The Overall Nutritional Quality Index, or ONQI, is a score from 1-100 that consumers can use to compare foods. You can use it to compare the relative "healthiness" of the same foods, like cereals or fruits, and you can also compare across foods, like comparing candies to fruits.

I think it's a good idea, trouble is, this index will only be adopted by some food chains and not others.

Some other stores already use "in house" ratings for foods, but I haven't actually seen any evidence that people use these ratings (hmmm, sounds like there's a study in that...). Additionally, food companies are putting their own spin on food labels, thus adding another layer of information that the consumer use to determine how "healthy" a food is. Consumers are already overwhelmed with too many numbers when trying to buy food, and only a certain percentage of people even use nutritional information to make food choices.

Last year, I talked about food labels in the UK, and some of the problems with food rating systems.

If you don't know how to read food labels, here's a guide. Too technical? Here's one for kids.

Americans have been getting fatter since 1980, and forecasts of doom projected 50 years into the future allege that 50% of us will be obese. But the new CDC study finds rates of obesity to be between 33-35% of people in 2005-2006; roughly the same as in 2003-2004. (National rates also stalled out between 1999-2002).

So what's changed? CNN would like us to thank them for their Fit Nation Challenge. Seriously, are you or anyone you know involved in a fitness challenge? Yeah, me neither. This plateau could be the calm before the storm, or we could begin to see BMI's drop. If I had a good answer, I'd tell you.

The obesity problem is fascinating because we still don't know why we, as a planet, are ballooning up, and we still don' t really know how to get people to effectively lose weight. Heck, we're not even sure that being obese is really bad for you. There's a growing body of people seriously considering that much of what's been thought about obesity and health are myths, and I gotta agree.

There are a number of researchers interested in the concept of "healthy obese", people who are overweight, but who are metabolically healthy, with no signs of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and all the other problems blamed on obesity. Sure, there are overweight people with these problems, but there are plenty of "normal weight" people with the same problems. Again, I wish I had a good answer for you.

OK, and was only kidding about the donuts.

What you need to know

First, selenium deficiency is very rare in this country, we get plenty from our food supply. Selenium has what is known as a very narrow therapeutic index--meaning the difference between the amount we need and the amount that is known to cause harm is very small. An upper limit of 400 micrograms a day has been set by the Institute of Medicine to reduce the risk of selenium toxicity. (Read more about Selenium.)

There have been many, many studies looking at different forms of vitamin supplementation, including B vitamins, vitamin E, selenium, and beta-carotine, and disease prevention. Most of these studies, however, show absolutely no effect on health at best, and a few show increased risk for health problems.

Meanwhile food and supplement companies are tripping over themselves to bring you, the eager consumer, functional foods.

This should concern you. It really should. When you factor in fortification of breakfast cereals that give you 100% of everything in the world, taking a daily multivitamin (you know, for "insurance"), and then throw in a meal replacement bar (fortified) and a few "Smart" or "Energy" beverages and you are positively over the limit for some micronutrients. Some, like selenium, may be bad for you even if you have "high-normal" levels. The trend of fortifying foods is only going to increase--because consumers demand it, and because it lets food companies incur massive profits.

I'm not saying you can't take a Centrum and eat Total cereal with a glucosamine-B vitamin-orange juice chaser (no, I didn't make that up)--but you may want to think about what you're really getting. It may be too much.

Big surprise, though, fast-food chains are balking at the demands. Restaurant groups are even suing the city.

In the pro-labeling corner, it is argued that menu-labeling at the point of sale will allow people to make more informed choices about the food they eat, and is claimed to be a big step in fighting rising obesity (link goes to CSPI sponsored site).

In the anti-labeling corner, it is argued that nutrition information is already available (you know, in English, and on the Internet. Or in English, in tiny print, in a dim corner in the restaurant), and that adding the info to the menu boards will just make an ugly mess (link goes to an editorial from the Nation's Restaurant News).

What this means to you

Well, to be honest, if you're actually reading Food Fodder, you already know how to use the Internet to find information, and you're probably already interested in nutrition at some level. So, the legislation may not mean anything to you directly.

