Animal feed and the food supply: Food safety, animal feed

September 21, 2009, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: Animal feed and the food supply, Chicken: Arsenic and antibiotics

≪ Previous: Animal feed and the food supply, Seafood: Farmed vs. wild

$

0

0

Animal feed and the food supply: Food safety, animal feed You are what they eat Humans are at the top of the food chain. As a result, we're vulnerable to pathogens, drugs, and contaminants consumed by the animals we eat. And we eat a lot: an average of 137 pounds of beef, chicken, fish, and shellfish per American in 2002, the latest year for which figures are available. Food animals used to eat what grew naturally--grass and grain for cows and chickens; small fish or other sea life for big fish. But life on today's farm--often a 30,000-cow feedlot or a 60,000-chicken coop--isn't so simple. The need of such facilities for huge quantities of high-protein rations and the need for slaughterhouses to find a cheap, safe way to dispose of waste gave rise to a marriage of convenience between renderers and food producers, and to the inclusion of animal by-products in animal feed. The pairing was seen as a boon: Waste was recycled into needed protein and other nutrients for animals. But the addition of the rendering industry to the animal-feed mix has meant more trouble controlling and monitoring feed production, more vulnerability to problems, and another layer of regulation. CR Quick Take Cows, chickens, and fish are given feed and drugs that raise concerns about whether our food supply is as safe as possible. The Government Accountability Office, the congressional watchdog, has called the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's data on inspections of animal-feed producers “severely flawed.” Yet federal food-safety agencies have failed to tighten regulations. Cattle: From August 1997 through March 2004, 52 companies recalled 410 feed products for violating federal rules protecting feed from infectious prions, proteins believed to cause mad cow disease. But in July 2004, the FDA delayed tightening a ban on risky feed ingredients. See Beef: Delays in mad cow protection. Chicken: We found low levels of arsenic--present in a drug given to many chickens in part to boost growth--in livers of conventionally raised chicken, but none in certified organic chicken livers. See Chicken: Arsenic and antibiotics. Fish: Studies report higher levels of dioxins and PCBs in farmed salmon than in wild. The probable cause: feed made of fish from polluted waters. See Seafood: Farmed vs. wild. To assess the safety of the nation's animal feed and implications for consumers, we interviewed feed-industry experts and critics; reviewed recent research and spoke to scientists who conducted it; and tested chicken for arsenic, an approved additive in an antiparasitic drug given to many healthy birds to make them grow faster. We asked feed-company executives to talk with us, but only representatives of fish-feed makers and the heads of four feed trade associations were willing. Our investigation raises concerns that the federal government isn't doing enough to protect the feed supply and that as a result, the food we eat may not be as safe as it could be: Regulatory loopholes could allow mad cow infection, if present, to make its way into cattle feed; drugs used in chickens could raise human exposure to arsenic or antibiotic-resistant bacteria; farmed fish could harbor PCBs and dioxins.what they eat, and why Cattle and chickens are still given plant-based feed: Corn (for carbs) and soybean meal (for amino acids) make up 70 percent to 90 percent of most commercial animal feed. But the remaining 10 percent to 30 percent of feed can differ radically from what cows and poultry would eat in their natural habitat. Processed feathers are an acceptable source of protein in cattle feed, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, as is poultry litter--floor wastes from coops, including feces. Plastic pellets are permitted as roughage. Chickens can be fed meat and bone meal. And in addition to their main diet of fish meal and fish oil, farmed fish may be given rendered meat, bone, and feather meal. The goal: to fatten animals as fast and as cheaply as possible. Also included in feed: medications, given routinely even to healthy cattle and chickens to boost growth and keep infections at bay. (It's illegal for U.S. fish farmers to use drugs for those purposes.) Whatever the animal, a range of feeds is available. In the U.S. alone, 14,000-plus companies sell as many as 200 basic feeds, plus custom-made mixes. In all, the companies produce more than 308 billion pounds of animal feed annually. The relative percentage of feed ingredients varies with price and availability. “Last April, soybeans cost twice as much as they did the year before, and feed suppliers turned more aggressively to rendered animal protein and by-products,” says Chris Hurt, Ph.D., an agricultural economist at Purdue University. ”In October, soybean prices were back to previous levels, which gives them less incentive to use meat and bone meal.” When a feed producer proposes a new ingredient, it must petition the FDA to approve it. The FDA gives a thumbs-up or thumbs-down or, in rare cases, leaves the decision to the states. Once an ingredient is approved, its name and description appear in an ingredient list published by the Association of American Feed Control Officials. AAFCO comprises FDA officials, state feed officials, and feed-industry representatives (who can't vote on matters such as requiring product labeling). The FDA can't blanket the country with inspectors, so it delegates much enforcement responsibility to the states, which conduct 70 percent of feed-company and renderer inspections.the benefits, the risks Try to put aside any squeamishness when “waste” and “feed” are used in the same sentence. The waste is processed until it bears no resemblance to its former self. Thomas Cook, president of the National Renderers Association, told us that after the rendering process thoroughly heats, presses, and grinds animal tissue, it “looks like a pile of brown sugar.” The benefits. ”Animal-protein products, meat and bone meal, and blood meal are very nutritional feed ingredients,” says David Fairfield, director of feed services for the National Grain and Feed Association. Philip Petry, president of AAFCO, speaks of the merits of chicken waste. “There's a yuck factor because it doesn't sound at all appetizing,” he says, “but the nitrogen level in poultry litter is real high, so they get a real good protein jump out of that.” Richard Sellers, vice president for feed control and nutrition at the American Feed Industry Association (AFIA), points out that some of the 50 million tons of animal and plant by-products generated by the food industry might have ended up in landfills. “We turn them into valuable sources of protein to feed a hungry world,” he adds. The risks. What the feed officials say is true, but what consumers need to know is whether those processed feed ingredients pose risks to them. Industry officials cite the approval process. “All the feed ingredients are approved by the government,” says David Bossman, recent president and chief executive of AFIA. “FDA is part of that process. It's the most scientifically sound food-safety organization in the world.“ Yet even Bossman acknowledges that accidents can happen: Feed can become contaminated, for instance, simply by being stored in the wrong bin. “People make honest mistakes,” he says. Indeed. According to a recent report from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “There is considerable potential for contaminated animal feed or animal-feed ingredients to move between and within countries. This could result in the widespread and rapid dissemination of a pathogen to geographically dispersed animal herds--and, in turn, to a range of human food products.” Jean Halloran, director of the Consumer Policy Institute of Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports), thinks the FDA's rules are not stringent enough. “There needs to be rigorous analysis of the health impact of what's fed to food animals,” she says. Other consumer advocates agree. Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, notes, “I think the yuck factor is huge. But we have actual concerns when things like clay are mixed in and other by-products that can increase the exposure of humans who eat those animals to toxic chemicals.” Clay can be contaminated with dioxins; in fiscal year 2003, dioxin contamination led the FDA to recall 479 feed products from 17 companies. Robert Lawrence, M.D., chairman of a National Academy of Sciences committee that recently examined dioxin exposure, says that dioxins and PCBs, which accumulate in animal fat, are being recycled into the food supply. “I was shocked to learn that every year in the U.S., 11 billion pounds of animal fat is recycled into animal feed,” he says. Even if rendered material starts out clean, it can become contaminated with bacteria. Whether that happens during processing, storage, handling, or shipping isn't clear. But tests by the Animal Protein Producers Industry, a nonprofit renderers group, found salmonella in about one-fourth of rendered feedstuffs, on average, from 1996 through 2000. The good news: That's down from about half in 1990. The FDA is aware of only a handful of incidents worldwide in which salmonella infections in humans were linked to animal feed. The most recent was in the U.S. in 2003. But connecting human illness to contaminated feed is difficult, says Fred Angulo, chief of the CDC's foodborne and diarrheal diseases branch. Does animal feed putpeople at risk? NO WHO David Bossman, recent president and CEO of the American Feed Industry Association He said “The food supply as it comes from the production source is very, very safe. We've seen that from all sources. And you can eat meat with confidence that not only is it safe, but it's getting safer because of all the things that industry is doing.” YES WHO Carol Tucker-Foreman, director of the Food Policy Insti-tute at the Consumer Federation of America She said “Rules protecting the feed supply aren't as strong as they should be, and FDA enforcement has been more wishful thinking than reality. Contaminated animal feed can result in contaminated food, putting the public health at risk.” Bossman photo by Cade Martin It would help to have a “farm to fork” surveillance system such as those in Europe, he says, where contamination is looked for in feed, animals, the marketplace, and humans. In the U.S., Angulo says, that might mean requiring a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) system for feed processing, like those already in place for animal processing. It would make feed manufacturers spell out where contamination might occur during processing, then build in procedures to prevent it. Stephen Sundlof, Ph.D., director of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine, which regulates drugs, devices, and food additives for food animals, says the agency is “engaged in discussions with the feed industry” to put a HACCP-like system in place. An FDA spokeswoman called the system a priority, but it may not be fully implemented until 2007. AFIA has launched a voluntary system that incorporates HACCP-like measures. If all animals were raised organically--on feed lacking pesticides, animal by-products, and antibiotics--would our food supply be safer? Yes, in some ways. There would be less risk of mad cow disease, little or no arsenic in chicken, and fewer bacteria able to resist antibiotics. But there's no guarantee that organic feed is free of garden-variety bacteria, including salmonella. Richard Sellers of AFIA sees another roadblock, at least for now: “There are not enough organic-grain suppliers to go all organic.” Currently, about a dozen brands each of organic chicken and beef are sold, and far fewer organic fish (many are imports; USDA organic standards don't yet apply to seafood). On the other hand, price might not be a big barrier. If the organic-feed industry grew, Chris Hurt, the Purdue economist, estimates that organic beef or chicken might cost only 10 percent to 20 percent more per pound, on average, than meat from conventionally raised animals. American consumers are willing to pay more for greater safety guarantees, according to a national online survey of 1,085 adults conducted in January 2004 by Consumers Union. Of the 95 percent of respondents who said they eat beef, 77 percent said they would pay more at the supermarket for beef certified as free of mad cow disease.

