14 replies to this topic

[GMO]

I was contemplating this while listening to a dietetics book.

 

You know the sort "all food industry people are evil" type. But for some reason, this book has got me thinking. While I think the premise they often claim are rubbish, I'm starting to wonder if they have a point, albeit they're putting it in a way to be incredibly off putting to people who work in the industry. 

 

So go with me on this, don't react yet.

 

The claim is often that food professionals have deliberately added or removed ingredients, or changed textures to make food hyper palatable and so easy to overeat. This causes multitude of health impacts including obesity, heart disease, cancers etc.

 

But the reality as I see it is that really tasty food comes out of our processes and those of commercial teams, i.e. you will make food according to the laws of the country you are in or exporting to, and within those boundaries you will make it as tasty as you can. Why wouldn't you? Tasty food will be preferred over the competitor. The aim is not to be overeaten per se, at least not from what I've seen.

 

So mind is pinging around thinking... 

 

Then I realise something. Nobody is standing up for the health of the consumer for chronic health conditions caused by poor nutrition. We leave the overall diet decisions to the consumer while knowing full well they will do f. all.

 

We have HACCP that looks at acute health conditions but also chronic ones where it's caused by a contaminant or even with, say, infant formula or pet food, chronic conditions which are caused by an absence of an ingredient.

 

BUT nobody is in a food business standing up for the health of a consumer from overeating sugar, salt and fat in any systematic way.

 

In the UK we use the nutrient profiling model which has gradually drifted into the roles of people who have "responsible business" or sustainability in their portfolios but when you're looking at a new product, are we really looking at the potential health risks of overconsumption? 

 

I remember a talk years ago by an industry leader saying that the only change to consumers health had been via stealth. The food industry is really good at this. Taking a bit of legislation, e.g. UK HFSS and reformulating to meet that legislation. But if we're honest with ourselves, none of that has worked. Or GLP-1s wouldn't be a thing.

 

A lot of this is new areas so I can understand why it's not a routine part of our day to day jobs, and, let's face it, there is so much BS being talked about UPFs right now. But in, say 10, 15, 20 years time, I can imagine the food industry and food safety looking very different and food safety potentially encompassing health beyond what we include now.

 

There was a comment in this book though asking you to look at your typical supermarket and what products are there. So I did. After you get past the homeware stuff, we have a decent fruit and veg section in the UK. Three aisles typically. Then one aisle of meat and fish. Although processed options are creeping in there at the edges. The premarinaded, coated, cured etc. Then one aisle of dairy, probably half processed and half not. The remaining aisles, perhaps 10 of them are mostly really processed foods. Not all terrible for you. Canned pulses are great. Dried grains and nuts, fine. But most of those 10 aisles are foods that if you completely cut them out of your diet, you'd not just fail to suffer ill effects but probably thrive.

 

Then, I always think this is another interesting thought experiment, if you took all of the brightly coloured packaging off those 10 aisles and didn't allow manufacturers to cheat with food colourings, what would these 10 aisles look like if all shown in clear, colourless packaging? It would be a sea of brown wouldn't it? Boring, unappetising and not as delicious looking as the oranges and apples in aisle 3.

 

Isn't this all bizarre? 

 

I do wonder if we're going to be vilified as the tobacco companies of old at some point (but at least on my part with little conscious drive to avoid honesty as they did). But we do have to admit that whether we've been part of it or not, our leaders, our industry representatives have been lobbying governments for years and that lobbying has influenced legislation.

 

This is all drifting far too far into conspiracy theory for my liking, I'll admit. But I'd welcome your thoughts.

[jcieslowski]

Not to pile on the conspiracy bandwagon too much, but I think what you're really saying (maybe not, or maybe you don't even know you're saying it?   ) is that a capitalistic based system of food manufacturing, distribution, and selling is NOT in the best interest of the consumer, and thus the health of the world, or at least the affected country. 

 

At the production side, we emphasize large yields, caloric density, shelf stability / longevity, and profitable returns.  It's not a flaw, it's a feature.  The system is designed to make money so it will prefer, over time, money making products and methods.   This results in less bio-diverse diets and outcomes already.

In transport we prefer time and temperature stable products.  We don't want to pay to freeze or refrigerate during shipping if we can help it, and being able to warehouse product for a long while before it goes bad is preferable.  (Note: this is one area of, I guess, optimism, in my opinion.  Warehouse operations have gotten so much better from a tech. standpoint that inventory turns and holding times are way down over the years, meaning less emphasis on longevity is needed, which allows for less processed and more natural food choices, overall).

