The USDA is announcing today, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010. A bit overdue, once every 5 years the Department of Agriculture modifies its recommendations based on new scientific evidence (and heavy lobbying too). It would seem that the Department of Health and Human Services should be charged with this matter, not the same body that want to promote the sales of as much food as possible.

Unfortunately in the past, the advice has been confusing, to say the least. Will 2010′s advice be any better?

From a quick glance, we liked the fact that the first section is advice on STUFF TO REDUCE from our diet.

You can watch live here…

Main messages:

FOODS AND FOOD COMPONENTS TO REDUCE

• Reduce daily sodium intake to less than 2,300 milligrams (mg) and further reduce intake to 1,500 mg among persons who are 51 and older and those of any age who are African American or have hypertension, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease. The 1,500 mg recommendation applies to about half of the U.S. population, including children, and the majority of adults.

• Consume less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fatty acids by replacing them with monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids.

• Consume less than 300 mg per day of dietary cholesterol.

• Keep trans fatty acid consumption as low as possible by limiting foods that contain synthetic sources of trans fats, such as partially hydrogenated oils, and by limiting other solid fats.

• Reduce the intake of calories from solid fats and added sugars. • Limit the consumption of foods that contain refined grains, especially refined grain foods that contain solid fats, added sugars, and sodium.

• If alcohol is consumed, it should be consumed in moderation—up to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men—and only by adults of legal drinking age.

FOODS AND NUTRIENTS TO INCREASE

Individuals should meet the following recommendations as part of a healthy eating pattern while staying within their calorie needs.

• Increase vegetable and fruit intake.

• Eat a variety of vegetables, especially dark-green and red and orange vegetables and beans and peas.

• Consume at least half of all grains as whole grains. Increase whole-grain intake by replacing refined grains with whole grains.

• Increase intake of fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products, such as milk, yogurt, cheese, or fortified soy beverages.6

• Choose a variety of protein foods, which include seafood, lean meat and poultry, eggs, beans and peas, soy products, and unsalted nuts and seeds.

• Increase the amount and variety of seafood consumed by choosing seafood in place of some meat and poultry.

• Replace protein foods that are higher in solid fats with choices that are lower in solid fats and calories and/or are sources of oils.

• Use oils to replace solid fats where possible.

• Choose foods that provide more potassium, dietary fiber, calcium, and vitamin D, which are nutrients of concern in American diets. These foods include vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and milk and milk products.

WHAT WE LIKED

The USDA explicitly said to drink water and not sugary drinks.

The USDA gave a clearly graspable amount for fruit and veg consumption – half a plate.

The USDA said that over 50% of the population should reduce sodium to 1500mg.

WHAT THE USDA could have said and done:

Of the four people fielding questions onstage, not one was a dietitian. Hmn, aren’t RD’s the ones who know best about nutrition. Maybe in 2015?

The USDA really needs to shorten the documents. If Michale Pollan said it in 7 words, and Marion Nestle in 3 sentences, why does the USDA needs pages and pages of documentation to tell us what to eat?

Too much focus on exercise. Yes, it’s important, but the percentage of time spent on this is infinitely higher than on saying don’t eat junk food.

The advice could have been more specific. Instead of “eat less solid fats”, how about – “eat less meat and cheese, and eating more beans and nuts for protein”?

And if the USDA could have announced that it would put its weight behind a change in subsidies from soy and corn to fresh fruits and vegetables…

Bottom line:

The USDA 2010 guidelines improved from those of 2005. They bumped up from a D+ to C-. They still need brevity, specific food advice, and less lobbying fingerprints.

Get Fooducated: iPhone App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

Last week we talked about Cool Ranch Doritos and how with 34 ingredients, you can’t expect a healthy snack. Yesterday we got an email from Lindsey, who pointed out a discrepancy in another Doritos product – Nacho Cheese:

How can the package say “0 Trans Fat” when the ingredient list contains partially hydrogenated oils?

Good question.

What you need to know:

Turns out there is a loophole in nutrition labeling laws. If the value of a nutrient is lower than 0.5 grams per serving, then it can be “rounded down” to zero and labeled as such. This includes trans-fat.

Luckily, a quick look at the ingredient list can inform you if zero is really zero. Unfortunately, this product contains partially hydrogenated oils, i.e. trans-fat.

In the last decade, Frito-Lay has done a good job of removing trans-fats from its product line of chips and puffs, but for some reason this product still has them.

This product also has artificial colors and a whole bunch of fake flavor enhancers.

Not a good choice.

What to do at the supermarket:

If you’re going to have a savory snack, opt for the ones with a small number of ingredients, usually the unflavored tortilla chips. Read the ingredient list. Look for partially hydrogenated oils.

Get Fooducated: iPhone App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

If you’ve visited New York’s Times Square lately, you may have encountered M&M’s World. It’s a three floor temple celebrating all things small, round, chocolaty, and brightly colored.

The brand, owned by Mars, has been around since the early 1940′s and has become part of our childhood and popular culture.

But what exactly are M&M’s made of?

What you need to know:

M&M’s are basically chocolate pellets covered with a candy outer shell. The process for coating the chocolate was once quite challenging and even patented, but now it is very simple and commonplace.

Don’t expect much nutritionally from candy. Lots of sugar. Lots of saturated fat (30% of the daily max). But hey, it’s candy. A single serving bag weighs almost 2 ounces and has 240 calories. Definitely not a daily treat.

According to the packaging, “M&M’s Chocolate Candies are made of the finest ingredients. This product should reach you in excellent condition.” Here is the “finest” ingredient list:

Milk Chocolate (Sugar, Chocolate, Skim Milk, Cocoa Butter, Lactose, Milkfat, Soy Lecithin, Salt, Artificial Flavors), Sugar, Cornstarch, Less than 1% Corn Syrup, Dextrin, Coloring (Includes Blue 1 Lake, Red 40 Lake, Yellow 6, Yellow 5, Red 40, Blue 1, Blue 2 Lake, Yellow 6 Lake, Yellow 5 Lake, Blue 2), Gum Acacia.

We can’t vouch for “finest”, but let’s just say that the ingredient list is, for the most part, what you’ll find in many other chocolates.

What really concerns us is the use of artificial coloring. A lot of artificial colorings, as you can see in the list above. Each chocolate button is coated with one of 6 colors – red, green, yellow, orange, blue, and brown. All, without exception, are artificial dyes.

By the way, the “lake” notation of some colors means that they are used in liquid form, not powder.

So what is the problem with artificial colors?

• Blue 1, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 have long been known to cause allergic reactions in some people.
• Numerous studies have demonstrated that dyes cause hyperactivity in children.
• Tests on lab animals of Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 showed signs of causing cancer.
• Yellow 5 also caused mutations, an indication of possible carcinogenicity, in six of 11 tests.
• Studies show that the three most-widely used dyes, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6, are tainted with low levels of cancer-causing compounds, including benzidine and 4-aminobiphenyl in Yellow 5.

What to do at the supermarket:

Opt for chocolate candies that are not colored with artificial dyes.

Get Fooducated: iPhone App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

This is a guest blog post by Michelle Simon. It originally appeared on Grist.

When it comes to food, everybody’s got an opinion. Same goes for parenting. Mix the two together and you’ve got the makings of a culture war. Witness the recent scuffle between Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama over the White House’s rather tame Let’s Move campaign aimed at ending childhood obesity.

So last month, when the Center for Science in the Public Interest announced it was filing a class action lawsuit to stop McDonald’s from using Happy Meal toys to market to children, the fierce and ugly backlash against the mother of two who was brave enough to attach her name to the case was predictable.

But I am not interested in debating good or bad parenting. Nor am I interested in arguing over whether this lawsuit is a good idea. How many calories are in a Happy Meal and whether you can ask for carrots instead of fries is irrelevant to me. I am not even going to give you all the scary data about how America’s kids are getting fatter and sicker. Nor do I care whether the cause is fast food or video games.

That’s all been done. Instead, let’s talk law. Because that minor detail seems to have eluded most of the national conversation about how food companies market to children.

Our legal system does not allow marketers to advertise just as they wish, either to children or adults. We have consumer protection laws because marketers aren’t exactly trustworthy. From time to time, they’ve been known to stretch the truth.

That’s why both at the federal and state levels, the law requires that advertisers not engage in deceptive marketing. Otherwise, they would have an unfair advantage over consumers. In other words, the law aims to provide a level playing field between the two parties. The key legal terms here are “deceptive” and “unfair.” Bear with me; I am saving you three years of law school and a grueling bar exam, not to mention years of debt.

Now, what about marketing to children? Ample science, along with statements by various professional organizations tells us that marketing to young children is both deceptive and unfair. Why? Because young children simply do not have the cognitive capacity to understand that they are being marketed to; they cannot comprehend “persuasive intent,” the linchpin of advertising. Here’s how the nation’s trade group for kids’ doctors puts it: “The American Academy of Pediatrics considers advertising directly to young children to be inherently deceptive, and exploits children under the age of 8 years.”

So, if advertising to young children is inherently deceptive, and deceptive advertising is illegal under federal law and in most states, how is it even happening? And doesn’t this mean that not just food, but all marketing to young children is currently illegal? I get this question a lot. The answer is yes.

It may seem unsettling to imagine so much illegal activity going on every single day, but it’s really not that unusual. The marketplace is chock-full of deceptive advertising that goes unchallenged — aimed at both adults and children. It’s the reality of a free marketplace and a government that lacks both the political will and resources to properly enforce the law. That’s why we sometimes need lawsuits to fill the void left by government agencies.

Now I am sure you legal eagles are just waiting to throw the First Amendment in my face. You’re thinking, but doesn’t free speech protect McDonald’s right to advertise? Yes and no. When it comes to kids, mostly no.

While the food industry likes to wrap itself in the Constitution, the truth is that the free speech clause under the First Amendment is not a blank check to advertise anywhere, anytime, or to anybody. Free speech protection must be balanced against other considerations, such as deceptive advertising. We have plenty of examples of the federal government stepping in to stop shady marketing claims, such as skin patches causing weight loss. Marketers cannot lie: that is not free speech. Thus, if advertising to small children is “inherently deceptive” it cannot be protected under the First Amendment.

Lest you think I am just some crazy activist lawyer who’s making up her own legal theories, I am not alone. In 2005, I coordinated a legal symposium on food marketing to children. Angela Campbell, professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, wrote a compelling article in which she called on Congress to prohibit product placement and cartoon characters to market junk food to children. She argued that the First Amendment would not be a barrier to such a law because it does not protect deceptive marketing.

Last year, Jennifer Pomeranz, director of legal initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, published an article making a similar argument calling on the Federal Trade Commission to protect children from food marketing.

But if you still think that protecting kids is all up to parents because they are actually purchasing the Happy Meals, I asked Steve Gardner, litigation director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest and architect of the lawsuit, to respond to this argument.

His answer was simple and elegant: “Just because it’s possible for a parent to intervene doesn’t change the fact that what McDonald’s is doing is illegal.” In other words, there are often many ways that parents can act to protect their children but that doesn’t make it OK for others to break the law.

And that is exactly what McDonald’s is doing, until someone stops them.

Get Fooducated: iPhone App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

This is a guest blog post by Carol Harvey, director of nutrition labeling at Palate Works.

In today’s post – Habit No. 1: The Great Wall of Lunch Meat

Make your own Ham & Swiss sandwich and it will be healthier, right? It depends on how you make it, of course, which depends on where you got your definition of “sandwich.”

Following the model put forth by food service, delis, supermarkets and advertisers for eons, a sandwich needs at least 3-4 ounces of lunch meat plus another 1-2 oz. of cheese. A good inch of meat/cheese to sink your teeth into, or it’s not a sandwich!

And since you’re making it yourself, you can choose better meats/cheese, and a bread that’s more healthy than the usual sliced white stuff – maybe an Oroweat Oatnut …

Then slather on a good quality mayo and mustard, and tuck in a little lettuce and tomato. What can be wrong with that for a homemade lunch?

If you won’t be eating anything but steamed veggies for the rest of the day, it’s probably not a huge deal. But if you are…

This sandwich, regardless of the quality of the ingredients, will provide nearly your daily max of sodium, fat and protein, but only 11% of your fiber and 8% of your vitamin C (0% without the tomato):

For a more “sustainable sandwich” (i.e., it leaves room for other meals that day, but still provides significant nutrition without all the sodium, fat, etc.), pretty much all the components need rethinking:

1. Thinner bread, and something with more whole grain and fiber but less sodium – maybe the Earthgrains 100% Multi-grain Thin Bun (4 g fiber per 100 calories vs. 1 g)…

2. A much lighter hand with the mayo (pesto/garlic-spiked is fine to boost flavor), as in ½ Tbsp. rather than the typical 1 ¼ +Tbsp.

3. A mustard with less sodium (e.g., honey mustard)

4. A meat with less sodium (e.g., an uncured ham), and one slice (about 1 oz.) instead of 4

5. A reduced fat and/or sodium cheese; one slice (1 oz.) instead of 2

6. A lot more veggies: two slices of tomato instead of one, and 1/3 to ½ cup of chopped, wilted (steamed or nuked for ½ min.) dark greens, such as spinach and/or kale.

Results: Less than half the calories, one quarter the fat, one fifth the saturated fat, and almost a quarter of the sodium. Vitamin A and C (antioxidants) are way higher, fiber is double, and it’s still a good source of protein, calcium and iron.

And by using good quality meat, cheese and spreads, it will taste as good or better. Plus you’ll have room for a serving of good quality chips with that!

Carol Harvey has been a nutrition labeling and product development consultant for over 15 years. She can be reached at palatemail [AT] yahoo [DOT] com.

Get Fooducated: iPhone App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

Munching on savory snacks with the “Os” suffix (Tostitos, Doritos, Cheetos) goes hand in hand with playoff Sundays and the Superbowl.

Would you like to know what you’re putting in your body each time you reach for a Doritos Cool Ranch?

What you need to know:

Question: How many Doritos do you eat in a sitting?

If you answered more than 12, you’re eating more than a “legal” serving size. That’s right, only 12 Doritos count as a serving.

The tiny serving is 150 calories, including 1 gram of saturated fat, 180 mg of sodium (8% of the daily max) and practically no vitamins and minerals. The one bright spot – 2 grams of fiber.

Here is the ingredient list for Doritos Cool Ranch, all 34 (!) of them:

Whole Corn, Vegetable Oil (Contains One or More of the Following: Corn, Soybean and/or Sunflower Oil), Corn Maltodextrin, Salt, Tomato Powder, Corn Starch, Lactose, Whey, Nonfat Milk, Corn Syrup Solids, Onion Powder, Sugar, Garlic Powder, Monosodium Glutamate, Cheddar Cheese (Milk, Cheese Cultures, Salt, Enzymes), Dextrose, Malic Acid, Buttermilk, Natural and Artificial Flavors, Sodium Acetate, Artificial Color (Including Red 40, Blue 1, Yellow 5), Sodium Caseinate, Spice, Citric Acid, Disodium Inosinate, and Disodium Guanylate.

Let’s try to make sense of some of the ingredients in this list:

Vegetable oil – there are several options, whichever is cheaper on the day of manufacturing. None of these oils has a good amount of healthy fats like canola or olive oil.

Corn Maltodextrin – Maltodextrin is a polysaccharide that is used as a food additive. A polysaccharide is a type of carbohydrate. It is produced from starches of corn, wheat, potatoes or rice. It is used as a bulking ingredient.

Corn Syrup Solids – are a type of sugar.

Malic Acid – is naturally found in unripe foods and creates a tart flavor. It is industrially manufactured for use in processed foods.

Natural and Artificial Flavors – Companies add natural and artificial flavorings to make products taste better. They are created in a lab and the formulations are guarded as trade secrets. In many (but not all) cases the added flavorings compensate for a lack of the natural ingredients you would expect (for example fruits in a fruit snack, or spices in a prepared meal). A home prepared dish or snack made with quality ingredients does not need the addition of flavorings, natural or artificial.

Sodium Acetate – a salty flavoring. It is also known as hot ice.

Artificial colors – using these is so wrong. Studies have shown that these colors may have various detrimental effects to our health, especially children. Did you know that in the UK, products with Red #40 need a warning label stating they may cause hyperactivity in kids?

Sodium Caseinate – a tasteless and odorless white powder used to emulsify foods.

Disodium Inosinate – is a flavor enhancer, much like MSG. Its source is either pigs or fish. On Frito Lay’s website, Doritos is marked as porcine free, leaving us to guess that fish is the source.

Disodium Guanylate – another flavor enhancer, usually found together with Disodium Inosinate. Again, sourced from fish. Not recommended for babies or asthmatics.

Bottom line: too many chemicals create a NOT SO COOL ranch product.

What to do at the supermarket:

If you’re going to have a savory snack, opt for the ones with a tiny number of ingredients, usually the unflavored tortilla chips. Add the flavors you want in the dip. Just watch the portion size. It’s very easy to eat 2 or 3 official servings and discover you’ve munched on 45o calories, all this even before halftime…

Get Fooducated: iPhone App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

If you’ve been using the Fooducate iPhone App you may be wondering how products are graded. We’ve received inquiries on this matter from consumers, food manufacturers, and nutrition professionals.

Fooducate’s philosophy is relatively simple, but the actual algorithmic implementation is quite complex. Here is a glimpse under the hood.

Fooducate grading:  minimally processed, real foods with intrinsic nutrients will score better than processed foods that are poor in built-in nutrients.

Fooducate’s  analysis is based on information that appears on a product’s package. This includes the nutrition facts panel and the ingredient list. Fooducate does not receive any additional input from manufacturers.

The lowest grade in the system is a D, and the highest grade is an A.

Products are graded based on their nutrients, ingredients, category, and processing. We’ll explain:

Nutrients – Fooducate’s algorithms add points for nutrients to encourage such as fiber, calcium, and iron. The algorithms detract points for nutrients to limit such as saturated fat, sodium, and sugar.

Ingredients – The ingredient list is very important as it tells the story behind the nutrients. Imagine a piece of cardboard that was sprayed with 11 vitamins and minerals, then coated with “natural” flavors, peppered with an artificial sweetener, and colored with Red #40. Under some rating systems, this product would actually score very high as it is zero calories and full of nutrition.

Not at Fooducate. We look for real ingredients. Artificial colors and sweeteners detract from a product score. The use of whole foods adds points.

Category – Fooducate divides products into distinct categories, for example, breakfast cereal, yogurt, bread, fruits, etc… In each category, we look at the most relevant nutrients and ingredients and give them more weight compared to others. For example – fiber is a very important nutrient in breads and cereals, but really not to be expected in yogurt.

Some categories can span the entire range of grades from D to A. Others span a smaller range – for example fruits can rate between a B+ to an A, sweetened carbonated soft drinks from D to D+, and popcorn from a C to an A-.

Processing – products that go through heavy processing rate lower than products that you could probably prepare at home with household ingredients. For example – a snack bar with just dates and nuts will score higher than a bar with 30 ingredients, many of which are not found in peoples’ kitchens.

Fooducate’s algorithms also look for nutrients that come from REAL ingredients, and not as fortifications. For example, adding ascorbic acid (lab made vitamin C) to a product to reach 100% of the daily value of vitamin C, does not make the product “nutritious” by our algorithms. A red bell pepper that naturally contains high levels of vitamin C will rate high.

A note before we conclude. Our algorithms are constantly being evaluated and tweaked. Just as nutrition science is constantly evolving, so is our analysis. But the basic philosophy will not change – the less processed, more real a food is, the better it is for your health, and the better it rates on Fooducate.

If you think a product you scanned rated too high or too low, please let us know by emailing support at fooducate.

Some people have likened Fooducate to taking both your grandmother AND your dietitian with you to the supermarket for shopping advice. We like that.

What to do at the supermarket:

Whether you use Fooducate’s iPhone app or not, you can implement our simple philosophy in your shopping trips. Look for minimally processed foods with short and comprehendable ingredient lists. Check the nutrition facts label to see that you are not going ballistic with saturated fats, sodium, and sugars.

Get Fooducated: iPhone App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

In a brash and preemptive move against the FDA and the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the 2 largest trade organizations representing the food industry have announced a new front-of-package label – Nutrition Keys.

Here’s the pitch from the Grocery Manufacturers Association:

In 2010, First Lady Michelle Obama asked industry to develop a front-of-pack labeling system that could be widely adopted on food packages and that would help busy consumers – especially parents – make informed decisions when they shop.  In response, America’s food and beverage manufacturers and retailers have joined forces to develop and implement the Nutrition Keys initiative, an unprecedented voluntary front-of-pack nutrition labeling system that will provide nutrition information on the front of food and beverage packages, including calories and three “nutrients to limit.” read more…

The new front-of-pack label will present the following information, per serving:

• Calories
• Saturated fat, in grams and as a percent of the daily value
• Sodium, in milligrams and as a percent of the daily value
• Total Sugars, in grams (no percentage, because no daily value has been set by the FDA/USDA)
• Up to 2 additional good-for-you nutrients, stating both weight and percent of daily value

It is expected that 70% of products will be labeled with Nutrition Keys by the end of 2011. The food industry is planning to spend 10s of millions of dollars to “educate the public” about the new label.

What you need to know:

The fact that food industry trade groups are pushing a new format just months before the FDA is set to issue its own guidelines on the matter is very upsetting. But it shouldn’t come as a surprise. This is all about marketing and sales, not about nutrition.

Leslie G. Sarasin, the chief executive of the Food Marketing Institute, said the matter was too urgent to wait -  “the first lady asked us to do it.” Hahaha…

Here are a few additional problems with Nutrition Keys:

1. Numbers without context are meaningless. In the example above, is 5 grams of fat a reasonable amount for a food?  The UK solved this by using color coding in its Traffic Light system. 5 grams of saturated fat would be marked as RED, meaning way high. Obviously the food industry here does not want to mark anything with stop sign colors to turn off consumers.
2. Especially confusing is the value for sugars. First off, how many of us can translate 14g to teaspoons? Secondly, how much of the sugar is naturally occurring and how much has been added? Naturally occurring sugars (in fruit, veggies, dairy) at least come with additional nutrients. Lastly, there is no indication of the daily value for sugar consumption. The 14 grams in the example above are 3.5 teaspoons of sugar.
3. Including 2 positive nutrients on the label will confuse consumers – A product high in saturated fat but also high in fiber – is it good or not?  This will also encourage excessive fortification of foods just to appear healthy. You can fortify cardboard with some vitamins, it still won’t make it healthy to eat.
4. If the food industry would really like to help consumers, how about informing consumers about total calories per package, in places where the entire pack is consumed as a single portion. For example, a standard vending machine size soft drink bottle contains 220 calories (mostly from sugar). But in a serving size of 8 fl oz, only 90 calories are presented to the thirsty consumer.

That said, the one good thing about this front of pack label is that it is the first time industry is placing negative information about a product front and center – saturated fat, sodium, and to an  extent sugars.

We’re adding Nutrition Keys to our History of Nutrition Labels, hoping it goes away, just like Smart Choices did.

What to do at the supermarket:

Our recommendation  is to ignore all front of package labeling as advertising and marketspeak. To know what’s in your product, turn to the ingredient list and to the nutrition facts panel. If you’re still confused, well, there’s an app for that.

