eating your way to health

8/9/2019 Eating Your Way to Health

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/eating-your-way-to-health 1/8

SUMMER 2010

EATING YOUR WAY TO

HEALTH PETER J. PITTS

Global Head

Regulatory and Health Policy

MARY CHRIST-ERWIN

Partner

Porter Novelli Public Services



2Eating Our Way to Health | PORTER NOVELLI | AMPLIFY

MAGE (TOP TO BOTTOM) PROVIDED BY CREATIVE COMMONS/FRAPESTAARTJE; BEN STEPHENSON, VICCI



3Eating Our Way to Health |PORTER NOVELLI | AMPLIFY

WHAT ABOUT

BETTER HEALTH

Trough Better Nutrition? A new report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the National Research Council (NRC) says

the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) isn’t able to deal with the nation’s food supply

problems.

To conclude that the FDA needs to do more more efficiently does not, shall we say, provide a

memorable “aha!” moment.

The report offers Congress – which commissioned the report – some food for thought as itprepares to tackle FDA reform this year. The IOM concludes that in order for the FDA to better

ensure food safety, legislative and organizational changes may be necessary. Most notably, it

says, Congress should consider taking legislative action to provide the FDA with the additional

authority it needs to fulfill its food safety mission. Within the FDA, authority over field activities

should shift from its Office of Regulatory Affairs to its Office of Foods. Such a change will

ensure that responsibility lies with well-trained personnel with specialized expertise in food

safety and risk-based principles of food safety management, says the IOM.

Thus far, government efforts to promote better food safety have been made with expanded

recall powers and more numerous inspections. But more needs to be done.

America’s health also depends on having better information about the food they’re eating –

particularly in today’s era of genetically modified foods with nutritional nanotechnology,

probiotics and other functions. Reformers must recognize this new reality and ensure that the

FDA reform capitalizes on using food as a potent tool for better health.

PETER J. PITTSGlobal Head of Regulatory and Health Policy

Porter Novelli New York

[email protected] | 212.601.8208

MARY CHRIST-ERWINPartner

Porter Novelli Public Ser vices, Washington, DC

[email protected] | 202.973.3601




An informed consumer makes better, healthier

choices. And nowhere is this more true or

important than when it comes to the foods we

buy, the meals we prepare and the snacks we

eat. Knowledge about health unleashes the

power of health. More information leads to

better choices.

Our nation is facing a crisis and its name is

obesity. Many experts believe that nearly two-

thirds of American are overweight – many of

them children. And the battle is clearly being

fought on the home front. Seventy-six percent

of all meals are prepared at home. If we canhelp America shop healthfully, we can begin

to turn the tide against the enemy of obesity.

Back in July 2003, the FDA-issued Task Force

on Consumer Health Information for Better

Nutrition Initiative report concluded that

government efforts to fight poor nutrition –

and the conditions and diseases like obesity

and hypertension that go along with it –

would be doomed unless the agency providedconsumers with better information about

their food.

“A better-informed public, supported by

effective, science-based regulation of health

information, would be expected to make better

nutritional choices,” the 2003 report said.

The statement remains a sound hypothesis

and a noble mission, but, unfortunately, the

road to better health through better nutrition

remains paved only with good intentions.

This needs to change.

Most lawmakers seem to think that shuffling

the responsibilities of government agencies

charged with regulating public health is the

answer.

Present FDA reform efforts have fallen preyto this brand of thinking. For instance, the

IOM/NRC report called for the creation of a

new “single food agency” as the cure-all for

the FDA’s food problems.

The debate over a single food agency simply

distracts reformers from changes that could

improve Americans’ health - like improved

dissemination of nutritional information.

As Americans stroll through supermarket

aisles, they must have accurate, helpful and

understandable information about the most

important nutritional and health implications

of the products on the shelves.

“FOOD FOR THOUGHT IS NOSUBSTITUTE FOR THE REAL THING.”

- WALT KELLY

MAGE PROVIDED BY CREATIVE COMMONS/SIMON SHEK




IMAGE PROVIDED BY CREATIVE COMMONS/RE

In 1990 Congress passed the Nutrition

Labeling and Education Act (NLEA), which

established the FDA-regulated Nutrition

Facts Panel (what most civilians refer to as

“the food label) “to assist consumers with

healthy dietary practices.” The fact that the

“E” in NLEA remains silent continues to

go sadly unrecognized, unreported – and

unaddressed. While reading food labels has

become a routine aspect of every trip to the

grocery store, the FDA has done little to

advance the equally important educational

component of the law. And that’s a real

disservice to the public health.

The future of nutrition and diet/disease

relationships is evolving very rapidly. Science

is exploring opportunities for improving

the health consequences of nutrition that

range from a better understanding of the

impact of general dietary patterns for the

U.S. population as a whole to the specific

understanding of how an individual’s

genetic makeup interacts with food andthe environment – dubbed “nutritional

metabolomics” – increasing the ability to

“design” foods and diets for individuals to

maximize health.

