Is 'Nutrition Keys' Anything More Than a Location Change?

With the fanfare one would expect of large organizations that have fairly deep pockets at their disposal, the Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) announced their plans this week for front-of-pack nutrition guidance.

The program, called Nutrition Keys, will ostensibly provide just that: front-of-pack nutrition guidance. But the guidance comes down to this: select information from the nutrition facts panel on the back-of-pack will now be featured on the front-of-pack.

A colleague of mine at NuVal had the following insight about this innovation: "Well, if the problem was people's inability to turn the package around, then I guess this could be the solution."

Hard to improve on that! Of course, the problem was never people's inability to turn the package around. The problem was the inability of anyone other than a highly trained expert to put all the nutrition facts and ingredient details together, and reach an accurate and reliable conclusion about the overall nutritional quality of one product compared to another.

I know that some people take offense when it is suggested that they lack the ability to do this task without help, but honestly that makes no sense. My wife has a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Princeton University; is married to a nutrition expert; is a mother of five; and is an expert cook in her own right, with several recipe books to her credit. Yet she readily admits that it can be all but impossible to determine -- let alone quickly and conveniently determine -- which bread, or sauce, or spread or dressing is the most nutritious choice. There really is no shame in acknowledging this -- and frankly anything else is either denial, or confusion that runs so deep you don't even know you're confused!

Products routinely make health claims that are true, but nonetheless misleading about overall nutritional quality. One product may be higher in sodium, but also higher in fiber; is it a better or worse choice for health? One product may be lower in sugar, but higher in sodium; better or worse? One product may be lower in calories, but also lower in nutrients; better or worse? Diet soda has no calories, no sodium, no sugar, and no saturated fat, so by the Nutrition Keys criteria, it would look like a perfect food. Does anybody believe it is?

Only by putting all of the relevant nutrition facts and ingredients together can you make a determination about the better product, but Nutrition Keys does not put the facts together. It just changes their location.

I have long compared nutrition facts and ingredient lists to medical information. As a physician, I might conclude a checkup by simply handing my patient a print out of their health facts and the main ingredients in their history and physical: lab values, ECG findings, biometric data. But I think they very reasonably expect something more from me. They expect me to use the 9+ years of postgraduate medical education I have had, and they have not, to interpret those data. In other words, they want, and are entitled to, my expert medical opinion about their overall health.

They still may want, and are equally entitled to, the data and the details. But the professional assessment of overall health status is, and always has been, a fundamental part of the formula. Facts are not knowledge; knowledge lies in the interpretation of facts. And, more often than not, some genuine expertise is required to interpret facts reliably. This is true in medicine; and it is just as true in nutrition. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not all opinions are created equal.

So, per my colleague's pithy insight, if the reason the typical American diet is far from expert recommendations; and the reason we have epidemic obesity; and the reason we have epidemic diabetes; and so on, is the inability of the average shopper to turn a food package around, then I suppose Nutrition Keys could be the solution.

If, however, something other than the challenge of turning a box or jar around stands, and has long stood, between us and better health through better food choices then this particular set of Nutrition Keys is very unlikely to open any relevant doors. We will need a very different set of keys to do so.

www.davidkatzmd.com
www.turnthetidefoundation.org

 

Follow David Katz, M.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DrDavidKatz

Comments

[Cynth]

04:33 PM on 02/02/2011

In addition to some of the very thoughtful comments to this terrific article, I only want to add that this "Nutrition Keys" concept boils down to a marketing initiative that can -- and will be -- easily be used by companies to distort the actual and complete nutritional values of their products. This is not a sincere effort by those interested in improving the diets and overall health of their customers.

[Prateek Panchal]

07:27 AM on 01/29/2011

Many consumers just built up their trust to some products and stop looking at the ingredient list and even the dates, which i think is the most careless thing a consumer does. Yes selling those non-good products are crime but even buying them blindly is even more than it.

Thanks for sharing.

http://www.eyehealthguide.net/nearsighted.html

[cynthiabaileymd]

09:07 AM on 01/28/2011

I'm with several of the other commenting folks above, if it needs an ingredient list then I rarely eat it. Processed foods should be the tiny top of any healthy food pyramid and eaten as a treat only.

[carrieanna]

01:39 AM on 01/28/2011

The new layout seems easier to note the key things like calories, fiber, etc. But one thing I've noticed after focusing on the nutrition levels of my foods for the past 6 months is that it's a crime to only focus on fat, protein and carb calories. For the most part I only eat whole food, prepared from scratch in my kitchen. The lack of vitamins and minerals in most processed food floods me with guilt and keeps me from buying many packaged items.

Knowing all the antioxidants from my fresh veggies, lean proteins and plant-based fats has radically redifined my idea of "food" and "nutrition." I don't think many people realize the difference between whole foods vs packaged food-stuff because the healthy stuff doesn't come with nutrition labels. People don't realize the nutrients they are missing.

[williamg]

03:21 PM on 01/27/2011

I saw we start getting rid of some of the counterproductive food subsidies:


Why Does a Salad Cost More Than a Big Mac?



Federal Nutrition Recommendations (% each should make up one's daily diet):


--Grain: .......................................................42%
--Vegetables, Fruits: ....................................35%
--Protein (meat, dairy, nu/ts and beans): ........23%
--Sugar, Oil, Salt: .........................................use sparingly


Percentage of Federal Subsidies for Food Production:

--Grain: ........................................................13.23%
--Vegetables, Fruits: ......................................0.37%
--Protein (meat, dairy, nu/ts and beans): .........73.80%
--Sugar, Oil, Salt: ..........................................13.23%

[Last Gasp]

02:50 PM on 01/27/2011

most people only read the headlines and maybe scan the first paragraph. This is a deliberate attempt to subvert the information on the back.

