Convicts and soldiers to be force fed Omega 3s?

As usual there are lots of news stories about Omega 3s (including last week's that some omega 3 supplements may contain high levels of PCBs) but two really caught my eye.

The first detailed a hypothetical plan to force feed convicts omega 3 supplements as a means to reduce violent and aggressive episodes. That plan is being born out of the results of a recent study titled, "Effects of nutritional supplements on aggression, rule-breaking, and psychopathology among young adult prisoners".

The study tracked 221 adult prisoners and randomized them to receive either placebo or a nutritional supplement containing 25 vitamins and minerals along with omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids. Staff then tracked aggressive and rule breaking behaviours.

The authors found that the supplemented group saw their aggressive and rule breaking behaviours decrease by 34% versus a 14% increase in the control group.

Sounds really impressive until you see the absolute numbers whereby we're talking about 11 incidents per 1,000 prison days in the supplemented group vs. 9.7 incidents per 1,000 prison days in the control. I also have to question the blinding in this study in that fish oil capsules are absolutely noticeable, even enteric coated ones, when you burp. Oh, and no, this wasn't truly an omega 3 study given the supplements had many other vitamins and minerals in them.

So colour me unimpressed.

The second story I mentioned? Apparently the American Department of Defense is considering force feeding the US military omega-3 supplements as a means to, "enhance stress resilience, wellness, and military performance".

Now I'm not sure on which study they're basing their recommendations but hope if they do use them on the military that it doesn't hinder their troops' combat skills by rendering those fighting men and women less violent and aggressive.

Zaalberg, A., Nijman, H., Bulten, E., Stroosma, L., & van der Staak, C. (2009). Effects of nutritional supplements on aggression, rule-breaking, and psychopathology among young adult prisoners Aggressive Behavior DOI: 10.1002/ab.20335

Sara Lee takes the cake on outlandish omega-3 claims

Here's a great example of why front-of-package health claims should be banned entirely - Sara Lee's Soft and Smooth Plus DHA bread. According to the press release per slice there's 6mg of DHA.

Sara Lee Soft and Smooth Plus' marketers try to gussy up the importance of 6mg by noting 2 slices worth is,

"is at least 10 percent of the Institute of Medicine’s suggested daily amount for kids, depending on age, ranging from 1-13 years old"

Sounds like a fair bit, no?

Except for one thing, the Institute of Medicine doesn't have a suggested daily amount of DHA for kids.

Page 469 of the very reference that Sara Lee Soft and Smooth Plus' marketers point to as proof states,

"Because of a lack of evidence for determining the requirement for n-3 fatty acids during childhood, an AI is set based on the median intake of α-linolenic acid in the United States where a deficiency is basically nonexistent in non-institutionalized populations (Appendix Table E-11), and rounding."

Translation? There isn't enough evidence to recommend a particular DHA intake in kids so instead the Institute of Medicine has created an arbitrary number for what they're calling an "adequate intake" based on the average intake of α-linolenic acid in the population. Sara Lee's Soft and Smooth marketers then took 10% of that arbitrary number and claimed that it was the Institute of Medicine's "Kids Suggested Daily Amount".

Soft and smooth marketing? I'd say. Slippery too.

Looking at the front of the bag of bread one can see a cartoon head replete with brain beside the bag's DHA announcement and I imagine the back of the bag has some quotes about DHA and childhood brain development.

Looking at Sara Lee's Soft and Smooth Plus product partner's website (Disney), you'll learn,

"With New Sara Lee® Soft & Smooth® Plus, moms can enjoy knowing they are serving a great tasting, soft textured made with whole grain bread their little ones will love, plus providing DHA Omega-3 which helps to support healthy brain development.

DHA is important for brain and eye development particularly during the first two years of life and early childhood. It is important that children consume adequate amounts of DHA in their diet to support brain and eye growth and development during the early years of rapid development. DHA ensures that cells in the brain, retina, heart and other parts of the nervous system develop and function properly."

To help push their message even harder, Sara Lee's Soft and Smooth Plus marketers even purchased their own MD spokesperson in one Dr. Alanna Levine.

According to Alanna Levine's homepage, not only is she a designated spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics, she's also a member of the National Association of Medical Communicators, and a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Council on Communications and Media. Oh, and she's also a self-professed, "Parenting Expert".

She sounds great. She's is a pediatrician, an "expert parent" and someone incredibly well versed in medical communication and public speaking with exposure on shows like Fox News, the Tyra Banks Show and CBC's Early Show. Someone like that would never steer you wrong, would they?

For the sake of discussion let's ignore the fact that Sara Lee's Soft and Smooth Plus' marketers took soft and smooth liberties with the Institute of Medicine's report on DHA requirements. Instead let's take a quick look at those 6mg of DHA per slice and compare them to what you might find in let's say salmon.

