Guest Blog: Standardizing portions could help stem the obesity epidemic

/in , , , , , , , , /by

By Deborah A. Cohen, MD, MPH

The past few decades have seen dramatic changes in the food environment and food behaviors, all resulting in the epidemics of obesity and diet-related chronic diseases.  About 72% of American adults are overweight or obese and more than half have diet-related chronic diseases. Our research shows that the food environment actually encourages people to eat impulsively and markets twice as much food as people need to maintain a healthy weight.  Our diets are largely influenced by the relative supply and availability of different food products, by marketing, and by other factors we aren’t even aware of.1-3  Restaurants are among the largest risk factors for a poor diet.

Here’s a rather shocking statistic: most Americans dine out between 4-5x per week and, on average, spend 55% of all their food dollars on meals and snacks away from home.4,5  The problem is that away-from-home meals are often inferior in nutritional quality to meals prepared at home – they tend to be higher in salt, fat, and calories, and lower in fruit, vegetables, and whole grains; they also typically include 2-3 times more calories than we need to maintain a healthy weight.6,7  Indeed, portion sizes have been increasing substantially over the past three decades.8

When people dine away from home, their ability to control portion sizes, and thus caloric intake, is limited. Studies demonstrate that we all eat more when we are served more. 9,10   As portion size increases, calories go up. The results are stunning:  Laboratory based studies in both adults,11,12 and children13,14 show that when larger portion sizes are served, calories go up as much as 30% with no differences in self-reported hunger.  So eating out – which we do a lot more than we used to – is a major contributor to weight gain and increases the risk of obesity and chronic diseases.6 Multiple studies support the association between frequency of meals consumed in restaurants and the risk for overweight.15-18

My research looks at how portion sizes can be made transparent and predictable with the hope that this would have an enormous benefit for America’s obesity crisis. Smaller, standardized portions are a practical and feasible solution to help stem the obesity epidemic.

Portion control has also proven to be an effective measure to reduce the amount – and therefore the harm – of alcohol consumption.19,20 Alcoholic beverages are classified by the percentage of alcohol content and the U.S. government defines a standard drink as containing 0.6 oz. of alcohol. Standard drink sizes are 12 ounces for a standard beer, 5 ounces for a glass of wine, and 1.5 ounce shot of 80 proof spirits.  These standard portion sizes allow us to measure a standard drink and to limit the risk of inebriation. Many states mandate that alcohol be served in standard portions; twelve states also require that larger portions of alcohol carry a higher price.21  Applying these principles to food could be an enormous aid, since people are not reliably able to judge what constitutes an appropriate individual portion just by looks.22-24 Standard portions are also a necessity for medications.  Many consider food as “medicine”, so applying portion standards to food is a natural extension that could improve health outcomes. That was our goal.

Piloting the Solution: Standardized Portions

Under a National Institutes of Health funded planning grant, my colleagues and I  developed guidelines for standard portions .  With input and guidance from an advisory board composed of nationally recognized nutrition researchers, we set calorie limits for meals at 700 calories each for lunch and dinner, 500 calories for breakfast and 200 calories for snacks.  We separated meal components into appetizers (150 calories), soups (150 calories), dressings and salads (150 calories), plain entrees (200 calories) for breakfast, lunch and dinner, mixed entrees (350 calories), non-starchy sides (100 calories), starchy sides (150 calories), beverages and desserts (100 calories).25

We conducted a pilot study with three local restaurants in Southern California. We incentivized these establishments to create an alternative menu to their usual offerings, providing meals in quantities that met the above caloric guidelines. We offered restaurants a $2000 participation fee as well as paying for all the costs of the menu development and printing, and purchasing gift cards to offer customers as part of the evaluation. The restaurants created new “Balanced Portions” menus, which included 6-8 items from their regular menu. The meals were not intended for weight loss purposes, but are only designed to prevent unintended overconsumption.

We began our pilot project by  asking restaurant managers to identify which menu items were the most popular. The project did not change any preparation or recipes. Not surprisingly, even though we would be reducing the quantity of some items served and increasing the quantity of others, none of the restaurants were interested in reducing the price of any item for offering less.

One restaurant did not want to change the price or the quantity, we plated the calorically set portions and then had them pack the remaining food for carry out.   (see Figure 1, top menu.) When we measured the original food quantities, in most cases the amounts served were double the guidelines for a single meal, so leftovers were sufficient for a second meal. The meal was marketed as “Dinner today, Lunch tomorrow”.

The other two pilot restaurants were not interested in packing up extra food, so they created an alternative menu by selecting menu items that already met the guidelines. The owners came up with new prices comparable to other selections on the menu. At yet another restaurant, the regular menu only included entrees and sides, so to get variety, people needed to order several large dishes. The new menu allowed people to get variety with one order. In all cases we requested that each meal contain at least one cup of vegetables. We piloted this with 3 restaurants: First Szechuan Wok, Dave’s Deli & Catering, and Delhi Belly. (Figure 1)

Once we verified the quantity of food to be plated as a serving size, we sent the meals out for calorimetry (measures calories) to verify that the calories would be <700.  All the meals met the criteria. We then held a training session for restaurant staff and provided written guidelines on food to be plated for each menu item. We provided restaurants with measuring cups and kitchen scales so they could meet the guidelines. The plates were full, as we generally increased the quantity of vegetables and reduced the quantity of meats and starchy sides. The restaurants all passed the training session.

Feedback from Customers. Once the menus were launched and made accessible to patrons, we invited customers to provide feedback on the menus and their experience and offered them gift cards from the restaurant for their participation, whether or not they ordered from the Balanced Portions Menu.

Overall, the feedback on the alternative Balanced Portions menus from customers was positive. We conducted in-person and phone interviews with 33 customers (56% ordered from the Balanced Portions menu) who dined at one of the three restaurants. Findings from the one-on-one interviews revealed that 16 of the 18 customers who ordered from the Balanced Portions expressed satisfaction with their meals and shared that they “would love” to see Balanced Portion menus offered at other restaurants. In addition, the availability of Balanced Portions menu may help them reduce food waste, maintain healthy eating habits, and meet recommended dietary guidelines. Interestingly, among those who ordered from the regular menu, one participant described the portions as “very generous” and more than half reported going home with leftovers.

However, some of the interviewees expressed concerns regarding cost and thought lowering the prices and offering more Balanced Portion menu options may encourage more people to opt for standardized portions. Some participants thought eliminating to-go options and offering smaller portions at lower prices would be most  appealing.

Adherence to Portion Sizes. We also assigned a research assistant (RA) to be a “secret shopper.” The RA ordered Balanced Portions meals to-go and then carefully measured each component with measuring cups and kitchen scales to determine adherence to the guidelines previously issued. In all but one case, the restaurants were adherent to the guidelines. At Delhi Belly they did give a little extra rice, and we advised the owner to be serve a bit less rice.