If you're not already savvy on your fast-food information, you can try searching online for the information--but be aware that not all sites provide the data you want. Wendy's, for example, blocks nutrition info for NYC customers. Don't worry. You can get your info elsewhere.

If chains have to go ahead and post nutrition information, you may have to relearn reading those menu boards to tell which is the price and which is the nutrition info. I'd also take a big bet and say that the nutrition info will most assuredly NOT be posted in a way that's actually useful. I'm betting that the chains will try to hide percentages of food values rather than the real numbers.

Next time someone asks you "You want fries with that?", ask them how many calories it'll be.

Desserts such as the rice pudding used in this study are composed not only of simple sugars, but also of more complex carbohydrates (starches--in this case rice) as well as some fat and protein. The increase in blood glucose after eating these foods is dependent in part upon the rate of gastric emptying (how long it takes to digest the food). The researchers in this study showed that cinnamon delayed gastric emptying--and that may be an important component of cinnamon's blood glucose effects.

That's nice. But what does it mean?

In people with impaired glucose handling (diabetics), chronically elevated blood glucose levels are associated with many health complications, including heart disease, eye disease, and kidney disease. One of the goals of diabetes management is to keep blood glucose levels from fluctuating too wildly.

However, despite the mythology about the evils of sugar in your diet, in healthy people, normal elevations in blood glucose following meals is benign. If you haven't got any issues with blood glucose regulation, adding cinnamon isn't going to drastically enhance or impede your health.

What you need to know

There is a lot we don't know about the chemical components of foods, particularly concentrated sources like spices. Research in this area is exciting, and, I believe, in the long run will yield many benefits. However: Just because data are sexy enough to be picked up by Reuters and AP doesn't mean that you need to run out and jump on the cinna-band-wagon.

This was a very small study using 14 healthy people. A strength of this study was that all participants were exposed to both diet conditions: Rice pudding with 6 g cinnamon and rice pudding without. It would have been nice to have seen another condition with a different type of non-sweet meal (maybe a cheese sandwich--but I guess toasted cheese and cinnamon might be gross), but I can live with the study design.

They report blood glucose only as changes in blood glucose; they don't give us the actual blood glucose values--and I would like to see those and compare them to other normal subject values, but alas we don't have that information.

What's more important is that this study didn't include people who really need that benefit on blood glucose--those studies are yet to come. If you're diabetic, don't rely on this to help you today.

Folate is a water-soluble B vitamin that is important, among other things, for the prevention of neural tube defects in the developing fetus. This relationship is sufficiently strong that several countries, the US included, have instigated mandatory fortification of refined grains (that's white flour) with folic acid. So, you can see why it makes headlines that women of childbearing age still aren't getting "enough".

Interestingly enough, folic acid fortification hasn't really been all that and a bag of chips for our nation's health. The numbers of neural tube defects are down, sure, but not as much as we'd expect from wholesale fortification. Folic acid fortification also is associated with lowering levels of an amino acid called homocysteine, which is potentially a good thing as high levels of homocysteine are associated with vascular disease. However, on the other side of the fence is some evidence that high levels of folic acid may be associated with some types of cancer, and there is a vocal contingency that alleges that folic acid fortification will be the ultimate demise of people with a vitamin B-12 deficiency. (Why? I'll tell you in another column. I promise). Folate from normal dietary sources doesn't appear to have the same "dire consequences".

Still, folate is good for you, it's good for your blood, it's good for your brain. As I said, there appears to be no negative consequences in getting folate in its natural form from foods.

What you can do today

To avoid many of the possible problems with folic acid, you should get no more than 1000 mcg (that's micrograms NOT milligrams--you only need tiny tiny amounts).

If you live in a country with grain fortification, you can get some of your daily requirement of 400 mcg folic acid from breads and other foods made with wheat flour. In a country that doesn't have fortification (like the UK? Though that's soon to change), eat whole grain breads--folate is removed in the refining process. Eat more green vegetables such as spinach or broccoli, dried beans and peas, or even some calves liver.

