Natural vs. Organic: The Battle Begins

Marion Nestle:

Horizon, the commercial organic milk producer, is introducing its first new non-organic products for children. These will be labeled "natural," not organic. Horizon's press people say the products "don't contain growth hormones and will be easier on the pocketbook...These are our first natural offerings in the marketplace, and Horizon always tries to provide great-tasting products for moms and for families." Really?

"Natural" is an odd term. It has no regulatory meaning. Meats that are "natural" are supposed to be minimally processed and if their labels say they were produced without antibiotics or hormones the statements have to be truthful and not misleading. As I discussed in What to Eat, meat retailers can't tell the difference between "natural" and organic and neither can a lot of consumers. Retailers are happy to charge the same high prices for the "natural" products and consumers think they are buying organics. This is not a good situation.

So why would a company ostensibly devoted to the principles and practice of organics suddenly decide to start marketing "natural" products? For the answer, I defer to Mark Kastel of the Cornucopia Institute who sent this message Wednesday:

The rumors have now been confirmed. Dean Foods' WhiteWave division has now announced that they will bring out "natural" (conventional) dairy products under the Horizon label. This at a time when organic dairy farmers around the country are in financial crisis due to a glut of milk.

This move comes on the heels of the recent decision by Dean/WhiteWave to switch almost the entire product offerings of their Silk soy milk and soy foods line to "natural" (conventional) soybeans. They made the switch to conventional soybeans, in Silk products, without lowering the price. Sheer profiteering.

The likelihood is that they will create this new category and enjoy higher profits than they currently realize having to pay those pesky organic dairy farmers a livable wage.

The news story below, from the Natural Foods Merchandise quotes Dean Foods/WhiteWave officials saying these products will be "easier on the pocketbook." Yes, they will be designed to undercut certified organic on price.

Horizon is the largest, in terms of dollar volume, organic brand in the marketplace. Silk holds the leading market share in soyfoods and was once, prior to Dean Foods' acquisition, a 100% organic company and brand.

SHAME!

Stay tuned. Dean Foods has just declared war on the organic industry. Although the first shot has been fired it will not be the last.

The organic farmers, consumers and ethical business people who built this industry did so in effort to create an alternative food system with a different set of values. We will all work hard to defend what so many good people spent so many years to create.

Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst. The Cornucopia Institute

Organic V Conventional: Which is more nutritional?

The Food Standards agency has issued a statement in response to the outpouring of outrage over its study demonstrating that the nutritional value of organic foods is, on average, equivalent to that of conventional foods. In defense of the study results, the CEO of the agency says:

Irresponsible interpretation of the review by some has resulted in misleading claims being made concerning higher levels of some nutrients found in organic food. The review...focused on nutrients where statistically significant differences were seen. Arbitrary quotes or selective use of the data from the other papers which were of less robust scientific quality should be treated with caution. The important message from this report is not that people should avoid organic food but that they should eat a healthy balanced diet and, in terms of nutrition, it doesn't matter if this is made up of organic or conventionally produced food.

I have long argued that functional foods (in which nutrients are added over and above those that are already present in the foods) are not about improving health; they are about improving marketing. Evaluating foods on the basis of their content of one or another nutrient is what Michael Pollan calls "nutritionism." Nutritionism is about marketing, not health.

I am a great supporter of organic foods because their production reduces the use of unnecessary chemicals, antibiotics, and hormones, and favors more sustainable production practices. Yes, some organic foods will be higher in some nutrients than some conventional foods. But so what? Customers who can afford to buy organic foods are unlikely to be nutrient deficient. What's at stake in the furor over this issue is market share. What should be at stake is the need to produce food--all food--more sustainably.

Marion Nestle

Food Labels: A Vital Lesson for the U.S.A

While in London, I accumulated various food labels to share with friends from McDonalds to Potato Chips (Crisps) but somehow i lost them in transit :-( This article gives a brief synopsis on why this is a very important issue.

Food Labels: Learning from Europe

You will recall that the FDA's 1994 stance on labeling of genetically modified (GM) foods was that labeling foods as GM or non-GM would be misleading because the foods are no different. Despite overwhelming evidence that the public wants to know whether foods are GM or not, GM foods do not have to be labeled. Worse, those that are labeled non-GM have to include a disclaimer that this makes no difference (I explain how all this happened in Safe Food).

