Canada's Heart and Stroke Foundation Issues World Leading Sugar Statement!

Huge kudos to Canada's Heart and Stroke Foundation.

For years I've pointed out that public-private partnerships with the food industry necessitate watered down public health messages so as not to offend the industry partner's products or positions. With this in mind, my hope had been that in unchaining themselves from their food and restaurant industry partnered Health Check program, Canada's Heart and Stroke Foundation (HSF) would suddenly be free to take on a leadership role in the area of food and public health - and if today's news is any measure, the HSF is doing just that and is positioning itself to be Canada's voice of dietary reason, and a world leader in health charity driven public health advocacy.

Today's news has to do with their release of their new position statement, "Sugar, Heart Disease and Stroke", which is as hard hitting as any I've read, and runs in line with the World Health Organization's recommendation to limit added sugars to between 5-10% of daily calories. I vastly prefer the HSF's use here of the term "free sugar" rather than "added sugar", as free also covers sugars freed from their fruity origins and would include juices and products made with juice/fruit concentrates and purees.

The position statement goes on to provide a slew of recommendations, most of which simply could not have been made while the HSF wore the yoke of their public-private Health Check partnership. Here are just a smattering:

For Consumers:

• Limiting restaurant meals out
• Limiting processed foods
• A call to return to cooking from fresh, whole, ingredients

For the Federal Government:

• Adopting the HSF's proposed sugar thresholds
• Restricting marketing of all foods and beverages to children
• Taxing sugar sweetened beverages and using funds generated therein to subsidize fruits and vegetables
• Avoiding public health partnerships with producers and suppliers of foods high in free sugars

For Provincial Governments:

• Taxing sugar sweetened beverages and using funds generated therein to subsidize fruits and vegetables.
• Adopting a Bloomberg style large cup ban (if you want to drink a litre of Coke, you'll still be able to, you'll just need to buy two cups)!

For Municipal Governments, Regional Health Authorities, Workplaces and Schoolboards

• Adopting a Bloomberg style large cup ban in food service outlets
• Banning sugar-loaded beverages in recreation centres, hospitals and schools
• Ensuring potable drinking water made more readily available in parks and public facilities
• Creating zoning laws to prevent the establishment of fast food outlets and convenience stores within walking distance of schools
• Banning the practice of junk food fundraising.

The only thing missing from these recommendations (though it's certainly implied), is a direct call to action for the overhaul of Canada's 2007 Food Guide and with it the Guide's inclusion of free sugar limits, and the removal of the Guide's inane recommendation that half a cup of sugar water with vitamins (juice) is a fruit serving equivalent.

Whether or not you agree with the HSF's recommendations, one thing's incredibly clear, the HSF is no longer the food industry's partner - and that news is tremendous for Canadians as it's amazing how forceful and broad-sweeping public health organizations' recommendations can be when there's no worry about upsetting industry partners.

[I also must add, while reading this position piece and in it the HSF's clear, unadulterated by industry voice, I couldn't help but wonder what sort of forces Dietitians of Canada and the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics could be were they to divorce themselves from their throngs of food industry partners, for as it stands now, they're both rather toothless and certainly not describable as drivers of change or true champions of health.]

BREAKING: Heart and Stroke Foundation Disbanding their Health Check Program

Readers here will know I have long been critical of the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check program. Born in 1999, Health Check was incredibly well intentioned and truly ahead of it's time. Unfortunately, as the years went by, the program didn't evolve with our changing understanding of both nutrition and consumer psychology, and by the mid 2000s, I think the evidence was clear that Health Check was not fairly guiding Canadians' choices, or representative of the good work and trust for which the Heart and Stroke Foundation itself was known.

In a move demonstrating real responsibility the Heart and Stroke Foundation has today decided that the right move for Health Check is to wind it down. I am hopeful that doing so will allow the Foundation to become a far more vocal proponent of produce over products, and in so doing help to steer Canadians out of restaurants and supermarkets' middle aisles and back into the loving embrace of their own kitchens.

Here is their formal announcement.

Is the Heart and Stroke Foundation Rethinking its Candy Endorsement?

One of these things is not like the other

Just over 4 months ago I published a video chastising the Heart and Stroke Foundation for offering its front-of-package Health Check seal of approval to healthwashed candy. That video's been viewed nearly 45,000 times thus far, and I'd imagine has led to some embarrassment and soul searching for the Heart and Stroke Foundation.



Well I noticed something in the supermarket yesterday. Where there was once a sea of Health Checks in the healthwashed "fruit" gummi aisle, now there were fewer. Some products, like the one pictured up above, consisted of a mix of Health Check'ed boxes and plain, while others that I know used to be dressed with a Check, now were bare.