Read more about folate.

Well, that's good, since the scientific evidence that dairy helps weight loss is extremely weak, the studies were conducted in small groups of people, and the effects have not been adequately reproduced. The CSPI called bulls**t on that action in 2005 (link goes to a .pdf). In fact, I was totally shocked to see the advocacy group behind the news today wasn't the one sporting Michael Jacobson at the helm.

Here's what you need to know

While I approve of yanking the ads in that they are promoting (yet another) completely useless way to lose weight, I am compelled to point out who did the lobbying on our behalf.

The PCRM advocates a vegan lifestyle, and naturally would be against the active promotion of animal-sourced foods. (For a good time check out the PCRM-sponsored anti-Atkins site.)

Milk and other dairy products do indeed provide protein, vitamins, and other nutrients to our diet. You absolutely do not have to eat dairy to thrive, but it's not pure poison either. IMO, life is a little nicer with real cheese and milk in it. Other people could care less.

At least now you know if you want to lose weight and can't (or won't) eat dairy, you know you're not missing out on anything.

The one making headlines today: high intake of Vitamin D and calcium is associated with increased size of brain lesions in older people. Wow, that sounds really bad, right? Maybe not as dire as you might think.

Here's what you need to know

Don't panic yet over your vitamin D and calcium intakes.

This is a correlational study that looked at dietary variables and brain lesions. As such it's essentially a snapshot of a brief moment in a very long life. We can't say that intake of these components produces brain lesions, all we can say is that they co-exist. As this was a society presentation, I can't get some of the numbers I usually like to get you, but you'll note that most stories about this study don't tell you what "high" is. Also, we don't know if the people got their vitamin D and calcium from foods or supplements. Actually, I can assume that the vitamin D is from supplements, we just don't get anywhere near enough in our diet.

In fact, vitamin D deficiency is a very bad thing, and we're seeing more of it now, especially in the elderly, but also in children. In the elderly, vitamin D deficiency can affect quality of living and ability to perform daily tasks of living. What's worse, rickets is making a comeback in the US.

Vitamin D is usually gained through exposure to sunlight, something our older people and young children see less and less of with each passing year. Older people are less able to synthesize vitamin D from skin exposure, and those of us living in northern climates (like Boston) simply don't get sunlight at the correct angle to produce vitamin D for about half the year.

Sunlight is actually the best way to get your vitamin D, and if you exercise some caution you can do it safely. Sunscreen that blocks UVA and UVB prevents the synthesis of vitamin D, so you can't block the sun and get your D as well.

Dietary sources include fortified dairy foods, oily fish (including cod liver oil), liver, and egg yolks.

Learn more about vitamin D.

OK. Let's take this one step at a time, before you need to go into a 12-step program.

Here's the abstract of the article: you can pay to get the whole thing (or ask a library for it).

This was a study to evaluate ways to keep fruits like strawberries from decaying--to promote shelf life of the fruit--it was not looking at the health benefits of girly drinks at all. Alcohol was one of several substances used (methyl jasmonate, allyl isothiocyanate, and tea-tree oil were also used). Most of these compounds reduced decay at 10-degrees C, and enhanced antioxidant capacity and free-radical scavenging capacity for up to 7 days cold storage.

Hmm, better make that a frozen drink. Hold the tea-tree oil.

Alcohol is frequently used in cooking because it liberates flavor compounds and enhances flavor in the finished product. The most recognizable use might be Vodka Sauce, in which vodka works with olive oil and water to get the biggest flavor profile from the tomatoes.

Now, here's where I have a problem with the news report of the research: Those frisky science writers wax on about the health benefits of antioxidants such as prevention of cancer and prevention of neurological problems (incidentally the literature on that just isn't as strong in humans as people seem to think), but avoid mention of the health problems commonly associated with alcohol consumption (such as increased risk for some types of cancer, neurological damage).

