Purdue News

1985 Many americans lack nutritional savvy by James R. Daniel   American consumers are thoroughly confused about what is good or bad for them in the things they eat, and our nation's food and drug laws aggravate the ignorance. In fact, adding chemicals to food is neither good nor bad in itself, because in the final analysis, food is a complex mixture of chemicals--no more, no less. The fact that they are manufactured naturally by plants and animals does not necessarily make them more nutritious or safer than synthetic additives or refined, processed ingredients. Whether it originated in a laboratory or in a sugar beet, a food ingredient can be healthy if used properly, unhealthy if abused. Our concern over sugar and its various low-calorie substitutes provides a microcosm of the whole food-additive issue. Because of our concern that saccharine may be a carcinogen, scientists conduct intensive testing on the substance, usually using rats and mice as subjects. Because of their relatively short life spans, the animals are given massive doses of saccharine to determine whether it can cause any physical changes. Under these conditions, it has been learned that saccharine can indeed cause tumors. At this point, the government enters the picture. The applicable legislation is the Delaney clause of the 1958 Food Additives Act. The Delaney clause requires that a substance that has the potential to cause cancer be removed from the food supply. From a legal standpoint this is an excellent law, because it is very explicit and rigid. However, it makes for terrible science. The law does not, for instance, recognize that a person would have to drink 875 bottles of saccharine-sweetened soft drinks daily in order to consume the levels of the ingredient given to laboratory animals. It does not admit the evidence of several epidemilogic studies of human populations, showing no correlation between consumption of saccharine and incidence of cancer. Nor does it allow for the possibility that perhaps more people--particulary diabetics--would benefit for the availability of a palatable, reasonably priced, non-sugar sweetener than would be endangered by a remote laboratory link with cancer. Some natural alternatives to sucrose, such as brown sugar, molasses and honey, have been promoted as being "healthier" than white sugar on the basis that they provide more vitamins and minerals than sucrose. While this may be technically true, the amount of micronutrients in these sugar substitutes is insignificant in relation to the amount contained in the remainder of a well-balanced diet. The irony in promoting such alternatives is that greater amounts of calories will be consumed without any significant gain in nutrients. People will have the mistaken impression that if these are "healthful" foods compared to "unhealthful" sucrose, it is desirable to consume more of them. A comprehensive chemical analysis of many "natural," unprocessed foods would turn up at least one mutagenic or carcinogenic chemical--a chemical which, if it were proposed for use as an additive, the FDA would not allow under the terms of the Delaney clause. Confusion about synthetic additives and so-called "natural foods" points to a need for better consumer education--education outlining risks and benefits and enabling people to choose whether or not they will consume food containing certain chemicals. The only way for consumers to make intelligent decisions about nutrition--without relying on self-serving advertising for their information--is through nutrition education. We are rightfully concerned about what is in our foods, but diet decisions based on incorrect or incomplete information is useless at best and dangerous at worst. America has the resources to provide every individual with a well-balanced, healthy diet, but this blessing is squandered if our people don't have a basic understanding of nutrition. An investment in consumer education would make far more sense and benefit many more people than our obsession with a few relatively insignificant substances. James R. Daniel is an assistant professor of food chemistry in the Department of Foods and Nutrition in the Purdue University School of Consumer and Family Sciences. Purdue News Service: (765) 494-2096; purduenews@purdue.edu To the Purdue News and Photos Page