Food & Your Health: Selected Articles from Consumers' Research Magazine

PREFACE

Since the inception of Consumers’ Research Magazine in 1928, its readers have been given reliable and useful information regarding the subjects of food and nutrition, and their relationship to health. These important topics are discussed in each issue, along with other topics affecting consumers.

Characteristically, much of the food and nutrition information has been given far in advance of official concern or public awareness. For example, the problems of the food-borne illness inflicted by E. coli 0157:H7 were discussed in May 1991—several years prior to the publicized incident in a fast food restaurant that affected many children. Information on the now-banned pesticide, Alar, was printed as early as November 1985, and the value of homocysteine as a biomarker for health problems, as early as May 1996. Readers had been warned about the dangers of pesticide residues in foods decades before the publication of Silent Spring, and had been alerted to the problems of heavy metal poisonings from lead, cadmium, and mercury, many years prior to official acknowledgments that these substances were public health problems. Consumers’ Research Magazine was in the forefront in exposures of blatant advertisements and nutritional shortcomings of many highly sugared breakfast cereals, long before congressional hearings were called on this subject.

In selecting articles for the present series, it was apparent that some of the topics are still in advance of official policy or public understanding. For example, The Downside of Soy offers information contrary to mainstream claims. In the future, however, the minority view expressed will be validated and acknowledged by health professionals and understood by the general public.

From the beginning, Consumers’ Research has attempted to make consumers aware of the importance of making wise choices, on the basis of sound information. Also, the organization has pointed out the problems, pitfalls, and need for appropriate actions by official agencies making public policy:

"… let your voice be heard loudly and often, in protest against the indifference, ignorance, and avarice responsible for the uncontrolled adulteration and misrepresentation of foods, drugs, and cosmetics. In this adulteration and misrepresentation lurks a menace to your health that ought no longer be tolerated.’’

Lest the reader think that this advice came out of the burgeoning consumer movement of the 1960s, and 1970s, be assured that it was written far earlier. It appeared in 1933, in 100,000,000 Guinea Pigs (Vanguard Press), co-authored by F.J. [Frederick John] Schlink, founder and president of Consumers’ Research, Inc. and publisher of Consumers’ Research Magazine. This best-selling book exposed the dangers in everyday foods, drugs, and cosmetics. The book was based on information from the extensive files of the organization. The work shocked many individuals into an awareness of many hazards in consumer goods, and was an important influence leading to congressional hearings and strengthening of federal and state regulations for food, drug, and cosmetic safety.

The files of Consumers’ Research continued to be utilized for programs of public enlightenment, with the issuance of both periodicals and books. In 1934, Skin Deep (Vanguard Press) exposed dangerous substances used in cosmetics. The book was written by a staff member, M.C. Phillips (Mary Catherine Phillips, wife of F.J. Schlink). Eat, Drink, and Be Wary (Covici, Friede, Inc.), by F.J. Schlink, published in 1935, was another hard-hitting exposé of what was happening to the food supply.

Consumers’ Research, Inc. is a unique organization. It has been in the forefront of the consumer movement. Its sole purpose remains to serve the ultimate consumer. Its various activities center around the needs of its subscribers, to whom it dedicates its facilities, special knowledge, and skills. The organization accepts no commercial advertisements, nor contributions from industry, manufacturers, and dealers. Nor does it receive any funding from governmental sources. It is a non-profit organization.

Consumers’ Research offered to its readership in 1971 a philosophy of lasting value:

"The right choice of specific foods and types of foods, makes, for millions of persons, the difference between health and vigor on the one hand, and a lack of energy and resistance to disease on the other. A good diet is not merely a matter of having money to spend. Deficient nutrition is common among people who can buy whatever foods they choose, but make the wrong choices, for lack of knowledge. Like millions of teenagers, these people tend to ‘follow the crowd’ to hot dogs, French fries, cakes, candy, soft drinks, and ice cream, unaware of what they are missing.