Subscribe now! Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.

Update your feed preferences

---

Animal feed and the food supply, Chicken: Arsenic and antibiotics

September 21, 2009, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: Animal feed and the food supply, Beef: Delays in mad cow protection

≪ Previous: Animal feed and the food supply: Food safety, animal feed

$

0

0

Animal feed and the food supply, Chicken: Arsenic and antibiotics Chicken: Arsenic and antibiotics     The issuE: Medications • What they are Antibiotics and a drug that contains arsenic. • How they could get in feed They’re given to chickens to promote growth and maintain health. • The danger Traces of arsenic get into chicken liver. Bacteria in chickens fed antibiotics can become resistant to those drugs. People sickened by eating the chicken may not be cured by the usual drugs. • The solution Cut back on the use of medications in healthy flocks. Chickens eat mostly a corn-and-soy mix, plus rendered animal by-products. Since chickens do not appear to contract mad cow disease, the main issue with their feed is drugs that are intentionally added to kill microbes and fatten birds faster. Conventional poultry farmers often give chickens Roxarsone (3-Nitro), one of many drugs approved by the Food and Drug Admistration for those purposes. Roxarsone contains arsenic, though in a form less toxic to humans than the form linked to cancer. The USDA monitors arsenic levels in food animals. Agency researchers ruffled feathers in January 2004 when they reported in Environmental Health Perspectives that young chickens contain three to four times more arsenic than other poultry and meat. The data were based on analysis of chicken livers. Consumer Reports decided to test both liver and muscle, the part most people eat. We took 116 samples from widely sold brands of conventional and organic chickens bought in stores around the U.S. and from a mail-order company. We found no detectable arsenic in the 15 liver samples from Foster Farms, a conventional chicken brand, and none in the organic chicken samples. The rest averaged 466 parts per billion (ppb) of total arsenic. That’s still far less than the FDA’s 2,000 ppb chicken-liver tolerance limit--the amount allowed in a food product. There was no way to tell whether the arsenic came from drugs or was taken up from the environment, where it’s found naturally. But the lack of arsenic in organic chickens is suggestive: USDA standards do not allow arsenic in organic-chicken feed. The FDA’s tolerance limit for arsenic in chicken muscle meat is 500 ppb--lower than in liver, the FDA says, because people eat more muscle than liver. We found no detectable arsenic in our samples of muscle. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates arsenic levels in drinking water, has more stringent limits than the FDA. A few of our chicken-liver samples had an amount that according to EPA standards could cause neurological problems in a child who ate 2 ounces of cooked liver per week or in an adult who ate 5.5 ounces per week. Critics ask why arsenic is allowed in feed at all. “We’re trying to do everything we can to get levels lower in drinking water at very great cost,” Ellen Silbergeld, Ph.D., professor of environmental health sciences at the Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health, told us. “And yet we’re deliberately adding it to chicken.” Asked to comment on the use of arsenic-containing drugs, Richard Lobb, a spokesman for the National Chicken Council, said, “There simply does not appear to be a human health problem of any kind resulting from the use of arsenicals in poultry production.” Like Roxarsone, human antibiotics are fed to chickens to speed growth. But bacteria in the birds’ intestines can develop resistance to them. People who eat chicken harboring those bacteria can fall ill if they don’t handle and cook meat properly, and they may not be cured by the drugs typically used to get rid of their illness. In October 2000, the FDA concluded that two antibiotics used in poultry had spawned drug resistance. The maker of one drug pulled it off the market quickly. Bayer, maker of the other drug, challenged the FDA’s proposal to withdraw approval of its drug, Baytril, for use in poultry. In March 2004 an FDA administrative law judge ruled in the agency’s favor. Bayer appealed, and as of November 2004, the FDA had not acted. On Capitol Hill, proposed legislation would phase out the “nontherapeutic” use in feed of antibiotics important for humans. More than 300 organizations, including the American Medical Association, have endorsed the bill, but its future is uncertain.

Subscribe now! Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.

Update your feed preferences

Animal feed and the food supply, Beef: Delays in mad cow protection

September 21, 2009, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: What you can do to limit sodium intake

