SERVING MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL / MINNESOTA
Donate Now Sustaining Member

MinnPost thanks these major sponsors:




Sponsor of
Second Opinion



Our major advertisers


Our in-kind partners


MinnPost thanks these generous donors:

INDIVIDUALS AND FOUNDATI0NS
Blandin Foundation
Otto Bremer Foundation
Bush Foundation
Sage & John Cowles
David & Vicki Cox
Toby & Mae Dayton
Jack & Claire Dempsey
Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation
Sam & Stacey Heins
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
Joel & Laurie Kramer
Lee Lynch & Terry Saario
Martin & Brown Foundation
The McKnight Foundation
The Minneapolis Foundation
The Saint Paul Foundation
Rebecca & Mark Shavlik

(See all donors here.)

This content is made possible by the generous sponsorship support of UCare.
  • Switch to Small Text Size
  • Switch to Medium Text Size
  • Switch to Large Text Size
Email Print Submit a Comment

    FDA needs more power over foods' health claims, editorial says

    By Susan Perry | Published Thu, Sep 2 2010 10:07 am

    In an editorial aptly entitled “Snake Oil in the Supermarket,” the editors of Scientific American argue in their September issue that it’s time Congress gave the U.S. Food and Drug Administration the regulatory authority to make sure that all health claims on packaged foods and beverages are truthful before the products go on grocery shelves.

    As it is now, the FDA can only play catch-up, as it did earlier this year when it issued warning letters to 17 food and beverage manufacturers about false or misleading health claims. But meanwhile, the Scientific American editors note, “the snake oil sits on supermarket shelves.”

    It’s not this way in Europe, as the editors point out:

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

    The European Food Safety Authority has rejected 80 percent of the more than 900 health claims made by food manufacturers since 2006, the year it began requiring rigorous scientific evidence for such claims. Among the rejections were claims about probiotics (the marketing ploy that has made Activia a best-seller in the U.S.) and omega-3 fatty acids. (Food manufacturers love to add omega-3 fatty acids to foods so they can suggest, without any scientific evidence, that their product helps promote brain development.)

    These actions — and the publicity around them — may explain why Europeans have begun to turn a deaf ear to the claims of “functional foods,” the term used to describe products manufacturers have altered to provide supposed health benefits.

    FDA officials have gotten tougher about functional food claims under the Obama administration, but whether they'll stay tough remains to be seen. There’s a lot of money involved. As the Scientific American editors point out, functional foods generated $31 billion in the U.S. in 2008 — a 14 percent increase over 2006.

    “Industry representatives complain that having to prove claims about the health benefits of food would cost too much and take too long. It’s a lame argument,” write the editors.

    “The nation is currently engaged in a struggle against skyrocketing rates of obesity and other diet-related diseases that are among the leading causes of death in the U.S. In this context, unsubstantiated health claims on processed foods are a harmful abuse of science that we should not tolerate.”

    Like what you just read? Support high-quality journalism in Minnesota by becoming a member of MinnPost.

    Advertisement:

    0 Comments:

    E-mail address

    Password

     

    Forgot Password? | Register to Comment

    MinnPost does not permit the use of foul language, personal attacks or the use of language that may be libelous or interpreted as inciting hate or sexual harassment. User comments are reviewed by moderators to ensure that comments meet these standards and adhere to MinnPost's terms of use and privacy policy.

    We intend for this area to be used by our readers as a place for civil, thought-provoking and high-quality public discussion. In order to achieve this, MinnPost requires that all commenters register and post comments with their actual names and place of residence. Register here to comment.


    medium_UCareLogo125.jpg

    Health care that starts with you. That's what you'll find at UCare, the fourth-largest health plan in Minnesota, serving more than 225,000 members across Minnesota and 26 counties in western Wisconsin.

    minnpost.com/healthblog


    Susan Perry

    In "Second Opinion" Susan Perry will coordinate coverage to help MinnPost readers make their way through the thicket of health happenings, trends, studies and research. Perry has written several health-related books, and her articles have appeared in a wide variety of publications, including Minnesota Monthly, The History Channel Magazine and Woman's Day. She is a former writer/editor for Time-Life Books and a former editor of Nutrition Action Healthletter, published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Perry can be reached at sperry [at] minnpost [dot] com.

    Recent Second Opinion posts