USDA | Bonnie Modugno, MS, RD

ARE YOU READY FOR TRANSGENIC SALMON?

January 25, 2013 by Bonnie

After 17 years of research and 60 million dollars of investment by Aquabounty, the FDA is currently considering allowing genetically engineered (GE) salmon into the food supply. They grow big and they grow fast, ready for market in 18 months, half the time of farmed salmon. I don’t trust what is manipulated to make salmon grow like this, and I don’t trust that it can be contained. I am very concerned.

I don’t like what I read as I learn more about genetic modification and genetic engineering. A proposition to label Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) and GE foods narrowly missed passage in California in November, 2012. Currently our food supply is littered with GMO and GE crops, including the vast majority of cultivated corn, soy, cotton, and sugar beets. These products are used to feed us and feed animals. At the same time we are struggling with unprecedented inflammation and metabolic disease. Why is this happening?

There is little research on the impact of GE and GMO crops because FDA is limited to assessing industry research. Research looking at the safety of GMO/GE foods is basically a 90 test on laboratory rats that is not long enough to assess any impact on reproduction or offspring. There is no assessment of the impact of GMO or GE crops on the animals or people who eat them. We don’t know how these will products impact our environment, but farmed salmon is not a standard to emulate. We are involved in a massive experiment and we only avoid direct impact when we opt out by buying organic foods or growing our own.

How extensive is the research on GE salmon? I’m not convinced it is enough. Reports say FDA has reviewed over 50 safety studies. One I scanned identified allergy testing on 22 people. I’m not sure that is all that significant when a product is going to be exposed to millions of people. Mostly, what we need is research published in peer reviewed journals by scientists not associated with Aquabounty. That is unlikely to happen.

It is not enough to merely show GE salmon is substantially equivalent to wild caught salmon. It is not enough for the product to look and function like farmed or wild salmon. The fish grow big and fast. I don’t trust that the metabolic manipulation that drives this growth is necessarily safe or can be adequately contained. Aquabounty says it won’t sell fish to someone who doesn’t play by their rules, but that doesn’t really address what could happen after the initial sale.

Food technology embraces a rather checkered history. Scientists and the food industry are especially fond of new and improved, often with too little concern with consequences. Consider the littered trail of metabolic damage as man has tried to manipulate the food environment: trans fats, HFCS (high fructose corn syrup), feed lots with with diseased cows, antibiotic resistant microbes, and manure lagoons. That damage continues to compromise our health and the health of our environment. FDA approved plastics used in our food supply contribute to a growing list of endocrine disruptors that are measured in our bodies and are linked to obesity, diabetes, thyroid dysfunction, and cancer. Today, we are threatened by a technology that is based in science but missing common sense. A growing number of GMO crops breed more resistance pests which use more destructive agents for pest control that cause bee colony collapse disorder and are linked to a growing list of ecological and metabolic problems. I urge every member to seriously consider the harm of our current food supply–a food supply the FDA and USDA sanctions.

Conventional farming, animal husbandry, and food processing practices contribute significantly to a growing mound of ecological and metabolic damage . Will transgenic salmon get added to the list? The FDA is accepting public comments regarding a position to allow genetically modified salmon to enter the food chain. There is opportunity to submit comments through Feb 26. Take time to add your voice.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: allergy, contamination, corn, ecosystem, endocrine disruptors, environment, farmed salmon. transgenic salmon, FDA, food supply, GE, genetically engineered food, genetically modified organisms, gmo, salmon, soy, sugar beets. cotton, USDA, wild salmon

Farm to Table: Visiting Organic Pastures

January 5, 2013 by Bonnie

It is not often that I get a chance to walk through a ranch or farm. I relish every opportunity. Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures invited me and my family to tour their land and operations in Fresno last week. It was a privilege and a pleasure.