≪ Previous: Animal feed and the food supply, Chicken: Arsenic and antibiotics

$

0

0

Animal feed and the food supply, Beef: Delays in mad cow protection Beef: Delays in mad cow protection   The issue: Prions • What they are Proteins that can become malformed and infect cud-chewing animals (ruminants) with mad cow disease. • How they could get in feed Mammalian blood and meat scraps are allowed in cow feed. Cow remains can be fed to chickens and pigs, whose remains can be fed back to cows. • The danger If blood and scraps harbor infectious prions, or if contaminated nonruminant feed is accidentally mixed with ruminant, cattle could sicken and pass along disease. • The solution Ban mammalian material from all animal feed. In 1997, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration required that most protein derived from ruminants (cud-chewing animals) be kept out of feed given to other ruminants. The goal was to keep the feed supply free of infectious prions, proteins thought to spread bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or mad cow disease), which has been linked to a fatal brain disease in humans. Although the rendering process can kill viruses and bacteria, it doesn't eliminate all prions. That feed ban was designed to prevent cattle from eating tainted feed, becoming sick, being slaughtered before showing symptoms, and being eaten by a person who then becomes infected. But loopholes still allowed certain risky feedstuffs to be fed to cattle and other ruminants. Ruminant remains--even from “downer” cows, which are unable to walk and at higher risk of BSE--could still be fed to chickens, pigs, and fish. And their remains, in turn, could be fed back to ruminants, creating a cycle that some worry could transmit mad cow disease. There's also concern that nonruminant feed containing infectious prions could accidentally become mixed with cattle feed. Even enforcement of the existing ban has been lax. A January 2002 report by the Government Accountability Office found that more than four years after the feed ban took effect, the FDA still had “not acted promptly to compel firms to keep prohibited proteins out of cattle feed and to label animal feed that cannot be fed to cattle.” GAO investigators identified some noncompliant feed operations that had not been reinspected for two or more years and cases in which the FDA had not cracked down on companies found noncompliant on multiple inspections. “FDA does not know the full extent of industry compliance,” the report said, because its data on inspections are “severely flawed.” We do know that industry compliance with the feed ban has been imperfect. From August 1997 through 2003, 47 companies recalled 280 feed products that were in violation of the federal rules. During that time, the FDA issued 63 letters warning of noncompliance. And in July 2003, the FDA announced a consent decree with one feed manufacturer in which the company officers admitted liability for adulterated and misbranded animal feed and agreed to take corrective measures. With that announcement, the FDA stated that compliance with the feed ban exceeded 99 percent. But in 2004, our research showed, the agency was still sending warning letters. By March 2004, it had recalled an additional 130 products from five more firms for violating the ban. In January 2004--shortly after the first mad cow, of Canadian origin, was discovered in the U.S.--Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and then-FDA Commissioner Mark B. McClellan promised two new rules to bolster the firewalls against mad cow disease. The steps were to take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register, the daily government publication of federal regulations. The rules did the following: • Banned downer cows and animal parts known to harbor the highest concentrations of infectious prions from human food, dietary supplements, and cosmetics. • Banned the use in ruminant feed of mammalian blood and blood products, poultry litter, and meat leftovers from restaurants. Those ingredients were used in ruminant feeds in the United Kingdom before that nation's mad cow outbreak and contributed to the epidemic. The FDA also mandated steps to keep ruminant feed and nonruminant feed from mixing. In July 2004, the FDA put the first rule into effect. But it unexpectedly put the other rule on hold. Instead, it called for public comment, including comment on a new proposal to remove particularly risky cow parts--“specified risk materials” (SRMs), such as older cows' brains and spinal cords--from all animal feed. Such a ban would be stricter but, like any proposal in the public-comment stage, might not result in final regulations. The delay has been widely criticized by consumer groups, including the Consumer Policy Institute of Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports. “The FDA should have taken immediate action on the promises it made,“ says Jean Halloran, director of the institute. “In what appears to be a guise of considering a bigger step, they did nothing.” Caroline Smith DeWaal of the Center for Science in the Public Interest says, “They have been studying this action since 2002, so the idea that we need more study prior to taking such commonsense action seems absurd.” Carol Tucker-Foreman of the Consumer Federation of America called the delay “inexplicable and irresponsible.” Stephen Sundlof of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine suggests the FDA is postponing a small step while considering a bigger one. He says the agency was swayed by an international expert panel report in February 2004 that suggested steps well beyond those the agency had announced weeks earlier. “The one thing that would have the biggest impact would be getting the SRMs out of the animal-feed system altogether,” Sundlof says. James Hodges, president of the American Meat Institute Foundation, which represents the meat and poultry industry, counters that “there needs to be a risk-benefit analysis and cost-benefit analysis,” adding that there's no evidence of BSE among domestic cattle. “Spending millions or hundreds of millions of dollars for no practical risk-reduction benefit is not good public policy,” he says. He agrees with testing high-risk animals, which must occur after slaughter: There's no way to check whether asymptomatic, live animals harbor mad cow disease. “We've heard every opinion,” Sundlof says. “I would say that in the animal-feed industry there is not unanimity.” However, the agency has tentatively concluded that it agrees with the expert panel and will propose banning all risky materials from all animal feed. When will that ban take effect? Maybe this year, maybe not, according to Sundlof. “These things unfortunately do take a lot of time,” he says.

Subscribe now! Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.

Update your feed preferences

What you can do to limit sodium intake

September 21, 2009, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: Products with surprising sodium content

≪ Previous: Animal feed and the food supply, Beef: Delays in mad cow protection

$

0

0

What you can do to limit sodium intake The government faces some pressure to limit the use of salt: The American Medical Association has urged the Food and Drug Administration to help slash Americans' sodium consumption. According to the AMA, a 50 percent reduction in dietary sodium could save 150,000 lives a year. In fall 2007, the FDA held a hearing partly in response to a petition by the consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest to regulate salt as a food additive, which would limit how much manufacturers could add to foods. At press time, the FDA was reviewing public comments and had not set a timetable for a decision. In the meantime, it's up to consumers to assess how much they're taking in. Follow these tips: Read labels And compare them to find low sodium choices. If you buy oatmeal, for example, choose Quaker Oats Quick 1 Minute (0 mg of sodium) over Quaker's instant packets, which have 80 mg in the original flavor, for example, and 270 mg in maple and brown sugar. For taste, add a little sugar or pure maple syrup (which has virtually no sodium, unlike some pancake syrups). Look for no-salt-added condiments And consider buying canned vegetables packed with less salt. Del Monte recently added a line of "50% less salt" canned vegetables and has a no-salt-added line. Avoid meats and poultry that have been marinated or injected with salty solutions. (Check the ingredients list and the nutrition facts.) As our supermarket trip showed, it's a good idea to check labels even on foods you don't think are salty. Be a smart chef Taste before adding salt. Use herbs and spices, salt-free seasoning blends, citrus juice or zest, and flavored vinegars instead of salt. When possible, eat fresh foods, especially fruits and vegetables, which are naturally low sodium choices. Use sodium-free broth as a base for homemade soup. Replace regular bouillon with a sodium-free product, such as Herb Ox Sodium-Free Instant Broth & Seasoning Chicken Bouillon (0 mg per 4-gram packet). If you can't find low sodium canned foods, consider rinsing and draining higher-sodium foods to eliminate some salt. (For example, running water over canned tuna and salmon, canned vegetables, feta cheese, and capers can reduce the sodium by up to 30 percent.) Eat one serving Think you're being good by eating lower-sodium foods? Not if you eat too much. A cup of Progresso 50% Less Sodium Chicken Noodle soup, for example, has 470 mg of sodium, about half the amount in Progresso Traditional; but consume the whole can and you'll get almost 1,000 mg. Avoid sodium heavyweights Or limit them when possible. Among the highest-sodium products we've seen: soy sauce (1,160 mg per tablespoon), chicken bouillon (1,100 mg per packet), frozen dinners (930 mg per serving in Stouffer's Lasagna with Meat & Sauce; some have more), and Spam (790 mg per 2 ounces). Other heavyweights include cured meats such as bacon, ham, and hot dogs; sardines and smoked salmon; and brined foods, such as pickles and olives. Eat at home You can easily consume a day's worth of sodium in a single restaurant dish. When you eat out, ask for low-salt dishes and request sauce or dressing on the side. Some chain restaurants post nutrition information online; you can check for low sodium items before you go. Check your meds Some drugs contain sodium. Ask your doctor about yours if you're on a sodium-restricted diet. Retrain your taste buds Scale back the amount of salt used at the table and in cooking. Research shows that after three months, most people no longer miss salt. Posted: December 2008 — Consumer Reports Magazine issue: January 2009

Subscribe now! Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.

