Highlight HEALTH

Do you read labels at the supermarket? If you do, you may soon notice changes in the ingredients of some of the foods you buy. Food makers are quietly substituting cheaper ingredients in processed foods to offset the high price of commodities.

The Wall Street Journal took note of this trend last weekend, reporting that Food Makers Scrimp on Ingredients In An Effort to Fatten Their Profits [1]. However, that may be overstating their intentions. With high fuel prices driving up the cost of basic ingredients such as sugar and wheat, food companies are are forced to make a choice: raise prices or cut corners. Because competition in the industry is so strong, raising prices is the last thing food companies want to do. Instead, they look to the quality and quantity of the ingredients they use [2]. For example:

• Kraft Miracle Whip now contains more water
• Nestle snack products now contain less milk
• Sara Lee has switched to cheaper wheat for some breads
• Mars Inc. is reducing the size of its Funsize candy packs
• Hamburger Helper products have reduced the number of spice and ingredient pouches
• Some of Hershey’s chocolates are now being made with vegetable oil instead of cocoa butter

While some companies are adding fillers or cheaper ingredients, others are simply trimming manufacturing costs to save money. Food makers that are changing ingredients insist that they aren’t sacrificing quality or nutritional value. That may be hard to swallow, given that they’re reducing ingredient quality and quantity. Although it’s not hard to imagine smaller quantities (and thus lower calories) making a positive impact on health, the WSJ article cited at least one change that doesn’t result in a healthier product: making chocolate with vegetable oil instead of cocoa butter. Indeed, by replacing cocoa butter with vegetable oil, Hershey’s is lowering the overall health benefit of chocolate. Why? Because a number of epidemiologic studies have shown that cocoa, rich in flavonoids, has a number of cardiovascular health benefits [4-5].

The question is, will consumers be sensitive to the nutritional affects of these kinds of changes?

Not really, according to Harry Balzer of the NPD group, a market research and industry tracking firm [3]:

Consumers read labels. About half of all Americans say they routinely read labels on food products. So, I’d say yes, but the question really is ‘are they going to alter their behavior because of the reading the label’. Our experience has been no. Health in this country is really a secondary issue, a secondary concern. The primary concerns are taste, cost and ease.

What can health-concious consumers do? Keep in mind that these changes are occurring in processed foods. Food processing tends to lower the nutritional value of food, and processed foods often have a higher ratio of calories to other essential nutrients than unprocessed foods. Simply by reading this article you’re aware that cheaper ingredients are being used in processed foods — review your labels carefully.

Your best bet? Stick with fresh fruits and vegetables. A diet rich in fresh fruits and vegetables is important for maintaining good health. When fresh produce isn’t available, frozen and canned fruits and vegetables are a good option. Canned vegetables don’t taste as good as fresh and typically aren’t as nutritious, but it’s better than not eating vegetables at all. Fruits and vegetables contain essential vitamins, minerals and fiber, and increased consumption lowers your risk of developing several cancers.

Additional resources can be found in the Nutrition category of the Highlight HEALTH Web Directory.

References

1. Food Makers Scrimp on Ingredients In an Effort to Fatten Their Profits . The Wall Street Journal. 2008 Aug 23.
2. Secret ingredient? A cheaper substitute. Marketplace Morning Report, Marketplace, American Public Media. 2008 May 9.
3. ‘Marketplace’ Report: Check Your Spices. Day to Day, Marketplace, American Public Media. 2008 Aug 25.
4. Engler and Engler. The emerging role of flavonoid-rich cocoa and chocolate in cardiovascular health and disease. Nutr Rev. 2006 Mar;64(3):109-18.
   View abstract
5. Erdman et al. Effects of cocoa flavanols on risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2008;17 Suppl 1:284-7.
   View abstract

Answering seems simple enough. For many people however, the need to avoid criticism and seek praise causes them to respond in a manner consistent with expected norms. Self-reports of dietary intake can be biased by these tendencies, tainting consumption data collected by the health community. Everyone knows they should eat five or more servings of fruits and vegetables a day, so that’s what they say when they’re asked — many even really believe it to be true.

