A Federal Definition Of "Natural"? Like Admitting We, As A People, Are Dim
Do you think Pepperidge Farm goldfish grow on trees or maybe are caught be fishermen who go out in slickers and yellow hats into stormy waters? Does anyone? Read the label. Taste them. Do these things taste healthy to you?
Matthew Mientka writes at Newsweek that there's a bill in Congress that would, for the first time, legally define natural:
Already some of the biggest names in food and beverage manufacturing are tiptoeing away. PepsiCo Inc. and Campbell Soup Co., among others, have quietly deleted the natural label from products like Naked Juice and Goldfish - the snack cracker brought to you by those ostensible tillers of the soil at Pepperidge "Farms."In the absence of rigorous oversight, the makers of purportedly natural products have multiplied into an industry worth more than $40 billion annually. Compare that with the relatively modest $32 million a year U.S. market value for certified organic products. As far as that goes, the term organic itself was similarly up for grabs in the much of the United States until 1990, when Congress finally authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to set some standards.
I don't eat anything with sugar or flour in it -- the real problems, since those ingredients (along with any starchy carbohydrate) lead to the insulin secretion that puts on fat. (At the Rodale link above on "bill," they make the assumption -- not based in science -- that there's such a thing as healthy whole grains. There is no such thing.) An excerpt:
Current regulations stipulate that any product containing at minimum 51 percent whole grain can be labeled "made with whole grain," but that leaves 49 percent unhealthy refined grains that you'd eat in what you assume would be a healthier product.
Of course, it was the government that told us, based on Ancel Keys' crap "science," that we should eat the unhealthy high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet, causing millions upon millions of Americans to wonder why they were exercising their asses off and going hungry (on a diet sans fat) and still ballooning up.
RELATED: The FDA, any day now, could impose burdensome new regulations on businesses requiring the disclosure of calorie counts, writes A. Barton Hinkle at reason:
They are fiercely debated because they are so burdensome: "The Obama administration's Office of Management and Budget estimates the menu labeling regulation to be the third-most onerous regulation proposed in 2010," according to Democratic Rep. Loretta Sanchez and Republican Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers. The rules are expected to cost more than $1 billion and require more than 14.5 million hours of labor to meet.They have been debated so long because bureaucrats have discovered that while calorie labeling sounds simple enough in theory, in practice it is -- in the words of FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg -- "extremely thorny."
Consider, for example, pizza: The legislative director for Domino's says "there are 34 million pizza combinations. We've done the math." Listing the calorie content for each possible variation would require a very large sign indeed.
Yet only one Domino's customer out of 10 visits a Domino's location. The rest order over the phone or online. So shouldn't posting the caloric content on the company website suffice? It should, but it will not: The FDA's proposed standards require actual signs, at every location.
...The object of such Byzantine busybody-ness is plain enough: to "nudge" (former Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein's favorite word) people to ingest fewer calories.
Just one small problem: It doesn't work.
"Restaurant menu labels don't work, study shows," reported "Today" back in July: "No matter how much calorie information is on the menu list, people still choose the food they like, not what's supposed to be healthier, researchers from Carnegie Mellon reported Thursday. ... 'Putting calorie labels on menus really has little or no effect on people's ordering behavior at all,' says Julie Downs, lead author of the new study published Thursday in the American Journal of Public Health."
Yet the federal menu rules are all but inevitable because they are required by law -- namely, the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Congress passed the law, and people continue to find out what's in it -- to their dismay.
"The object of such Byzantine busybody-ness is plain enough: to 'nudge' (former Obama regulatory czar Cass Sunstein's favorite word) people to ingest fewer calories."
No, the real object is to put eateries that cater to the non-elites out of business. Our ruling class views the existence of prepared and tasty food as a privilege that should be reserved exclusively for them.
Cousin Dave at November 25, 2013 6:13 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/11/25/federal_definit.html#comment-4076993">comment from Cousin DaveOf course, it's been shown that calories do not count. Mike Eades has a terrific post on how the body basically blows off some non-carb calories while using carb calories very efficiently (to add fat to your gut, etc.).
Also, fat is satiating. I saw a paper tweeted last night that recommends that people eat no more than 20 percent protein, I believe. I'll have to look for that. On deadline, sorry. Might be a while.
Amy Alkon
at November 25, 2013 6:37 AM
Lose weight now! Read Gary Taubes' "Good Calorie, Bad Calorie"!
Purchase at Amy's Mall (unsolicited plug)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400033462?ie=UTF8&tag=advicegoddess-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1400033462
Fianza at November 25, 2013 7:37 AM
Typhus is natural. Cholera is natural. Polio is natural. Malaria is natural. And so on. Mother Nature is a b:tch who's trying to kill you.