Update your feed preferences

Products with surprising sodium content

September 21, 2009, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: Understand sodium labels, learn salt terminology

≪ Previous: What you can do to limit sodium intake

$

0

0

Products with surprising sodium content Dietary guidelines recommend that healthy adults get no more than 2,300 mg of sodium a day, the amount in just 1 teaspoon of table salt (sodium chloride). People with hypertension, those middle-aged and older, and African-Americans should aim for less than that—no more than 1,500 mg. But the average American ingests 2,900 to 4,300 mg. Our food experts hit supermarkets to ferret out products in which sodium might be a surprise. Among them: Twizzlers Black Licorice Twists. Four strands have 200 mg. Strangely, four strands of Twizzlers Strawberry Licorice have only 115 mg. Raisin-bran cereals. Kellogg's has 350 mg per cup; Post, 300 mg; Total, 230 mg. Jell-O Instant Pudding & Pie Filling Mix. The chocolate flavor contains 420 mg per serving; lemon, 310 mg; chocolate fudge, 380 mg. Prego Heart Smart Traditional Italian Sauce. An American Heart Association logo on the label means that saturated fat and cholesterol are restricted, but not that the product is low sodium. This sauce has 430 mg per half-cup. Aunt Jemima Original Pancake and Waffle Mix. Prepared as directed, the pancakes have about 200 mg of sodium each. By contrast, pancakes made with Bisquick Heart Smart Pancake and Baking Mix have about 140 mg each. Some fast-food fare also has surprising sodium levels. McDonald's Premium Caesar Salad with grilled chicken, for example, has 890 mg of sodium—without dressing. A large order of fries has 350 mg. Lower-fat products can be higher in sodium than their full-fat counterparts. (When fat is removed, sodium is sometimes added to compensate.) A serving of Ruffles Original Potato Chips has 10 grams of fat and 160 mg of sodium, for example; the baked version, with 7 fewer grams of fat, has 40 mg more sodium. For other surprises, see Think you're cutting back? Think again, or go to www.ConsumerReportsHealth.org. You might be getting sodium, even if you don't see "sodium chloride" listed as an ingredient, in the form of disodium guanylate, disodium inosinate, sodium caseinate, sodium benzoate, sodium bicarbonate, sodium nitrite, and other combinations. Some of those ingredients are flavor enhancers; others are thickeners, preservatives, or texture enhancers. Posted: December 2008 — Consumer Reports Magazine issue: January 2009

Subscribe now! Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.

Update your feed preferences

Understand sodium labels, learn salt terminology

September 21, 2009, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: Salt alternatives, salt substitutes

≪ Previous: Products with surprising sodium content

$

0

0

Understand sodium labels, learn salt terminology   Use this glossary to decode sodium-related claims, which are regulated by the federal government. Sodium free (or zero sodium, no sodium, without sodium, free of sodium, trivial source of sodium) Fewer than 5 milligrams of sodium per serving. Very low in sodium No more than 35 mg per serving. Low in sodium No more than 140 mg per serving. Light in sodium At least 50 percent less sodium per serving than a full-sodium version. Reduced sodium (or lower sodium, less sodium) At least 25 percent less sodium per serving than a full-sodium version of the same food. Unsalted (or no salt added, without added salt) No salt was added during processing. If the food is not sodium-free, the label must say, "Not a sodium-free food." Healthy For an individual food, no more than 480 mg of sodium per serving. For a meal (think frozen dinner), no more than 600 mg. Posted: December 2008 — Consumer Reports Magazine issue: January 2009

Subscribe now! Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.

Update your feed preferences

Salt alternatives, salt substitutes

September 21, 2009, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: Think youre cutting back on salt? Think again.

≪ Previous: Understand sodium labels, learn salt terminology

$

0

0

Salt alternatives, salt substitutes   Salt substitutes lack table salt (sodium chloride); salt blends are a hybrid of table salt and other ingredients. Finding a tasty substitute or blend can prove tough: The best-known faux salt, potassium chloride, tends to have a bitter or off taste. And it might not be safe for people with kidney problems or those who take medications for the heart or liver, so those people should check with a doctor before using it. Our experts conducted blind taste tests of no-salt-added cottage cheese and scrambled eggs to which we'd added a salt alternative. In all, they tried two substitutes and two blends. They also tasted the same foods with regular iodized salt and sea salt. (Sea salt is coarser and provides less sodium, since fewer grains will fit in the same-size measuring spoon.) The three products that contained potassium chloride—Morton Lite Salt Mixture (290 milligrams of sodium per ¼ teaspoon), Nu-Salt (0 mg), and No Salt Original (0 mg)—didn't impress the tasters, who generally described them as bitter, metallic, or having an aftertaste. Only Diamond Crystal Salt Sense, a blend without potassium chloride, tasted pretty much like real salt. And it has roughly one-third less sodium (390 mg per ¼ teaspoon). Bottom line If you want to trim sodium yet maintain taste, try Diamond Crystal Salt Sense or simply substitute herbs or spices for some of the salt you usually use. Posted: December 2008 — Consumer Reports Magazine issue: January 2009

Subscribe now! Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.

Update your feed preferences

Think youre cutting back on salt? Think again.

September 21, 2009, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: Incorporate low sodium into your diet

≪ Previous: Salt alternatives, salt substitutes

$

0

0

Think youre cutting back on salt? Think again. (Click on image for answer) Cottage cheese vs. Potato chips Correct!Saltier: ½ cup Friendship 1% low-fat cottage cheese, 360 mg Wrong!1 oz. Lay's potato chips, 180 mg Vegetable juice vs. Dill pickle Correct!Saltier: 1 cup Heart Healthy V8, 480 mg Wrong!1 Vlasic kosher pickle spear, 280 mg Omelette vs. Bagel Wrong!Two-egg omelette with 1 oz. Swiss cheese, 1 tsp. butter, 295 mg Correct!Saltier: 1 Pepperidge Farm Whole Grain White Bagel, 440 mg Posted: December 2008 — Consumer Reports Magazine issue: January 2009

Subscribe now! Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.

Update your feed preferences

---

Incorporate low sodium into your diet

September 21, 2009, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: Sodium quiz, which lower-sodium foods taste best

≪ Previous: Think youre cutting back on salt? Think again.

$

0

0

Incorporate low sodium into your diet Videos Photos VIDEO:     Videos Photos Detective work In a lab at our Yonkers, N.Y., headquarters, project leader Babatunde Akinleye used an atomic absorption spectrometer to analyze the sodium content of more than 100 food samples. On average, Americans consume far more sodium than the recommended daily limit. That's unfortunate, since a high-sodium diet might increase a person's risk of high blood pressure (and subsequent heart attack, kidney disease, and stroke) and might also boost the risk of asthma, kidney stones, osteoporosis, and stomach cancer. But taking a low-sodium approach isn't easy. Adding sodium is a cheap way to improve the taste and texture of countless processed and prepared foods, which are where Americans get three-fourths of the sodium in their diets. Consumer Reports analyzed 37 foods and four salt substitutes to see how their actual sodium content compared with the amount claimed on the label. Labels told the truth (some products even had less sodium than claimed), with one exception: Enrico's Traditional Pasta Sauce No Salt Added. Its label listed 25 milligrams of sodium per half-cup serving, but one of the three samples we tested had about 160 mg and another had about 250 mg. Accurate labeling is the good news. The bad news is that sodium lurks in foods that you'd never think to check. Posted: December 2008 — Consumer Reports Magazine issue: January 2009

Subscribe now! Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.

