More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
David Katz, M.D.

GET UPDATES FROM David Katz, M.D.
 

We Still Need a Food Supply for Dummies!

Posted: 04/19/10 12:39 PM ET

In 2003, I told then U.S. Secretary of Health Tommy Thompson, and then FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan we needed a food supply for dummies (also published as an Op-Ed in the Hartford Courant, and New York Newsday). Presenting yesterday in Washington, D.C., to a committee of the Institute of Medicine at the National Academies of Science, my testimony was: we still do.

Advice to eat more plant foods simply states the destination; it does not provide the step-by-step, GPS-like guidance people need to move in that direction. Besides, alas, it doesn't work. It has not worked for decades. Less than 1.5 percent of Americans meet guidelines for fruits and vegetables, despite counting both French fries AND the ketchup poured over them as servings of vegetables, and juices as servings of fruit.

We should, indeed, eat more fruits and vegetables. But while working on that, we should also enable the AVERAGE shopper to identify and choose better-for-them bread, and cereal, and crackers, and sauces, and spreads, and dressings, and yogurts. After all, when you want a sandwich, you need bread- you will not swap out bread for broccoli. So the question is: which bread?

Because I believe it is nearly impossibly hard for the average shopper to answer the question -- which bread is most nutritious? -- I do NOT blame individuals in our society for obesity, and I don't think you should, either. Don't get me wrong: I believe we all have responsibility for how we use our feet and our forks every day. But we cannot blame individuals for an 'obesigenic' environment.

We need both public policy, and personal responsibility; we need to both cultivate will, and pave the way. The body politic must pave the way to better health -- the individual must then assume responsibility for walking it. We can no more expect people to achieve health despite an environment that encourages and actively markets the converse, than we can expect individuals to ride effortlessly to health on the shoulders of public policy.

Right now, most individuals simply cannot take responsibility for eating well because they are too disempowered. The do not know that marinara sauce routinely has more added sugar than ice cream topping; they do not know that breakfast cereals are routinely more concentrated sources of sodium than potato chips; they do not know fat-reduced peanut butter is less nutritious than regular due to added sugar and salt; they do not know that salt-reduced products routinely have added sugar and fat, sugar-reduced products routinely have added salt; they do not know that a 'multigrain' bread may contain no whole grains!

And why should they? Why should the busy mom dashing through a supermarket have to be a nutrition expert to make choices that are actually good for her and her family? Why should she need to figure out how to put together a lot of nutrient details, and interpret (or dismiss) impressive-sounding but misleading marketing messages just ... to buy a loaf of bread?

She shouldn't. If we made an objective, reliable, expert measure of overall nutritional quality for every food available at a glance to all, she wouldn't have to.

The average shopper is no dummy -- but he or she is not a Ph.D. in nutritional biochemistry either. He or she needs guidance to more nutritious foods. Guidance that is universal and trustworthy.

The average shopper should eat more foods that are 'food'. But they need help to get there from here. They need GPS for a very complicated modern foodscape that can undermine the best intentions of anyone but a truly expert navigator.

In 2003, we needed a food supply for dummies. We still do.

 

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

In 2003, I told then U.S. Secretary of Health Tommy Thompson, and then FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan we needed a food supply for dummies (also published as an Op-Ed in the Hartford Courant, and New...
In 2003, I told then U.S. Secretary of Health Tommy Thompson, and then FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan we needed a food supply for dummies (also published as an Op-Ed in the Hartford Courant, and New...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 10
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RMankovitz
Researcher, inventor, entrepreneur, author
12:08 AM on 04/21/2010
One reason that the average person appears to be a dummy when it comes to nutrition is that those who claim to be the experts on the subject offer conflicting information.

Let's take the "simple" subject of bread. From the article, it would appear that the author favors "whole grain" breads as the healthy answer. Not so fast.

Grains are grass seeds, a food that nature never intended primates to eat. Grains require careful preparation because they contain a number of anti-nutrients that can cause serious health problems. Phytic acid, for example, is mostly found in the bran. It can combine with a host of minerals, including zinc, in the intestinal tract and block their absorption. A diet high in improperly prepared whole grains may lead to serious mineral deficiencies, bone loss, and irritable bowel syndrome.

Other anti-nutrients in whole grains include enzyme inhibitors which can inhibit digestion; irritating tannins; complex sugars which the body cannot break down; and gluten which may cause allergies, digestive disorders and even mental illness.

How was your favorite whole grain bread prepared?

The solution is to either avoid grains, or be aware of their proper preparation in order to minimize toxins. For information on whole grain preparation methods, see:

http://www.westonaprice.org/Be-Kind-to-Your-Grains...And-Your-Grains-Will-Be-Kind-To-You.html

Information on what nature intended us to eat can be found in "The Wellness Project."

Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com
photo
brooklyncitizen
Quaerite primum regnum dei
02:28 AM on 04/20/2010
So the question is: which bread?

Because I believe it is nearly impossibly hard for the average shopper to answer the question -- which bread is most nutritious? -- I do NOT blame individuals in our society for obesity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments like this one really puzzle me. Recently I posted that the cause of obesity has a lot to do with lack of intelligence and/ or a dietary illiteracy . For example, on the question of which bread? stay away from the "legend". IF there is an inch or more of ingredients listed for a food such as bread then one cannot rationally think it is healthy. Bread is not complicated: there are 4 basic ingredients, none of which are chemicals or sugar. Yet why don't people know that?why do they have to be told that?
01:11 PM on 04/20/2010
That's sort of his whole point. We grew up on these breads, so we don't question them. Most of us got poor nutritional education. But even of the natural bread choices you have (with flour, water, salt and yeast), what decision do you make? You could still spring for the Italian/French breads that aren't as healthy as the whole wheat/ pumpernickle /etc.
photo
brooklyncitizen
Quaerite primum regnum dei
10:28 PM on 04/20/2010
You can spring for the french/italian breads but that won't kill you, it'll just make you fat if you over consume it. Dark breads are the way to go.

I guess I figured that there is soooooooooooooooo much information out there, and most of it is commons sense that it puzzles me that we still need to state the obvious, such as eat fruit and vegetables. THen there's the internet, lots of sites on good for you food.
09:22 PM on 04/19/2010
The meat, corn and dairy industries are killing us. We don't feel we have truly eaten anything unless it has meat, dairy, starch or sugar in it.

It won't kill us to go vegetarian/vegan for a while. Most of us could do with a modified fast or two.

And until we recognize packaged, dead, processed foods as being the toxic killers they are, we won't see much progress.

Marketing has us believe that sugary cereals are a good breakfast, that calorie-laden nutrition bars are healthy, that heavy, rich meals are necessary every couple of hours.

Start fighting back - don't let a marketer influence your decisions. Go to the farmer's market. Learn how to prepare soups and salads. Reject the status quo!!!
01:14 PM on 04/20/2010
There's nothing wrong with a hearty meal every once in a while. Euros eat them. You absolutely need them if you do strenuous physical activity. Why are they innately bad?
03:42 PM on 04/20/2010
Exactly - "once in a while". No one needs to eat 3-6 heavy meals per day if all they do is sit at a desk.
11:26 PM on 04/20/2010
We throw around the word "toxic" too often and it loses its meaning. Stove-Top or Hamburger Helper aren't actually toxic, they're nutritionally deficient. Processed foods are bad food choices but if you were stranded on an island somewhere and starving to death, they would sustain you. They are not "toxic" they are simply abundant, calorie dense and nutritionally lacking. Anti-freeze is toxic.

That said, If I had a magic wand I would round up all of the boxed crap on grocery store shelves and poof it to the starving people in other nations. Americans, generally, do not need these calories.

Most people that I know have no idea about nutrition and I often find myself looking things up because I'm just not sure (this, after working with a nutritionist). I don't think that we are going to have a healthy population until we start teaching children about food in schools and quit gaming the system so that a twinkie is cheaper than an apple.
05:51 AM on 04/22/2010
Well, toxic really means poisonous, and poisons don't always kill you. However, if you want to compare most of our killer diseases with our increasingly horrifying diet, you'll find quite the correlation. And sure, if we sent our processed foods to other countries then we could stave off starvation, but replace it with digestive disorders, rotting teeth, possible cancers, heart disease, strokes, etc. The calories are needed, but even here in the US we have obese yet nutritionally starved youth!

Food isn't just important to our physical ability, it affects our brains! The chemicals and godknowswhatall in these highly processed, GMO-filled, pesticide riddled plasticized foods are causing major neurological disorders. Artificial colors and flavors aren't called excitotoxins for nothing! Have you ever reeled from someone's cheap cologne? Or got knocked over by the scent and flavorings plants in NJ?

Not to mention what all of this does to our ecosystem. Seriously. It's more than nutrition deficiency we're concerned with here. Eating an apple for breakfast would also be called nutritionally deficient (no real proteins or essential fatty acids).
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Puffin16
82.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot
02:13 PM on 04/19/2010
While I agree that food labels can be misleading, I also think that people need to take the responsibility for their own health. I think my health is the most important thing to invest in, so I take the time to read the labels AND the ingredients in every product I buy. I spend most of my money in the produce department. I've done research, read books, talked to nutritionists, and developed a healthy eating lifestyle.

Let's stop avoiding responsibility. Everyone should be as careful about what they put into their mouth as to what grade of gasoline that put into their sports car.