The Shoddy 'Facts' Behind Food Health Claims

More
Nestle_Claims_7-20_post.jpg

Clean Wal-mart/flickr


I think not nearly well enough, but you would never know it from listening to food manufacturers.

Let's start with Europe. Health claims are a big deal there these days, as the agency dealing with them, EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), copes with thousands of petitions.

In June, EFSA representatives complained that the "scientific" evidence submitted by food companies to support their petitions included—get this—"excerpts from the Old Testament, Wikipedia, a Tea Association press release, a Royal Air Force report and the American Heritage Dictionary":

The NDA panel, which is responsible for assessing the mountain of health claims applications submitted under the Regulation, said that along with the expected references to clinical studies published in peer-reviewed academic journals, it had also been presented with references from Wikipedia, press releases, dictionaries, the Bible and even an RAF report.

Trying to make sense of translations of references from other languages into English had presented additional difficulties, while 'clarifications' provided by some applicants in response to requests for further information had been confusing or inadequate, further delaying the process.

The quality of this evidence, says EFSA, is "far from optimal." Indeed.

From the food industry point of view, however, scientific substantiation of health claims presents pesky barriers. Moving on to the United States, a food industry commentator asks:

We're talking about the biggest food companies in the world being told the claims that help sell some of their foods are deceptive and misleading....And them agreeing to change or withdraw the claims ... Er sorry ... but why go along with it if you stand by the science?...Is the science there or not? Do these products (a probiotic drink and an antioxidant-boosted cereal) work or not? ... Does the problem lie with the nutrition science itself (not enough clinically backed, human intervention trial-demonstrated, positive associations), or the way the science is being interpreted by regulators and companies that wish to express some of that science in their marketing materials?

Good questions. As I read the literature, the more carefully done studies of functional ingredients tend to show the least benefit.

As I keep saying, functional foods are about marketing, not health.

Jump to comments
Presented by

Marion Nestle is a professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University. She is the author of Food Politics, Safe Food, What to Eat, and Pet Food Politics. More

Nestle also holds appointments as Professor of Sociology at NYU and Visiting Professor of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell. She is the author of three prize-winning books: Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health (revised edition, 2007), Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety (2003), and What to Eat (2006). Her most recent book is Feed Your Pet Right: The Authoritative Guide to Feeding Your Dog and Cat. She writes the Food Matters column for The San Francisco Chronicle and blogs almost daily at Food Politics.

Get Today's Top Stories in Your Inbox (preview)

'Stop Telling Women to Smile'

An artist's campaign to end sexual harassment on the streets of NYC.


Elsewhere on the web

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register. blog comments powered by Disqus

Video

Where Time Comes From

The clocks that coordinate your cellphone, GPS, and more

Video

Computer Vision Syndrome and You

Save your eyes. Take breaks.

Video

What Happens in 60 Seconds

Quantifying human activity around the world

Writers

Up
Down

More in Health

From This Author

Just In