Michael F. Jacobson2013-05-23T01:15:06-04:00Michael F. Jacobsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=michael-f-jacobsonCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Michael F. JacobsonGood old fashioned elbow grease.The New York Times Bungles the Latest Salt Reporttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32949012013-05-20T15:09:16-04:002013-05-20T15:57:59-04:00Michael F. Jacobsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/New York Times says. In an editorial and an article, the Times misrepresented the findings of a new report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM). Here's what the Times got wrong:
The Times never told readers that the IOM found insufficient evidence that very-low-sodium diets are risky. The editorial cites "emerging evidence" and the article cites "troubling" findings that diets low in sodium (mostly from salt) are harmful. However, the Times failed to tell readers that, according to the IOM, the evidence of harm from low-sodium diets is "insufficient and inconsistent."
The problem: The IOM found serious methodological flaws in all of the studies suggesting harm from low-sodium intakes. And some of those studies involved a bizarre treatment for congestive heart failure that isn't used in the United States. (The treatment severely limits not just salt, but how much water people can drink.)
The Times article described studies done before 2005 as flawed, but it describes the recent studies that "found adverse effects on the lower end of the sodium scale" as "more careful and rigorous." How could the Times confuse "insufficient and inconsistent" with "more careful and rigorous"?
The Times failed to inform readers that few Americans consume very-low-sodium diets.
The Times not only fanned unfounded fears that cutting sodium is risky, but it failed to inform readers that vanishingly few Americans consume the very-low-sodium levels that the IOM considered. More than 97 percent of adults up to age 50 -- and more than 95 percent of adults over 50 -- consume more than 1,500 milligrams of sodium a day. And 75 percent of women and 96 percent of men consume more than 2,300 mg a day. (And those percentages are underestimates because they're from surveys that ask people what they recall eating and don't include salt from the salt shaker.) Of course, most people who are trying to eat less salt have no idea whether they are consuming 2,300 mg or 1,500 mg or less per day. The Times may lead many to assume (erroneously) that they have cut their sodium intake enough to "suffer adverse health effects."
The Times imperiled its readers' health by implying that all advice to cut salt is wrong.
"The panel did not conclude that the average intake of 3,400 milligrams a day is necessarily risky," said the Times editorial. Of course, it didn't. The IOM wasn't asked to examine the risks and benefits of our current sodium intakes. Previous IOM committees concluded that they are harmful. The IOM was asked to look at the effects of intakes in the 1,500 mg to 2,300 mg range.
"After years of warnings to cut sodium consumption to reduce heart attacks and strokes, it is disturbing to learn how little evidence exists that such reductions would actually be beneficial to health," opined the editorial. These and other statements imply that Americans should ignore all previous advice from health authorities to cut salt.
Ironically, the editorial concluded by stating that the new report "called for more vigorous research to clarify an issue that is sure to be confusing for the public." Clearly, the Times did its part to add to that confusion. While the IOM report should have been written more clearly, the nation's leading newspaper bungled the story. Most other major media -- including Reuters, the Associated Press, USA Today, and National Public Radio -- got it right.
All the key major health authorities -- including the American Heart Association, National Institutes of Health, and the World Health Organization -- have urged the public to cut back on salt to combat the global epidemic of elevated blood pressure, a major cause of heart attacks, strokes, congestive heart failure, and kidney disease. Worldwide, elevated blood pressure causes more preventable deaths than tobacco, obesity, alcohol, or any other cause, according to the World Health Organization. Two out of three U.S. adults have either hypertension or prehypertension. It's an epidemic. And eating too much salt raises blood pressure. That's the true public health problem.
The IOM ignored the mountain of conclusive evidence that cutting sodium reduces blood pressure, a missing "critical component" that led the American Heart Association to stand by its recommendation "that all Americans eat no more than 1,500 mg a day of sodium." What's more, we have evidence that cutting sodium from current levels lowers the risk of heart attacks and strokes in people with prehypertension (that's about one in three adults). A follow-up of the Trials of Hypertension Prevention was among the very few studies that had no flaws, according to the IOM. The follow-up found 25 to 30 percent fewer heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular events in people who cut their sodium by 25 to 35 percent (from 3,556 mg a day down to 2,286 mg a day in one part of the study and from 4,207 mg down to about 3,229 mg in the second part).
Why didn't the IOM find evidence of benefit in people who ate less than 2,300 mg of sodium a day? The fact is that no good studies have been done. Studies can't test whether a diet with, say, 1,500 or 2,000 mg of sodium a day lowers the risk of heart attacks and strokes, because such a study would have to keep hundreds or thousands of people on a very-low-sodium diet for years. Eating so little sodium is just not practical as long as the food industry keeps dumping so much salt into our foods.