I grew up with with a garden– a different kind of privilege that I didn’t appreciate at the time. After the wonder of picking my first cucumber and tomato wore off, I spent my time grousing about all the weeds to be pulled and watering to be done. Dad planted at least half of the available land on our 3/4 of an acre lot which meant there was enough zucchini for the entire neighborhood come August. I didn’t inherent dad’s green thumb which probably contributed to a disenchantment with growing anything until I read Michael Pollan’s, The Omnivore’s Dilemma many years ago. During the last five years I have developed a deeper and more insightful appreciation for our precious food supply, from farm to table. I have become a far more conscientious consumer.

When we arrived at Organic Pastures, I was immediately taken by the efficiency of the operation. Mark is positively brilliant, blending the art, science and business of producing and distributing raw milk products despite a challenging regulatory environment. We visited the trailers where milk is bottled, kefir and cheese are fermented, and butter is churned. The site was immaculate and foot washes protected each individual space, a critical factor when your product viability is all about managing bacteria.

MANAGING THE MICROBES

Raw milk products are legal in California, but receive great scrutiny. Louie Pasteur developed pasteurization in 1864 to improve the keeping qualities of wine. Commercial pasteurization of milk began in the late 1800s in Europe and in the early 1900s in the United States. Pasteurization has been the primary means of managing bacteria in commercial dairies for almost 90 years–not really all that long ago considering that man has consumed milk products from mammals for thousands of years. I suppose the early European farmers were observant enough to see that milk provides a calorie- and protein-rich food source, comes in a relatively constant supply compared to the boom-and-bust of seasonal crops, and would have been less contaminated than water supplies.

Today the raw milk controversy has become intensely polarized and has involved the FDA, FBI, USDA, CDC, and the NIH, just to name a few scientific bodies, regulatory bodies, and law enforcement agencies. In the press and in the scientific literature raw milk is mostly demonized as a severe potential health threat. Interestingly these same agencies have never considered potential benefits. The advent of mapping the human microbiome may change all that.

When it comes to the benefits of drinking raw milk and eating foods made from raw milk other scientists, clinicians, and consumers are already connecting the dots. The Weston Price Foundation is an ardent supporter of raw milk consumption. The pros and cons of consuming raw milk products are readily discussed. I starting buying raw milk over four years ago and continue to value all the benefits for everyone in my family.

The challenge has always been managing the microbes. For thousands of years, raw milk was mostly fermented into yogurt, cheese and churned into butter on a small scale for family farms and local neighbors. Drinking liquid milk came later. Not until the dawn of industrialization did communities intensely struggle with the challenge of keeping milk fresh. As more people moved to the city and the population exploded, disease from contaminated and spoiled milk was rampant. At that time up to 25% of food born illness was linked to contaminated milk. By 1924 the U.S. Public Health Service developed the Standard Milk Ordinance to assist states with voluntary pasteurization programs. In 1987 the USDA banned raw milk from being sold across state lines. Basically we are using 17th century science to minimize risk today. Raw milk proponents say science can and should do better. I agree.

Organic Pastures Creamery

Organic Alfalfa fields at Organic Pastures

This week I walked through the creamery, through the fields of organic alfalfa, past other fields ready for planting, and gazed upon the happy cows feeding on organic dried grasses in the dead of winter. I appreciate the care and attention given to the animals, the land, even the manure–a liquid gold that is used to fertilize the organic almond trees. In thirteen years Mark has created an incredibly efficient, sustainable and dynamic system where all resources are valued and utilized. There is no waste. And I saw all of this on December 31. I can’t wait to go back and pitch my tent in the vibrant growth of spring to see all those animals reveling in splendor of their grass.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: bacteria, CDC, farm to table, FBI, FDA, grass fed, Mark McAfee, Michael Pollan, microbes, microbiome, NIH, Omnivore's Dilemma, organic, organic pastures, raw milk, sustainability, USDA, Weston Price Foundation

Is All Red Meat Risky?

March 14, 2012 by Bonnie

All red meat is risky” glared the headlines of Tuesday’s LA Times. That got my attention. We eat red meat probably 6-8 times a week between lunches and dinners.

This story deserves more scrutiny.

LIMITS OF EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES

First off, this is an epidemiological study. That means a group of people were asked about their eating and lifestyle habits 20 years ago and that data was compared to mortality records. There are a few reasons to question the findings.

