cholesterol

BY SHIRLEY S. WANG

Eating more plant-based fat and protein lowered cholesterol more than eating a diet low in saturated fat, according to a study published Tuesday.
The report offers further evidence that low-fat diets aren't the most effective way to improve heart health.
Participants in the large, randomized trial were instructed either to eat a diet low in saturated fat, or to add to their diet largely plant-based foods, primarily nuts, soy, plant-based margarine spreads and "sticky" fibers like barley and oats.
The latter group lowered their low-density lipoprotein, or LDL—the "bad" type of cholesterol associated with heart disease—by some 13% more than ...

 

 

 

NYC Calorie Labeling Law---IT works!!!

WASHINGTON | Wed Jul 27, 2011 11:07am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New York City's requirement that fast-food restaurants post calorie counts on menus led one in six customers to notice the information and buy foods with fewer calories, according to new research released on Tuesday.

While overall calorie consumption for the thousands of people tracked did not change, customers of McDonald's, Au Bon Pain and Yum Brands Inc's KFC were shown to make significant modifications, according to the study funded by the city of New York and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

The report, published in the British Medical Journal, is one of the first to show a 2008 New York City law, requiring restaurant chains to prominently post calorie information, changed customer buying habits

Way to go NYC for getting your people to read labels!!!

8/16/11 Fruits and Vegetables--stop spending more--IFT

The IFT (Institute of Food Technology) posted this article. Finally someone agrees with me. Stop buying into market and just buy fruits and vegetables. Whatever the outside fruit and vegetable stand on my corner has, I buy. It is cheap and full of nutrients.



The researchers analyzed USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP) results to identify the 10 most frequently detected pesticides on each of the 12 foods. Then, the probabilistic modeling method was used to determine the mean exposure of each pesticide for each food. The researchers compared this mean exposure estimate to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) chronic reference dose, which is the estimated amount of a chemical that a person could be exposed to on a daily basis throughout the person’s lifetime without causing harm.

Winter and Katz found that the EPA’s reference doses for each of the pesticides exceeded the mean exposure estimates in all cases. In addition, the reference doses were more than 1,000 times higher than the exposure estimates in more than 90% of the comparisons.

“Such findings suggest that the potential consumer risks from exposure to the most frequently detected pesticides on the ‘Dirty Dozen’ list of foods are negligible and cast doubts as to how consumers avoiding conventional forms of such produce items are improving their health status,” wrote the authors.

Specifically, the researchers found that blueberries, cherries, and kale had reference doses that were 30,000 times higher than the exposure estimates for all of the 10 most frequently detected pesticides. Therefore, they concluded that these three commodities shouldn’t appear on the “Dirty Dozen” list. In addition, the researchers stressed that organic produce is not pesticide-free produce. In fact, while conventional produce was between 2.9–4.8 times more likely to contain detectable pesticide residues than organic produce, 23% of organic food samples still tested positive for pesticide residues.

Study

Calorie labeling may help change meal choices 8/3/11 Institute of Food Technology

Calorie labeling may help change meal choices    8/3/11-Institute of Food Technology

A study published in the British Medical Journal shows that calorie counts on New York City fast-food menus may help people modify their meal choices. While overall calorie consumption for the thousands of people tracked did not change, customers of McDonald’s, Au Bon Pain, and KFC were shown to make modifications.
The researchers surveyed the lunchtime crowd at 168 randomly selected locations of the top 11 fast-food chains in New York City during lunchtime hours. They interviewed 7,309 adult customers 12 months before the law took effect and 8,489 customers in 2009 (nine months after the law was implemented). For the three main restaurant chains studied, customers on average bought 44 fewer calories at McDonald’s, 80 fewer calories at Au Bon Pain, and 59 fewer calories at KFC.
Subway, the popular sandwich chain, saw a significant increase in calories consumed during the survey because of its promotional offer for a $5, foot-long sandwich. The other chains saw little change in their customers’ purchases.
The researchers concluded that although no overall decline in calories purchased was observed for the full sample, several major chains saw significant reductions. After regulation, one in six lunchtime customers used the calorie information provided, and these customers made lower calorie choices.
Study

8/2/11 Food Labeling New York Times

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/28/designing-a-better-food-label/

Designing a Better Food Label

By TARA PARKER-POPE

How should the government improve the food label?
A project at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Journalism has taken on the task of designing a better food label, asking for ideas to replace the current black and white Nutrition Facts label that appears on every food package. Although the designs aren’t part of the official effort to redesign food packages, the Berkeley project has generated dozens of new ideas that are likely to be considered by the United States Food and Drug Administration, which is in the process of revising the existing food label. This fall, the Institute of Medicine is expected to release its own report on food packaging and labeling.
“We asked food thinkers and design minds to come together and give advice on how they might rethink the food label and bring some insight into how design impacts choice,’’ said Lily Mihalik, co-creator of the project and a fellow in the News21 program, which is a journalism fellowship supported by the Carnegie and Knight Foundations. “There are a lot of things right with the current label, but at the same time people are confused. The question is whether a new nutrition facts label could help people make more educated decisions.’’

Renee WalkerClick on the photo for more.

