First, a declaration of bias: I really don't believe in the "good foods"/"bad foods" dichotomy. For me, it's diets that matter. They matter a LOT, but individual food choices need a dietary context to explain a health impact. OK. That's said.

Yesterday, ePerspective from Food Technology Magazine published an important opinion column by Prof. Nancy Cohen, head of the UMass nutrition department: "Guiding America to healthier food choices? " Pity the poor consumer, it laments, confronted with "tens of thousands of products to choose from" in fashioning a healthy diet. The column notes that the federally-mandated Nutrition Facts label is increasingly supplemented with front-of-package (FOP) labels often bearing simplified symbols for good foods and bad foods. It points out a further feature is an online service that provides consumers information about the environmental performance, energy use, labor policies and social performance of the food manufacturer -- all available on the consumer's cell phone. It continues:

With all of this information available, will consumers make healthier choices? That remains to be seen. Little research has been conducted on whether FOP or at-shelf labeling will result in consumer diets that are more nutrient-dense or lower in calories. In an effort to increase diets with high nutrient ratings, will consumers consume diets that are lower in nutrients or beneficial food components that are not included in the rating system? With a variety of rating schemes in the marketplace, will consumers become more confused? Will the addition of the environmental and social dimensions simplify the decision-making process, or make it more complex? How will the consumer diet be affected by the presence of the environmental and social dimension? For example, will a consumer choose a product with more calcium, but with a low rating for labor practices?

While rating systems and labeling are designed to increase healthful food choices, they do not take into account three major factors in a consumer food decision: price, taste and convenience. Thus, consumers still need to factor in their own formulas for product choices.

I attended a liberal arts school where the educational emphasis was on learning how to think, not learning facts. The distinction is much like distinguishing education from training. We need facts, sure. Absolutely essential. The Nutrition Facts label probably gives us all -- or more -- than we need. What we need more is a sounder grounding in nutrition science, educating ourselves in how our food choices ultimately become our diet and how that process works. Until then, consumers will see ads and labels that appeal to the lowest common denominator making claims that may be "true" without consumers being able to tell if the claims should mean anything to them.

We need better consumer education, not traffic lights or number or letter codes telling us how healthy any particular food will be. Wholesome foods are healthy in a balanced quality diet. As the ePerspective reminds us, there is little research on the link between consumer label-driven food choices and overall dietary quality.

A generation ago, cartoonist Walt Kelly's opposum character Pogo famously observed, paraphrasing Admiral Perry's victory announcement from Lake Erie: "We have met the enemy and he is us." Labels can only get us so far, we need to improve American's basic understanding of nutrition and health to provide context for our consumer food choices.

The high rate of gastric (stomach) cancer in Japan has been cited by salt reduction activists as a rationale for cutting Americans’ salt intake, despite the fact that the Japanese consume nearly twice the level of U.S. consumers and the conclusion of the American Cancer Society that normal North American salt levels are not a cancer risk on this side of the Pacific.

Cancer researchers also agree that eating more fruits and vegetables has a protective effect against cancer. The DASH Diet, high in fruits vegetables and dairy products, is considered a high quality diet and is the diet endorsed by the Salt Institute. The DASH Diet does not curtail normal salt use.

Researchers and nutritionists further agree that Americans need to eat more vegetables; current intakes are significantly lower than recommendations.

With all that as prologue, consider the findings of an article in the April 1 edition of the journal Cancer Prevention Research . Animals infected with H pylori, the precursor of gastric cancer, were fed a diet high in broccoli sprouts decreased gastric inflammation and bacterial colonization. Broccoli is a natural chemoprotective agent preventing bacteria-induced oxidative stress of the stomach lining.

President George H.W. Bush (Bush 41) famously detested broccoli. He disliked its bitter taste. So do kids. Tests at The Ohio State University confirmed children find broccoli nearly unpalatable unless – here’s “the commercial” – unless it’s salted . The salt masks the bitterness of broccoli and encourages people to eat it.

So, eat your (salted) broccoli. It’s good for you.