Locomotive Breath at November 25, 2013 7:54 AM
"Putting calorie labels on menus really has little or no effect on people's ordering behavior at all."
Yep, some of us do not eat out all that often. So, when we do we are having a special "treat" and the last thing I would want is to shortchnage myself on that treat.
For those folks that eat out more often, they should educate themselves as to what foods they should be eating or not eating. If the market demands that restauranteurs need to start giving out such information then some restaurants will cater to those needs and do well in business. If market demands are not met then those restaurants will not do well. period.
I really see no need for the government to get involved in this as it really is NOT a food safety issue (and for those who claim it is - do NOT misuse the phrase "food safety")
Charles at November 25, 2013 8:04 AM
I love this government. They can just never do enough for us.
Canvasback at November 25, 2013 9:23 AM
I like having the number of calories out on display. I have often looked up the nutritional values of food that I assume is healthy. It's too time consuming to look up everything. However, when I've seen the calories posted, it is not only helpful, but I've been surprised by some items that I thought were too caloric, so I never even considered them. I can actually pick up breakfast at McDonalds without going overboard. Great news for their sales.
Jen at November 25, 2013 11:09 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/11/25/federal_definit.html#comment-4077656">comment from JenI like having the number of calories out on display.
After growing up in a "Clean Plate Club" home, I learned to listen to my stomach. Gregg sometimes marvels at how I'll put one last bite of food in the refrigerator. Not hungry; don't eat it. No matter how small the piece.
I also will eat as much as I want -- of anything that is not carby -- at any time I want it. So, last night, I was hungry before going to bed so I had a big piece of Camembert.
It's my belief that counting calories can lead to too much focus on what you're eating -- in a weird, unhealthy way -- and the same goes for weighing yourself daily. I just eat healthy food, some of it dark green (kale), and a lot of meat and butterfat, and I'm healthier than I've ever been.
Amy Alkon
at November 25, 2013 12:31 PM
What does natural mean?
It's not obvious, and is in fact a perplexing question due to multiple definitions and conflicting worldviews.
Sigivald at November 25, 2013 1:50 PM
A few lines from "Bones" recently:
"Natural flavoring? Cat urine is natural. Does that make it a good flavoring?"
KLC at November 25, 2013 2:26 PM
It makes a perfectly splendid ingredient of perfume!
Radwaste at November 25, 2013 2:37 PM
People who need to see the calorie content of things like pizza and cheese cake are already in trouble.
jefe at November 25, 2013 5:57 PM
I'm guessing lawyers have already begun preparing for the class action lawsuits against the largest restaurant chains because there was an error in the posted calorie count of a popular menu item. Naturally causing an epidemic of health problems.
Goo at November 25, 2013 6:48 PM
I am going to go totally off topic on this. I'm just in a pissed off mood.
<rant on>
Where in the U.S. Constitution is the word food mentioned? Oh you mean the fucking Interstate Commerce Clause?
Do you mean the Interstate Commerce Clause that was fucked up by SCOTUS with the Wickard v. Filburn decision?
How the fuck do I screw with anyone for growing wheat, or tomatoes, or lettuce, or bell peppers, or anything else for personal use?
Then there is the TSA. When the fuck did assent to be groped by a pizza delivery guy to fly on a plane. So fuck the plane and I take a bus or train. Why the fuck am I screwed with there?
And now the fucking U.S. Federal government is demanding that I have to buy fucking health insurance? Why can't I live my life, see a doctor when I'm feeling ill and not bother anyone else? So I die before 65? Big fucking deal. That money that was sucked off to the government and will never be seen again for SS. I can't set the inheritance of the thousands of dollars to anyone. It is gone from my estate.
So at this point I want to tell the federal government to go to hell. Do not pass Go and do not collect a single fucking dollar.
<rant off>
Jim P. at November 25, 2013 8:46 PM
The question of "what is Natural" was answered in the 1970s.
Which opened up more questions.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 25, 2013 9:04 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/11/25/federal_definit.html#comment-4078840">comment from Jim P.Jim P., I don't find that off-topic at all.
Amy Alkon
at November 26, 2013 5:10 AM
KLC; yes, "natural flavoring" comes from many things that we would not eat if we knew the real source - go ahead, I dare you, do a google search for "natural flavoring raspberry beaver anal glands" or you can jump right to it with a wiki search for "Castoreum." yum!
Charles at November 26, 2013 7:02 AM
Leave a comment