The path to good eating and good health is not an easy or simple one … Partly, this is because of the abundance of choices available under modern industry’s efficiency in manufacture and distribution. Partly, it is because tradition no longer plays an important part in choices of basic foods for the table.

DIET AND HEALTH: MAKING WISE FOOD CHOICES

AMERICANS’ EATING HABITS: POOR, AND GETTING POORER

In America, today, poor diets are typically too high in calories and fats, and too low in fruits and vegetables—problems associated with certain chronic diseases and obesity.

These words, in the introductory remarks of a report issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS), depict (long-term) changes in American eating habits, and the consequences resulting from the changes. The report is one in a series of several critical reports issued by ERS on the status of the current American diet, and the implications. Other reports focus on the growing trend of eating away from home, and its impact on the decline of quality in the American diet; the current diet of American children; and an assessment of actual food consumption by Americans, compared with official recommendations.

These reports, examined in toto, confirm and give added weight to concerns already expressed by many nutritionists, dietitians, health practitioners, and public health officials. All groups have reported findings, based on clinical studies, that current American eating habits are poor, and apt to get poorer, due to changes in eating patterns.

The reports serve as a wake-up call. They deserve study and discussion. These are some of the highlights:

More Americans than ever are overweight, fiber consumption is low, and snack foods are as popular as ever.… Americans are eating more and exercising less.… Consumers eat three meals a day, quench their thirst with carbonated beverages, and constantly nibble on snacks. Is it any wonder that by the end of the day few of us know how many calories we have ingested, let alone our fat intake? … Clearly, counting grams of fat is more difficult for food purchased from the local hamburger joint, a sidewalk vendor, or a supermarket deli [than from home-prepared foods] …

Eating Away from Home. The frequency of eating away from home rose by more than two-thirds over two decades, from 16 percent of all meals and snacks in 1977–78 to 27 percent by 1995 (the latest year examined in the report). It is anticipated that the trend will continue. Regarding the health consequences of this trend, ERS found that foods prepared and eaten at home generally contain less fat and less saturated fat, but more fiber, calcium, and iron, than foods eaten away from home. The report notes that, in recent years, the nutritional content of foods eaten at home had improved more than those eaten away from home.

American consumers are inching ever closer to a dining watershed, the report notes. The continued growing popularity of eating away from home has brought Americans to the verge of spending as much on food away from home as they do on food prepared at home. In 1970, 34 percent of the food dollars was spent on food away from home; today, it has risen to 46 percent. If a baseline had been chosen for a time period prior to 1970, the percentage would have been extremely low.

The consequences of this trend are especially important with American children. A USDA survey found that 88 percent of children aged six to eighteen have poor diets. An ERS report raised questions about nutrient intake by children eating more and more of their meals away from home. This trend indicates a lessening of control over what children eat, how the food is prepared, and the nutrient quality of the diet. For example, broccoli and kale are not likely to be on menus where children choose to eat. The potatoes are likely to be deep-fried, not baked. White potatoes will be available, but sweet potatoes are not apt to be on the menu. The limited food offerings probably will be high in fat, low in essential nutrients such as calcium and iron and contain added sugars and salt.

Recommended vs. Actual Food Consumption. Perhaps the most discouraging news of all is contained in ERS’s report: A Dietary Assessment of the U.S. Food Supply. The study compares actual food consumption with official recommendations. Many shortcomings in the American diet are apparent. The two that are the most discouraging concern the underconsumption of vegetables and fruits, and the overconsumption of added sugars.