The panel of judges included the food writer Michael Pollan; the consumer health activist Michael Jacobson; Dr. Robert Lustig, a San Francisco pediatrician; Laura Brunow Miner, a San Francisco graphic designer; and Andrew Vande Moere, a Belgian design professor.
The winning entry, from a San Francisco visual designer, Renee Walker, uses colorful boxes to depict the relative proportion of ingredients in a product. (Click on the photo to see four different examples of the label.)
“Walker’s design is dramatic, intriguing and holds great promise,’’ said Mr. Pollan. “I liked being able to see the visual breakdown of foods, although I wonder how her design would work with more complicated products, like Lucky Charms, say, or a PowerBar. Even so, it’s a step in the right direction. What I’d like to see next is some sort of color coding for the food groups and some attempt to show the degree of processing of various foods. Eating doesn’t have to be complicated; figuring out what’s in your food shouldn’t be

The articles is about new designs for the food label. Some graphic design students are working on for a class project. Who are their consultants? An author and a designer, not anyone involved in working with the public on nutrition.
Maybe RDs aren't seen as the experts.

Caught for not labeling Food--FDA June 2011

Your labeling violations include:

1. Your Diet to Go Tuna Meltover and New Century Foods Wahoo Burger products are misbranded within the meaning of section 403(w) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 343(w)] in that the labels fail to declare all major food allergens present in the products, as required by section 403(w)(1) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 343(w)(1)].

Section 201(qq) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(qq)] defines milk, egg, fish, Crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, wheat, peanuts, and soybeans, as well as any food ingredient that contains protein derived from one of these foods, with the exception of highly refined oils, as “major food allergens.” A food is misbranded if it is not a raw agricultural commodity and it is, or it contains an ingredient that bears or contains, a major food allergen, unless either:

1. The word “Contains” followed by the name of the food source from which the major food allergen is derived, is printed immediately after or adjacent to the list of ingredient [section 403(w)(1)(A) of the Act, [21 U.S.C. § 343(w)(1)(A)], or
2. The common or usual name of the major food allergen in the list of ingredients is followed in parentheses by the name of the food source from which the major food allergen is derived (e.g. “wheat”), except that the name of the food source is not required when either the common or usual name of the ingredient uses the name of the food source or the name of the food source appears elsewhere in the ingredient list (unless the name of the food source that appears elsewhere in the ingredient list appears as part of the name of an ingredient that is not a major food allergen) [section 403(w)(1)(B) of the Act, 21 U.S.C. § 343(w)(1)(B)].

Your food labels fail to declare the following major food allergens specified by the Act:

• Diet to Go Tuna Meltover: Your product contains the allergens, fish, milk, wheat and soy; however you fail to declare them on the product label.
• New Century Foods Wahoo Fish Burger: Your product declares “fish” in the “Contains” statement; however it fails to declare the species of fish, i.e., wahoo and pollock, on its label as specified in the Act. Additionally, your product declares that it contains cod powder. If the ingredient contains cod protein, it must also be listed in the “Contains” statement.

2. Your Diet to Go Tuna Meltover and New Century Foods Wahoo Fish Burger are misbranded within the meaning of section 403(q) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 343(q)] in that your products fail to bear a nutrition facts panel on the product label as required by 21 CFR 101.9. Your website advertises these products as being part of your “low fat” diet food plan. These products are required to bear a nutrition facts panel because the product labeling bears a nutrient content claim. A nutrient content is a claim that characterizes the level of a nutrient (i.e., fat) which is of the type required to be in the labeling of the food.

Additionally, the nutritional information listed on your website for your Tuna Meltover and Wahoo Fish Burger products is not declared in accordance with 21 CFR 101.9. For example:

• The calories from fat are not declared as required by 21 CFR 101.9(c)(1)(ii).
• The Trans fat content is not declared as required by 21 CFR 101.9(c)(2)(ii).

• The Vitamins and Minerals are not declared as required by 21 CFR 101.9(c)(8)(iii).
• The sugar content is not declared as required by 21 CFR 101.9(c)(6)(ii).
• The % Daily Values for all of the required nutrients are not declared.
• The units for the declared fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, carbohydrate, dietary fiber and protein content are not declared.

In addition to meeting the requirements of 21 CFR 101.9, your products must also meet the requirements set forth in 21 CFR 105.66 because they are represented for special dietary use in reducing body weight. Your firm’s products are represented as being useful in reducing or maintaining body weight because the menu and nutrition information on your website present the foods as part of meal plans such as “Low-Fat Traditional 1200 Calorie” and “Low-Fat Traditional 1600 Calorie.”

3. Your Diet to Go Tuna Meltover and New Century Foods Wahoo Fish Burger products are misbranded within the meaning of section 403(e)(1) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 343(e)(1)] in that the labels do not contain the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor in accordance with 21 CFR 101.5.

4. Your Diet to Go Tuna Meltover and New Century Foods Wahoo Fish Burger products are misbranded within the meaning of section 403(e)(2) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 343(e)(2)] in that the labels fail to bear an accurate statement of the net quantity of contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count as required by 21 CFR 101.105. Your Diet to Go Tuna Meltover fails to declare a net weight and your New Century Foods Wahoo Fish Burger fails to declare the net weight in terms of pounds and ounces as required by 21 CFR 101.105(b)(2).

5. Your Diet to Go Tuna Meltover product is misbranded within the meaning of section 403(i)(2) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 343(i)(2)] in that the product is fabricated from two or more