nutrition
Another raw milk
warning issued. (Consumer
Health Digest, Issue #10-13, April 1st, 2010)
The FDA and several state agencies are alerting consumers to an
outbreak of campylobacteriosis associated with drinking raw milk.
that originated from the Forest Grove Dairy in Middlebury, Indiana.
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm206311.htm.
At least 12 confirmed cases were reported in Michigan. Raw milk
is unpasteurized milk from hoofed mammals, such as cows, sheep,
or goats. Since 1987, the FDA has required all milk packaged for
human consumption to be pasteurized before being delivered for
introduction into interstate commerce. Pasteurization heats milk
to a specific temperature for a set period of time and kills harmful
bacteria, such as listeriosis, salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis,
typhoid fever, tuberculosis, diphtheria and brucellosis. FDA's
pasteurization requirement also applies to other milk products,
with the exception of a few aged cheeses. From 1998 to 2008, 85
outbreaks of human infections resulting from raw milk consumption
were reported to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
These outbreaks included a total of 1,614 reported illnesses,
187 hospitalizations and 2 deaths. Proponents often claim that
raw milk is more nutritious than pasteurized milk and is inherently
antimicrobial, thus making pasteurization unnecessary. These claims,
however, are false. [Barrett S. Why raw milk should be avoided.
Quackwatch, Dec 22, 2003] http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/rawmilk.html.
Nestle subsidiary
settles FTC charges for children's meal-replacement products.
(Consumer
Health Digest, Issue #10-28, July 15th, 2010)
Nestle HealthCare Nutrition, Inc. a subsidiary of Nestle S.A (the
world's largest food and nutrition company), has agreed to settle
FTC charges that it marketed a children's drink with unsubstantiated
claims. [Nestle subsidiary to settle FTC false advertising
charges; will drop deceptive health claims for BOOST Kid Essentials.
FTC news release, July 14, 2010] http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/07/nestle.shtm
The drink contains 25 vitamins and minerals and comes with a straw
embedded with probiotic bacteria. The FTC charged that from fall
2008 to fall 2009, the marketers improperly claimed that the product
would prevent upper respiratory tract infections in children,
protect against colds and flu by strengthening the immune system,
and reduce absences from daycare or school due to illness.
In one video ad (shown to the right), the straw jumped out of the drink box, formed a protective barrier around a girl as she encountered a sneezing boy, and then formed steps allowing her to reach a basketball hoop and shoot a ball into the net. Web sites marketing the product say that it is intended for children ages 2 to 13, is "nutritionally complete," and is suitable for use as a meal replacement.
Green tea claims
triggers two FDA warning letters. (Consumer Health Digest, Issue
#10-36, September 9th, 2010)
The FDA has issued two warning letters related to claims made
for green tea products. One ordered Unilever Americas to stop
claiming that its Lipton Green Tea 100% Naturally Caffeinated
product has a significant cholesterol-lowering effect and is "a
naturally rich source of antioxidants." http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/ucm224509.htm
The other ordered Cadbury Adams USA to stop claiming that its
Canada Dry Sparkling Green Tea Ginger Ale was "enhanced with
200 mg of antioxidants from green tea and vitamin C." http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/ucm224571.htm.
Pediatric group
discourages use of "sports drinks" and "energy
drinks". (Consumer
Health Digest, Issue #11-20 July 7, 2011)
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issues a clinical
report intended to discourage consumption of "sports drinks"
and "energy drinks" by children and adolescents. Sports
drinks, which contain carbohydrates, minerals, electrolytes, and
flavoring, are intended to replace water and electrolytes lost
during exercise.
Energy drinks include caffeine or other stimulant substances.
The AAP believes:
**Stimulant substances have no place in the diet of children.
**Frequent drinking of soft drinks may be linked to obesity.
**Sports drinks can be helpful to young athletes engaged in prolonged,
vigorous physical activities, but in most cases they are unnecessary
on the sports field or in the school lunchroom.
**For most children engaging in routine physical activity, plain
water is best.
[Committee on Nutrition and the Council on Sports Medicine
and Fitness. Clinical report-Sports drinks and energy drinks for
children and adolescents: Are they appropriate? Pediatrics 127:1182-1189,
2011] http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/05/25/peds.2011-0965.full.pdf+html.
Another raw milk
disease outbreak noted.
(Consumer
Health Digest, Issue #12-05 February 2, 2012)
The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) has
reported Campylobacter infections associated with consumption
of raw (unpasteurized) milk produced by The Family Cow farm in
Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. http://www.yourfamilycow.com/
The Maryland DHMH recommends that consumers discard any raw milk
product purchased from this farm in 2012. [DHMH confirms presence
of Campylobacter in raw milk from Pennsylvania farm. News release,
Feb 1, 2012] http://www.dhmh.maryland.gov/publicrelations/pr/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=188
So far, 38 cases have been reported in Pennsylvania and three
other states. [More Campylobacter cases expected in Family
Cow milk outbreak PA MD WV NJ. Food Poisoning Law Blog, Feb 4,
2012] http://foodpoisoning.pritzkerlaw.com/archives/campylobacter-more-campylobacter-cases-expected-in-family-cow-milk-outbreak-pa-md-wv-nj.html
Campylobacter bacteria can cause diarrhea, nausea and vomiting,
and can progress to more serious illness, such as a bloodstream
infection and other complications. The Family Cow dairy sells
directly to consumers at its on-farm retail store and at multiple
drop-off locations and retail stores in seven counties in Pennsylvania.