Update your feed preferences

Sodium quiz, which lower-sodium foods taste best

September 21, 2009, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: When to buy organic

≪ Previous: Incorporate low sodium into your diet

$

0

0

Sodium quiz, which lower-sodium foods taste best In the cafeteria of our Yonkers, N.Y., headquarters, about 100 staff members taste-tested less-salty versions of four usually high-sodium foods. Staffers didn't know the reason for the tests; we just asked if they'd be willing to eat each food again. Overall, the low-sodium pasta sauces were least likely to please. In a separate test, our trained tasters tried the same foods. Their descriptions are below. Within groups, foods are listed in order of staffers' preferences. Product Would eat again (%) Labeled sodium per serving (mg) TURKEY BREAST (2 oz.) Most are moist, tender, and a bit salty. Dietz & Watson tastes roasted. Dietz & Watson Gourmet Lite (skin on) 78 240 Boar's Head Our Premium Lower Sodium (skinless) 69 340 Butterball Oven Roasted Reduced Sodium (skinless) 57 350 Applegate Farms Oven Roasted (skin on) 55 400 SALAD DRESSING (2 T.) Silver Palate tastes of olive oil; Maple Grove is sweet. The Silver Palate Salad Splash Balsamic Country 65 15 Emeril's Balsamic Vinaigrette 54 85 Maple Grove Farms of Vermont Balsamic Vinaigrette with Pure Maple Syrup 49 40 Annie's Naturals Balsamic Vinaigrette 25 75 CHICKEN NOODLE SOUP (1 cup) All are mild-flavored, have chewy chicken, and taste a bit salty. Progresso 50% Less Sodium 53 470 Campbell's Select Harvest Healthy Request 50 480 Healthy Choice Old Fashioned 47 480 PASTA SAUCE (½ cup) Most are smooth and have a touch of heat. Enrico's Traditional No Salt Added 43 25 * Francesco Rinaldi No Salt Added Traditional 28 40 Trader Giotto's Organic Marinara No Salt Added Low Fat (Trader Joe's) 27 25 Walnut Acres Organic Low Sodium Fat Free Tomato and Basil 23 20 * Two of three samples we analyzed had far more sodium than listed on label, about 160 mg and 250 mg. Posted: December 2008 — Consumer Reports Magazine issue: January 2009

Subscribe now! Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.

Update your feed preferences

When to buy organic

September 21, 2009, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: test

≪ Previous: Sodium quiz, which lower-sodium foods taste best

$

0

0

When to buy organic Fruits and vegetables When to buy organic  In 2006, Americans spent $16.7 billion on organic foods, often fruits and vegetables. Because “organic” can mean “pricey,” it makes sense to focus on buying organic versions of produce that is most likely to harbor pesticide residues when grown conventionally. The table below right lists the 16 worst offenders, based on a new analysis of government data by the Organic Center, a nonprofit research and advocacy group. There’s less need to buy organic versions of other produce, especially bananas, citrus fruits, onions, and pineapples, whose skins or outer leaves aren’t eaten.Organic produce generally costs more than conventional. Organic apples bought by our mystery shoppers at stores in six states cost an average of $2.18 per pound, compared with $1.50 for conventional. Organic loose potatoes were $1.84 per pound; conventional, $1.05. (The price gap was less for bagged potatoes.)Note that imported, conventionally grown fruits and vegetables—particularly cucumbers, grapes, lettuce, nectarines, peaches, and sweet bell peppers—might harbor far higher residues than homegrown counterparts. Even imports labeled organic might be cause for caution because some countries have less-reliable regulatory oversight than the U.S.WHAT’S IN A NAME?The Department of Agriculture says that food labeled organic must be produced without most conventional pesticides and synthetic fertilizers and without antibiotics, growth hormones, genetic engineering, or irradiation. Organic animals must have access to the outdoors and must eat organic feed free of animal byproducts. For products with more than one ingredient (cereal, for example), "100% organic" means all the ingredients were organically produced and processed; "organic," at least 95 percent; "made with organic ingredients," at least 70 percent. The government has less-rigorous standards for organic cosmetics and none for organic seafood.

Subscribe now! Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.

Update your feed preferences

test

September 21, 2009, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: Health benefits of probiotics

≪ Previous: When to buy organic

$

0

0

test test PriceAn approximate retail price.closeLink

Subscribe now! Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.

Update your feed preferences

Health benefits of probiotics

September 21, 2009, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: Diet tactics to avoid

≪ Previous: test

$

0

0

Health benefits of probiotics Health benefits of probioticsSome of the strongest evidence for probiotics comes from research involving people with digestive disorders and allergies. There has been very little published research about healthy people. Here's a brief summary of what is known:Gastrointestinal relief. In clinical studies involving more than 1,900 infants and children with acute diarrhea, mostly from viral infection, various Lactobacillus supplements reduced bouts by about a day. Other studies involving nearly 200 patients with irritable bowel syndrome suggest that taking Lactobacillus acidophilus or other probiotics may relieve major symptoms. Some research indicates that Lactobacillus GG reduces the rate of antibiotic-associated diarrhea in children.Allergies. Research suggests that probiotic bacteria may help alleviate atopic eczema, an allergic reaction to milk or other foods, in some children.Respiratory infections. Research involving more than 500 children ages 1 to 6 who attended day-care centers showed that kids who drank milk with Lactobacillus GG had fewer days of absence because of respiratory infections.Urological infections. Some clinical evidence suggests that yogurt with Lactobacillus acidophilus may boost immune cells that help protect against abnormal microbes in the urogenital tract and help reduce the incidence of vaginal bacterial infections. Yogurt may also help prevent yeast infections.Cancer. Laboratory and animal research suggests that consuming probiotics and prebiotics--nutrients that stimulate probiotic growth--may help prevent cancerous changes in the large intestine and thus help protect against colon cancer.BEHIND THE LABELSLabels can be confusing, incomplete, or wrong. Four of five yogurts and three of four yogurt drinks listed the probiotic genera and species, but none specified the amount. Instead, some yogurt products display the National Yogurt Association's Live & Active Cultures seal, which simply indicates that when manufactured they contained at least 100 million CFUs of viable yogurt bacteria per gram.All of the supplements' labels note genera and species, and most note bacterial count at time of manufacture. But at testing time, 4 of the 14 pill products had no more than half of their claimed number of probiotics, on average. For example, Origin Acidophilus, sold at Target, claimed to have more than 100 million CFUs per serving when produced, but our sample had 20 million. Three of the four liquid supplements listed bacterial count but fell far short of those numbers when we tested.

Subscribe now! Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.

Update your feed preferences

Diet tactics to avoid

September 21, 2009, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: Diets, Diet book Ratings 06/07

≪ Previous: Health benefits of probiotics

$

0

0

Diet tactics to avoid Diet tactics to avoid Despite the hype, these tactics are unlikely to help  Diet pills. Weight-loss pills have a discouraging track record. “Fat burners” such as amphetamines and ephedra have been linked to heart palpitations, strokes, heart attacks, and deaths, even in healthy people.The prescription weight-loss drug sibutramine (Meridia) produces, at best, only modest weight loss compared with regular dieting, and it elevates heart rate and blood pressure.Orlistat (Xenical), a prescription drug that blocks absorption of fat, never became a best seller because of its side effects--oily anal leakage and diarrhea--and because it, too, produced an unimpressive average weight loss. Experts expect even more modest performance from Alli, a new over-the-counter version, because it is only half the strength of the prescription drug.There’s no good clinical evidence for supplements promoted for weight loss, including chromium picolinate and hoodia. To their credit, the books we evaluated did not recommend any of those products.Angel and devil foods. Some diets allow coffee, and some ban it; the same for milk and fruit. Lists of foods with special powers were part of two diet books we reviewed: The Abs Diet’s “Power 12” and the “Top Ten Sonoma Diet Power Foods.”Though it makes sense to purge your diet of junk food, there’s no evidence that the presence or absence of any individual food will make or break a diet of the right calorie level.“It’s never one food. It’s the dietary pattern that’s the key,” said Lisa Sasson, M.S., R.D., clinical assistant professor of nutrition at New York University.The glycemic index. Several of the diet books based their meal plans on the principle of avoiding foods that cause a rapid rise in blood sugar, so-called high-glycemic-index foods.The science behind this is solid: If your blood sugar shoots up abruptly, your body responds by pouring out insulin to get rid of it. That causes your blood sugar to drop, making you feel hungry and crave more food.The trouble is that aside from junk food, “people eat mixed foods rather than single foods,” said Christopher Gardner, Ph.D., assistant professor of medicine at Stanford University.This makes it tough to predict the blood-sugar response.Also, research studies have reached conflicting conclusions about whether cutting the glycemic load of a weight-loss diet actually improves results.If you do want to control your blood sugar, remember that lean proteins, healthy fats, and high-fiber fruits, vegetables, and grains slow down glucose absorption. So if you want to eat a small serving of white bread, white rice, or potatoes, surround them with those slowly absorbed foods.