Unfortunately, even if the Health Check program stopped selling its Health Checks to candy makers it would still be painfully underpowered, but if these non Health Check'ed candies are truly reflective of a program change, it's certainly a welcome one.

Burger King Cares More About Kids' Meals Than The Heart and Stroke Foundation

For the next few weeks I'm going to take some time off from blogging - but don't you fret, I've curated a collection of some of my favourite posts from 2010. Today's post details the still true today fact that Burger King's "healthy" kids' meals criteria are stricter than the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check's kids meal criteria - a pretty damning indictment.

Last week Burger King Canada announced new nutritional criteria for their advertised kids' meals. I'll come back to that word, "advertised" in a bit, but wanted to look at what Burger King thinks their healthier kids' meals should contain:

1. No more than 560 calories
2. No more than 600mg of sodium
3. Less than 30 percent of the calories from fat
4. Less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fat
5. No added trans fat
6. No more than 10 percent of calories from added sugars

Doesn't sound particularly healthy to me. 560 calories is still more than a child should consume in a single meal. 600mg of sodium is half a day's worth. The calories from fat and saturated fat stuff I don't care too much about. No trans fats - seems like a no brainer. I was pleased however to see the no more than 10% of calories from added sugars as that's the World Health Organization's recommendation.

So basically it's a bit of healthier window dressing but certainly nothing brag worthy.

Nothing brag worthy unless of course you're comparing Burger King's new guidelines with those of the Heart and Stroke Foundation's awful misinformation program Health Check.

What does Health Check have to say about restaurant kids' meals?

1. No caloric limits
2. Allows up to 720mg of sodium
3. Similar limit on total fat
4. Similar limit on saturated fat
5. Allows 5% of fat to be artery clogging trans-fat (and here I thought zero trans fat was a "no-brainer")
6. No limit on added sugar

Man, if I was the marketing director of Burger King's brand I'd be all over this as for those keeping score, compared with Burger King's, Health Check's kids' meals allow for unlimited calories, ignore added sugar, allow for a whopping amount of trans-fat and allow for 20% more sodium.

So should we be cheering for Burger King? I'm not. Ultimately this is just smoke and mirrors as their new dramatically stricter than Health Check but still weak nutritional criteria only apply to their "advertised" kids meals and likely is just another ploy to appease parents and try to steer governments away from considering regulations.

Interesting too that a day after the announcement the media was all over it and rightly pointed out the hollowness of Burger King's pledge. What a shame the media doesn't hold Health Check and the Heart and Stroke Foundation up to the same degree of scrutiny.

The Heart and Stroke Foundation Needs International Experts To Tell Them Not to Sell Candy?

The Heart and Stroke Foundation's response to my call to action on their abysmal Health Check program has been something of a train wreck and includes this press release put out by Health Check's program manager Terry Dean.

In it he notes,

"The HSF is currently in the process of developing a comprehensive position on sugar. We will be soliciting national and international experts to provide us advice on the most recent international evidence in this area in order to develop an evidence-based position on intake, which currently does not exist in Canada."

So what exactly do the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check Registered Dietitians do for the Foundation if Health Check needs to ask for outside help to determine whether or not endorsing fruit juice gummis that are themselves 80% sugar by weight with virtually no associated nutrition is a good idea?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if your organization needs international experts to tell them selling candy as a health food is a bad idea, perhaps you might want to consider the possibility that there's something wrong with your organization's own expertise.

Oh, and for the record, it's not like any of this is news to the Heart and Stroke Foundation. I've been calling them out on their candy endorsements since as far back as March 2010.

Regarding fruit juice and fruit? This tweet from RD Bridgette Kidd sums it up quite succinctly,

@HSFHealthCheck @YoniFreedhoff Juice concentrate is as much a fruit as corn syrup is a vegetable. http://t.co/XbLZPi9kwd

— Bridgette Kidd (@edibleprogress) November 1, 2013

The other thing Health Check tried to do on Friday was to suggest that fruit sugar gummis are simply dried fruit. They made that case via Twitter and they even linked to an article by renowned Canadian RD, author, and national columnist Leslie Beck, naming her directly, that speaks to the virtues of dried fruit.

Is dried fruit good or bad for me? http://t.co/X7BkuDFFAP via @LeslieBeckRD

— Health Check (@HSFHealthCheck) November 1, 2013

In turn, that tweet led to this brief exchange,

Good lord! You're not selling dried fruit RT @hsfhealthcheck: Is dried fruit good or bad for me? http://t.co/e0NOKWcOfx via @LeslieBeckRD

— Yoni Freedhoff, M.D. (@YoniFreedhoff) November 1, 2013

Not a chance @LeslieBeckRD considers @HSFHealthCheck'ed SunRype fruitsource bites dried fruit. Nor should anyone. http://t.co/iyRwCFCPTn

— Yoni Freedhoff, M.D. (@YoniFreedhoff) November 1, 2013

You're right! @YoniFreedhoff Not a chance @LeslieBeckRD considers @HSFHealthCheck SunRype fruitsource bites dried fruit. Nor should anyone.

