About a year ago, we blogged:
"Calories in = Calories out. Always. That's just the way it is. A calorie, is a calorie, is a calorie: Calories are all the same - regardless of where the come from or when you eat them..."
Many of you took great exception to that statement, arguing about "eating before bed" and "fruits and vegetables" and "what about Atkins!". However you can't argue that all calories don't provide the same amount of energy - because they do - by definition.
Enter Mark Haub, Kansas State University, professor of Human Nutrition. His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food or when it is eaten.
The proof is in the pudding (or, in this case, Prof is in the Twinkies): CNN: Twinkie Diet Professor
Friday, November 19, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Commodity Recalls: A Reversal of Fortune.
The standard (and far too familiar) Scenario #1: I learn that the infant car seat I just bought has a safety defect. I return my defective unit to the store and get a brand new, safer version. The consumer wins and the manufacturer loses. Fair-mindedness prevails.
Now think about what happens when a commodity food item is recalled.
• Products like hamburger, spinach, eggs, chicken, fish, produce, fruit, etc. are undifferentiated – i.e., consumers don’t necessarily associate them with a brand or particular company.
• On top of being ubiquitous, they are also perishable.
• And - they don’t cost much.
This combination of perishability, interchangability and low cost creates quite a different equation for the consumer.
Scenario #2: I learn about a hamburger recall. I don’t bother to find out whose hamburger, or which retailer, or what dates, I just toss my hamburger in the trash and buy more next time I go to the grocery store.
Here’s the micro-economics of what just happened: My demand for hamburger just doubled. (I bought twice as much this week as I normally would because I tossed the first round last week.) At the same time, the supply of hamburger can’t increase quickly. (Commodity food supplies react slowly because they have to be grown, which takes time.) In addition, in some cases, whole producers are taken out of the market, reducing the supply even further.
The Law of Supply and Demand says “Increased demand in the face of reduced supply causes prices to rise.” (This assumes price elasticity, of which commodities are a classic example.)
This is, in fact, exactly what often happens with commodity markets: prices can take an unprecedented rise right after a major recall. We saw this recently as a result of the egg recall for salmonella contamination: The recall was first announced on August 13th. By September 1st, egg prices had risen 40% and prices eventually almost doubled by November.
Unlike the first scenario this causes a reversal of fortune - one not in the consumer’s favor. You buy more and pay more while the manufacturer enjoys a period of windfall profits.
Just food for thought…
Now think about what happens when a commodity food item is recalled.
• Products like hamburger, spinach, eggs, chicken, fish, produce, fruit, etc. are undifferentiated – i.e., consumers don’t necessarily associate them with a brand or particular company.
• On top of being ubiquitous, they are also perishable.
• And - they don’t cost much.
This combination of perishability, interchangability and low cost creates quite a different equation for the consumer.
Scenario #2: I learn about a hamburger recall. I don’t bother to find out whose hamburger, or which retailer, or what dates, I just toss my hamburger in the trash and buy more next time I go to the grocery store.
Here’s the micro-economics of what just happened: My demand for hamburger just doubled. (I bought twice as much this week as I normally would because I tossed the first round last week.) At the same time, the supply of hamburger can’t increase quickly. (Commodity food supplies react slowly because they have to be grown, which takes time.) In addition, in some cases, whole producers are taken out of the market, reducing the supply even further.
The Law of Supply and Demand says “Increased demand in the face of reduced supply causes prices to rise.” (This assumes price elasticity, of which commodities are a classic example.)
This is, in fact, exactly what often happens with commodity markets: prices can take an unprecedented rise right after a major recall. We saw this recently as a result of the egg recall for salmonella contamination: The recall was first announced on August 13th. By September 1st, egg prices had risen 40% and prices eventually almost doubled by November.
Unlike the first scenario this causes a reversal of fortune - one not in the consumer’s favor. You buy more and pay more while the manufacturer enjoys a period of windfall profits.
Just food for thought…
Friday, April 16, 2010
I See Sea Salt...
I’m starting to see sea salt everywhere – and am starting to wonder why. As a ‘gourmet’ ingredient, it definitely has some interesting flavor attributes and, in some instances, provides nice color and texture characteristics. But, is it actually GOOD for you?
In reality, sea salt and table salt are basically the same thing: Sodium Chloride. Sea salt is made by evaporating sea water. Table salt is mined from the earth – which ended up there when the ancient seas evaporated. From that perspective, they are identical. Both are even excavated using the same equipment: front-end loaders and dump trucks. The big difference comes from what happens after they are scooped up.
