Wednesday, April 9, 2014

The FDA is Trying to Save us from a National Sugar Crash

The person that decided a half-cup would constitute one serving of ice cream must have been lactose-intolerant, or at the very least, they had a bad sense of humor.

In the twenty years that have passed since the Food and Drug Administration deemed one tennis ball as the national standard for a scoop of this dairy dessert, a lot has changed – namely, the size of the average American waistband. More than a third of adults in the United States are obese and the harmful health implications of these extra pounds are widespread. Finally, the government is starting to take notice.

Within the nascent weeks of 2014, the FDA proposed a series of changes to food labeling that would reflect the modern American diet and aim to help Americans reduce their caloric intake. While many government interventions in the dietary arena are often somewhat ridiculous and overreaching, this measure has the potential to make a positive (though likely small) impact.

Numerous minor alterations will be made to the Nutrition Facts label, including bolding the font of the serving size and calorie count, but the most important change is the addition of a new line indicating the “added sugars.” This line would differentiate between sugars naturally existing in the food product as a result of ingredients (such as strawberries) and artificial sweeteners.

America has a big sweet tooth – and some even bigger cavities. As our national sugar intake has increased over the years, so have American rates of diabetes, cancer and heart disease. Though the correlations between what we eat and how it affects our health are widely contested, the root of the issue lies in the fact that we hardly know what we’re eating anymore.

When I settled in last night with a bowl of Cookie Dough and Brownie Chunk Fudge-Swirled Vanilla Ice Cream, I was aware that I was not going to be consuming the suggested serving size and I was aware that the amount of sugar in a few spoonfuls surpassed the recommended daily allowance – but I was making a decision to eat my dessert in conscious, sinful bliss.

The downfall of American health comes from misunderstanding healthy food options just as much, if not more than from excessive indulgence. A simple meal, such as yogurt with granola, seems like a good choice, but a closer inspection of the nutrition labels may reveal that I might as well have had the ice cream for breakfast. The proposed changes to nutrition labels will make it easier for concerned eaters to make smart decisions in the supermarket.

In an effort to win over our taste buds and thereby gain repeat customers, food companies are making their products sweeter. Meanwhile, we’ve continued to eat these products in increasingly large portions, completely unaware of the invisible dangers lurking within. Although those that don’t already read food labels might not be affected much, the FDA’s proposed demarcations will help those that do care to realize just how much sugar is being added to their food.

Unlike the brouhaha that erupted over New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s ban of big bad sodas, the FDA has taken a different approach toward rehabilitating the American diet that is more likely to be efficacious. The nutrition label proposal is aspirational where the soda prohibition was tyrannical.

It all comes down to a matter of individual freedom – something Americans are very touchy about. Bloomberg’s ban took away the right to drink a giant serving of soda; the FDA proposal gives people the option to make an informed decision for themselves. Everyone wants their constitutional right to pursue happiness, even that means pursuing gallons of soda and ice cream on the path to an early death.

It will be months before we know whether or not the FDA’s proposal will be enacted and still longer before we can analyze its impact, but I have hope. A change to nutrition labels isn’t the cure – our national obesity is much more serious than that – but it may help to inspire and inform Americans as they strive for better health without forcing them to do anything ridiculous, like eat only a half-cup of ice cream.


6 comments:

  1. I think that this is a very good idea and truly hope that the new labels get passed. However, I think some companies will put up a big fight to not have these labels passed. For instance, yogurt companies that claim that their fruits in their yogurt are the reason for the high sugar in these 100 calorie snacks, will be exposed to the hard truth when people discover that the majority of the sugars in yogurt are artificially added.
    I do believe that the FDA and companies should try and increase the serving sizes because some are just so unrealistic. For instance, wheat thins have 140 calories in just 15 calories. I know that I never count out my wheat thins, and I definitely never eat less than 15. I just think that appetites have grown, and thus the serving size should also grow to reflect the nutrients we are actually consuming.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As you said, it all boils down to the will of the consumer to make health-conscious decisions at the dinner table. You can't restrict any right of an American without being labeled a socialist, but you can teach them to make better decisions. Unfortunately, I don't believe slapping an additional label on a food product will curb obesity in the slightest. Consumers already have ALL the information they need on existing labels: Caloric, fat, sugar, etc. What is needed is a tool that translates those numbers into plain English, like a warning label similar to the ones you find on cigarette packs in other nations. If you put a picture of a morbidly obese woman on a box of Twinkies, do you think that might make someone think twice before buying it?

    I think a lot of this education needs to take place in schools, which is where many Americans start to develop poor eating habits. The USDA took a step in the right direction last week by banning all junk foods from public schools (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/14/usda-bans-all-junk-food-sales-schools-around-natio/). What about infusing mandatory health classes into the curriculum as well? It's a slippery slope, but I just don't see additional labels having a huge impact on the health of our nation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Honestly, I agree with the fervor above, people are dumb, and they make dumb choices notwithstanding any information they have about how bad something is for them. With regard to placing images of a morbidly obese woman on a box of twinkies, I suspect there's an issue simply because, unlike cigarettes which are literally tied to cancer, eating one box of twinkies is not going to make you unhealthy, especially in context of all the other factors that go into making someone grossly unhealthy.

    Like Fervor, I think there is a big educational disconnect. But there's also the cost factor, specifically how crappy food often costs quite a bit less than healthy food. Sure, I could make a meal, but it's by and large easier and cheaper to microwave the TV-dinner from the Winn-Dixie and just eat that. If I need a lot of food fast, may as well go to a 'restaurant.'

    The thing is, though, I know that it's often actually cheaper and more time effective to just cook on my own. I think without a giant shift of perception (or just legislation that bans crappy food), it's going to be a challenge to ween Americans off their crappy food.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree with Holly! These labels should honestly be passed. With the "Calories" written in humongous print, you cannot help but feel guilty if you consume an unhealthy treat. Sugars added is something important to know as well. Most people think that sugar from fruit isn't bad because fruit is healthy right? Wrong. Some fruits like mangoes and figs have a very high sugar content, compared to fruits like strawberries and watermelon. People should actually try and limit their sugar consumption (even from fruit) if they are diabetic, or even trying to lose weight.

    ReplyDelete
  5. While I am totally on board with making food labels easy to read, I feel that the problem with food labels lies in comprehension. Making it easier to read will only benefit those who are already utilizing them properly. Most people all over the world are terrified of calories and carbs when you need a certain amount of them to function anyway. I think making “added sugars” more visible is helpful, but at the end of the day, people need to understand how to use food labels.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think that the changing of food labels may be a positive thing, but I think a greater problem can be seen in that the average American does not even understand what half of the things on a food label are saying. I was never taught in school or by my parents how to read a food label, and since such an act could be extremely beneficial to my overall health in life, I think that is vitally important. If Americans were more informed in terms of health, we would be much better off, but health topics such as food labels seem to be neglected in our education system, or breezed over, and this could use some change.

    ReplyDelete