The official recommendation for vegetable intake is to eat nearly four servings of dark-green leafy and deep-yellow vegetables, starchy ones including beans, and other vegetables daily. In reality, an average of only a half serving of one vegetable is actually eaten. (A half serving is equivalent to about one-quarter cup of cooked vegetables, one-quarter of a baked potato, or about five French fried potatoes—a very scant amount.) Only five vegetables, out of a choice of some eighty that are available in food stores, account for half of all the vegetables chosen. Of those, poor choices are made. Nutrient-low head lettuce is popular, not the dark-green, nutrient-rich greens. The starchy vegetables are weighted heavily with white potatoes, especially in frozen, fried, and chipped forms, rather than baked or boiled. Intake of beans, as well as other vegetables, is far below the official recommendation. Also, the popularity of only five vegetables suggests that Americans are not having sufficient variety in their daily intake of vegetables. Yet variety is one of the basic concepts of good nutrition, and helps to contribute many nutrients from different sources.

Fruit consumption, too, falls far short of recommendations. The average American consumes less than half of the modest minimum recommendation, and consumes only 1.3 servings daily of fruits in various forms.

The shortfalls of vegetable and fruit consumption by many Americans are particularly worrisome. A wealth of scientific studies affirm that the consumption of many vegetables and fruits lowers the risks of various chronic diseases, including some types of cancers.

Added Sugars. The official recommendation is to use added sugars sparingly or moderately. A suggested upper limit for daily consumption of added sugars is twelve teaspoons. In reality, the food supply provides an average of thirty-two teaspoons of caloric sweeteners (dry weight)—nearly three times the recommended level. According to the ERS report, this amount is equivalent to the amount found in about three and one-half bottles of twelve-ounce regular soft drinks per person daily.

Sweeteners are added to processed products such as baked goods, pre-sweetened cereals, soft drinks, and candies, as well as to numerous other food products in which one does not expect to find added sugar. According to the USDA, in a sense, sugar is the number one food additive. It turns up in some unlikely places, such as pizza, bread, hot dogs, boxed mixed rice, soup, crackers, spaghetti sauce, lunch meat, canned vegetables, fruit drinks, flavored yogurt, ketchup, salad dressing, mayonnaise, and some peanut butter.

In another USDA publication, Sugar and Sweetener: Situation and Outlook Yearbook (May 1999) the most recent figure for the average American’s annual consumption of sugar is a whopping 156.4 pounds. The yearly consumption of added sugars translates to two-fifths of a pound daily (fifty-three teaspoons)—far more than is advised. The USDA’s Food Guide Pyramid suggests that people who consume a daily diet of 1,600 calories restrict added sugar intake to six teaspoons daily; 2,000 calories, ten teaspoons; 2,200 calories, twelve teaspoons; and 2,800 calories, eighteen teaspoons.

Some people need to limit sugar intake due to health problems (for example, diabetes), and others choose to restrict sugar intake due to nutritional concerns. Therefore, there must be some people who consume more sugar annually than the average 156.4 pounds.

Each year, the amount of sugar consumed keeps increasing. The steep rise in sugar consumption since the mid-1980s coincides with the large increased consumption of carbonated soft drinks—from twenty-eight gallons per person annually in 1986 to forty-one gallons in 1997. More than one-fifth of all added sugars in the present American diet are in carbonated soft drinks. The USDA’s Continuing Survey of Food Intake by individuals found that nearly 25 percent of children aged five years or younger drink carbonated soda on a regular basis.

The human body may not distinguish between naturally occurring sugars present in foods (such as fruits) and sugars added to food and beverage products. But the naturally occurring sugars are accompanied by nutrients that help metabolize them; the added sugars supply calories, but few nutrients, if any.

Official dietary guidelines recommend limiting foods and beverages with high levels of added sugars. Frequently, such foods and beverages replace nutrient-rich foods, such as vegetables, fruits, and whole grains.

The ERS report notes that consumers have difficulty in moderating their intake of added sugars. Although they can restrict the amounts they choose to add to foods and beverages, they cannot control the amounts added by others in food and beverage manufacture. Although the current food labels require manufacturers to disclose total sugar contents of foods and beverages, the label does not distinguish between total sugar content and added sugar content. This lack of information makes it difficult for consumers to know how much added sugar they are consuming, and whether the total amount is within the suggested limit for added sugar.