Just gradually reducing our sodium intake to 2,300 milligrams a day, about a 40 percent reduction for most people, would yield enormous benefits. Doing so would save an estimated 280,000 to 500,000 lives, as well as about $90 billion in medical costs over the next decade. Inasmuch as the food industry is not lowering sodium levels enough on its own, it's high time that the Food and Drug Administration did what a landmark 2010 IOM report recommended: set limits on sodium for different categories of food.
But you don't have to wait for government action to protect your health. Instead, read food labels carefully, eat smaller portions at restaurants (where sodium levels are notoriously high), and choose more fruits and vegetables, which are naturally low in sodium and high in potassium, which helps lower blood pressure.
For more health news, click here.]]>Risky Meat: Will Your Meal Send You to the Hospital?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.31401172013-04-24T13:16:02-04:002013-04-24T13:16:20-04:00Michael F. Jacobsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/48 million people who are infected each year from tainted foods seek medical attention. But about 128,000 Americans go to the hospital to seek treatment for a potentially deadly infection caused by Salmonella, E. coli or other pathogen. And every year, about 3,000 die.
We decided to analyze outbreak data to answer the question: What are the riskiest -- and the safest -- meat and poultry products? Which foods are most likely to make us sick and cause the most severe cases of illness?
Our findings may surprise you. If you choose to eat meat or poultry -- and there are nutritional and ecological reasons why you might not -- there are things you can do to minimize your risk. And for some of these, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, meat and poultry producers, and restaurateurs could be doing more to ensure that these foods are safe to eat. Our complete findings are here.
For more health news, click here.]]>What Big Soda Learned From the Marlboro Mantag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.29086622013-03-20T17:52:42-04:002013-05-20T05:12:02-04:00Michael F. Jacobsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/"Five-Year Plan," which surveyed a landscape of "unabated activism," more regulation, and "deteriorating" attitudes about smoking, as well as issues related to trade and solid waste generation (litter, presumably).
The document, with its coldly Soviet-sounding title, seemed most alarmed about new taxes. "We are also vulnerable to taxes designed as much to modify behavior as they are meant to raise taxes," the Five-Year Plan worriedly stated.
In somewhat coded language, the plan called for funding minority organizations to undermine anti-smoking campaigners. The company should "develop offsetting relationships among groups that are often used by the 'antis' suggesting they are victims because they use the company's products" -- antis being anti-smoking activists -- "thus undermining the opposition's ability to organize against the company's interests with leading community organizations."
By this time, Philip Morris was already an expert at playing the divide-and-conquer game. In the 1980s, New York City -- then, as now, ahead of its time -- proposed requiring separate non-smoking sections in restaurants. The Tobacco Institute created the Committee for Common Courtesy to safeguard the rights of smokers, enlisting as an ally the state conference of the NAACP and its local president, Hazel Dukes.
Fast-forward 20 years.
Another New York mayor proposes a pioneering public health measure, one that would cap the serving sizes of obesity- and diabetes-causing sugar drinks at 16 ounces in restaurants and other venues regulated by the city's health department. And again, Hazel Dukes of the NAACP is opposing the proposal, casting the cap as a civil rights issue: "I strongly object to the imposition on personal freedom suggested by this ban," she blogged on The Huffington Post.
What she did not acknowledge at that time was that over the years Coca-Cola has been generous to the NAACP, both the national and the state chapter. In fact, Coca-Cola brags about giving the group at least $2.1 million since 1986. That fact would come out, however, when the NAACP and another group, the Hispanic Federation, filed -- with the help of long-time Coca-Cola law firm King & Spalding -- court papers supporting the soda industry's lawsuit against the city.
"We need to stop just looking at one thing, which is the sugary drinks," Dukes told TheGrio.com after New York State Supreme Court Judge Milton A. Tingling handed down an injunction preventing the city's soda proposal from taking effect.
Indeed, let's turn away from the sugary drinks -- there's nothing to see here!
And similar to the way the tobacco industry spent heavily trying to cast doubt on the science connecting smoking and second-hand smoke to lung cancer, the soda industry has spent lavishly on groups representing doctors, dentists, dietitians, and nurses. In one case, a $600,000 grant from Coca-Cola to the American Academy of Family Physicians paid for a website with mild advice to consumers to choose water over sugary drinks, but with soft language that echoes industry talking points stressing soda's role in promoting "hydration."
In 2003, the head of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry president David K. Curtis seemed to hedge his group's longstanding position on the role sugar drinks play in causing tooth decay. Before receiving funds (and at least now, long after receiving the funds), the group stated that "frequent consumption of sugars in any beverage can be a significant factor" contributing to dental disease. But just after obtaining a $1 million grant, Curtis said that the "scientific evidence is certainly not clear on the role that soft drinks play."
