Five for Fridays – Oct 23, 2009

by TwinToddlersDad on October 23, 2009

in Five For Fridays

5-for-fridays-image33-Oct23

Greetings! Hope you all are enjoying the beautiful days of Fall. I simply love this time of the year. We are getting ready for Trick-or-treat and pumpkin painting, and the twins are excited! They are already dreaming of collecting candy – it is going to be an uphill battle trying to keep them from eating too much. I won’t spoil the fun by telling you their costumes this year yet, but will surely post a photo after Halloween.

Here are the 5 nutrition related news that caught my eye this week. Enjoy and drop me a comment to share your thoughts.

A new index to help you select affordable nutritious foods

A new food rating system called the Affordable Nutrition Index (ANI) was introduced this week at the American Dietetic Association’s Food and Nutrition Expo in Denver. The idea is to provide a score that takes into account the cost of a certain food item in addition to its nutrition value. A food item with a high score means that it is high in 9 nutrients (protein, fiber, vitamin A, C, E, calcium, iron, potassium and magnesium), low in 3 nutrients (saturated fat, added sugar and sodium) and costs less on a per serving basis. Sweet potato, broccoli, green pepper, orange and banana scored high on the index (over 100) while packaged convenience foods scored lower than 100.

This index has been developed by Dr Adam Drewnowski, Director of the Center for Public Health Nutrition at University of Washington in Seattle. He used the Nutrient Rich Food Index (NFR9.3) which he previously developed and a price per serving information from food prices database, Seattle area supermarkets and industry sources. This research was sponsored by the Campbell Soup Company. Not surprisingly perhaps, many of the condensed soups from Campbell ended up with a high score around 100 compared to many fresh or cooked vegetables and even fresh fruits.

I am intrigued by this idea since we all want to select foods that have high nutritional value at an affordable cost. However, I don’t think that this is the only way to make that choice. I was disappointed to see that vitamin D was not included in the 9 nutrients to promote in the NFR9.3. Plus cost per serving is probably not the right measure of what a customer pays when buying a product. Also, you can manage cost by buying seasonal fruits and vegetables from local sources. Still, I think it is a good idea and I plan to write more about it in future.

Coke’s response to the debate on obesity is lame

Coca-Cola, the icon of sugary drinks is under attack! CEO Muhtar Kent wrote an Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on October 7th defending his company against proposals of soda tax. Coke Didn’t Make America Fat is what he believes; and quite arrogantly he points the finger to his own customers saying they lead a sedentary lifestyle! Well, Coke did make America fat according to my blogger colleague Dr. Ayala who wrote an excellent piece this week in response to Mr. Kent’s lame arguments.

So far, Coke’s response to the current debate on the role of sugary drinks in our obesity problem is rather lame in my opinion. They have announced that they will add calorie information on the front of Coke cans. They have given a large amount of money to the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) to develop consumer education content as part of their Consumer Alliance Program. They are also a part of the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation (HWCF), a group of 40 organizations seemingly engaged in a collaborative effort to address obesity. And now in their latest move, Coke has announced that they will introduce a 90-calorie mini soda can so that people can limit their intake of sugary cola.

While I am no fan of the twinkie tax, I do not believe that these actions by one of America’s top brands are of the high caliber needed to solve one of America’s most challenging health problems. Coke needs to do more than just pay lip service and make lame arguments defending their products in public. They need to take a more grass-roots approach – building playgrounds in schools, sponsoring healthy lifestyle events, developing after-school programs, integrating nutrition and physical education, sponsor healthy nutritious school lunches just to name a few examples. They need to measure the effectiveness of these programs in reducing obesity and make the data public.

Coke’ 3Q financial results show that they generated $6.3 billion in cash from operations year-to-date in 2009. They spent $241 million buying back their own shares. A little more of that cash spent on real programs to solve our obesity problem will not make a dent in their profits! What do you have to say about that Mr Kent?