More Food, More Calories, Larger Portions. All food supply measurements suggest that Americans are consuming more food, and several hundred more calories per person daily, than Americans did a half-century ago. In addition, portion sizes are larger. These trends relate to increased obesity and its associated health problems. These are some findings by the USDA.

The aggregate food supply in 1994—the latest year for which nutrient data from the USDA’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion are available—provided 3,800 calories per person daily. This amount is 500 calories more than the 1983 level, and 800 calories more than the record low in the mid-1950s. Some calories are lost to spoilage, plate waste, cooking, and other factors, so the ERS’s estimates of the current caloric intake probably is somewhat lower than the 3,800 calories—just below 2,700 calories, However, even with this adjustment, ERS data suggest that the average daily caloric intake increased 14.7 percent between 1984 and the present.

Larger portion size is one aspect in the dietary dilemma. In the mid-1950s, the typical hamburger offered by a fast-food outlet consisted of a little more than one ounce of cooked meat. Currently, it consists of up to six ounces. This is the age of the forty-ounce restaurant served steak, the fast-food supersized meal, the Big Foot, one-foot-by-two-foot slab of pizza, all you can eat fish fries, and limitless repeats at buffets. In the mid-1950s, the soda serving was eight ounces; currently, it is thirty-two to sixty-four ounces. A muffin was less than one- and one-half ounces; currently, five to eight ounces. Similarly, serving sizes have increased exponentially for portions of items such as ice cream, coffee, and beer. The larger servings seem to be associated with the Good Life. Yet, the current concept by many Americans of serving sizes far exceeds those that are recommended by the USDA’s Food Guide Pyramid.

In a recent study, Brian Wansink, Ph.D. and associates at the University of Illinois found that food products packaged in large containers appear to be consumed at greater rates than those in small packages. Formerly, a theater serving of popcorn was a three-cup measure. Now, a sixteen-cup measure is contained in the medium size container. Wansink and his colleagues found that moviegoers, given extra-large containers of popcorn, ate 44 percent more than people who were handed popcorn in slightly smaller containers. The extra-large size added about 120 extra calories to the intake. Wansink concluded: If you have it, you’ll eat it. Wansink found that consumers use more from larger packages because the product is perceived as cheaper. In addition to the findings with popcorn, Wansink had similar results with spaghetti, bottled water, and cooking oils. People use more from larger sizes—typically between 9 and 36 percent more because they perceive the per-unit cost is cheaper in the larger size.

The largest American manufacturer of restaurant dinnerware, Homer Laughlin China Company, reports that the demand for big plates and bowls has increased greatly. The best sellers are big, deep bowls for pasta. Some are so large that they hold up to forty ounces for one serving of pasta (two and one-half pounds of cooked food).

Restaurant surveys confirm this trend. According to Alan Ripp, who conducted a restaurant survey for Zagat’s restaurant guide: In the eighties there were mini-portions. Now there are eye-splitting mega-portions.

Packaged foods now list serving sizes, but the sizes do not necessarily match those recommended in the Food Guide Pyramid. A typical serving of pasta is two cups, which comes to about four servings in the pyramid. A New York-style bagel typically is about four ounces, or about four servings in the pyramid. And a two-ounce hamburger bun is two servings.

As caloric intake levels have risen, along with more food intake, physical activity levels have appeared to decline for the majority of Americans. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 60 percent of American adults are not physically active on a regular basis; and 25 percent of American adults are not active at all. Increasing physical activity is a formidable public health challenge in a technologically advanced society, according to the CDC. Few occupations today require significant physical activity, and most people use motorized transportation to get to work and to perform routine errands and tasks. Even leisure is increasingly filled with sedentary behaviors, such as watching television, ‘surfing’ the Internet, and playing video games.

