Food Ratings Labels

Sounds like a good idea because so many Americans are too lazy to figure this stuff out themselves. Ha!

The danger of saturated fat and dietary cholesterol hasn't even been firmly established yet. In fact, some have established quite the opposite. This is the kind of thing the Diet Dictocrats do.

What 6% of produce failed? How can a vegetable or fruit fail?

Interesting, at least they are doing something. Okay, maybe it is not perfect, but I like action – I can see how a system like this would be better than labels with the fine print.

Wow! That is really cool and sounds pretty interesting. I guess when people see three stars they will look closer at the label and determine how good it really is or not.

Regina Wilshire: Perhaps a coconut? It has a high amount of saturated fat.

iFitandHealthy: That fine print is important though. Even what's on the labels is too simplified. What about an amino acid profile or a fatty acid profile? The lengths of the fatty acid chains and locations of double bonding make a difference. You could see monounsaturated on the label, but if that monounsaturated fat is erucic acid, then you're going to have some problems. If you try to get all of your protein from the wrong grains, you're going to end up with a lysine deficiency.

Great idea, nice and simple. A lot of people who either would like to eat healthier, or mistakenly think that they already do, don't usually bother to read the fine print and believe the "99% fat-free" message shouting at them from the front of a food packet to be enough.

A system like this is an effective way to put the information out there so people have to see it. For those who want to eat better, but find it hard to sort through all the nutritional information (and misinformation) this could be a first step in changing eating habits. Whether or not it will change the attitudes of those who have always lived on rubbish, know it and don't care, remains to be seen.

The next step should be to raise prices on non-star items.

"For those who want to eat better, but find it hard to sort through all the nutritional information (and misinformation) this could be a first step in changing eating habits."

But what if this system is just encouraging the misinformation?

There will always be some gross inconsistencies with any sort of "simple" food labelling. However... The first step is to move people away from the majors (i.e. the bakery)... before focusing on the minors.

Regina: I wonder what comes under the heading of "Produce"? What about nuts? or other whole foods?

Found this:

Q. Are the Stars criteria the same for all foods in the store?
A. Meats, poultry, seafood, dairy and nuts are naturally higher in saturated fats and – with the exception of nuts – naturally higher in cholesterol. And, they do not have fiber (only animal products have cholesterol). The formula recognizes these natural differences.

"But what if this system is just encouraging the misinformation?"

I'm guessing you are having another rant about saturated fats and cholesterol being misunderstood? No system will ever be perfect, all I said was that this could be a first step in changing peoples eating habits. Surely you wouldn't argue that clearly labelling foods higher in minerals and vitamins, and lower in added sodium and sugars is a bad thing? The full nutritional labels will still be there, the star rating is simply placed on the price tag on the shelf.

You have to remember that very few people will ever be into nutrition in the way that you are, talking about amino acid or fatty acid profiles etc, really getting into the science and absolute balance of nutrients, and the reality is, few people will ever really need to be. Most just want to do their shopping and go home, and this system might help them to do that while choosing better products than before (they may not be the best products, but it is a start).

PS-For what it's worth, I don't believe that saturated fats are so bad either, almost every day I eat a small portion of lean, tasty, grass-fed, New Zealand beef straight off our farm. I wouldn't be without it.

It's a good idea. It will inevitably be subjective but it's a good guide. I'm impressed they're honest enough to award three-quarters of their products no stars!

Well, added sodium and sugar are tricky things. If you're eating a lot of potassium in your diet, then you may actually need some added sodium. It's not how much sodium you eat, it's the ratio of sodium to potassium. Second, if you've just completed a strenuous workout, especially weight training, refined sugar will actually speed your recovery. In addition, an overdose of certain vitamins/minerals can prove fatal.

At the end of the day, it really does come down to balance of nutrients in many cases. Granted, a proper balance might not be that strict, but an extreme on either side won't do you any favors. People need to be made more aware of what's out there and generally what they need to take care of, instead of being fed an oversimplified summary.

The problem I foresee with this is if people see three stars on brown rice and other whole grains but only one or two stars on meat, because of the saturated fat. They see that there's protein in the grains, so they just use that instead. If that goes on long enough, they end up with a lysine deficiency. It's hard to really make yourself deficient in something, but simplified rating systems make it easier for people. However, if they had a vague idea about amino acid balance, they wouldn't run into this problem.

Honestly, my personal diet isn't all that carefully optimized. I take a multi-vitamin to cover my bases and eat my macronutrients according to what my body's telling me. My point is this system can lead to disaster without proper education.