So how many slices of bread would your child need to eat to consume the equivalent amount of DHA as you might find in let's say a child sized, 2.5oz serving of salmon? An astounding 13.5 loaves or 268 slices.

And how much salmon would you need to convince your child to eat to consume the 6mg that a slice of Sara Lee Soft and Smooth Plus contains? My calculations peg that as a piece of salmon roughly 1/12th the size of a single, solitary, lonely pea.

So tell me Dr. Alanna Levine, MD, pediatrician to the stars, brilliant spokesperson and expert parent - don't you think that suggesting that Sara Lee Soft and Smooth Plus bread is a useful means to help your child consume more DHA is more than a touch disingenuous?

Me? I would imagine "parenting experts" and pediatricians would be much more interested and capable of helping find ways for parents to actually feed their children fish, a pea sized serving of which would have the DHA equivalent of 12 slices of Sara Lee Soft and Smooth Plus bread, than push bread with significantly less DHA per slice than you'd find in a single flake of fish.

It's cases like these that are exactly what's wrong with front-of-package nutrition claims and as far as doctors go, I would have thought we make a good enough living on our own than to sell our good names for the promotion of products of questionable benefit.

[BTW - I tried to contact Dr. Alanna Levine, MD for comment but never did hear back from her.]

A pea sized bite of salmon has 3x the DHA of Dairyland's Li'L Ones yogurt with DHA!

"A Li'L Story
by Li'L Ones
Once upon a time there were Big Ones who had Little Ones. The Big Ones wanted the Little Ones to be healthy and strong, so they said to the Little Ones, "You must always eat all your meat and all your vegetables."

The Little Ones wanted to be healthy and strong too, so they told the Big Ones, "We won't always eat all our meat and all our vegetables, but we'll always eat all our Li'L Ones yogurt."

So the Big Ones read the label on the Li'L Ones yogurt, and they saw that the Little Ones were very smart indeed, which wasn't surprising because Li'L Ones has DHA. Plus it's made with whole milk to keep them healthy and strong.

So the Big Ones bought their Little Ones lots of Li'L Ones yogurt and they all lived happily every always."

Hmmmmmm.

So this Big One decided to read the label on the Li'L Ones yogurt, and this Big One decided to read the whole label, not just the front of the package, or the cute storybook on their website (as seen below).





Want to know what this Big One found?

This Big One found that the nutrition facts panel on Li'L Ones yogurt, the one the Little Ones "will always eat", the one whose website states was developed with the help of dietitians and shouts is,

"FORTIFIED WITH DHA FOR HEALTHY BRAINS, EYES AND NERVES"

Well that very same yogurt's nutrition facts panel reports that while there are nearly 4 teaspoons of sugar per serving of Li'L Ones, there are 0g of Omega-3 Polyunsaturates.


Wait a sec', isn't DHA an Omega-3 polyunsaturated fat?

So this Big One called up Dairyland customer service to ask about DHA and was told that the amount of DHA that's added to Li'L Ones yogurt is so low that labeling laws in Canada forbid them from reporting any! All told per serving there's only 25mg of DHA, an amount so small that were your toddler to eat a single pea sized serving of salmon they'd be eating the equivalent nearly 3 Li'L Ones worth of DHA! And if you managed to convince your toddler to eat a small 2.5 ounce serving of salmon they'd be getting the DHA equivalent of 64.4 Li'L Ones.

So what does Dairyland's RD have to say about her company's incredibly sugary product, that as far as Health Canada's concerned has 0g of DHA yet markets itself as brain, eye and nerve food for toddlers?

"Toddlers need sufficient intake of the omega-3 fat called DHA, which supports the normal development of the brain, eyes and nerves. It can be found in salmon, trout, enriched eggs and Dairy-Oh! Milk and Li’L Ones yogurt."

Gee thanks - great job promoting your company's product at the expense of properly interpreting a nutrition facts panel for the public.

Horizon Organic Milk Plus DHA - Brain Milk Badvertising

All I can say is "Oy".

Ok, clearly that's not all I can say...the other day I was estimating the number of words I've typed these past 5 years on this blog and figured it was near a million.

Here are some words that Horizon has to say on their carton,

"Helps Support Brain and Eye Health

Kids' brains grow incredibly fast. In fact the brain nearly quadruples in the first five years of life. Up to 20% of the human brain is made of DHA, yet most kids don't get their recommended DHA from common dietary sources like fish. By making Horizon Organic Milk Plus DHA your family choice, you're bringing home all the goodness of organic plus an extra nutrtional boost for growing mids and bodies"

So how much DHA do you get per glass of this miracle brain milk?

