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

Hamburg

The FDA has put supplement companies on notice that violators can expect earlier detection and prosecution. Remarks by commissioner Margaret Hamburg on Aug. 6 strongly suggest that the agency has shifted to a policy of less talk and more action. In a speech to the Food and Drug Law Institute, Hamburg said the FDA will be more vigilant, strategic, quick and visible.

To that end, Hamburg said the FDA has instituted six policy changes:

• Fewer, if any warnings. “If we find that we must move quickly to address significant health concerns or egregious violations, we will consider immediate action – even before we have issued a formal warning letter,” Hamburg said.
• Greater emphasis on swift enforcement. “When the public health is at risk, the FDA will reach out to our partners to take rapid action while we alert the public and prepare longer-term responses,” she said.
• Fewer warning letters. The letters are now limited to significant legal issues. “Most enforcement letters will be able to move forward through a more streamlined process.,” Hamburg said.
• Shorter post-inspection deadlines. “When the FDA finds that a firm is significantly out of compliance, we expect a prompt response,” she said. “The firm will generally have no more than fifteen working days in which to respond before the FDA moves ahead with a warning letter or enforcement action.”
• More follow-up on enforcement actions. “After a warning letter is issued or a major product recall occurs, we will make it a priority to follow up promptly with appropriate action, such as an inspection or investigation to assess whether or not a company has made required changes in its practices,” Hamburg said.
• Public notice of completed corrections. “We will provide to the firm a ‘close-out’ letter, indicating that the issues in the warning letter have been successfully addressed.”

In sum, a supplement maker can expect a knock on the door before getting a letter in the mail. If the FDA perceives a significant risk to public health, it will ask enforcement agencies to take immediate steps. In some circumstances, there will be no warning and no negotiation before a plant is shut down or a product is recalled.

Why is the change in policy needed? Hamburg, who has been on the job just 90 days,  pointed to slow action on serious violations regarding product quality; adulteration and misbranding; false, misleading, or otherwise unlawful labeling; and misleading advertising. Agencies took to long to respond because of procedures and policies, she said.

The industry response must be to get better or get out. Get better at controlling ingredient quality; get better at manufacturing; get better at documentation; get better at advertising and marketing; get better at legal representation. Otherwise, get out of the business.

While the actions may seem harsh, they increase the public’s confidence in the dietary supplement industry, Hamburg said.  “The solution is a commitment to compliance backed by a strong compliance program. Now is a good time to reassess whether you have such an effort in place.”

• None Found

The statement also reads: “Products like these are frequently marketed as alternatives to anabolic steroids for increasing muscle mass and strength and are sold both online and in retail stores.  They are often promoted to athletes to improve sports performance and to aid in recovery from training and sporting events.  Although products containing synthetic steroids are frequently marketed as dietary supplements, they are NOT dietary supplements, but instead are unapproved new drugs that have not been reviewed by the FDA for safety and effectiveness.”

The Council for Responsible Nutrition sent out an alert immediately following the FDA announcement, with phone numbers (866-359-3719 U.S. and 203-369-0144 international) for anyone to call and listen to a recording of the conference.

The seriousness of the FDA warning, coupled with heighten media exposure of the dangers that high school athletes face from taking steroids, may lead to action by regulators, sports associations and others. The heightened public awareness will likely lead to more consumer questions.

• None Found

A report published on the web site of the Minneapolis-based nonprofit Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), http://www.iatp.org indicates some well-known foods and drinks rich in high-fructose corn syrup may contain detectable levels of mercury.

This report comes on the heels of a new study published in the journal of Environmental Health, http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/1476-069x-8-2.pdf which shows mercury in some samples of commercial high-fructose corn syrup tested in 2005.

To read the entire IATP report click here.

Meanwhile, the website HFCSFacts.com begs to differ.  The site, titled “The Truth About High Fructose Corn Syrup,” offers a counterpoint in its document entitled Mercury Study Seriously Flawed and Outdated; Fails to Meet Standards for Scientific Research. The organization is even running Google AdWords ads with links directly to documents challenging the mecury study.

• None Found