In today’s post, I take a critical approach in examining certain food labels to determine the legitimacy and truthfulness of their purported claims. As a society, recent times have witnessed a paradigm shift in the infrastructure of our domestic food system. No longer the cottage industry it once was back in the day, the food business has catapulted into one of the most powerful institutions worldwide. With revenue streams totaling $377 billion in 2013, food commerce has taken over as an industry giant as it consistently ranks in the top-5 nationally. And a large reason for this booming enterprise is the masterful marketing of food products. Major food corporations spend millions upon millions annually for market researchers to come up with the next popular food buzz word. Just to give you an idea of the influence that food marketing has on our purchasing habits, according to a 2013 Nielsen survey, the food industry sold almost $41 billion worth of food last year labeled with the word "natural," which is essentially just an overly vague term that has no federal regulation by the USDA. Nowadays because there is so much at stake in terms of dollars, food marketing and labeling has materialized into the Wild West. It has become impossible to know who to trust, as labeling has become more nuanced than ever. In an attempt to help with some of the confusion, I take a critical eye to 5 different food labels: the American Heart Association heart check label, the “Look for Whole Grains” stamp, the “Farm Fresh” label, the “Certified Naturally Grown” label and the “Non-GMO Project Verified” label, to understand what they mean and examine the justification of their claims. My goal in doing this post is to generate awareness. As it stands, I think this topic is more relevant now than ever before. With a growing population that is becoming more and more health conscious, these labels are still tricky as hell to read and if you don’t know what you are looking for, it’s easy to get overwhelmed. So let’s get it crackin… American Heart Association Heart-Check Label Universally known and recognized as the preeminent authority when it comes to our overall health, the American Heart Association heart check label has become synonymous with healthiness. The label is seen on a litany of grocery store products and is designed to help consumers make healthier food choices. In terms of legitimacy, I think this and the USDA Organic label are found to be the most recognized by society for their label standards. And I would tend to agree. After reviewing their certification guidelines on the AHA website, the program utilizes 6 stringent categories of certification with each having a different set of nutrition requirements. The program also utilizes independent third-party lab testing and most of its nutrient requirements are per FDA/USDA RACC. Additionally, all approved products must meet federal requirements for making a coronary heart disease claim (AHA, 2014). Overall, they set a pretty high bar for their products. My Critique with this Label In terms of its ambiguity, I think that this label is pretty legitimate as far as its health claims, but my main critique is that it does not regulate where products come from. By this I mean there is no regulation as it relates to farming methods, manufacturing protocols, etc. This can become problematic because ingredients and nutrient values on packaging can be misleading. A prime example I can point to here is the ambiguity we see in fortified food products, an area which is not currently regulated by the AHA. According to the European Food Information Council (2014), fortified foods are defined as, “foods or food products to which extra nutrients have been added.” In accordance with the FDA (2014), the addition of a nutrient to a food may be appropriate “if it corrects a dietary insufficiency, restores the level of the nutrient lost during processing or storing, helps balance vitamin, mineral and protein content or is used to replace a traditional food (i.e., meal replacements).” For you the consumer, this causes problems because it allows for manufacturers to produce foods lacking in nutritional value to add nutrients (such as fiber, calcium, etc.) to bring their dietary profile up to par and fit AHA guidelines. This is problematic for 2 reasons: 1) because these vitamins aren’t in their natural form, they are processed differently by your body, and 2) nowadays essentially everything in a grocery store can be fortified and “made” healthy. We especially see this in things like sugary cereals and “healthy” energy bars. More troubling is the fact that research has found certain populations, especially children, are at risk of getting too much supplementation from eating fortified foods (EWG, 2014). I bring this up because a good amount of the certified foods on the AHA approved list are indeed fortified. And many of the products, such as some juices and snack products, would most likely not make the cut if they weren’t. In addition to fortified foods, another reason why the regulation of farming methods is so significant is because the overall nutritional value of foods can be greatly affected by it. For example, when it comes to fish and seafood, there is a wide