Also it demonizes saturated fat. Unprocessed saturated fat from fish, dairy, and animals is the healthiest food you can eat.

[Last Gasp]

02:42 PM on 01/27/2011

doesnt matter. If it has an ingredient list at all then it is processed, refined, DEAD food.

But it would be nice to have a huge warning label about genetically modified organisms.

[Susan Westbrook]

02:03 PM on 01/27/2011

I have a foolproof way to not be confused by nutrition labels. Simply avoid buying packaged goods. Most are full of artificial and processed ingredients, and of course, sugar. A serious digestive illness led me into a diet of lean proteins, fruits, vegetables and nuts. In other words, nothing in a package. I was one step away from a feeding tube and was able to turn myself around by eating in this manner. It made me realize all those food additives were not doing me any good. I am trying to use my story to help others learn about the connection between eating well and being well and have started a blog at http://www.swimupstream.blogspot.com The only canned goods I buy now are beans and tomatoes and I make sure they are organic and that I can pronounce every word on the label. And that's another tip for how to not be confused by labels. Just read the ingredient list and if it's long or you can't pronounce the words, put it down. Fast!

[LarryMatt]

08:03 AM on 01/28/2011

As you said..."if you can't pronounce it, don't buy it". I would also add that we all learn the 15-20 different ways they hide the sugars in the ingredients. If sugar derivatives are included in the first 5 on the ingredients list, put it back on the shelf. If a sugar derivative is listed more than twice on a list, place it back on the shelf.

I have begun to hate sugar derivatives almost as much as bank derivatives. Sooner or later, both will blow up in your face or settle down along your waistline.

[RMankovitz]

11:06 AM on 01/27/2011

A nicely written article, and I agree that the Nutrition Keys program is a joke.

However, as a researcher and author of several books on illness prevention, I also have a problem with the NuVal food rating system. It appears to rate items within food groups based on relative crappiness, when in fact the entire food group is crappy. If I chose foods based on high NuVal scores, I would be sick indeed. So, using the food groups from the NuVal site, here is my greatly simplified scoring system, which I will call NoVal:

Fresh Breads and Rolls - 0
Frozen Vegetables (Plain) – organic=50, nonorganic or GM=0
Frozen Vegetables (Prepared) - 0
Cookies - 0
Salty Snacks - 0
Cold Cereal - 0
Vegetables – organic=50, non-organic=0
Milk - 0
Fruits – raw, organic, whole = 100, non-organic=50, juiced =0
Seafood – wild Alaskan salmon and fresh sardines=50, farmed=0
Fresh Meats – organic pastured =100, CAFO=0
Meat – processed=0

The above scores are derived from what nature evolved humans to eat, as described and referenced in “The Original Diet – The Omnivore’s Solution.” They take into consideration the top nine allergenic food groups worldwide, which are dairy, wheat, eggs, peanuts, soy, tree nuts, fish, shellfish, and seeds. They also consider the anti-nutrients placed in foods by nature to dissuade us from eating them. Such anti-nutrients include phytates, oxalates, goitrogens, tannins, cyanide, solanine, trypsin inhibitors, saponins, lectins, phytoestrogens, and other nasties.

Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com
A research organization

[David Katz, M.D.]

03:23 PM on 01/27/2011

Roy- I've heard similar comments from my friend Marion Nestle- and this is in accord with Michael Pollan's worldview as well. However, I am a public health practitioner- actually trying to help the people who most need help. How realistic do you think it is that the bulk of the US population will abandon all packaged foods any time soon? Have you heard the adage 'don't make perfect the enemy of the good'? As a practitioner trying to make a difference, I embrace that concept. When we can do good, we should. Since several decades of effort have not resulted in ANY net increase in fruit and vegetable consumption by the 'average American,' your position amounts to 'pure' philosophy, of no practical value.

NuVal, in fact, honors both the perfect, and the 'good' that comes with movement in the right direction. It is the kinds of foods you advocate, and only those, that score 100- or in the 90s. The best scores are all for wholesome foods, direct from nature. But one can buy BETTER bread, and cereal, and pasta sauce- and NuVal empowers that as well.

We agree, more or less, on the location of the dietary 'promised land.' We seem to disagree on what it will take to help people actually move toward it.

Best,
DK

[RMankovitz]

04:52 PM on 01/27/2011

David – Your point is well taken, and I do applaud your efforts in moving the public toward a healthier nutrition model. The genesis of my comment to your post is as follows:

To avoid losing focus, I always like to keep the ultimate nutritional goal in mind (and in print), and it seems we are aligned as to this “promised land.”

When I was seeing clients in the context of chronic illness remediation using nature-based strategies, I quickly learned that the closer they moved to the ultimate goal nutritionally, the faster they healed. Put another way, using the NuVal system would not likely have resulted in any meaningful health gains, based on their previous attempts at such a strategy. So, I do not agree that my position is of no practical value. I believe it has helped numerous individuals regain and maintain their health.

I understand and partially agree that your approach with NuVal has value from a public health perspective. I hope you can understand that my approach has value as an individually targeted healing modality.

[Joanne Frederick]

09:17 AM on 01/27/2011

Shame on FMI and GMA. We know this is only an attempt to save themselves from something else. I also found it interesting the Nutritions Keys are for store-brand food meaning our consumers still won't have a consistent approach for all items on store shelves.
We need a label that educates and well as informs. At the DCHealthCamp2010 unconference a group of us worked together and came up with this http://bit.ly/fLA9gO label. I'm still holding out hope the FDA will make something like our label mandatory.