Conclusion: Our results were very promising.  We concluded that it is highly feasible for restaurants to offer meals with standard portions that reduce the risk of overconsumption, overweight and obesity associated with dining out. We also concluded that we will need more attention to the issue of Balanced Portions menus over time to inform future rollouts at a national level.  Furthermore, understanding the impact on customer attitudes and behavior will provide critical insights into how to scale this in the future. This research is a rewarding and promising first step, full of opportunities to effectively address the obesity crisis and its connection to eating food outside of home.

  1. Milliman RE. Using background music to affect the behavior of supermarket shoppers. Journal of Marketing. 1982;46(3):86-91.
  2. Milliman RE. The influence of background music on the behavior of restaurant patrons. Journal of Consumer Research. 1986;13(2):286-289.
  3. Curhan RC. The relationship between shelf space and unit sales in supermarkets. Journal of Marketing Research. 1972;9:406-412.
  4. Kant AK, Whitley MI, Graubard BI. Away from home meals: associations with biomarkers of chronic disease and dietary intake in American adults, NHANES 2005-2010. Int J Obes (Lond). 2015;39(5):820-827.10.1038/ijo.2014.183
  5. Saksena MJ, Okrent AM, Anekwe TD, et al. America’s Eating Habits: Food Away From Home. In. Wash, DC: USDA; 2018:https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/90228/eib-90196_summary.pdf?v=98073.90222
  6. Lin BH, Frazao E. Away-from-home foods increasingly important to quality of American diet. ERS/USDA. 1999;http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AIB749/.
  7. Rosenheck R. A systematic review of a trajectory towards weight gain and obesity risk. Obes Rev. 2008;9(6):535-547.
  8. Nielsen SJ, Popkin BM. Patterns and trends in food portion sizes, 1977-1998. JAMA. 2003;289(4):450-453.
  9. Rolls BJ, Roe LS, Meengs JS. Larger portion sizes lead to a sustained increase in energy intake over 2 days. J Am Diet Assoc. 2006;106(4):543-549. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=16567150
  10. Diliberti N, Bordi PL, Conklin MT, Roe LS, Rolls BJ. Increased portion size leads to increased energy intake in a restaurant meal. Obes Res. 2004;12(3):562-568. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=15044675
  11. Rolls BJ, Morris EL, Roe LS. Portion size of food affects energy intake in normal-weight and overweight men and women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2002;76(6):1207-1213. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=12450884
  12. Kral TV, Roe LS, Rolls BJ. Combined effects of energy density and portion size on energy intake in women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;79(6):962-968. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=15159224
  13. Rolls BJ, Engell D, Birch LL. Serving portion size influences 5-year-old but not 3-year-old children’s food intakes. Journal of American Dietetic Association. 2000;100:232-234.
  14. McConahy KL, Smiciklas-Wright H, Birch LL, Mitchell DC, Picciano MF. Food portions are positively related to energy intake and body weight in early childhood. . Journal of Pediatrics. 2002;140:340-347.
  15. Ayala GX, Rogers M, Arredondo EM, Campbell NR, Baquero B, Duerksen SC, Elder JP. Away-from-home food intake and risk for obesity: examining the influence of context. Obesity (Silver Spring, Md). 2008;16(5):1002-1008. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cmedm&AN=18309297&site=ehost-live
  16. McCrory MA, Fuss PJ, Hays NP, Vinken AG, Greenberg AS, Roberts SB. Overeating in America: association between restaurant food consumption and body fatness in healthy adult men and women ages 19 to 80. Obes Res. 1999;7(6):564-571.
  17. Jeffery RW, French SA. Epidemic obesity in the United States: are fast foods and television viewing contributing? Am J Public Health. 1998;88(2):277-280.
  18. Hornick BA, Krester AJ, Nicklas TA. Menu modeling with MyPyramid food patterns: incremental dietary changes lead to dramatic improvements in diet quality of menus. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008;108(12):2077-2083. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cmedm&AN=19027412&site=ehost-live
  19. Voas RB, Fell JC. Preventing alcohol-related problems through health policy research. Alcohol Research & Health. 2010;33(1-2):18-28. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2010-23622-003&site=ehost-live
  20. Anderson P, Chisholm D, Fuhr DC. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of policies and programmes to reduce the harm caused by alcohol. Lancet. 2009;373(9682):2234-2246. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cmedm&AN=19560605&site=ehost-live
  21. NHTSA. Preventing Over-consumption of Alcohol – Sales to the Intoxicated and “Happy Hour” (Drink Special) Laws http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/PIREWeb/images/2240PIERFINAL.pdf. 2005.
  22. Levitsky DA, Obarzanek E, Mrdjenovic G, Strupp BJ. Imprecise control of energy intake: absence of a reduction in food intake following overfeeding in young adults. Physiol Behav. 2005;84(5):669-675. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=15885242
  23. Levitsky DA, Youn T. The more food young adults are served, the more they overeat. J Nutr. 2004;134(10):2546-2549. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=15465745
  24. Wansink B, Painter JE, North J. Bottomless bowls: why visual cues of portion size may influence intake. Obes Res. 2005;13(1):93-100. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=15761167
  25. Cohen DA, Story M, Economos C, Ty D, Martin S, Estrada E. Guidelines for Standard Portions in Away-From-Home Settings In:2023.

Debunking the myth of prepared foods being cheaper and healthier

/in , , , /by

By Ryan Barhoush, Food and Nutrition Program Associate

As we finish the holiday season (maybe a few pounds heavier) and get ready to put in place our New Year’s Resolutions, we recommend making one of them NOT buying prepared foods. and Instead, commit to cooking up healthier, cheaper, and quicker meals from scratch. With minimal shopping and prep time, we can all feed ourselves and our families with healthier options. Let’s debunk a few of these prepared food myths.

Myth 1. It takes too much time to shop for healthy food 

Grocery stores in the U.S. can be overwhelming, and we all feel the stress of walking into these sometimes exceptionally large stores, but do not be intimidated!  You can easily tackle the task of shopping quickly and efficiently with some practice and shopping discipline. In fact, if you do it right, you can be in and out of the store in 20-30 minutes with a healthy grocery basket full of food for you and your family. Here is how:

  • Make a shopping list and stick to it
  • Shop online and get your groceries delivered, or
  • Identify your favorite grocery store, get to know where products are and get in and out efficiently.

Myth 2. Prepared and frozen foods have the same nutritional value as a home cooked meal.

Prepared frozen meals are loaded with sodium and sugar; home cooked meals typically have much lower levels of both, thus are healthier and more nutritional.

Let’s compare some labels to prove it.  Start with one of most popular frozen food items, pizza. We looked at the Red Baron brand and compared its nutritional content to a standard meal of baked chicken, broccoli, and potatoes.

The results are staggering. One slice of the pizza contains 810 mg of sodium. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans  recommends adults limit sodium intake to less than 2,300 mg per day—that’s equal to about 1 teaspoon of table salt!  For children under age 14, recommended limits are even lower.