The findings, published in the Nutrition Journal, demonstrate that self-reports of fruit and vegetable consumption are susceptible to substantial social approval bias [1]. Such biases are the presence of social desirability (the tendency to respond in such a way as to avoid criticism) and social approval (the tendency to seek praise) [2-3].

photo credit: karimian

Researchers from the University of Colorado Denver randomly selected 163 women to complete what they were told would be a future telephone survey about health. Randomly half the women were sent a letter prior to the interview describing it as a study of fruit and vegetable intake. Included with the letter was a brief statement on the benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption, a 5-A-Day sticker and a 5-A-Day refrigerator magnet. The other half of the women in the study recieved the same letter but it described the study purpose only as a more general nutrition survey and contained neither the fruit and vegetable message nor the 5-A-Day materials.

Within 10 days of receiving the letters, each of the women answered a food frequency questionnaire and were asked how many fruits and vegetables they had eaten in the last 24 hours. Since the two groups were randomly selected, fruit and vegetable consumption should have been the same in each group. However, those women that recieved the fruit and vegetable message and the 5-A-Day materials reported a significantly higher intake of total fruits and vegetables, and 40% of individuals were categorized as eating 5 or more servings of fruits and vegetables a day compared to just 18% in the other group.

In response to the 24-hour recall questions, 61% of women who received the fruit and vegetable message and the 5-A-Day materials reported eating fruits and/or vegetables on three or more occasions throughout the previous day compared to 32% in the other group. These percentages were independent of age, race, educational level, self-perceived health status and time since last medical check-up.

According to the authors of the study [1]:

This study therefore suggest that social approval bias might well be a substantial problem in the interpretation of nutritional intervention effects that are dependent on education and awareness to affect behavior change. The magnitude of this bias is similar to the intervention effects reported in many studies evaluating changes in fruit and vegetable intake (ranging from 0.93 to 1.25 servings per day). Thus, a major challenge facing nutritional intervention researchers is assessing true behavioral change based on self-reports from reporting bias.

This doesn’t mean that health questionnaires are useless. Rather, it means that many people simply aren’t being entirely truthful when it comes to how many fruits and vegetables they eat. The authors suggest that, in large dietary intervention trials, subgroups can be evaluated with biomarkers or other independent assessments to estimate the reporting bias size. Additionally, bias can also be controlled to some degree by assessing different intensities of an intervention, whereby everyone receives at least a minimal prompt for change instead of one group not receiving any prompt at all.

A growing body of evidence shows that fruits and vegetables are critical to promoting good health. Here’s 5 tips to help you eat more:

1. Keep fruits and vegetables on the counter or at eye level in the refridgerator. Make them easy to find and you’ll be more likely to eat them.
2. If you’re worried about fruits and vegetables spoiling, try canned and frozen fruits and vegetables.
3. Eat fruits and vegetables at every meal. For snacks, try carrot sticks, raisins or apple slices.
4. Buy precut fruits and vegetables. They may cost a bit more than unprepared fruits and vegetables, but there’s less work and they’re ready to eat.
5. Skip the potatoes. They have a high glycemic index compared to other vegetables such as broccoli, cauliflower, asparagus, string beans or peas.

Fruits and vegetables contain essential vitamins, minerals and fiber. In addition to the numerous health benefits of eating more fruits and vegetables, increased consumption lowers your risk of developing several cancers.

Additional resources can be found in the Nutrition category of the Highlight HEALTH Web Directory.

How about you? Do you lie to yourself about the fruits and vegetables you eat?