The benefits of good nutrition are not observed immediately, or they are elusive. Some people may forestall practicing good nutrition. In the short run, they may prefer convenience foods over more healthful alternatives.

A variety of factors has led to changes in our food consumption patterns in the past half century. Among them are changes in relative prices and increases in real disposable income. Additional contributing factors include the development and expansion of food advertisement and new food product innovations (especially more convenient ones) that shift consumption to growth in the away-from-home food markets.

Sociodemographic trends, too, influence changes in food choices, according to the USDA. These include smaller households, more two-earner households, more single-parent households, an aging population, and increased ethnic diversity.

Being aware of the problems of too much food, too many calories, and too large portions is the first step in addressing the dietary dilemma. Wise food selections, smaller portions, and physical activity need to be learned and practiced at all ages.

Effects of Eating Habits. America’s Eating Habits notes that, often, the benefits of good nutrition are not observed immediately, or they are elusive. Some people may forestall practicing good nutrition. In the short run, they may prefer convenience foods over more healthful alternatives. In the long run, taste considerations may prevail. For many, healthy eating is not worth what some people might perceive as an effort and a sacrifice. Obviously, convincing people about long-range benefits of good nutrition is made more difficult if immediate gratification is given high priority.

The official dietary recommendations, based on time-honored basic concepts as well as solid scientific evidence, face overwhelming obstacles for implementation. The ERS report notes: With a bewildering array of food items to select from, research indicates that the average consumer takes only twelve seconds to make a brand selection. Of course, Madison Avenue spends $11 billion [annually] in advertising to help us here. Not surprisingly, most of these advertising dollars promote prepared and convenience foods, snacks, and alcoholic beverages. By contrast, the federal government spends a mere $350 million annually to promote healthy eating.

USDA REPORTS

For readers who are interested to obtain further details of the critical findings about various aspects of the current American diet, these are important reports:

• America’s Eating Habits, Changes & Consequences, edited by Elizabeth Frazao. USDA, ERS, Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 750, issued 1999.

• Away-From-Home Foods Increasingly Important to Quality of American Diet. BiingHwan Lin, Joanne Guthrie, and Elizabeth Frazao. USDA, ERS, Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 749, issued January 1999.

• A Dietary Assessment of the U.S. Food Supply: Comparing Per Capita Food Consumption With Food Guide Pyramid Serving Recommendations. Linda Scott Kantor USDA, ERS, Agricultural Economic Report Number 772, issued December 1998.

• The Diets of America’s Children: Influences of Dining Out, Household Characteristics, and Nutrition Knowledge. BiingHwan Lin, Joanne Guthrie, and James R. Blaylock. USDA, ERS, Agricultural Economic Report Number 748, issued December 1996.

• U.S. Trends in Eating Away From Home, 1982–1989: A Survey of Eating Occasions, Type of Foodservice Establishment, and Kind of Food. Jesus C. Dumagan and John W. Hackett. USDA, ERS, Statistical Bulletin Number 926, issued December 1995.

• Annual Spotlight on the U.S. Food System, 1999, Food Review, ERS, USDA September/December 1999.

For information about these reports, contact USDA, Economic Research Service, 1800 M Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20036-5831, or go to www.econ.ag.gov. To order the reports, call (800) 999-6779.

For additional information about ERS publications, databases, and other products, both paper and electronic, the ERS Home page on the Internet is at www.econ.ag.gov.

MODERN FOOD PROCESSING: NUTRITIONAL SHORTCHANGES

Today, Western man has revolutionized the production, storage and distribution of his food. He superheats it, freezes it, cans it, processes it, extracts it and divides it … He also refines it … His diet is unbalanced, warned Henry A. Schroeder, M.D., a world authority on trace minerals. How has our present diet become imbalanced to the point that it has been termed a national disaster by a prominent researcher?

