"nutritional information" news and stories

Another piece of legislation was overshadowed by the press surrounding the New York City's trans fat ban, though they were passed at the same time. The issue is that the city is now going to require some restaurants to list the calorie counts of some of their foods directly on their menus. The rule only applies to about 10% of restaurants in the city, restaurants with standardized menus that already make the information publicly available. In other words, it applies to chain restaurants that publish their calorie counts or put them on their websites. It does not apply to high-end restaurants or to the corner hamburger stand, places at which you have no way of knowing what you're getting in terms of calories, nor does it apply to chain restaurants that do not make their nutritional information known.

This clearly discourages companies from disclosing nutritional information. In fact, it penalizes companies that are making this information available already. If you want to eat healthier, you probably already know that skim milk has less fat and calories than whole milk and don't need an amended menu board to tell you so. In their attempt to police eating habits of the city's residents, the city may actually be making it more difficult for interested people to count calories, as companies retract their official calorie counts to avoid having to change all their menus (while their competitors don't) by early next year.

New York's Board of Health is getting a lot of attention for their proposed ban on trans fats at restaurants in the city, but there is another proposal on the table that could have an even bigger impact on the dining community in NYC. The Board of Health is considering requiring some restaurants - beginning with chains and fast food establishments - to list the caloric content of their menu items on the menu. Not only that, but the calorie count must be "in type that is as large 'as the name or price of the item.'"

The NY Department of Health and Mental Hygiene is "intent on creating the nation's most rigorous system of calorie disclosure in restaurants" - which has restaurant owners worried about what they're going to serve. Chefs already admit that calories and fat aren't exactly major considerations when they are planning menus and restaurant owners are concerned that their offerings will have to change to such a degree that people won't want to eat out anymore. But the smaller eateries don't have to worry just yet because the rules will only apply to "restaurants with highly standardized menu items" that "already make their caloric content available on the Internet, in brochures or in some other format."

Source

"Functional" foods have no official definition or regulation at the moment, but the FDA is hoping to change that soon, giving both manufactuerers and consumers some guidelines to go by. Functional foods are those that have something extra added to them that promises "a special [nutritional] punch," one which may or may not be backed up with solid science. For example, some products with herbs like ginseng and kava kava promise, respectively, to "energize" and "enlighten" - and because these things are directly attributed to the two herbs, that makes them "functional" foods. The functional label doesn't just apply to herbs, however. It applies to cereals that are fortified with extra nutrients, or juices that have calcium added to them.

Right now, adding extraneous nutrients to foods is a huge trend in the food processing industry. Consumers are looking for quick fixes to getting all the nutrition that they need, so when they're offered a soda with calcium added, they're going to opt for that over the regular product.

Calcium, of course, is not really the biggest problem. The FDA is more concerned with the companies that hint at claims of increased intelligence, stamina or energy, things that are difficult to prove and can be confusing for consumers. The companies themselves say that as long as their foods meet the existing food safety standards and the ingredients themselves are considered safe, they should be able to continue on as they are doing.

We'll have to wait to see what restrictions, if any, are implemented, but it seems likely that there will at least be some. After all, we live in a world where toy superman costumes come with warnings that "cape does not enable user to fly," so it is reasonable to assume that we will also see some sort of warnings associated with "functional" foods.

Source

After its launch at the end of last year in the UK, the voluntary traffic light labeling system seemed to be a success. The labels use an easy-to-read, color-coded system to indicate that a product has a high, low or medium level of fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt. The premise behind the label is that it eliminates the time and hassle of label-reading, not to mention the stigma of "diet" foods, or being on a diet, which is a concern to some. Consumers learn that greens are good for everyday and the reds are fine once in a while.

Now, Australia is probably going to give the labels a go. They are hoping that, just like in Britain, consumers will opt for healthier foods over less healthy choices with more regularity. Surveys show that 9 out of 10 consumer find the system clear and easy to use, enabling 97% of consumers to make the better nutritional choice when comparing foods with the labels.

In the meantime, the British government is considering making the labeling system mandatory in the hopes of helping consumers further. Could the US be the next country to try the system?

Source

Most of the individually packaged cookies sold in supermarkets and cafes are the size of CDs and at least 1/4 inch thick. These cookies often have 2-4 servings per package, making the nutritional information on the label seem deceptively low. Nana's all-natural cookies, sold primarily at natural foods markets such as Whole Foods, are one of the few cookies that are that large and still have only one serving. With a calorie count below 300 for each cookie, Good Housekeeping magazine got a little suspicious that these cookies might be too good to be true. They had the cookies tested at an independent lab and discovered that the Oatmeal Raisin had 460 calories, not the 264 listed on the label, and almost twice as much fat as claimed. The results were just as bad for their sunflower cookies.

To be sure, there are probably worse cookies - nutritionally speaking - on the market, but since all we have to go on is what the companies put on the packaging, it might be safe to keep in mind that if something really seems too good to be true, it could just be.

Source