The anti-hunger community, too, has longstanding ties to food and beverage companies, many of which provide needed food, as well as money, to local food banks. But it's fair to ask whether the money that respected groups like the Food Research and Action Center and Feeding America take from Coke, Pepsi, and another sugar-drink maker, Kraft, prevents the anti-hunger groups from being better advocates for nutrition. Both groups oppose changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, that would remove sugar drinks from eligibility under the program. (Of course Kraft, maker of Capri Sun and Kool-Aid, has inherited knowledge of the tobacco playbook, having once been part of Altria, parent of Philip Morris.)
And reporters, take note: Even a professional organization representing journalists has taken money from Big Soda. In this case, the grant is from PepsiCo, to the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, toward internships and scholarships.
(Big Soda's long history of using its philanthropy to buy friends, silence potential critics, and otherwise sweeten its profits is the subject of a new report from CSPI.)
Of course, comparing food and tobacco only gets you so far. Everyone must eat and drink; everyone need not and should not smoke. But the status of soda and other sugar drinks as "food" is hanging by a thread. Unlike other foods, most sugar drinks provide nothing of positive nutritional value to the diet. That's a pretty serious problem considering that sugar drinks are the single biggest source of calories in the diet.
Though the links between soda consumption and disease may not be as solid as the link between smoking and lung cancer, the evidence is mounting in both clinical studies and in epidemiology that sugar drinks cause obesity, diabetes, heart disease, gout, and other health problems.
Food isn't tobacco. And Coca-Cola isn't Philip Morris. But the playbook is the same, and we ignore it at our peril.
For more health news, click here.]]>Sweet Nothingstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27918752013-03-04T12:31:45-05:002013-05-04T05:12:01-04:00Michael F. Jacobsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/
But recent studies have begun to demonstrate that the large amounts of added (or refined) sugars -- including cane and beet sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, plain corn syrup, and dextrose -- in our diets are harming much more than our teeth.
Although levels have declined in the past decade, we still consume an awful lot of sugar. According to estimates by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the average person takes in almost 400 calories' worth of refined sugars a day, and many people consume far more. In fact, more than 35 million people get more than one-fourth of their calories from refined sugars [1]. Almost half of that sugar comes from liquid candy: soft drinks, sports drinks, energy drinks, fruit drinks, and the like.
Studies that track thousands of people for years find that those who consume more sugary drinks have a higher risk of weight gain, diabetes [2], heart disease [3], and gout [4]. When scientists give people sugary drinks, they put on more weight than people who get calorie-free drinks. And when researchers give people hefty amounts of fructose, which constitutes about half of sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, they see a rise in deep belly fat and in blood levels of triglycerides, glucose, insulin, and LDL ("bad") cholesterol -- all precursors of heart disease. Moreover, the more sugar (from foods and beverages) that people consume, the fewer nutrients they get.
The American Heart Association recommends that women consume no more than six teaspoons of added sugars a day and that men consume no more than nine. To put that into context, a can of Coke contains 9 teaspoons of added sugars, and a 6-ounce flavored yogurt has about five teaspoons.
But advice from health experts can do only so much in a society where cheap sugary drinks and foods are sold at every fast-food outlet, convenience store, coffee shop, gas station, drugstore, and supermarket.
Luckily, companies are developing safer, better-tasting, high-potency sweeteners made from natural sources like stevia leaves. Others are working on "sweetness enhancers" that make one teaspoon of sugar taste like two.
The time has come for the Food and Drug Administration to reevaluate the safety of sugary drinks. That's what the Center for Science in the Public Interest, several dozen nutrition experts, seven local health departments, and 15 nonprofit organizations have asked the FDA to do.
I think -- and some soft-drink industry officials agree -- that the amount of sugar in beverages could be cut by 75 percent or more and they'd still taste great. I'll drink to that!
References:
1. Marriott BP, Olsho L, Hadden L, et al. Intake of added sugars and selected nutrients in the United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2003-2006. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2010;50:228-58. (This study was funded by the industry-sponsored International Life Sciences Institute.)
2. Hu FB, Malik VS. Sugar-sweetened beverages and risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes: epidemiologic evidence. Physiol Behav. 2010(Apr 26);100(1):47-54.
Malik VS, Schulze MB, Hu FB. Intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;84:274-88.
3. de Koning L, Malik VS, Kellogg MD, et al. Sweetened beverage consumption, incident coronary heart disease, and biomarkers of risk in men. Circulation. 2012(Apr 10);125(14):1735-41.
Fung TT, Malik V, Rexrode KM, et al. Sweetened beverage consumption and risk of coronary heart disease in women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009;89:1037-42.
Bernstein AM, de Koning L, Flint AJ, et al. Soda consumption and the risk of stroke in men and women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 May;95(5):1190-9.
4. Zhu Y, Pandya BJ, Choi HK. Prevalence of gout and hyperuricemia in the US general population: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2007-2008. Arthritis Rheum. 2011(Oct);63(10):3136-41.