— Leslie Beck (@LeslieBeckRD) November 1, 2013

The Heart and Stroke Foundation Owes Canadians an Apology and Action

There's just no way to sugarcoat this. The Heart and Stroke Foundation, and specifically their Health Check program, in their selling of check marks to so called fruit leathers and fruit gummis, is overtly harming Canadian children's health - a generation which quite literally is the sickest generation of kids in modern history.

In the United States, the Center for Science in the Public Interest sued General Mills for their fruit roll up labeling, and yet here in Canada we see the Heart and Stroke Foundation selling its front-of-package Health Check to products like SunRype fruitsource bites where by weight they're 80% sugar, with sugar being responsible for 96% of their calories.

And who buys these products? Parents for the most part, as consequent both to the Health Check and to the health washed package labeling that explicitly states that a serving of these candies replaces 2 actual servings of fruit, many parents truly believe that they're good for their kids.

A veritable case study in health-washing

It's no surprise that Health Check is trusted. In fact the Heart and Stroke Foundation's own research has shown that consumers interpret their Health Check marks to mean that product is,

"'nutritious', 'healthy', 'good for you' or 'approved by the Heart and Stroke Foundation.'"

And according to Health Check's About Us page,

"The Health Check logo tells you the food or menu item has been reviewed by the Heart and Stroke Foundation’s registered dietitians and can contribute to an overall healthy diet."

You tell me, does this product's nutrition information suggest to you that it contributes to an "overall healthy diet"?

Where's the fruit? All I see is sugar.

And if after peeking at the nutritional information you're still on the fence consider this. I went out and purchased some NIBS for a comparison. Here's a photo of 30g (fruitsource's recommended serving size) of each.

Not only are NIBS lower in sugar, you actually get more of them per 30g

While no one would ever confuse NIBS with health or fruit, consequent to health washed labeling and that Heart and Stroke Foundation Health Check up top, many might confuse fruitsource with actually healthful fruit. I wonder how many of those folks would be surprised to learn that per 30g serving the NIBS have 2.5 teaspoons less sugar than the fruitsource bites, which, bite per bite, contain nearly double the NIBS' sugar.

If you're angry, feel free to click here to send your message of concern to Ms. Bobbe Wood, the President of the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

Please share this post and/or the video above far and wide as this is not ok. The Heart and Stroke Foundation and their dietitians do know better, and we as a nation, and especially our nation's children, deserve better - way, way, better.

Badvertising: SunRype Fruit Plus Veggies Plus Fibre!

Sigh.

I was alerted to the existence of this product by an RD who "liked" it on Facebook.

According to its internet copy, it is full of "extra healthy goodness", and no doubt, its front-of-package screams extra healthy (along with the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check for added punch).

Wanna know what the actual ingredients scream?

Sugar water.

Sugar water with 2 lonely grams of fibre added to each glass' 6.75 teaspoons of sugar to be exact, and a health halo that's no doubt duping consumers into believing that they or their kids' consumption of this sugar water is a fair replacement for consuming actual fruits and vegetables.

If only there were such shortcuts.

Is the Food Industry Public Health's Best Target?

A little while back I published a blog post entitled, The Talk the Food Industry Couldn't Bear to Hear and included in it a presentation that ultimately concluded the only real obligation I felt the food industry had was not to blatantly lie to consumers, and that much of the blame for the food industry's questionable products and practices fell on us as a society for letting them get away with what ultimately amounts to slow motion murder. Thanks in large part to the folks over at Reddit, that video has now enjoyed nearly a quarter of a million views.

Well on Monday I gave what perhaps can be thought of as a sequel to the food industry talk.  I've called it, "What's Public Health To Do" and in it I make the case that public health needs to throw more stones. And I think that right now those stones are probably better thrown at our own glass houses than the food industry's reinforced bunkers in that I think there's plenty we need to work on in-house and presumably, we'll have a more willing audience.

In business it's said that it's far wiser to spend your resources retaining an existing customer than trying to woo new ones. Here our customers are the folks who are already sweating their life's blood promoting and protecting public health and frankly I'd expect they'll be far more open to change than the folks we seem to want to woo as new customers - the food industry - whose life's blood is spent promoting and protecting profit.

