The Food Hierarchy

The question I am most frequently asked is, "What should I eat?" And while there is plenty of food advice out there, we lack an easily understood way to convey what is food and what are our best choices. The food pyramid has certainly failed us (and is a great example of special interests at work), we aren't teaching meaningful nutrition in our schools and people are innundated by food commercials and rumors. The result? A great deal of confusion about what to eat.

During a Wellness Workshop I led earlier this week, we spent a great deal of time talking about making good food choices. I left the workshop with a mission: create an quick reference tool for making good food choices. And... The Food Hierarchy was born.



Hopefully, this tool will help to clear up some of the confusion about what is actually food and what highly processed, fake and chemical things disquise themselves as food. If people chose at least 80% of their food from the green and yellow categories, we would go a long way toward a more healthy world.

As with all things, this is a work in progress. I would love to hear your feedback and ideas!

Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010

Today, the USDA and the DHHS released the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010. The release was accompanied by an 112-page document outlining the new advice for what we should eat. This document was summarized by two over-arching concepts:

• Maintain a calorie balance over time to achieve and sustain a healthy weight
• Focus on consuming nutrient-dense foods and beverages

Relatively impressive, though benign, advice. Both of those statements are true and are good rules-of-thumb. I contend we have a significant information gap and many people need a great deal of (honest) education to understand what that means (which is what we at Cybercise work on each and every day). 

And, as with most things, the devil is in the details. At this writing, I haven't read all 112 pages though I promise I will. I did a quick skim though and here is my list of pros and cons from the recommendations in the report:

• Pros
• Increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviors
• Recognized calorie needs are different in different stages of life
• Reduce sodium intake
• Keep trans fatty acid consumption as low as possible
• Increase vegetable and fruit intake
• Increase whole grain intake
• Account for all foods and beverages consumed
• Cons
• Increased intake of fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products (These are highly processed foods and are suspect, at best, as your most healthful choice).
• Only reduced sodium intake to 2,300 mg/day and then goes on to say 1,500 mg/day recommendations apply to 50% of the population (Huh? Why even go there. Make it 1,500 a day and be done. Who is beholden to the salt lobby?).
• Suggests an increase in fiber, calcium and Vitamin D, which is good, though sets the stage for more "Now With Added (insert chemical food additive name here)" on package labels. 
• Suggests we reduce trans fatty acids though doesn't go so far as to eliminate the loophole in current labeling regulations that allow each and every product you consume to have less than .49 grams per serving. (Hello? If you want us to reduce our consumption, get it out of our food.)

Credit where credit is due, this is a pretty good report. While I don't really like the way we create policy in this country (little baby steps at a time so we don't alienate too many special interests), I understand that moving the behemoth of our Government sometimes takes time and always takes compromise. 

Stay tuned for more after I devote the time to read the entire report. Now, if we can implement The Real Food label and eliminate GMO/GE foods. "You may say I'm a dreamer..."

USDA (Unbelievable Series of Disappointing Actions)

If you're a reader of this blog, you've likely already heard that the USDA lifted all restrictions on the planting of genetically altered alfalfa. If you're not in the know, this means farmers will be able to freely plant "Roundup Ready" alfalfa and then freely poison the earth with the chemical pesticide Roundup.

Most alfalfa is used a feed for livestock so it is only a matter of time before we are consuming more and more genetically altered alfalfa and the chemicals used to keep the plants alive until harvest. Yes, I am disappointed. No, I do not have the science that says all of this is bad for us. Nor do I have the science that says all of this is harmless. What I do have is common sense and a general sense of foreboding about what this means for our organic farmers and natural food and our health of our planet. I refuse to believe dumping more chemicals on the earth is good for anyone (except, of course, the people who profit from said dumping).

As I sit here hoping someone will stand up and stop this from actually happening (Michelle Obama, are you reading?), I'm left to accept the current reality and do something proactive. I have added another row to the Real Food label so, at the very least, we'd be able to see if the foods we are buying include genetically modified ingredients. And while I was at it, I included some of the other things people look for while shopping.