First, association is not the same as cause and effect. No one, not the researchers nor the journalist makes this point clear. The thinking is that if you study lots of people (110,000 in this case) over a long period of time (20 years), the data has stronger statistical significance. It does. But the study design limits interpretation. An epidemiological study won’t ever be able to prove beef causes the outcomes described.

WHAT’S A FOOD FREQUENCY QUESTIONNAIRE ?

Second, people being surveyed were asked about their food habits using a food frequency questionnaire, a very limited tool. Here is what some scientists have to say:

“The substantial limitations of FFQs have been known for some time (1) and published studies based on FFQ-derived data have long included in their discussion sections a litany of weaknesses due to suboptimal dietary assessment. However, few of us expected the astonishingly poor measurement characteristics of FFQs when compared with doubly labeled water (a gold standard for energy intake)”

I find the lead author’s assertion that “there is no amount of red meat that is good for you” rather arrogant given the limitations of the study.

A VEGETARIAN DIET ISN’T NECESSARILY HEALTHY

Lastly, this study is presented as if it can stand alone, without any context of other findings. A note to the journalists: It is not enough to have Dr. Ornish offer his opinion. That is not science; it is pandering to his particular bias regarding a vegetarian diet. When people eat a plant based diet, they don’t just eat vegetables. They often eat lots of refined starch and sugar.

The thinking that people will eat more healthfully and have less chronic disease without red meat is an interesting assumption. I know many of my own clients who are healthier, leaner, with less evidence of disease from actual bio-markers like blood pressure, serum glucose levels, lipid values (cholesterol, triglycerides, etc) and body composition when they eat enough protein—including red meat— in their diet.

IS IT THE CATTLE OR WHAT WE DO TO THEM?

I do have a few reservations. There are a couple of reasons eating beef could be associated with greater risk of disease. Cattle are raised over a longer period of time than poultry. They accumulate more fat.

1. When they are fed a diet of corn, soy and stale bakery products (allowed by the USDA up to 2.5 kg. per day) their fat is higher in pro-inflammatory omega 6 fatty acids and after six months of a feedlot diet, the omega three contents drops in direct relationship to time away from the pasture. It is clear that the animal scientists who champion this feed were far more concerned with yield and quality of the product (ie: profit potential) than any nutritional ramifications.

2. Persistent organic pollutants accumulate in fat tissue. These substances are endocrine disruptors and have a very strong link to disease. Cattle have a greater body burden than other animals because of their longer lifespan and greater fat accumulation before slaughter.

So is it the beef or the way we conventionally feed cattle? Is it red meat or the fact that we spew polluting chemicals into our environment and can’t find the political will to contain the contamination?

We don’t have those answers. In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy my grass fed beef, knowing I am doing what I can to minimize what I see as the real risks to my health.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: animal feed, beef, disease, endocrine disruptors, environment, epidemiological study, fat, food frequency questionnaire, grass fed, Harvard, mortality, Ornish, persistent organic pollutants, USDA

Sodium: Its about flavor, not salty

October 18, 2011 by

The sodium war heats up with USDA dietary guidelines threatening to lower sodium recommendations to 1500 mg a day. The logic escapes me when current intake ranges around 3600 mg a day and the current guideline of 2300 mg a day hasn’t enjoyed any success.

An editorial in the Nov, 2010 edition of American Journal of Clinical Nutrition argues the point. The conclusion? “Sodium intake in the US adult population appears to be well above current guidelines and does not appear to have decreased with time.”

Despite almost forty years of admonishing the American public to reduce sodium, little has changed. Americans experience more heart disease and more hypertension. Is it really the sodium?

In the same journal there is an accompanying editorial, written by three scientists (two who have consulted for the Salt Institute). The editorial challenges USDA recommendations to reduce sodium intake for everyone. I am inclined to agree with the naysayers.

I think the scientists pushing for greater universal sodium restriction are missing the boat on at least two accounts. First, sodium intake influences fluid balance in the body. But it does not act independently. Insulin drives sodium re-absorption in the kidneys.

