Comments on: While we battle over ingredients like HFCS, Big Food is winning the processed food war

By: Matt Metzgar

Matt Metzgar — Sun, 19 Sep 2010 17:43:57 +0000

The latest research by Professor Cordain shows that 50% of calories consumed by hunter-gathers was from animal and fished food. 50% is not a small amount.

As to the eggs and dairy, dairy was not a part of the evolutionary diet, and eggs were consumed in small amounts on a seasonal basis.

By: Michele Simon

Michele Simon — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:59:36 +0000

Matt, yes humans evolved eating animals, but in very small quantities, because we are not natural carnivores. (When was the last time you chased after an animal, killed it with your teeth and ate it raw?) The current American diet contains way too much meat, egg, and dairy products, and these products look nothing like the animal foods our ancestors ate.

By: Matt Metzgar

Matt Metzgar — Fri, 17 Sep 2010 02:05:26 +0000

Okay, good post overall. Except I don't understand why you comment about Americans eating "too many animal products".

Have you ever looked into the science behind the Paleo Diet? The evidence shows humans evolved by eating both plant and animal food.

http://www.thepaleodiet.com/published_research/

By: Michele Hays

Michele Hays — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:36:31 +0000

It may well not be the food itself at all: the next time you can think about it, time the number of food advertisements you see in half an hour (count branded packaging as an ad.)

If the effort to brand carrots works as well as branding soda, soon we'll have a nation of orange children.

(PS – did one of you guys – I think I follow most of you – originally bring my attention to this: http://exm.nr/biXxIY ?)

By: Cynthia1770

Cynthia1770 — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:14:47 +0000

Let's get back to the original topic. Should the FDA give the ok to change the name of all grades of corn syrups and HFCS to "corn
sugar". No, for this reason.
There is a segment of the population that is fructose intolerant. There are two forms: one a maladsorption problem that
causes bloating, gas and diarrhea, the other form a result of a genetic defect in the liver enzyme that metabolizes fructose (and can be fatal). Lumping all corn syrups together with or without free fructose under the label "corn sugar" would not help those afflicted with FI discern which products they can and cannot eat.

By: Mrs/Dr. T

Mrs/Dr. T — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:55:58 +0000

I love this discussion! As a nutrition scientist that was once employed at a big food company, I have had almost too much experience on this topic. And I agree with you Michele. Sure, we eat ingredients and individual foods, but really what we eat are diets. Diets high in sugar (regardless of where it's from), fat (regardless of where it's from), salt (regardless of where it's from) are associated with a range of diseases. There are several prospective observational studies showing that dietary patterns considered "unhealthy" are associated with increased disease risk and these diets include a number of processed foods like white bread,french fries, processed meats, and confectionery. Will making these processed foods less bad really change the population's overall risk for chronic disease? Maybe, depending on so many different factors. Will changing the overall dietary pattern by reducing intake of processed foods and replacing with fruits, vegetables, and less-processed versions (e.g., whole grain bread) reduce risk for chronic disease? Based on numerous scientific studies, most likely. So based on the evidence to date, where should we direct our efforts? And more importantly, how?

So many layers, so complex, so few realistic solutions to really solve what is a HUGE problem.

By: Michele Simon

Michele Simon — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:49:11 +0000

Just to be clear, I totally agree we have a major social justice problem, I've written about that before. But I do not believe the solution is "healthier" junk food just because right now, that's all some people can buy. The solution is the same for everyone, but we need to change our policies to make truly healthy food available and affordable for all.

By: Andrew Wilder (Eating Rules)

Andrew Wilder (Eating Rules) — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 16:35:54 +0000

Bravo, Michelle, for reminding us that we need to see the forest through the trees.

Details are important, but it's the broad strokes, not the minutiae that will make the biggest differences.

I do not eat HFCS, but primarily because of the processed foods that I find it in. If I see HFCS in the ingredient list, I put the package down without a second thought. Doing so has been a helpful tool in eliminating many processed foods from my diet. Of course, once HFCS is replaced by another sweetener, I'll have to change my tactic!

But I'm also in a fortunate position to be able to choose what foods I want to eat, without significant regard to cost or availability. As Hildreth alludes, food deserts and other cost/availability limitations have become an increasing problem.

I am growing increasingly convinced that the solutions to these and the myriad other problems in our food system will come not from Big Food, of course, but from legislation.

Sure, every time you buy something you're voting with your wallet -- but that's no longer enough. The real, deep changes we need in our system will have to come from our politicians.

By: hildreth

hildreth — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 15:05:34 +0000

I agree that getting back to simple and sane is the best way to go with food. I wish we wouldn't have to be reduced to using scare tactics about ingredients like HFCS or trans fats or red #2.

But, I disagree that focusing on an issue as broad as 'processed foods' will help the most underserved populations in our country, who are at significantly more risk for diet-related diseases b/c they can *only* afford food that's been processed.

I wish it were different, but I think the most positive public health information campaigns might actually come from narrowing the consumer's focus to the ingredients that *are* more to blame - nutritionally speaking - for the ridiculous rise in things like metabolic syndrome and CVD.

It absolutely *is* the sugar, fat, and sodium in processed foods that needs to be addressed, not the processing altogether. And I don't foresee Big Phood backing down from making a profit from packaged foods anytime soon.

In the meantime, the most poor are getting the sickest. Why is it wrong to tirelessly demand that Big Food make a *healthier* packaged food by removing the things that are the *most* harmful in them?

By: Michele Simon

Michele Simon — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 14:44:57 +0000

Ed, thanks for your feedback. I am not saying that sugar is not a problem; indeed I agree with you that sugar in any form is a major factor in causing all sorts of health problems. But where is all that sugar found? In processed foods. And that's not the only culprit, it's salt, all forms of fake fat, chemicals, etc, all the result of a processed-food diet. If people ate more whole foods, the sugar problem (the salt problem, etc) goes away.

And my position is not just that "Americans are eating too much" (I don't agree the problem is just calories as some others do) but rather than Americans are eating too much processed food, and too many animal products, and not enough plant foods in their natural form.

Hope this helps clarify my post.