Milling & Baking News - February 1, 2005 - 7

E D I T O R I A L

After the Dietary Guidelines: An industry agenda
Continued from Page 1
prohibited the U.S. Department of Agriculture from saying
anything untoward about "wholesome foods." That move
was taken in response to negative attitudes within the Department toward flour-based foods. Without advocating
this legislative approach, it's fair to say that congressional
representatives from wheat growing states have not been
persuaded to rally behind the grain-based foods industry.
That must change. Additionally, it is difficult not to wonder
to what degree the negativity toward enriched grains would
have been incorporated into the Dietary Guidelines had the
document not been drafted in the "Year of Atkins." It truly
appears that whole grain zealots successfully rode this wave,
convincing the U.S.D.A. to ignore its historical approach
built on pragmatic and incremental changes. Compared to
the Atkins bashing of grains, the U.S.D.A. may consider its
new recommendations as moderate rather than the radical,
unproven one it is. Nearly half of today's consumers eat no
whole grains at all. Five years from now, Americans will not
be consuming an average of three servings of whole grains
per day, which is the official recommendation.
2. Take it to the people. If the government won't
acknowledge the healthfulness of enriched grains, the
industry must find other ways to communicate the message. The Grain Foods Foundation is the right vehicle,
and enriched grains must be the focus of its campaign.
The typical consumer is not hard set in their beliefs about
enriched grains, which means the industry has an opportunity to interact with an open-minded public. There are
those in the industry who believe that promoting whole
grains is smarter. That is misguided. The government and
nutrition community are doing that already. There is no
one outside the industry defending enriched grains, the
products on which the industry's current fortunes rest.
3. Introduce attractive whole grain products. Grain-based
foods should not miss any avenue for growth, and whole
grains certainly are one that must not be ignored. Neither
should consumers' historic resistance to whole grains. Partnering with ingredient makers to introduce new products that
capture the imagination of consumers is a great opportunity.
4. Celebrate whole grains. Grain-based foods is the
industry that can bring whole grains to the people. The
demonstrated healthfulness should be celebrated.
5. But not at the expense of enriched grain foods. Failing in this tricky balance accounts largely for the lack of
success of those companies introducing low-carbohydrate
products. Distinguishing between "good carbs" and "bad
carbs" was ineffective for pasta makers and remains the
wrong tack for grain-based foods. The wholesome benefits
of enriched grains must not be debased.
6. Pursue science. The grain-based foods industry should
make a long-term commitment to supporting research that
truly seeks to answer questions about the healthfulness of
enriched products. Most studies today seek to demonstrate
the opposite. The state of nutrition knowledge remains very
imprecise, a fact that faddists have taken advantage of for
decades at the industry's expense.
7. Attack critics of enriched grains. Many of these are
nutritionists frustrated by the public's continuing love affair
bakingbusiness.com / world-grain.com

with enriched grains and indifference toward whole grains.
Unable to move consumers on the issue, an alarming number of nutritionists have turned their fury toward producers of enriched grain foods. This antagonism is difficult to
exaggerate, and the grain-based foods industry should not
lull itself into underestimating the degree to which enriched
grains are the targets of this group's attack. How else can one
explain the stunningly muted response to the extraordinary
success of the fortification of enriched grains with folic acid?
The enmity of the nutrition community toward enriched
grains was perhaps epitomized in a 2003 study published
in the Journal of Clinical Nutrition in which two University of
Minnesota researchers had sought to prove that consumption of refined grains is directly associated with death from
all causes. While the study failed to prove its hypothesis, an
accompanying editorial still urged minimizing consumption
of refined grains. More important than its results is the baleful attitude bared by the study. What kind of a twisted mindset seeks to prove that enriched grains, the leading source of
so many nutrients in the American diet, are deadly? Nutritionists should be applauded for seeking evidence of the
healthful qualities of whole grains. But the nutrition community must be held to the highest standards of accuracy and
accountability when they are critical of enriched grains. They
need to be reminded that the purpose of science is to discover
truth, not to support researchers' preconceptions.
8. Seek revision of health claim rules for whole grains.
Current rules allow whole grain health claims on food
products when 51 per cent of ingredients by weight are
whole grains. This should be a major issue for the baking
industry because of the high moisture content of bread.
With a 36 per cent moisture content, bread has scant wiggle room for additional ingredients to make whole grain
foods better tasting. A recent research study on bran and
heart disease calls this current 51 per cent rule "arbitrary."
This rule completely works against sensible, incremental
change, lessening the chances that food companies will be
able to "reach out" to consumers with whole grains.
9. Push the Food and Drug Administration on whole
grain labeling rules. General Mills, Inc. has petitioned the
F.D.A. to define expressions like "made with whole grains,"
a "good source of whole grains" and "excellent source of
whole grains," so that they may be put on labels. "Made
with whole grains" would apply to food products with at
least eight grams of whole grains per serving, "good source"
would apply to products with more than 8 but less than 15,
and "excellent source" would apply to foods with 16 grams
or more. The F.D.A. has said it will consider this request
when it can, calling it a "B" priority for 2005. The agency's
"A" list is over 100 items long. The U.S.D.A. has spoken of
partnering with industry to help increase whole grain intake,
and whole grain labeling guidelines would help achieve this
goal. For the federal government to be promoting whole
grains on the one hand while showing indifference to companies trying to promote whole grains is unacceptable.
10. Support the Dietary Guidelines. With all its faults,
the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans still say much the
industry ought to support, including the focus on a balanced
diet and the emphasis on exercise to control weight. Even as an
imperfect document, the guidelines are "good for grain-based
foods." This is particularly the case if many of these recommendations for action are implemented in the near future. MBN
Milling & Baking News, February 1, 2005 / 7

http://www.bakingbusiness.com http://www.world-grain.com

Milling & Baking News - February 1, 2005

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Milling & Baking News - February 1, 2005