INSULIN DRIVES SODIUM RE-ABSORPTION AND FLUID RETENTION

Overeating, especially eating more carbohydrate, increases insulin secretion. The more insulin, the greater re-uptake of sodium and water. People feel bloated, fuller, thicker. They can gain 3-5 pounds of weight overnight. It may not be fat weight, but they still can’t get their pants zipped the next morning.

This is probably the reason Walter Willet, PhD, a co-author of the original research, states that overeating is more of the problem than actual sodium intake.

LEARNING HOW TO USE SALT: ITS ABOUT FULL FLAVOR

Second, the discussion to reduce sodium is often accompanied by feeble recommendations to make food taste better with herbs and different cooking methods. How we cook our food is not the biggest problem.

70% of sodium intake comes from highly processed and adulterated packaged foods. Eating more whole foods, cooked from scratch, is a far more effective strategy to reduce sodium. In addition, public health educators and dietitians need to teach people how to use salt to make foods taste delicious, not just salty.

Salt is an amazing cooking ingredient. If used correctly salt enhances the complex mix of flavors in food, elevating taste to a whole new level. I think people could learn to appreciate delicious food seasoned with the right amount of salt. It would be far more appetizing to use salt effectively than to try to cut salt out altogether.

TRIGGERING RESISTANCE

On a behavioral level, the scientists get this all wrong. There is nothing like telling someone they shouldn’t do something to trigger resistant behavior. The oppositional two year old lives on inside most of us.

My goal is to encourage people to experience delicious food that is well seasoned. Add just enough salt to enhance all the flavors. Combine this effort with recommendations to eat more whole foods and less highly processed adulterated food. Encourage people to honor how much is enough.

True education always takes more time, more money and more effort than simply telling people to stop using salt. Teaching the public how to use salt may be more successful than the past ineffective efforts to cut salt out. Forty years is a long time to be recommending the same thing, expecting different results.

Filed Under: Blog, Middle Tagged With: hypertension, salt, sodium, USDA

2010 USDA Guidelines: Maybe we need to change focus

October 18, 2011 by

The 2010 USDA Dietary Guidelines were released this week. In an attempt to establish nutrition guidelines for the masses of overweight, unhealthy Americans these guidelines attempt to curb our appetites and nudge Americans towards more healthful diets. In ninety five pages of committee speak, the messaging begins to sound like Charlie Brown’s teacher. Wah, Wah, Wah.

Declaration after declaration drones on about how we should be eating. Decrease sugar, eat more fiber, decrease saturated fat, consume less sodium, use only reduced fat dairy, eat more fruit and vegetables, stop drinking sodas. I don’t like the tone or most of the message.

If I am tuning out, how do most Americans react to the authoritarian messaging of these guidelines?

For all the documentation, the biggest void in the document is not enough said about individual needs. There is no one right way to eat. There is no one universal diet that is right for all Americans. The attempt to coddle together a list of nutrition recommendations for the public is a lofty goal, but ultimately misses the mark for many individuals.

I wonder why the focus in only on individuals. There is much wrong with how our food is grown and processed. There are many problems with how food is served. I propose a few dietary guidelines for people preparing food.

DIETARY GUIDELINES FOR FOOD PRODUCERS

1. Serve a balance of protein, carbohydrate and fat at every meal.

Some people need more protein, others benefit from more carbohydrate. Let one version serve very small amounts of protein, others more. Up charge for the difference. Fill half of the plate with produce. Vary the amount of starch–more with less protein, less with more protein.

2. Serve portions that meet our needs for a meal. Aim for 600-800 calories a plate.

Average Americans are recommended between 2000 and 2700 calories a day for food. Most people snack through the day. There are not many of us that need 1500-2000 calories in a meal. People who need more calories can add an appetizer or dessert.

Americans spend half of their food dollars eating away from home. Eating out is no longer a rare treat. Eating out is a way of life. Our bodies are bearing the weight of food served like it’s Thanksgiving multiple times a week.