Subscribe now! Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.

Update your feed preferences

Diets, Diet book Ratings 06/07

September 21, 2009, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: Top diets reviewed

≪ Previous: Diet tactics to avoid

$

0

0

Diets, Diet book Ratings 06/07 Diet books What the experts sayThese seven diet books have never been put to the acid test of a large clinical trial (unlike the diet plan Ratings). We rated them based on an expert-panel questionnaire and our own analysis of nutritional quality.Books are listed in rank order of overall score. Scores of “Eat, Drink, & Weigh Less,” “You on a Diet,” and “The Abs Diet” were very close to one another.All the books offered fairly healthful menus. But when our panelists evaluated the nutrition advice, they found noticeable differences in the restrictiveness of various books. They also found variations in the quality of exercise information and the explanations of the science and nutrition behind the plans.Our nutritional analysis is based on the 2005 U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The guidelines are updated every five years and represent a broad scientific consensus. THE BEST LIFE DIET  Bob Greene (Simon & Schuster) $26 What it is The diet's first phase involves exercise and a recommended eating schedule. Calorie reduction starts in phase two. You eat enough healthful foods to satisfy hunger but no more. Includes tools to customize diet and exercise plans.Pros and cons Reviewers liked personalized advice and section on exercise. Extensive discussion of "emotional eating" might help some. Dieters might be discouraged when they don't lose weight in phase one. Straightforward recipes use common ingredients. Rating Overall score............... Expert evaluation Science............... Nutrition............. Exercise............. Ease of use............. Meal plans............. Nutrition analysis............. Percent of calories   Fat................................ 30 Saturated fat................. 6 Carbohydrates............. 47 Protein.......................... 23 Fiber, g/1,000 cal. .......... 22 Fruits & veg., daily serv.. 8 Average daily calories..... 1,520 EAT, DRINK, & WEIGH LESS  Mollie Katzen and Walter Willett, M.D. (Hyperion) $14.95 What it is Harvard nutrition researcher Walter Willett teamed up with cookbook author Mollie Katzen for this book based on the Mediterranean diet. Premise is that by “mindfully” following this diet, you can lose weight while enjoying eating. Little full-fat dairy or red meat. Up to one egg and one glass of wine a day.Pros and cons Sample diet had 1,910 calories per day--too many to allow most people to lose weight. Reviewers liked book’s scientific accuracy but thought the exercise chapter too brief. Rating Overall score............... Expert evaluation Science............... Nutrition............. Exercise............. Ease of use............. Meal plans............. Nutrition analysis............. Percent of calories   Fat................................ 39 Saturated fat................. 8 Carbohydrates............. 45 Protein.......................... 17 Fiber, g/1,000 cal. .......... 19 Fruits & veg., daily serv.. 16 Average daily calories..... 1,910 YOU ON A DIET  Michael F. Roizen, M.D., and Mehmet C. Oz, M.D. (Simon & Schuster) $25 What it is The physician-authors devote more than half the book to background on appetite, metabolism, and behavior. Diet starts with a two-week “rebooting program.” Monotonous breakfasts and lunches cut down cravings. Sugar, saturated fat, and refined flour products are banned.Pros and cons Most reviewers thought the diet lacked detail and was too restrictive, and some were skeptical that habits can change for good in two weeks. Most recipes were very simple. Rating Overall score............... Expert evaluation Science............... Nutrition............. Exercise............. Ease of use............. Meal plans............. Nutrition analysis............. Percent of calories   Fat................................ 33 Saturated fat................. 6 Carbohydrates............. 48 Protein.......................... 19 Fiber, g/1,000 cal. .......... 18 Fruits & veg., daily serv.. 13 Average daily calories..... 1,520 THE ABS DIET  David Zinczenko with Ted Spiker (Rodale) $15.95 What it is Written by the editor of Men’s Health magazine, the diet promises “a six-pack in 6 weeks” by eating six meals a day featuring “power 12” foods. Includes about 100 pages of illustrated exercises.Pros and cons Reviewers were skeptical of the promise of rapid weight loss and disliked emphasis on whey supplements. Fitness program deemed easy to follow but possibly too strenuous for beginners and more appealing to men. Rating Overall score............... Expert evaluation Science............... Nutrition............. Exercise............. Ease of use............. Meal plans............. Nutrition analysis............. Percent of calories   Fat................................ 27 Saturated fat................. 7 Carbohydrates............. 49 Protein.......................... 24 Fiber, g/1,000 cal. .......... 20 Fruits & veg., daily serv.. 7 Average daily calories..... 1,890 THE SOUTH BEACH DIET  Arthur Agatston, M.D. (Rodale) $24.95 What it is Slightly more permissive version of the Atkins diet is based on the premise that eating low-glycemic foods decreases cravings for sugar and refined carbs. In the first phase, fruits, sugar, and grains are banned. Phase two allows some fruit, high-fiber grains, and dark chocolate.Pros and cons Reviewers thought the simplicity of diet would appeal to some but criticized overuse of the glycemic index and the too-short exercise section. Recipes seemed easy to prepare, but some called for unusual ingredients. Rating Overall score............... Expert evaluation Science............... Nutrition............. Exercise............. Ease of use............. Meal plans............. Nutrition analysis............. Percent of calories   Fat................................ 39 Saturated fat................. 9 Carbohydrates............. 38 Protein.......................... 22 Fiber, g/1,000 cal. .......... 19 Fruits & veg., daily serv.. 13 Average daily calories..... 1,340 THE SONOMA DIET  Connie Guttersen, R.D., Ph.D. (Meredith) $24.95 What it is An updated lower-carb diet with a Mediterranean theme, its 10-day “wave 1” bans most sweet or refined foods. The longer wave 2, where most weight loss takes place, permits fruits and wine. You calculate portions by filling sectors of small plates with specified food categories.Pros and cons Reviewers found the overall diet healthful but complex and needlessly restrictive. They felt the book stinted on exercise. Recipes were rather elaborate to prepare. Rating Overall score............... Expert evaluation Science............... Nutrition............. Exercise............. Ease of use............. Meal plans............. Nutrition analysis............. Percent of calories   Fat................................ 36 Saturated fat................. 8 Carbohydrates............. 39 Protein.......................... 24 Fiber, g/1,000 cal. .......... 20 Fruits & veg., daily serv.. 10 Average daily calories..... 1,390 ULTRA-METABOLISM  Mark Hyman, M.D. (Scribner) $25 What it is The author designed the diet around his theory that people get fat because their systems become toxic, inflamed, stressed, and imbalanced. Initial “detox” phase and longer “rebalancing” phase. Eliminate: white rice, refined grains, grain-fed or processed red meats, caffeinated beverages.Pros and cons Reviewers felt book’s theory goes beyond scientific evidence and was overly restrictive and complicated. Exercise section judged somewhat brief but practical. Rating Overall score............... Expert evaluation Science............... Nutrition............. Exercise............. Ease of use............. Meal plans............. Nutrition analysis............. Percent of calories   Fat................................ 41 Saturated fat................. 8 Carbohydrates............. 41 Protein.......................... 18 Fiber, g/1,000 cal. .......... 22 Fruits & veg., daily serv.. 12 Average daily calories..... 1,660

Subscribe now! Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.

Update your feed preferences

---

Top diets reviewed

September 21, 2009, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: Key behaviors of those who successfully lost weight.