Now we have a label that identifies, with simple red and green, if a food is:

• Organic
• Vegetarian
• Vegan
• Kosher
• Gluten-free
• Genetically modified
• Irradiated

In my black-and-white thinking, zero is zero and any amount counts. In other words, the ingredients must all be organic to qualify for a green tab "O" and if there is any trace of an ingredient genetically modified the GMO tab is red. I greatly dislike that products with less than .49 grams of trans fat are allowed to say the product is trans fat free so I don't want to leave any wiggle room with the Read Food label. 

It does occur to me we could continue to add things to this label so it is no longer useful (or perhaps as useful as the nutrition information now on the back of packages). I also recognize that if we keep growing this front-of-package label there may not be room for cartoon characters and flashy colors designed to lure people to the box. Hmmmm... something to think about there. Nonetheless, I would appreciate this kind of tool when I go to the grocery store. At this rate, if I'm buying anything other than whole, real, natural food I spend quite a bit more time shopping because I'm  reading through ingredients until I find a "lesser evil" package. 

Any thoughts out there? Are these additions to the label too much or too little? Did I choose the wrong categories for the second row? Shall I simply give up and buy stock in Monsanto? 

I'm going to sit by the phone and wait for The White House to call. I am a neighbor, after all, and would be happy to pop down and give the Real Food label to Mrs. Obama and be ready to answer her questions as she calls the agency responsible for the Unbelievable Series of Disappointing Actions (aka USDA). 

The Real Food Label
v4

The Real Food Label Explained

As the debate on GMA and FMI's nutrition keys label continues, we're going to devote today's article to exploration of our Real Food label. If you'd like, you're welcome to go to the backstory.

The objective of a package label is to:

• Clearly communicate
• Be consistent across all products
• Require little to no "training"of the end-user

The Real Food label meets these objectives and is designed to give inform consumers with a simple red-yellow-green system. The benefits of the Real Food label are:

• People of all ages inherently understand green is good and red is not so good so little training would be required. 
• Language and cultural barriers are minimized.
• In a sea of packaged foods lining store shelves, the healthier options would be very easy to spot.
• It provides subtle education which, over time, could help consumers become more aware.
• It introduces "real food" and "miles traveled" to labels to further the underlying concepts and health benefits of whole and local foods.
• The points system could be used for personal rewards, societal rewards (walking paths, new parks) or group rewards (schools, churches).
• The QR code gives the consumer an opportunity to get more information and could lead to a "Yelp" type site for crowd sourcing and reviews of products.
• Non-packaged foods could easily use the same labeling system attached to store shelves and displays vs. the package. There would be huge benefit of 100% consistent labeling across ALL foods. 
• This label could also be required in all eating establishments (restaurants, carry-out, cafes, etc.) so consumers would have the same information about the choices they make while dining out. 

I'm not naive enough to think implementing this label design would be easy. The challenges:

• Big ag, the fake-food industry and the restaurant associations would amass their lobbying power to keep this from happening. 
• We have to establish the thresholds for red, yellow, green. Possible certainly, but it would require some wrangling because nutrition science is hotly debated.
• Innovators would need to build the point system and the QR code system (I trust there are plenty of entrepreneurs out there to take this on).

All of that being said, we could easily implement the Real Food label in 9 months like so:

• Month 1: Congress passes the Read Food Label Act. The President signs and while doing so names the Real Food Panel members. 
• Month 2-4: The Real Food Panel members, comprised of nutrition and food experts, meets to establish thresholds (to be clear independent would mean no employer, consultant, investor or fiscal relationship to food or the Government)
• Month 5-6: The thresholds are published for public opinion while the innovators develop and test the points and QR code systems. 
• Month 7: Final rules published. Implementation begins. 
• Months 8-9: Implementation period 

The moral of this story? If some enterprising leaders in our Government take this on, we could have the Real Food label system everywhere by October 2011. Now that is progress. 