3. Use salt judiciously to enhance flavor, not to make food taste salty.

Salt is an amazing seasoning agent. It allows flavors to come alive when it is used properly. Most cooks have lost or never developed the appreciation for adding just enough to make the flavors of the food “pop”.

Don’t let anyone season the food that doesn’t have a more sophisticated palate. Our taste buds will adjust. Ultimately we will reap the benefits of a lower sodium intake without the draconian measures suggested by some public health groups.

4. Use whole foods and prepare them well.

It doesn’t serve Americans to consume highly processed and adulterated food. It is difficult to eat well when more than 75% of our food supply in the supermarket is not considered a good food choice.

I wonder what would happen if the reverse was true? It would be a different shopping experience if only 25% of the food in the marketplace was considered less than a good food choice.

5. Take time to purchase food that is grown sustainably and locally.

Buy from farmers, ranchers and suppliers that offer ingredients supporting stewardship of our oceans, soils and air. Sure the products will cost more, but health care is even more expensive.

Don’t let the canard of an inadequate food supply throw you off track. America currently produces 4000 calories per capita. We don’t need as much as we produce. Excess calories either become waste or contribute to our waists.

6. Don’t get seduced into thinking more is better.

Adding more sugar, more sodium, and more fat doesn’t necessarily make food more delectable. Making food more entertainment than nutrition has led us down a slippery slope.

7. A special note to food scientists: Please be a little more skeptical when inventing new ingredients.

So far, the production of hydrogenated fats, high fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners and the like have been less than beneficial in most arenas except the manufacturers pocketbook. It is time that the food technology industry bears more responsibility in showing that a product first does no harm.

8. Fully integrate the cost of cheap food into the actual price of these products.

When food production negatively impacts the soil, the air, or the waterways, these products should carry the cost of repairing the damage, or change farming and manufacturing practices.

For starters, we need to wean farmers off artificial fertilization. It is not OK that ocean regions the size of Texas become hypoxic after spring rains. The Gulf of Mexico cannot support marine life for months after artificial fertilizers are carried off the farm. The toxic brew of nitrogen, potassium and phosphate travels down the Mississippi to wreak havoc with the gulf’s ecosystem.

Next, USDA needs to stop subsidies for the very crops that are used to produce adulterated ingredients that are part of the problem. USDA subsidizes the corn that makes high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) used to sweeten sodas, and a mind boggling array of products. HFCS is used in everything from cake frosting to ketchup.

USDA subsidizes the soybeans that produces soybean oil, especially the partially hydrogenated kind. USDA subsidizes grains that produce the highly sugared cereals, snack foods and pseudo-bakery confections that contribute to our increasing girth and poor health.

FOOD’S RIGHTFUL PLACE

It is time to allow food it’s rightful place. Food is an amazing and rich medium. Food is tasty and immediately gratifying. Food can be social or solitary. Food is cultural and it can be novel. Food is both nurturing and nourishing. We don’t lose any of that experience when we eat well. In fact, eating closer to the earth can elevate the experience so that food is truly satisfying.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: carbohydrate, fat, fiber, food technology, HFCS, protein, salt, sodium, subsidies, sugar, USDA

FOODINC: Pollan and Schlosser point the way to sustainable food supply

October 18, 2011 by

Evan Kleiman elegantly interviewed Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser at the Vision and Voices presentation at USC last week. The conversation was mostly a celebration of the current food movements that emphasize eating “close to the earth.” Mr. Pollan’s mantra: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” prevailed throughout the evening.

I celebrate so much of this message. The Omnivore’s Dilemma was a seminal read for me. I went on to read a half dozen related books and continue to step up my game. As a dietitian it was confronting to realize how little attention I paid to how food is raised.

Today I am mostly horrified at the deterioration of our food supply. Only the staunchest of USDA conformists clamor that we have the safest food supply in the world. The word safe in used in the narrowest of contexts, and we fall down even in the realm of minimizing food contamination and food born illness. Big agriculture and corporate food interests have created an abundant and adulterated food supply that no longer keeps us healthy, but is easily over consumed and contributes to poor health.