 

At the supermarket, companies pay to have their products displayed.  Local, fresh grown or processed foods are less likely to be able to afford placement in these areas.  The farmer's market has fresh corn for $1an ear and the Kroger supermarket has fresh-ish corn for $0.75 an ear.  That farmer's market seller can't afford the $10,000 for a foot of space in that Kroger.  This also pushes availability of products from large entities who can afford and spread the costs over a diversified product line.   This also means that a company will consider carefully which products to put into the supermarket  They're not going to put minimally profitable product offerings when they can put high profit items instead.  These high profit items are often times sugar loaded, or ultra processed items that are less good for the consumer in health consequences but more profitable for the mega-corp. who own the brand being sold.

 

In terms of advertising, I think you've already articulated the CURRENT view of early ads for things like cereals.  They are NOT very different than those early ads for tobacco products and I think that many people already view them in the same light.  Marketeers, again, were tasked with 'making product more attractive' not with 'promoting health or well-being of consumers'.  

 

I think even now, the push toward 'healthier' and more 'conscious' (health, environment, sustainability, labor conditions, etc.) food supply chains and messaging from a company is PROFIT driven, not 'human' driven.  I think mega-corp one would be happy to continue to exploit what amounts to slave labor in harvesting coffee except that mega-corp 2 has launched an advertising campaign that says they're ethically sourced and mega-corp one doesn't want to lose a competitive advantage in their marketing campaigns.  

 

Unfortunately, I don't think there's going to be any change until the system at the root of it is addressed.   In the United States most places fluorinate their public drinking water.  This is a COST incurred by government to raise the health and well being of their locality.  (I know there are anti-fluoride people out there but let's set that aside for a minute as it's off topic and just assume with me that fluorinated drinking water is 'good'.    There are very few programs like this where the public, and legislature, accepts a cost for health.  In my town there was a big to-do last year about older folks complaining that their property taxes go to fund the local school.   "Why should I pay when I don't have kids in the school" they'd argue.   Another town over they complained about school children getting FREE LUNCH, as an overstep of the government into trying to dictate / control people's lives.   "It's up to the parents to make their lunch and if they can't, let 'em starve, I guess" (ok, that's not close to a real quote).   Anyway, my point is, the FEW SYSTEMS we have that aren't for profit now are already being diminished and under attack, at least in America.  I don't see ANY appetite (pun fully intended) in American legislative systems (which, don't forget, are all lobbied by those same mega-corps to the tune of billion of dollars) to reform our entire food system into a not-for-profit food system (assuming that such a system could even be designed!).

[Scampi]

Can you say LOBBYIST

 

I saw a post yesterday that said, that's the food I grew up on (normal every house has them foods) and then showed the ingredient list between then (70s/80s) and today.   It is staggering the amount of chemicals that have been created, and now added to food

 

Looking at something like aspartame, our bodies don't actually know the difference between it and sugar, but yet, it's still used, people still think they're making a better choice

 

As long as capitalism is the king, regulations will always struggle to keep up

 

Canada has introduced SPY GLASS images on packaging for foods high in fat, sugar and/or salt            but nothing regarding "fake food" our bodies don't know what to do with, nor receive any nutrition from

 

An interesting study would be to see exactly what food professionals eat relative to the national averages...................I don't buy organic, but I do cook from scratch 95% of the time...........my kiddo complains often that there"s "nothing to eat" as we are an ingredient house, and not a grab n go house hold

[MDaleDDF]

 

Looking at something like aspartame, our bodies don't actually know the difference between it and sugar, but yet, it's still used, people still think they're making a better choice

 

This is an interesting point, because how much of this stuff is kind of consumer driven?    Like margarine.   My lab tech was raised in the era where butter was evil and still buys all the fake butter crap for our lab.   I hate that stuff, give me good ol butter any day of the week and twice on Sundays.  But she'll go to the grave swearing margarine is healthy.   It's like the 'only fat people drink diet coke' thing.

 

The old saying is 'the customer is always right', but in my experience, the customer is actually usually wrong, and ill informed to make a correct decision.  I've seen that in every industry I've worked in.   If someone sees 'sugar free' on a package, they think that's a good thing, not knowing that the other options used to sweeten things are worse than sugar.  But the average consumer doesn't know any better.

 

Like the Matrix, lol:

Edited by MDaleDDF, Yesterday, 02:17 PM.

