There is a hot new marketing trend in the food industry: simplicity. A slew of products in grocery stores are boasting that they contain just a few simple, all-natural ingredients. Problem is, those “simple, all-natural” ingredients are generally things that provide little nutritional value for their number of calories—and they include sugar, cream, flour, salt, oils, and butter.

I figure anytime a processed packaged food product markets the brand with squishy terms like simple, all-natural, naturally sourced, or wholesome, it’s necessary to look beyond the bold type on the package and go straight to the Nutrition Facts panel.

After all, if the product was qualified to make any real Food and Drug Administration–approved nutrient claims (such as, it’s rich in calcium, low in sugar, or high in fiber), then it would. Instead, many are using feel-good marketing terms that may make unsuspecting consumers think that the products might, well, be good for them.

This is where simple turns complex. Many of these foods are calorie- and fat-rich, sugar-filled snack foods, desserts, or other treats that should only be eaten on occasion. Remember, the fact that a food is made from simple ingredients that you can recognize doesn’t mean much nutritionally. (We all recognize sugar, lard, and salt, but we don’t want them to be the mainstays of our diet!)

And it’s not like I have a personal vendetta against simple foods; most things I eat are whole foods with few artificial ingredients. But that doesn’t mean that anything without chemicals or hard-to-pronounce additives makes my list.

(ISTOCKPHOTO)

And most of my colleagues feel exactly the same way I do. According to Dallas-based nutritionist Jennifer Neily, RD, “Even though a product may only have a few ingredients, that doesn’t mean it’s healthy. A five-ingredient ice cream may still be loaded with calories and artery-clogging saturated fat, so you have to read the labels for the whole story.”

Here are three of the best examples of “simple” marketing that reveal a more complex nutritional picture.

Häagen-Dazs Five
This new ice cream brags that it’s “crafted with only five ingredients for incredibly pure, balanced flavor…and surprisingly less fat!” The ingredients for the ginger flavor include: skim milk (good), cream (not so good), sugar (eek!), and egg yolks (not great). A half-cup serving has 230 calories, 12 grams of fat, 7 grams of saturated fat (that’s more than one-third of your daily limit), one-fourth of your daily cholesterol allotment, and 5 1/2 teaspoons of sugar.

Pillsbury Simply…Cookies
According to the brand marketers, these refrigerated gems “are made with the simple, wholesome ingredients you and your family know and love.”  These ingredients are well known, yes, but not for being nutritional all-stars; they include refined wheat flour, sugar, eggs, chocolate chips, and peanut butter.

I love a good cookie, but I don’t try to pass my homemade creations off as something nutritionally superior that I can feel good about eating. A puny 1-ounce serving of the Simply…Chocolate Chip variety will set you back 150 calories, and it has 8 grams of fat (3.5 grams of saturated fat) and 3 teaspoons of sugar. But there’s no appreciable fiber, whole grains, vitamins, or minerals, and that’s no nutritional bargain compared to other chocolate chip cookies.

Sara Lee Simple Sweets
At least frozen desserts don’t give any aura of health and wellness, so I’m going to give them a break. Anyone buying a frozen apple or cherry pie isn’t thinking about diet quality or calories. In fairness, what’s so simple about these desserts is that they go from freezer to perfect-pie-on-your-plate in five minutes. But a slice of cherry will still deduct 330 calories from your bank, not to mention the 16 grams of fat (about one-fourth of what you should have in a day) and 6 teaspoons of sugar.

Simple and smart for your health
How about including more truly natural, single-ingredient foods in your shopping cart the next time you visit your local retailer? Here is what’s on my shopping list today.

•    Oats
•    Wheat germ
•    Fresh fruits and vegetables
•    Raisins
•    Olive oil
•    Nuts and seeds
•    Skim milk
•    Coffee and tea
•    Brown rice, couscous, and bulgur
•    Ground turkey breast
•    Eggs

Most of my friends would swear that organically produced foods are nutritionally superior to their conventionally grown cousins. They also believe that organic means chemical-free and that the premium price they pay gives them peace of mind, despite a price tag that is 50% to 100% higher than comparable conventional foods.

In light of recent research comparing the differences between organic and conventionally grown crops and livestock, I’m going to help set the record straight.