margin in nutrition between farmed-raised versus wild-caught, particularly in omega-3 and monounsaturated fats. Additionally, because farm-raised fish do not have access to a wild diet, they are fed pellets of chicken feces, corn meal, soy, genetically modified canola oil and other fish containing concentrations of toxins, which obviously has a detrimental effect to our health (Pure Zing, 2013). This also pertains to beef products, where grass-fed beef is shown to have higher levels of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), less total fat, more omega-3 fats and more antioxidants in comparison to grain-fed beef. However, with all of this being said, I still think that the AHA label holds weight as something you should pay attention to. Just be careful and be sure to read all of the listed ingredients on anything that you buy with it. “Look For Whole Grains” Stamp The “Look for Whole Grains” stamp is a label that has become increasingly more popular in supermarkets and health food stores over the past decade. This label is predominately found on mostly grain products, including: bread, pasta, cereal, etc. and its purpose is to delineate products that are whole grain (meaning that they have all parts of the grain, including the bran and germ). The program was instituted by the Whole Grains Council, and consists of 2 labels, 1) the 100% Stamp – which assures you that a food contains a full serving or more of whole grain in each labeled serving and that ALL the grain is whole grain, and 2) the basic Whole Grain Stamp – which appears on products containing at least half a serving of whole grain per labeled serving. The “Look for Whole Grains” stamp has garnered widespread usage, as of October 2014, the label is on over 10,000 products in over 42 countries. My Critique with this Label As far as the label itself, the language is pretty straightforward in that it is not misleading. Overall, it serves its purpose by informing the amount of whole grains in a particular product. However, where I think we tend to miss the boat as a consumer is by associating the whole grains label with the overall healthiness of the product. We think that just because a product is listed as whole grain, it must be good for us. However, research shows that may not necessarily be the case. For example, Mozaffarian et al. (2013) conducted an interpretive analysis on products containing the “Look for Whole Grains” label, and found that while WG-stamped products in fact contained higher fiber and lower trans-fat totals, they were also higher in sugars and calories when compared to products without the stamp. However, I think that the larger problem with the regulating of “whole grains” in our food products is that there are no federal guidelines. As it stands, there is no single standard for defining a product “whole grain,” as the “Look for Whole Grains” Stamp is a third-party verification agency and not federally regulated. As a result, you can walk into your local Ralph’s and find a box of Lucky Charm’s with the “Look for Whole Grains” logo proudly affixed on the right hand corner. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather get my fiber from sweet potatoes and broccoli, not ‘me’ Lucky Charms. Additionally, there is a lot of ambiguity in how manufacturers label wheat. From the standard whole wheat classification, you have your multigrain, 7 grain, stoneground, semolina, durum wheat, and enriched flour just to name a few. Technically, some of these are considered “whole” and some aren’t (to decipher would take an entire separate blog post). Furthermore, unless you are buying organic, you can go ahead and assume that you are eating GMO grains. That is why personally I choose to refrain from wheat and grains altogether to prevent this madness! But if you must consume grains, opt for the sprouted variety that you can find at most health food stores and always go organic. You can use the “Look for Whole Grains” stamp as a guide, but be sure to check food labels for other possible ingredients. "Farm Fresh" The Farm Fresh Label (or its many variations) is a label that is seen predominately on egg products and is meant to delineate the freshness of a particular product. The label has gained popularity as of late due to the success of farmer’s markets and the local food movement. A lot of people connect local farming with the term “farm fresh” and thus look for it at the supermarket. Due to this, food manufacturers try to slap the term on as many products as possible in an attempt to generate hype and boost purported health benefits. My Critique with this Label EVERYTHING. Of all of the labels on this list, the “farm fresh” label is definitely the most ambiguous. All this label really means is that the eggs were “freshly picked” after the hen lays the egg. Although “freshly picked” is highly ambiguous as well, as there is no regulation on how soon the farmer has to pick them (how fresh is fresh?). And even then, although the eggs are technically fresh when they are hatched, unless you are buying local, they most likely have been sitting in crates for days on end and shipped all over the country. However, the more pressing concern is that the label means absolutely nothing as it pertains to the