Finally, most fruit-based cocktails you get in a bar are not made of fresh fruit, but from pre-made mixes that can easily contain more sugar and "flavorings" than actual fruit. Unless you see fresh fruit in the hand of your bartender, don't count on much of it actually winding up in your drink.

So, it makes for an exciting news story, but we Food Fodder folks can see this piece for what it is--fluff.

---The study did not address whether adding a little cocktail umbrella enhanced the effects.
-Reuters

Aww, it's so cute when the Reuters writers try to get snarky. Everyone knows that a little umbrella produces joy. That's always a good thing.

We've all heard that chocolate can make people feel the same way as being hugged, or in love. Recent research shows that people get more of a bang out of chocolate than from kissing their partners. While I doubt people will be leaving their lovers for a Hershey bar, there are physiological reasons for this observation.

Chocolate contains a vast amount of phytochemicals, antioxidants, and pharmacological compounds. Yep, that last word means drugs. Chocolate is a good source of methylxanthenes; a class of drugs including caffeine, theobromine, and theophylline. These components of chocolate can produce alertness, bronchiodilation (open the tubes in your lungs), and increase blood pressure.

Feel alert with your pulse racing? Is it chocolate or is it love? Hmm, could be Chocolove.

Recent headlines "Severely obese fastest-growing U.S. overweight group".

Not so different from April of last year, now is it?

We're still eating too much and moving too little. Many experts agree that this is only a very small part of the equation of obesity in affluent nations. Food and health are intimately intertwined with socioeconomic status, environment, and culture. Add on top of that a layer of genetic and evolutionary imperatives, and new research suggesting that you're worse off after dieting and failing than if you never tried to diet at all, it's amazing any of us can fit in an airplane seat without seatbelt extenders.

On PBS this week, there is a marvelous documentary on what it's like to be obese in America, what some of the underlying causes are, and the myriad of ways to lose weight, not to mention how truly difficult it is to keep weight off. The show is called: Fat: What no one is telling you. Check your local listings, or you can follow the link and watch it online.

On the other hand, you have the watchdog CSPI and their helmsman Michael F. Jacobson. Dr Jacobson has inveigled his way into the hearts of reporters all over. They know that when any "controversy" looms in nutrition science, good ol' Michael can be counted upon to make some snarky comment about how every nutrition scientist and/or every food company has an agenda to make the world fat, diabetic, and smelling like Fritos. And, lord love 'em, the CSPI will sue anybody, including Kraft, KFC, and Cadbury-Schwepps.

HAVING said that....The CPSI is doing what it can do best. It's suing Coke and Nestle for bogus weight-loss claims on its new product Enviga.

Enviga's main claim is that its ingredients will rev up your metabolism and help you burn calories.

Uh huh. Suuuuuure. The main ingredient supporting this allegation is caffeine. 100mg caffeine/12 oz serving. The same that's in a cup of coffee. Seeing a lot of skinny coffee drinkers out there? Didn't think so. Caffeine has repeatedly been disproven as a useful diet aid except in very small studies--the amount of caffeine in these studies can also be quite high.

The other main "active ingredient" is an antioxidant isolated from green tea called epigallocatechin gallate, or EGCG--and may have some positive effects on thermogenesis (heat production) and fat oxidation (using up fat). Again, these are in small studies and study results vary from "small effect" to "no effect" on weight loss or maintenance.

Finally, the "negative calorie" benefit, or potential calorie deficit, of a can Enviga is only 20-30 calories (or 60-90 calories a day with 3 servings) in healthy lean research subjects. If nothing else at all in your diet changed, that would mean a pound of weight loss every 38.8-58.3 days. I have no idea what that translates to in pudgy couch potatoes, the obese, children, or anyone else for that matter. It seems to me that there are quicker and cheaper ways to lose a few lbs. Another thing to consider, since you may feel all virtuous about losing all these calories through Enviga, you may overcompensate by eating MORE...one piece of cake in at 350 cals trumps 90 cals out from Enviga, if you eat like that you can put on a pound in about 13 days.