References

1. Miller et al. Effects of social approval bias on self-reported fruit and vegetable consumption: A randomized controlled trial. Nutr J. 2008 Jun 27;7(1):18. [Epub ahead of print] DOI: 10.1186/1475-2891-7-18
   View abstract
2. Hebert et al. Social desirability bias in dietary self-report may compromise the validity of dietary intake measures. Int J Epidemiol. 1995 Apr;24(2):389-98.
   View abstract
3. Hebert et al. Gender differences in social desirability and social approval bias in dietary self-report. Am J Epidemiol. 1997 Dec 15;146(12):1046-55.
   View abstract

As the price at the gas pump continues to climb, so does the cost of diary, grain and meat products. Why? Because increasing fuel prices make it more expensive to grow, harvest, transport, process and package food. Indeed, food costs rose by 4 percent in 2007, the highest annual increase since 1990 [1]. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Agriculture predicts the consumer price index for all food will increase 4.5 to 5.5 percent as retailers continue to pass on fuel costs to consumers [1].

There is, however, an upside to the increasing cost of food. Michael Pollan, author of the book In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto, argues that as the price of fuel and commodities rise, nutritionally questionable, high-profit ingredients like high-fructose corn syrup will also cost more [2]. And as prices rise, consumer demand for products containing such ingredients will fall.

This is good news for producers of sustainable foods — locally grown produce and locally raised meat — that don’t rely on fossil fuels. Locally grown foods are fresher, better tasting and healthier than food that’s been shipped or flown in from further away (we won’t even discuss heavily processed foods). Sustainable food producers haven’t felt the increasing cost of fuel like factory farms, making them more economically competitive in today’s marketplace. Even so, a recent Ohio State University study found that grocery store shoppers are willing to spend more for locally grown foods [3].

photo credit: alykat

The study was published in the May issue of the American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Researchers evaluated data from 477 surveys at 17 Midwestern locations, including retail grocery stores, on-site farm markets and farmers markets. In the survey, shoppers were presented with two baskets of strawberries under 80 different combinations of price, freshness, farm location and farm type. After presenting the options, shoppers were asked which basket of strawberries they would buy. The average retail shopper was willing to pay 48 cents more for strawberries produced locally (in the study, local meant grown within Ohio). Shoppers at farm markets were willing to pay even more at 92 cents extra. Freshness was also found to be important factor for shoppers. Retail shoppers were willing to pay 54 cents more for fresh produce that was recently harvested. Again, farm market shoppers were willing to pay even more at 73 cents extra.

According to Marvin Batte, Ph.D., a co-author of the study and professor of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics at Ohio State University [4]:

Statistically, we sorted out what explains each person choosing one basket over the other. We were able to determine how important price was, how important where the strawberries were produced was and whether the freshness guarantee was a factor. Basically what made the biggest difference was local production.

The Washington Post ran a great story earlier this week about the benefits of fruit and vegetables. To Produce Good Health, Bite Into Fruit and Veggies reveals some of the reasons why these food provide so many health benefits. The article also suggests that fresh fruits and vegetables are inexpensive and more accessible over the summer months:

Scientists are just beginning to fully understand the power of produce. And the start of summer provides a great opportunity to expand your nutritional horizons by sampling the foods that will come into peak season during the coming months. Seasonal fruit and vegetables cost less than produce available at other times of year, so they can help stretch your food dollars.

Nobody likes to pay more for food. But if increased food costs force people to find locally grown alternatives and eat healthier, there is indeed an upside to the high price of food. For more information on farmers markets, family farms and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy locally grown produce and grass-fed meats, visit LocalHarvest.org.

What are your concerns about the cost of food? How are you dealing with increasing food prices?

References

1. Food CPI, Prices, and Expenditures: CPI for Food Forecasts. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Accessed 2008 Jun 20.
2. Some Good News on Food Prices. The New York Times. 2008 Apr 2.
3. Darby et al. Decomposing Local: A Conjoint Analysis of Locally Produced Foods. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 90(2):476-486. 2008 May.
4. Average shoppers are willing to pay a premium for locally produced food. Ohio State University Research Communications. 2008 May 20.