For more on diet and nutrition, click here.]]>Eat Your Veggiestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27182052013-02-20T15:07:45-05:002013-04-22T05:12:01-04:00Michael F. Jacobsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/
Since 1980, the government has advised us to eat more fruits and vegetables. For two decades, the National Cancer Institute has urged us to eat five to nine servings of fruits and vegetables each day. And the U.S. Department of Agriculture's recent MyPlate graphic encourages people to fill half their plate with fruits and vegetables.
Most people have heard the message. But we're still not eating enough.
After rising about 25 percent between 1980 and 1995, vegetable consumption leveled off at a sorry one cup per person per day (excluding white potatoes, potato chips, and fries). And fruit consumption has remained constant -- at just half a cup per day -- for the past 25 years. (We don't count fruit juice, since it lacks the fiber that's in whole fruit and since liquid calories promote weight gain.)
Despite all the farmers markets, Michael Pollan books, and readers of Nutrition Action, we're eating far too little fruits and vegetables. Fewer than one in 10 Americans eat the levels recommended by MyPlate, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). For a 2,000-calorie diet, that's two cups of fruit and 2.5 cups of vegetables a day. And that includes potatoes and fruit juice.
If we're serious about getting people to eat more fruits and vegetables, we need better strategies. Let me suggest a few:
Powerful, paid media campaigns can boost consumption. A major carrot grower, Bolthouse Farms, for example, found that clever TV commercials increased carrot sales by 15 percent. Government matching money or tax breaks could stimulate similar efforts. And the produce industry needs to fund multimillion-dollar PR campaigns, just as the meat and dairy industries have done.
The SNAP (food stamp) program should provide extra benefits to encourage people to buy more fresh produce.
Cooking classes could teach kids what to do with broccoli and acorn squash.
Researchers need to figure out how to create more convenient and less-perishable produce like baby carrots and bagged salads.
If we don't invest in those kinds of programs now, Americans likely will be eating even fewer fruits and vegetables in the years ahead. And we'll be suffering from even higher rates of obesity, diabetes, and other health problems.
For more on diet and nutrition, click here.]]>Les repas les plus démesurés des États-Unis (PHOTOS)tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25205902013-01-21T12:09:31-05:002013-03-23T05:12:01-04:00Michael F. Jacobsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/Center for Science in the Public Interest (Centre pour la science dans l'intérêt public) effectuent sans relâche le tour des chaînes de restauration américaine à la recherche de repas aux teneurs en calories, graisses saturées, sodium ou sucres ajoutés incroyablement élevées. Nos études sur les qualités nutritionnelles du popcorn dans les cinémas, des viandes dans les restaurants et des mets proposés par les traiteurs chinois ont fait les grands titres de journaux dans le monde entier.
Depuis 2007, les Xtreme Eating Awards (la cérémonie des repas de l'extrême) sont une tradition quasi annuelle. Aujourd'hui, nous vous révélons les grands "gagnants" présents dans la dernière édtition de notre newsletter "Nutrition Action Healthletter". Ce que nous avons découvert est extrême, quelque soit votre définition du mot: un milkshake contenant une part de tarte au pomme mixée, un plat de pâte à plus de 3000 calories et un petit déjeuner qui contient un steak frit (et non un steak - frites) accompagné de pancakes (mais aussi de pommes de terres, d'œufs, de sauce et de d'érable)!
Alors à votre avis, quels sont les plats américains les plus extrêmes? Découvrez le ci-dessous dans notre diaporama.
]]>Les plats les plus caloriques servis aux États-Unistag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25207622013-01-21T11:58:01-05:002013-03-23T05:12:01-04:00Michael F. Jacobsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/Center for Science in the Public Interest (Centre pour la science dans l'intérêt public) effectuent sans relâche le tour des chaînes de restauration américaine à la recherche de repas aux teneurs en calories, graisses saturées, sodium ou sucres ajoutés incroyablement élevées. Nos études sur les qualités nutritionnelles du popcorn dans les cinémas, des viandes dans les restaurants et des mets proposés par les traiteurs chinois ont fait les grands titres de journaux dans le monde entier.
Depuis 2007, les Xtreme Eating Awards (la cérémonie des repas de l'extrême) sont une tradition quasi annuelle. Aujourd'hui, nous vous révélons les grands "gagnants" présents dans la dernière édtition de notre newsletter "Nutrition Action Healthletter". Ce que nous avons découvert est extrême, quelque soit votre définition du mot: un milkshake contenant une part de tarte au pomme mixée, un plat de pâte à plus de 3000 calories et un petit déjeuner qui contient un steak frit (et non un steak - frites) accompagné de pancakes (mais aussi de pommes de terres, d'œufs, de sauce et de d'érable)!
Alors à votre avis, quels sont les plats américains les plus extrêmes? Découvrez le ci-dessous dans notre diaporama.