Traditional table salt is purified to remove trace minerals and impurities that occur in seawater. Some of these impurities are, arguably, good for you: iron, sulfur, magnesium. Some impurities are definitely not: lead and mercury, for example. In addition, table salt manufacturers add iodine, an essential nutrient which isn’t found in sea salt. Products marketed as sea salt are often sold ‘as is’. Whatever was in the water, ends up in the salt.
All things considered, I tend to fall back on the ‘evolutionary’ argument to make the decision: The salt we evolved on looked more like the sea than it did Morton’s. Therefore, sea salt probably has some nuances that better provide for our nutritional needs.
On the other hand, the idea that sea salt has lower sodium is pure bunk.
Sea salt and table salt have exactly the same sodium content. But, because they have no agreed upon regulatory identity, products labeled ‘sea salt’ can contain just about anything. Claims like “100% Sea Salt”, “100% Natural”, “Organic” and “Pure” are all fair game and are used with impunity. For example, the popular ‘low sodium’ sea salts achieve that claim by cutting them with other, non-sodium, salts – mainly potassium chloride. This is exactly how low sodium table salt is made. Because potassium chloride can be found in sea water (but at very low levels), the manufacturers argue that adding large quantities of it to ‘regular’ sea salt, means it can still be labeled “100% sea salt”.
Bottom line:
Sea salt is pretty neat stuff and a great addition to any pantry – as a seasoning.
Sea salt is NOT a particularly healthy alternative to table salt – especially in terms of sodium reduction.
In reality, sea salt and table salt are basically the same thing: Sodium Chloride. Sea salt is made by evaporating sea water. Table salt is mined from the earth – which ended up there when the ancient seas evaporated. From that perspective, they are identical. Both are even excavated using the same equipment: front-end loaders and dump trucks. The big difference comes from what happens after they are scooped up.
Traditional table salt is purified to remove trace minerals and impurities that occur in seawater. Some of these impurities are, arguably, good for you: iron, sulfur, magnesium. Some impurities are definitely not: lead and mercury, for example. In addition, table salt manufacturers add iodine, an essential nutrient which isn’t found in sea salt. Products marketed as sea salt are often sold ‘as is’. Whatever was in the water, ends up in the salt.
All things considered, I tend to fall back on the ‘evolutionary’ argument to make the decision: The salt we evolved on looked more like the sea than it did Morton’s. Therefore, sea salt probably has some nuances that better provide for our nutritional needs.
On the other hand, the idea that sea salt has lower sodium is pure bunk.
Sea salt and table salt have exactly the same sodium content. But, because they have no agreed upon regulatory identity, products labeled ‘sea salt’ can contain just about anything. Claims like “100% Sea Salt”, “100% Natural”, “Organic” and “Pure” are all fair game and are used with impunity. For example, the popular ‘low sodium’ sea salts achieve that claim by cutting them with other, non-sodium, salts – mainly potassium chloride. This is exactly how low sodium table salt is made. Because potassium chloride can be found in sea water (but at very low levels), the manufacturers argue that adding large quantities of it to ‘regular’ sea salt, means it can still be labeled “100% sea salt”.
Bottom line:
Sea salt is pretty neat stuff and a great addition to any pantry – as a seasoning.
Sea salt is NOT a particularly healthy alternative to table salt – especially in terms of sodium reduction.
Friday, January 1, 2010
Tuna: What's better - 'Oil' or 'Water'?
Oil by a long shot.
So I’ve been told emphatically by a colleague who oughta know – he has a BS in Meat Science and was Manager of Process Development for “Big Tuna”. (Tell ‘em Charlie sent you?). With over 500 tuna product tasting panels under his belt (literally), he claims that “No one in the [tuna] industry eats the water pack unless forced to. More water is sold, but oil is way better.”
So, what makes the water packed product so inferior? When the precooked tuna meat is retorted (cooked in the can) with water, the water moves into the fish, which makes the fish mushy and changes the flavor. The water also contains high levels of salt as well as a vegetable broth containing soy fiber. In effect, you’re getting watered down fish – and less actual tuna meat in the can.
With oil packed tuna, none of this happens. The oil surrounds the tuna meat, but doesn’t migrate into it. Much less broth is used or, in some cases, no broth at all – which means you taste the superior tuna flavor, not the veggies and soy.
The vegetable broth is added solely to create water retention in the fish cake – which increases the “press weight” (amount of “fish” in the can), which determines the weight claimed on the can label. With oil pack, you get more actual fish; around 3 ounces of tuna meat in a 6 ounce can.