Raw milk and products made from raw milk (including certain cheeses,
ice cream, and yogurt) can pose severe health risks. The implicated
milk was labeled "raw milk" and sold under "The
Family Cow" label in plastic containers. Pasteurization is
performed by briefly heating raw milk to kill any disease-causing
germs (e.g., Salmonella, Escherichia coli O157, Campylobacter)
that can be found in raw milk. In 1987, the FDA banned the interstate
distribution of unpasteurized milk and milk products in final
package form for human consumption, but some states still permit
it to be produced and sold within their borders. Although many
farms that produce raw milk conduct safety tests, this cannot
ensure that the milk is safe. [Barrett S. Why raw milk should
be avoided. Quackwatch, Dec 22, 2003] http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/rawmilk.html.
EU posts database
on nutrition and health claims.
(Consumer
Health Digest, Issue #12-21 June 21, 2012)
The European Union has posted a register of more than 2,000 claims
that have been proposed for foods and food substances. http://ec.europa.eu/nuhclaims
The claims designated "authorised" merely describe biochemical
function. Claims designated as nonauthorized involve unproven
assertions of effectiveness against health problems. The complete
list can also be downloaded as a online table or a 719-page PDF.
http://ec.europa.eu/nuhclaims/resources/docs/euregister.pdf.
CAP issues "Do's
and Don'ts" for weight loss ads. (Consumer Health Digest, Issue #13-2 January
10, 2013)
The United Kingdom's Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP)
write and maintain the UK Advertising Codes that are implemented
by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). CAP's recent advice
for diet claims includes:
**Don't claim people can lose a precise amount of weight in a
set period of time or that weight can be lost from specific parts
of the body. Claiming "Lose up to two pounds a day"
could mean your name will be posted for up to five years on the
ASA website.
**Make sure you don't imply the weight loss is permanent or easy.
**Don't make claims that foods can help you lose a specific amount
of weight in a set amount of time.
**It would be useful if the U.S. Federal Trade Commission issued
trade regulation rules banning deceptive claims and held advertising
media jointly responsible for the financial damage done by misleading
ads that violate the rules.
Consumer Reports
blasts “gluten-free" hype (Consumer Health Digest, Issue #15-02 January
11, 2015)
Consumer Reports magazine has concluded that many people who buy
"gluten-free" products are wasting their money. [Will
a gluten-free diet really make you healthier? Consumer Reports,
Nov 2014] Its analysis states:
Gluten, a protein found in wheat, barley, and rye, should be avoided
by people with celiac disease and by others who have trouble digesting
it. However, only about 7% of Americans have such difficulty.
The magazine's recent survey of more than 1,000 Americans found
that 63% believed that avoiding gluten improves physical or mental
health and one third thought that gluten-free foods promote weight
loss. Neither of these beliefs is correct.
Gluten-free foods tend to cost more; some are higher in calories,
fat, sugars, and/or sodium than the foods they were meant to replace;
and those made with rice or rice flour may contain undesirable
amounts of arsenic.
FDA reviewing use
of "natural" in labeling (Consumer Health Digest, Issue #15-45 November
15, 2015)
The FDA is asking for public comments about use of the term "natural"
in food labeling. This action was triggered in part by three citizen
petitions asking the agency to define the term for food labeling
and one calling for a ban. In addition, some federal courts, as
a result of litigation between private parties, have asked the
FDA to determine whether food products containing high fructose
corn syrup or genetically engineered components can be labeled
as "natural." Although the FDA has not engaged in rulemaking
to establish a formal definition, it has a longstanding policy
under which the term "natural" means that nothing artificial
or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source)
has been included in or added to a food that would not normally
be expected to be in that food. However, this policy was not intended
to address food production methods, such as the use of pesticides,
nor did it explicitly address food processing or manufacturing
methods, such as thermal technologies, pasteurization, or irradiation.
The FDA also did not consider whether the term "natural"
should describe any nutritional or other health benefit. The agency
will now consider whether it is appropriate to define the term
"natural" and, if so, how it should be defined and used
on food labels. Until February 10, 2016, comments can be made
via docket folder FDA-2014-N-1207
on Regulations.gov.
Food labeling rules
revised (Consumer Health
Digest, Issue #16-21 June 5, 2016)
The FDA has finalized a revised "Nutrition Facts" label
for packaged foods to reflect updated scientific information,
new nutrition and public health research, more recent dietary
recommendations from expert groups, and input from the public.