Ryan,

Do you seriously expect people to get into amino acid profiles and the lengths of the fatty acid chains while they are shopping for food? It is just not realistic. The fine print on food labels does not reflect that anyway.

Not every time, but they should expect meat/fish/milk/eggs to provide reasonably complete proteins and realize that other protein sources may not be. As I said above, someone who tries to get all of their protein from grain will most likely get a lysine deficiency.

As far as fatty acids, there aren't all that many significant sources of fat that one person eats commonly. Somewhere, if they wanted to know, they should be able find what kinds of fats are in there, to decide if they should use that fat source in the future. Beef is feared because of its saturated fat, but if you saw a fatty acid profile, you'd know a lot of it is stearic acid, which is benign.

It shouldn't be listed on packages; that would take up too much space. However, people should have some general awareness about it and have a nice, official source to get the information from.

Someone who does weight-training will probably already know enough about nutrition to make all their food decisions themselves, and I don't really believe that many people will be happy to exchange meat for brown rice because of a one star difference. The health problems you are anticipating might well happen, the question is, how bad would they really be in comparison to the health disasters that we are witnessing with the current western diet, do you honestly think it could get worse?

"Beef is feared because of its saturated fat…"

That is not accurate. Pasture-fed beef is not feared, while grain-fed is. If you are talking about fatty acid profiles, you should know the difference between the two. Funny this whole conversation came up, because a few days ago I wrote a draft about meat labels. Maybe I will post it this week.

Caramelle-oh: While it's not all that common, you'd be surprised what some people can do to themselves when they think they're eating healthy. Back in the no-fat food era, some people were coming in with really horrible conditions. They were then quite surprised that they could be suffering from zero fat intake.

iFitandHealthy: I've heard there's a difference in omega 3 to omega 6 ratios. There's probably less fat in pasture-fed too, just as with bison. I, however, don't feel I make enough money to buy pasture-fed beef, so I haven't read up on it much. So when I say "beef", I mean grain-fed. At the same time, I have a use for the extra fat, and I take an EFA supplement.

Ryan,

I hear you about the price of pasture-fed beef - it could be expensive. The larger problem is that it is not available at a typical supermarket, at least in my area.

However, the grain-fed beef is rightfully feared, because it is not found in nature. EFA supplements are certainly a good idea, but the labels should stress the importance of natural beef.

Do you seriously expect people to get into amino acid profiles and the lengths of the fatty acid chains while they are shopping for food?

This was for Ryan, but I think it's something that when you have a panel of "experts" you're paying to create a message of health to consumers - well it IS something they should be tasked with. Fat, cholesterol and sugars are just some of our woes - so is malnutrition for too many Americans (overconsumptive malnutrition) and part of that is shying from many foods rich/dense with nutrients to avoid fat and cholesterol.

It is a balance and when you're tasking a panel to communicate what foods are healthy, they seriously should be considering ALL aspects of health and not just politically correct ones. That would include essential fatty acids and essential amino acids.

"well it IS something they should be tasked with."

Nobody argues with that...

Yeah...seriously by the time you read all of the comments posted here at least 100 starving childred died without ever reading a single food label.

Well, it's a really good start anyway. It may not be perfect yet; most new systems have a couple bugs that need to be worked out. But I think it's a great tool for showing people that all vegetables/meats/fruits are not created equal: I'm guessing spinach gets 3 stars and a potato will probably get 1 star and a french fry will get no stars. Just like I'm assuming a cut of sirloin will get 2 stars while a hot dog gets none. I do know some people who consider fries and chips to be "vegetables" and hot dogs to be a "meat". I guess they are, technically, but putting labels on foods to let people know what's healthier would be a great idea. Seriously, lots of people really have no clue when it comes to certain things. Ryan, I know you are very up on protein sources and are aware of amino acid content of various foods, but unless you are a vegetarian, most people do not get amino acid deficiencies as long as they consume enough proteins per day...some from meats, grains, dairy, eggs, etc. I don't think the average American really knows what lysine deficiency is and to be honest, I don't think that's where we need to start. Start by getting people to buy foods generally accepted as nutritious (fruits, veggies, lean meats, eggs, legumes, whole grains, etc.) and focus on the specifics later.

BTW...it's incredibly sad that only 1/4 of all the food in the store got even 1 star. What does that tell us about our diet these days? Then again, now that I think about it, I pretty much only shop in 1/4 of the store anyways: produce section, dairy, meat case, the occasional purchase from the bakery (bread), and sometimes canned stuff: tuna, canned veggies, pasta sauce, salsa. I forget that there are entire aisles of ice creams, crackers, frozen pizzas, cookies, chips, soda, convenience foods, canned soups, liquor, etc.