Whether it's improving food in our schools, hospitals and public health institutions, improving nutrition fact panels and front-of-package labeling laws and self directed programs, removing vending machines from sporting facilities, creating evidence based resources for communities that tell the truth about exercise not being an obesity panacea, fixing summer camp menus and weak school food policies, or combating weight bias in public health messaging, there's plenty for us folks who care about public health to do.

One person attending the talk took some issue with my recommendation to throw stones stating that wasn't how public health gets things done. While I appreciate where she was coming from I think we do need to speak up more, we need to have a loud and unified voice, and indeed not be shy to throw stones. I don't recommend we throw them at individuals, but rather at what we feel to be broken. Critically appraising existing programs, calling out inadequately designed interventions - that's not the same as criticizing people and frankly if those programs or interventions are easily defensible, the criticisms will be easily deflected. I'd argue that staying quiet in the face of things we know to be wrong or misguided, while perhaps the polite thing to do, is a failure of our seminal obligation to the public - to protect, promote and preserve their health.

For those who are interested, the talk's just under 15 minutes long.

[And just a quick note. In the talk, and previously on my blog I talk of how when I provided testimony to the Ontario Healthy Kids Panel the only person furiously scribbling notes was a food industry representative named Phyllis Tanaka. After my talk she informed me that I was mistaken, and that it's simply her habit to keep notes and that they were for herself personally and the panel, and not her representative food industry organization. Of course it's also my recollection that the panel had their own official secretary.]

The Heart and Stroke Foundation Is Once Again Giving Health Check to Cookies?

Back in January 2008 I blogged about the inanity of the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check program awarding its check mark to cookies.

I pointed out that the Health Check logo when awarded to cookies deceives Canadians into thinking that Check'ed cookies are not only choices that shouldn't be limited but rather choices that are, according to their own market research,

"'nutritious', 'healthy', 'good for you' or 'approved by the Heart and Stroke Foundation.'"

Perhaps in response to some of the stink I'd been raising in July 2009 the Heart and Stroke Foundation announced,

"To remain consistent with the recommendations in Eating Well with Canada’s Food Guide, the Cookies category is being removed from the Health Check program. Effective immediately Health Check will not accept any new food item from the Cookies category to join the program"

At the time, I did in fact take them at their word (though I couldn't help but scratch my head on why it is they needed the Food Guide to suggest to them cookies shouldn't get Checks).

Perhaps I shouldn't have.

I saw this product in the supermarket the other day. It's Dole's Mixed Berry and Almond Bites and there's no mistaking that it's being promoted as a healthful choice. Its box shouts that it's made with all natural ingredients, that there are no artificial preservatives, that there are 2 grams of fibre per serving (clearly proving that Canadians don't know much about fibre given that 2g of fibre isn't all that exciting), it's part of their "Live Right" branding, and yes indeed, it sports the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check logo.

Looking at the nutritional breakdown you'll find that the "bites" are 32% sugar by weight, that they have virtually nothing nutritionally redeeming in them (that 2g of fibre - you can get that from half a small apple), and that their 11 grams (nearly 3 teaspoons) of sugar per serving are just 0.1 grams shy of the sugar you'd find in an equivalent weight of Chips-Ahoy cookies.

So are these "bites" cookies? Well they sure look like cookies. I'm guessing they also taste like cookies. They certainly pack the sugar of cookies. But unlike cookies, these healthwashed "bites" are being marketed to people, likely including parents of young children, as being a healthy, good for you, choice. That in fact makes them worse than cookies because at least with cookies you won't be as likely to kid yourself into thinking they're healthy choices for you or your children.

Would love to know what the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check folks call these things, because if they're not cookies, I'm not sure what I'd call them.

Canada's Heart and Stroke Foundation Calls Fast Food Burgers Healthy, Nutritious & Good for You

The Heart and Stroke Foundation's "visionary mission" is,

"Healthy lives free of heart disease and stroke. Together we will make it happen."

And among their stated values is,

"Integrity – acting ethically to ensure transparency, accountability and public trust."

So how then can one explain the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check program which just last week extended their imprimatur to Harvey's - a Canadian fast food burger joint? Yup, you can now buy Health Check'ed Harvey's veggie, chicken and regular burgers, where the veggie and chicken burgers contain 930mg and 950mg of sodium respectively (nearly 2/3 of the Heart and Stroke Foundation's daily recommended aim of 1,500mg).

What? Your family doesn't feel like burgers tonight? They want fast food pizza? No problem - Health Check'ed fast food pizzas exist too:

And you may as well wash it down with Health Check'ed grape juice containing double the calories and 30% more sugar than Coca-Cola, and why not have some Health Check'ed "fruit gummies" for dessert even though Twizzlers contain less sugar?