Growing and Harvesting. Present practices in food production have drastically altered nutritional values in our food supply. For example, animals are routinely fed, not with natural feedstuffs, but with special types of feedstuffs known as concentrates. Such feeding results in meat that contains smaller amounts of the desirable unsaturated fatty acids; in some instances, it adds antagonistic fatty acids that increase our dietary need for the essential polyunsaturated ones.

A nutritionist comments: In his eagerness to produce more kernels per row, more rows per ear, and more ears per stalk, the plant breeder has sacrificed nutrient content. In his desire to produce lovelier apples, sweeter oranges, blander vegetables, ship resistant foods, he has often produced varieties which are less nutritious. An analysis of common food crops grown in the United States compared to similar ones grown in Mexico and Central America showed that the Latin American varieties usually had higher contents of nutrients. Another study showed that the average amount of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) per 100 grams (g) of orange juice was 61 milligrams (mg) from California Navels; 49 mg for California Valencias; and 37 mg from Florida Valencias. In several thousand samples of oranges, the ascorbic acid content ranged from 20 mg per g of juice to more than 80 mg, a fourfold difference.

The mineral content in common vegetables may vary over a wide range. The late Dr. Firman E. Bear of Rutgers University analyzed crops and found that some contained nearly seventy times more of a particular mineral than others; with trace minerals, he found as great a variation as two thousand to one.

Soil may be a factor in nutrient content. In certain regions, the soil may be deficient in nutrients. Animals raised for food production on such soils, or crops grown on such soils, may reflect such deficiency.

Present practices in harvesting, shipping, and storing crops can lessen their content of nutrients. A few examples will illustrate the point. Some crops, picked prematurely and shipped unripe, never develop their full potential in nutrients or in flavor. It was found that postponing the date of harvest for early grown carrots could develop greater nutritive value. Because falling temperature favors the formation of the protein and unsaturated fatty acids in soybeans, late harvesting of this crop can increase its nutritional content. Tomatoes grown in greenhouses during the wintertime may have only half the amount of ascorbic acid of tomatoes that are vine-ripened and grown outdoors in sunlight.

Storing. Prolonged storage, especially under conditions of high temperature and humidity, results in a progressive deterioration of the protein value of foods. Canned vegetables, stored at 65°F, lost 15 percent of thiamine (vitamin B1) within a year; with storage at a higher temperature, the loss was more severe. The thiamine in canned meat was reduced by 30 percent when the meat was stored for six months at 70°F. Pyridoxine (vitamin B6) was lost in appreciable amounts from Army C Rations stored at 100°F for twenty months. Commercial chilled orange juice lost 57 percent of the ascorbic acid that was present in the fresh orange juice. Vitamin E deteriorated in stored food, even when the food was frozen.

Refining. Drastic nutritional losses result when food is refined, overprocessed, or modified. About 80 percent or more of our calories presently come from flour and cereal products, sugar, potatoes, and fats, but most of the vitamins and minerals also present in them are removed or destroyed when these foods undergo typical modern processing. It has long been recognized that a large percentage of vitamins, minerals, and trace minerals are lost in the milling of flour and the polishing of rice.

Fortifying. The enrichment program was launched as an attempt to restore some of the lost nutrients. However, the shortcomings of this program become apparent upon close analysis. Although a number of vital nutrients are removed in the milling, only relatively few are restored in enrichment. It is well established that changing the level of one nutrient affects the levels of other nutrients intimately associated with it. Unless a proper balance is maintained, serious deficiencies and excesses can result. For example, cadmium competes with and displaces zinc in human metabolic processes. Any appreciable content of cadmium is hazardous to human health. In whole wheat, the ratio between cadmium and zinc is 1:120, with the presence of zinc opposing or buffering the potentially harmful effects of cadmium. In refined flour, much of the zinc, an essential trace element, is lost. The altered ratio between cadmium and zinc becomes 1:20. The buffering action of the zinc is decreased and the threat of excessive cadmium intake is increased sixfold.