So, one slice of pizza is one-third of the total recommended daily intake. High sodium in prepared foods contributes to the hypertension epidemic in the U.S. Nearly half of adults in the United States (47%, or 116 million) have hypertension, defined as a systolic blood pressure greater than 130 mmHg or a diastolic blood pressure greater than 80 mmHg according to the CDC. Hypertension can lead to stroke, heart attack and other serious illnesses.

Red Baron’s Frozen Pizza Roasted Chicken with Potatoes and Broccoli
One serving of Red Baron’s is 380 calories per slice!

 

 Amount per serving 353 calories
39g of carbohydrates

 

 29g of carbohydrates
18g of Total fat

 

  8g of Total fat

 
45mg of cholesterol

 

  89mg of cholesterol

 
810mg of sodium per slice* 106mg of sodium

 
* That’s 3240 mg of sodium per pizza! Almost 1000 mg over the daily recommended limit!

 

Myth 3. It takes too much time to cook healthy meals for myself or my family. 

Meal prep can be amazingly fast, efficient, and fun! There are many websites with healthy meals that can be prepared in 5-10 minutes, with cooking times of 30 minutes or less. For example, this one: “The best meal of the day doesn’t have to take your whole day!  I have compiled a list of 25 easy weeknight dinners to get you in and out of the kitchen in a flash.”  

Myth 4. Prepared frozen foods are cheaper than shopping and cooking my own food.  

Wegmans and other grocery stores have suggestions for affordable nutritious meals, as low as $2.75 a serving. Each 20.6 oz. Baron Frozen Pizza costs from $4.99-6.25 plus tax and includes four servings. But if you look at the label closely, each serving is one piece of pizza and that is an unrealistic serving size for an adult’s meal. Let’s say one pizza feeds two people, that doesn’t include anything else besides the pizza, such as salad or other side dishes. That is at least $2.50 – $5 a person. Already the frozen prepared food option is more expensive than a tofu dinner with vegetables or a chicken dinner with potatoes and broccoli.

Another great place to find affordable, filling, healthy and easy recipes is the Delish website. The internet is full of great suggestions but stay away from sites that suggest using canned soups or packaged or frozen prepared foods, because they are often filled with elevated levels of sodium, sugar, and fat.

Myth 5. I only have a microwave, I do not have a kitchen, or the right kind of cooking utensils.

Do not be discouraged. With the unbelievable amount of cooking videos on social media you would think you would need a commercial kitchen just to have a normal healthy meal. Today with just a microwave you can still make many healthy meals. Check this out: 20 Easy to Cook Microwave recipes.

Also, electric stove tops are a terrific addition to any household. Even without a kitchen, just a few pots and pans and some YouTube videos; you could be well on your way to being a kitchen-less chef! Dried fruits and nuts are easy and healthy snacks that you do not have to store in the fridge. Apples and pears are great fresh fruit that do not need to be refrigerated.

As you can see, there are many ways to avoid processed foods and create healthy meals at a reasonable price. Here are a few links we include to create healthy, fast home-cooked meals that are reasonably priced. Plus, cooking for your family is fun and an effective way to get everyone together around the table. Good luck, eat healthy and enjoy!

Food safety tips this holiday season

/in , , , , /by

By Ryan Barhoush, Food and Nutrition Program Associate

As we are gearing up for this upcoming holiday season, food safety  is something important to keep in mind. If this is your first time or even your 20th being the Thanksgiving head chef, it is always good to review some simple safety tips in the kitchen. There is nothing worse than getting your relatives sick…unless that is the only way to get your uncle to stop talking about politics at the table. Just kidding, of course. Here are some food safety recommendations from National Consumers League for Turkey Day tomorrow. Happy Holidays!

Roasting a Turkey this year? Don’t be intimidated but keep these ideas in mind.

  • Keep poultry separated from other items in the fridge.
  • If brining a turkey, make sure it is properly secured or in a cooler away from your other food items. Be careful of spillage or drippings from contaminating other items.
  • If thawing a frozen turkey in the fridge, allow about 24 hours for each 4 to 5 pounds of Turkey
  • Never thaw a turkey by just laying it out on the counter, this could lead to bacteria growth, even if it is frozen.
  • You can thaw in cold water, keep it in a bag to prevent contamination, and change the water every 30 minutes. It takes about 30 minutes per pound to defrost a frozen turkey.
  • Remember to wash your hands before and after handling the turkey. Every time!
  • Use separate cutting boards and scrub with warm, soapy water after use.
  • Use a thermometer and make sure your turkey has an internal temperature of 165 degrees.

Frying a turkey? Don’t be scared but be aware of the risks!

  • Never leave oil unattended, even a small amount of oil reaching a lit flame can cause a large fire.
  • Make sure your turkey is dry and completely thawed! Pat dry the inside and the outside of the turkey. Any kind of moisture can cause combustion when in contact with oil.
  • Do not overfill the fryer with oil. Pre-test the oil levels with something in the same weight range as your turkey.
  • Always fry a turkey outside, away from the house, and on level surfaces.
  • Keep children and animals away from the fryer, even after use, as oil can remain hot for hours.
  • Remember that the sides and handles will be dangerously hot.
  • Have an all-purpose fire extinguisher nearby.

Besides the turkey, here are few more things to keep your eye on in the kitchen.

  • Be mindful of the “danger zone”. Bacteria and germs can grow rapidly between 40 and 140 degrees.
  • Keep warm food with warm food and cold food with cold food!
  • Don’t leave out any food past two hours
  • Don’t put warm leftovers away in the fridge
  • Follow these steps and enjoy a safe and Happy Thanksgiving!
Nancy Glick

At last: FDA is updating the definition of a “healthy” food

/in , , , , , , /by

Nancy GlickBy Nancy Glick, Director of Food and Nutrition Policy

It is rare when new regulations from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warrant a song. But borrowing a phrase from Sam Cooke, FDA’s recent proposed rule changing the meaning of the term “healthy” has been a long time coming – 28 years to be exact. Yet, as the song goes “a change is gonna come.”

Why is this a good thing? Simply put, the term “healthy” is out-of-date, both with the state of nutrition science today and with the latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans, recommendations from experts on what to eat and drink to meet nutrient needs, promote health, and prevent disease.

Going back to 1994 when FDA’s old definition of “healthy” went into effect, the agency focused on individual nutrients in a food, not the actual foods we eat. Accordingly, foods now qualify as “healthy” if they are low in total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol and sodium and must contain a significant amount of fiber and at least two additional beneficial nutrients such as vitamins A, C, D, calcium, iron, protein, or potassium. This covers about 5 percent of foods, including white bread, highly sweetened yogurt, and sugary cereals.

The problem is that many healthy foods do not qualify for the use of a “healthy” claim based on FDA’s outdated standards. This includes avocados, nuts, seeds, olive oil, and salmon because they are high in fats now known to be heart healthy. And right now, plain, non-carbonated water and plain, carbonated water cannot be labeled as “healthy,” which makes no sense.