No self-respecting dietitian or health organization would ever claim that encouraging eating out in restaurants, drinking juices containing 10.5 teaspoons of sugar per glass, and eating faux-fruit candies that contain more sugar than actual candy could possibly be good for living healthy lives. And yet that's exactly what the Heart and Stroke Foundation is actively teaching Canadians with their disgraceful, and nutritionally unethical, Health Check program.

In fact they're abusing the very public trust they consider one of their core values - a trust that they use themselves to market the Health Check program. Here are some facts and figures from a 2004 Heart and Stroke Foundation press release on the Health Check program,

8 in 10 consumers say they can trust Health Check because it comes from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.

68% of respondents agree with the statement: “I can rely on Health Check to help me make healthy food choices."

64% of those surveyed by Ipsos-Reid indicate they are more likely to purchase a food or beverage from a grocery store if it bears the Health Check logo.

According to a report on Food Information Programs published in the Canadian Journal of Dietary Practice and Research (summer 2002), information logos are three times more popular than detailed nutrition information for helping to select between food products. The Health Check symbol reassures consumers that they’ve made a healthy choice.

A 2005 press release had this to say,

"The Health Check symbol complements mandatory nutrition labelling, in a 2004 research study, sixty-five percent of consumers recognized the Health Check logo as meaning the food is 'nutritious', 'healthy', 'good for you' or 'approved by the Heart and Stroke Foundation."

Really? Fast food burgers and pizzas, along with juices and candies that pretend they're fruit are "Nutritious, healthy, and good for you"?

Dietitians of Canada (both the organization and individual RDs) - where are you on this? Journalists - how about you?

It's beyond shameful.

Make your voice heard, or at the very least, consider voting by closing your wallet the next time the Heart and Stroke Foundation comes looking for your support, and when you do, make sure you tell their canvasser why. The Heart and Stroke Foundation, despite the incredible amount of good work that it does, is blatantly and callously misinforming a nation, and it absolutely and undoubtedly knows better and we shouldn't be letting them get away with it.

There are no ends that justify these means and how the powers that be at the Heart and Stroke Foundation sleep at night knowing that Health Check is out there and is actively misinforming Canadians is truly beyond me.

[Hat tip to Dr. Paul Boisvert who alerted me to this most recent Health Check'ed nonsensical fast food endorsement]

Ontario Medical Association Effectively Calls Out Heart and Stroke Foundation BS

While I'll be blogging more about the significance of the OMA's call to action early next week, today's blog's a quickie.

Have a gander at the photo up above.

That's the warning label that the OMA wants to place on grape juice (and presumably other juices as well). They want a warning because there's risk to the regular consumption of grape juice - a beverage I've labeled the world's least healthy beverage - in that it contains roughly double the calories and sugar of Coca-Cola. 10 ridiculous teaspoons of sugar per glass.

Now contrast the proposed label from the OMA up above to the actual label from the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check program on grape juice down below. What's that Health Check logo for again? Here's the Heart and Stroke Foundation's explanation,

"The Health Check logo tells you the food or menu item has been reviewed by the Heart and Stroke Foundation’s registered dietitians and can contribute to an overall healthy diet."

As far as I'm concerned, the only options that would explain the Heart and Stroke Foundation's endorsement of juice as something that contributes to an overall healthy diet are, ignorance, pigheaded stubbornness, or greed.

And given the American Academy of Pediatrics and Canadian Pediatric Society have both long ago come out to recommend a half cup juice maximum for younger children and 1 cup maximum for everyone else, I'd say ignorance is the least likely option.

Health Check vs. Guiding Stars Final Round: Soup and a Summary

Up today? Soups and a summary.

The soup situation is pretty easy to describe. In the entire Loblaws, and this was a gigantic Loblaws, there were only a literal handful of soups that had single Guiding Stars (and ironically only one of those had a Health Check). The rest had zero.

On the other hand, there were dozens of Health Check'ed soups - soups which contained in many cases  the Health Check maximal 480mg of sodium per 250mL serving.....yet virtually everyone serves soup in 500mL bowls.  At 500mL then you'd be having just under 2/3 of your day's Heart and Stroke Foundation recommended sodium allotment with many of these Health Check'ed soups.

To summarize. Health Check doesn't help and I think its nutritional criteria are so weak and the program so poorly executed that rather than help consumers, it hinders healthy choices. You can't compare Health Check'ed items to Health Check'ed items as an item either has a check or it doesn't. You can't compare Health Check'ed items to unchecked items as you need to pay the Heart and Stroke Foundation for the right to market your product with a Health Check but given the myriad of examples I saw where unchecked items had even 3 Guiding Stars, not every product wants to pay for Checks.

