SWEET TALK
Hi Alan. I’ve still got a bee in my
bonnet about oranges only getting 4½ stars when you ran them through the
Australian Health Star Rating system for May GI News despite their
being packed with good stuff like vitamin C, fibre, potassium, folate
and over 170 different types of phytochemicals that have antioxidant,
anti-inflammatory, and anti-cancer effects. I find it hard to believe we
have a star rating system that denies an all-natural whole food that
comes straight off a tree and that’s been nowhere near a food
manufacturing plant the full five. Next, you’ll tell me breast milk only
gets 4½ stars. – Cheers, Philippa
Hi Philippa. I’m going to disappoint you.
Breast milk doesn’t get 4½ stars. It gets three. As Jennie wrote in “Old
Nutrition, New Nutrition” (GI News, December 2014) “If breast milk were
sold in the dairy compartment, it would have at least two red marks –
one for saturated fat and one for sugars – human milk, along with the
milk from donkeys and minks, has the highest sugar content (i.e. per
cent lactose), of any mammalian milk.” – Cheers, Alan.
Hi Alan. This
is heading into a classic Monty Python script. Only three stars for the
food that Mother Nature designed for our babies as a perfect
nutritional package with all the proteins, fats, vitamins, and minerals
they need to grow and thrive and fight infection because it contains
lactose? – Cheers, Philippa
Hi Philippa. Well,
it’s the sugars problem (as it was with oranges), but this time there’s
also no dietary fibre to push the star numbers up. The nub of the
problem is that while the real concern is about added sugars in our food
supply, we currently can’t separate added sugars from the sugars
naturally present in a food or drink on food labels. So current star
rating systems use the total sugars which are on the labels for their
ratings, and bonus-points for fibre to adjust for less-refined
carbohydrates.
Some definitions. “Added sugars”
according to the World Health Organisation (WHO) are all the mono- and
disaccharides added to foods by food manufacturers, cooks or consumers.
“Free sugars” include all those added sugars, plus all the sugars
naturally present in honey, syrups (e.g., agave, maple, rice), fruit
juices and concentrates. “Total sugars” are the added sugars; plus all
the sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and
concentrates; plus the naturally occurring sugars in whole foods such as
fruit, vegetables, grains, seeds, milk etc. Also, it’s important to
remember that Australia’s health star rating system (like traffic
lights) is actually meant for processed packaged foods not core foods –
minimally processed fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts and seeds. One
solution is to assign 5 stars to all core foods. The ratings system here
is currently being reviewed to see what needs to be done to align it
better with existing dietary guidelines. Australia’s need updating
though of course – Cheers, Alan.
Hi Alan and Philippa.
The algorithms that underpin traffic lights and rating stars are based
on the old nutrition that has long passed its use-by date. Here are some
reasons why.
- The energy content (calories/kilojoules) of a food is not alone the best way to judge a food – lentils and licorice have the same energy density.
- The fat content of food is not alone the best way to judge a food – nuts have more fat and are more energy dense than French fries.
- The sugars content is not alone the best way to judge a food – fruit is full of sugars.
- The sodium content is not alone the best way to judge a food – soft drinks are low in sodium.
- They ignore micronutrients – vitamins, most minerals (other than sodium) and phytochemicals.
- They ignore one important proven attribute of foods in the new nutrition – their glycemic load per serving. This factor is proven to influence appetite and the risk of developing diabetes. Appetite matters.
Appetite is what drives our energy intake. It is not possible to balance energy intake and energy expenditure by counting calories. Firstly, no one knows how many calories they expend each day. Even if you could, the calories on the food label are not precise enough. Secondly, mathematical modelling shows that a small but persistent excess of only 7 calories or 30 kilojoules per day over and above energy requirements for 10 years underlies the current epidemic of obesity. Here in Australia, I’d like to see a food label system that:
- Focused on the positive – not just the negative.
- Tied in with our dietary guidelines (which need updating).
- Rated foods according to their contribution to desirable macronutrient and micronutrient intakes.
- Used Adam Drewnowski’s Nutrient Rich Foods Index, which rates individual foods based on their overall nutritional value, as an essential component.
- Encouraged higher protein intake, particularly from plant sources like legumes.
- Distinguished effectively between naturally occurring and added sugars.
Read more:
