Warning: This Food May Give You ____________

                                           
Ill health, obesity, chronic disease, or even death with long term use. Does it get your attention?
Ever popular is the discussion of a food tax for controlling obesity, but what about another equally
polarizing strategy: warning labels on food. There are no countries with food health warnings in effect to date, but some of the keen places who have implemented the so called 'fat tax' have talked about it.

A warning label for food would feature statements and explicit pictures about the harmful effects of
consuming certain foods or nutrients in excess. You've probably noticed we currently have optional
and regulated claims on food which showcase its healthfulness, making it easily identifiable for a
consumer that this product is a good choice. E.g. "a healthy diet low in saturated and trans fat may
reduce the risk of heart disease" is often found on food which meet the statement nutritional criteria.
So why not have the opposite? It isn't that far fetched when you think about it in those terms. In fact, a study this year in the Journal of Consumer Affairs actually suggested that a warning label system might work better than a food tax. With their examination, price alone wasn't enough to stop people from buying certain foods, and interestingly enough those who had the least resistance to increased prices were also the heaviest people. A warning label however, well it did make more people not purchase that food, or go for a healthier alternative. Obviously this study is only one piece of the research pie, but it's a tasty one none the less.

 

So warnings labels may work. But if we base this assumption on the popular historical cigarette
package example, we might be hard pressed. Comparing nutrition to smoking, is like comparing
apples to oranges. All in all we know smoking isn't good for us. Whether it's us ourselves smoking,
or second hand smoke, it doesn't really matter. Food isn't so straight and narrow. We need certain
amounts of nutrients, some more often than others. Foods are often stated are 'good' or 'bad', and in an
ideal world we try and want to try and have a balance- remember the rainbow! But even in some of
the so called 'bad' foods there can actually be a little 'good' nutrition. Take French fries as an example. Even though they are deep fried, high in saturated and trans fat, and don't forget sodium, an unnamed favorite takeout's medium size can also have % daily value of 20% for fiber and 15% for vitamin C. (% daily value basically lets you know if a food have a little or a lot of nutrients. 5% or less is a little, 15% or more is a lot. In the run of a day we want to have more of the healthful nutrients, things like fiber and vitamin C, and less of the not-so-healthful). It's easy to see that food is complex, and it's not a one situation fits all, like smoking. Food is essential for life, but it's also about enjoyment. So it's finding that line between nourishment and pleasure. Dietitians encourage people to have and enjoy treats as part of a balanced diet, it's all a part of moderation. When it comes to smoking that's not so much.

During this history of smoking and poor nutrition choices there are events which seem to suggest
poor food choices are following in the smoking shadow. The ban of smoking in public areas, some
restaurants and food manufactures in other parts of the world are actively banning trans fats. Lawsuits
against tobacco companies, and now the same for fast food giants due to chronic health problems and
obesity. The previously socially accepted, now shunned cigarette, where now that has shifted to being
overweight or obesity. Due to the high rates of obesity and associated chronic disease seen not only
here in Newfoundland, but across North America there is evidence that we need to do more. But what?

Most would say there is a lot of information on food packaging already. Could it be effective helping
consumers, or add to the confusion? Would a warning label on food with a picture of a blocked
arteries, or morbidly obesity make you think twice about consuming it?

As seen in The Telegram November 28 2011

Popular Not-So-Good-For-You 'Diets'

                                           
I suppose it started about 100 years ago with 'No diet, no baths, no exercise. FAT - the enemy that is
shortening your life - BANISHED. How? With sanitized tapeworms – jar-packed". Yes that's the right the tapeworm diet. Sure it's extreme, but it just goes to show how far people were willing to go to lose weight. In recent years this diet has been making a comeback, along with a whole slew of others. Sure the ones below don't seem as extreme, but from a science perspective don't veer far off the same path.

The Alkaline Diet
The thought here is that certain foods are alkaline (most fruits, vegetables and plant proteins) and others are acidic (animal proteins, dairy, starchy vegetables, grains, coffee, etc). Acidic foods apparently promote damage to the body and create chronic disease, whereas alkaline foods are           protective and 'healthier'. The modern diet is thought to be more acidic and hence when this isn't accompanied by alkaline foods it can cause disease. If that wasn't odd enough, the other part to this diet is measuring your pee. Bottom line? Looking specifically at the foods and measuring pee in this
manner are not reliable ways to prevent or manage chronic disease. There are no hard facts telling us this diet can prevent or cure obesity, diabetes, heart disease or even cancer, which it is often promoted as doing.

The Blood Type Diet
The blood type diet is, you guessed it, based on the eating the 'right' foods for your blood type. Depending on your blood type you should and shouldn't eat certain things. As an example, those who
are type A are better suited to a vegetarian diet, type O should get a lot of animal proteins with less grain and dairy, type B are susceptible to different diseases than A and O and should eat accordingly, and somehow AB is a combination of the recommendations for blood types A and B. What you eat
and how you exercise essentially depends on who you are. Bottom line here is blood type has little to
do with digestion or the rest of our body chemistry. Limiting specific foods and whole food groups can also leave us nutritionally devoid. Similar to the first diet, this one too lacks the hard science and facts.

Paleolithic Diet
This one dates back to caveman days where people during that time ate a diet of wild plants and animals. It consists mainly of lean meat, fish, vegetables, fruit, roots, and nuts; and excludes grains,
legumes, dairy products, salt, refined sugar, and processed oils. People at this time we apparently free from disease and according to diet founders a diet like this today can help do the same. Free from disease, probably not. Free from nutritional deficiency, absolutely not. Without dairy it would difficult to get enough calcium and vitamin D through the diet, and grains and legumes help to give us fibre. Remember nutritional deficiency and disease are linked.

Sure there are others out there like the cabbage soup diet, grapefruit diet, and whole other realms of  thinking like the formerly popular Atkins (eating low carb) and fruitarinism (where people eat only fruit). It's actually been shown that consuming very low calories amounts in the form of twinkies can help one lose weight. Why? Because you are consuming less than you are expending. Would it be
advisable to do this? Absolutely no. You might lose weight initially, but with the lack of nutrition
you run the risk of chronic disease for the future. When hearing about these diets and being enticed
to try ask yourself one question. Is the science there and does it make sense? Know the facts before
starting out on a diet like the ones above. Even though it's just food, we know that eating more of less
of something, or even nothing at all could have the potential to be dangerous.

As seen in The Telegram November 21, 2011