As part of the NLEA, Congress gave the

FDA the option of establishing a different

standard for health claims for dietary

supplements labels as compared with

that which Congress had provided for

conventional foods. The FDA determined

that the best course of action was to use the

same standard for both dietary supplements

and conventional foods. This decision was

motivated by public health considerations:

All consumers eat conventional foods and

most use dietary supplements; inconsistent

standards would lead to consumer confusion

and biased consumption choices. So, currentregulations for health claims apply equally to

dietary supplements and conventional foods.

In setting the rules for health claims,

Congress provided for the FDA to authorize

health claims when the agency determined,

based on the totality of publicly available

scientific evidence (including evidence

from well-designed studies conducted in a

manner consistent with generally recognizedscientific procedures and principles), that

there is significant scientific agreement (SSA),

among experts qualified by scientific training

and experience to evaluate such claims that




MAGE PROVIDED BY CREATIVE COMMONS/PICKINJIM2006

the claim is supported by such evidence.

Under existing regulations, health claims

are put in place through a petition processby which the FDA reviews the science that

both supports and opposes the claim, and

determines whether to authorize the claim

through notice-and-comment rulemaking.

The tension between First Amendment

protection of commercial speech and

appropriate regulatory oversight has not only

delayed claims from moving forward but has

hindered industry’s ability to communicateabout its products health benefits.

Scientifically supported claims need to move

forward. The FDA has the authority - but has

chosen not to use it, instead falling back on

the old excuse of “more data required.”

One of the key issues crippling the nutritional

claims process is our current philosophy

of holding food science to a drug science

model. Today it’s almost impossible to get

a health claim approved, for example, as

observational data simply isn’t acknowledged

as sufficient. New research methodologies

are critically needed and it’s imperative that

government, universities and appropriate

scientific organizations come together to put

the best and brightest minds to the task of

navigating a path forward to new ways – and

new means – of designing, analyzing and

interpreting food and nutrition research.

There needs to be more expertise at the table –

the usual suspects are not getting the job

done. The fundamentals of what’s in our food

and why has been discussed ad nauseum –

but only to the extent of what’s wrong with our

food supply versus what’s right and how we

reconcile an obese population with consumer

demand for more convenient, great tasting,

affordable and healthy options.

Informed consumers make better choices,

certainly. But consumers are generally

provided only part of the story. Nanotech,

probiotics, etc. are critically important

moving forward if industry (with appropriate

government oversight) is to deliver against the

multiple demands being made upon the food

supply for enhanced nutrition with contained

calorie levels and safety. The nutrition side

of the story requires varying degrees of

processing, a word that, today, fundamentally

means “bad” or at least “less healthy.” Food

science and technology experts must be

brought to the table to help policy makers,

public health officials and other involved

constituencies understand how food is both




“LET YOUR FOOD BE YOUR MEDICINE,AND YOUR MEDICINE BE YOUR FOOD.”

- HIPPOCRATES

IMAGE PROVIDED BY CREATIVE COMMONS/EM

produced and protected. Not only would this

be an important addition to the nutrition and

obesity debates, it can offer (in context) allof the exciting things that are happening in

enhanced nutrition and safety.

Today, the generally accepted strategy is to

impose parameters and regulations versus

striving to understand what consumers

respond to and how to better design programs

and policies that positively influence behavior.

We all need to look at who is communicating

effectively with consumers, learn from thosebest practices, identify research gaps and

focus on how public/private partnerships can

work together to create a small-steps plan

to advance with purpose and impact. For

example, First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s

Move” initiative lays out all of the things

industry should do to restage, modify and

innovate the food supply, but to what degree

are those with the expertise and ability to

execute on these objectives involved? What

will these changes require? What will they

cost? And what is the time frame in which they

can happen? From nutrition and food safety

policy to educational initiatives, our national

conversation has become a series of edicts

that, given history, will become the sound

and the fury, signifying – and achieving –

nothing. The time for sound bites is over.

We’ve learned over and over again that

information, clearly communicated, can

change even the most entrenched behavior –

that peoplewillmake better, healthier choices.

And when coupled with appropriate public

health policies and consumer protections,

industry responds to the demands of

consumers and the new insights of science.

The public health challenges are great, but

the opportunities to make a real difference

for the health of the public have also never

been greater.

Making foods “safer” is important and the

IOM’s recommendations should be heeded,

but delay in communicating about the health

benefits of foods is a real disservice to public

health. Lawmakers are rightly concerned

about the FDA’s ability to ensure the safety ofthe nation’s food supply. But a safe food supply

means little if consumers lack appropriate

information about the food they’re eating.

Reformers should act accordingly.



Porter Novelli Global Headquarters75 Varick Street, 6th FloorNew York, NY 10013Direct 212.601.8000Fax 212.601.8101

www.porternovelli.com

ront cover image (top to bottom) provided by Creative Commons/Joelogon, Bruno Girin, Orangejack

k i (t t b tt ) id d b C ti C /D 1967 O k O k

eating your way to health

Documents