The quality and sheer quantity of highly processed foods that are subsidized by USDA Farm policy is a big part of the problem. This is the arena that Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser effectively argue for change.

CONSUMERS CAN FOCUS ON THREE IMPORTANT FACTORS TO DRIVE CHANGE IN OUR FOOD SUPPLY

1. Avoid human antibiotics in animals. Purchase meats that state no hormones or antibiotics used as growth enhancers. Let your dollars make a statement.

2. Press for better access for everyone. I am privileged to access farmer’s markets 4 days a week. Other regions have nothing close by. I visited a new farmer’s market in South Culver City last Saturday. It is a fabulous press into an under served neighborhood. I hope the community supports this effort.

3. Pay attention to next year’s farm bill. It will be time for all of us to speak up. It is not OK that a few farm states drive this bill. These states depend on federal subsidies to overproduce crops that contribute to our abundant and adulterated food supply.

Lastly, as we work to improve our food supply, it is important to not let proponents of the status quo distort the conversation. Pollan and Schlosser make some key points.

KEEP THE CONVERSATION FOCUSED

1. American farmers grow about 4000 calories per capita annually–twice as much as is needed

2. Hunger is about food access, not yield

3. Our current food supply does not prevent hunger. There are about 1 billion people hungry, and about 1 billion people obese.

4. We consume about 12.5% of what is grown. 12.5% is wasted. The rest feeds livestock. For many reasons it is time to let the animals eat their natural diet.

Each of us needs to ask ourselves, “What can I do to promote a more sustainable and nutrient dense food supply?” Please share what is your next step in Eating Close to the Earth?

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: antibiotics, Culver City, Eric Schlosser, farm bill, farmer’s market, food, Food Inc, grass fed, hormones, hunger, Michael Pollan, sustainable, USDA

Dueling Dietary Guidelines: The Weston Price Foundation challenges the USDA

October 18, 2011 by

March is National Nutrition Month. Recently both the USDA and Weston Price Foundation published dueling dietary guidelines.

People are confused about food. Too many studies, too many experts, and all sorts of contrary ideas are floated as evidence of the right way to eat. Makes me wonder if there is a single “right” way to eat that works for everyone.

The Weston Price Foundation (WPF) threw down the gauntlet on February 14, 2011, introducing “Healthy 4 Life” in direct competition with the recently released USDA 2010 Dietary Guidelines. Why are food recommendations so controversial?

WPF followers see significant harm in the current approach recommended by the committee who drafted the USDA guidelines. They are not the only ones heaping criticism on the latest rendition of the guidelines. Comments by Walter Willet and Marion Nestle charge that USDA guidelines are overly influenced by commercial and corporate interests. Both Drs. Nestle and Willet contend that food interests are very powerful in this country. They say it is all a matter of following the money.

USDA RECOMMENDATIONS FOCUS ON CALORIES AND NUTRIENT-DENSE FOODS

USDA opens with two over-arching concepts. The first is a statement about Calorie balance and sustaining a healthy weight, basically committee speak for too many Americans are fat and need to lose weight. WPF states that meeting energy needs with recommended whole foods eliminates the need to count calories and will naturally lead to a healthier weight.

Secondly USDA recommends focusing on consuming nutrient-dense foods and beverages. WPF also encourages eating nutrient dense food, but their Food 4 Health guide looks remarkably different than the USDA 2010 Dietary Guidelines. Both organizations herald experts in their respective disciplines. How do they come to such differing positions on something as basic as what we eat?

WHAT IS A NUTRIENT DENSE FOOD?

USDA tends to focus on nutrients and nutrition science. USDA is very quantitative and evidence based. The Weston Price Foundation hones in on the quality of the soil, methods of food production and food preparation.WPF reinforces the value of eating traditional foods in a traditional way, pointing out that the last 40 years of nutrient based science parallels alarming increases in lifestyle disease states and obesity in this country and the world.

Both groups encourage the consumption of fruits and vegetables. USDA presses for more fiber, WPF presses for eating whole foods, organically grown.