FDA puts the hammer down on front-of-box labeling

The Smart Choice program it seems was the last straw according to Marion Nestle who writes a blog called Food Politics! In a letter to the food industry, the FDA is openly questioning the arbitrary nutrition standards used by companies to develop these labels which end up showing their own products as healthy. FDA wants to develop a set of independent criteria which these labels will need to meet before companies can use them on their products. FDA also wants to understand how these front of the box labels affect consumer choice.

I say, it’s about time. The Nutritional Facts panel, usually at the back or the side of the box, is too complicated for most consumers to read and understand. Consumers are looking for something simple that allows them to quickly make a decision.

We are lagging behind other countries in this area. A traffic light based food labeling system developed by the industry based on government guidelines in UK seems to be working very well. Why can’t we do the same here?

Here is a good background information on different types of front of box labeling systems. What is your opinion? Have you come across a labeling system you really like?

Toddler diets a cause for concern according to the 2008 FITS data

Latest data from the 2008 Nestle Feeding Infants and Toddlers Study (FITS) confirms the sorry state of a typical toddler diet in America. Most toddlers and preschoolers are not eating fruits and vegetables. They are consuming too much saturated fat and sodium. French fries are the most popular vegetable!

Good news is that the diets of infants and older babies are much better compared to the 2002 data. Mothers are breastfeeding their children longer and consumption of sugary drinks is decreasing. There is a risk of iron deficiency in some children.

Looks like parents and caregivers are following the feeding guidelines for infants. So why do things go south during the toddler years? Is it because of picky behavior? Or is it because toddlers eat what their parents eat? Or a combination of the two?

Not much progress has been made in the diet of toddlers since 2002. We need to make a deliberate effort to improve this situation.  Having dinner together, being a role model and encouraging fruits and vegetables is critical to solving the problem of childhood obesity. And in case you are struggling, here are some tips for picky eating.

Let us bring the school nutrition standards to the 21st century

Can you believe that it was 1995 when the standards for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) were last revised? Yet the NSLP served lunch to over 30 million children and SBP served breakfast to over 10 million children in 2008! If we are serious about fighting the battle of childhood obesity, we need to revise these standards and bring them to the 21st century!

Well, the good news is that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) has now issued its recommendations in a report titled School Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy Children, which the US Department is going to consider as they revise these standards. Recommended meal requirements encourage more fruits & vegetables, whole grains, min and max levels of calories and limit saturated fats  and sodium.

This is good news! I hope they will begin to implement these recommendations by the time our twins start going to school. I think progress may be slow due to cost and bureaucracy, but at least it’s a good start.

Enjoy and do let me know you think. I would love to have you share your best tips in comments below.

Photo source -cambodia4kidsorg on Flickr via everystockphoto

©2009 Littlestomaks.com

Spread the word
[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [Newsvine] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Email]
Related Posts with Thumbnails

Related Posts

  • The Best of Littlestomaks in 2009
  • Five for Fridays – Jan 8, 2010
  • Five for Fridays – Aug 14, 2009

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Dr. Ayala October 23, 2009 at 7:36 am

Great round up!

I think you and I agree on the direction change should take, but differ when it comes to enacting policies to influence change. It‘s usually an irreconcilable difference in world philosophy that hours of debate won’t alter, but it would be interesting to meet and discuss :)

I think there are basic flaws in the labeling rules and all the rating systems in place and in consideration. Our obsession with vitamins and other nutrients has enabled industry to sprinkle a bunch of them on any junk and promote them to health foods, complete with claims and a check mark.

The mere fact that we need panels of experts with calculators to help us navigate the sea of processed foods on our shelves says it all. My grandma knew what healthy food was. So should we.

2 Jennifer October 23, 2009 at 11:06 am

I completely agree with you that Coke needs to do more than their current defensive approach. I loved your ideas of what they could do. However, let’s not forget that it is the parents that buy the food for the household and act as role models to their children. They need a healthy lifestyle intervention as well.

3 rebecca subbiah October 24, 2009 at 11:17 pm

great post i agree with the first part not sure if the ANI will work, I love how you find all this info thanks for doing it Rebecca

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: