You Ask, I Answer: Lollipops/Calorie Labeling

I know lollipops are pure sugar, but how many calories are in the average lollipop?

I guess [I'm mostly asking about] Blowpops and Tootsie Pops.

-- Angela Wilphit
(Location withheld)

Although lollipops only contain carbohydrates (they are free of fats and protein), they are not 100% sugar.

Blow Pops, for instance, contain 13 grams of sugar, but 17 grams of carbohydrate (the remaining four grams come from cornstarch.)

Let's answer your actual question, though.

Each gram of carbohydrate contains four calories, so some simple math (17 x 4) tells us that these lollipops provide 68 calories.

Not bad at all, considering that in the time it takes most people to finish a lollipop, they could have very well eaten 300 calories' worth of Skittles.

Here is where it gets interesting.

Since the Food & Drug Administration allows food companies to round calorie values, the Blow Pop nutrition facts label displays sixty calories per lollipop.

Mind you, the rules specifically mandate that food items with calorie values of fifty or higher express that number "to the nearest 10 calorie increment."

So, in reality, that nutrition label should be listing SEVENTY calories per lollipop!

You Ask, I Answer: Stoneground Wheat

I have seen a few breads labeled as "100% stoneground wheat."

Does that have any nutritional implications?

Is it similar to a whole wheat bread?

-- Mariana (last name withheld)
(city withheld), NJ

The literal way to produce stoneground flour is to grind it solely in stone mills (rather than conventional roller mills.)

Most conventional breads sold at supermarkets (which I assume are the ones you are asking about), however, use the term as a healthy-sounding catchphrase in an attempt to confuse consumers who are looking for healthier breads.

The main problem here is that the Food & Drug Administration has not drafted a legal definition of "stoneground." It can basically mean whatever food companies want it to mean!

This is very much akin to the lack of definition of the term “natural ingredients,” which permitted 7-Up to launch a “made with all natural ingredients” campaign a few years back.

Most major bread companies can get away with labeling their breads as “stone ground” if the flour has gone through a stone mill just one time.

This is all irelevant, though. White flour has the same nutritional profile regardless of the type of mill it is processed in.

The most important thing to look for when purchasing bread is that the first ingredient is a WHOLE flour.

Any word other than whole -- such as "stoneground", "unbleached", or "enriched" -- means the main ingredient is white flour with virtually no fiber.

You Ask, I Answer: Stevia

What's your take on Stevia versus other no-calorie sweeteners (Splenda, etc)?

I generally use Splenda, but started to use stevia since it is supposed to be more 'natural' and 'unprocessed."

-- Jean (last name withheld)
New York, NY

I would rank Stevia as the most controversial no-calorie sweetener.

Although it is plant-derived (thereby less artificial than Splenda, aspartame, or saccharin) and has been used in some countries (like Japan) for almost two decades, the United States was never open to it, citing concerns over rather shoddy animal studies showing apparent mutagenic properties of some components of the sweetener.

It was banned in 1991, and when that ban was lifted three years later, the Food & Drug Administration refused to grant it GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe) status as a food additive, thereby only making it legal if sold as a supplement. Confused yet?

I -- and many others -- suspect this had more to do with political motives than actual health concerns.

Consider the fact that patented (hint: profitable) artificial sweeteners faced fewer legal roadblocks.

Adding to that, once two multi-national bigshot corporations like Coca Cola and Cargill jointly developed -- and patented -- a Stevia-based sweetener (Truvia), the FDA had no problem granting them a green light.

Although I don't use it myself, I don't have a problem with someone sweetening their morning coffee with a teaspoon or two of Stevia.

What I want to point out about all these zero-calorie sweeteners, though, is that people are misguided if they think using them in place of sugar is an efficient weight-loss and overall health strategy.

No one becomes overweight or obese as a result of the tablespoon of sugar they add to their morning coffee every day (two packets of sugar only contribute 32 calories.)

It is the sodas, cookies, candies, muffins, and chocolate bars that are loaded with empty calories (in the form of sugar) that are more problematic. Although sodas are available in zero-calorie varieties, such is not the case with baked goods and other sweets.

And, so, we once again come back to the concept of general eating patterns -- and total calories -- being at the core of health and weight goals.

Using a non-caloric sweetener in coffee does not offset consuming too many calories throughout the day.

In The News: Color Me Scared

Although the link between food dyes and hyperactivity in children has not made huge headlines in the United States, it is of paramount importance among British consumers (largely because the latest studies emerge from the United Kingdom).

It appears, though, that food dyes may very well be "the next trans fats" on this side of the Atlantic.

The Chicago Tribune reports that the Center for Science in the Public Interest "called on federal regulators to ban several colorings, claiming they're linked to hyperactivity in children."

These concerns sure proved effective in the UK, where "[the] Mars [company] banished artificial colors from its well-known Starburst and Skittles candies... [and] Kraft did the same in early 2007 with its British version of Lunchables."

Whether this stems from a sense of social responsibility or simply a ploy to not keep profit margins steady will never be known, but this public outcry certainly did not fall on deaf ears.

Over in the US of A, the CSPI is calling for the ban of six particular artificial colorings, among them Red 40 and Yellow 5, found in cereals, chips, and baked goods.

Although the FDA doesn't believe a link between food colorings and hyperactivity in children can be substantiated, they have banned certain ones in the past (i.e.: "Red Dye No. 3, which in high doses caused cancer in lab animals, in 1990").

I predict thiswill be the "hot" public health and nutrition issue in about two years.

Over in Britain, meanwhile, they are taking no chances. "McDonald's uses natural colorings for strawberry shakes and sundaes sold in the UK, while it uses artificial dyes for the same in the U.S."

Thoughts?

In The News: Which (Antibiotic) Came First? The (One Fed To The) Chicken Or The (One Injected Into) The Egg?

Ready for a real doozy from the world of chicken raising, antibiotic feeds, and USDA policies?

Alright, buckle up!

It was reported earlier this week that Judge Richard D. Bennett of the United States District Court in Baltimore ordered chicken giant Tyson to pull all advertisements from their "chickens raised without antibiotics that impact antibiotic resistance in humans" campaign by no later than May 18.

Mind you, this campaign was originally billed as “chickens raised without antibiotics.” The United States Department of Agriculture happily gave it the green light.

Until, that is, they went back and realized they had made a boo boo.

Turns out Tyson includes antibiotic compounds known as ionophores in their chicken feed.

Ionophores are commonly fed to chickens mainly as protection from a parasitic intestinal condition known as coccidiosis, as well as to help them gain weight.

The USDA quickly drafted a letter to Tyson, notifying them that their “no antibiotics added” claim wasn’t entirely true. Consequently, they were asked to remove it from all packaging.

Tyson rebutted by arguing that ionophores are classified by the Food & Drug Administration as antimicrobials, not antibiotics.

Well, not quite. Although the FDA recognizes that ionophores have antimicrobial properties, they are technically antibiotics when used as part of chicken feeds.

Tyson additionally claimed that ionophores are not a concern since they do not impact antibiotic resistance in humans, nor are they used in human drugs.

After this back and forth, the claim was changed to “chickens raised without antibiotics that impact antibiotic resistance in humans.”

If you’re wondering why the use for such convoluted language, it’s simple.

Tyson, like many other chicken companies, injects chicken eggs with antibiotics approximately 2 days before they hatch.

Ergo, by using the word “raised,” they only advertise what happens with the chicken after it is born.

Largely due to pressure from Tyson's competitors (which claim Tyson is misleading consumers), this updated claim is now being axed.

This specific case doesn't so much revolve around the “rights” and “wrongs” of including ionophores in chickenfeed, but the idea of misleading advertising and technicalities.

It is worth pointing out that as a result of increasing consumer need for antibiotic-free food, chicken farmers are considering viable alternatives, including vaccination against a variety of illnesses.

What do you think? Was Tyson misleading? Do you specifically seek out antibiotic-free poultry?

Argentina: No Gluten? No Problem!

I took this photo last December at popular Buenos Aires supermarket chain Disco.

In case the resolution isn't clear enough, the sign up top reads "Productos Celíacos" ("Products for Celiacs").

Like many other conventional supermarkets in the city, they delineate approximately half an aisle exclusively to gluten-free products, enabling consumers living with celiac disease to have a much easier shopping experience.

In Argentina, the province of Buenos Aires analyzes products and stamps a gluten-free seal on them if they fall below 1 parts per million of gliadin (a protein in gluten).

Following this inspection, the Argentine Celiac Association reviews laboratory results from the Ministry of Health and must give its approval before a product can officially be sold as "gluten free."

It's not just supermarkets that provide gluten information.

Persicco, a renowned gelateria with various branches in Buenos Aires, places a gluten-free icon next to the flavors that are celiac-friendly.

Although the United States offers thousands of gluten-free products to the approximately three million people diagnosed with celiac disease (as of 2007, the market was valued at $700 million!), these are mostly available exclusively online or specific health food stores.

I have not, at least in New York City, seen standard supermarkets devote as much as one shelf to gluten-free products.

Part of the problem, I think, is the lack of regulation. Although you may see "gluten free" advertised on many products, no official standards for this claim have been set.

Last January, the Food and Drug Administration attempted to tackle this problem.

"Currently, there is no Federal regulation that defines the term “gluten-free” used in the labeling of foods.

Based upon comments FDA received during its public meeting on “gluten-free” food labeling held in August 2005 and other information available to the Agency, there is no universal understanding among U.S. food manufacturers or consumers about the meaning of a food labeled as “gluten-free.”

You can view the PDF file of the full (and by full I mean "very long") gluten-free labeling proposal here.

The 90-day comment period concluded last April, but I haven't heard anything since.

I do believe, though, that the original plan was to have something sorted out no later than December of this year.

I'm interested in hearing from readers who are gluten intolerant.

Do you find it difficult to know what products to buy and stay away from due to a lack of federal standards?

In The News: PharmaWater

No, it's not an actual product yet, but don't be surprised if a beverage company decides to make the most of a not-so-hot situation.

By now I'm sure everyone has read about the levels of pharmaceuticals discovered in the tap water of 24 large metropolitan US cities.

Although these levels are minute, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that several glasses of tap water a day for thirty, forty, even fifty years are very likely going to impact a person's health.

The true surprise in that news tidbit for me was that "the federal government doesn't require any testing and hasn't set safety limits for drugs in water."

Well, then.

If you think you can get around this dilemma by relying solely on bottled water, I'm afraid you're wrong.

Guess what? The Food & Drug Administration has not set limitations on pharmaceutical levels in bottled water.

Remember, most bottled water originates from tap water.

Although these companies are quick to point out their patented quadruple filtering technologies, I have to wonder just how good they do at capturing antibiotic residue, particularly if these levels don't appear to be of huge concern to the bottled water industry

For now, the vice president of the International Bottled Water Association claims everything is "being monitored", but I don't spot any urgency on their end to establish standards.

Has this revelation changed your thoughts about drinking water, either from the tap or a plastic bottle?

In The News: Frankenmilk

Scandal is a-brewin' in Ohio and Utah.

Ohio has decided to go against the Food & Drug Administration policy on synthetic hormone label claims and mandate that dairy products sold in that state cannot mention being synthetic-hormone free.

Utah, meanwhile, is looking into similar restrictions.

Both of these policies concern rBGH -- recombinant bovine growth hormone, also known as rBST, or recombinant bovine somatotropin -- an artificial form of naturally-occuring bovine growth hormone.

This synthetic compound is injected into dairy cows to significantly increase milk production.

It's equivalent to an alien race coming down to Earth, enslaving humans, and injecting men with an ultra powerful dose of synthetic testosterone in order for them to lift heavier weights and work harder.

It is a purely business and money-motivated decision. The more milk you have, the more you can sell, and the more money that goes into your pocket.

The Food & Drug Administration approved rBGH (it was declared "safe for use") in 1993.

Agrobusiness giant Monsanto immediately began producing and selling it by the bucketloads.

Controversy has always surrounded rBGH, mainly because several medical trials have linked it to a higher risk of developing certain tumors and cancers.

Monsanto and rBGH gained notoriety in the mid 90's after a Tampa Fox affiliate pulled a story on the possible health dangers of rBGH consumption after much pressure from Monsanto.

And it's not just humans who can be negatively affected.

Cows receiving rBGH injections often get sick (cows treated with rBGH have significantly higher risks of developing udder infections than those not treated with the drug).

In turn, they are fed antibiotics -- another undesirable component in milk.

It is not surprising, then, that rBGH is banned from all dairy products in Europe and Canada.

It frustrates me that consumers in some states are being forbidden the right to know what is in some of the foods they buy.

I never agreed with the use of rBGH but thought that if it is included in any product, we should be made aware of its presence.

What's most interesting about this whole story is that the FDA is in a unique position. They permit the use of rBGH in milk, but only if there is full disclosure.

Honesty policy or good old ass covering?

You Ask, I Answer: Splenda

[I just read your posting on sorbitol and am wondering:] what about Splenda?

I have about a tablespoon (not full) a day with coffee.

Is it just better to have sugar and forget about it?

-- Anonymous
Via the blog

Splenda -- the brand name for sucralose -- was first launched during the peak of the Atkins revival in 2004.

Originally appearing in low-carb sweet treats like granola bars and ice cream, it was launched in supermarkets across the country for at-home beverage sweetening and baking.

So, how safe is it?

Well, on the one hand, the Food & Drug Administration has approved it as a GRAS (generally regarded as safe) food additive.

As I mentioned in a December 2007 posting about fat-replacer Olestra, though, the FDA seal of approval isn't always the most reassuring.

All we know for sure at this point is that Splenda doesn't appear to cause immediate harm.

Since it is a relatively new mass-consumed alternative sweetener, there are no long-term studies indicating what happens if it is consumed every day for 20 years.

There isn't even a study detailing the effects of regular Splenda consumption over a FIVE year period.

Interestingly enough, the Japanese Food Sanitation Council reported that some sucralose is actually absorbed by the body and hones in on the liver and kidneys. Consequently, they theorize that regular intake of Splenda could result in the enlargement of these organs.

My strategy with sucralose is to tread cautiously.

Having three cups of coffee with two packs of Splenda in each day in, day out is not the smartest of choices.

However, having two teaspoons with your morning coffee each day -- and no additional amounts in other foods -- doesn't strike me as particularly alarming.

Keep in mind that obesity rates and ridiculously high sugar intakes in the United States are not coming from people stirring a teaspoon of sugar in their latte every morning.

Rather, they are the result of the cookies, brownies, cakes, pies, flavored lattes, and monstruous ice cream sundaes that are constantly available to us.

Your overall goal should be decrease your sugar consumption to roughly 30 - 40 grams a day (one pack of sugar contains four), not to replace high sugar intake with high artificial sweetener consumption.

In The News: Corrupted Virginity

Extra virgin olive oil is considered the champion of all oils thanks to its high amounts of polyphenols, antioxidants, and monounsaturated fats.

This powerful combination has been shown to decrease risks of heart disease (by lowering 'bad cholesterol'), high blood pressure, and even breast cancer, according to some promising research from the Canary Islands.

Sounds great, doesn't it?

Well, here's a reality check you might not be too keen on cashing -- that "extra virgin" olive oil you have been buying might be anything but!

Reader Chris Davis notified me of a lengthy article published by The New Yorker earlier this year which spotlights worldwide olive oil fraud, a market laden with corruption and political scandals that can produce as much money as cocaine trafficking.

Since reading the article, I have done a bit more research and want to share the not too uplifting news with you.

A lot of supposed extra-virgin olive oil is really soy or hazelnut oil that has been adulterated.

Unfortunately, the words "imported from Italy" do not necessarily mean what you think.

If low-quality oils from North Africa are shipped to Italy, where they are then tampered with and bottled, the packaging can legally claim that oil is an Italian import.

You might take that to mean that Tuscan olives from a small farm are made into extra virgin olive oil. Wrong!

The Food and Drug Administration does not test oils coming into the United States for adulteration.

Although a group known as the North American Olive Oil Association takes care of that -- and they have discovered several distributors selling inferior quality oils as extra virgin -- their testing is nowhere near as rigorous as that f the International Olive Oil Council.

There are currently several proactive anti-fraud ideas being floated around.

One would require all bottles of extra virgin olive oil to list the acidity of their contents (to be considered extra virgin, olive oil must contain an acidity of no more than 0.8%).

Of course, who is to say that these figures can't be doctored with the exchange of cold hard cash?

One interesting solution to this problem comes from the region of Andalucia in Spain (one of the world's largest manufacturers of olive oil). There are talks of using molecular cell technology to determine if olive oil labeled as extra virgin matches the structure of the authetic product.

In the meantime, what can you do as a consumer? From a label standpoint, look for any bottles bearing the International Olive Oil Council (IOOC) stamp of approval.

If this is absent, see if the label lists the acidity figures for the supposed extra virgin olive oil. Look for an acidity level of 0.8% or less.

No luck? Look at the price tag. A liter of olive oil at $7.99 is highly unlikely to be extra virgin.

For more information, check out the International Olive Oil Council's website.

You Ask, I Answer: Olestra

This situation is a little awkward but: I ate the Lay's light chips (the ones cooked with olestra) and [they] produced some rather unfortunate side effects the next morning, as you can imagine.

I checked but there was no warning on the packaging. How come they don't warn about the side effects of Olestra?

-- Bubbles (via the blog)

Welcome to nutrition politics! I'm getting ahead of myself, though.

Let's begin with some general information.

Olestra -- a calorie-free fat-substitute made by linking fatty acid chains to sucrose molecules -- was developed in 1996 by multinational consumer goods giant Proctor & Gamble.

I am sure many of you remember the popularity of "WOW!" chips in the late 90s. Those were fat-free thanks to the inclusion of Olestra.

At the time, two things stood out to people who read the nutrition label and ingredient list. First, vitamins A, D, E, and K were added into the product.

A "healthier" potato chip? No. Since Olestra inhibits the absorption of these vitamins, it was decided to fortify such fat-free products with them.

However, the statement following the ingredient list caught most people's attention: "Olestra may cause abdominal cramping and loose stools." Yum!

Why is this? Olestra travels through our bodies completely undigested. In turn, even not-so-large quantities result in less than pleasurable side effects.

Alas, time went on and the Food & Drug Administration received over 20,000 formal complaints from consumers. The overwhelming majority revolved around the consumption of Wow! chips and painful -- sometimes painfully embarrassing -- side effects.

This made Olestra the food additive with the most complaints in the history of the FDA.

Interestingly enough, Wow! chips were soon replaced by "light" varieties of popular snacks. The perfect marketing trick, if you ask me -- offer a product with a tarnished reputation under a different name.

Remember, this is Proctor & Gamble we are talking about here. A lot of money -- and corporate interest -- is at stake.

I should also mention that Proctor & Gamble is known for its overly generous contributions to the Republican Party. This nugget of information will come in handy in a about two seconds.

Fast-forward to October of 2003 when, magically, during a Republican presidency, the FDA announced that products containing Olestra no longer need to list warnings on their packages.

Their reasoning? The reported gastrointestinal side effects were "mild and rare."

In fact, one of their main arguments was that abdominal cramps and diarrhea are common, and Olestra was just getting a bad reputation.

I don't think Olestra is worth all the trouble. If you are looking for a lower fat conventional potato chip, try Baked chips (I personally think Baked Lay's taste like salted cardboard, but the new Kettle Baked Chips are tasty), which contain 85% less fat than their regular relatives and absolutely no Olestra.