Use That, Not This

The Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Food Marketing Institute have released a new food label for the front of store-brand food packages. It looks like this:

After collaborating with a group of smart people at HealthCampDC 2010, we proposed the "Real Food" label that is much, much better and looks like that ↓:

Keep in mind, folks, the food industry is working to get ahead of potentially new and more unpleasant regulations from the FDA. If you think the GMA and FMI are being the nice guys, think again. They're being the "we need to do something we can live with before we are forced to use something we really hate" guys. 

In my humble opinion, our food labels should be consistent, help to educate consumers and give them the information they need to learn how to make good food choices. Yes, I am a dreamer. My fervent hope (and dream!) is the FDA adopt something more in line with our "Real Food" label and tells food manufacturers to Use That, Not This. 

Mini Coca-Cola, where are you?

Way back in October 2009, I wrote about Coca Cola's announcement to create mini-cans of Coke. Each can with 90-calories of Coke was touted as a way to help people control their calorie intake. I, for one, have not yet seen a mini-can of Coke even over a year later. Granted, I don't go seeking Coke products but I am a pretty aware consumer.

Or... maybe, just maybe, Coke decided to not go forward with the mini-can concept. After all, I considered it a thinly disguised ploy to fool consumers to feel better about spending more money on a unhealhthy product (ala 100 calorie snack packs). Granted, drinking less Coke is better for everyone and if you don't have the power to just say no, less is better. Or, you could read the label and recognize the best thing is to put the can down (save for the occasional treat one or twice a year).

I'm curious if anyone out there saw and/or enjoyed a mini-can?? I'd love to hear from you. Where did you (or can you) find them?

Let Our Children Teach Us

The simplest ideas are always the best. The greatest thing about this new food label is it uses knowledge we already have and strategies we are taught in pre-school:

• Red = Stop
• Yellow = Slow
• Green = Go

The first part of the implementation could be the food in our schools. Each choice along the cafeteria line would be labeled like this:

Or this:

This system is so easy it cannot fail. It does not require special training and is so intuitive the numbers inside of the boxes almost don't matter. By implementing this in our schools, we could make great strides to help our children make good food choices and teach them to be aware of what they are eating. The kids would take the strategy home and tell their parents they want to "Eat Green." The points reward system could be used for special school-related activities.... extra recess, a special healthy luncheon with a local sports star, an awards ceremony at the end of the year to acknowledge the best eaters. 

Making a difference isn't hard. We only need someone brave enough to take the first step. 

Label. The Newest Generation.

The design keeps improving! In case you haven't been following along, we're on a quest to design a new front of package label for our food. The whole thing started with the ridiculous commercial on TV that says one serving of Manwich has a full serving of vegetables. Then talk started about how to rebrand High Fructose Corn Syrup so we wouldn't be aware of what is in our food. The idea really blossomed at HealthCampDC 2010 a few weeks ago with some terrific thought leaders in health and wellness. Then a trip to the United Kingdom further refined the idea (am I the only one who loves going to grocery stores in other countries???).

Today, I'm happy to unveil the latest generation of our front of package food label!

Front of Package Food Label © 2010 Cybercise®

Now, we have this lovely little color-coded bar which helps consumers choose food based on an easy system of red, yellow and green. The idea is simple... choose products with mostly green and avoid products with mostly yellow and red. It is universal. It is easy to understand. It is clear.

What a revolution! The simplest ideas are always the best.

A Simpler System?

Can we make the previously discussed label even more simple? Of course we can. While traveling through the UK last week, I noticed this nifty little label on the front of food packages sold by Tesco. This is a box of cake mix which produces 12 cupcakes.

I think we can further adapt our last food label version to assign a red, yellow or green label for the calorie count and to identify the kinds of fat. I also think the "V" on the label for vegetarian is a nice touch.


As we go back to the label design room, we'd love to hear your ideas. Remember, our goal here is to help people make better food choices. Stay tuned for the next version!