Worse still after spending an hour roaming the aisles the other thing that struck me about Health Check - it suggests to consumers that there are shortcuts to health. That cooking, actual cooking, isn't necessary - you could buy health in Health Check'ed cans and boxes.  That's a message amplified by the fact that there were virtually no check marks on actual produce and yet there were Health Checks on what I would honestly describe as candy.

And don't get me started on their restaurant and fast food Health Checks.

The Heart and Stroke Foundation should be championing one of two things - either a useful front of package program (and here my choice would be Nuval where rather than the 4 gradations of Guiding Stars comparisons there are 100) that would actually help inform consumers about the products they're considering, or skipping the boxes and restaurants altogether and sounding a clarion call that as a society we need to rediscover the love and use of our actual kitchens and provide Canadians with resources to help ease them into actual cooking.

[And if you missed it, you can click here for further background.]

Health Check vs. Guiding Stars Round 3: Canned Produce

Up today? Canned produce. And while I know you'd think this would be an easy one, you'd be wrong.

First up Health Check peaches with one Guiding Star vs. non-Health Check'ed peaches with two Guiding Stars:

And that's of course the peril of not scoring every item in the store with your front of package program - healthier products may be right in front of your eyes but given that Health Checks are only allowed to be displayed on products that pay the Heart and Stroke Foundation for that right, you might miss up on better options.

Next up are Health Checked canned tomatoes with zero Guiding Stars (containing for whatever culinary reason - added salt) vs. Health Check'ed canned tomatoes with 3 Guiding Stars (with no salt added).

Same brand of tomatoes. Same Health Check. Zero vs. 3 Guiding Stars. Oy.

Ironically want to know where I didn't see a single Health Check but did see a galaxy of Guiding Stars?

The actual produce section pictured up above, and more thoughts on that tomorrow along with soup.

And if you missed it, you can click here for further background.

Health Check vs Guiding Stars Round 2: Chili

Up today? Chili. Staghorn Beef Chili to be exact.

And what do you get in your can? Almost half of the Heart and Stroke Foundation's daily recommended 1500mg maximum of sodium.

Health Check: Check!

Guiding Stars: Zero.

So as far as Guiding Stars go, Staghorn Beef Chili's grade falls between 0-25%.

Interestingly there's another Health Check'ed Staghorn Chili. It's their Vegetable Garden Chili.

Notice that it actually gets one Guiding Star (still not exciting as it in a sense reflects a score of 25%-50%, but still better than no stars).

Of course if you shopped using Health Checks you'd never know one was better (albeit marginally) than the other because Health Check pass/fail status doesn't allow consumers to compare one Health Check'ed item to another and consequently if sticking with the school analogy, kids getting 50% on an exam being marked by Health Check end up with the same grade as kids getting 100%.

More on that tomorrow with Round 3: Canned Vegetables.

And if you missed it, you can click here for further background.

Health Check vs Guiding Stars Round 1: Vegetable Juice

The Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check program here in Canada sells companies the right to print the Health Check logo on the fronts of packages of products that satisfy anywhere from 3-7 nutritional criteria.  Health Check advertising tells Canadians that if they see a food with a Health Check they can feel assured that product is "part of a healthy diet" and that it's been evaluated by the Heart and Stroke Foundation's dietitians. Only companies who pay can play.

Hannaford Brothers' Guiding Stars is a front of package food labeling program recently rolled out by Loblaws supermarkets here in Ontario. Foods are evaluated on 13 different nutritional determinants of health and are awarded from 0-3 stars with 0 being the worst (think of it as a grade of 0-25% on a test) and 3 being the best (75%-100%). Unlike with Health Check, every single item in the supermarket is scored with the stars appearing beside the price on each and every item's store display.

A few days ago I decided to take a field trip to my local Loblaws and further compare Health Checks to Guiding Stars.

Up today? V8 - the drink that pretends it's a vegetable.

Health Check: Check!

Guiding Stars: Zero.

I guess Guiding Stars doesn't think processed, salty (1/3 of your daily Heart and Stroke Foundation recommended maximum per cup), vegetable juice is so miraculous. And while there are certainly many who need not worry about sodium, somehow I'd imagine the folks who care most about the Heart and Stroke's recommendations (you know, the folks with heart disease, hypertension and vascular disease) are folks for who V8 would be a most unwise regular beverage.

Stay tuned tomorrow for Round 2 (Chili)

Will CSPI Sue the Heart and Stroke Foundation?

So in the news yesterday was a press release from the Center for Science in the Public Interest that details their threat to sue Welch's if they continue to make claims about the supposed health benefits of their products (including of course their grape juice).

