Issue link: http://osercommunicationsgroup.uberflip.com/i/510109
R e s t a u r a n t D a i l y N e w s F r i d a y, M a y 1 5 , 2 0 1 5 5 8 FOOD SCORES DATABASE AIMS HIGH BUT ANGERS SOME By David Bernard A new food scoring system and mobile phone app that claims to help shoppers quickly compare the healthfulness of dif- ferent brands as they stroll through gro- cery store aisles is comprehensive in scope but has some in the industry doubt- ing its accuracy. Critics are concerned that the Food Scores system from consumer advocacy organization, Environmental Working Group, is deceptive. Food Scores grades more than 80,000 products, 5,000 ingredients and 1,500 brands, giving each item a com- posite rating based on nutrition, safety of ingredients and amount of processing. The database purports to bring clarity to a market where the average grocery store carries more than 38,000 items, with cat- egories like granola bars and olive oil presenting shoppers with 10 or more choices for a single item purchase. The program scores products on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being most healthy. As an example, Sage Valley gra- nola bars score an impressive 2 for their high protein and fiber content, while on the other end of the spectrum, ShopRite granola bars score a 10 (these bars are 13 percent sugar by weight and contain 50 ingredients). By accounting for factors such as artificial flavors and preservatives, con- taminants such as mercury in fish and arsenic in rice and degree of processing, the database seeks to give shoppers a more rounded picture than what current nutritional labels provide. In terms of data sources, EWG reported using governmental sources and peer reviewed scientific literature. For instance, EWG bases its seafood mercury component on the FDA's database and scientified reviews on the subject. For pesticide residue, EWG uses a USDA database. This is according to EWG's Deputy Director of Research, Nneka Leiba, although she concedes that EWG uses such data to estimate similar values for the specific products it scores. The organization does not test individual products for mercury, pesticide residue or other components, and it relies on a prod- uct's standard nutrition label and ingredi- ent list for scoring. Among the critics of the program is Ed Byers, CEO of Cindy's Kitchen. The company makes 75 products, including gourmet salad dressings, dips and cook- ing sauces, 22 of these products which appear in Food Scores. Byers points out that Cindy's Roasted Garlic Caesar Dressing is listed as including "Expeller Pressed Canola Oil," with a separate note stating that this oil "may be genetically engineered or derived from GE crops." In fact, the dressing contains non-GMO expeller pressed canola oil, as plainly listed on the label. "A great deal of the information they have published on our ingredients is inac- curate," said Byers. EWG accepts feedback and correc- tions from manufacturers, and while Byers noted that it will be a time-con- suming process to review all of the infor- mation on his products and submit docu- mentation for corrections, he added that Cindy's was committed to working with EWG to correct the mistakes. EWG does not downscore products for containing ingredients derived from GE seeds, but it does note their possible inclusion. Other critics of Food Scores point to additional problems. The database's fac- toring of the degree of food processing is a particular point of contention. Manufacturers and some industry experts take issue with the "more processing equals less healthy" stance held by EWG, saying this discourages the purchase of certain products for no good reason. "The whole issue of processing is really one that can be clarified if you just look at the result," said Dr. Ruth Kava, Senior Nutrition Fellow at the American Council on Science and Health. "If it's a food that is empty of nutrients, then con- sumers should know that, but processing in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing." The notion of Food Scores down- grading any produce that is not certified organic, in part due to "pesticide residue load" is another point of criticism. The EPA sets acceptable residue limits for various pesticides, and the USDA tests produce. Critics of Food Scores assert that produce approved by the EPA as having acceptable levels of residue, should not be downgraded in the data- base. EWG states that the presence of pes- ticide residue, even at levels acceptable to the EPA, poses some degree of risk, and that the government acknowledged as much in the landmark Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. This legislation required the government to make avail- able in grocery stores brochures calling attention to the potential risks of pesti- cide exposure, even through the con- sumption of "approved" produce. While the EPA stopped publishing such brochures in 2007, EWG has continued to inform the public of this information through its annual "Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce." Noting the partic- ular susceptibility of children to the effects of pesticides, The American Academy of Pediatrics in 2012 endorsed this guide as an important resource in protecting children. For its part, EWG notes that the 0.5 downgrade of non-organic products takes into account not only pesticide residue, but other differences between organic and conventional production, such as dif- ferent rules on dyes, preservatives, meat and dairy production and other factors. Some industry organizations have charged that Food Scores uses a blanket approach regarding food hazards and does not account for factors such as geo- graphical differences in contaminants. An example is arsenic levels in rice, with critics asserting that rice grown in California tends to show lower levels of arsenic than rice grown in