FDA Asks Public: What Is 'Healthy Food'?

RodaRose

Do many people need help determining what foods are healthy?

http://health.usnews.com/health-care/articles/2016-09-28/fda-asks-public-what-is-healthy-food

WEDNESDAY, Sept. 28, 2016 (HealthDay News) -- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration wants Americans to help it clarify the meaning of "healthy" on food labels.
The agency is seeking this public input as it redefines nutritional claims on food labeling.

The effort is part of an overall plan to help consumers quickly make healthy food choices and to encourage the food industry to develop healthier products, according to the FDA.
"We know that many consumers use the Nutrition Facts label, especially when they are buying a food for the first time," Douglas Balentine, director of the FDA's Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling, said in an agency news release.

"Often, there are also a lot of other terms on food packages, such as 'healthy,' 'low in fat,' or 'good source,'" he added. "We also know that many just don't have the time to consider the details of nutrition information on every package they purchase. In fact, most purchase decisions are made quickly, within three to five seconds," Balentine said.

"That's why we're looking at how we define the claim 'healthy.' Companies can use this and other claims on the front of packages of foods that meet certain criteria to help consumers quickly identify nutritious choices," he explained.

kommodevaran

Basic knowledge about food, eating and nutrition, and a framework where eating is normal and good, will help people not only pick the right items, but also see through false claims. All those "Nutrition Facts" are just contributing to the confusion. Cooking and eating good food takes time and effort, but that's not a bad thing.

In my opinion, the problem is a widespread disconnect. There is a difference between knowledge and information. We don't need more information, there's already too much information. Focus on single foods and nutrients in isolation, not seeing the diet as a whole and the important role food has as in our culture and tradition, is often referred to as "nutritionalism". This, paired with the perceived need for "quick and convenient", is killing people.

Packerjohn

RodaRose wrote: »

Do many people need help determining what foods are healthy?

http://health.usnews.com/health-care/articles/2016-09-28/fda-asks-public-what-is-healthy-food

"We know that many consumers use the Nutrition Facts label, especially when they are buying a food for the first time," Douglas Balentine, director of the FDA's Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling, said in an agency news release.

IMO, given the number of obese and overweight individuals in the US people:

• really aren't reading the nutrition labels
• don't understand them
• read and understand them but don't give a *kitten*

NorthCascades

Why would they ask the public and not a panel of doctors and nutritionists...?

cwolfman13

I don't think they should ask the public...just an observation, but it doesn't seem like the public actually knows *kitten* about nutrition and what constitutes healthy eating.

EvgeniZyntx

NorthCascades wrote: »

Why would they ask the public and not a panel of doctors and nutritionists...?

Because it has a meaning to the public and how they use it, not only how it might be clinically defined. Asking the public doesn't mean they don't ask experts (they do) nor does it mean they will accept any half-fart of an idea as their final guidance (we can hope).

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt

IMO, it is just way too subjective a term to be easily defined on labels.

Whole wheat bread - is it healthy? Maybe for some, but not for people with Celiac.

Fruits and veggies? Sure, unless you have a bowel disorder that is irritated by them.

Not to mention all of the different ways of eating out there - vegan/vegetarian, low carb, "clean," IIFYM. The term "healthy" is going to mean many different things to many different people.

Furthermore, companies would likely find loopholes. Would "healthy" be on the labels of foods with few and simple ingredients? If that is the case, what about Fritos? Corn, corn oil, salt. Would they be considered healthy?

They are focusing way too much on what to put on labels. After a while, they're not informative - they're just marketing. Different companies will find some way to label their food to entice whoever their target demographic is.

The_Enginerd

Individual foods aren't healthy or unhealthy, diets are.

stealthq

Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »

IMO, it is just way too subjective a term to be easily defined on labels.

Whole wheat bread - is it healthy? Maybe for some, but not for people with Celiac.

Fruits and veggies? Sure, unless you have a bowel disorder that is irritated by them.

Not to mention all of the different ways of eating out there - vegan/vegetarian, low carb, "clean," IIFYM. The term "healthy" is going to mean many different things to many different people.

Furthermore, companies would likely find loopholes. Would "healthy" be on the labels of foods with few and simple ingredients? If that is the case, what about Fritos? Corn, corn oil, salt. Would they be considered healthy?

They are focusing way too much on what to put on labels. After a while, they're not informative - they're just marketing. Different companies will find some way to label their food to entice whoever their target demographic is.

Absolutely.

Either all products should be able to put 'healthy' on their products, or none should. Fine tuning the regulation is pointless.

French_Peasant

Maybe they can define "clean eating" while they are at it. I am sure the public brain trust will be a brilliant resource.

NorthCascades

The_Enginerd wrote: »

Individual foods aren't healthy or unhealthy, diets are.

