Basically, the companies receiving these letters did one of two things wrong. Let me present these two issues and give a few examples for each and then tell you what I think about all of this.

Issue #1: The product label bears a nutrient content claim but does not meet the requirements to make the claim. Specifically if the product package includes the claim “0 grams trans fat” and the product contains more than 13 grams of total fat, 4 grams of saturated fat or 480 mg of sodium per labeled serving, it must include a disclosure statement on the label, adjacent to the claim, referring the consumer to nutrition information for those nutrients.

Here are a few examples:

* Gorton’s Beer Batter Crispy Battered Fish Fillet: They make the “0 grams trans fat” claim without a disclosure statement when a serving of the product contains 19 g total fat, 4.5 g saturated fat and 680 mg sodium per serving.

* Dreyer’s Nestle Drumstick Classic Vanilla Fudge and Dreyer’s Dibs Bite Size Ice Cream Snacks Vanilla Ice Cream with Nestle Crunch Coating: The package label states “O grams trans Fat” but the products contain 19 grams total fat; 10 grams saturated fat (Drumstick) and 28 grams total fat, 20 grams saturated fat (Dibs).

* Spectrum Organic All Vegetable Shortening: This product doesn’t meet the requirement for the use of the term “cholesterol free” on its label because the product contains 6 grams of saturated fat per tablespoon (it exceeds the limit of 2 grams or less saturated fat per Reference Amount Customarily Consumed)… and it doesn’t comply with the requirements for making the claim “less saturated fat than butter.”

Issue #2: The therapeutic claims on their website established that the product is a drug because it is intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease.

* *Salada Naturally Decaf Green Tea (Redco Foods): Their website promotes their tea products for conditions that cause them to be drugs under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. For example, they make the statement that green tea can inhibit the cancer process and regulate cholesterol levels.

* Diamond of California Shelled Walnuts: Again, the FDA determined, based on claims made on their website, that their walnuts products are promoted for conditions that cause them to be drugs. Here are some of the statements made on their website that FDA mentioned specifically:

o “Studies indicate that the omega-3 fatty acids found in walnuts may help lower cholesterol; protect against heart disease, stroke and some cancers; ease arthritis and other inflammatory diseases; and even fight depression and other mental illnesses.”

o “In treating major depression, for example, omega-3s seem to work by making it easier for brain cell receptors to process mood-related signals from neighboring
neurons.”

o “There’s good evidence that omega-3s can increase HDL (good cholesterol), further reducing the risk of stroke and heart disease.”

So what do I think about all of this? I totally understand FDA going after processed food products like frozen desserts or breaded fish fillets boasting “0 grams trans fat” when they are still high in total fat and saturated fat. Job well done here, although they are really only asking for the companies to add a disclosure statement to correct this. CSPI and other nutrition experts like myself would ideally want them to ban the statement entirely in a product exceeding the total fat and saturated fat guidelines.

And I would understand them going after companies stating “made with whole wheat,” when the product only contains a small portion of whole wheat – but then they didn’t go after these companies in this go-around.

But I’m not so thrilled about them going after companies selling whole foods like olive oil, walnuts and green tea. I am trying to move people toward eating more whole foods – foods that offer phytochemicals and other potentially helpful food components such as fiber and monounsaturated fat – instead of processed foods. These companies mostly got in trouble for the information they include on their websites. Maybe it’s just me, but I am much more concerned about what is being stated on product labels than on company websites.

As far as information on websites, I understand that health information and study results presented should clearly state whether the evidence is “suggestive” or “preliminary.” But in some cases I think consumers actually benefit from seeing some of this new information as it is emerging, especially if the bottom line is leading them to consume more whole foods. If we all waited for the government to review study evidence and make their all important “health claims” for various nutrient and disease associations, some of this potentially powerful information might not get out to those interested for another decade.

What do you think? What are some of the most outrageous health claims you have seen on food packages?