Ok, but we all buy the water packed product because it’s a LOT better for you, right?
Wrong.
Once you drain the can, both the ‘oil’ version and the ‘water’ version are remarkably the same, nutritionally. In fact, the calorie and fat content are equal. The water pack actually has slightly more sodium and the oil pack has slightly more protein.
Then, why is the water packed product the big seller?
In the early 1970's the big 3 tuna companies started moving tuna operations off shore. (At that time, well over 95% of all canned tuna was packed in oil.) The US Government decided to get involved (surprise) and fix the off shore ‘problem’ by imposing a special tariff on incoming tuna. In true bureaucratic fashion, the regulation referred to “canned in oil”. The tuna industry decided to beat the tariff by promoting the health benefits of water pack… and over the years have managed to convince us of exactly that. The public now ‘knows’ that water packed tuna is the best!
By the way...according to my friend (who is no longer in the tuna industry - and, therefore, unbiased), the best tuna on the market is Genova's Tonno in olive oil. You can find it in the ethnic section of most large grocery stores....
So I’ve been told emphatically by a colleague who oughta know – he has a BS in Meat Science and was Manager of Process Development for “Big Tuna”. (Tell ‘em Charlie sent you?). With over 500 tuna product tasting panels under his belt (literally), he claims that “No one in the [tuna] industry eats the water pack unless forced to. More water is sold, but oil is way better.”
So, what makes the water packed product so inferior? When the precooked tuna meat is retorted (cooked in the can) with water, the water moves into the fish, which makes the fish mushy and changes the flavor. The water also contains high levels of salt as well as a vegetable broth containing soy fiber. In effect, you’re getting watered down fish – and less actual tuna meat in the can.
With oil packed tuna, none of this happens. The oil surrounds the tuna meat, but doesn’t migrate into it. Much less broth is used or, in some cases, no broth at all – which means you taste the superior tuna flavor, not the veggies and soy.
The vegetable broth is added solely to create water retention in the fish cake – which increases the “press weight” (amount of “fish” in the can), which determines the weight claimed on the can label. With oil pack, you get more actual fish; around 3 ounces of tuna meat in a 6 ounce can.
Ok, but we all buy the water packed product because it’s a LOT better for you, right?
Wrong.
Once you drain the can, both the ‘oil’ version and the ‘water’ version are remarkably the same, nutritionally. In fact, the calorie and fat content are equal. The water pack actually has slightly more sodium and the oil pack has slightly more protein.
Then, why is the water packed product the big seller?
In the early 1970's the big 3 tuna companies started moving tuna operations off shore. (At that time, well over 95% of all canned tuna was packed in oil.) The US Government decided to get involved (surprise) and fix the off shore ‘problem’ by imposing a special tariff on incoming tuna. In true bureaucratic fashion, the regulation referred to “canned in oil”. The tuna industry decided to beat the tariff by promoting the health benefits of water pack… and over the years have managed to convince us of exactly that. The public now ‘knows’ that water packed tuna is the best!
By the way...according to my friend (who is no longer in the tuna industry - and, therefore, unbiased), the best tuna on the market is Genova's Tonno in olive oil. You can find it in the ethnic section of most large grocery stores....
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Remember when EVERYONE was Lactose Intolerant?
You probably don’t remember it, but there was a time when everyone was lactose intolerant – you just have to think back about 10,000 years.
First, let's start with a simple Latin and Chemistry lesson:
• ‘lacte’ is Latin for ‘milk'.
• in Latin, ‘ose’ means ‘sugar’.
• Lactose is a basic sugar, mostly found in milk. (lacte + ose. Get it?)
o Glucose is the simplest sugar. It is the sugar your body uses for energy. (Maybe you’ve heard the term monosaccharide? That's usually a glucose.)
o Sucrose (plain table sugar) is a Glucose hooked to a Fructose (Maybe you’ve heard the term disaccharide?)
o Lactose is a Glucose hooked to a Galactose (Which makes lactose a disaccharide too.)
o A lot of ‘ose’s’, but you get the idea.
• Milk can be up to 8% lactose. Egg whites are up to about 1% lactose.
• In making cheese, most of the lactose is in the whey - and cheese is made from the curd. (Little Miss Muffit-style.) As a result, cheese contains very little lactose.