I think whale, dolphin, and some fish are unhealthy foods, because they've caused mercury poisoning. Wouldn't you agree that poison isn't a macronutrient?

GottaBurnEmAll

There was an interesting piece in the NY Times on this issue. There are some interesting differences between the public and dietitians.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/05/upshot/is-sushi-healthy-what-about-granola-where-americans-and-nutritionists-disagree.html

auddii

Well, this is the current definition of "healthy", which does seem rather misguided.

Karb_Kween

Isn't it their job to know? Lol

Aaron_K123

They are asking the public what specifically they want because the public petitioned them for such labels. Since its not really a scientific term there is no sense in consulting "experts" because healthy isn't some sort of quantitiative thing for food.

I read a certain tone into this. General public demands "healthy" labels for foods that are healthy, petitions goverment agency. Government agency is beholden to people so has to comply with the demand but doesn't really know what people want exactly or how to define it. Decides to just ask people what the heck it is they even want. I read a heavy sigh and a groan in this request of theirs.

IMO "healthy" "wholesome" "good source of" etc are more marketing terms than quantifiable regulatable statements and the FDA should have nothing to do with it.

ouryve

There's a big move towards patient and public involement in health and social care research. It's something I'm involved with on a formal basis.

Part of the issue here is that people really don't like to be told what to do and there is an element of distrust because people tend to feel, rightly or wrongly, that advice on staying healthy is changing on a whim.

The FDA are likely to be seeking public opinion on issues like whether they're focusing on things that matter to people, whether their advice is realistic for a reasonably wide subset of the population. They might particularly want input from a panel of people who have struggled with healthy eating so that they can better understand the barriers (socioeconomic, psychological, or whatever) that people might experience to eating well. They are also likely to want input as to how easy to digest (pardon the pun) the advice that they issue is. Many eople working in healthcare research, while obviously experts in their particular line of clinical/ healthcare/ social care knowledge are spectacularly clueless when it comes to communicating effectively with muggles/ non-experts.

There's a few of us on our PPI panel with some medical/scientific background who are quite good at seeing where these gaps are in information as presented by an incredibly enthusiastic 28 year old, fully immersed in their field without their own personal direct experience of chronic illness, being in a caring role or whatever is relevant to the proposed study or project. Others who don't have any sientific background are just as useful because they're intelligent and articulate nough to say "hang on, this sounds like nonsense!"

ouryve

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

There was an interesting piece in the NY Times on this issue. There are some interesting differences between the public and dietitians.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/07/05/upshot/is-sushi-healthy-what-about-granola-where-americans-and-nutritionists-disagree.html

I love this infographc, if only for the fact that some people are actually convinced that full fat coke is healthy!

kommodevaran

There is fat in Coca Cola?

French_Peasant

kommodevaran wrote: »

There is fat in Coca Cola?

Just Coke jumping on the LCHF bandwagon!

GottaBurnEmAll

That's a colloquialism for regular Coke as opposed to diet.

ouryve

Aye, just like non-decaff coffee is "full fat". It's a colloquialism for unmessed with.

Anvil_Head

NorthCascades wrote: »

The_Enginerd wrote: »

Individual foods aren't healthy or unhealthy, diets are.

I think whale, dolphin, and some fish are unhealthy foods, because they've caused mercury poisoning. Wouldn't you agree that poison isn't a macronutrient?

You're conveniently ignoring context and dosage.

4legsRbetterthan2

Do many people need help determining what foods are healthy?

yes

Individual foods aren't healthy or unhealthy, diets are

agreed

There is a failed mindset in America (and probably most other countries) around food. It is either healthy, or not; as if our entire diet is made up of that one food instead of putting it in the context of it's mixture with other food. I imagine this will result in the labeling of fruits, veggies, and raw meats as healthy; which lets face it, I think most people agree on this regardless of what *diet* they believe in. The consumer still needs to be smart enough to realize they need to mix them together for good results. What will labeling these things as healthy actually get us, besides higher taxes or grocery bills to pay for the labeling.

I did like it when a couple years back they started putting the basic calorie/macro counts on the front of packages, I found that to be convenient when shopping, saved me the 2 seconds of pulling something off the shelf, flipping it over, and then putting it back if I decided against it.

I could maybe see some benefit in giving tips with food, I wouldn't put these on the actual bag/box but maybe on the shelf display. An example: rice - "rice is a good carbohydrate source, mix with vegetable and meat for a balanced meal" or something like that. There is still obviously a limited amount of information in that, but it at least points them away from thinking "healthy" rice alone is a great diet. (or maybe rice doesn't fall into the "healthy" category at all to the general public who has been lead to believe carbs are evil, who the heck knows)

Sloth2016

In the context of printed on a food package, I view the word "healthy" the same as I would the word "tasty" or "snackable" - simply an artifice created by a paid marketeer. To the extent the gov'mint wants to regulate the use of the word, absent some other definition that it creates, applies and enforces (e.g., "USDA Inspected"), I would not give much credence or credibility to the word appearing on a package.