  

(ISTOCKPHOTO)

What the research shows
I’ve been following organics for years, and I know that there has never been any conclusive evidence that organic foods are nutritionally superior. However, the excellent marketing of the organic food industry has many consumers royally confused about why they pay a premium for organic products.

Organic food sales have slid during this recession, but many people—especially parents—continue to pay sky-high prices for the perceived benefits of their organic purchases.

In the September issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, researchers at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine analyzed 50 years of organic research to come to their conclusion: There is no significant nutritional difference between conventional and organic crops and livestock.

This wasn’t just another new study, either; it was the most comprehensive review to date. While there are some differences between crops, the smidgen more of vitamin C or potassium in an organic orange isn’t going to really make a big dent in your daily intake when compared to a conventionally grown orange.

The bottom line is that you should eat more fruits and vegetables for the most nutrients—regardless of the method used to produce the crop.

The pesticide problem
If you’re a die-hard organics shopper, there may be benefits of organics beyond nutrition. For example, these researchers did not study the differences in chemical residues or the overall environmental footprint.

However, in a previously published review article, researchers compared the pesticide residues in three types of farming practices: organic, integrated pest management (IPM), and conventional.

IPM is a manner of farming that uses multiple biologically based systems to control pests; it’s the standard toward which most farmers are moving. IPM farmers are not allowed to use synthetic chemicals, but are allowed to use “permitted” pesticides. The results found that organic crops contained fewer pesticide residues, followed by IPM-produced crops, then conventional.

The bottom line
Overall, there are probably minimal nutritional differences between organic and conventionally grown fruits, vegetables, and grains.

Organics will have fewer pesticide residues, but IPM crops are significantly lower in residues compared to conventional as well. With a growing number of farmers using IPM, the pesticide residue problems of the past may not be an issue in future crops.

While the debate over organics is far from over, I’m sticking to my rule of thumb: I buy farmers’ market produce first, organics for a few thin-skinned fruits (like berries) and dairy products, and conventional for most other items on my grocery list.

The FDA’s warning letter to General Mills this week concerning its unsubstantiated label claims about Cheerios and cholesterol came as a pleasant surprise to me, as well as a sign of what more is to come.

Since the neighborhood Safeway supermarket is practically my second office, I certainly know my way around a label or two. Registered dietitians like me are often the ones who reach out to food manufacturers and tell them something appears wrong on a label—not, usually, the government. Under previous administrations, food companies have been able to make plenty of health claims with only, say, one small clinical trial for substantiation.

Not anymore.

Cheerios, one of General Mills’ flagship brands, was probably the first of many large food brands that will be getting warnings about their often outrageous on-package health claims—in this case, that the cereal can help you lower your cholesterol by 4% in six weeks.

Cheerios is made with whole grains, yes, and I do believe that eating them daily will probably lower your cholesterol—but probably only if you were previously eating croissants, Dunkin’ Donuts, or McDonald’s every morning instead. If you are already eating a healthy whole-grain cereal every day, switching to Cheerios is likely to do nothing for your lipid levels.

This week, the FDA warned General Mills that Cheerios’ 4%-in-six-weeks claim is misleading, and that if the company wants to use it, they must file for a drug claim. Here’s an excerpt from the FDA’s warning letter:

Based on claims made on your product’s label, we have determined that your Cheerios Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal is promoted for conditions that cause it to be a drug because the product is intended for use in the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease.

The FDA continued that any claim intended for use in “the prevention, mitigation, and treatment of disease” should file for an FDA-approved drug claim. Of course, I doubt that Cheerios would pass the rigorous scientific scrutiny of a full-blown drug claim.

I expect General Mills will soften its language to reflect something closer to the FDA-approved whole-grain claim, which isn’t so specific on the magnitude of the cholesterol-lowering benefit you may experience.

The rules of food labeling and regulation are rapidly changing, thanks to a president and first lady with a passion for good nutrition—and common sense—in the White House. I expect more and more major brands to get similar letters in the upcoming months.

Who will be next? Will the Kellogg’s Special K Challenge be no more? Let’s keep an eye out to see who gets the next warning letter or, better yet, tell us some of the most outlandish claims you’ve seen on food labels.