≪ Previous: Diets, Diet book Ratings 06/07

$

0

0

Top diets reviewed Top diets reviewed We rate the diet books and plans. Plus: 8 strategies that work   VIDEO: Dieter's KitchenAll videos Americans don’t give up easily. Those hoping to lose weight have put a whole new crop of diet books on the best-seller list. The science-laden “You on a Diet,” the wine lover’s “Sonoma Diet,” the manly “Abs Diet,” and the kinder, gentler, Oprah Winfrey-endorsed “Best Life Diet” are just some of the recent titles.We have rated those four and other popular diet books, based on our nutritional analysis and the critiques of a panel of diet experts. None of these books has yet been put to the acid test of a large clinical trial. Our analysis found that most provided good nutrition advice, but the panel perceived real differences in their quality of information. Some of the experts, for instance, thought that some nutritional theories in “UltraMetabolism” didn’t have solid science behind them.We also have some new winners among diet plans that have been studied in clinical trials, reflecting data published since our 2005 diet Ratings. Our top-rated diet is “The Volumetrics Eating Plan” by Barbara Rolls, Ph.D., a professor in the department of nutritional sciences at The Pennsylvania State University.Weight Watchers came in second, with Jenny Craig a very close third (see Diet plans, available to subscribers).We’ll also brief you on the real progress that scientists have made in identifying eating patterns and behavioral tricks that help at least some dieters cut calories without feeling too deprived. Most of those strategies appear in the diet books we evaluated. Whether those insights will translate into a widespread improvement in weight-loss success remains to be seen. But if you’re looking to shed pounds, there’s some solid science on which to base your choice of a diet plan or book, or create a do-it-yourself approach.SuccessFUL LOSERSThe basic formula for losing weight has not changed: Consume fewer calories than you burn—about 500 fewer every day, to lose about a pound a week. Not an easy task, however, or why would legions of people try, fail, and fail again in their weight-loss efforts?But it’s not impossible. The Consumer Reports National Research Center’s survey of CR subscribers, published in June 2002, found that 25 percent of respondents who had ever tried to lose weight did shed at least 10 percent of their starting weight and kept it off for a year or more.Successful dieters are finally getting a little attention from scientists, who are examining what those people do to control their weight. This is a welcome change from the many decades of weight-loss research that consisted of scientists coming up with low-calorie, low-fat diets and proving that they would work if people followed them strictly. That was the rub, of course. Most people could not follow them strictly for very long. Pioneering researchers are now seeking practical ways to help dieters feel full without consuming too many calories.These efforts have begun to produce practical, evidence-based tips for do-it-yourself dieters who are attempting to lose weight on their own, without the help of any formal program or counseling. None of these will work for everyone, but you should be able to find some that will work for you. 1 Start rightWhile dieters might prefer to save calories by skipping breakfast, eating a substantial morning meal is recommended by every diet book we analyzed. Seventy-eight percent of the successful losers at the National Weight Control Registry say they eat breakfast, typically some cereal and fruit. The Registry, which enrolls people who can document that they have lost more than 30 pounds and kept it off for at least a year, has more than 5,000 members. 2 Choose (and limit) your fatsMany diet experts have backed away from avoiding fats, though this traditional approach is still used by very low-fat plans such as Dean Ornish’s “Eat More, Weigh Less” and the diet endorsed by the Pritikin Longevity Center. Some research shows that a very low-fat diet can slow the progression of heart disease and breast and prostate cancer. But the dropout rate from that type of diet is high.Scientists now distinguish good fats from bad, based on copious evidence about their effect on blood cholesterol. Most of the popular diet books we analyzed warn against eating “bad” fat, including trans fats created when vegetable oil is hydrogenated, and the saturated fats from meat and dairy sources. Good fats include olive and other monounsaturated oils, nuts, avocados, and omega-3 oils from seafood and plant sources.But good or bad, all fats have big calorie counts. They contain 9 calories per gram, compared with 4 per gram for carbohydrates and protein. The diet menu in “Eat, Drink, and Weigh Less” recommends liberally consuming healthy fats. But when we analyzed the meal plan, it totaled 1,910 calories per day, about 40 percent of them from fat, which would make weight loss unlikely for many people. 3 Eat healthfully—but sparinglyBacked by a growing body of research, nutritionists have come to a rough consensus on what a truly healthful diet looks like: Eat plenty of fruits and vegetables, and some lean meat and fish, healthy fats, and whole grains. And minimize refined grains, potatoes, full-fat dairy products, and added sweeteners—especially in the form of soft drinks. Studies of large populations the world over have shown that this diet reduces the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and certain cancers.With minor variations, all the diet books we evaluated recommended some version of this eating plan—and their uniformly high ratings for nutrition reflect that. But they didn’t seem “willing to emphasize calories, or tell people to ‘eat less,’” said Rena Wing, Ph.D., a professor in the department of psychiatry and human behavior at Brown University’s medical school and a founder of the National Weight Control Registry.The bottom line is that no matter how “healthy” your diet is, you still have to restrict quantities to lose weight. “The Best Life Diet,” which got top marks from our reviewers, provides detailed instructions on proper serving sizes for many different types of foods. 4 Crank up the activityTo control weight from exercise alone requires a devotion that few nonathletes can summon: 60 to 90 minutes a day of moderate to vigorous exercise. But increasing the time you spend out of your chair—in formal exercise and activities such as housework and yard work—helps you burn at least some calories. And an active lifestyle will help you maintain your weight loss. National Weight Control Registry participants report doing about an hour a day of moderate-intensity exercise, like brisk walking. Of the books we evaluated, “You on a Diet,” “The Best Life Diet,” and “The Abs Diet” got high marks for their clear and detailed sections on exercise. 5 Consider cutting carbsVirtually all diets restrict or eliminate “bad” highly refined carbs such as white bread, cookies, chips, and soft drinks. But a wholesale cutback on grains, fruits, and the sweeter vegetables, such as beets and carrots, was first popularized by the Atkins diet. Recent research has found that for up to a year, some people can indeed safely lose weight on Atkins. In the most recent study, published in the March 7, 2007, Journal of the American Medical Association, 311 overweight women were randomly assigned to one of four diets: Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and a control group on a traditional low-fat menu plus various behavioral strategies. On some measures, Atkins dieters came out ahead. “They had better triglyceride lowering than Zone dieters, better HDL raising than Ornish, and better blood-pressure lowering than all three,” said Christopher Gardner, Ph.D., assistant professor of medicine at Stanford University, director of the study. But while Atkins dieters lost modestly more weight than Zone dieters, at 12 months their weight loss was similar to those on the Ornish or control diet.Very low-carb diets are not for everyone. As Gardner points out, at least some participants lost 30 pounds and kept it off for a year on all the diets in the study. Successful losers in the National Weight Control Registry overwhelmingly report that they consume plenty of carbs while restricting fat and portions. 6 Fill up on low-density foodsOne way to spare calories and still eat a satisfying amount of food is to focus your diet on foods that have fewer calories per bite, or low “energy density.”Starting your meals with a low-calorie soup or salad and eating main dishes that are full of vegetables and fruits are the main tactics of the low-density diet.Using government food consumption surveys, researcher Barbara Rolls has shown that people who eat a low-energy-density diet consume hundreds fewer calories per day than those with a high-density diet, yet eat a greater amount of food. And in research on volunteers in her Penn State lab, Rolls has found that consuming a low-density diet helps people lose weight and keeps them thinner. “Volumetrics,” based on this research, has now been studied in clinical trials and finished at the top of our diet Ratings.Whether they say so explicitly or not, many of the other diets and books we evaluated recommend strategies to reduce the energy density of food. People on the Weight Watchers point system, for instance, soon learn that if they spend too many of their daily point allotment on calorie-dense foods, they’ll go to bed hungry. “The Sonoma Diet” sternly limits dieters to no more than 3 teaspoons of olive or canola oil per day but permits unlimited quantities of low-calorie-density vegetables such as broccoli, spinach, and tomatoes. The Ornish diet, which bans fats almost completely, had the lowest energy density of any that we studied. 7 Bring back the scaleMany of the books we reviewed discourage the practice of daily, or even weekly, weigh-ins, at least in the initial stages of a weight-loss diet. But 75 percent of National Weight Control Registry members weigh themselves at least weekly. “They remain vigilant about their weight loss,” Wing said. “It seems likely that if they gain a pound or two, they take steps to lose it before it can accumulate.” 8 Bore yourself thinThough many books promise readers they’ll be eating a huge variety of foods, in practice they limit variety of high-calorie foods. “The South Beach Diet,” “The Sonoma Diet,” and “UltraMetabolism” were especially restrictive in their severe initial phases.Since variety stimulates the appetite, the more monotonous your diet, the less you’ll eat. So steer clear of buffet tables, which can be the dieter’s worst enemy.

