War against food choices moving into high gear

Sara Lee Corp. recently trumpeted in a public statement its commitment to cutting salt levels in myriad food products by an average of 20 percent over the next five years.


Ball Park franks, Jimmy Dean frozen breakfast meals, even Sara Lee-brand bread - the company will give them all a serious sodium-economy.

Packaged-food giants ConAgra Foods and Unilever have made similar public proclamations over the past year about big salt reductions. They've all come at a time when food-makers are increasingly being pressured by health advocacy groups to cut back on sodium.

But walk the grocery aisles and those corporate messages about salt reductions are still drowned out on product labels by the same old shouts of "less fat" or "fewer calories." And don't expect to see a blizzard of less-salt marketing messages anytime soon.

While corporate declarations of a salt diet put critics on notice that food companies take the issue seriously, the Sara Lees of the world don't want to remind you too frequently in supermarkets that they're gradually reducing salt. Sometimes they'd rather practice stealth health, for fear of driving away customers who worry about taste.

"Companies are scared of making low-sodium claims," said Krista Faron, an analyst at market researcher Mintel International.

I think the real problem is eating out. I wish all restaurants had calorie counts on the menu. I can estimate it in my mind, but that's just a guess. When I do eat out, I try to avoid the high fat items (because they are higher in calories), and I'll try to consume fewer calories the next day

hawkeye10, taking some of the salt out of food, particularly canned food, does not always significantly alter the taste, or make it less appealing

Until then, eat what you like in moderation, exercise, and eat a well rounded diet.

I think that some of those fat people out there want to be fat

Tax soda, pizza to cut obesity, researchers say

CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. researchers estimate that an 18 percent tax on pizza and soda can push down U.S. adults' calorie intake enough to lower their average weight by 5 pounds (2 kg) per year.

The researchers, writing in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine on Monday, suggested taxing could be used as a weapon in the fight against obesity, which costs the United States an estimated $147 billion a year in health costs.

"While such policies will not solve the obesity epidemic in its entirety and may face considerable opposition from food manufacturers and sellers, they could prove an important strategy to address overconsumption, help reduce energy intake and potentially aid in weight loss and reduced rates of diabetes among U.S. adults," wrote the team led by Kiyah Duffey of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

With two-thirds of Americans either overweight or obese, policymakers are increasingly looking at taxing as a way to address obesity on a population level.

California and Philadelphia have introduced legislation to tax soft drinks to try to limit consumption.

CDC director Dr. Thomas Frieden supports taxes on soft drinks, as does the American Heart Association.

There are early signs that such a policy works.

Duffey's team analyzed the diets and health of 5,115 young adults aged age 18 to 30 from 1985 to 2006.

They compared data on food prices during the same time. Over a 20-year period, a 10 percent increase in cost was linked with a 7 percent decrease in the amount of calories consumed from soda and a 12 percent decrease in calories consumed from pizza.

The team estimates that an 18 percent tax on these foods could cut daily intake by 56 calories per person, resulting in a weight loss of 5 pounds (2 kg) per person per year.

"Our findings suggest that national, state or local policies to alter the price of less healthful foods and beverages may be one possible mechanism for steering U.S. adults toward a more healthful diet," Duffey and colleagues wrote.

In a commentary, Drs. Mitchell Katz and Rajiv Bhatia of the San Francisco Department of Public Health said taxes are an appropriate way to correct a market that favors unhealthy food choices over healthier options.

They argued that the U.S. government should carefully consider food subsidies that contribute to the problem.

"Sadly, we are currently subsidizing the wrong things including the product of corn, which makes the corn syrup in sweetened beverages so inexpensive," they wrote.

Instead, they argued that agricultural subsidies should be used to make healthful foods such as locally grown vegetables, fruits and whole grains less expensive.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6275T720100308

Bartley Hoebel and his colleagues offered rats unlimited rat chow and either high-fructose corn syrup diluted in water at half the strength found in soft drinks, or sucrose in water at the same level found in soft drinks. In the first experiment, after eight weeks, the rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than rats with access to sucrose. In the second experiment, the rats were followed for six months: The rats that had high-fructose corn syrup gained much more weight, added more abdominal fat, and had higher levels of triglycerides in their blood compared with rats that drank sucrose-sweetened water.

But is soda made with plain sugar really that much of an improvement? Should soda be taxed? Would that really help to curb obesity?