How do YOU define a “healthy” food?

defining-healthy-foods

There may be a chance for you to influence change when it comes to food labels!

As most of us know by now, food marketing, packaging, and labels can be extremely misleading. There is little over-watch and even the standards that are in place are outdated.

kind-bars.jpgAbout a year ago, the FDA required the Kind bar company to remove the word “healthy” from their labels. But, based on the ingredient list, I would argue that their bars are far healthier than standard American snacks like chips, soda, and soy-based granola bars with 40 grams of sugar.

For example, the Honey Roasted Nuts & Sea Salt bar has 10 ingredients – and the first 4 are whole foods (nuts and honey). Then there is some additional sugar (a mere 5 grams), fiber, soy, and salt for flavor and shelf-life. That’s it! No carcinogenic soy-protein, no oxidized seed oils, no massive dose of sugar.

Well, the FDA skipped over the ingredients and, determined to not risk any critical-thinking, glanced at the Total Fat and started sending legally-worded requests and threats.

And now, after a year of Kind fighting back with science-driven data, supported by the sofosbuvir-fda-approvalpublic’s growing awareness that all fat is not bad, the FDA finally dropped its demands.

What’s even more amazing, the government posted an article on its Regulations.gov site, requesting information and content from the American public regarding the use of the word “healthy” on labels.

Click here to read the article. And please, please, please, click the blue “Comment Now” button to the right of the resulting page to make your voice heard!

My personal comment was:

Current standards rely too much on trying to find or recommend “perfect numbers”, whether in terms of total fat, saturated fat, total carbs, sugars, etc. 

Why not have the use of the word “healthy” on labels be dependent upon the ingredient list? For example, a food that has 4 ingredients, with 75% coming from whole foods, can be labelled “healthy” while a food that has 12 ingredients, with only 20% coming from whole foods , cannot use the term “healthy”. 

To use the example of Kind Bars…let’s say they have a product that has 6 ingredients (almonds, walnuts, honey, cocoa, salt, and vitamin e / tocopherols as a preservative). The first 4 ingredients are found in nature while the salt and potassium are made by humans, in a lab. So, the product has 6 ingredients, with 4 coming from natural foods, thus it is “healthy”. 

Meanwhile, let’s look at a box of Cheerios (following ingredients copied and pasted from their website): whole grain oats, corn starch, sugar, salt, tripotassium phosphate, wheat starch and Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) as a freshness preserver. Vitamins and minerals include calcium carbonate, iron, zinc and Vitamins C, B6, A, B1, B12, D3, folic acid and niacinamide. That’s 18 ingredients, with only the very first 1 coming from nature. Everything else goes through a great deal of modifying by humans or machines (whether we are talking about sugar and starch extracts, or even synthetic vitamins). So, only 1 out of 18 ingredients in Cheerios come from whole foods that can be found, prepared, and consumed in nature. Thus, they cannot use the word “healthy” on their labels. 

So, if you believe, as I do, that looking at the quality of ingredients is more important than some arbitrary government-dictated number, please take 60 seconds to submit a similar comment at the above address.

Thank you for not only taking the time to read my blog, but taking a moment out of your busy day to invest in our future – those that are less enlightened, along with future generations, will owe you a debt of gratitude!

1095892287454413090816

3 News Articles

I know I reviewed a news article just last week, but this week I wanted to try something new and discuss multiple articles at once.

My hope is to provide more information at a time. Reviewing multiple articles also means I won’t get into the same level of detail – but this may make my postings easier to get through (I know not everyone is as interested in the scientific details and mechanisms).

The first article is about the updated F.D.A. guidelines recommending women that are pregnant or breast-feeding consume at least 8 ounces, or half a pound, of fish a week. This is a major shift in our nation’s guidelines.

Some fish, such as albacore tuna, have high levels of mercury that can be dangerous to women and infants. However, sardines and salmon (that happen to have the highest omega-3 content), will have much lower mercury because they simply do not live as long. As previously mentioned, mercury binds with selenium (found in high amounts in fish) so our bodies will not absorb the mercury.

An interesting thing I learned back in college: in the U.S., we recommend women avoid alcohol and eat vegetables while they are pregnant. However, in France, pregnant women used to be told to consume wine and to avoid certain vegetables such as spinach and broccoli.

As with everything, our knowledge is constantly changing and food producers are powerful enough to influence health recommendations.

Just consume the foods humans were meant to eat, in the quantity that is realistic in nature, and be aware of food sources. This way you will know if it contains more of something (mercury) or less of another (magnesium) than it once did.

The next article goes along with the typical understanding we are slowly coming around to – that saturated fat has no correlation with heart disease.

By now, we know that the science to vilify saturated fat and cholesterol was falsified:

“But as Tiecholz and other critics point out, Keys cherry-picked the seven countries he visited: the United States, the Netherlands, Finland, Yugoslavia, Italy, Greece and Japan.
Noticeably absent? Countries well known for their rich fatty foods but without high rates of heart disease, like Switzerland, Sweden and West Germany.
Based on his study, Keys promoted the Mediterranean diet: a diet high in fruits and vegetables, along with bread, pasta, olive oil, fish and dairy. But Teicholz pointed out that Keys visited Greece during Lent, a time when people abstain from eating meat, which in turn skewed his data.”

But, I also wanted to share this article for another quote:

“Take the 30-year follow-up to the landmark Framingham Heart Study, for example. It is one of the largest epidemiological studies evaluating the roots of heart disease in our country.
In the follow-up, scientists found that half the people who had heart attacks had below-average cholesterol levels. In fact, scientists concluded that “for each 1% mg/dL drop of cholesterol, there was an 11% increase in coronary and total mortality.””

This shows that lower total cholesterol levels increases ones risk of death!

I still think triglycerides, carried by oxidized (small and dense) LDL particles, can be a good predictor of inflammation and cardiovascular risk. However, high total cholesterol, with high HDL and fluffy and benign LDL, is actually protective for the body.

And, finally, the last article I’ll share with you today is comparing the sugar content of fruit juice and sugar.

Sound familiar? Scroll back a few months on my blog and you’ll see a post I had detailing how drinking orange juice is the same as drinking a coke, taking a fiber pill, and a multivitamin. Well, now the mainstream is coming around!

I always stay open to new information, and love to learn when I’m wrong, because it means I’m learning something new…but I do have to pat myself (and my “nutrition guru” peers) on the back occasionally.

Not that staying more up-to-date on research and delving into biological and chemical mechanisms more often than CNN, New York Times, and NPR is any amazing feet – things only make the news when there’s a catchy headline, photo, or agenda!

Well, I hope these 3 articles were interesting and helped provide just a few more reasons to move away from a diet based on processed foods and towards a lifestyle based around nature.

See you next week!