The healthy shopper II

What does ‘gluten free’ mean for me? 

By Bob Gaydos

       There is an aisle of food products at the ShopRite supermarket in Chester, N.Y., that reaches from one side of the store way over to the other side. In fact, it seems to go on forever. Every item on the shelves is labeled “gluten-free.” Similar sections, some even larger, have sprung up in supermarkets across the country, causing more than one shopper to wonder, “What the heck is gluten?” 
Gluten, which comes from the Latin word for ”glue,” is a protein found in wheat, barley, rye, spelt and other grains. It is used extensively in baking to help dough rise and to give the final product -- bread, cake, muffins, etc. -- shape and chewiness. It is also used in many other food products, medications and vitamin supplements to provide texture and as a stabilizing or binding agent. It can be found in products ranging from imitation meats (Tofurkey) to pasta, beer, pizza, cookies, ice cream and ketchup. It is a staple of most processed foods.
         Until the past couple of years, the phrase “gluten-free’ was familiar (and important) primarily only to the roughly 1 percent of Americans estimated to have celiac disease. Celiac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by eating gluten. It can cause inflammation in the small intestine, leading to stomach pain, bloating, diarrhea and even weight loss. Over time, undiagnosed, it can deprive organs of important nutrients. Celiac disease has no cure, but it can be controlled with a gluten-free diet.
The recent boom in gluten-free products at the supermarket, however, also has a lot to do with concerns about gluten sensitivity and wheat allergy (separate conditions), combined with a desire among more health-conscious consumers to reduce their calorie intake. Products with gluten have been linked to weight gain. This consciousness has been fed by social media sites on the Internet which have given rise to a growing societal interest in eating more healthfully and a concern over genetically modified foods, including wheat. (GMOs will be covered in a later article.)
         Of course, there has been more aggressive marketing by food companies responding to consumer demand. And it’s the marketing that can cause confusion among shoppers. While the Food and Drug Administration does not require gluten to be listed on labels, last year it adopted standards under which companies may voluntarily list their product as “gluten-free.” Lesser-known food companies that were already producing gluten-free foods were quick to respond; larger companies, noting consumer interest (and purchases) began to follow suit. More seem to be doing so every day.
         Since a primary goal of this series is to help eliminate shopper confusion, it should be known at the outset that many foods are gluten-free in their natural form, including meats, poultry, fish, fruits, vegetables, potatoes, rice and beans. Labeling them ‘’gluten free’’ is stating the obvious. There is a slight risk of cross-contamination with beans, since some farmers grow them on the same fields or adjacent to crops that contain gluten. Persons who know they are allergic or sensitive to gluten (confirm this with your doctor), might want to look for products voluntarily labeled gluten-free and be alert for another voluntary statement, “may contain wheat.” 
          But labels, even though they may be truthful, can be deceiving. Whether the intent of avoiding gluten is to avoid symptoms of celiac disease or to lose weight, it’s important for the savvy shopper to be aware of everything that is in the product that’s labeled “gluten-free.” A lot of sodium may be added for “taste,’’ or some unhealthful combination of the sugars listed in the first article in this series may be lurking. There may be chemical additives. It’s also wise to be aware of what is being used instead of gluten to give the product the desired texture. 
         It doesn’t take a long time to read food labels once you’ve made it a practice. Knowing what you’re looking for is key. Beyond that, it’s still a matter of taste and texture. Rice, quinoa and buckwheat are among the foods gaining in popularity with the gluten-free consumer.

Not just gluten
        If you want to read more about wheat and it’s possible effect on weight and health in general, Dr. William Davis has written a best-selling book entitled “Wheat Belly.” It’s available at the usual places On Line.

Next: What exactly is “natural”? 

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

Required reading: New food labels

The healthy shopper - 1

By Bob Gaydos

In a bow to reality, the Food and Drug Administration has proposed new requirements for nutrition labels on prepared foods and beverages. The changes are the first since the FDA began requiring the labels more than two decades ago. The proposals would give more prominence to total calorie content, rather than how many calories come from what kind of fat, and require companies to list how much sugar has been added to the product. The FDA also would require listing how much Vitamin D, dietary fiber, potassium, calcium and iron the product contains.

The agency is also proposing lowering the recommended daily sodium intake to 2300 milligrams from 2400, but is asking for comment on lowering it to 1500 milligrams, a level encouraged by many medical and health groups.

Finally, the proposed new labels would also have revised serving sizes for some products in the hope of more accurately reflecting the way people consume it. For example, a 12 -or-20 ounce bottle of soda would be considered one serving, not two, since most people typically consume the whole bottle. A pint of ice cream would be two servings, not four. This should make it easier to calculate how many calories people are actually consuming.

Some look at this action by the FDA as a recognition -- somewhat belatedly -- of Americans’ changing eating habits and a desire to provide more useful information for an increasingly label-reading population. Others see it as ignoring more important labeling issues, for example, clearly labeling what ingredients are good for consumers and which ones they should try to avoid.