Get Fooducated: iPhone App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

Do you know how many calories are in that glass of 2008 Pinot Noir you’ve paired with your appetizer? Or how many carbs are in that Bud-Light?

Truth be told, many of us are clueless when it comes to alcoholic beverages, simply because there is no nutrition labeling on them. Alcohol is regulated by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (part of the treasury department), not the FDA or USDA. (The nutrition labels on food is regulated by the FDA)

The alcohol bureau is currently reviewing a proposal to mandate the display of nutrition information such as calories, carbohydrates, serving size and alcohol per serving. While some parts of the alcohol manufacturing industry are pro labeling, the Beer Institute is fiercely against it. Politics…

A big issue is how to define the proper serving size. Currently the definition of a single serving is as follows:

• Beer – 12 fluid ounces.
• Wine – 5 fl. oz.
• Liquor – 1.5 fl oz.

To confuse things more, it’s the alcohol content of a drink that contributes most to the calorie count, not the serving size. Each gram of alcohol has about 7 calories (more than 4 per gram of carb, but less than 9 per gram of fat).

here are some calorie counts:

• 12 oz. Bud light  – 90 calories
• 12 oz. Budweiser  – 145 calories
• 5 oz. Dry White (e.g. Sauvignon Blanc, Chardonnay) – 110 calories
• 5 oz. Dry Red (Syrah, Pinot Noir, Cabernet Sauvignon) – 114 calories
• 1.5 oz Brandy, 80 Proof Gin, Vodka, Whiskey etc. – 98 calories
• 1.5 oz. 100 Proof Gin, Vodka, Whiskey, etc. -  125 calories

What to do at the supermarket:

An easy way to estimate the calorie count per serving is to multiply the serving size by the percentage of alcohol and then by 1.6. For example: A 5 oz Cabarnet with 12% alcohol will give 60. Multiplied by 1.6 will give 96 calories.

Get Fooducated: iPhone App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate

Lots of things happening at Starbucks lately.

1. The company is revamping its logo. after several decades of text plus mermaid, the new logo is all graphics.

2. In response to challenges from McDonald’s and other, a new super-size TRENTA will be introduced this May for select cold beverages. Why go the uber-calorie way? Well, according to Starbucks, unsweetened drinks in the new size will have fewer than 90 calories. Sweetened versions will have less than 230 calories. indeed?

3. The company has begun publishing quarterly wellness newsletters with various ideas and suggestions for reducing calorie consumption while still enjoying the Starbucks experience.

We asked a Starbucks spokesperson how many people are actually choosing the lower calorie options. The answer we got is that they don’t have those stats. However a joint study  with Stanford University, on the effects of calorie labeling, showed the following interesting results

• Calorie-posting at Starbucks led to a 6% reduction in calories per transaction, from 247 to 232 average calories per transaction.
• For those consumers who averaged more than 250 calories per transaction, calories per transaction fell by 26%.
• Almost all of the effect is related to food purchases.  Average beverage calories per transaction did not change substantially, while average calories from food per transaction fell by 14%, of which 10% is due to people buying fewer items and 4% is due to people buying lower calorie food items.
• The calorie reduction persisted for at least 10 months after calorie counts were first posted.

4. We also inquired about Starbucks sale of Fiji water in its cafes. Fiji is being sued for lying about being carbon negative. When you think about water being shipped halfway around the world, it is quite ridiculous. Starbucks can do better than that. The response we got from the PR department:

Unfortunately I couldn’t comment to the dialogue around Fiji Water.  Starbucks offers in its stores Ethos Water, which the company acquired in 2005. For each bottle of Ethos water sold in the U.S. and Canada, Starbucks contributes US$0.05 and CN$0.10 respectively to the Ethos Water Fund, which is part of The Starbucks Foundation.

In case you didn’t know, you can always request tap water along with your order. Cheaper, healthier and better for the planet than anything you could buy.

Get Fooducated: iPhone App RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate on facebook: facebook.com/fooducate