Misleading Labels
“Misleading labels” was the main theme that went across my mind as I reviewed the two headlines I’m writing about today. The first involves the US Food and Drug Administration, the “FDA.” They are working to clear up the confusion consumers feel when they are confronted with claims on food packages. The supermarket aisles are filled with dozens of variations of cereals, crackers, chips and other foods, many of which boast of their supposed healthfulness — this yogurt is “low fat,” while this cereal is “heart healthy,” and those chips have “0 grams trans fat.”
The rising obesity epidemic in the United States (more than 30 percent of U.S. adults are now obese), combined with the proliferation of various labeling schemes and the worries about the potentially misleading nature of some of these schemes, has prompted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to conduct a review of so-called front-of-package labeling. The aim is to come up with a standard set of regulations that would govern what claims manufacturers can make on these food labels.
Critics would argue that the labeling really makes no difference. Does anyone seriously believe that junk food is healthy? Most people would agree that the obese eat too much junk food, regardless of the reasons for that. Everyone also would agree that junk foods are usually cheaper than their so-called healthier counterparts. But the question is, would better labeling make a difference?
Certain criteria must be met for foods to bear claims such as “high in fiber” or “low in salt” — fiber in the food must be above a certain amount and salt below a certain amount. But when such claims appear on many breakfast cereals and snack foods that may also be high in sugar or calories, the result can be consumer confusion and consumption of foods that aren’t actually healthy. This kind of thing prompted the Connecticut Attorney General to file suit against certain manufacturers using the “Smart Choice” labeling system. In that case, several companies collaborated to use a voluntary labeling system meant to help the consumer make better choices. However, one of their symbols was found on a box of Fruit Loops, a cereal high in sugar, and many had trouble reconciling that with what they consider to be a “smart” choice.
Ultimately, no matter what kind of labeling system or regulations are set up, the burden of picking a better diet rests with the individual consumer.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. No one wants the government to tell us what to eat; however, the government can use it’s powers to at least ensure that we have good information regarding the products that we choose to consume. Ultimately, I don’t think it will make much difference. If one follows the recommendations concerning a healthy diet, they will have unstable blood sugar by default and this will send them searching for foods higher in sugar. Despite having more information, this will not overcome the need to try and balance this unstable blood sugar. If anything, it will help create more informed sugar addicts.
The second article was even more a “misleading label” than the first, even though it had nothing to do with labeling. Stroke is the number three killer in the United States, affecting almost 800,000 people each year, according to the National Stroke Association. These “brain attacks” occur when blood flow to the brain is interrupted (an ischemic stroke) or when a blood vessel in the brain leaks or bursts (a hemorrhagic stroke). For 144,000 people each year, the result is death. Hundreds of thousands of others are left with long-term disabilities. Genetics, age and race play a role in stroke, as do many other factors, both controllable and uncontrollable. Recent research has teased out more and more of these risk factors, from how you eat to where you live.
So in this article, the author tries to provide 7 ways to raise your risk of stroke. Understand that when they use the terms “risk” that does NOT mean that they know how to cure or prevent the disease. It merely means that those who had strokes tend to have these factors in common more than any others that they know of. These ideas are correlated but not caused by one another and it’s crucial that the reader understand that.
The first way to increase your risk of stroke is a high-fat diet. On the surface, that sounds pretty serious for a person like me who eats just that, a high-fat diet. Should I be afraid? Well, I might be until I remembered that the Masai eat a diet high in fat yet they suffer no strokes. The older, Northern Inuit also did not experience stroke in their population despite eating a high-fat diet. Obviously, there must be a difference in either the type of fat or what they are eating along with the fat that must be the difference.
A look at the “justification” paragraph for the risk factor is very instructive:
“Trans fats, found in processed foods like pastries and crackers, seem particularly nasty: The group of women who consumed seven grams of trans fat each day had 30 percent more stroke incidents than those who ate one gram.”
Again, we’re talking about processed, junk foods. These are foods that are high in fat and sugar. These foods are labeled “fatty foods” by nutrition experts. They have not identified anything negative with regard to saturated fat all by itself. It’s only bad in conjunction with carbohydrates. So one wonders, should the warning really be against fat or against carbohydrates? Well, people who tend to get strokes more than the rest of us happen to be obese people. Because they are fat, the assumption is that they eat more fat than others so therefore it must be the fat in the products, not the sugar which would implicate carbohydrates and so even cast doubt on the veracity of the “balanced diet.” Since I don’t eat carbohydrates and do not suffer from any symptom of metabolic syndrome, my money is on the carbohydrates being the culprit. My health only improved once I stopped eating them.
I think most people find that when they cut down on junk food, their health improves. Regardless of whether you eat meat-only, low-fat, Atkins, etc, controlling your consumption of junk food only brings about positive changes.
So why don’t they just come out in these headlines and just implicate junk food as opposed to fat or labels? Because the practice of assigning misleading labels goes much deeper than a simple marketing ploy. It goes towards our flawed understanding of what is good for us and what is not.
Share on Twitter
