Then they add flavor chemicals to create the flavor they want. They usually do this by identifying the dominant compounds that give the cherry its flavor, then reproducing those, rather than the hundreds or thousands of individual molecules involved.
That’s why processed foods rarely taste quite like the original: the resulting flavor is much more one-dimensional. While “cherry flavoring” may be more intense than the flavoring in the actual cherry, it doesn’t contain the original cherry’s subtlety and complexity. It’s like the difference between a jug of cheap Gallo wine and a fine Bordeaux.
As you learn to become attentive to your hunger, you’ll want to pay more attention to the flavors that satisfy you. Do you notice the difference between a juicy orange and orange juice from concentrate? How about a chunk of real cheddar cheese versus a slice of processed American cheese? What’s
your
preference? Chapter 7 will help you refine your attentive eating skills, so you can better appreciate the wider range of taste sensation found in “real” (unprocessed) food.
Given that 90 percent of our food budget in this country goes to buy processed foods, few of us even know what “real” food tastes like anymore. Instead, we—and our taste and odor receptors—have become accustomed to the lab cocktails produced by chemists. We’ve come to expect the one-dimensional flavor intensity in food and even require it if we’re to perceive enjoyable flavor.
Watch Out for That “Natural Flavor”
Don’t fall for the deception entailed in the words “natural flavor.” The legal definition of “natural flavor” means the flavor is derived from plant or animal sources, not that the flavor came from the original food itself. Generally, the “natural flavor” is created by culturing bacteria, yeast, and molds and capturing the flavor compounds they generate when they ferment. “Natural apple flavor” was probably derived from compounds never seen on an orchard! Is this natural? Not to me! But the word “natural” apparently sells well.
So when we do eat a real apple, our senses are no longer attuned to detect the delicious subtlety and complexity found in the apple’s hundreds of flavor compounds. And since we can’t detect the intensity our tastes are looking for in that apple, it tastes bland and unappealing.
In other words, food manufacturers have gotten us hooked: We need the intensity they bring to processed food in order for food to taste “good” to us. Meanwhile, we’ve turned away from unprofitable “real” (unprocessed) foods.
No wonder so many of us prefer fast food to whole fruits and vegetables!
The Insidious Food Industry
Food manufacturers go to great lengths to promote positive images of their foods to influence us to buy them. One way they do this is by claiming nutritional benefits to their foods—or, at least, claiming that they’re not bad for us. Some have been remarkably successful at manipulating public belief.
It starts with advertising. Advertising costs for any single, nationally distributed food product often exceed government spending on
overall
nutritional education by ten to fifty times.
203
For example, the average advertising budget for a nationally advertised candy bar is $50 million and for a nationally advertised soft drink is $100 million. Compare that to the $2 million a year the government spends promoting fruits and vegetables.
Of all the money spent on advertising, only 2.2 percent goes to promote fruits, vegetables, grains, or beans. Contrast that fact with the 70 percent spent to sell convenience foods, candy and snacks, alcohol, soft drinks, and desserts.
30
But advertising is just a small part of the way the food industry influences our tastes and ideas about nutrition. They also act behind the scenes to get health organizations and professionals to deliver their message.
Industry Manipulation of Health-Related
Organizations and Professionals
The food industry is also a strong contributor to nonprofit health organizations, like the American Diabetes Association and the American Heart Association. Awareness of these financial ties help you become more savvy when considering nutritional claims. For instance, Nestle contributed more than $100,000 to the American Diabetes Association in 2003.
204
Not surprisingly, the American Diabetes Association sends out information about Nestle products to its members and others seeking advice. And when the American Heart Association launched its FRESH Steps Initiative, the chief executive officer of Subway was there for the announcement. And why shouldn’t he have been? Subway has donated $4 million to the American Heart Association since 2002 and committed to an additional $7 million through 2007. In exchange, Subway can use the American Heart Association “fighting heart disease and stroke” logo on its materials.
Do you really think Kellogg’s Cocoa Frosted Flakes is “hearthealthy” while the Post equivalent is not? No, but Kellogg’s “paid” for the American Heart Association heart-healthy label, while Post didn’t. The Center for Science in the Public Interest estimates that the American Heart Association received more than $2 million for use of the “heart-healthy” label in 2002.
204
In 2003, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) accepted $1 million from Coca-Cola.
204
AAPD President David Cur-tis defended accepting this money by saying, “Scientific evidence is certainly not clear on the exact role that soft drinks play in terms of children’s oral disease.” Huh? Sounds pretty different from the group’s previous statement that “. . . frequent consumption of sugars in any beverage can be a significant factor in the child and adolescent diet that contributes to the initiation and progression of dental caries [cavities].”
Apparently Coca Cola also finds these partnerships good for business. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) proudly announced on their website formation of “a corporate partnership with The Coca-Cola Co., in which the beverage giant will provide a grant for the Academy to develop consumer education content related to beverages and sweeteners for the AAFP’s award-winning consumer health and wellness Web site.”