• In ‘cultured’ dairy products, like Yogurt, the lactose gets used up as the culture (bacteria) grows. That’s why you’re supposed to look for lactobacillus on the label (milk + bacteria). As a result, yogurt contains very little lactose.
• In Latin, ‘ace’ means ‘cleave’ or ‘cut’.
• Lactase (milk + cut) is an enzyme excreted in your intestines that cuts lactose in half, turning it into glucose that your blood can deliver to the rest of your body for energy.
Once upon a time, only babies drank milk. The evolutionary process is a great economizer: Since adults didn’t need to digest lactose, those who didn’t spend resources making an enzyme (lactase) they didn’t need, reproduced more successfully. The result: EVERYONE before the Neolithic Period was Lactose Intolerant after infancy.
Once we migrated out of Africa, we began to concentrated more on agriculture, including the domestication of animals. Initially we used the milk from those animals to make cheese – it was easier to transport and store. (We can probably thank the Italians for figuring that one out.) As we progressed north, we became dairy farmers who used the milk as a primary food source. (The Germanic people figured out that you can extract a LOT more calories from an animal if you milk it for a while before you eat it.) Those whose intestines could excrete lactase (i.e. were lactose tollerant), had more food available (milk), reproduced more succesfully and became a bigger percentage of the population.
Today, the results of that evolutionary process are evident in how people from different geographic areas tolerate lactose:
• Nearly ALL Africans and Asians never had milk beyond infancy – and today nearly ALL (over 90%) are lactose intolerant.
• 70% of the people from near the Mediterranean (like Italians - the original cheese-heads) are still lactose intolerant.
• Those descendent from northern Europe have predominantly developed an ability to use milk into adulthood. Only 5% are lactose intolerant.
So, from a historical perspective, we didn’t develop an intolerance for lactose – we developed a tolerance.
(Claim on Technorati RF7S8X5PPN79 C75ZS8AQP6H9)
First, let's start with a simple Latin and Chemistry lesson:
• ‘lacte’ is Latin for ‘milk'.
• in Latin, ‘ose’ means ‘sugar’.
• Lactose is a basic sugar, mostly found in milk. (lacte + ose. Get it?)
o Glucose is the simplest sugar. It is the sugar your body uses for energy. (Maybe you’ve heard the term monosaccharide? That's usually a glucose.)
o Sucrose (plain table sugar) is a Glucose hooked to a Fructose (Maybe you’ve heard the term disaccharide?)
o Lactose is a Glucose hooked to a Galactose (Which makes lactose a disaccharide too.)
o A lot of ‘ose’s’, but you get the idea.
• Milk can be up to 8% lactose. Egg whites are up to about 1% lactose.
• In making cheese, most of the lactose is in the whey - and cheese is made from the curd. (Little Miss Muffit-style.) As a result, cheese contains very little lactose.
• In ‘cultured’ dairy products, like Yogurt, the lactose gets used up as the culture (bacteria) grows. That’s why you’re supposed to look for lactobacillus on the label (milk + bacteria). As a result, yogurt contains very little lactose.
• In Latin, ‘ace’ means ‘cleave’ or ‘cut’.
• Lactase (milk + cut) is an enzyme excreted in your intestines that cuts lactose in half, turning it into glucose that your blood can deliver to the rest of your body for energy.
Once upon a time, only babies drank milk. The evolutionary process is a great economizer: Since adults didn’t need to digest lactose, those who didn’t spend resources making an enzyme (lactase) they didn’t need, reproduced more successfully. The result: EVERYONE before the Neolithic Period was Lactose Intolerant after infancy.
Once we migrated out of Africa, we began to concentrated more on agriculture, including the domestication of animals. Initially we used the milk from those animals to make cheese – it was easier to transport and store. (We can probably thank the Italians for figuring that one out.) As we progressed north, we became dairy farmers who used the milk as a primary food source. (The Germanic people figured out that you can extract a LOT more calories from an animal if you milk it for a while before you eat it.) Those whose intestines could excrete lactase (i.e. were lactose tollerant), had more food available (milk), reproduced more succesfully and became a bigger percentage of the population.
Today, the results of that evolutionary process are evident in how people from different geographic areas tolerate lactose:
• Nearly ALL Africans and Asians never had milk beyond infancy – and today nearly ALL (over 90%) are lactose intolerant.
• 70% of the people from near the Mediterranean (like Italians - the original cheese-heads) are still lactose intolerant.
• Those descendent from northern Europe have predominantly developed an ability to use milk into adulthood. Only 5% are lactose intolerant.
So, from a historical perspective, we didn’t develop an intolerance for lactose – we developed a tolerance.