Drastic nutritional losses occur when food is refined, overprocessed, or modified. About 80 percent or more of our calories presently come from flour and cereal products, sugar, potatoes, and fats, but most of the vitamins and minerals also present in them are removed or destroyed when these foods undergo typical modern processing.

Food processing frequently alters such subtle balances. This is demonstrated again, in the enrichment program. Although iron is restored to the flour and cereal, copper is not restored. Yet copper is needed for utilization of the iron. The choice of an iron preparation used by the baking industry may be made because of some desirable baking or storing feature, rather than nutritional suitability. There is no assurance that the form of iron chosen is one that will be well assimilated by the body.

Infant feeding formulas made with partially skimmed cow’s milk need to be supplemented with tocopherol (vitamin E) in order to balance the ratio of tocopherol with polyunsaturated fatty acids, to approximate the ratio found in breast milk.

Packaging. Mineral balances found in raw produce undergo extreme alterations in canning. As an illustration, examine sodium and potassium, two competing minerals. The processing of canned peas lowers the potassium found in raw peas by 66 percent; at the same time, sodium is increased by 1,400 percent. Other canned produce undergoes similar alterations. Potassium decreases in typical canned foods: 47 percent in spinach; 51 percent in tomatoes; 60 percent in green beans; and 65 percent in carrots. At the same time, sodium increases in canned foods in an extraordinary way: over 350 percent in spinach; 370 percent in carrots; 450 percent in tomatoes; and over 45,000 percent in green beans.

This sodium load, already heavy, is further increased by the food processors, who find that the use of salt is helpful for their purposes. It can mask the unpleasant flavor of odorous foods. It inhibits the growth of molds and bacteria. It can bleach and prevent discoloration, and thus improves food color. It is an aid for peeling, sorting, and floating, in food processing, and it is useful in the drying and freezing of foods. Still more sodium is added to processed foods in the use of many chemical food additives that are sodium-containing compounds (sodium nitrite, monosodium glutamate, sodium propionate, sodium bisulfite, sodium phosphate, etc.).

Certain practices in processing of foods rob foods of essential metals, while other practices may contaminate foods with undesirable ones. Our iron intake is reduced by improved food packaging that reduces contamination by the iron in dust. Food processors may remove iron particles magnetically or use chemical agents to bind the iron and so inactivate it. Canners, who try to reduce the pitting and detinning of cans or who attempt to preserve the integrity of the enamel coating, seek techniques to avoid even slight iron contamination of foods. On the other hand, undesirable amounts of certain other metals may contaminate foods from modern processing methods. These hazards may result from metals present in the tinplate, solder sealing, or lacquer linings used for the canning of foods, as well as traces from machinery, cooking vats, from steam used in heat processing, or cutting tools. Contamination may result from the interaction of constituents in food and packaging, or from water, which may contain contaminants present in the source or derived from the piping. Cadmium may be in tin or aluminum cans, from the recycling of metals from cars and airplanes.

Extraction. Nutritional losses result when food is divided into its components by refinement or extraction. When milk is separated from the cream, some of the trace elements (chromium, manganese, cobalt, copper, and molybdenum) remain in the cream and butter, while the magnesium and zinc remain in the skim milk. The minerals in the butter are needed for proper digestion of the skim milk. The refining of raw cane sugar into white sugar removes most of the trace elements (chromium, manganese, cobalt, copper, zinc, and magnesium), which are necessary for the body to metabolize the sugar properly. When lard is rendered from pork, the lard is low in the essential elements magnesium, zinc, and molybdenum.

Hydrogenation. The molecular modification of oils by hydrogenation in modern food processing changes some of the desirable fatty acids to less desirable ones, and some are converted into unnatural forms. The new ones do not act in the body in the same way as the natural ones; their presence has been found to be harmful to health. Hydrogenated fats keep far better than natural oils and fats. Because of this, manufacturers use hydrogenated fats in many processed foods, in margarine, and in shortening.

