Snake Oil in the Supermarket

     Food makers should have to prove the validity of
     their health claims

By The Editors
of Scientific American
September 2010 Issue
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=snake-oil-in-the-supermarket&page=2

From cereals that boost immunity to yogurts that
regulate digestion and juices that keep heart disease
at bay, grocery stores in the U.S. are brimming with
packaged foods and beverages that claim to improve
health. Such declarations are good for business: sales
of "functional foods"-those that manufacturers have
modified to provide supposed health benefits-generated
$31 billion in the U.S. in 2008, a 14 percent increase
over 2006, according to Rockville, Md.-based market
research firm Packaged Facts. But consumers are getting
a rotten deal. Although health claims for foods may
appear to be authoritative, in many cases science does
not support them and the government does not endorse
them. Not only do these products, many of which are
nutritionally bereft, fail to deliver on their
promises, but they may also give consumers a false
sense of security that discourages them from taking
more effective measures to attain wellness, such as
exercise or medication.

In March the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued
warning letters to 17 food and beverage manufacturers
concerning false or misleading health and nutrition
claims on their products. It was an unusually expansive
crackdown for the agency, whose regulatory power over
food companies has declined over the past decades,
thanks to Congress and the courts, which have tended to
come down on the side of the food companies. The FDA's
move, accompanied by an open letter from Commissioner
Margaret Hamburg about the importance of accurate
nutrition labeling, was a significant step toward
halting the exploitation of science by food marketers,
but it does not go far enough in protecting consumers
from deceptive marketing.

The FDA currently issues guide lines for what claims
companies can make about their foods. It allows
statements about how products affect the normal
structure and function of the body but prohibits
unauthorized claims about disease. The agency, though,
does not review compliance before food is packaged and
shipped. Food products arrive at the stores emblazoned
with questionable claims. Cheerios can lower
cholesterol 4 percent in six weeks, asserted the box
label, until the FDA sent General Mills a cease-and-
desist letter in May 2009. Redco Foods's Salada
Naturally Decaffeinated Green Tea promised to tackle
Alzheimer's, rheumatism and cancer, until the March
crackdown. The agency is then forced to play catch-up.
Meanwhile the snake oil sits on supermarket shelves.

Holding health claims for food to the same scientific
standards as those for drugs-and requiring
manufacturers to convince the FDA of alleged benefits
before releasing products for sale-would result in far
fewer health claims on packaged foods, if recent
developments in Europe are any indication. In 2006
Europe began holding food makers to rigorous scientific
standards. Since then, the European Food Safety
Authority has rejected, on the basis of insufficient
evidence, a whopping 80 percent of the more than 900
claims they have assessed thus far. Among the rejects
were claims about probiotic ingredients, which are
commonly found in yogurt products and often touted for
their alleged digestive benefits, and omega-3 fatty
acids, which are frequently added to products ranging
from orange juice to baby food and are often said to
promote brain development. The simple act of asking for
evidence is sometimes enough to reveal the shoddiness
of a claim-some European firms drew supporting
materials from Wikipedia, the American Heritage
dictionary and the Bible.

Differences between the lenient U.S. system and the
more restrictive European system are easily apparent.
For instance, visitors to the Web site for Activia (
www.activia.com)-a yogurt product from Dannon-will have
a very different experience depending on which country
they indicate they are from. The U.S. version
prominently displays the product's putative health
benefits, asserting that it can "help regulate your
digestive system by helping reduce long intestinal
transit time." (It does not say explicitly that the
yogurt helps to alleviate constipation, which would be
a clear violation of the FDA prohibition of
unauthorized claims about specific medical conditions.)
The U.K. version, on the other hand, says only that the
yogurt contains an exclusive bacterial culture and,
like other yogurts, is a source of calcium and vitamin
B12.

Industry representatives complain that having to prove
claims about the health benefits of food would cost too
much and take too long. It's a lame argument. The
nation is currently engaged in a struggle against
skyrocketing rates of obesity and other diet-related
diseases that are among the leading causes of death in
the U.S. In this context, unsubstantiated health claims
on processed foods are a harmful abuse of science that
we should not tolerate.

_____________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest
to people on the left that will help them to
interpret the world and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]
Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit
Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq
Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe
Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe
Account assistance: portside.org/contact
Search the archives: portside.org/archive