OK, so you say you're willing to take any potentially tiny benefit from this drink? Heck, I can't stop you. If you like the idea of getting green tea antioxidants and caffeine in a delivery system that's at least 10x the price of green tea, go for it. CSPI suggests taking part of the $1500.00 a year you'd spend on the recommended dosage of soda and going to a gym. I tend to agree with them.

Really, my favorite part of this article, the inspired use of "chutzpah" in a press release. Sometimes, Michael, you say the best things.

As I've said before, it's not rocket science, it's thermodynamics (hmmm, maybe that is rocket science...).

What you need to know

This study was run in a relatively small group of people (11-12 per group) for a period of 6 months, and the 3 groups used were dieters: eating 25 percent less than normal; exercisers: reduced their calorie intake by 12.5 percent and increased their physical activity to lose an extra 12.5 percent in calories; and controls: followed a weight-maintenance diet. All people in this study were overweight, and there was no "exercise alone" condition, making it difficult to parse the independent contributions of exercise to this equation.

Both caloric-deficit groups lost a similar amount of weight, and the distribution of fat loss (whole body vs. abdominal fat distribution) didn't differ between groups.

Bottom line: If you want to lose weight, eat fewer calories. If you like more food, burn calories through exercise. Beware, though, people woefully underestimate how much they eat and overestimate how much they burn off--this inequality puts you in a much smaller calorie-deficit than you think you are. There are plenty of online resources to help you track your intake/expenditure such as Fitday, MyFoodDiary, and my-calorie-counter.

Eating fewer calories doesn't have to be painful, following plans such as Volumetrics, Slimming World's Food Optimising (Body Optimise outside of the UK), or Weight Watcher's Core Plan allow you to fill up on high volumes of low-energy density foods.

Getting more exercise is easy too, walk more, use the stairs, hit the gym, play with the kids, join a league--there are many adult leagues out there for whatever strikes your fancy including hockey, floorball, soccer, bowling, you name it! Pick a few things you like to do, or would like to learn, and get out there!

Even better...it's a high-yield cold weather crop, meaning in winter cabbage is plentiful and cheap, cheap, cheap! Cabbages are in your local markets (U.S.) now for as low as $0.39/lb.

Cabbage is best quickly cooked, think stir-fry, or long cooked, as in a meltingly soft braise--in between cooking times can be somewhat disappointing. Heck, you can eat it raw or pickled to boot.

Some recipes to whet your appetite:

Braised Red Cabbage

Savoy Cabbage Soup with Ricotta Crostini

Kimchi (Korean cabbage pickle)

Sauerkraut

"Asian" Slaw

Good Ol' Slaw

More recipes, buying tips, cooking tips.

Learn more than you ever wanted to know about cabbage, including yet more recipes.

What's in it for you

Cabbages are apparently even better for you than I thought. They are a good source of vitamin K, vitamin C (if not cooked too long), and the phytochemicals called indoles and sulforaphane (sulfur-containing compouds in cabbage are broken down during long cooking and can produce that charactaristic cabbagy smell). Cabbages are part of the Crucifer family, and a diet rich in crucifers is considered a part of our arsenal against developing cancer.

Why is this important? Well, if you're one of the 3 million Americans who has celiac disease, or have an intolerance to gluten, eating foods with even a small amount of gluten can cause a load of misery.

Gluten is comprised of proteins in wheat, barley, and rye. Gluten is what makes your pizza dough chewy and gives breads their structure. Seitan, a commonly used meat substitute in Asian cooking, is pretty much all gluten.

OK, you think, well how hard is it to avoid food with gluten? It's tougher than you think. Wheat is used in making soy sauce, "natural flavorings", many processed foods, and many vegetarian foods. Even if you don't have a gluten issue, try reading some labels looking for hidden gluten and see how common it is for yourself.

The proposed labeling standards are available online in a 95-page .pdf file.

The first few pages give a summary of the proposed standards and also gives you instructions for how to provide feedback on these standards--if you're so inclined to do so. You have 90 days to give Uncle Sam your $0.02 from the publishing date, which I believe is Jan. 23, 2007 if I read the documentation correctly.