In the letter they sent the grape juice giant, CSPI details their  3 primary concerns that,

"1. Welch Foods claims that its 100% Fruit Juice product line is heart-healthy and may promote overall health. This claim is deceptive and misleading because Welch’s 100% Fruit Juice products may instead decrease overall health by contributing to insulin resistance and obesity, and may thus promote heart disease and diabetes.

2. Welch Foods claims that its Fruit Snacks, Fruit Juice Cocktails, Spreads, and 100% Fruit Juice drinks “Reward Your Heart” and are heart-healthy products. This claim is unlawful because it is a claim of heart disease prevention, it lacks substantiation, and it is deceptive.

3. Welch Foods claims that its Fruit Snacks products are nutritious and healthful to consume. This claim is deceptive and misleading because, far from being a healthful fruit-filled snack, Welch’s Fruit Snacks contain added sugars and artificial food dyes, lack significant amounts of real fruit, and contain no dietary fiber."

So what does this have to do with the Heart and Stroke Foundation? Well The Heart and Stroke Foundation happily sells its "Health Check" logo (the little red check mark) to 100% fruit juices (including Welch's) and fruit "snacks" and have themselves reported that consumers interpret their logo to mean,

"When you see the Health Check symbol on a food package or restaurant menu, you know the Heart and Stroke Foundation’s registered dietitians have evaluated this item and it can contribute to an overall healthy diet. Look for the Health Check symbol to help you make wise choices."

"The Health Check™ symbol on food packaging is your assurance that the product contributes to an overall healthy diet."

"It's like shopping with the Heart and Stroke Foundation's dietitians."

And what foods will consumers be assured contribute to an overall healthy diet and are endorsed by the Heart and Stroke Foundation? Why the very same foods CSPI is threatening to sue Welch's over what they see as misrepresentations of their supposed health "benefits" - 100% juices and fruit snacks (filled with the added sugar that comes from fruit concentrates and purees).

A shame no one's threatening to sue the Heart and Stroke Foundation as the misinformation of their program, one that's run by a trusted health organization and not the food industry, abuses the public trust and misinforms healthy choices.

For a smattering of Health Check'ed nutritional catastrophes, see below:

3 teaspoons of sugar per 18g serving (66% sugar by weight  responsible for 80% of calories) coming from  concentrated apple purees and juices.  10X the sugar of 18g of actual apples and 40% more sugar bite for bite than you would find in Twizzlers.

2.75 teaspoons of sugar per 14g serving (79% sugar by weight  responsible for 98% of calories) coming from concentrated apple, pear, strawberry and grape purees and juices.  15.7X the sugar of 14g of actual strawberries.

9.25 teaspoons of sugar per 250mL serving (sugar responsible for 99% of calories) coming from concentrated grape, apple and raspberry juices.  One cup of this juice contains the equivalent amount of sugar as would 6.9 cups of actual raspberries.

9.5 teaspoons of sugar per 250mL serving (sugar responsible for 101% of calories?) coming from concentrated grape, cranberry and apple juices.  One cup of this juice contains the equivalent amount of sugar as would 9.5 cups of actual cranberries.

Badvertising: Sweetwashing Products Made Entirely of Sugar

Ever come across the term, "Unsweetened" on the front of a package?  How about, "No Sugar Added"?

They're there to make you feel that the product inside the box is a healthy one.

A quick peek at the back of the box is probably in order.

Take Mott's Fruitsations Unsweetened Strawberry Fruit Rockets for instance. Reading the ingredients you'll find that they include both, "Concentrated Strawberry Puree", and, "Concentrated Fruit Juices".

And what are concentrated purees and juices?

Sugar.  Plain old sugar.

So how much extra sugar is this sweet-washed "unsweetened" strawberry flavoured red goo packing?

Double what you'd find in an equivalent weight of actual strawberries.

Think that's bad?

Check out all of these:

3 teaspoons of sugar per 18g serving (66% sugar by weight  responsible for 80% of calories) coming from  concentrated apple purees and juices.  10X the sugar of 18g of actual apples.

2.75 teaspoons of sugar per 14g serving (79% sugar by weight  responsible for 98% of calories) coming from concentrated apple, pear, strawberry and grape purees and juices.  15.7X the sugar of 14g of actual strawberries.

9.25 teaspoons of sugar per 250mL serving (sugar responsible for 99% of calories) coming from concentrated grape, apple and raspberry juices.  One cup of this juice contains the equivalent amount of sugar as would 6.9 cups of actual raspberries.

9.5 teaspoons of sugar per 250mL serving (sugar responsible for 101% of calories?) coming from concentrated grape, cranberry and apple juices.  One cup of this juice contains the equivalent amount of sugar as would 9.5 cups of actual cranberries.