WPF encourages beans and legumes in the diet as a compliment to animal products. USDA Dietary Guidelines suggest eating beans and legumes as a healthy substitute for animal products, which they say contribute excessive fat, saturated fat and cholesterol to the diet.

WHAT ABOUT FAT AND SUGAR?

Beyond these basic concepts, the rest of the guidelines couldn’t be more disparate. The USDA Dietary Guidelines continue to admonish Americans to avoid saturated fat, cholesterol, sugar and salt. WPF disagrees with most of these positions, encouraging healthy fats like butter and whole milk from grass fed animals. Ironically, WPF’s position is most aligned with current scientific thinking. Both of the groups agree trans fat is a problem. Interestingly, the FDA (a co-regulator of the food supply) continues to allow trans fats GRAS status. This means that in the world of food additives it is “generally regarded as safe”.

Both groups discuss the problem of excessive sugars and refined starches, but WPF definitely has the stronger voice. The USDA guidelines still allow for 10% of Calories from refined sugar. The USDA guidelines encourage Americans to eat more fiber, but not enough is said about eating less refined starch. Again, FDA’s position does not help. The FDA allows high fructose corn syrup along with a growing list of alternative sweeteners GRAS status, despite significant research linking these substances to metabolic issues and health problems.

FOCUS ON NUTRIENTS LITTLE MORE THAN BIOCHEMICAL MANIPULATION

I respect the science behind the USDA Dietary Guidelines, but the focus on nutrients often misses the point of eating. The science is easily manipulated into reductionist sound bites. The focus on nutrients distracts attention from critical aspects of soil ecology, farming, and food production.

Consumers have been taught to be preoccupied with the nutrient label. They often miss the big picture as they are eating mostly packaged foods. I have clients who eat berries for antioxidants, eat cottage cheese for leucine, avoid meat because of saturated fat and cholesterol, and drink sodium ladened sports drinks while telling me how they avoid salt in the diet. This is not eating. It is little more than biochemical manipulation.

CELEBRATING WHOLE FOODS

There is much to celebrate with the whole foods approach of Healthy 4 Life, as outlined by the Weston Price Foundation. Likewise, an argument can be made that there is value in learning about the role of individual nutrients in foods as encouraged by the USDA Dietary Guidelines. A problem occurs when preoccupation with individual nutrients trumps the value of eating whole foods.

Given the polarized nature of these two different sets of recommendations, the enduring challenge for consumers will be to determine an approach to food that works. This is the public health nightmare. It may be that there is no one right way to eat. The question remains, what approach to food works for you?

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: calories, cholesterol, Dietary Guidelines, eating, farming, fat, FDA, fiber, food, food label, food nutrient, fruit, health, high fructose corn syrup, Marion Nestle, public health, satruated fat, sodium, soil, starch, sugar, trans fat, USDA, vegetable, Walter Willet, weight, Weston Price Foundation

Why I celebrate McDonald’s New Happy Meal

October 18, 2011 by

McDonald’s announced it’s newest Happy Meal version yesterday. Media swarmed at the news and Michelle Obama added her words of encouragement.

The newest Happy Meal version includes 1/4 cup of apples and a smaller 100 calorie (1.1 oz) portion of French fries along with a choice of entree and beverage. McDonald’s estimates calorie savings up to 20% for any one Happy Meal. Most weight loss experts celebrate that kind of change. But not everyone has nice things to say.

A CRESCENDO OF CRITICS

There is a rising crescendo of voices that want to denigrate every food option that doesn’t meet their idea of acceptible or healthy. Andy Bellitti complains that there aren’t adequate nutrients in the Happy Meal. Mark Bittman tweets, “It is McD’s ‘job’ to make money, mostly by selling junk.” Yoni Freedhoff retweets Andy Bellitti’s assumptions and tells everyone, “we need to cook.” Marion Nestle says “I’m not impressed.”

The collective angst directed at McDonald’s no matter what they do is curious to me. I am a dietitian, seeing private patients for 25 years in Santa Monica. I taught at Santa Monica College for 15 years, 12 at UCLA Extension. I am no slouch when it comes to addressing nutrition science or working with real patients as they navigate food in their real world.