]]>Les repas les plus démesurés des Etats-Unistag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25196702013-01-21T08:17:19-05:002013-03-23T05:12:01-04:00Michael F. Jacobsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/Center for Science in the Public Interest (Centre pour la science dans l'intérêt public) effectuent sans relâche le tour des chaînes de restauration américaine à la recherche de repas aux teneurs en calories, graisses saturées, sodium ou sucres ajoutés incroyablement élevées. Nos études sur les qualités nutritionnelles du popcorn dans les cinémas, des viandes dans les restaurants et des mets proposés par les traiteurs chinois ont fait les grands titres de journaux dans le monde entier.
Depuis 2007, les Xtreme Eating Awards (la cérémonie des repas de l'extrême) sont une tradition quasi annuelle. Aujourd'hui, nous vous révélons les grands "gagnants" présents dans la dernière édtition de notre newsletter "Nutrition Action Healthletter". Ce que nous avons découvert est extrême, quelque soit votre définition du mot: un milkshake contenant une part de tarte au pomme mixée, un plat de pâte à plus de 3000 calories et un petit déjeuner qui contient un steak frit (et non un steak - frites) accompagné de pancakes (mais aussi de pommes de terres, d'œufs, de sauce et de d'érable)!
Alors à votre avis, quels sont les plats américains les plus extrêmes? Découvrez le ci-dessous dans notre diaporama.
]]>The Most 'Xtreme' Meals in Americatag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.24579872013-01-16T08:52:51-05:002013-03-18T05:12:01-04:00Michael F. Jacobsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/
Since 2007, the Xtreme Eating Awards have become an (almost) annual tradition. Today, we unveil the latest "winners" in the current issue of our award-winning, advertising-free Nutrition Action Healthletter. What we found is extreme by anyone's definition: A milkshake with a slice of apple pie blended right in. A 3,000-calorie plate of pasta. A breakfast that includes deep-fried steak and pancakes (and hash browns and eggs and gravy and syrup)!
Take a look at our nine dis-honorees: Which meal do you think is the most extreme of them all?
For more on diet and nutrition, click here.]]>A Salty Minefield for Parentstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22708192012-12-13T08:16:10-05:002013-02-12T05:12:01-05:00Michael F. Jacobsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/
A second important reason to limit sodium in children's diets is that too much sodium can boost the blood pressure of even little tykes. That puts those kids on the road to high blood pressure and an increased risk of stroke and heart disease.
In a recent study by the CDC, researchers found that kids are consuming 3,400 milligrams (mg) of sodium daily -- about twice the recommended limits (1,200 mg is recommended for 4- to 8-year-olds and 1,500 mg for 9- to 13-year-olds). To lower your child's sodium intake, the most important thing is to limit processed and restaurant foods. Only about 11 percent of our salt comes from the shaker; the vast majority is engineered into the chicken nuggets, the Lunchables, the Hot Pockets, and other foods that manufacturers have created.
Investigators from the Center for Science in the Public Interest recently toured the supermarket and found a very salty minefield that parents must navigate on behalf of their children. (The sodium levels in most restaurant meals also are often high; that's a matter we'll return to in the future.)
For more on diet and nutrition, click here.]]>Hello, Pig? Meet Lipsticktag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22045832012-11-29T15:05:06-05:002013-02-27T13:23:55-05:00Michael F. Jacobsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/
Big Soda must know it has a public relations problem on its hands. With study after study making plainer the links between sugary-drink consumption and obesity, the industry is under siege. Reducing soda consumption is increasingly a priority of public health officials, and in the years ahead more and more cities will turn to caps on serving sizes (a la New York City's recent ordinance), taxes, and other strategies to drive down consumption. Perhaps seeing the handwriting on the wall, soda companies are diversifying their product lines with reduced-calorie sodas, waters, and juice drinks. Another part of the plan: Make soda look like a health food by dressing it up with added vitamins or fiber.
Pig, meet lipstick.
Technically, the Food and Drug Administration frowns on the practice of fortifying snack foods or carbonated beverages with added nutrients. Part of the point of the agency's so-called "Jelly Bean Rule" is to discourage companies from making junk foods appear healthful by adding a dollop of nutrients. But the soda industry is testing the extent to which the agency will enforce that regulation.
7UP is one of the most recent to try this. The latest versions of 7UP have been gussied up with a small amount of synthetic vitamin E in order to justify varieties with names like "Cherry Antioxidant," "Mixed Berry Antioxidant," and "Pomegranate Antioxidant." Of course there is no cherry, berry, or pomegranate juice in any of those products -- and no amount of vitamin E will undo the damage caused by all the high-fructose corn syrup in those drinks. (The Center for Science in the Public Interest's litigation unit is co-counsel in a class-action lawsuit against its parent company, Dr Pepper Snapple group. Recently, that company said it will stop marketing those products.)
Might fiber be the next thing added to soda?