T1DCarnivoreRunner

As others have said, there really is no universal and objective definition of "healthy." Unless this whole plan is to be abandoned (obviously not since they are asking for public input), they should change it to a rating. Some group of experts should come up with a complicated formula to determine a level of "healthy." No food can ever reach 100% except pure filtered water... 80% or above would look really good, though.

Or they should just abandon the idea.

CSARdiver

BOHICA - get familiar with this acronym anytime you see an open panel of this nature form a government agency.

FDA is taking public comments to get consensus on whether or not a large regulatory push will be successful. They want more control and testing the waters to see if the public with play along.

Yet another government manufactured problem with no solution in sight, but will make for great justification for budget increase.

Allow greater authority at your peril.

Ruatine

Like many others, I don't see this having an impact on the way people buy food. At all. Also like others, I don't see how you can label a food as "healthy" without knowing the overall diet of a person.

The big question is, has or will anyone here comment(ed) on the proposed rule?

robininfl

Personally (and maybe this is leftover from ED, but...) I tend to think of ranking foods as nutritious defined largely by nutrition (vitamins and minerals) per calorie, so collards and kale greens at the top, other vegetables, but since obviously you can't eat only collards and kale, and you need fat, protein, carbohydrates, things that are not good in excess but are not just healthy but necessary in moderation.

So there's not much use trying to define one food in isolation, as healthy. It isn't healthy if it's the only thing you eat. You have to put the whole diet in perspective, and look at everything together.

I do think of some foods as unhealthy, full stop. Candy like skittles, stuff made of sugar only, and the candy bars like snickers and milky way, and also full sugar (and Particularly HFCS) sodas. Because they have pretty much no nutrition and lots of calories.

ouryve

robininfl wrote: »

Personally (and maybe this is leftover from ED, but...) I tend to think of ranking foods as nutritious defined largely by nutrition (vitamins and minerals) per calorie, so collards and kale greens at the top, other vegetables, but since obviously you can't eat only collards and kale, and you need fat, protein, carbohydrates, things that are not good in excess but are not just healthy but necessary in moderation.

So there's not much use trying to define one food in isolation, as healthy. It isn't healthy if it's the only thing you eat. You have to put the whole diet in perspective, and look at everything together.

I do think of some foods as unhealthy, full stop. Candy like skittles, stuff made of sugar only, and the candy bars like snickers and milky way, and also full sugar (and Particularly HFCS) sodas. Because they have pretty much no nutrition and lots of calories.

In the UK, many of those foods carry the label "best enjoyed as part of a balanced diet"

RodaRose

ouryve wrote: »

robininfl wrote: »

Personally (and maybe this is leftover from ED, but...) I tend to think of ranking foods as nutritious defined largely by nutrition (vitamins and minerals) per calorie, so collards and kale greens at the top, other vegetables, but since obviously you can't eat only collards and kale, and you need fat, protein, carbohydrates, things that are not good in excess but are not just healthy but necessary in moderation.

So there's not much use trying to define one food in isolation, as healthy. It isn't healthy if it's the only thing you eat. You have to put the whole diet in perspective, and look at everything together.

I do think of some foods as unhealthy, full stop. Candy like skittles, stuff made of sugar only, and the candy bars like snickers and milky way, and also full sugar (and Particularly HFCS) sodas. Because they have pretty much no nutrition and lots of calories.

In the UK, many of those foods carry the label "best enjoyed as part of a balanced diet"

Authorities in the U.K. probably have it closer to right than anything policy makers in the U.S. will produce.

lemurcat12

RodaRose wrote: »

ouryve wrote: »

robininfl wrote: »

Personally (and maybe this is leftover from ED, but...) I tend to think of ranking foods as nutritious defined largely by nutrition (vitamins and minerals) per calorie, so collards and kale greens at the top, other vegetables, but since obviously you can't eat only collards and kale, and you need fat, protein, carbohydrates, things that are not good in excess but are not just healthy but necessary in moderation.

So there's not much use trying to define one food in isolation, as healthy. It isn't healthy if it's the only thing you eat. You have to put the whole diet in perspective, and look at everything together.

I do think of some foods as unhealthy, full stop. Candy like skittles, stuff made of sugar only, and the candy bars like snickers and milky way, and also full sugar (and Particularly HFCS) sodas. Because they have pretty much no nutrition and lots of calories.

In the UK, many of those foods carry the label "best enjoyed as part of a balanced diet"

Authorities in the U.K. probably have it closer to right than anything policy makers in the U.S. will produce.

We were talking about the stoplight system in another thread, and actually the current UK labeling rules seem to be pretty similar to the current US rules that are being reconsidered. Knee-jerk anti fat.