We know what to avoid in our diets: fun foods like ice cream sundaes, chocolate pies and most anything sold at a baseball park. Researchers are now trying a different approach, emphasizing what we should eat. Reporting in the August edition of the Journal of Nutrition, scientists ranked foods based on how good they are for you to create a Nutrient-Rich Foods Index.

The concept is not new; in 1995, the USDA published the first Healthy Eating Index. It has been updated several times.

To give the index scientific weight, the researchers created a formula that combines values for nutrients and calories to produce the highest correlation to the index. The healthiest — though maybe not the best-tasting foods — rise to the top using their math.

“These results confirmed that better diets do not necessarily come from just restricting certain nutrients; the addition of beneficial nutrients is critical for a higher diet quality,” Nutrient Ingredients-USA quotes the scientists as writing in the article, which is restricted to subscribers.

Developing the ranking is just the beginning, say researchers Victor L. Fulgoni III of Nutrition Impact LLC, Debra R. Keast of  Nutrition Database Research Inc., and Adam Drewnowski of the Center for Public Health Nutrition at the University of Washington.

“Considerable research is still necessary to determine how to best present nutrient profiling to consumers in a way that will actually lead to selection of foods that improve the overall diet,” they are quoted as writing. In other words, persuading Americans to give up their peanuts and Cracker Jack will take some work.

• None Found

Following reports in the Washington Post that standards for classifying foods as organic had been relaxed, the U.S. Agriculture Department is launching an audit of its National Organic Program. The Post says that department thinks external scrutiny is needed to improve the integrity and reliability of the program.

The issue at hand is standards. Is the program following internationally recognized requirements for accrediting and monitoring nearly 100 private certifiers? Those entities determine whether foods meet federal organic standards. The National Institute of Standards and Technology is set to begin the review in October. The results will be released at the end of this year or in early 2010, complete with recommendations for USDA action.

“We applaud USDA’s willingness to submit its organic program to the rigors of these international norms and believe this will pave the way for continued growth and success of the U.S. organic industry,” Robynn Shrader, a National Organic Coalition founding member and CEO of the National Cooperative Grocers Association, said in a statement released Aug. 6.

The audit comes about a month after the Post reported that definitions for organic foods had been relaxed. For example, synthetic additives can be found in 90 percent of organic baby formula.

“It will unravel everything we’ve done if the standards can no longer be trusted,” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), who sponsored the federal organics legislation, told the Post in July. “If we don’t protect the brand, the organic label, the program is finished. It could disappear overnight.”

• None Found

My daughters love the LOLcats website. This LOLcat was too funny (and appropriate) to pass up. Next time your supplements are seized at the border, don’t just stare in horror like Lenny, call NutriCompliance for help. TGIF and have a great weekend!

• None Found

Research at Yale

Nestled in the $800 billion-plus economic stimulus bills that Congress is considering are billions of dollars for non-profit research centers, universities and possibly private firms. The Chronicle of Higher Education breaks down the House and Senate bills into categories that range from NSF to NIH. The monies present opportunities for private and non-profit firms that understand how to tap into the funding.

Here are some of the particulars:

• National Science Foundation:  House bill (in XML format) bill — $2 billion for research grants, $900 million for equipment and facilities, and $100 million for science education; Senate bill (available by searching the PDF) — $1.2 billion for research grants, $150 million for infrastructure, $50 million for education.
• National Institutes for Health: House — $1.5 billion for biomedical research, $2 billion for facilities renovation and capacity building; $2.7 billion for biomedical research; $300 million for shared equipment.
• Agriculture Department Cooperative State Research, Education and Economic Service: House — no money; Senate — $100 million for Agriculture and Food Research Institute.
• National Institute of Standards and Technology: House — $300 million to construct research buildings at colleges; Senate — no funding.
• Agricultural Research Service: House — $209 million for facilities; Senate — no funds.

• None Found

• None Found

• None Found

As you might imagine, the use of the term “organic” on a product containing agricultural ingredients can be very valuable. Many people search out organic products and are willing to pay a premium for them. As a result, products labeled “organic” can command higher prices and produce greater profits. The OFPA was passed, and the NOP regulations were created, in order to make sure that products labeled organic were really what they claimed to be.

During the rulemaking process for the NOP regulations, some companies that made cosmeceutical and other body care products with organic agricultural ingredients requested that they be allowed to use the organic certification on their products just like with traditional food products. This made sense because, other than the fact that these products are not “ingested” in the traditional way foods are, they were made with agricultural ingredients meeting the same organic standards as foods.

On May 2, 2002, the USDA issued a “policy statement” that allowed producers of any organic agricultural product, regardless of its end use, to seek organic certification. This opened up the organic certified products market to a variety of body care product manufacturers. Manufacturers embraced this new opportunity and began to produce a wide variety of products made from agricultural ingredients that obtained organic certification like soaps, crèmes, lotions and other cosmeceuticals.

Then, for no apparent reason, almost two years later, the USDA did a 180 degree turn and reversed itself by issuing a “guidance statement” that stated that because the OFPA did not cover “non-agricultural products,” makers of personal care, body care and cosmetic products could not obtain NOP organic certification.

The USDA’s about-face made no sense. As the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) stated in its complaint against the USDA seeking to invalidate the “guidance statement,”

“certified organic olive oil does not magically become “non-agricultural” when used as an ingredient in a massage oil rather than as an ingredient in a salad dressing.”

The OCA and a leading organic body products maker sued. On August 23, 2005, the eve of the deadline for its response to the complaint, the USDA backed down and issued a memo to organic certifiers that certified non-food products specifically including personal care may represent that they are NOP certified “organic” or “made with organic,” and display the USDA organic seal, so long as such products are certified to meet the NOP standards for organic agricultural products.

So the OCA was able to get the USDA to back down from its decision to restrict the OFPA’s coverage to food products. But why did the USDA insist on taking this position in the first place? As I have learned while researching the various agency positions effecting producers of natural products and nutritional supplements, the government is often just plain wrong with significant consequences to the industry and consuming public. I am not going to opine broadly on why this is the case. However, it does appear that all too often the government fails or refuses to follow the law unless it is forced too. Examples from the FDA, FTC, and others abound and are sure to be a topic of conversation on this blog….stay tuned.

• None Found