Subscribe now! Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.

Update your feed preferences

Key behaviors of those who successfully lost weight.

September 21, 2009, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: Stay-thin strategies

≪ Previous: Top diets reviewed

$

0

0

Key behaviors of those who successfully lost weight. Weight loss is a highly individual process, and what matters most is finding the combination of habits that work for you. But our findings suggest that there are key behaviors common to people who have successfully lost weight and to those who have never gained it in the first place. By embracing some or all of those behaviors, you can probably increase your chances of weight-loss success, and live a healthier life in the process. In addition to following the steps above, consider these tips: Don't get discouraged Studies show that prospective dieters often have unrealistic ideas about how much weight they can lose. A 10 percent loss might not sound like much, but it significantly improves overall health and reduces risk of disease. Ask for support Though only a small minority of respondents overall reported that a spouse or family member interfered with their healthful eating efforts, that problem was much more likely among failed dieters, 31 percent of whom reported some form of spousal sabotage in the month prior to the survey. Ask housemates to help you stay on track by, for example, not pestering you to eat foods you're trying to avoid, or not eating those foods in front of you. Get up and move While regular vigorous exercise correlated most strongly with healthy body weight, our findings suggest that any physical activity is helpful, including activities you might not even consider exercise. Everyday activities such as housework, yard work, and playing with kids were modestly tied to lower weight. By contrast, hours spent sitting each day, whether at an office desk or at home watching television, correlated with higher weight. Posted: January 2009 — Consumer Reports Magazine issue: February 2009

Subscribe now! Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.

Update your feed preferences

Stay-thin strategies

September 21, 2009, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: Diet plan: 6 secrets of the slim

≪ Previous: Key behaviors of those who successfully lost weight.

$

0

0

Stay-thin strategies Lifetime weight history   Successful losers and the always thin do a lot of the same things—and they do them more frequently than failed dieters do. For the dietary strategies below, numbers reflect those who said they ate that way at least five days a week, a key tipping point, our analysis found. (Differences of less than 4 percentage points are not statistically meaningful.) Lifetime weight history Failed dieters Overweight and have tried to lose, but still close to highest weight. Always thin Never overweight. Successful losers Once overweight but now at least 10 percent lighter, and have kept pounds off for at least three years. Posted: January 2009 — Consumer Reports Magazine issue: February 2009

Subscribe now! Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.

Update your feed preferences

Diet plan: 6 secrets of the slim

September 21, 2009, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: Realistic expectations: A key to dieting success

≪ Previous: Stay-thin strategies

$

0

0

Diet plan: 6 secrets of the slim Through statistical analyses, we were able to identify six key behaviors that correlated the most strongly with having a healthy body mass index (BMI), a measure of weight that takes height into account. Always-thin people were only slightly less likely than successful losers to embrace each of the behaviors—and significantly more likely to do so than failed dieters. By following the behaviors, you can, quite literally, live like a thin person. Watch portions Of all the eating behaviors we asked about, carefully controlling portion size at each meal correlated most strongly with having a lower BMI. Successful losers—even those who were still overweight—were especially likely (62 percent) to report practicing portion control at least five days per week. So did 57 percent of the always thin, but only 42 percent of failed dieters. Limit fat Specifically, that means restricting fat to less than one-third of daily calorie intake. Fifty-three percent of successful losers and 47 percent of the always thin said they did that five or more days a week, compared with just 35 percent of failed dieters. Eat fruits and vegetables The more days that respondents ate five or more servings of fruits or vegetables, the lower their average BMI score. Forty-nine percent of successful losers and the always thin said they ate that way at least five days a week, while 38 percent of failed dieters did so. Choose whole grains over refined People with lower body weights consistently opted for whole-wheat breads, cereals, and other grains over refined (white) grains. Eat at home As the number of days per week respondents ate restaurant or take-out meals for dinner increased, so did their weight. Eating at home can save a lot of money, too. See our tips for cooking healthful meals on a budget. Exercise, exercise, exercise Regular vigorous exercise—the type that increases breathing and heart rate for 30 minutes or longer—was strongly linked to a lower BMI. Although only about one-quarter of respondents said they did strength training at least once a week, that practice was significantly more prevalent among successful losers (32 percent) and always-thin respondents (31 percent) than it was among failed dieters (23 percent). What didn't matter One weight-loss strategy is conspicuously absent from the list: going low-carb. Of course we asked about it, and it turned out that limiting carbohydrates was linked to higher BMIs in our survey. That doesn't necessarily mean low-carb plans such as the Atkins or South Beach diets don't work. "If you go to the hospital and everyone there is sick, that doesn't mean the hospital made them sick," says Eric C. Westman, M.D., associate professor of medicine and director of the Lifestyle Medicine Clinic at Duke University Medical School. "Just as people go to hospitals because they're ill, people may go to carb restriction because they have a higher BMI, not the other way around." At the same time, the findings do suggest that cutting carbs alone, without other healthful behaviors such as exercise and portion control, might not lead to great results. Eating many small meals, or never eating between meals, didn't seem to make much difference one way or another. Including lean protein with most meals also didn't by itself predict a healthier weight. Posted: January 2009 — Consumer Reports Magazine issue: February 2009

Subscribe now! Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.

Update your feed preferences

Realistic expectations: A key to dieting success

September 21, 2009, 1:10 pm

≫ Next: Dieting on a budget

≪ Previous: Diet plan: 6 secrets of the slim

$

0

0

Realistic expectations: A key to dieting success Sixty-six percent of our respondents, all subscribers to Consumer Reports, were overweight as assessed by their body mass index; that's the same percentage as the population as a whole. One-third of the overweight group, or 22 percent of the overall sample, qualified as obese. Although that might seem discouraging, the survey actually contains good news for would-be dieters. Our respondents did much better at losing weight than published clinical studies would predict. Though such studies are deemed successful if participants are 5 percent lighter after a year, our successful losers had managed to shed an average of 16 percent of their peak weight, an average of almost 34 pounds. They had an impressive average BMI of 25.7, meaning they were just barely overweight. One key to weight-loss success is having realistic goals, and our subscribers' responses proved encouraging. A staggering 70 percent of them said they currently wanted to lose weight. But when we asked how many pounds they hoped to take off, we found that their goals were modest: The vast majority reported wanting to lose 15 percent or less of their overall body weight; 65 percent sought to lose between 1 and 10 percent. Keeping expectations in check might help dieters from becoming discouraged when they don't achieve, say, a 70-pound weight loss or drop from a size 20 to a size 6—a common problem in behavioral weight-loss studies. Posted: January 2009 — Consumer Reports Magazine issue: February 2009

Subscribe now! Subscribe to ConsumerReports.org for expert Ratings, buying advice and reliability on hundreds of products.

Update your feed preferences