[GMO]

Not to pile on the conspiracy bandwagon too much, but I think what you're really saying (maybe not, or maybe you don't even know you're saying it?   ) is that a capitalistic based system of food manufacturing, distribution, and selling is NOT in the best interest of the consumer, and thus the health of the world, or at least the affected country. 

 

I think I am saying that and in many ways, that's less "conspiracy theory" than claiming there are evil food scientists deliberately making the world sick. It's more an unintended consequence of stable, long shelf life and high sales.

 

 

 

An interesting study would be to see exactly what food professionals eat relative to the national averages...................I don't buy organic, but I do cook from scratch 95% of the time...........my kiddo complains often that there"s "nothing to eat" as we are an ingredient house, and not a grab n go house hold

 

I have to admit we do buy the preprepared crap snacks, we periodically try to cut back on these for the health of everyone but often fail (so we still buy it but feel guilty about it!) For meals though we're a cook from scratch household. The only thing not cooked by me for Sunday dinner for example was the custard (to go with the apple crumble). I let myself off that considering I cooked the roast beef, vegetables, Yorkshire puddings, gravy (and crumble) all from scratch unprocessed or minimally processed ingredients. I can imagine food technical people are mostly big on cooking properly, from scratch.

 

But now I feel guilty so will do some baking today to supplant the cake bars in the drawer which mysteriously last for a month without going stale.

 

 

This is an interesting point, because how much of this stuff is kind of consumer driven?    Like margarine.   My lab tech was raised in the era where butter was evil and still buys all the fake butter crap for our lab.   I hate that stuff, give me good ol butter any day of the week and twice on Sundays.  But she'll go to the grave swearing margarine is healthy.   It's like the 'only fat people drink diet coke' thing.

 

The old saying is 'the customer is always right', but in my experience, the customer is actually usually wrong, and ill informed to make a correct decision.  I've seen that in every industry I've worked in.   If someone sees 'sugar free' on a package, they think that's a good thing, not knowing that the other options used to sweeten things are worse than sugar.  But the average consumer doesn't know any better.

 

I think a lot of it is that the government advice was influenced by lobbyists (and still is) and also by oversimplification of science through knowledge being lacking (or wilfully misinterpreted) at the time. Margarine was and is an abomination. I avoid it nowadays and eat butter and olive oil as my main fats / oils but I'm old enough to remember when it was recommended as "healthier" by official sources.

 

The full quote is, "The customer is always right in matters of taste" and people always forget the last bit. Not that it's totally relevant here, although margarine does taste disgusting.

[GMO]

So a question. Not that we have time for this on top of everything else of course. But if you had a magic wand to ensure that you had enough resource to consider long term health effects (including obesity, type 2 diabetes etc) of your products if consumed to excess (as we know people do)...

• Would a HACCP based approach be the right one?
• Would you personally have enough knowledge to lead that? 
• Or should NPD teams be leading it?
• Would it be all about ingredients or would processing methods have an impact?
• What impact would that likely have on your business?
• Could this come into conflict with HACCP (i.e. could reformulation for health risk food safety?)

The last one is interesting because I know of a site which removed preservatives from an item which, if run correctly, wouldn't have been a problem. But a mistake in processing led to a mould issue and a recall. Similar issues have caused product quality concerns by downweighting packaging to reduce plastic for sustainability reasons but then more damage occurs.

[TbuitK]

Looking at something like aspartame, our bodies don't actually know the difference between it and sugar, but yet, it's still used, people still think they're making a better choice

 

What do you mean with our body not knowing the difference? Amino acids do not use the same metabolic pathway glucose do. Or are you talking about the activation of sweet taste receptors?

 

As one of the most studied sweeteners aspartame is probably safe in 'nomal' quantities. I say probably because it's just really hard to proof causation when it comes to food. Compare this to sugar where we know its harmful effects. If I had to choose I would choose aspartame over sugar from a risk perspective. From that same perspective avoiding them both would be better ofcourse.

[GMO]

What do you mean with our body not knowing the difference? Amino acids do not use the same metabolic pathway glucose do. Or are you talking about the activation of sweet taste receptors?

 

As one of the most studied sweeteners aspartame is probably safe in 'nomal' quantities. I say probably because it's just really hard to proof causation when it comes to food. Compare this to sugar where we know its harmful effects. If I had to choose I would choose aspartame over sugar from a risk perspective. From that same perspective avoiding them both would be better ofcourse.

 

Depends on what we're talking about. Dopamine is released when we taste something sweet, not necessarily sugar. Some studies suggest insulin is also released but results are mixed. Same with GLP 1 in the gut, evidence is mixed. They definitely alter the gut microbiome composition as they are non nutritive so survive to the small and large intestine. Whether that's a problem or not, again, evidence probably isn't there yet. 