Health advocates say that emphasizing specific ingredients on the label, as the FDA proposes, allows food companies to make front-of-the-product claims that suggest the product is healthful -- low in fat, high in fiber, rich in Vitamin C, for example -- when other ingredients -- salt and sugar for example -- may be present in less than healthful percentages.

Advocates for more healthful foods also suggest that instead of listing every different type of sugar on the label -- a practice that effectively hides the overall sugar content of many products -- it would be better to just list the total sugar content and for the FDA to issue a recommended daily amount for sugar intake. Clear front-of-the-package labels have also been urged as a way to help pressed-for-time shoppers make quicker, healthier choices.   

Some health advocates go so far as to suggest that the FDA require labels that classify the nutrients in a product in two easy-to- understand categories -- “get enough” and “avoid too much.” The FDA has actually offered that option in its proposed labeling changes.

In any case, whatever changes eventually come about on food labels, the challenging issue right now for many shoppers is the seemingly endless array of new information and products greeting them as they graze supermarket aisles. Never mind figuring out which brand gives you more for your money, today it can be tough trying to figure out exactly what you’re getting for your money and whether it’s as good for you as the label says.

In a series of occasional articles, I will try to take some of the mystery and confusion out of the new food shopping by answering such questions as: What’s gluten and do I need to be free of it? What’s a GMO? Is ‘’natural’’ always natural? What makes it “organic”? And what’s the controversy about palm oil?

*  *  *

For starters, since the FDA is recommending listing how much “added sugar” is in any product, but there’s no way to know when or if it will actually do so, it would be useful to be able to recognize the different names under which sugar travels on labels. Anyone concerned about how much sugar he or she consumes (which should be everyone), should know these aliases: sucrose, dextrose, maltose, lactose, high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, maple syrup, brown rice syrup, in fact, most words ending in “ose” or “syrup,” cane sugar, cane juice, honey, caramel, palm sugar, molasses, brown sugar, invert sugar, fruit juice concentrates, dextrin, malt, agave and other nectars, sorghum and treacle.

These are the most common aliases, but there are dozens of variations of sugar listed on labels. Any of these near the top of the list, means there’s a lot of sugar in the product. Several of these listed on the labels suggests the same thing. Be aware.

Next: What is gluten and should I be free of it?

bobgaydos.blogspot.com

Can we just not call it food?

By Bob Gaydos

What do beavers have in common with raspberries?

Sometimes, a little bit of curiosity can ruin your appetite.

I love raspberry-flavored, frozen Greek yogurt. I defy you to find a more soul-satisfying treat, especially with some dark chocolate shavings sprinkled on top.

Recently, having become a more conscientious food label-reader, I
noticed a story on the Internet about ingredients that don’t have to be listed, but come under the heading of “natural flavoring.” Among the “natural flavoring” ingredients listed was “castoreum.”

“Hmm, something from the castor bean?” I wondered.

Off to Google I went and soon found myself in a state of shock, disbelief and a little bit of, well, disgust.

It turns out that castoreum is a yellowish secretion from the castor sac of adult male and female beavers. The castor sac is located between the anus and genitals in beavers and, along with its urine, is used to scent mark the beaver’s territory. Sweet.

While I had to admit the source made it a “natural” ingredient, I also wondered why the natural flavor of raspberries wasn’t sufficient. And more to the point, I wondered who the genius was who decided that the exudate from a sac located next to a beaver’s anus would be a good thing to add to yogurt to improve its flavor. What was the “Eureka!” moment? Who did the first taste test?

It turns out castoreum has been used for years in perfumes. So I imagine it wasn’t such a leap to go from putting a dab on the wrist to wondering if a shot of beaver sac juice would enhance the flavor of ice cream, candy, yogurt, iced tea and gelatin, especially, apparently, strawberry- and raspberry-flavored foods.

In case you’re wondering, the Food and Drug Administration puts castoreum in the “Generally Regarded As Safe” category. Maybe so, but I am generally going to think twice before I buy raspberry yogurt again.

As it happens, the search for information on castoreum also led me to data on what I at first thought was the source of castoreum -- the castor bean. More bad news.

The castor bean (actually a seed) is regarded as the deadliest plant on the planet. It is the source, yes, of castor oil. But it is also the source of ricin, a powerful poison with no known antidote. The bean is also the source of a food additive identified usually as PGPR. I have learned that when I see a bunch of letters like that on a food label, it’s wise to find out what they mean.

So, remember the added ingredient to my favorite dessert -- the chocolate shavings on top? Guess what’s listed on the label of Hershey’s dark chocolate bars? Yup. PGPR. Polyglycerol polyricinoleate.

  PGPR is a sticky yellowish liquid that acts as an emulsifier -- it holds the chocolate together. It is also much cheaper to produce than cocoa butter, meaning Hershey’s can give you less chocolate in its chocolate, at lower cost to itself, thus making more profits. PGPR also lets the candy sit on the shelves much longer and still be considered safe to consume. Apparently, we’re supposed to ignore that word ricin in the middle of the PGPR as well as the lack of cocoa in the chocolate bar. The FDA says PGPR is safe for human consumption, although lab tests on chickens showed what was described as reversible liver damage.