These absurdities have been apparent to consumer organizations for decades, but the impetus for change was the introduction of the KIND bar in 2015. KIND advertised its bars as healthy because they contain whole foods like nuts and grains, but because the nuts have more fat than what FDA now allows for a “healthy” claim, the agency sent a warning letter about the use of the claim.  When KIND responded with a Citizen Petition that documented the healthfulness of nuts, FDA permitted KIND to use the term “healthy” and issued a proposed rule change in 2016, signaling its intention to revise the definition.

At the same time, nutrition science has evolved over 28 years. Not only is it clear that not all fats and carbohydrates are the same but getting the nutrients needed for a healthy diet result from making food choices based on healthy dietary patterns. This understanding is especially noteworthy because more than 80 percent of Americans consume too much added sugars, saturated fat and sodium but aren’t eating enough vegetables, fruit and dairy, according to the Dietary Guidelines for America, 2020-2025.

Based on these developments, FDA’s proposed rule will do away with counting individual nutrients in a food. Instead, FDA’s plan is to define the term “healthy” on food packaging based on two criteria:

  1. The product must contain a certain “meaningful amount” of food from at least one of the food groups recommended by the Dietary Guidelines, such as fruits, vegetables, or dairy; and
  2. The food must stay within specified limits for certain ingredients, such as saturated fat, sodium and added sugar, based on a percent of the Daily Value (DV) of the nutrient. This includes a limit for sodium of 230 milligrams (mg) per day, or 10 percent of DV per serving – an important action by itself since Americans on average consume 50 percent more sodium per day than is recommended in the Dietary Guidelines.

The proposed rule is also consistent with recent changes to the Nutrition Facts label. For example, the Nutrition Facts label must now declare added sugars to help people maintain healthy dietary practices.

Applying these criteria, a cereal could only carry a “healthy” claim if contained ¾ ounces of whole grains and no more than 1 gram of saturated fat, 230 milligrams of sodium and 2.5 grams of added sugars. This would disqualify almost all breakfast cereals now marketed to children.

To help make the new “healthy” claim meaningful for consumers, the FDA is also researching a symbol that food manufacturers can use on the front of the package. The symbol would act as a quick signal that the food contributes to a healthy dietary pattern and is part of a labeling system the National Consumers League has long supported.

FDA’s proposed rule addresses several of NCL’s food policy issues. For many years, we have been pressing for a new definition of the term “healthy” that aligns with the latest nutrition science and we support a “Traffic Light” symbol to depict “healthy” foods on the front of the package. We also have been at the forefront in pressing for ways to lower excess sodium in the diet.

But while we believe FDA’s plan is a significant step forward for consumers, there are still some shortcomings. Although the Dietary Guidelines call on consumers to limit calories from added sugars and fats, FDA’s proposed rule fails to consider calorie limits.

Moreover, the new rules won’t stop “healthy” products from being loaded with artificial colors and will have the unintended consequence of incentivizing food processors to replace natural sugar with questionable artificial sweeteners and sugar alcohols without disclosing these ingredients. Even as NCL has advocated for a modernized definition of the term “healthy,” we have been supporting a Citizen Petition to ensure transparent labeling of substitute sweeteners, which have surged in use by more than 300 percent in the last five years and can produce digestive effects. The Citizen Petition asks FDA to add the term “sweetener” in parentheses after the name of all non-nutritive sweeteners in the ingredient list, and for children’s food and beverages, to indicate the type and quantity of non-nutritive sweeteners, in milligrams per serving, on the front of food packages.

FDA published its proposed rule, Food Labeling: Nutrient Content Claims; Definition of Term “Healthy,” in the Federal Register on September 29, 2022, and is encouraging anyone interested in the topic to submit written comments by December 22. NCL plans to use this opportunity to ensure the consumer’s voice is heard and to offer solutions that will advance better food and beverage choices. We all have a stake in labeling claims that are science-based and ensure that consumers have access to more complete, accurate, and up-to-date information about the foods they consume and serve their families.

National Consumers League releases its Top Food and Nutrition Policy Priorities for 2022

/in , , , , , /by

July 20, 2022

Media contact: National Consumers League – Katie Brown, katie@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC – At a time of significant change in the food industry, the National Consumers League (NCL) today released a food policy agenda to improve food safety, reduce sodium in the diet, achieve better portion control, increase transparency in food and beverage labeling, and promote a more sustainable food system. Additionally, NCL is calling for a national strategy to ensure there will be an ample supply of safe infant formula products in the US along with aggressive regulatory oversight.

“Currently, over 335 million people live in the US, and all are consumers who deserve to be represented in the regulation of the foods and beverages they consume and serve to their families,” said Sally Greenberg, NCL’s Executive Director. “Especially now when technology is changing food production, food safety protocols, and the composition of novel and reformulated foods and beverages, NCL will speak for consumers on strengthening the food safety system, filling the gaps in food labeling, alleviating food insecurity, and reducing food waste.”

Addressing serious food safety lapses and areas where regulation has not caught up to changes in food production, manufacturing, and market trends, NCL’s agenda concentrates on 11 priorities where education and changes in public policy will have a direct and positive impact on the American public:

1. Strengthen the Food Safety System

As the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) moves forward with its New Era of Smarter Food Safety Blueprint, NCL will press FDA to finalize its Food Traceability Proposed Rule, enabling rapid traceback to the source of a contaminated food. Similarly, NCL will stress the need for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to modernize poultry safety rules and update food safety rules, such as expanded pathogen testing in meat and poultry products and updated safe handling instructions label for these products.

2. Ensure the Safety and Availability of Infant Formula

The critical shortage of infant formula in the U.S. requires a national strategy to ensure there will be an ample supply of safe infant formula products in the US along with aggressive regulatory oversight of the safety protocols at U.S. manufacturing facilities. NCL will also advocate for policies that increase the number of companies manufacturing infant formula, and changes in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program that allow for more flexibility in the range of infant formula products available through WIC.

3. Make Alcohol Facts Labeling Mandatory

Since 2003, NCL and the Center for Science in the Public Interest have taken the lead in pressing the federal agency that regulates most alcoholic beverages – the Treasury Department’s Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) – to issue rules requiring an easy-to-read, standardized “Alcohol Facts” label on all beer, wine and distilled spirits products. Because this

labeling now appears on hard ciders, wine coolers, certain beers and other products regulated by the FDA, NCL, CSPI and the public health community are stepping up the fight to make mandatory alcohol labeling a reality.

4. Reduce Excess Sodium in the Diet

Because Americans on average consume 50 percent more sodium per day than is recommended, NCL will continue to raise awareness of the goal set by FDA to lower sodium intake to 2,300 milligrams (mg) per day and encourage consumers to use the Nutrition Facts label to choose products with less sodium, reduced sodium or no sodium added.

5. Require Labeling of Caffeine Content

While FDA considers 400 mg of caffeine per day as the amount not generally associated with dangerous side effects, the agency only requires food labels to disclose whether there is added caffeine in the food or beverage, not the total amount. Therefore, NCL is calling for new policy requiring all products containing caffeine to list the amount of caffeine per serving and per container.