In Japan, PepsiCo is introducing Pepsi Special -- the same old sugary soda but with the addition of fiber substitute dextrin. Generally, more fiber is a good thing. But as with the vitamin E in 7UP, the low-quality fiber in this soda can't begin to undo the increased risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, or tooth decay posed by all of its sugar.
I hope the Food and Drug Administration starts enforcing its fortification rule again. (A 2008 warning letter from the agency was all it took for Coca-Cola to abandon its fortified sugar water Diet Coke Plus.) In the meantime, we should get our fiber, antioxidants from real foods, especially vegetables, fruits, and whole grains, and not artificially-fortified soda.
For more health news, click here.]]>Time to Sweep Up the Confetti and Start Saving Livestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21011762012-11-09T16:35:52-05:002013-01-09T05:12:01-05:00Michael F. Jacobsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/
Early in what we can now call his "first" term, President Barack Obama carved out an ambitious agenda on food policy. In January 2011, the President signed the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act -- landmark reform legislation designed to keep salmonella, E. coli, and other dangerous pathogens out of the food supply. Requiring more oversight of the factories, fields, and packing houses from whence much of our food comes, the bill was supported by consumer groups, victims of foodborne illness, and much of the food industry itself. The law required the Food and Drug Administration to draft, offer for public comment, and then finalize regulations governing recalls, imports, produce safety, and more.
Perhaps not wanting to appear overly "regulatory" or "anti-business" during a heated campaign, the administration had basically signaled to consumer advocates that they should expect to wait until "after the election" to see these important food safety rules. And so in January of 2012, when a rule instructing retailers how best to alert consumers about food recalls was due, nothing happened. And in July, when a rule requiring hazard-control plans at food manufacturing facilities came due, again -- nothing. Meanwhile, outbreaks and recalls of contaminated food continued apace, including an outbreak of salmonella linked to raw tuna, which sickened 425 people and hospitalized 55 this summer, and outbreaks linked to salmonella-contaminated cantaloupe, mangoes, and peanut butter this fall, sickening hundreds more.
The administration has acted with greater speed carrying out many of the regulatory provisions in its signature legislative achievement, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or "Obamacare." But one nutrition-related provision of that important bill has not yet been finalized: the section requiring calorie counts on chain restaurant menus and menu boards. Even as some big chains (including McDonald's) acted on their own to implement the law, officials basically have been sitting on proposed regulations that spell out the nitty gritty details of how to (and who should) comply with the law. Again, health advocates were told to expect the final requirements sometime -- you guessed it -- "after the election."
Also stuck at the White House are proposed standards for foods sold in school vending machines and other venues outside the school meal programs. The Healthy, Hunger-free Kids Act would not have passed without the support of both the president and the first lady. Yet this important provision to get soda and junk food out of schools has been held hostage by the elections. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is done writing the standards, so the White House should be able to release the proposed rule in the next few weeks.
Stuck elsewhere at the FDA, with details not disclosed, are important measures regarding two of the most harmful chemicals in food. The FDA needs to order the food industry to stop using partially-hydrogenated oil, with its artery-clogging trans fat. While many companies have stopped using the harmful fat, others, such as Marie Callender's, Pop Secret, and Pillsbury still employ it.
And an even greater danger is that posed by high levels of sodium in packaged and restaurant foods. Researchers have estimated that reducing those levels by 50 percent would save about 100,000 lives per year. More than two years ago, the prestigious Institute of Medicine, a unit of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that companies had ignored numerous government recommendations since 1969 to reduce sodium levels in their products. Hence, the IOM recommended that the FDA set binding limits on sodium. The FDA has done virtually nothing to protect the public's health.
The president should be congratulated on his historic victory. He and first lady Michelle Obama have been important advocates for progress on nutrition, obesity, school meals, food safety, and more. But it's time to sweep up the confetti and finish the important work on food policy that's been left hanging in the balance during the campaign. And the administration should use the next four years to pursue even more aggressive initiatives that make our food supply safer, our kids better protected from junk-food marketers, and our diets healthier.
For more health news, click here.]]>Amputation, Impotence, Painful Dentistry: Soda Equals Sadnesstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19435592012-10-10T09:00:10-04:002013-02-27T13:12:21-05:00Michael F. Jacobsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/teach the world to sing. Or "Mean Joe Green" tossing his jersey to a young boy who offered him a Coke. The company circulates videos of its vending machines "dispensing happiness" in the form of balloon animals and free pizza in one instance and by soliciting hugs in another. The message is that Coke equals happiness. That's pretty close to Pepsi's message, too.
Soda might have been a source of happiness when it was served occasionally in 6.5- or 10-ounce bottles. But in its current form -- the default, everyday drink at dinner, lunch and, increasingly, breakfast for so many people and in 20-ounce bottles or 32- or 64-ounce vats -- soda is actually a powerful promoter of obesity, tooth decay, diabetes, heart disease, and other problems. Some of the complications associated with diabetes, including amputation of infected limbs and erectile dysfunction, are downright depressing. In other words, despite the industry's sunny and manipulative messages, soda is causing more than its fair share of sadness.