At present, there is no way to know whether GM foods that have been approved by FDA (such as potatoes, tomatoes, squash, papayas) are actually in the produce section of supermarkets. When I was writing What to Eat, I paid to have some papayas tested. Most were not GM. But you have no way of knowing that.

The Europeans are faced with the same problem but insist on labeling GM. Guess what? No problem.

The GM industry (translation: Monsanto) has opposed labeling from the very beginning, no doubt because of fears that people will reject GM foods. The makers of processed foods object to labeling because practically everything they make contains GM ingredients: about 90 percent of the soybeans and 50 percent of the corn grown in America is GM. Ingredients made from these foods--corn and soy oils, proteins, and sweeteners--are widely used in processed foods.

The Europeans are faced with the same problem but insist on labeling GM. Guess what? No problem. Hershey's Reese's NutRageous candy bars in the U.K. disclose the GM ingredients in exactly the way our products disclose allergens: "Contains: Peanuts, Genetically Modified Sugar, Soya and Corn." Here's a link to a photo of the label.

Hershey is an American company. If labeling in the U.K. is this simple, we ought to be able to do this here, no? Here's a chance for the FDA to fix an old mistake and give consumers a real choice.

Marion Nestle

My Lessons on Attaining Happiness

One of my happy moments this year...

I read an article on tips to happiness and it inspired me to share my own lessons/tips from vacations with my family and the happiness it brought. First and foremost EVERYONE needs a break every now and then. So whatever you do please make time for one.

1) If there's no FUN, there's no happiness. Make time for activities AND non activities that everyone in the family can enjoy.

2) "One man's meat is another man's poison". Give everyone the opportunity to indulge "in their own thing". Don't question or criticize, just let them at it. My youngest daughter is compelled to create a cartoon strip EVERY morning. She then passes it around to everyone to read. It doesn't always make sense to me (probably b/c of early morning anxiety) but I read it enthusiastically nonetheless. I am unimpressed by foie gras but love cooked to death southern okra.

3) SLEEP is vital. There's a study that claims that an extra hour of sleep pr night equals a $60,000 sleep. I've got to admit that I do not undersell myself in this dept.

4) Taking a short break from fun to perform mundane or boring tasks can make a person more appreciative of their vacation. One comes out feeling rather enthusiastic and fully engaged. I guess this explains T.V commercials :-). My thing is organizing my calender: an arduous but essential task that I conquer while watching Mad Men.

5) Everyone needs a "Happiness Goal": This is a wish to achieve something or go somewhere. It varies widely. It is also well worth talking about it often to friends or creating a dream book. It keeps us driven and hopeful. All of which make for a well balanced being. The most successful people in life today started of with "wild dreams". While we're at it, do encourage friends and family members who dare dream, their feeling of elevation can be infectious. Mine starts with visiting Thailand...
Do you have any you care to share? It helps me/ others know you better....

The White House, Food, and Children.

On Aug. 3, advertisements went up at a Washington, DC, Metro Station showing an 8-year-old girl saying "President Obama's daughters get healthy school lunches. Why don't I?" Within 24 hours, they sparked a media debate focusing on the substantive question about the healthfulness of school meals and, even more so, on a question of propriety: Is it fair to mention the First Family in an advertisement?

The substantive issue was clear: Children's diets are terrible. Fast food and junk food are everywhere. School lunch programs can, in theory, provide healthful meals that help make up for unhealthful foods served elsewhere. Unfortunately, most schools are not up to the task. According to a 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture study, meals served at 80 percent of schools are too high in fat, especially saturated fat -- the kind that leads to heart disease. America's children have been sucked into an undertow of unhealthy foods, and, not surprisingly, one in six is overweight.

The results are disastrous. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention forecast that one in three children born since the year 2000 will develop diabetes at some point in life. Many children have the first changes of atherosclerosis while they are still in high school.

Part of the problem is that school menus are not based entirely on health considerations. They are part of a vast marketing program for agricultural commodities. When beef prices fall, the USDA buys up millions of pounds of beef. When cheese prices slide, the government buys up cheese. Soon, roast beef, cheeseburgers, and cheese pizza show up on school menus, not because these foods are good for kids--far from it. Rather, children can be easily induced to eat these high-cholesterol foods, eliminating unwanted surpluses and allowing farm prices to rise again.