Reconstitution. Many convenience foods, made possible by modern processing techniques, are prepared under severe conditions of temperature, pressure, and agitation that severely deplete the foods of their original nutrients. For this reason they are fortified with various vitamins and minerals. Raw potatoes, harvested in October of one year, lost 91 percent of their ascorbic acid after having been processed as reconstituted flakes in May of the following year. The loss of ascorbic acid in dehydrated potatoes is so severe that the U.S. Department of Agriculture requires fortification of the processed potatoes it purchases. As much as 90 percent of vitamin E may be lost in the flaking, shredding, and puffing of grain in the manufacture of ready-to-eat cereals. Substantial amounts of the same vitamin are lost during the processing of cereal for consumption by infants, and recommendations were made to fortify such cereals.

As yet unknown but essential nutrients doubtless exist in foods, but may be lost in food processing. It is most likely that by eating sufficient quantities of whole foods as close to their natural state as possible and that provide adequate amounts of known nutrients, one will be obtaining the needed amounts of unknown essential nutrients, too. Some formerly unidentified substances such as phytochemicals (substances in plants) have been found capable of counteracting the effects of toxic agents, while others appear to be growth promoters or serve in ways that contribute to good health. Although nonessential food nutrients are not generally included in food tables found in government pamphlets and textbooks on diet and nutrition, there is growing recognition of their critical importance in determining the biological effects and health-and-growth-promoting values of food.

Food Additives and Pesticide Residues. An area of concern that presently is largely unexplored concerns the nutritional losses incurred from the use of food additives and the presence of pesticide residues. To date, scant attention has been devoted to the potentially hazardous nature of these substances. Many of them are known to be vitamin antagonists and destroyers of enzymes essential for good health.

Food Preparation. Every phase of modern food processing adds to the sum total of nutrient losses. Besides, additional losses will occur in the home, with the storing, peeling, trimming, cleaning, cutting, and cooking of food.

Where does all this leave the consuming public? We should recognize that although many popular food products, both fresh and processed, appear to be attractive and convenient, they may be seriously deficient in nutrients. Presently, perhaps more than ever before, it is imperative to exercise great care in our day-to-day food selections and methods of preparation. The use of highly processed foods needs to be strictly limited, or better yet, eliminated, so far as practicable. Choices, so far as possible, should be made from basic foods, close to their natural state. Such foods offer the best possibilities for obtaining adequate amounts of nutrients. This is a task that demands careful attention of every homemaker, institutional chef, dietitian, and restaurant owner.

OUR NARROWING FOOD BASE: A PERILOUS TREND

In winter, consumers in our northern states can enjoy fresh strawberries. Ice-packed ocean fish can be bought year round by land-locked Americans. Among many imports, Hawaiian pineapple, Icelandic fish, New Zealand lamb, and the Central American banana are commonly available in food stores throughout the country. This bounteous diversity of food has been made possible through a complex network of suppliers and transportation. While the critical issue of energy use makes it important to evaluate this food delivery system, we need to appreciate the fact that the system does offer certain safeguards.

Essential nutrients are likely to be provided in consuming foods grown or raised in different localities with soils of varied composition. Food variety is strongly protective of health. Crops grown on lime-leached soils may be marginally or seriously depleted of calcium. Livestock and humans feeding exclusively on such foods may also develop the deficiency.

If our food choices were limited mainly to foods in the nightshade family, such as tomato, potato, and eggplant, we could be consuming undesirably high levels of substances that interfere with enzymes used to transport nerve impulses. Excessive amounts of certain vegetables such as broccoli and Brussels sprouts, can cause goiter.

Currently, safeguards provided by variety in foods we eat are being weakened by various trends in the food system. Food processing is responsible for narrowing the food base. Instead of real variety from traditional foods, we are being offered many manufactured products that are different in appearance, but are made from a