Texas. EWG uses a single arsenic score component for all rice of a particular variety, regardless of where it was grown. Sonya Lunder, Senior Analyst at EWG, countered that what seems like an oversimplification is not necessarily the case. She noted that while there is some suggestion of regional differences in arsenic concentration, "the FDA, in its 2013 report of over 1,300 tested rice samples, cautioned that its data were not adequate to draw conclusions about regional differences." Food Scores uses this FDA data in its arsenic-rice caution component. "Where test data show that a single serving of food contains more arsenic than legal in an 8-ounce glass of water, we categorize arsenic as a 'moder- ate' concern," Lunder said. "In categories where arsenic concentrations are lower, we categorize this as a 'lower concern.'" While critics raise several concerns over Food Scores, perhaps the greatest is that the program oversimplifies the com- plex nature of food choices. "When con- sumers see a one-off' guidance that has ratings for individual foods without giving the con- text of an entire diet, it can mislead them," said Marianne Smith Edge, MS, RD, Senior Vice President of Nutrition and Food Safety at the International Food Information Council Foundation. "It can lead them to believe that a single recom- mended food makes them healthy, which really isn't the case." This could cause shoppers to bypass quality, nutritious products on retail shelves, in favor of products that score the highest on the database. Through IFIC Foundation's exten- sive research on labeling, which Smith Edge states helped lead to the Facts Up Front panel on many food packages, it was found that consumers want informa- tion presented in a simple, concise way. She characterizes the Food Scores algo- rithm, with its three-pronged score incor- porating nutrition, ingredient concern and amount of processing, as anything but simple. Smith Edge noted that research by IFIC Foundation and other organizations has demonstrated that too much information on labels can confuse consumers and prevent them from mak- ing healthy food choices. Some manufacturers and retailers are wary of a new system that purports to safeguard consumers against unhealthy food products, when there is already a system in place. Dr. Ruth Kava from the American Council on Science and Health asserts that the system of labeling, and oversight of production by the FDA and USDA makes for a safe and healthy food supply, and that programs like Food Scores can unduly frighten consumers. As an example, the Food Scores pro- gram downgrades some fish products for containing mercury levels that that the FDA has determined may be dangerous to pregnant women, and young children. However, these downgraded scores could also discourage adult men, as well as non-pregnant women from eating such products, even though the FDA considers them safe, and even encouraged, in these populations. Kava said, "The FDA regu- lates these things, and I think the FDA levels are what people should be paying attention to." MAGGIANO'S SHOWCASES GLUTEN-FREE OFFERINGS ON SPECIAL MENU Twelve years, 675 wishes and more than $4.8 million later, Maggiano's Little Italy is kicking off its annual "Eat-A-Dish for Make-A-Wish" campaign benefiting Make-A-Wish ® , a nonprofit organization that grants the wishes of children with life- threatening medical conditions. This year, the brand is leveraging its popular "Eat-A- Dish" menu to highlight the availability of gluten-friendly offerings at restaurants nationwide as well as guests' ability to customize their meal for a memorable din- ing experience any time of the year. From April 30 to July 8, a portion of each chef 's special purchased from Maggiano's first gluten-friendly menu will help make unforgettable experiences possible for children like 15-year-old Patricia, who is battling cancer. In addi- tion to naming a dish after her, the brand is sponsoring Patricia's wish to travel to Italy this summer and explore the coun- try's rich architecture, culture and food. "At Maggiano's, our passion is mak- ing guests feel special," said Steve Provost, President of Maggiano's Little Italy and Chairman of Make-A-Wish North Texas. "Every year at this time, we leverage the generosity of our brand and the kind hearts of our loyal guests to cre- ate memorable wish moments for hun- dreds of special children who live near our 49 restaurants. Our general man- agers, chefs and more than 6,000 team- mates view this as a time of year when we bring our brand passion to life in the service of others, and we hope this 'Eat- A-Dish' menu leads to record donations and puts smiles on the faces of wish chil- dren everywhere." To participate in this year's "Eat-A- Dish" campaign, guests just need to dine at Maggiano's from April 30 through July 8 and enjoy a gluten-friendly feature from the "Eat-A-Dish" menu. In return, Maggiano's will donate $1 to Make-A- Wish for every dish and $.50 for every glass of Wish Lemonade ordered from the special menu. In addition to these giving opportu- nities, Maggiano's will sell star-shaped cards, which feature inspirational stories of wish children, to guests for a donation of their choice. Guests who donate more than $10 will receive a commemorative star with a $10 coupon to be used during a future visit. To help raise awareness outside of the restaurant, Maggiano's will also donate $1 to Make-A-Wish for every new "like" to Maggiano's Facebook page throughout the duration of the campaign, up to $25,000. "Maggiano's gives guests the ability to turn their dining experience into a chance to help grant wishes," said David Williams, President and Chief Executive Officer of Make-A-Wish America. "We are grateful to Maggiano's for providing its guests with the opportunity to make life better for wish kids nationwide."