 

As you say, if you can, probably avoiding added sugar and sweeteners is probably a good idea. But who does that? But rather than perfection be the enemy of progress, perhaps, at least for now, reducing both is sensible.

[LostInTheWoods]

I think I am saying that and in many ways, that's less "conspiracy theory" than claiming there are evil food scientists deliberately making the world sick. It's more an unintended consequence of stable, long shelf life and high sales.

 

So is the food industry now like Sisyphus just past the top of the hill?

 

For most of human history, malnutrition has been a much larger problem than that of (I guess you could call it) overnutrition. Perhaps at least in developed countries. Are we  conquering that peak just to see our boulder roll down the other side?

[jcieslowski]

We've gotten pretty far let me try and regroup my thoughts - not that they're any more (and probably less so) valid than anyone else's - just my thoughts.

 

1. Overall, the curve of 'how good is the state of food manufacturing and additive / replacement' is bending toward 'good'.  Perhaps imperceptivity, but still there.  As LostintheWoods said, most of human history has been a resource struggle against malnutrition.  I think everything works on a pendulum.  In the US, the politics swing left, people don't like it, it swings right, people still don't like it, and back it comes again.  In this case, we've been on the 'starving' side for so long that the big push toward 'surplus' has swung the pendulum too far the other way.  We've got a lot of 'stupid' food choices.  Over time, the pendulum will, I hope, settle back closer to the center and we'll have smart and better choices.  As said above, don't let perfect be the enemy of good and, I'll add, remember that progress is never linear.

1.5 - But, of note, I don't think this curve is due to a deliberate desire to be 'better'.  It's driven by technological advancement and research.  The current system doesn't reward healthy except in that it might provide a market advantage over your competitor. 

 

2. I think most of the 'fake stuff' we use is probably better than the 'real stuff' at the quantities we use it.

 

3. I think that the 'right' move as a whole (without overthrowing the system as I said above originally) would be to move from nutrient dense products to nutrient hollow products.  We've got too many calories at ready consumption.  The system rewards nutrient dense food so it's no surprise.  But with so many available calories, imagine what it would be like if 25% of the food you ate was 'nothing'.  You still eat it but it's not doing anything. 

 

4. To that end, reducing total caloric intake is more important than tightening regulation on food colorings.  At least in America, most consumers don't read food labels, ingredient statements - any of it.  We all work with a subset of people who care a lot about those things but it's not the majority.   Only 75% of Americans identified as ever reading a label and I'm sure it's over-inflated because if someone asks you you're going to say 'oh yeah, sure I do!  And I get my 5 servings of fruits and veggies a day too!' and also, reading them sometime doesn't mean you read them most of the time or are making very informed food choices based off them.

 

• Would a HACCP based approach be the right one?  - NO.   Root Cause Analysis with strong Preventative Actions would be the better approach
• Would you personally have enough knowledge to lead that?  - NO.  And no one would.  But it's sort of a moot point because we've got a system, at least in the US now, that is moving AWAY from science and evidence based decision making.
• Or should NPD teams be leading it? - I don't even understand the question.  You want a product development team, the team whose purpose it is to bring new items to market - to decide what's good for diets?  Absolutely not.
• Would it be all about ingredients or would processing methods have an impact? -  THIS is where a HACCP based approach might be the right one.  Let's analyze the processing methods and kind of 1. figure out what's better and what's worse and 2. find and fix (control) the processes that are defective.
• What impact would that likely have on your business?  - None.  Well, people might want to buy my product more.
• Could this come into conflict with HACCP (i.e. could reformulation for health risk food safety?)  - If you're talking about removing preservatives and shopping local to reduce carbon footprint or something, sure.  Highly processed mega-foods are the safer option from a traditional food safety perspective.  We already see it with a 'healthy' push to have raw honey and non-pasteurized milk.   

[Scampi]

 

 

As one of the most studied sweeteners aspartame is probably safe in 'nomal' quantities. I say probably because it's just really hard to proof causation when it comes to food. Compare this to sugar where we know its harmful effects. If I had to choose I would choose aspartame over sugar from a risk perspective. From that same perspective avoiding them both would be better of course.

I would not 

Artificial sweeteners do not enter the blood stream and do not raise blood sugar directly. Instead, they stay in the digestive tract until they pass in the stool. Additionally, some studies have found artificial sweeteners, particularly sucralose, aspartame, and saccharin, can alter the microbiome, the healthy bacteria that live in your gut. These microbiome changes can disrupt how cells recognize insulin, leading to elevated blood sugar levels when normal carbohydrate-containing foods are consumed.  