6. Ensure Transparency in the Labeling of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives

In June 2022, NCL released a new report, Education and Transparency in Labeling Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: A Consumer-Focused Agenda to Improve Understanding and Decision-Making of Plant-Based Meats, which lays out seven priorities for regulatory action, including the requirement that labels on PBMAs are standardized and clarify the protein source and that nutrition/health claims for these products undergo FDA review and are supported by available scientific evidence. 

7. Improve the Labeling of Alternative Sweeteners

Although NCL applauds FDA’s decision to include “Added Sugars” on the recently updated Nutrition Facts Label, the organization supports a Citizen Petition to ensure transparent labeling of substitute sweeteners and is urging FDA to stop misleading claims, such as “No Added Sugars” and “Zero Sugar,” that imply the product is healthier than the original without disclosing that the sugar reduction resulted from reformulating with artificial substances and sugar alcohols. 

8. Modernize Food Standards of Identity

Because many “standards of identity” – recipes for what a food product must contain and how it is manufactured – are now 75 and even 80 years old and out of date, NCL supports FDA’s action plan to modernize food standards of identity. However, NCL urges FDA to focus on several food products where updating SOIs will lead to healthier offerings, such as olive oil, Greek yogurt, and canned tuna.

9. Improve Federal Nutrition Education and Food Labeling Policies by Elevating the Role of Portion Control and Balanced Food Choices, Revising the Definition of “Healthy,” and Developing Uniform Front of Pack Nutrition Rating Symbols

NCL is implementing a three-phased strategy to improve nutrition education and food labeling policies, which entails: 1) education and advocacy that emphasizes portion control and ensures consumers know the recommended daily intake of calories is 2,000 per day, 2) furthering FDA’s efforts to define the term “heathy” on food labels by addressing if and how added sugar content is calculated; and 3) encouraging FDA to adopt a “Traffic Light” labeling system to depict “healthy” foods on the front of the package.

10. Increase Funding and Access to Federal Nutrition Programs

NCL’s advocacy to enhance the Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program (SNAP) during the COVID-19 pandemic helped to increase access to healthy food to people in need. Now, NCL is working with partners to broaden the public health impact of SNAP by reducing the eligibility requirements, strengthening the nutritional goal for SNAP and providing incentives for healthier foods sold in retail establishments.

11. Reduce the Amount of Food Waste

Because about 90 billion pounds of food goes uneaten every year in the US, NCL is working to help the nation meet the goal of reducing food waste by 50 percent by 2030. As such, we will continue working with USDA, FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to raise awareness of food loss and waste and inform consumers of how they can reduce food waste in their homes.

###

 

About the National Consumers League (NCL) 

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

A New Patient-Centered Action Agenda calls for people with obesity to have the same rights and access to care as people with other chronic diseases

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

July 7, 2022

Media contact: National Consumers League – Katie Brown, katie@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC— The National Consumers League (NCL) today released A New Patient-Centered Obesity Action Agenda: Changing the Trajectory of Obesity Through Patient Empowerment, Health Professional Intervention and Supportive Government Policies, a new report with a blueprint to change how Americans think about obesity, empower people with obesity to get the best care, and afford those with obesity the same access to care as adults with other serious chronic diseases.

Issued as a call to action, the report was prepared in consultation with a panel of leading obesity specialists as a roadmap for overcoming one of the difficult challenges affecting US adults now living with obesity: despite significant advances in the understanding and treatment of obesity, only 10 percent of people with obesity get help from medical professionals,[1] meaning the disease remains largely undiagnosed and undertreated. Accordingly, only 30 million[2] of the estimated 108 million adults living with obesity[3] have been diagnosed with the disease and only around 2 percent of those eligible for anti-obesity medications have been prescribed these drugs.[4]

The consequences of undertreatment affect virtually every aspect of the healthcare system. Obesity not only has a negative impact on almost every aspect of health and well-being, but it worsens the outcomes of over 230 obesity-related chronic diseases, from type 2 diabetes and heart disease to some forms of cancer.[5] Accordingly, obesity is responsible for an approximately 300,000 premature deaths each year[6] deaths and costs the U.S. economy an estimated $1.72 trillion annually in direct and indirect costs.[7]

“Although obesity is one of today’s most visible public health problems, it is often ignored and discounted as a serious disease, resulting in a health crisis that has only worsened with time,” said
Sally Greenberg, NCL’s Executive Director. “This report focuses attention on the numerous public perception, provider and policy-related factors that preclude Americans with overweight and obesity from getting effective treatment and must be addressed if obesity outcomes are to improve in the US.”

To change the trajectory of the obesity epidemic, the report calls for a national mobilization to overcome the “human” factors– incorrect beliefs about the cause and treatment of obesity, prejudice towards people due to their size, lack of training for health providers, access barriers, and outdated government policies – that continue to prevent Americans from seeking and obtaining obesity care. Towards this end, NCL’s patient-centered action agenda identifies nine priorities for action:

  1. Redefine Obesity for the American Public as a Treatable Chronic Disease

Although the American Medical Association classifies obesity as a chronic disease requiring treatment, three-quarters of Americans believe obesity results from a lack of willpower. Thus, redefining obesity as a treatable chronic condition will provide a new context for health providers and patients to have a positive discussion about weight, leading to more people getting diagnosed and treated.

  1. Adopt Patient-First Language for Obesity

Unlike other chronic diseases where health professionals use people-first language that puts a person before a diagnosis, practitioners routinely use terms to describe obesity that can be off-putting and demoralizing. To change this situation, the National Consumers supports the agenda of the People-First Initiative launched by the Obesity Action Coalition, which advocates for widespread adoption of people-first language by practitioners in all healthcare settings.

  1. Make Combatting Weight Stigma a National Priority

Studies show that 40 percent of healthcare professionals –physicians, nurses, dietitians, psychologists and medical students – admit to having negative reactions based on a person’s size.[8]Addressing this pervasive problem requires a unified national initiative that makes the impact of weight stigma “real” for clinicians and the public and disseminates the latest information to health providers on strategies to reduce weight stigma.

  1. Elevate the Need for Physician Training in Obesity

A recent study of 40 US medical schools finds that 30 percent of these institutions provide little or no education in nutrition and obesity interventions while one third of schools reported no obesity education programs in place.[9] These findings underscore the urgency for US medical schools to change their priorities and develop curricula that comprehensively addresses the disease of obesity.

  1. Establish Excess Weight as a Vital Sign

Besides body temperature, blood pressure, heart rate and respiration, health providers routinely measure height and weight at each visit. Thus, if healthcare professionals were to calculate and provide patients with their Body Mass Index (BMI) at the time of the office visit, practitioners could have a tool to discuss excess weight when patients are most receptive to discussing their health status.  It is recognized that BMI is a crude measure and not the sole predictor of obesity but when combined with patient-friendly information that explains the level of weight and options for treatment, this interaction could initiate a positive, respectful conversation about obesity care.