205
Is comment even necessary here? (Kudos to those individual physicians who ripped up in their membership cards in protest!)
Even nutritional experts have been co-opted by industry. Go to an American Dietetic Association (ADA) conference, as most nutritionists do, and the funding is obvious. Any major corporation that manufactures food is likely to be found here. They apparently find attendees useful conduits to market their products.
Check out the ADA’s nutrition fact sheet on chocolate, which says, “Chocolate is no longer a concern for those wary of saturated fat, and . . . in fact, chocolate can be part of a heart-healthy eating plan.” Sponsor? Mars, manufacturer of M&Ms and numerous other chocolate candies.
The ADA’s fact sheet on beverages notes, “Regular carbonated soft drinks contain calories; milk and juice contain calories, vitamins and minerals—all beverages can have a place in a well-balanced eating pattern.”
206
Sponsor? The National Soft Drink Association.
Check out this statement from the ADA fact sheet on canned foods: “Recipes using canned ingredients are as nutritious as recipes prepared with fresh or frozen ingredients.” Sponsor? The Steel Packaging Council.
McDonald’s sponsors a fact sheet called “Nutrition on the Go,” while Ajinomoto, which makes the flavoring MSG, sponsors a fact sheet on “Food Allergies and Intolerances.” In reality, the fact sheets typically are written by corporate public relations departments or firms and are intended to improve the image of certain products or practices .
204
While I’m not disputing that chocolate and soft drinks can have a place in an otherwise nutrient-dense diet, do we really want Mars and the National Soft Drink Association educating us on nutrition, hiding under the auspices of the world’s foremost nutrition education organization?
Co-opting professionals is an important corporate strategy. Corporations routinely provide money and information to academic and research institutions and professional organizations and support meetings, conferences, and journals. In fact, it is hard to “excel” and get recognized as an expert in most fields without corporate ties.
Profits are a logical expectation of industry funding, and it is well-established that this investment pays off. For example, industry-sponsored research is much more likely to show positive results than independent research. Take drinks, for example. One review showed that scientific articles about drink consumption were four to eight times more likely to be favorable to the financial interests of the sponsors than those that didn’t receive industry funding.
207
And none of the intervention studies with industry funding had an unfavorable result!
Another example of industry’s influence on research came out of Harvard, where researchers surveyed all U.S.-accredited medical schools to evaluate relationships between researchers and sponsors.
208
Half the schools said they would allow pharmaceutical companies and makers of medical devices to draft articles about their products to appear in medical journals, and a quarter would allow them to supply the actual results reported in those articles.
Which professionals do most Americans look to for nutrition advice? Physicians. This trust is often a dangerous mistake. Doctors get very little training in nutrition. A report by the National Research Council found that physicians received an average of twenty-one classroom hours of nutrition education throughout their entire training, with most schools providing less.
209
Take a look at where some of this education comes from. Many medical schools use the curriculum provided by Nutrition in Medicine and the Medical Nutrition Curriculum Initiative.
210
These organizations are supported by the Egg Nutrition Board, The Dan-non Institute, National Cattleman’s Beef Institute, National Dairy Council, Nestle Clinical Nutrition, Wyeth-Ayers Laboratories, Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company, and Baxter Healthcare Corporation. Do you think a coalition of people who sell animal foods or pharmaceuticals will present an unbiased approach to nutrition? No wonder little emphasis is given to encouraging plant foods in our diets, and pharmaceuticals are so frequently prescribed in situations in which lifestyle changes have proven effective.
Now that I’ve taken on the non-profit organizations, professional organizations, academia, and physicians, who is left to challenge? How about the federal government?
Suppose there were a food that:
• Contained as much saturated fat and cholesterol as red meat
• Was highly associated with increased risk of ovarian cancer
211
,
212
,
213
,
214
• Contained a protein that
may
(research is inconclusive) trigger type 1 diabetes in genetically susceptible children
214
215
216
,
217
• Contained a hormone (IGF-1) that is strongly linked to increased risk of breast
218
and prostate cancer
219
220
221
f
• Promoted gas, stomach cramps, bloating and/or diarrhea in most people, particularly in African Americans, Native Americans, and Asian Americans
222
• Was contaminated with ammonium perchlorate,
223
a component of rocket fuel, at a level five times higher that the Environmental Protection Agency’s standard for safety
224
Would you make it a required product for all children in the federal lunch programs? Would you recommend that every child drink three glasses of it daily? Would you allow Donna Shalala, at that time the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to appear in advertisements for it?
225
Well, that describes milk—and it’s precisely what our government does! Makes the slogan, “Milk—it does the body good,” sound a little hollow, doesn’t it?
Surprisingly, there is no evidence to support the commonly held belief that milk builds stronger bones.
226
When scientists reviewed all the studies that examined the relationship between dairy consumption and bone health published between 1985 and 2000 and narrowed them down to those that were well-controlled and provided strong data, they found that
57 percent showed no significant relationship between the two
, while 29 percent showed a favorable relationship and 14 percent showed that dairy consumption was actually detrimental to bone health.
227