Seven Days Postscript

Seven days ago, I spent the day in a room with other people all with an interest to make the healthcare system better and being healthy easier. That day, in and of itself, was very powerful. And, what has happened since is even more powerful.

I've gotten new ideas for Food Label Redefined. Cybercise (@Cybercise) has a whole slew of new Twitter followers, including some people who could really further the idea. The food label project is a small diversion from the real work of Cybercise but we are focused on educating people and having clear food labels would certainly help learn how to make better food choices.

In the next several weeks, I have meetings with some of the people I met at HealthCampDC 10. Some of the meetings are to talk about Cybercise and some of the meetings are to learn more about what my newly-found friends are doing. I was kindly educated by some of the HealthCampers on matters of technology and those brief conversations have given me new ideas to make Cybercise better, stronger, faster. I have increased energy, faith and hope that a group of people getting together really can make a difference.

And, most importantly, I've remembered and confirmed something I long suspected. If I can help someone else get to their goal and achieve their mission, I gain just as much (if not more) in the process. The beauty of an un-conference is it gives people with a common spirit a place to get together, swap ideas, offer advice and lend a helping hand.

If you haven't attended a HealthCamp, find one near you soon. Matthew Browning is hosting one in Connecticut in April. (For the scoop follow @MatthewBrowning). I'm working on some space to host one of my very own in the Maryland-area. If you can't find one near you, host one. Mark (@ekivemark) elegantly hosted HealthCampDC 10 (follow him!) and can offer advice.  To catch up on what happened last Friday, search for #hcdc10. And, get in the conversation by using the hashtag, too.

HealthCamps are for everyone. The more the merrier. And, together we can, and we will, make all the difference in the world.

The Label ReDefined

My latest pet project is designing a "front of package" label for all foods sold in the US. Thanks to a few really smart people and time on the agenda at HeatlhCampDC 2010 last week, I'm here to debut the REAL FOOD FACTS label. Keep in mind this is not meant to replace the current information in the "Nutrition Facts" box on our current food packaging. Changing that label would require a epic battle followed by a miracle so let's just leave that as it is and create something new.


The Real Food Facts label is designed with the following goals:

• Clear, front-of-package information
• Easily and universally understood symbols
• Raise awareness of food processing
• Educate consumers on distance from farm to fork

Now we'll go through the main sections:

• FAT, SUGAR, SALT: Most consumers intuitively understand a green smiley face is good and a red frowning face is bad. Over time, consumers would choose packages with more ☺ and fewer ☺. Dare I say this would revolutionize the way food is made!
• MILES: Fresh food that travels long distances has less nutrients. When fruits and vegetables are picked unripe and shipped hundreds, if not thousands, of miles the nutritional value suffers and the benefit to the consumer is reduced. This part of the label is designed to raise awareness about the origin of food and the environmental impact of food travel. 
• TREE to FACTORY: The amount of natural, real, whole food in much of the food American's eat is growing smaller and smaller. This bar shows the percentage of natural vs. man-made ingredients contained in the package. Those consumers who want to reduce the amount of processed food they eat would select products with a greater percentage of "tree" ingredients. 
• POINTS: The points system is designed to integrate with public health and consumer-based affinity programs. Consumers could collect points and donate the value to their favorite school or charity. Innovative companies could also offer rewards and prizes in exchange for points.
• QR CODE: The QR code would enable consumers to quickly and easily get additional nutrition information at the point of sale. Additional information available through the QR Code could include information on chemical additives and even recipe ideas for the food product. 