32mg.

According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest 32mg of DHA is less than what you'd get from a single bite of salmon.

My recommendation?

Save your pennies by not buying this badvertised milk and use them to buy your kids at least one weekly serving of fish instead.

Their brains (and yours) will thank you.

(Oh, by the way, it's milk week here at Weighty Matters and also thanks to Hemi from Fooducate for tracking down the mg of DHA)

Heath Canada's latest failure hits mothers, babies and pocketbooks.

According to a report written by Canwest reporter Sarah Schmidt, Health Canada has rejected calls from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to restrict infant-formula manufacturers from printing undeserved health claims on their products.

The claim in question has to do with the addition of DHA which is touted to support healthy brain development. Currently Health Canada allows formula manufacturers to include a DHA related health claim even if the formula only contains smelling salt amounts.

According to Sarah's article, in the EU such a claim could only be made if the fatty acid content of the formula is at least 0.3% DHA as this would be the amount required to be consistent with the studies supporting its use. According to the CFIA there are formulas being sold in Canada that contain as little as 0.1%.

Sarah reports that in a letter obtained from an access to information request (click the photo at the top to see part of it) the CFIA pleaded with Health Canada to set a minimum DHA level if a manufacturer wanted to make a claim, with the letter stating,

"It is unfortunate that the Health Canada is removing the proposed revision to require that a food actually contain a significant (source) amount of the nutrient that is subject to the claim, otherwise you end up with situations like this one where a big deal is made about a food containing what appears to be a significant amount of a nutrient.

I would question how a biological role claim could be generally recognized as an aid in an organic function without some source level established as part of the generally recognized role"

So what did Health Canada do with CFIA's well grounded concerns and their request that claims only be allowable on products with claim based contents consistent with research?

They denied it.

By denying the CFIA's request Health Canada has given the green light to infant formula manufacturers to continue to peddle insignificant amounts of DHA as brain/baby enhancing which in turn may have the potential to sway some mothers to think that formula is as good as breast and decrease the time they'd decided to breast feed their infants.

Gee thanks Health Canada, you're sure doing a swell job.

(Oh, and guess what, formula with miniscule amounts of DHA costs a heck of a lot more than plain old formula so if you are duped by overly optimistic claims you'll be paying a premium for Health Canada's pandering to industry.)

Is Nestle's Good Start probiotic infant formula breaking the law and harming babies?

It sure looks that way to me.

You see Nestlé has a product line of infant formula entitled Nestle Good Start. Here's some stuff from their website:

"Protecting your baby's future. It's what every parent wants. And what every baby needs. Starting with the right nutrition. Introducing Nestlé® Good Start® Natural Cultures™."

What parent wouldn't want to "protect their baby's future".

So what's the issue here?

Well actually there's a bunch.

First let's go to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. In their 2007 Letter to Industry: Requirements Related to Nutrition Information and Nutrition and Health Claims for Infant Formula they spell out a few things to folks like Nestlé,

"Comparing infant formula to breast milk, including comparisons of the levels of a nutrient in infant formula to the levels of the same nutrient in breast milk, is contrary to the message embodied in the Code".

and

"the infant formula industry is encouraged not to make a reference to breast milk on a label or advertising of infant formula, other than a statement regarding the superiority of breastfeeding"

Yet on Nestlé's site,

"Natural cultures are part of what gives breast milk its naturally protective qualities. And of the natural cultures found in breast-fed babies, one is by far the most prevalent - Bifidobacteria. That's why we added Bifidobacteria, which we call bifidus BL, to Good Start® Natural Cultures™. It's the first and only Infant Formula to contain it. Because we believe your baby deserves it."

and,

"Enhanced with Omega-3 (DHA) and Omega-6 (ARA) - two of many important nutrients also naturally found in breast milk - to help support your baby's normal brain, eye and nerve development right from the start."

and,

"There are only two places your newborn can get natural cultures. The first is you. The other is from Nestlé® Good Start® Natural Cultures™. "

Sure sounds like Nestlé's making the case that they've basically powdered breast milk!

But it gets worse.

Going back to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency document,

"The use of health claims on food labels and in advertising of foods including infant formulas is limited by the Food and Drugs Act. Although the Food and Drug Regulations currently allow five diet-related health claims on food labels, these are not permitted on foods for children under two years of age, including infant formulas. The dietary recommendations that lay the foundation for these claims are for adults and are not appropriate for infants and young children."