The changes include: (a) larger type for serving sizes and calories
per serving, (b) serving sizes must be in units that are easy
to understand, (c) added sugars must be listed, (d) amounts of
saturated and trans fat must be specified, but total fat calories
will not. Large manufacturers must make the changes by July 26,
2018. Those with less than $10 million in annual food sales have
an additional year to do so. The FDA expects the changes to make
it easier for consumers to make informed food choices. [Changes
to the Nutrition Facts label. FDA Web site, May 16, 2016]
"Gluten-free"
fad debunked
(Consumer
Health Digest, Issue #16-22 June 12, 2016)
Celiac disease is a chronic autoimmune condition characterized
by small intestinal inflammation and triggered by gluten exposure
in genetically sensitive individuals. Gluten is found in wheat,
barley, and rye. The Journal of Pediatrics has published an analysis
of fads and fictions associated with the gluten-free diet (GFD).
[Reilly NR. The
gluten-free diet: Recognizing fact, fiction, and fad. The
Journal of Pediatrics, May 10, 2016]. The author noted:
- The true incidence of celiac disease is well below 1%. Non-celiac
gluten sensitivity also exists. Its prevalence is unknown but
also low. Yet a 2015 survey of 30 000 adults in 60 countries worldwide
found that 21% of those surveyed rated gluten-free as a "very
important" attribute when making food purchasing decisions.
- Although avoiding gluten is vital for people with celiac disease,
there is no evidence that this benefits otherwise-healthy and
symptom-free adults and children.
- Market research has found that consumers without celiac disease
purchase the vast bulk of gluten-free products.
- There is no evidence that processed gluten-free foods are generally
healthier than their gluten-containing counterparts.
- Unnecessary gluten-free dieting can lead to obesity, insulin
resistance, and metabolic syndrome; deficiencies in B vitamins,
folate, and iron; increased exposure to arsenic (in rice) and
mercury; and greater food costs.
- There is no evidence that delaying gluten introduction to infants
prevents celiac disease.
FDA may revoke soy
protein/heart disease health claim (Consumer Health Digest, Issue #17-42 November
12, 2017)
The FDA is proposing to revoke the currently authorized claim
that consuming soy protein reduces the risk of heart disease.
FDA-authorized health claims are intended to reflect well-established
relationships based on the most robust level of scientific evidence.
To date, 12 such claims have been authorized. The soy-protein
claim has been permitted on packaged foods since 1999. In 2000,
the American Heart Association Nutrition Advisory Committee concluded
that is was prudent to include soy protein in a diet that is low
in saturated fat and cholesterol. However, subsequent AHA reviews
concluded that although very large amounts of soy protein (more
than half the daily protein intake) may lower LDL cholesterol,
(a) the experimental data were from individuals with very high
cholesterol levels, (b) the reduction is small, (c) there was
no improvement in other blood lipid levels or blood pressure,
and (d) any direct benefit on cardiovascular health is minimal
at best. [Jones DW. Letter
to FDA Division of Dockets Management, Feb 19, 2008] A
statement released with FDA's recent announcement appears to agree
with the AHA position. [Statement
from Susan Mayne, Ph.D., on proposal to revoke health claim that
soy protein reduces risk of heart disease. FDA news release,
Oct 30, 2017] This is the first time the FDA has proposed
to revoke an authorized claim.
Claims regarding
probiotics and health scrutinized (Consumer Health Digest, Issue #25-31 -
August 3, 2025)
Experts from the Houston Methodist Hospital and University College
Cork (Ireland) have written a paper offering a critical perspective
on probiotics for the nonspecialist. The paper includes analyses
of evidence regarding prevention and treatment of various gastrointestinal
problems. Key points in the paper include:
• People don’t often refer to the term probiotic according
to the definition widely accepted among experts: “live microorganisms
which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit
on the host.”
• A microorganism must fulfill three criteria to qualify
as a probiotic: (a) the viability of a candidate probiotic is
specified and demonstrable, and excludes dead organisms, microbial
fragments, or bioactive molecules produced by microbes; (b) a
daily dosage of a billion viable colony-forming units is the commonly
accepted minimum (although it has been neglected in most clinical
trials), and (c) a health benefit must be supported by appropriately
designed clinical trials.
• Unlike live biotherapeutic products (LBPs), which are regulated
as drugs, probiotics are categorized as dietary supplements or
foods.
The experts concluded:
We believe that the field of probiotics has suffered from insufficient
- not excessive—regulation. While the regulatory distinction
between probiotics and LBPs has brought some clarity, the word
probiotic should not be used unless an organism fulfills the definition
of the term. Where possible, the use of precise terminology, including
specific microbial identification, is preferable to a collective
term like probiotics (or pre- and postbiotics). The paucity of
well-supported indications for probiotics in the prevention or
management of human disease is based on several factors, including
an overly enthusiastic extrapolation of results from in vitro
and animal studies, limitations in trial design, and a failure
to recognize the complexity of human disease phenotypes. Of course,
not all microbial therapeutics need to be developed as drugs,
and it is noteworthy that nondrug strategies are desirable and
effective in many disorders. However, there is no substitute for
clear language and scientifically supported claims regardless
of the regulatory categorization.
[Quigley EMM. Shanahan F. Probiotics
in health care: A critical appraisal. Annual Review of Medicine,
76:129-141, 2025]
page
created: August
24th, 2011 and last updated:
August
7th, 2025