Next steps:

• Collect and gather feedback from consumers. Do some market testing. (Hello Steve Case @stevecase! Would you like to fund this?)
• Get the idea on television. (Hello Oprah @oprah and Ellen @theellenshow! I'd be happy to do an interview!)
• Have a major food manufacturer agree to adopt this model as the the front-of-package labels (Hello Trader Joe's!! You would be a great early-adopter!) 
• Enroll a panel of nutrition experts (not beholden to food, big farm or big Ag businesses) to develop the detailed thresholds for each label section (Hello, Mark Hyman @markhymanmd and Andrew Weil @drweil!! You'd be perfect to lead this panel!)
• Recruit an innovative company to create the points administration and rewards system (Hello anyone who is interested!)
• Design and develop the QR codes which could also be used to feed an individual's food diary (Hello smart developer people!)
• Help our elected officials understand how it can be easy to educate consumers on the food choices they make. (Hello First Lady Obama @whitehouse! Help us make this happen!)
• Combat and reverse the obesity trend in the US by helping people eat better (Hello Jamie Oliver @jamie_oliver! Want to help the cause?).

If you are any of the individuals in the "Next Steps" list, please write to me. 

To the real people that will make this happen (that is you!) the way these things happen is by sharing. Share on the web... Facebook, re-blog, Twitter, media (@huffposthealth), etc.  If you're interested in keeping up with updates, follow along on Twitter @Cybercise. 

A big, huge dose of thanks to my fellow attendees at HealthCampDC 2010: 

@ekivemark for organizing the conference

@MJChatter for keeping the day organized and running

@Carefirst_News for hosting us

@MatthewBrowning for his great ideas include "tree" and "factory"

And, the others in our little group for which I don't have a Twitter handle. 

I'm looking forward to the day I walk into my local grocery store and see rows and rows of these labels. For now, answer this question, "What can you do today to make a difference?"

On the Board

The daily 10pounds update is being replaced by the excitement of this Friday. I arrived at TEDxMidAtlantic this morning to find a big giant white board with the question "What if..." across the top. Not being one to miss an opportunity to write on the board, I added the idea from yesterday's blog.

I stood by all day waiting to be invited on stage to talk about my idea. Alas, I was not. Maybe next time.

Instead I spent the day being inspired and awed by an amazing array of ideas, thoughts and experiences. The entire day was full of the kind of energy that not only helps us ask world-changing "What if..." questions, but it helps us answer them in new and creative ways.

I encourage you to take some time and watch some TED talks. The ones from today will be posted soon.

More so, I encourage you to ask your own "What if..." questions. I invite you to post them on our Facebook page or Tweet them to us and your friends. I might even suggest you start to share them with strangers. Use this weekend to do something big.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead.

Front of the Box

Inspired by Michael Jacobson's blog in the Huffington Post yesterday, I decided to do some more research into food labels and "front of the box" activities. This summer, inspired by my niece, I offered the idea that we only eat things less than five degrees from nature. That work inspired further research into processed food and I then thought it would be a good idea if the processed food box was required to list what had to happen to get the food in the box. 


Combine all of those thoughts with some of the ways the U.K. uses labels to help consumers and....  I have designed a "front of the box" label for all food sold in the U.S. Yes, you are welcome. We can now avoid and eliminate months of wrangling and politics and simply implement my idea. I'll even give it away!

My front of the box label looks like this ------->


As you can see, it is very clear from the beginning the food is processed. The label then lists each ingredient (with synonyms) and describes the process used to create the ingredient. 


Doing this research was frightening. I have no clue what "epimerized" means and I'm too afraid to look. To make matters worse, in the attempt to find this information I came across a catalogue of food additive manufacturers based in China.



Are the majority of our food additives made in China? Given some of the concerns with pet food and baby formula recently, this is really scary. Not to mention the fact many of these additives say "safe for infant food" on them. Safe? Who made that decision? The FDA and the GRAS list? Am I the only one who is a bit skeptical here? Apologies for the rant. Back to the label...


The bottom of the front of the box food label lists Fat, Sugar and Salt with easily understood, colored stickers. This particular product (a real product and a relatively "healthy" one which I omitted the name from to protect the innocent) scored all green. The protocol for the labels would also allow for yellow and red stickers. It would be relatively easy to educate the public on how to use this system: Choose products with mostly green stickers. Yellow stickers are to be used in moderation. Avoid things with red stickers. 