welfare of the animal (in fact, most of the chickens that lay farm fresh eggs are raised inhumanely). These inhumane conditions include ones where hens are raised in battery cages and confined in extremely small spaces where they are unable to spread their wings (according to the Humane Society, each caged laying hen is afforded only 67 square inches of cage space—less space than a single sheet of letter-sized paper on which to live her entire life). On top of that, because these eggs are not considered organic, hens are fed GMO-based chicken feed. Definitely not very appetizing… And definitely not “farm fresh.” Essentially, this label is just a clever marketing term by companies to get you to buy their product. So you can feel free to disregard this label at the supermarket, because it means nothing. Certified Naturally Grown Label The Certified Naturally Grown label has come into popularity recently in many specialty health food stores and local food operations as a marker for quality organic foods. As the increased public awareness and interest in organic production methods continues to skyrocket, this label is increasingly being sought after by the health-savvy consumer looking to make healthier and more ethical food choices. The label is commonly found on many meat, fruit and vegetable products. According to Greener Choices (2014), the Certified Naturally Grown label means that “the farm where the food is grown uses the same farming methods as certified organic farms, but is not independently verified by a USDA-accredited certification agency and not subject to the legal enforcement of the USDA.” The reason this certification came to fruition was out of a response to the costly and often politicized nature of the USDA Organic certification process. There were many farmers who did not want to or could not afford to participate in the USDA certification program, and wanted an alternative certification system that was cheaper and had fewer requirements. Essentially, the CNG program was designed for small farmers, such as distributors for farmer’s markets, roadside stands and community supported agriculture projects to be able to attain organic certification of their products. As it has garnered momentum, it has come to be recognized as the grassroots alternative to the USDA system. However, the main difference here is that instead of annual inspections by a USDA accredited certifying agency, they police themselves, with CNG farms being inspected by other CNG farms. While not USDA approved, the label is actually pretty significant in that there are clearly defined standards and procedures that have to be followed. Along with their precise certification guidelines, CNG farms are lauded for their transparency, collaboration and community involvement, as all participating farms completed applications and scorecards are available online to the public, and any prospective farms interested in becoming CNG certified can download registration information off of their website (CNG, 2014). In addition, all CNG farms are subject to random inspection (CNG, 2014). My Critique with this Label Overarching, I really don't have a whole lot of criticism with this label. As far as ambiguity, this label is definitely one of the more valid ones. The main critique that I have noted with CNG farms and their labeling program is that they pose the risk of a conflict of interest. Due to the framework of the CNG certification system, which relies heavily on peer-reviewed inspections, there remains the possibility of unethical favors and benefits being exchanged or cutting corners by participating farms. Although with that being said, the CNG program does try to mitigate this by not allowing farmers to “trade” inspections – meaning that a farmer cannot inspect the farm of the individual who inspected his/her farm, however because the program is reliant on a trust system, the possibility remains. Another common critique of the Certified Naturally Grown label is that it is not federally regulated. The program merely acts as a third-party verification agency, and although this may be unsettling for some consumers, the research that I have done has uncovered overwhelmingly positive reviews of the program. Therefore, as it pertains to food labels, CNG appears to be one of the more sought after right behind the USDA Organic label. This label is definitely worth paying attention to! Non-GMO Project Verified Label The “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal is one of the newer labels to come on the food marketing scene. The Non-GMO Project began in 2005 out of a movement in Berkeley, CA, where consumers began to question the amount of GMO in their products. The program initially materialized out of the “People Want to Know Campaign,” a letter-writing initiative which rallied over 161 grocery stores to protest current legislation. Fast forward to today, and what once began as a grassroots movement has become the authority in the testing of GMO foods. The label has become common in stores and markets, as it is affixed to a bevy of items, ranging from vitamins and supplements, to packaged/frozen goods, to pet products. The label is sought after by consumers looking to make verified Non-GMO choices.
