Of pots and kettles
European "food companies guilty of misleading people with health claims" trumpets a headline in the October 2 issue of Medical News Today . The story reports the views of the UK-based activist group Which? quoting the group's chief policy advisor saying of an ongoing review of health claims by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA):
A huge number of food products claim to have health benefits, but finally we are separating the wheat from the chaff. Incredibly, only a third of health claims looked at by EFSA could be backed up.
Clearly many food companies are exploiting people's interest in improving their health, often over-charging them for alleged health benefits which can't be proved.
On a more positive note, there are foods using proven health claims, so it's vital that industry acts responsibly when making claims, and that the Food Standards Agency ensures the removal of misleading products. Only then can people be confident that the health claims on items they buy are genuine.
Medical News Today reports that EFSA has assessed over 500 claims.
Among the claims supported by Which? and found acceptable by EFSA are claims that reduced sodium foods are healthy. Food companies offering these products are pleased to cooperate to say these foods are healthier for consumers.
Talk about misleading people! EFSA (and Which?) ignore two yawning data gaps that fatally undermine the argument for salt reduction:
- There is no evidence that there is a net health benefit of reducing dietary salt (pdf 434.26 kB) (in fact, the single controlled trial of the health outcomes (pdf 802.65 kB) of salt reduction found a greater risk among those on low salt diets), and
- There is no evidence that those who choose low-salt foods (with "healthy" labels) consume lower sodium diets -- the evidence suggests salt appetite is an autonomic physiological response (pdf 517.27 kB) to the body's need for salt.
So, Which?, if food manufacturers are misleading consumers for unsubstantiated claims that their low-salt foods are healthier, you're no better for criticizing them while endorsing the very basis on which their misleading claims are based. As Wikipedia explains, the original idiom about "the pot calling the kettle black
" has an alternative, subtler interpretation from a century old poem that extends the critique beyond simple hypocrisy. The poem points out that the actual idiom is "The Pot Bottom Calling The Kettle Bottom Black" drawn from the fact that "the pot is sooty (being placed on a fire), while the kettle is clean and shiny (being placed on coals only), and hence when the pot accuses the kettle of being black, it is the pot’s own sooty reflection that it sees: the pot accuses the kettle of a fault that only the pot has, rather than one that they share." The observation that the root of the problem is that food companies are reflecting back the junk science of groups like EFSA and Which? properly assigns responsibility.
The poem found in "Maxwell's Elementary Grammar" school book, reads:
"Oho!' said the pot to the kettle;
"You are dirty and ugly and black!
Sure no one would think you were metal,
Except when you're given a crack."
"Not so! not so! kettle said to the pot;
"'Tis your own dirty image you see;
For I am so clean -without blemish or blot-
That your blackness is mirrored in me"
Comments
Log in or create a user account to comment.