Of course, there are some details to work out and maybe we add another category or two into the sticker system. This box label gives consumers the information they need to make better choices about the food they buy and consume. Shoppers would be able to quickly see information and would not be distracted by cartoon characters and health claims. Plus, it would help to educate people on what the "processed" in processed food actually means. I don't know about you, but this information would certainly impact my eating decisions. And I think, over time, it would improve the way food is made for Americans. 

A Better Name for Bad?

Readers beware! The rebranding of high fructose corn syrup is underway. The name supported by the corn industry is "corn sugar." Firstly, when the people who have the most to gain support something it could be hint of something less than objective. I can't find where a new name is necessary, in the first place. I think the renaming campaign is all about a new way to confuse consumers. Cynical? Perhaps.

Let's presume king corn won't get their desired name, so now what? The NY Times blog yesterday asked for help with a new name. They asked some food experts who suggested:

• Corn Glucose an Fructose Syrup (Marion Nestle)
• Enzymatically Altered Corn Glucose (Michael Pollan)
• Glucose-Fructose Corn Sweetener (Michael Jacobson)
• Corn Sugar (Barry Popkin)
• High Fructose Corn Syrup (Dr. Andrew Weil)

If you'd like to, you can suggest your own name and vote on the five choices using the blog link above. From this list, I like Michael Pollan's suggestion of EACG mostly because "enzymatically altered" simply sounds like something bad for you. And, I think we should simply require the label to say BAD. Anything processed or altered should be identified on the label by the three letters B-A-D. Realistically, it doesn't much matter what the substance comes from because few processed ingredients resemble their natural beginnings. And, BAD is very easy for consumers to understand. How powerful would it be if our food labels said (from our initial Manwich blog):

Tomato Puree (Water, Tomato Paste), BAD, Distilled Vinegar, BAD, Less than 2% of: BAD, BAD, Dehydrated Onions, Dehydrated Red and Green Bell Peppers, Chile Pepper, Tomato Fiber, BAD, BAD, BAD, Dehydrated Garlic, BAD, BAD.

Now that would be a pretty clear label. 

The Good Label

The headline in the Wall Street Journal reads "Lab-Spawned Salmon: To Label or Not Label" and the article reports the events at the FDA's hearing yesterday. The FDA is considering if it should allow "AquAdvantage" salmon into the US food market. It held a public hearing yesterday as it is also considering if the label will be required to say the salmon has been genetically modified.

Why we even need a hearing for this is completely beyond reason. The only rational answer is a resounding YES! American consumers have a right to know what they are eating. And, by the way, we don't. If you are unaware, you are currently eating genetically modified fruits and vegetables. They were approved some time ago. And, milk manufacturers are not required to label milk that comes from cows that have been given growth hormone.

How far are we (that is we, you and me, consumers) going to let this go? There are reports of young girls going into puberty earlier and earlier and some suspect the culprit is growth hormone in milk. Manufacturers are allowed to use "natural spices" as code for MSG in foods. How did this happen?

It is time we require the labels of all foods and all consumer products to clearly and honestly say what is in the package. Better still, we should require the packages to outline the process required to get the food in the package. Perhaps if we required Truth in Labeling we would have a more educated consumer base that could make better choices with their precious dollar. Education and better choices only harms those hanging onto the status quo.

Product Nutrition Search

When I seek nutrition information on a product, the best way is a simple text entry box in which to type the product name. Perhaps this method doesn't work for some people so, in an attempt to make things easier, some websites have created other ways to get nutrition information.

As promised in yesterday's Manwich update, I thought we'd take a peek at the ConAgra Product Nutrition Search to see how it works. Here is a screen shot from their website. 
To find nutrition information you have two choices: one-click search and advanced search. One-click sounds easy and look they have nifty sub-categories to help consumers: fat free, low fat, good source of protein, low cholesterol, sodium controlled, good source of fiber. Let's take a look, shall we?