  1. Provide the Tools for a Doctor-Patient Dialogue on Excess Weight

A major reason primary care providers (PCPs) are reluctant to provide obesity counseling is the lack of informational tools to have conversations with patients about their weight status and care options. Therefore, a unified effort to make available to PCPs evidence-based, patient-friendly content on obesity will facilitate a better dialogue between clinicians and patients and promote shared decision-making.

  1. Establish Coverage of Obesity as a Standard Benefit Across Insurers and Health Plans

Although employers and insurers are starting to cover treatment options for obesity in employee benefit packages, too many people continue to be denied coverage or face access barriers, such as step therapy and prior authorization, that delay treatment. Improving obesity outcomes therefore requires supporting legislative efforts, like the “Safe Step Act” that would require group health plans to provide an exception process for step-therapy protocols. It also necessitates collaboration among payers, providers, policymakers, and advocates to establish a standard, affordable benefit for the prevention and treatment of obesity that applies across plan types and payers.

  1. End Outdated Medicare Rules That Exclude Coverage for Necessary Obesity Care

Today, the many millions of Americans enrolled in the Medicare program are denied safe and effective obesity treatment due to outdated Medicare Part D rules that exclude coverage for FDA-approved obesity drugs and Medicare Part B policies that places undue restrictions on intensive behavioral therapy by allowing only primary care providers to deliver IBT and severely restricting the physical locations where this care can occur. Congress has the power to change this situation, which is why NCL has joined with the obesity, public health and nutrition communities is pressing for swift passage of the Treat and Reduce Obesity Act (TROA). The proposed legislation would expand Medicare coverage to allow access to IBT from a diverse range of healthcare providers while ending the exclusion for new anti-obesity medications that are improving the standard of care for adult Americans with obesity.

  1. Create a Patients’ Bill of Rights for People with Obesity

For too long, people with obesity have been stigmatized, discriminated against, and have faced significant hurdles and burdensome requirements to receive care. Changing this situation will require giving people with obesity the knowledge, skills and confidence to be advocates for their best obesity care. Therefore, NCL’s patient-centered obesity action agenda calls for the creation of a Patients’ Bill of Rights for People with Obesity based on the recognition that obesity is a treatable disease and everyone with obesity deserves the same level of attention and care as those with other chronic conditions.

###

About the Report

To prepare the report, NCL partnered with the Obesity Care Advocacy Network (OCAN) to host a roundtable discussion in December 2021where public health specialists, leading professional societies, the minority health field and the obesity policy community assessed the state of the science on obesity today, the scope and cost of the disease in the US and the major barriers impeding quality obesity care with special attention to the “human” obstacles that keep people with obesity from seeking or obtaining treatment. Additionally, NCL conducted a literature review to gather additional insights, especially regarding how to change how people with obesity see themselves, so they become empowered to advocate for their care as patients with a chronic disease. Based on this assessment, NCL drafted the report, which was vetted by experts participating in the roundtable, and developed the policy recommendations included in the Patient-Centered Obesity Action Agenda.

 

About the National Consumers League (NCL) 

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

 

[1] Stokes A, et al. Prevalence and Determinants of Engagement with Obesity Care in the United States. Obesity. Vol. 26, Issue 5; May 2018, 814-818

[2] PharMetrics-Ambulatory EMR database, 2018. Novo Nordisk Inc.

[3] Hales CM,, et al. Prevalence of Obesity and Severe Obesity Among Adults: United States, 2017-2018. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. NCHS Data Brief. No. 360. February 2020.

[4] PharMetrics-Ambulatory EMR database, 2018. Novo Nordisk Inc.

[5] Obesity Care Advocacy Network. Fact Sheet: Obesity Care Beyond Weight Loss

[6] Allison DB, et al. Annual deaths attributable to obesity in the United States JAMA 1999Oct 27 282(16)1530–8.

[7] Milken Institute (October 2018), “America’s Obesity Crisis: The Health and Economic Costs of Excess Weight.”

[8] Fruh SM, et al. Obesity Stigma and Bias. J Nurse Pract. 2016 Jul-Aug; 12(7): 425–432.

[9] Butch WS, et al. Low priority of obesity education leads to lack of medical student’ preparedness to effectively treat patients with obesity; results from the U.S. medical school obesity education benchmark study. BMC Med Educ 20, 23 (2020)

Consumers need transparency in labeling of plant-based meat alternatives

/in , , , , , , /by

Agenda-Setting Report Identifies Seven Priorities for Regulatory Action

June 9, 2022

Media contact: National Consumers League – Katie Brown, katie@nclnet.org, (202) 207-2832

Washington, DC – As more plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) that closely mimic the look, taste, and cooking properties of traditional meat products enter the U.S. market almost daily, the National Consumers League (NCL) today released a report with seven priorities for regulatory action to ensure that labels of so-called “meatless meats” readily identify the protein source and inform consumers of the nutritional composition of each PBMA product.

Issued as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is developing draft guidance for food manufacturers on the labeling of plant-based milks and alternatives to animal-derived foods,
the report underscores the importance of consumer-focused labeling to sustain the growth of the plant-based meats category, which has been fueled by consumer optimism. Findings were informed by an expert panel meeting held in 2021 that explored a standard of identity for PBMAs and based on an assessment of the PBMA marketplace which NCL conducted in 2022 to identify action steps that will significantly impact public awareness and understanding of PBMAs and can be readily implemented.

Providing up-to-date information on the issues affecting the labeling of plant-based meat alternatives, the report – Education and Transparency in Labeling Plant-Based Meat Alternatives: A Consumer-Focused Agenda to Improve Understanding and Decision-Making of Plant-Based Meats –documents promising projections for PBMA sales in the U.S. and globally. Recent polling shows that two-thirds of Americans (65 percent) consumed plant-based meat alternatives in 2021, and two in five (42 percent) ate PBMAs at least weekly.[1] Due to consumer demand, the plant-based meat category delivered $1.4 billion in sales in the U.S. in 2021 – up from $962 million in 2019 [2] – and a Bloomberg Intelligence report projects a 500 percent increase in global sales of plant-based foods by 2030[3]. Moreover, a recent market analysis predicts a growth rate of almost 20 percent globally for plant-based meats between 2021 and 2026 if consumer interest in PBMAs continues to grow.[4]

Yet, the NCL report points to marketplace challenges for plant-based meat substitutes. Currently, many brands define PBMAs differently and there is a lack of clarity about how to use traditional meat, dairy, and egg terminology on product labels. Additionally, only half of Americans were “very” or “somewhat” familiar with PBMAs in 2020 and 30 percent had no knowledge, according to a Gallup survey.[5] This lack of understanding is concerning because new plant-based meats are unique in their formulations and processing techniques– meaning products can differ in calories, saturated fat, sodium content, and levels of protein, fiber, vitamin B12, zinc, iron, and other nutrients. Plant-based meats may also contain a food allergen depending on the source of the plant proteins in the product.

