More perverse food advertising

It seems like there is never a shortage of questionable food marketing tactics, especially when kids' foods are involved. The latest example: a new commercial from Kellogg's touting its cereals' new and improved fiber content. Although I could not find a video of the commercial, here is a link to a page on the Kellogg's website which explains the importance of fiber and portrays Froot Loops, Apple Jacks, and Pops as nutritious by virtue of the added fiber they now contain.

It's true that fiber is an important part of a healthy diet and most kids don't get enough. However, Kellogg's narrow focus on a single nutrient is nothing more than a clever marketing ploy designed with the hope that consumers will miss the forest for the trees and buy what they're selling- both literally and figuratively.

The new ad campaign comes at a time when nutrition experts and public health professionals are calling for a shift in focus from nutrients (e.g. fat, carbohydrates, fiber, vitamins, etc.) to foods. In agreement with many others in my field, it is my belief that we should be giving the public recommendations about nutrition that are simple, based on scientific evidence, and easy to understand and put into practice. Rather than providing acceptable ranges of saturated fat and fiber (do you know what to do with that information???), we should instead encourage consumption of whole, minimally processed foods (think rolled oats and fresh apples) and advise limiting intake of foods whose component parts are no longer recognizable and contain substantial amounts of added sugars, salt, and other unwholesome ingredients (think Apple Jacks).

The so-called "reductionist" approach to nutrition smacks of hubris that has gotten out of control. To believe that we can take a food in its natural state and process it to the point that it looks and tastes completely different and then simply add back the nutrients we deem to be important is to assume that we know everything there is to know about the nutrients humans need. This is very far from the truth. Most vitamins have only been discovered within the last century and for many of them (vitamin D included), we only have a general idea of how much we need to avoid illness. We don't necessarily know how much we need for optimal health. Furthermore, research on non-vitamin bioactive food components (like antioxidant polyphenols) is still relatively new. So far, it suggests that these substances are very important, too, but we don't know enough about them to use them in food fortification.

My point is- we can only add back what we know we took out. I think it is extremely arrogant to think that we can manipulate foods to our liking and not suffer any health consequences. Whether or not fiber-fortified sugary cereals are leading to deficiencies in flavonoids or other important compounds, they are almost certainly leading to excess calories and excess weight relative to foods that naturally contain the nutrients that Kellogg's sprays their Froot Loops with.

The truth is, we don't know all that much about the health effects of specific nutrients. Just look at the baffling results of studies on Atkins-like diets. Despite being high in saturated fat, a nutrient that has been demonized for decades, people who follow the diet for a long period of time actually have better improvements in their cholesterol levels than those on a low-fat diet. Some Eskimo populations have diets that are 80% meat and very high in total fat, yet they have lower rates of chronic disease than Americans do. What we do know more about is the dietary patterns that are associated with better health. And they are almost universally based on whole foods close to their natural state.

This post has turned a little rambly, but the point I'm trying to get across is: when you see food ads and commercials like the one Kellogg's is airing, be skeptical. Trust your common sense. Food manufacturers want you to believe that they can "fix" any nutritional shortcoming, but don't fall for it. They can't. Not now, probably not ever, and certainly not in your lifetime.

For an eye-opening discussion of food-based vs. nutrient-based approaches to nutrition by a much more eloquent writer, I highly recommend Michael Pollan's New York Times essay, "Unhappy Meals."