Under the fat free category, the first results are: Egg Beaters, PAM (such a tasty meal choice), La Choy bamboo shoots. Hmmmmm. Is this helpful? Would a consumer, in an attempt to make more healthful food choices go to this website, find something fat free and then go and buy it?

I contend this is exactly what ConAgra is hoping for and spent quite a tidy sum of money on website design for. Does this tool actually help people make better food choices? If I was told to eat a fat free diet, would I use this tool to make my shopping list? Perhaps if I was a consumer without an good understanding of nutrition. Perhaps the first thing on the list should be actual, whole, real foods (like vegetables) and a way to educate consumers about those food choices. And, why in the world is PAM on this list? It isn't food.

I was curious about the nutrition information for Hunt's Basil, Garlic and Oregano sauce so I clicked on the little "i"to dig a bit deeper.

When you click the "i" you are rewarded with a pop-up box of the product label as shown on the left.
What is most interesting about this label? It does not show what is actually in the can. I guess the website designers thought an ingredient list would be too much information. Unless of course, someone didn't want "high fructose corn syrup" to appear in print on a website. Or the spurious term "spices" which can mean a whole bunch of things you really don't want to consume.

I am left curious and would love your thoughts. Is this information helpful? Will it guide a consumer to make better food choices? Or, do you think it is a clever way to "help" consumers make a shopping list of ConAgra produced food based on somewhat questionable health claims?

Tomorrow? The advanced search. Stay tuned!

What is it not?

A friend recently shared a phenomenon. The US is the only place in the world that has food labels which describe what is not contained within the package. In the rest of the world, the labels tell you what you are about to eat, not what you are not going to eat. Seems to make sense. When did the food labeling system in the US make this transition?

Now, as with many things, we have made the task of buying food more complex. Not only do our labels say what is not within (no trans fat, no MSG) we also have a system of what things we are adding to food to make it more “healthful.” Please recognize the insanity of this.

I contend we should not buy or consume any food that requires labels of what it is and what it is not. Food labels should really only be their own peels and skins. Seems much easier to follow.

Labels - Use the Power for Good

Last month we learned about food labeling in the UK. Their simple system of red, yellow and green helps consumer make better choices about the food they buy (green is good!). These are good labels as contrasted to the confusing and complicated labels on US food stuffs. Not to mention the questionable "health" claim labels that now adorn many package fronts on grocery store shelves.

Today, in "The Decision Tree" by Thomas Goetz, I read about a proposal pending at the FDA to add a simple label onto prescription medications. Thomas shares the concept of the Drug Facts Box created by Lisa Schwartz, Steve Woloshin and Gilbert Welch which would require clear, factual labels on all medications in the US. Study results show consumers with access to the Drug Facts Box have a greater ability to understand drug risks. These labels would also be good labels.

All too often, in our food and drug system special interests win out over the most simple and clear ways to help consumers make better choices for themselves and their families. Did you know a box can say "Zero Trans Fat" even if the product inside has less than 1/2 gram of trans fat per serving? Last time I was in school less than 1/2 a gram was still greater than zero. How does this happen?

Personally, I think we should put a label on the FDA which says "Warning: Following This Advice Could be Potentially Harmful to Your Health."

Green, Yellow, Red

The U.K., well ahead of the U.S. in many public health policies, is using a very simple method for food package labeling.

• Green - your best choice
• Yellow - an okay choice
• Red - not a good choice

Wouldn't it would be great if the FDA and USDA implemented a similar system for food in the US? All food should have these labels (meaning fruits and vegetables as well). We could educate most anyone to not eat things with a red dot.

And, while I'm making a wish list, I would like an actual real list of everything a food contains. There shouldn't be exceptions for percentages, there shouldn't be "made up names" for the sake of marketing, there shouldn't be any exceptions. Is this really too much to ask?

Until it isn't too much to ask, don't eat things that come in cardboard packaging. Michael Pollan's number 1 food rule: Eat food. Things in boxes are, 99% of the time, not food.