[1] International Food Information Council. Consumption Trends, Preferred Names and Perceptions of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives. November 3, 2021

[2] Good Food Institute. US retail market data for the plant-based industry.

[3] Fortune. Plant-based food sales are expected to increase fivefold by 2030. August 11, 2021

[4] ResearchandMarket.com. Plant-Based Meat Market-Global Industry Analysis (2018-2020) & Growth Trends and Market Forecast (2021-2026). January 11, 2022

[5] Gallup. Four in Ten Americans Have Eaten Plant-Based Meats. January 28, 2020

 

“Plant-based meat alternatives are a popular and valued part of our food supply,” said Sally Greenberg, NCL’s Executive Director. “This is why the public needs regulatory policies that ensure the labels on these products are accurate, complete, and provide the qualifiers necessary for consumers to understand what they are purchasing.”

As the agency that regulates plant-based foods in the U.S., FDA shares this viewpoint and has sought information on a range of issues to issue draft guidance on the labeling of plant-based foods. Therefore, NCL prepared the report to articulate the consumer’s voice on PBMA labeling and lay out a blueprint for FDA and the food industry to ensure the information needs of the public are addressed. Specifically, the report identifies seven priorities for labeling, naming, and marketing plant-based meats alternatives that are in the best interest of consumers:

  1. Establish a definition for “plant-based meat alternatives” that will unite all stakeholders. Because brands define the term “plant-based” differently, FDA guidance should define what constitutes a “plant-based meat alternative” to promote consistency in labeling across the category.
  2. Ensure brand names are not deceptive. NCL’s position is it is a deceptive practice to use brand names for PBMAs that suggest a product contains meat, seafood, or eggs when none is present. Even when the label states the product contains no meat or eggs, consumers are influenced by the brand name, especially if packaging and promotional content feature pictures and iconography of animals or the type of meat.
  3. Require that labels on PBMAs are standardized and clarify the protein source. For labels of PBMAs to be transparent, the naming and labeling of PBMAs must be uniform and consistent and ensure that consumers can readily identify the protein source. Accordingly, FDA should require that all labels and advertisements for PBMAs must:
  • Use a common name that links the protein source and the form, such as “soy burger.”
  • Make clear that the product contains some animal protein in addition to plant-based proteins like soy. Qualifying terms can include “plant-based” and “made from plants.”
  • Make clear when the PBMA contains no meat. These terms can include vegan,” “meatless,” “vegetarian,” “veggie,” and “veggie-based” as well as “plant-based” and “made from plants.”
  • Place the phrase “contains no meat,” “contains no poultry,” or “contains no eggs” on the principal display panel of vegan PBMAs near the common name and in letters at least the same size and prominence as shown in the product’s common name.
  • Not use pictures, icons, or vignettes on the packaging, in marketing materials or in advertising that suggests nutrition superiority or that the product is the same as the comparable meat product.
  1. Regulate health/nutrition claims for PBMAs. Consistent with how FDA regulates the health claims allowed on traditional food products, FDA guidance must make clear that nutrition/health claims must undergo agency review and there must be significant scientific agreement that the claim is supported by available scientific evidence.
  2. Ensure website, social media, and advertising content for PBMAs conforms to what is on the product label. The guidance must make clear that FDA considers websites and social media to be an extension of the product label, meaning the claims and information that PBMA manufacturers put online must conform what FDA allows on the label.
  3. Address the nutritional composition of the PBMAs in FDA guidance. In Canada, proposed guidelines for plant-based protein foods would include nutritionally required amounts of vitamins and mineral nutrients that must be added to the PBMA product and a minimum limit of total protein content, among other requirements. While NCL supports this approach, FDA should at least recommend levels of key vitamins and nutrients in its guidance.
  4. Educate consumers about the nutritional composition of plant-based protein alternatives. It is in the public interest for FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture – along with nutrition societies – to conduct education programs that explain the nutritional composition of plant-based protein food products. This will allow consumers to make informed decisions based on science-based information.

About the Report

To prepare the report, NCL built on the deliberations of an online expert panel meeting – Meeting Consumers’ Needs for Modernizing Food Standards of Identity: General Principles for Naming and Labeling Plant-Based Meat Alternatives – co-hosted by NCL and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND) in November 2021. Exploring whether new standards of identity (SOI) for PBMAs could lead to better labeling of these meat substitutes, the meeting started with a review of the U.S. market for PBMAs and featured breakout sessions where regulatory specialists, market researchers, consumer advocates and food industry leaders debated the need for a standard of identity for PBMAs and discussed consumers’ needs for education and labeling of PBMAs.

The November 2021 meeting produced consensus that there is not enough evidence to support a standard of identity for PBMAs and in fact, that a SOI could hamper innovation within this new category of plant-based foods. Yet, the meeting generated important insights on the need for consumer education about plant-based meats, a common nomenclature for describing PBMAs, and transparency in labeling so consumers will know the composition of the products they buy. Thus, when FDA announced plans to issue draft guidance on PBMAs in 2022, NCL used the deliberations from the November 2021 meeting as the foundation for developing recommendations for how FDA can ensure labels of PBMA products meet consumers’ needs. The final step was a literature review NCL conducted in March and April 2022 to add marketplace data on PBMAs and apply lessons learned from consumer research, voluntary labeling initiatives, legislation passed in different states label PBMAs, and labeling rules for PBMAs proposed or instituted in other countries.

Read the report here.

###

About the National Consumers League (NCL) 

The National Consumers League, founded in 1899, is America’s pioneer consumer organization. Our mission is to protect and promote social and economic justice for consumers and workers in the United States and abroad. For more information, visit www.nclnet.org.

 

Coronavirus and food safety: What you need to know

/in , , , , , , , , /by

By Nailah John, Linda Golodner Food Safety and Nutrition Fellow

Perhaps some of the only good news about the Covid-19 is that food is not the primary way that the virus can be spread. According to Harvard Medical School, “We are still learning about transmission of COVID-19. It’s not clear if this is possible, but if so, it would be more likely to be the exception than the rule. That said, COVID-19 and other coronaviruses have been detected in the stool of certain patients, so we currently cannot rule out the possibility of occasional transmission from infected food handlers. The virus would likely be killed by cooking.”

Great, but not all foods can or are intended to be cooked – think of deli meats, cole slaw, potato salad, cheeses, salads, fresh fruits and vegetables, breads, pastry, butter, cream cheese; so if the mainstay of a deli or restaurant is “fresh” foods, spreading the virus is a real threat if the right precautions are taken.

And COVID-19 has made us all keenly aware of the importance of wiping surfaces and washing hands frequently, especially when handling food. We also know that COVID-19 can’t typically be transmitted from food or from food packaging. But we do have suggestions.

