Mort Satin sent in this blog.

This past week saw the announcement of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Scientific Colloquium 9 - Nutrient Profiling for foods bearing Nutrition and Health Claims, to be held from 11 - 12 October 2007 in Parma, a city best known for its fabulous Parma Ham*, as well as the King of cheeses, Parmigiano Reggiano**.

Not surprisingly, the European food agency at the forefront of the nutrient profiling is the Food Standards Agency (FSA) of the UK. Concerned with the rise in obesity, the FSA looked for approaches to nutrition that had the potential to make it easier for consumers to make healthy choices. They argued that it was really the 'imbalance' in the consumption of individual foods that caused health problems, not the overall balance of the diet. It's really not the Mediterranean Diet, it's the fish…or is it the olive oil….the fruits and vegetables….the capers…..truffles…?

In other words, food is considered to be little more than an independent carrier of nutrients. Depending upon the 'balance' of these nutrients, foods would be characterized in a nutrient profile. That not being enough, the profiles would be accompanied by decision signals such as traffic lights that would make it even easier for the consumers to make an "informed" decision. Traffic lights are considered to be useful signals for any being at or above the intelligence of a magpie.

It now appears that, in Europe, this concept has reached a point of no return. The ultimate price that Europe, formerly the global pedestal of fine food, had to pay for nutrition and health claims regulation. The rest will be tedious bureaucracy.

In her landmark book, "The March of Folly," historian Barbara Tuchman defines the characteristics of folly as initiatives that: 1) are contrary to the self-interest of the society pursuing them; 2) are conducted over a period of time, not simply a burst of irrational behavior; 3) are conducted by a number of individuals, not just one deranged maniac and, most importantly; 4) are cautioned by a considerable number of people alive at the time who pointed out correctly why the initiative in question was folly.

In future blogs, we hope to examine the folly of nutrient profiling in detail. If foods were nothing more than carriers of nutrients the future of eating will be little more than a large, perfectly balanced food pill accompanied by a glass of water, and, if you really felt nostalgic, a glass of water and a gelcap of wine concentrate. Good food culture does exist and doesn't require a traffic light to legitimize it. Rather than invent a new model, perhaps it would have been better to copy another neighbor's successful model - but I guess that's not what the sweeping powers vested in public authorities do.

We will also look at the science of nutrient profiling. Our entire base of knowledge for nutrients in foods comes from chemical analysis. To make matters worse, the nutrient profiles reflect laboratory analytical results, not the bioavailability of nutrients in living systems. The impact of one food component upon the other in the gut is never determined for the profiles. Fiber decreases digestibility and consequently bioavailability - how is this factored into the profiles? In fact the profiles never consider indigestibility - a total disgrace from a nutrition science point of view and a matter that would make Dennis Burkitt, discoverer of Burkitt's Lymphoma and one of Britain's most intuitive scientists of the 20th century turn over in his Bisley, Gloucestershire grave.

The nutrient profiles give no indication of the interactions and dynamics taking place in the gut when normal diets are consumed. Dietary regimes incorporate particular food combinations and we have never determined how indigestibility of one component may affect nutrient availability of all other components in the diet. Because the nutrient data tables we use don't relate to this issue at all and, by use of these tables, we incorrectly presume that there is no such interaction - even though not single a nutritionist would agree with this. Thus, the inexorable march of folly rolls along.

*Pig meat profile #4276 (water 50,84%; protein 22,75%; salt 4,84%; fat 21,01%) ** Salt-cured cow milk curd profile #76383 (water 31.98%; protein 36.14%; salt 2.28%; fat 28.6%)