“Don’t be heavily swayed by the over-the-top claims. Drink it because you like it, not because you’re counting on it to work wonders.”

by Sheila | Nov 8, 2010 | Uncategorized

Here’s another interesting article about kombucha to go along with our series on health halos:

http://bit.ly/9QcCav

Check the blog tomorrow to read about “0 trans fat” claims and how they are used to market some not-so-healthy products.

“Qualified Health Claims” Are Anything But Qualified

by Sheila | Nov 7, 2010 | Uncategorized

In our last post about health halos surrounding food marketing, we discussed structure/function claims. This post, we’re going to talk about “qualified health claims.” The word qualified makes the phrase sound good, but what it actually means is that the claims are qualified by a statement following the claim that says the basis for the health claim is uncertain. There is specific wording that the FDA allows for these qualified health claims (QHC). And example from the CSPI “Food Labeling Chaos” report follows:

“Very limited and preliminary scientific research suggests that eating one-half cup of tomatoes and/or tomato sauce a week may reduce the risk of prostate cancer. FDA concludes that there is little scientific evidence supporting this claim.”

Obviously this doesn’t seem like something that would be very persuading on a package, so food companies often only use the positive part of the approved wording. “May reduce the risk of prostate cancer” sounds pretty good. Some companies choose to print the entire claim in small print somewhere and then use the positive wording to catch attention in other areas. Some companies change the QHC’s completely. And some just use the name of a nutrient on the packaging which no claim at all.

For example!

You have probably tried or heard of Kashi brand foods. They have a line of instant oatmeal called Heart to Heart. On the package, they indicate the presence of green tea in the oatmeal and go on to say that it supports healthy arteries. There is an approved qualified health claim for green tea, but it is for cancer, not heart disease. Many people have heard in the news or other media that green tea is good for you for various reasons, so the food company catches your attention by telling you that green tea is included in their product and then they change the QHC completely, from cancer to heart disease!

As with the structure/function claims, there are also no nutritional standards for these claims. The QHC’s can be used and the product may be full of fat and sugar and only contain trace quantities of the supposed beneficial nutrient.

How do companies get away with twisting QHC wording like this? The FDA states that it will not take enforcement action against health claims that fail to meet “significant scientific agreement”. And the Federal Trade Commission does not have a procedure for reviewing advertising claims before they are made. Therefore, they can only be stopped after the claims have been made and “significant scientific agreement” has been found.

The use of qualified health claims in marketing make it very hard for you and I to determine what is true and what isn’t. Be critical while doing your grocery shopping and read labels carefully. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. As you look through your fridge and pantry, do you spot any products with qualified health claims or structure/function claims?

For the full CSPI report: http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/food_labeling_chaos_report.pdf

Don’t Pay Extra to “Support a Healthy Heart”

by Sheila | Nov 5, 2010 | Uncategorized

Now that we all know what a health halo is, (if you still don’t, check out the previous post!) lets discuss the various ways companies are able to market their products using  these often untrue and misleading health claims. The Center for Science in the Public Interest recently put out a report entitled “Food Labeling Chaos,” which sums up exactly what is going on in our grocery stores. The report focuses on 5 specific ways marketing is used to create a health halo for a food product. In this and the following posts we will discuss these 5 ploys so you can better navigate through your local supermarket and make more informed decisions with your money and what you put into your body.

In 1990, Congress passed a law that allowed manufacturers to start using health claims for their food products. The claims had to apply to a specific nutrient and disease relationship. The law stated that the FDA must approve all claims before they are used and that the claims had to be backed by “significant scientific agreement.” To get a claim approved takes a long time; up to 540 days. Because it takes so long to get a claim approved, food companies have found creative ways around the approval process.

A common way that food companies get around the approval process is by making something known as a “structure/function” claim. A structure/function claim says that a specific nutrient in a food can benefit the body’s normal structure or function, but it does not mention the role the nutrient has in the prevention of any disease. Remember, according to the law, claims have to apply to a specific nutrient-disease relationship. This is all about wordplay. Here’s a specific example — a company must have FDA approval to use the claim:

“may help reduce the risk of heart disease”

But the company does not need approval to say:

“helps maintain a healthy heart”

Do you see the difference here? One states a specific disease, while the other just claims a benefit to the body’s normal function. The use of these structure/function claims is legal and they do not have to be approved or meet any requirements. The food with a structure/function claim could be full of saturated fat, cholesterol or sugar and still say “helps maintain a healthy heart” because of some obscure ingredient or unreliable evidence. Health claims approved by the FDA have to meet strict nutrient content requirements; there are levels the product must not exceed for fat, cholesterol and sodium as well as minimums for certain nutrients and vitamins and of course a specified minimum level for the nutrient involved in the nutrient-disease relationship.

Even more interesting is that studies have shown shoppers actually prefer products with the structure/function claims. The wording in these claims is usually softer and more positive. Compare the two claims again. Which one sounds better to you?

Next time you are in the store, make sure you read the front of the package carefully. Beware claims about immunity, which is a very common structure/function claim. If the package says it “supports a healthy immune system” or “helps strengthen your body’s defenses” or “boosts immunity”… that’s a structure/function claim. There is no specific nutrient or disease in those claims, they just simply imply the prevention of disease. Often these products boast their antioxidant vitamin content and while it’s true that severe deficiencies in these vitamins can lead to serious health problems, these products won’t make any difference in your health by boosting your immunity. And remember, they could be full of all sorts of other bad stuff and only have trace quantities of the good stuff they are advertising!

Check back soon for more on health halos and how you can avoid them!

For the full CSPI report: http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/food_labeling_chaos_report.pdf