At the same time, I have consulted with McDonald’s Operators of Southern California (MOASC) for almost 20 years.(1) I see the food that they buy. I observe their crew cooking the same. This food is purchased from the same vendors supplying our neighborhood supermarkets.

I am left to wonder about all the angst and condemnation directed to fast food in general, and McDonald’s specifically.

DATA DISTORTION

Public health authorities tagged fast food as the culprit in the escalating incidence of obesity–especially for children– decades ago. We keep getting fatter despite it all. Has all their noise been ineffective? Could it be that the considerable amount of time and energy denigrating fast food is misdirected?

Part of the problem may be rooted in data distortion. Recently I was scouring the Report of the Dietary Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. I came across this statement:

“There is not enough evidence at this time to similarly evaluate eating out at other types of restaurants and risk of weight gain, overweight, and obesity.”

Does this mean that fast food has been the primary focus just because there was no other data to address eating at sit down restaurants?

I wonder what we will find out. Most sit down restaurants offer hamburgers topping 1000, 1200, 1500 calories and more. French fries are often served in only one size–a lot. For years one restaurant offered French fries in only one serving size, a one pound basket. Now they offer “endless fries”.

The largest hamburger at McDonald’s yields 770 calories, the smallest at 210 calories. McDonald’s offers small, medium and large fries–ranging from 2.5 oz. (230 cal) to 5.4 ounces (500 cal) per serving.

OBESITY IS A FOOD PROBLEM, NOT A FAST FOOD PROBLEM

In all the criticism about fast food, it is easy to miss the bigger picture. Our entire food supply is incredibly abundant and adulterated. The increasing incidence of obesity and disease is overwhelming to anyone who understands the trends.

Is the answer to continue to denigrate every effort by McDonald’s as not good enough? I don’t think so.

WHAT CAN WE DO TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

The 2010 Dietary Guidelines Scientific Advisory Committee, many researchers and clinicians agree. The obesity problem is too big for any of us to solve on our own. I hear the call for all sectors of society to step up:

individuals, families, physicians and allied health professionals, public health advocates, policy makers, scientists and small and large businesses, including farmers, agricultural producers, food scientists , food manufacturers and food retailers of all kinds.

EVERY FOOD VENUE NEEDS TO STEP UP, BUT SO DOES GOVERNMENT

We need to address the issues of abundance and adulteration of the food supply at every point of purchase: supermarkets, convenience stores, food marts at gas stations and snacks offered in pharmacies and drug stores. We need to look at every sector of catering and restaurant industry, from quick service restaurants to fine dining. Every entertainment venue, food cart, food truck and vending machine deserves the same scrutiny.

But mostly we need the government to step up, specifically the USDA, the FDA, and the EPA. As long as problematic ingredients, additives, animal feed and husbandry practices, and farming practices are deemed safe and/or legal, the rest of the sectors are left to go it alone.

As for everyone wanting to believe that eliminating fast food is the answer, I would remind you that research colleagues in science labs tell us even the lab rats are getting bigger. What are they feeding the mice?

(1) The opinions expressed here are my own. This blog is not supported nor sponsored by any commercial interest.

Filed Under: Blog Tagged With: Andy Bellatti, animal feed, animal husbandry, calories, children, EPA, farming, fast food, FDA, food, food additives, food science, French fries, Happy Meal, Marion Nestle, Mark Bittman, McDonalds, Michelle Obama, obesity, restaurants, USDA, weight loss, Yoni Freedhoff

ARE YOU READY FOR TRANSGENIC SALMON?

Farm to Table: Visiting Organic Pastures

Is All Red Meat Risky?

Sodium: Its about flavor, not salty

2010 USDA Guidelines: Maybe we need to change focus

FOODINC: Pollan and Schlosser point the way to sustainable food supply

Dueling Dietary Guidelines: The Weston Price Foundation challenges the USDA

Why I celebrate McDonald’s New Happy Meal

Search

Follow Bonnie

Search

Follow Bonnie

Topics