In Comedy Veritas

At the risk of being redundant, I must again quote one of my favorite bits of film food dialogue to start this off (from Woody Allens 1973 comedy, Sleeper):

Dr. No. 1 (explaining wheat germ and organic honey): Oh, yes. Those are the charmed substances that some years ago were thought to contain life-preserving properties.

Dr. No. 2: You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or ... hot fudge?

Dr. No. 1: Those were thought to be unhealthy ... precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true.

At the close of 2007, FDA announced its plans to reevaluate the scientific evidence behind two authorized health claims (dietary lipids and cancer, and soy protein and risk of coronary heart disease) and two qualified health claims (antioxidant vitamins and risk of certain cancers, and selenium and certain cancers).

FDA okayed the soy protein health claim in 1999. It says findings of many new studies are inconsistent, citing a 2006 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) report that concluded soy products appear to exert a small benefit on low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol. However, it is not clear whether soy protein (versus other types of soy products) was responsible for such a benefit In addition, the AHRQ report used markers of cardiac function that are not validated surrogate endpoints recognized by the agency for heart disease risk.

The 1993 claim linking fat and cancer is under scrutiny, says FDA, due to an Institute of Medicine report that reviewed research on lipid consumption and cancer that says the association between diets high in fat and increased cancer risk has been weakened by recent epidemiological studies.

In 2003, FDA approved qualified health claims for antioxidant vitamins E and C and for selenium and cancers. It now cites a 2006 AHRQ report evaluating multivitamin/mineral supplements and disease risk that did not identify any studies on the effi cacy of vitamin C supplements and cancer risk. In addition, the report concluded that the overall strength of the evidence for vitamin E and selenium supplements on cancer risk is very low (vitamin E) and low (selenium). FDA is questioning if new science supports the claims, and if the language should be modified to reflect a stronger or weaker relationship.

This proposal underscores the complicated scientific relationships between foods and healthand the ability to communicate them to consumers. Change is good if it reflects up-to-date science and reinforces the notion that these are valid messages that promote healthy eating. If any of these claims change, however, the danger lies in allowing the general public to decide this is all some sort of scam vs. the normal development of scientific inquiry. Our industry needs to make sure the message is clear, so it doesnt undermine consumer confidence. Thats nothing to laugh at.