(Claim on Technorati RF7S8X5PPN79 C75ZS8AQP6H9)
Thursday, November 26, 2009
FDA warns about false claims made regarding turkey.
24 November 2009-U.S.
FDA Watch: Warning Letter Issued to Food Producers
In surprise move today, the The US Food and Drug Administration has written warning letters to United States turkey producers, the growers and processors of the popular Thanksgiving element, explaining that they have reviewed the general labeling of the industries’ frozen, uncooked turkey products and found that most labels contain "serious violations" of federal regulations.
The details of the FDA findings are in a letter dated earlier this week, from the Midwest director for the FDA to turkey producers who are purveyors of the central dish of America’s one true National holiday.
According to the FDA, turkey producers are breaking federal regulations on three counts: they are growing, processing turkey as an "unapproved new drug" and misbranding the product by making "unauthorized health claims" and “failing to inform the public” about health risks and dangers of consuming the product.”
The FDA letter to the food companies states:
"FDA's review found serious violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) and the applicable regulations in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR)."
The FDA said that the frozen and unfrozen turkey product labels promotes it like a drug intended for use in the "prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease". The letter drew particular attention to phrases that say the product claims pertaining to cholesterol, and the other “healthy white meat.” Claims pertaining to the ability to lower cholesterol by "4 per cent in 6 weeks", that it can also reduce bad cholesterol by 4 per cent, and that it is "clinical proven" to lower cholesterol. The FDA went on to address that such claims are spurious at best when considered that turkey is rarely made without seasoning and never served as a stand alone dish.
The letter does not address the veracity of the claims, instead it addresses the point that by making such claims then the product is really a drug and should go through the proper channels for obtaining drug approval.
For example, as the letter explains, the claims indicate that producers have claimed that turkey is: "Intended for use in lowering cholesterol, and therefore in preventing, mitigating, and treating the disease hypercholesterolemia." And by claiming that the product lowers total and bad cholesterol, then it is also claiming to treat heart disease, for which total and bad (LDL) cholesterol are known risk factors. This is what puts the product in the "new drug" category, and the letter quotes several sections of "the Act" to support their case. The FDA said another reason that turkey is considered to be a "new drug" was because under another section of "the Act", it is "not generally recognized as safe and effective for use in preventing or treating hypercholesterolemia or coronary heart disease".
The letter’s second claim was the equivalent of a bombshell when the FDA took an aggressive tact on the known levels of tryptophan contained within the natural chemistry of turkey, both uncooked and frozen. Tryptophan is an essential amino acid, meaning that the body can't manufacture it. The body has to get tryptophan and other essential amino acids from food. Tryptophan helps the body produce the B-vitamin niacin, which, in turn, helps the body produce serotonin, a remarkable chemical that acts as a calming agent in the brainand plays a key role in sleep.
The FDA acknowledged that they had no evidence that turkey producers were artificially enhancing higher levels of tryptophan during the typical 20 week growing season, but the FDA made no bones about their view that turkey producers were not discouraging turkeys from engaging in eating habits and activities that may enhance the ability of young turkeys to produce dangerous levels of tryptophan, which in turn would be passed on to ultimate consumers of turkey.
The FDA said that the dangers of high levels of tryptophan are well-known, particularly around the Thanksgiving holiday season when excessive amounts of turkey are consumed by vast portions of the American public. Turkey producers “turn a negligent eye” from the glut of turkey consumption, according to one unnamed source close to the FDA. “Turkey producers are no different than pushers on the street” (sic) referring the lack of conscience in distributing a “laced” product. Further parallels were made to a turkey being the equivalent of “a massive syringe, willingly being placed in the mouths of ravenous Americans by their own hand…” Ironically, sociologists point out that postprandial Thanksgiving day sedation (and its dangers) likely has more to do with what else is consumed along with the turkey, in particular massive doses of carbohydrates in deceptive forms and excessive alcohol consumption. This observation correlates with the FDA’s third claim.
On the issue of misbranding, the FDA said that turkey producers bear "unauthorized health claims in its labeling" and cites text on the various producers' websites, which under the Act is considered to be part of the product labeling, as being faulty in this respect. The labeling should include disclaimers and warnings akin to "WARNING: eating large quantities of this product can produce drowsiness, feelings of lethargy, excessive bloating and gas." While the FDA has not elaborated, FDA precedence would likely also lead to similar warnings of “WARNING: do not operate or use heavy machinery or operate a vehicle after consuming this product” or “ WARNING: consumption of this product mixed with alcohol and carbohydrates could result in adverse health and social consequences.”