The Real Bears is an animated short film we produced in order to tell the truth about Big Soda. For this we turned to Alex Bogusky, formerly of Crispin Porter + Bogusky, who has actually done a little Coke advertising himself, but who also developed the trail-blazing anti-tobacco Truth campaign. Jason Mraz was kind enough to write and record an original song just for this project. We may not have the big budgets that Coke and Pepsi have, but we do have the truth.
If this film does anything, I hope it encourages people to view the soda industry's marketing messages in a critical new light. Coke and Pepsi aren't selling happiness. They're selling a nutritionally-worthless product that's over-consumed to the extent that it leads to amputations, erectile dysfunction, and painful dental decay. The Real Bears learned the truth the hard way, but in the end, they decide to pour out the soda and take back their health -- and their happiness. So should we all.
For more healthy living health news, click here.]]>Healthier School Meals Despite Agribiz Lobbyingtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.19129322012-09-26T11:56:01-04:002012-11-26T05:12:02-05:00Michael F. Jacobsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/
To be sure, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act -- the law that reauthorized the child nutrition programs -- didn't emerge entirely unscathed. The surprisingly influential frozen pizza industry won language from Congress qualifying pizza (with tomato sauce) as a vegetable, and French fry manufacturers and potato farmers fought off proposed curbs on how often fries could be offered. But otherwise, in a town where lobbyists for dairy, beef, pork, sugar, salt, and other food industry sectors usually get their way, it's a minor miracle that the new lunches being served around the country are as wholesome, attractive, and tasty as they are.
The National School Lunch Program provides meals to 31 million children each day, accounting for a third of many students' daily calorie intakes. With one out of every three children in America overweight or obese and 15 years since the last update of the program, it was time for a change.
Ensuring that school meals are healthy and in line with current nutrition is not only important for kids' health, but also for academics. Healthy kids learn better. Research shows that kindergartners who do not have reliable, healthy meals are noticeably behind their peers in reading and math by the third grade.
School cafeteria managers are working hard to implement the new standards, but this is a tough job. They need the support of parents, teachers, administrators, food manufacturers, and others in order to overcome a number of challenges. Even the healthiest foods are only healthy if they are actually eaten, and let's face it, kids have become all too accustomed to junk food. We'll have to work against the $2 billion a year that is spent on marketing unhealthy products to kids.
Fortunately, it's possible to get most kids to eat fruits and veggies. Schools have engaged students with taste tests, fun facts about new fruits and vegetables, or student votes on their favorite options. Parents can help by reinforcing healthy eating at home and encouraging their children to try the new menu options. Teachers can try the new school lunches and speak supportively about them with students. School administrators can support the program by showing leadership and support for the programs and help ensure the new standards are fully implemented. State child nutrition programs need to continue to support school efforts and provide ideas for menus and recipes. And companies need to produce products with more whole grains and less salt, so schools have a wider variety of healthy options.
Back to school can be a time of adjustment. Just as students might need time to adjust to new teachers and subjects, the school lunch program might need time before it is fully accepted by students or financially successful.
And of course, we still need to be vigilant to fend off any new industry efforts to sneak junk foods back into the school lunch program. Iowa Congressman Steve King, for instance -- never before seen as much of an anti-hunger crusader -- is sponsoring legislation that would repeal the sensible caps on calories on school meals. Hard to see how anyone thinks that 850 calories is not enough for most high schoolers. Or perhaps some well-heeled food manufacturer wants to sell more of its product to the government, regardless of nutrition.
The National Academies' Institute of Medicine identified appropriate amounts of calories to meet most children's energy needs. Student athletes who may need more food throughout the day could take advantage of after-school snack or after-school supper programs or could purchase additional a la carte items to supplement their school lunch. Not all students are linebackers, and we shouldn't feed them like they are.
Numerous members of Congress stood up for children and stood up to food manufacturers, and countless fed-up parents urged them along. First Lady Michelle Obama also played a valuable leadership role as a champion of healthy eating and children. If you want to join the movement and make sure healthy and delicious meals are here to stay in your child's school, please visit schoolfoods.org/back2school.
This article was co-written with CSPI Director of Nutrition Policy Margo Wootan.
For more healthy living health news, click here.]]>Confused About Salt?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16979132012-08-08T12:59:22-04:002012-10-08T05:12:32-04:00Michael F. Jacobsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/
But in June, the New York Times' Sunday Review section -- one of the most prestigious pieces of real estate in journalism -- published, in my opinion, one of the most irresponsible articles I've ever seen. The article, by freelance writer Gary Taubes, argued that "the actual evidence to support [eating less salt] has always been so weak" and that eating less salt "can increase our likelihood of dying prematurely."