And who's right there helping with the sweetwashing by providing their seal of approval to products that are almost literally pure sugar?  Why the Heart and Stroke Foundation as its Health Check logo is on each and every one, which in case you weren't aware is meant to signify,

"The Health Check logo tells you the food or menu item has been reviewed by the Heart and Stroke Foundation’s registered dietitians and can contribute to an overall healthy diet"

Is there really a dietitian on the planet that would recommend the consumption of products made virtually entirely out of sugar?

Produce NOT products!

Badvertising: Mott's Fruitsations Fruit Rockets Insult Apples (and Intelligence)

Mott's Fruitsations Fruit Rockets Unsweetened Apple,

"....now in a convenient on the go pouch. It's 100%* fruit in a fun, new pack you can take anywhere"

Hurray!

Finally a way to transport "apples" conveniently without all that awful mess. So what if these "apples" need "natural flavours" to make them taste like apples (hence the asterisk up above)? So what if my kids don't get the fibre and phytonutrients of unprocessed actual apples? So what if giving them products like this may lead them to think health comes just as easily in highly processed packaged foods?

Ugh.

You know what else has a fun pack you can take anywhere?

Frickin' apples!

Buy produce, not products!

Sigh.

(oh, and in case you can't see it, these have the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check logo - way to go HSF)

My Vote For the World's Least Healthy Beverage

Grape juice.

Now I know some of you might be thinking but what about sugared soda or energy drinks or even alcoholic energy drinks?

Sure, all of those are horrible - but none of those are marketed in the name of health, and that's what puts grape juice at the top of my least healthy beverage pyramid.

"2 servings of fruit in every glass?"

I know I'm a broken record on grape juice, but who cares if it's got vitamin C in it? Would you drink nearly a quarter of a cup of maple syrup a day if it had 100% of your Vitamin C requirements? Probably not....yet it takes nearly a full quarter cup of maple syrup to reach the calories and 10 teaspoons of sugar provided by every cup of grape juice.

(BTW - Grape juice has double the calories and sugar of other juices. Given the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Pediatric Society both recommend limiting juice to 1/2 a cup for small kids and 1 cup for large ones, I'm guessing they'd recommend limiting grape juice to 1/4 of a cup for wee ones, and 1/2 for everyone else)

Heart and Stroke Foundation Health Check on 10 Teaspoons of Sugar a Glass

Over the years I've made a great deal of noise about the Health Check program. For those of you who aren't aware, it's a Heart and Stroke Foundation program where they sell their Health Check logo to food manufacturers to use in front-of-package product branding.  Sadly the criteria they use to award their Checks is weak.

The Heart and Stroke Foundation's own research has demonstrated that not surprisingly, consumers interpret Health Checks to mean a particular item is good for them, healthy, and approved by the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

Sitting down to our first Seder I noticed the grape juice in front of me had a Health Check.

The Health Check'ed grape juice, while indeed delivering 100% of my daily Vitamin C needs per glass, did so along with 40g of sugar. That's 10 teaspoons of sugar a glass! I also noticed it delivered pretty much nothing else in the way of nutritional benefits and that an unbelievable 94% of its calories came directly from sugar.

One glass of Health Check'ed grape juice then has 2.5 more teaspoons of sugar than a full sized Snickers bar, or as much as you'd find in 90 M&Ms. Drop per drop the grape juice also has 60% more calories and 60% more sugar than Coca Cola!

Of course if you ate the 90 M&Ms (or the 1.3 Snickers bars) at least you'd likely curb some of your appetite, as studies on eating vs. drinking calories demonstrate we compensate for the calories we eat, but not the ones we drink, meaning drink a glass of grape juice and regardless of its calories or sugar, you'll still eat as much for the meal as if you hadn't drank any.

The Canadian Pediatric Society recommends limiting juice to just half a cup a day and as far as I know the Heart and Stroke Foundation is the only health authority in North America who is explicitly advising consumers that 10 teaspoons of sugar to make your vitamin C go down is good for them, healthy, and approved by Registered Dietitians.

As to why they do it.

The only plausible reason is money as last time I checked, no one in their right mind would suggest consuming 10 teaspoons of sugar a glass could in any way shape or form be healthy. There's simply nothing that could be added to a glass of 10 teaspoons of sugar that would make that glassful a healthy choice. Delicious? Maybe to some. But certainly not healthy.

So how much money?

Currently there are 138 juice products whose parent companies have paid for Health Checks. That's just under 10% of all the Checks they currently sell.  As far as dollars go, my guess then would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $300,000-$400,000 just from Health Check'ed juices.

I don't know about you, but I'd sure cost a lot more then $400,000 to sell out.