The letter also refers to another labeling omission about the excessive trimmings and ancillary dishes typically served with turkey. Dressing with high levels of gluten and salt, yams with sugary marshmallows and brown sugar, green beans with mushroom base and salty dried onion toppings, cranberries laced with high concentrations of pectin, sugar and red dye #40, potatoes with copious amounts of starch and preservatives (although garlic and chives do have certain health benefits) and the kiss of death, turkey gravy which has highly concentrated levels of tryptophan itself, cleverly disguised in turkey drippings and fat. Space does not allow for a detailed description of potential life-ending versions of desserts that quickly follow the ritual gluttony or the fluids used to “chase down” the collective meal or the desire to forget the conversation with the participants that you are dining with.
The FDA said the lack of adequate warnings about consumption, use, side effects and use of the product while being consumed with ancillary products fails to meet the authorized format because, for example, like the other claim, it does not mention the obvious warnings, nor does it address the overall context of the healthy (or lack thereof) diet.
In what could otherwise be categorized as an unprecedented coda, the agency also took issue with the added phrase "Have a Happy” before the seasonal references to Thanksgiving on most packaging without actually citing a violation or potential violation as a basis. As the FDA letter explains:
"The claim authorized through the notification procedure of “Have a Happy” does not emphasize the relationship between perceived happiness that one may have prior to consuming the food and stark contrast to how one feels within a half hour after consuming it, not to mention how they feel about it a week later when consuming leftovers." Thinly veiled references to "mislabeling" appear to be the motivation as the "claim" of "happy" is an intended outcome as opposed to a seasonal greeting. Third party sources have commented that anything relative to “Have a Happy…” and the FDA in the same sentence clearly has no idea of what they are talking about.
Turkey Producer spokesperson, Jonathon J. Johnson, Jr. provided some confusing commentary at a press conference this morning stating that “as far as we know, the turkeys are in good health and generally happy until two weeks before Thanksgiving.” “We cannot comment on the use of drugs by any of our turkeys.” “We have nothing further to add... (unintelligible) ...we’re happy...(unintelligible)… bender; I have to go now.”
PETA spokesperson, Drew Laney released a statement applauding the FDA for its criticism of the turkey producers, but attempted to draw blood on the FDA by demanding that they immediately enact a “Cease & Desist” on the entire industry to avoid further loss of life, health risks and obvious dangers. Laney's release elaborated that this would have a benefit to humans as well.
Turkey producers have 15 days to reply with an explanation of how they intend to "correct the violations" and to ensure that "similar violations do not occur". While the FDA has written off this years’ Thanksgiving holiday as having too much momentum to provide a meaningful impact on changing labeling practices, the FDA is aiming to bring sweeping changes to the turkey industry prior to the upcoming Christmas/New Year’s holiday consumption season.
- submitted anonymously (Think I could get a job writing for the Onion?)
FDA Watch: Warning Letter Issued to Food Producers
In surprise move today, the The US Food and Drug Administration has written warning letters to United States turkey producers, the growers and processors of the popular Thanksgiving element, explaining that they have reviewed the general labeling of the industries’ frozen, uncooked turkey products and found that most labels contain "serious violations" of federal regulations.
The details of the FDA findings are in a letter dated earlier this week, from the Midwest director for the FDA to turkey producers who are purveyors of the central dish of America’s one true National holiday.
According to the FDA, turkey producers are breaking federal regulations on three counts: they are growing, processing turkey as an "unapproved new drug" and misbranding the product by making "unauthorized health claims" and “failing to inform the public” about health risks and dangers of consuming the product.”
The FDA letter to the food companies states:
"FDA's review found serious violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) and the applicable regulations in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR)."
The FDA said that the frozen and unfrozen turkey product labels promotes it like a drug intended for use in the "prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease". The letter drew particular attention to phrases that say the product claims pertaining to cholesterol, and the other “healthy white meat.” Claims pertaining to the ability to lower cholesterol by "4 per cent in 6 weeks", that it can also reduce bad cholesterol by 4 per cent, and that it is "clinical proven" to lower cholesterol. The FDA went on to address that such claims are spurious at best when considered that turkey is rarely made without seasoning and never served as a stand alone dish.
The letter does not address the veracity of the claims, instead it addresses the point that by making such claims then the product is really a drug and should go through the proper channels for obtaining drug approval.