Times readers -- and the American public -- deserved better.
Out-of-context quotes. Mr. Taubes claimed that in 1972 the government started a program to prevent hypertension, encouraging the Americans to reduce sodium even though an eminent hypertension expert, Dr. Jeremiah Stamler of the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, had written that the evidence linking sodium to high blood pressure was "inconclusive and contradictory."
Unfortunately, Mr. Taubes yanked that quote out of context. In the very same paragraph, Dr. Stamler stated, "Despite the unclarities, the fact remains that a considerable body of evidence has been collected by clinical, animal-experimental, and epidemiologic research indicating a significant relationship among salt intake ... and blood pressure regulation." [1] He recommended that people with hypertension, as well as healthy people who had a family history of the disease, should cut their sodium intake to 2,000 milligrams a day (slightly above the 1,500 mg that is recommended for most adults today).
Ignored evidence.According to Mr. Taubes, "NIH has spent enormous sums of money to test the hypothesis" that too much salt is harmful, but all of the official governmental admonitions to cut the salt "all essentially rely on the results from a 30-day trial of salt."
In fact, the conventional advice is not based on one study, but on a mountain of research conducted over the past half-century. As I and seven of the world's leading hypertension experts, including Dr. Stamler, recently wrote to the New York Times,
The consistency, variety, and solidity of findings from multiple studies of varied types, not just one 30-day study, has led practically every nutrition and public health agency in the world to advise the general population to reduce sodium. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health, American Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Public Health Association, World Health Organization, and many other groups have advocated reducing sodium in both processed foods and in diets. Even the Grocery Manufacturers of America has encouraged its member companies to lower sodium levels in their products. In contrast to Mr. Taubes, policy makers got it right -- excess salt intake has a prominent role in the pathogenesis of elevated blood pressure, the leading cause of preventable mortality worldwide.
In other words, Mr. Taubes was dead wrong.
Faulty studies. Mr. Taubes relied on two meta analyses, which combine results from several studies, to argue that cutting salt has no benefit. But one meta analysis used studies that lasted less than a month. When researchers excluded the short studies, the benefits were clear.
The second meta analysis had two flaws. First, it included an Italian study in which patients with heart failure were severely salt-depleted due to high doses of diuretics. Those patients never should have been put on low-sodium diets. Second, the meta analysis separated people with normal vs. high blood pressure. That left too few people in each group to detect an effect of lower-sodium diets. When Feng J. He and Graham A. MacGregor, two of the world's leading salt researchers, combined the two groups, they found a 20 percent reduction in heart attacks and other cardiovascular "events."
Possible harm. What about Mr. Taubes' bombshell -- that a "slew" of studies proves that cutting back on salt is risky? Only one of the studies Mr. Taubes cited was a trial that randomly assigned people to either cut salt or not. (It was the above-mentioned trial of people with heart failure.)
The other three simply stated that people who reported consuming less salt (for whatever reason) had a higher risk of heart disease. Mr. Taubes implied that people ate less salt because they were health conscious, but that probably is an incorrect assumption. For instance, in one study, the low-sodium group included people who supposedly consumed only about 600 mg of sodium a day. Such a low sodium intake is a red flag, indicating either that those people were ill or that their 24-hour urine collections to assess sodium intake were incomplete. It is well-recognized among experts that underestimating sodium intake is a common and serious problem that can lead to spurious results.
Defenders of salt generally accept that people with high blood pressure should follow their doctors' advice to cut the salt. But they argue that even if research proved that salt raises blood pressure and that high blood pressure caused heart disease, no one study had shown that lowering salt directly prevents heart disease. Now that important study has been done, but Mr. Taubes failed to acknowledge its findings. The Trials of Hypertension Prevention documented a 30 percent reduction in cardiovascular disease among people who were counseled to reduce their salt intake. (One of the meta-analyses included the trial, but erroneously indicated that it reported no benefit.)
The Times article -- with its prominence, reference to scientific evidence, and contrarian perspective -- undoubtedly confused many people who were following experts' advice to look for lower-sodium foods and restaurant meals. But the timing of the article may have even more serious repercussions.
Years ago, the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the evidence was clear that Americans were consuming far too much sodium and recommended major reductions. Then, in a landmark 2010 report, the IOM concluded that food manufacturers had largely ignored health experts' admonitions since 1969 to voluntarily cut sodium levels: We're consuming more salt now than we did in 1969. Hence, the IOM recommended that the Food and Drug Administration set gradually tighter legal limits on sodium in processed foods. Mr. Taubes' article might give ammunition to those who want to prevent the FDA from doing just that. As we told the New York Times, "That would only mean more hypertension, heart disease, deaths, misery, and medical costs down the road."
CSPI nutrition director Bonnie Liebman contributed to this article.
Reference:
[1] Stamler, Jeremiah. Lectures on Preventive Cardiology. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1967. 261. Print.