I guess Nestlé didn't get that memo as they promote their formula on their labeling and website as having the following health benefits,

"easier to digest",

"naturally protective",

"helps support babies’ normal brain, eye and nerve development",

"helps your baby build strong, healthy bones and teeth",

"crucial to his continued mental development"

"As good bacteria, Bifidobacteria can compete with unwelcome harmful bacteria in the gut by helping keep them from entering your little one's vulnerable body - providing added protection to help keep your baby healthy."

And it's about those harmful bacteria and your little one's vulnerable body where Nestlé's product can become potentially fatal.

You see there's this bacteria, Enterobacter sakazakii, it's been found to be a contaminant in infant formula. Sadly it has been known to cause sometimes fatal cases of meningitis (brain infections), sepsis (blood infections) and necrotizing enterocolitis (very bad intestinal infections) in infants. Consequently the World Health Organization in their Guidelines for the safe preparation, storage and handling of powdered infant formula recommend that with the specific aim of minimizing the risk of E. sakazakii infections, the water mixed with formula ought to be a minimum of 70 degrees Celsius (158 degrees Fahrenheit) and then be allowed to cool.

And what of Nestlé "Good Start"?

They explicitly advise consumers,


But of course given that E. sakazakii actually can contaminate the formula itself even if you use previously boiled water that has cooled to 40°C you'll still run the risk of not killing this opportunistic pathogen.

As Kim Sheeler, OB nurse and whistle blower asked me in her email pointing out Nestlé's egregious behaviour,

"I wonder if the parents who spend an extra $10 or more per container of powdered probiotic formula are willing to take the risk of having their baby exposed to E. sakazakii or Salmonella in exchange for the benefits of the probiotics, or is it that they are lulled into a false sense of security by the probiotic halo and think that any risk of a sakazakii or salmonella infection is minimized by the presence of probiotic cultures?"

Great questions Kim.

This isn't the first time Nestlé's come under the gun for their aggressive formula marketing as this article from the UK attests - that said, aggressive marketing is one thing, breaking the law and endangering children is quite another.

I'll be sending this post along to the consumer protection division of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to the Director of the Bureau of Nutritional Sciences at Health Canada. Perhaps they will be able to put a stop to what appears to me to be both a horrendous abuse of public trust and a potentially fatal product for infants.

Badvertising: Pomegranate Brain Juice

"HELP NOURISH YOUR BRAIN"

Yup, not only will pomegranate juice improve your immune system, now it will "nourish" your brain.

So how much omega-3 "nourishment" is your brain getting? 50mg of DHA per 250ml.

Per serving of salmon there's roughly 1,610mg.

So if you drink 8 litres of the stuff (32 glasses), you'll get as much DHA as having a single serving of salmon.

Of course you'll also get over a pound of calories and almost 5 cups of sugar.

That's some "nourishment".

Badvertising: Brain Bread

Yup, give your kids Wonder Bread to make them smart.

Recommendations generally are for children to have 2 servings of fish weekly for them to consume enough healthy fats (DHA) which may have benefits in brain development.

So how much bread would you have to eat to get the DHA of two weekly serving of fish?

Well my friends over at CBC Marketplace in their most recent show figured that out for us (and it's well worth a watch - only 6 minutes).

Want to wager a guess?

My guess is you'll be wrong, unless of course you guessed 428 slices of bread.

How nice of Wonder Bread to prey on parents wanting to help their children.

Shouldn't there be laws against this type of badvertising?

Stupidest Cookies Ever?

"Zero trans fat!"

"Zero Cholesterol"

"Low in Saturated Fat!"

"A Source of Omega-3 Polyunsaturates!"

Yup, those are all the claims currently on the front of Voortman's phenomenally stupidly named, "Omega-3 Zeer-Ohs!" cookies and if the food industry has its way, there will soon be more.

Stay tuned tomorrow when I introduce you to the goings on behind the scenes at the current Happy Corporations (Health Canada) consultations into food labeling where surprise, surprise, the food industry has an invited seat to the table, the process is skewed dramatically in their favour, and with industry of course wanting it be made easier for them to make outlandish health claims on foods (health sells) in the absence of real evidence to support them.

When they have their way (unfortunately, I don't say if - I think it's likely a forgone conclusion that Health Canada will bend over for Big Food again) perhaps these cookies will have a statement to the effect of,

"Supportive but not conclusive research shows that consumption of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. One serving of Omega-3 Zeer-Ohs! provides 0.5 grams of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids."

And then perhaps Voortman's will rename them, Omega-3 Super Heart Healthy-Ohs!.

Yum.

[Nutritionally per 2 cookies: 120 Calories and sugar is the first ingredient while the source of the omega 3s is ground flax which has not been shown to be as helpful as marine based omega 3s in cardiovascular disease prevention.]

[Hat tip to my lovely wife for buying the cookies, scanning in the package and ultimately returning them unopened to the store]