When Congress takes up the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act later this year, it can decide to give children healthier choices. A school offering a greasy cheeseburger (5 grams of saturated fat, 268 calories) should also provide a veggie burger (0 grams of saturated fat, 230 calories). When chicken nuggets (5 grams of saturated fat, 240 calories) are offered, there should be a cholesterol-free veggie chili option (0 grams saturated fat, 144 calories).

But many of the 31 million children who participate in the National School Lunch Program have trouble finding healthful meals at school. Despite a 2007 American Medical Association resolution calling for vegetarian meals in schools, most schools continue to focus their menus on meat and cheese. The President's family, to its credit, chose Sidwell Friends, a private school that offers not only a top education, but also a healthy vegetarian option for every student every day.

So when is it fair to mention the President's children? The issue first came up during the Inauguration, when J. Crew cashed in heavily on First Family's wardrobe choices, rapidly followed by Beanie Babies named after the girls. Soon the White House had to set rules for its own behavior and that of everyone else. Clearly, the Metro ads play by the rules. They do not use of the children's names or images, and in no way intrude on their privacy. And their message is important: Every child, no matter how disadvantaged, deserves a healthy meal.

It is Congress, not the President, that needs to act. But the President can lead the way for children. So far, he has not taken up the issue. The President's choice of Tom Vilsack to head the USDA has meant a continuation of the policy of dumping meat and cheese into schools. On July 31, Vilsack announced another $243 million in purchases, saying in a press release, "The Obama Administration is committed to pursuing all options to help dairy farmers."

The President and Vice President have kept up an appearance of being "regular guys," rather than healthy examples, most notably during their inexplicable but well-publicized motorcade to Ray's Hell Burger, a Virginia restaurant known for high-cholesterol food.

That said, the President deserves a measure of patience. After all, the administration had barely arrived in the White House when it had to deal with a tanking economy, a failing health care system, and changing battlegrounds in the Middle East. It is hard to imagine it could also have given attention to children's health in this short time frame. Even so, if we are going to tackle health care, we need to understand why so many children and adults are in such poor shape. Every child in every school deserves a healthful lunch every day, and Congress needs to make that happen.

To join the call for better foods for children, visit HealthySchoolLunches.org.

A big Thank YOU to Neal Barnard, M.D., for this article. He is a nutrition researcher and president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Is Vinegar An Appetite Suppressant?

Will drinking a glass of water with a teaspoon of vinegar in it, suppress your appetite. It seems to work. Why? And is it safe?

Some research indicates that vinegar, which provides a diluted dose of acetic acid, slows stomach emptying and thus potentially prolongs the sense of fullness after a meal (presumably, this is true even if the meal is nothing but vinegar). Of perhaps greater interest, vinegar lowers the glycemic index of foods such as white bread and pasta, making them more filling, possibly because the carbs enter the bloodstream more slowly. Also, by giving the appetite center a flavor—astringent—vinegar makes the brain feel as if it were being fed. Evidence that vinegar helps with weight loss or self-control is hard to find, but these mechanisms do make the idea plausible.

As for safety, because vinegar is acidic, it may irritate the esophagus and stomach. Over time too much acid may leach calcium from bone and damage tooth enamel.
Generally, though, up to three tablespoons of vinegar a day—at only 9 to 15 calories total—should be fine.

How Natural Is This Sweetener?

Photo by Akajos/Flickr CC

Marion Nestle

The April 26 New York Times Magazine carried a seductive ad on page 15 for PepsiCo's "Trop50 orange juice goodness with 50 percent less calories and sugar...And no artificial sweeteners" PepsiCo performs this miracle by diluting the juice by half with water (really, you could do this at home). But in case the result isn't sweet enough for you, Trop50 adds the sweetener Stevia.

PepsiCo can get away with claiming that its juice drink has no artificial sweeteners. Because Stevia is isolated from leaves of the Stevia plant, the FDA lets companies claim it is "natural."

We can debate whether a chemical sweetener isolated from Stevia leaves is really "natural" but here's another problem: Stevia doesn't taste like sugar. Companies have to fuss with it to cover up its off taste. And, they must do so "without detracting from the perceived benefits of its natural status." Flavor companies are working like mad to find substances that block Stevia's bitter taste, mask its off flavors, and extend its sweetness, while staying within the scope of what the FDA allows as "natural."

Yesterday, I received an e-mail from a Stevia PR representative eager for me to see the company's website. "Naturally delicious," anyone?