Food safety measures one should take:

  • Wash your hands the right way: Use plain soap and water- skip the antibacterial soap, scrub the backs of your hands, between your fingers and under your nails for about 20 seconds, if you need to time yourself sing the chorus of your favorite song twice. Rinse your hands, and then dry them with a clean towel. Remember to wash your hands often especially since COVID-19 lives on surfaces for an extended period.
  • Wash surfaces and utensils after each use: Wash cutting boards, utensils countertops with hot, soapy water, especially if you had raw meat, seafood, poultry or eggs on these surfaces. Don’t cross contaminate!
  • Remember it is very important to wash your dishcloths in a hot cycle of your washing machine, sometimes we forget this key element to food safety.
  • Learn more from FoodSafety.gov.

Food safety is paramount in our day-to-day lives – it’s so important that we take the necessary steps not to expose ourselves – whether eating in a restaurant or cooking at home, to COVID-19. Remember eat healthy, nutritious foods and take all the steps needed in preparing a safe meal for you and your family.

I’m going for the kids’ portion!

/in , , , , , , /by

With overweight and obesity stats in an upward trajectory, the National Consumers League and the Georgetown School of Business are partnering up for a survey on a simple topic: what do Americans know about portion sizes, calories of average foods, and how many calories we can eat each day without packing on the pounds? 

We have a health crisis in America. From 2015-2016, 39.8 percent of American adults were considered obese–which means the body mass index (BMI) measurements of more than 129 million of us are considered obese. The annual medical cost of obesity is estimated at $147 billion because heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, and cancers are tied to obesity. What is particularly concerning is that more than a third of younger people, ages 20-39, are obese.  

In fact, the New York Times reported that roughly a fifth of our soldiers are obese! The military is trying to combat this problem by replacing sweet drinks with water and cutting out fried foods, but it’s not working. 

The United States Department of Agriculture’s Dietary Guidelines recommend that the average person should consume about 2,000 calories a day. Do most of us know that if you exceed 2,000 calories day regularly, you pack on the pounds? (That’s unless, of course, you’re getting a lot of calorie–burning exercise or have a great metabolism.) Is that number too high for many of us? (It is for me. If I eat more than 1,650 calories, I know I’m going to put on weight.) That’s what we want to find out with our research: what do Americans really know about this guideline? 

We will also be asking whether most Americans know how many calories are in average serving of common foods such as yogurt (150), hamburgers with bun (350), pizza (350 per slice), bagels (325), muffins (425), a 4-piece fried chicken dinner with all the fixings (850-1,200), a 30–oz. steak (1,400), a piece of cheesecake (650), a big chocolate chip cookie (450), and an ice cream cone (300-400.) 

Also, do Americans know what an average serving is? A Cheesecake Factory salad is not an average serving! Each of their salads have more than 1,300 calories. That’s too much for one meal. Unfortunately, restaurant serving sizes have increased a lot over the last several decades. 

Which brings me back to my headline–kids’ portions! I’ve begun sampling my local downtown DC upscale food spots popular with millennials like Roti, CAVA, Chopt. The custom is that you order a bowl of lettuce or spinach as a base and put lots of pretty healthy but also pretty caloric toppings, add a protein for a few bucks extra, and crowned with shredded cheese and salad dressing. When you’re done, you have a big portion and lots of good food but also lots of calories–albeit not from hamburger and fries but still, calories! 

So try the kids’ portion! They are cheaper by a third, a lot less food, a lot fewer calories, and completely filling. My CAVA kids meal had a small white bread (unfortunately) pita, yogurt spread, two small spicy meatballs, cucumber salad, tomato salad, three pieces of fried bread, and scoop of brown rice. In other words, a lot of food! I figured it was about 550 calories. Voila! A third of my 1,650 allowable daily intake of food. And I was stuffed. I’ll be trying other food outlets to check out the kids’ portions. And we recommend that other consumers do the same–helps to limit calories and prevent food waste when you’re eating out!

Three reasons scientists believe bugs are the next beef

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Shaunice Wall is NCL’s Linda Golodner Food Safety and Nutrition Fellow

There’s a thin line between hunger and disgust when deep-fried tarantulas and smoked barbeque crickets are on the menu. Many scientists argue that animal protein is not environmentally sustainable, so alternatives–like bugs–may be the answer to the perils of global warming. Recent research supports eating bugs as a way to maintain a protein-rich diet while benefiting the environment.

Infographic comparing the water, feed, and land needs of cattle against the same needs for bugs farming

Why bugs are slowly crawling into our everyday diets

As the world population continues to grow, so will demand for animal protein. By 2050, we’ll be eating more than two-thirds the animal protein we do today, causing a strain to our planet’s resources. The surge in demand for animal protein has also contributed to an increase in greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide). These gases lead to extreme weather conditions, ozone depletion, increased danger of wildland fires, loss of biodiversity, stresses to food-producing systems and the global spread of infectious diseases. Even today, climate changes are estimated to cause over 150,000 deaths annually.

Most westerners prefer beef over bugs

While many of us westerners may gag at the thought of maggots in our sausage, more than 2 billion people throughout the world have been eating bugs as a regular part of their diets for millennia. But historically, for westerners, livestock not only yields meat, but also milk and milk products, their hides or skins provide warmth, they are suitable for plough traction, and act as a means of transport. Because of the use of these animals, the benefits of eating insects in many societies has failed to gain much interest. Also, certain insects are transmitters of disease and are virtually a nuisance.

So, why should we eat bugs?

In 2013, a report by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, urged global citizens to eat more bugs for three reasons:

  1. They’re healthier for you…and tasty too!
    • Bugs are a healthy, nutritious alternative to mainstream staples such as chicken, pork, beef, and fish (from ocean catch).
    • Many insects are rich in protein, good fats, and high in calcium, iron, and zinc.
    • Insects already form a traditional part of many regional and national diets.
    • Bugs can be used as an ingredient substitute for almost any recipe. Here’s a link with ideas on how to make some delicious bug treats!
  2. They’re safer for the environment
    • Bugs promoted as food emit 75 percent fewer greenhouse gases (GHGs) than most livestock.
    • Insect rearing is not necessarily a land-based activity and does not require as much land as livestock.
    • Because they are cold-blooded, insects are efficient at converting feed into protein (crickets, for example, need 12 times less feed than cattle, four times less feed than sheep, and half as much feed as pigs and broiler chickens to produce the same amount of protein).
    • According to the Harvard Political Review, producing one pound of beef requires 10 pounds of feed, 1,000 gallons of water, and 200 square feet of pasture. In contrast, producing one pound of insects only requires two pounds of feed, one gallon of water, and two cubic feet of land space.
  3. They’re lower in cost
    • Bug harvesting/rearing is a low-tech, low-capital investment option that offers economic opportunities to all levels of society.
    • Insect rearing can be low-tech or very sophisticated, depending on the level of investment.

Recent advances in research and development show edible bugs to be a promising alternative to meat for both human consumption and as feedstock. But to make this a reality, regulatory frameworks for safety and nutrition will need to be developed and government, industry, and academia will need to work together.

In the meanwhile, knowing the benefits can help turn disgust to hunger when tarantulas or crickets appear on the menu… Something to think about!