For example, as the letter explains, the claims indicate that producers have claimed that turkey is: "Intended for use in lowering cholesterol, and therefore in preventing, mitigating, and treating the disease hypercholesterolemia." And by claiming that the product lowers total and bad cholesterol, then it is also claiming to treat heart disease, for which total and bad (LDL) cholesterol are known risk factors. This is what puts the product in the "new drug" category, and the letter quotes several sections of "the Act" to support their case. The FDA said another reason that turkey is considered to be a "new drug" was because under another section of "the Act", it is "not generally recognized as safe and effective for use in preventing or treating hypercholesterolemia or coronary heart disease".
The letter’s second claim was the equivalent of a bombshell when the FDA took an aggressive tact on the known levels of tryptophan contained within the natural chemistry of turkey, both uncooked and frozen. Tryptophan is an essential amino acid, meaning that the body can't manufacture it. The body has to get tryptophan and other essential amino acids from food. Tryptophan helps the body produce the B-vitamin niacin, which, in turn, helps the body produce serotonin, a remarkable chemical that acts as a calming agent in the brainand plays a key role in sleep.
The FDA acknowledged that they had no evidence that turkey producers were artificially enhancing higher levels of tryptophan during the typical 20 week growing season, but the FDA made no bones about their view that turkey producers were not discouraging turkeys from engaging in eating habits and activities that may enhance the ability of young turkeys to produce dangerous levels of tryptophan, which in turn would be passed on to ultimate consumers of turkey.
The FDA said that the dangers of high levels of tryptophan are well-known, particularly around the Thanksgiving holiday season when excessive amounts of turkey are consumed by vast portions of the American public. Turkey producers “turn a negligent eye” from the glut of turkey consumption, according to one unnamed source close to the FDA. “Turkey producers are no different than pushers on the street” (sic) referring the lack of conscience in distributing a “laced” product. Further parallels were made to a turkey being the equivalent of “a massive syringe, willingly being placed in the mouths of ravenous Americans by their own hand…” Ironically, sociologists point out that postprandial Thanksgiving day sedation (and its dangers) likely has more to do with what else is consumed along with the turkey, in particular massive doses of carbohydrates in deceptive forms and excessive alcohol consumption. This observation correlates with the FDA’s third claim.
On the issue of misbranding, the FDA said that turkey producers bear "unauthorized health claims in its labeling" and cites text on the various producers' websites, which under the Act is considered to be part of the product labeling, as being faulty in this respect. The labeling should include disclaimers and warnings akin to "WARNING: eating large quantities of this product can produce drowsiness, feelings of lethargy, excessive bloating and gas." While the FDA has not elaborated, FDA precedence would likely also lead to similar warnings of “WARNING: do not operate or use heavy machinery or operate a vehicle after consuming this product” or “ WARNING: consumption of this product mixed with alcohol and carbohydrates could result in adverse health and social consequences.”
The letter also refers to another labeling omission about the excessive trimmings and ancillary dishes typically served with turkey. Dressing with high levels of gluten and salt, yams with sugary marshmallows and brown sugar, green beans with mushroom base and salty dried onion toppings, cranberries laced with high concentrations of pectin, sugar and red dye #40, potatoes with copious amounts of starch and preservatives (although garlic and chives do have certain health benefits) and the kiss of death, turkey gravy which has highly concentrated levels of tryptophan itself, cleverly disguised in turkey drippings and fat. Space does not allow for a detailed description of potential life-ending versions of desserts that quickly follow the ritual gluttony or the fluids used to “chase down” the collective meal or the desire to forget the conversation with the participants that you are dining with.
The FDA said the lack of adequate warnings about consumption, use, side effects and use of the product while being consumed with ancillary products fails to meet the authorized format because, for example, like the other claim, it does not mention the obvious warnings, nor does it address the overall context of the healthy (or lack thereof) diet.
In what could otherwise be categorized as an unprecedented coda, the agency also took issue with the added phrase "Have a Happy” before the seasonal references to Thanksgiving on most packaging without actually citing a violation or potential violation as a basis. As the FDA letter explains:
"The claim authorized through the notification procedure of “Have a Happy” does not emphasize the relationship between perceived happiness that one may have prior to consuming the food and stark contrast to how one feels within a half hour after consuming it, not to mention how they feel about it a week later when consuming leftovers." Thinly veiled references to "mislabeling" appear to be the motivation as the "claim" of "happy" is an intended outcome as opposed to a seasonal greeting. Third party sources have commented that anything relative to “Have a Happy…” and the FDA in the same sentence clearly has no idea of what they are talking about.