Other studies have shown these artificial sweeteners may change our appetites and response to the taste of sweetness. Since artificial sweeteners can be 100 to 700 times sweeter than regular sugar, when our taste buds register that level of sweetness, a signal is sent to our brain that a large influx of calories is coming. But because artificial sweeteners contain few or no calories, our brain and taste receptors remain confused. This may cause stronger sugar cravings to develop. 

 

https://www.massgene...cial-sweeteners

 

Due to physiological differences in the perception of sweet taste after consumption of NNS and their diverse effect on hunger and satiety centers, it has been assumed that the ingestion of foods containing NNS may not be an effective method to reduce energy intake for weight loss. 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC8954878/

 

 

And last but most importantly

https://www.scienced...056872725000078

Edited by Scampi, Today, 01:28 PM.

[TbuitK]

I would not 

Artificial sweeteners do not enter the blood stream and do not raise blood sugar directly. Instead, they stay in the digestive tract until they pass in the stool. Additionally, some studies have found artificial sweeteners, particularly sucralose, aspartame, and saccharin, can alter the microbiome, the healthy bacteria that live in your gut. These microbiome changes can disrupt how cells recognize insulin, leading to elevated blood sugar levels when normal carbohydrate-containing foods are consumed.  

Other studies have shown these artificial sweeteners may change our appetites and response to the taste of sweetness. Since artificial sweeteners can be 100 to 700 times sweeter than regular sugar, when our taste buds register that level of sweetness, a signal is sent to our brain that a large influx of calories is coming. But because artificial sweeteners contain few or no calories, our brain and taste receptors remain confused. This may cause stronger sugar cravings to develop. 

 

https://www.massgene...cial-sweeteners

 

Due to physiological differences in the perception of sweet taste after consumption of NNS and their diverse effect on hunger and satiety centers, it has been assumed that the ingestion of foods containing NNS may not be an effective method to reduce energy intake for weight loss. 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC8954878/

 

 

And last but most importantly

https://www.scienced...056872725000078

 

If the metabolites of aspartame did not enter the bloodstream then people with phenylketonuria could safely eat aspartame. There's a lot of 'may' or 'can' and research is very inconsistent regarding aspartame. Much of the microbiome/insulin resistance narrative comes from rodent studies with very high doses and short term human studies with small sample sizes which have inconsistent outcomes. I am not claiming aspartame is harmless only that there is no convincing evidence that normal consumption levels are harmful. This is in contrast with sugar, which has clear causal harms.

[Scampi]

more food for thought (pardon the pun)

https://www.theguard...ction-nutrition

[kconf]

Interesting topic. However, I don't know what HACCP has to do with this. If HACCP dealt with studies involving long terms effects of food we consume, most of the food items would be gone. 

 

Scampi - yes, UPF might be as bad as cigarettes, but one would not die of not smoking for a month. Without food one can not survive. Yes, it is bad, but still provides calories and nutrition. 

 

That being said I wish the ideal food system that jcieslowski mentioned existed. 

[GMO]

Interesting topic. However, I don't know what HACCP has to do with this. If HACCP dealt with studies involving long terms effects of food we consume, most of the food items would be gone. 

 

But HACCP does deal with long term harmful effects of food. If you, say, eat acrylamide. There is an association long term with cancer (or there is believed to be) so there are drives in businesses where there is frying and baking, particularly for higher risk foods like potatoes, to reduce this risk.

So yes, HACCP does deal with chronic health effects of the food but does not if it's nutrition related UNLESS it's infant formula or peftood.

 

HACCP is about preventing food safety risks whether they are causing an acute or chronic / long term impact. So to my mind, this is a massive blind spot for HACCP.

 

 

 

• Would a HACCP based approach be the right one?  - NO.   Root Cause Analysis with strong Preventative Actions would be the better approach

 

• Or should NPD teams be leading it? - I don't even understand the question.  You want a product development team, the team whose purpose it is to bring new items to market - to decide what's good for diets?  Absolutely not.

 

Perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough because RCA makes no sense to me in this context. What I meant was at product design stage, who is considering the health impacts of the product including risk of overconsumption, even suitability of recommended portion size and whether it's likely to be adhered to?

 

At the moment if anyone is thinking about the nutrition of the product during development, it's NPD. The people you'd be horrified to give the job to. Basically it's only them doing it right now, if it's being done at all.