The label has importance for us because, as it stands today, federal law does not require manufacturers to disclose the amount of GMO in their products. As a non-profit, the Non-GMO Project is currently North America’s only third party verification and labeling for non-GMO food and products. And on the whole, the project has had quite an impact on the marketplace. According to the project website, there are currently over 20,000 Non-GMO Project Verified products from 2,200 brands, representing well over $7 billion in annual sales. My Critique with this Label: All things considered, I definitely respect the guidelines and standards of this label. There are clearly defined protocols that each product must go through, and because the project is non-profit, there is not a conflict of interest with big business. However, there are still inconsistencies, as ambiguities remain. To begin, there is vagueness as to what constitutes GMO-free. According to the Non-GMO Project website, “GMO free” and similar claims are not legally or scientifically defensible due to limitations of testing methodology. Therefore, the Non-GMO Project’s verification seal is not a “GMO free” claim, it is what they consider verification for products made according to best practices for GMO avoidance. While they do maintain an "Action Threshold" of 0.9%, (where any product containing more than 0.9% GMO must be labeled), monitoring is done independently as there is no federal guidelines. Among industry circles, the main critique points to logistical issues (not so much as it relates to this label per-se, but more about the larger movement). From a broad perspective, there is a growing consensus of people who find the growing “GMO-Free” trend to have serious implications for both the manufacturer and consumer. For major food companies, transitioning to GMO-free products requires a complete change to their infrastructure, resulting in higher costs and logistical issues in securing enough non-GMO sources. Particularly as it relates to traditionally heavy sprayed crops, such as soy and corn, securing non-GMO varietals is a challenge because the majority of these crops in the U.S. have some level on contamination in them. In fact, according to a Reuters (2014) report, more than 90% of the corn and soybeans that are grown in the U.S. are GMO strains. This has turned the non-GMO commodity supply chain into a big business of its own. Almost definitely, this will have a trickle-down effect on us the consumer, as companies will be forced to raise food prices to offset the production costs. However, as it relates to the label, I think that the costs justify the action. Right now the Non-GMO Project is really all we have to help fight against the production of genetically engineered foods. In addition, their sound certification guidelines and track record as a trustworthy source make this label one to pick up whenever possible. Discussion I know what you’re thinking: buying food shouldn’t be this damn difficult! And I agree, but unfortunately that is the reality that we now live in. What sucks is that things are only getting worse. With the current farming landscape in this country, experts are predicting an even bigger increase in GMO contaminated products as we move ahead. However, it is important to remember that you hold all of the power in what you choose to buy. By being a more educated buyer, you can make better informed decisions about the food you purchase. Overarching, as a consumer, you must always be looking to exercise your agency to help combat these unsavory conditions. As bad as things have gotten, it’s now on us now to take action. Along with doing your part individually, look to start up some local CSAs in your community, work with your local legislation to bring more Farmer’s markets and local food to your neighborhood, or even grow your own food!! Because as it stands now, the food industry has no plans of slowing down, and they definitely don’t have our best interest at hand. References: Cage-Free vs. Battery-Cage Eggs : The Humane Society of the United States. (2009, September 1). Retrieved December 12, 2014, from http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/confinement_farm/facts/cage-free_vs_battery-cage.html CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21. (2014). Retrieved December 12, 2014, from http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=104.20 CNG - Home Page. (2014). Retrieved December 14, 2014, from https://www.naturallygrown.org/ Esterl, M. (2013, November 6). Some Food Companies Ditch 'Natural' Label. Retrieved December 12, 2014, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304470504579163933732367084 Frequently Asked Questions. (2014). Retrieved December 12, 2014, from http://www.eufic.org/page/en/page/FAQ/faqid/fortified-enriched-food-products/ Gillam, C. (2014, February 18). U.S. food companies find going 'non-GMO' no easy feat. Retrieved December 11, 2014, from http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/18/us-usa-food-gmo-analysis-SBREA1H1G420140218 GreenerChoices.org | Eco-labels center | Label search results. (2014). Retrieved December 14, 2014, from http://www.greenerchoices.org/eco-labels/label.cfm?LabelID=313 Heart-Check Food Certification Program. (2014, October 1). Retrieved December 11, 2014, from http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HeartSmartShopping/Heart-Check-Food-Certification-Program_UCM_300133_Article.jsp# How Much is Too Much? (2014). Retrieved December 12, 2014, from http://www.ewg.org/research/how-much-is-too-much Mozaffarian, R., Lee, R., Kennedy, M., Ludwig, D., Mozaffarian, D., & Gortmaker, S. (2013). Identifying whole grain foods: A comparison of different approaches for selecting more healthful whole grain products. Public Health Nutrition, 2255-2264. Seven Reasons to Avoid Farm Raised Salmon. (2013, January 1). Retrieved December 12, 2014, from http://www.purezing.com/living/food_articles/living The Non-GMO Project. (n.d.). Retrieved December 14, 2014, from http://www.nongmoproject.org/ The Whole Grains Council. (2014). Retrieved December 14, 2014, from http://wholegrainscouncil.org/
7 Comments
5/10/2022 06:34:31 am
What an exquisite article! Your post is very helpful right now. Thank you for sharing this informative one.
Reply
12/20/2022 10:40:24 pm
İnstagram takipçi satın almak istiyorsan tıkla.
Reply
1/8/2023 03:18:10 am
100 tl deneme bonusu veren siteleri öğrenmek istiyorsan tıkla.
Reply
6/30/2023 05:20:31 am
En iyi giresun ilan sitesi burada. https://giresun.escorthun.com/
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
June 2015
Categories
|