Finally, while still looking at the Hershey’s label, the word vanillin caught my eye. Again, not necessarily what it seems to be. Yes, vanillin is an extract of the vanilla bean and is used as an additive in lots of foods. But, because of the rarity of the bean and the cost associated with producing it, much vanillin today is of the synthetic variety, coming from lignin, which is a byproduct of, ahem, wood pulp.

So there you have it, my favorite dessert: ricin and wood pulp sprinkled on top of beaver scent-marking sac juice. Some days it just doesn’t pay to read the labels.

bobgaydos.blogspt.com

If it's 'safe,' put it on the label

By Bob Gaydos

Is our corn genetically modified?

A few weeks ago I wrote a column that proclaimed, “Turns out, you really are what you eat.” For me, in the midst of changing to a more healthful diet, that statement is truer than ever. The problem is, it is getting harder to know exactly what we’re eating and the mega-companies that produce the food we eat are going out of their way to keep it that way. They’re also getting a lot of help from politicians, who bemoan rising health costs and obesity on the one hand, but don’t seem eager to learn if, just maybe, the food we eat has something to do with both. Guess it depends on who’s buttering your toast.
Disclaimer: While I have significantly modified my diet to a more   healthful emphasis on non-meat foods and organic food, I am not a vegan or vegetarian. I believe all living things, including animals, are entitled to humane treatment and that animals who are pets or companions should not be used as food. Period.
I also believe that we humans are entitled to know as much as possible abut the food being offered to us, including any changes made to the original product. Then we can make whatever decision we want, informed or uninformed, as long as we have a fair chance. That’s what this is about.
This week, President Obama, following the lead of a bought-and-paid for Congress, signed into law what has come to be known as the Monsanto Protection Act. Big mistake.
Much of the president’s political support has come from voters who believed his stated commitments to openness in government and a healthier, more informed citizenry. This swoop of his pen calls much of his rhetoric into doubt. In brief, the so-called act is actually one turgid paragraph buried in the homeland security section of a huge budget bill. It allows Monsanto, which did an all-out lobbying effort to get Congress to stick the paragraph in the bill, to plant genetically modified crop seed without any court reviewing whether or not it is safe.
Genetically modified crops are hardier, more resistant to pesticides and produce more product in less space. Through review of the gene-modifying process, the government says, it decides if they are safe for human consumption.
So ask yourself: Why then is it necessary in the first place for a food giant to want protection from having to prove its “safe” food is safe?
Correct answer: Money. It costs a lot to pay lawyers to defend you  in court. Even mega-rich companies like Monsanto try to avoid court costs. Also, any doubts raised about the safety of a food product -- cereal, bread, beef -- is bound to hurt sales. More money.
This has far more to do with Monsanto’s bottom line than homeland security. And the fact that nobody can be 100 percent sure the genetically modified organisms are, in the long run, safe.
Now, a lot of apparently intelligent people say publicly that the GMOs are indeed safe for us to eat. I don’t discount this out of hand. As I said, this is about letting us, not some high-priced lobbyist, decide what food we want to eat and what food we’d just as soon avoid. (Obama has also appointed a former Monsanto executive as his food safety adviser.) If GMOs are so safe (may European nations have banned them), then label them and let the president give a personal testimonial on the label if he wants. “Mmm mmm good, says Barack.” Just let me know what I’m eating.
Or drinking.
The other current labeling issue involves milk, which we are told from birth is good, even necessary, for our good health, and aspartame, which, well, let’s say has had some issues.
The dairy industry has asked the Food and Drug Administration to allow it to remove front-of-package labeling on flavored milk products that proclaim “low calorie” or “artificially  sweetened.” These milk products, especially chocolate milk, are big with kids, but they are drinking less of it and industry executives think the front labels may scare them off.
Again, money.
Actually, it’s more likely the labels scare off parents who then look at the ingredients and see aspartame has been added for sweetness. Just to be clear -- aspartame is already in these products and listed in the ingredients. That will not change. The milk people just want it to be less obvious and to continue to label the products “milk” without any of that annoying added information.
Now, to start with, using artificial sweeteners as an argument for improving the health of children is specious. The sweeteners are so much sweeter than sugar (aspartame is 200 times sweeter) that they increase children’s appetite for other sweet foods. And school officials are not keen on kids being targeted this way and not being absolutely clear as to what they are offering in their cafeterias.
A chemical concoction, aspartame (once sold as NutraSweet) has been a controversial product from the start. Still, while being mentioned in connection with many health concerns (including brain cancer), aspartame has been found to be safe for human consumption in the United States and more than 100 other countries. For proof, check your diet soda’s ingredients.
The point is, they still call it diet soda or low-cal whatever, meaning you might want to check the ingredients to see what makes it so tasty. Just like you might want to check your milk product. Or not.
We Americans like to think of ourselves as savvy and independent consumers. We also say we revere science and aspire to good health. Yet we rank near the bottom of the world rankings for science students and near the top for obese ones -- and health care costs. Maybe we should connect those dots.
Meantime, just give us all the info on the food we get and let us decide for ourselves if we want to eat it.