Turkey Producer spokesperson, Jonathon J. Johnson, Jr. provided some confusing commentary at a press conference this morning stating that “as far as we know, the turkeys are in good health and generally happy until two weeks before Thanksgiving.” “We cannot comment on the use of drugs by any of our turkeys.” “We have nothing further to add... (unintelligible) ...we’re happy...(unintelligible)… bender; I have to go now.”
PETA spokesperson, Drew Laney released a statement applauding the FDA for its criticism of the turkey producers, but attempted to draw blood on the FDA by demanding that they immediately enact a “Cease & Desist” on the entire industry to avoid further loss of life, health risks and obvious dangers. Laney's release elaborated that this would have a benefit to humans as well.
Turkey producers have 15 days to reply with an explanation of how they intend to "correct the violations" and to ensure that "similar violations do not occur". While the FDA has written off this years’ Thanksgiving holiday as having too much momentum to provide a meaningful impact on changing labeling practices, the FDA is aiming to bring sweeping changes to the turkey industry prior to the upcoming Christmas/New Year’s holiday consumption season.
- submitted anonymously (Think I could get a job writing for the Onion?)
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Get low to the ground – and start listening!
I believe eating ‘low to the ground’* is something our bodies naturally want – and, perhaps, even need. Given our busy lifestyles, it’s nearly impossible to hear (or even listen to) a body all cranked up on drive-thru food and over processed foods that need to be loaded with colorings, added flavors, preservatives and fillers just to make them palatable. I know, through personal experience, that the longer I went without eating manufactured foods, the more I began to hear my body. Sounds a bit extreme - but it actually happens. I didn’t set out expecting or looking for this either. I did it as a health plan – as a way to eat more naturally. However, as a by-product of doing so, my body started talking to me. Kind of like a car telling you to change its oil, get new brake pads or get more gas. (I love the expression “I run like a well oiled machine”. I think that’s true.)
I listen to my body on other subjects all the time: When I’m tired, I rest. When my knee hurts, I walk instead of run. When I’m stressed, I try to exercise. Why wouldn’t eating, one of the most basic things we do for our bodies, be exactly the same? One way our bodies talk is through the language of cravings. I crave certain foods when I am tired or stressed – or energetic. If we teach our bodies - by giving them nutritious food for a while – and then listen – they will start to tell us what we need. A body hyped up on fast food and preservatives will probably crave more of the same – it just doesn’t know any better. But given 3-4 weeks ‘low to the ground’, the body will start to crave nutritious foods.
I know, with schedules and families to feed, it’s hard to stick to such a pure regimen, but just starting to think in these terms can make a huge difference. You can be as extreme as you like: how far you go is up to you. Simply being conscious of what you put in your mouth is a healthy start…
…it’s all just food for thought!
*Think of ‘low to the ground’ as foods locally grown, minimally processed and probably eaten by your ancestors.
Ann Sullivan is a self-proclaimed “Food Anthropologist” and an avid health and fitness activist. After 20 years as a wife and stay-at-home-mom, preparing meals to satisfy the masses instead of her inner voice, she has started listening – and is discovering an entirely new level of nutritional health and personal satisfaction.
I listen to my body on other subjects all the time: When I’m tired, I rest. When my knee hurts, I walk instead of run. When I’m stressed, I try to exercise. Why wouldn’t eating, one of the most basic things we do for our bodies, be exactly the same? One way our bodies talk is through the language of cravings. I crave certain foods when I am tired or stressed – or energetic. If we teach our bodies - by giving them nutritious food for a while – and then listen – they will start to tell us what we need. A body hyped up on fast food and preservatives will probably crave more of the same – it just doesn’t know any better. But given 3-4 weeks ‘low to the ground’, the body will start to crave nutritious foods.
I know, with schedules and families to feed, it’s hard to stick to such a pure regimen, but just starting to think in these terms can make a huge difference. You can be as extreme as you like: how far you go is up to you. Simply being conscious of what you put in your mouth is a healthy start…
…it’s all just food for thought!
*Think of ‘low to the ground’ as foods locally grown, minimally processed and probably eaten by your ancestors.
Ann Sullivan is a self-proclaimed “Food Anthropologist” and an avid health and fitness activist. After 20 years as a wife and stay-at-home-mom, preparing meals to satisfy the masses instead of her inner voice, she has started listening – and is discovering an entirely new level of nutritional health and personal satisfaction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
