Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler Dumpster Dived To Keep You Thin
Consider this the next time you wonder how far government officials will go to protect you: former FDA Commissioner David Kessler used to dumpster dive for nutritional data that chain restaurants were unwilling to hand over. Kessler, who rummaged through rubbish in slacks and padded gardening gloves, was looking for the ingredient labels that suppliers are required to print on all inter-state food shipments. Kessler's findings were both dirty and disturbing...
The labels showed the foods were bathed in salt, fat and sugars, beyond what a diner might expect by reading the menu, Kessler said. The ingredient list for Southwestern Eggrolls mentioned salt eight different times; sugars showed up five times. The "egg rolls," which are deep-fried in fat, contain chicken that has been chopped up like meatloaf to give it a "melt in the mouth" quality that also makes it faster to eat. By the time a diner has finished this appetizer, she has consumed 910 calories, 57 grams of fat and 1,960 milligrams of sodium.
Instead of satisfying hunger, the salt-fat-sugar combination will stimulate that diner's brain to crave more, Kessler said. For many, the come-on offered by Lay's Potato Chips — "Betcha can't eat just one" — is scientifically accurate. And the food industry manipulates this neurological response, designing foods to induce people to eat more than they should or even want, Kessler found.
Kessler equates big food with big tobacco, accusing industrial food producers of mucking with our brain chemistry to encourage overeating. He's written a book, The End of Overeating, based in part on his dumpster diving discoveries.
David Kessler Knew That Some Foods Are Hard to Resist; Now He Knows Why [The Washington Post via Consumer Law & Policy Blog]
Post a comment
Comments:
There's a man who takes his job seriously. Can we get him back in government service?
Is that dumpster juice on his face, or just a bad shave?
It's good to know that there are people out there who actually care about the health and well being of others. The world is a shitty place, and we need more people like Kessler to help change that.
1. Appetizers are *supposed* to stimulate appetite.
2. Appetizers are generally eaten by more than one person, so I doubt any one person is getting the full 910 calories.
Chili's does publish nutritional info on their site, although it's a bit hard to see. After checking it over, they make McDonald's look healthy in comparison-the amounts of sat fat and salt are staggeringly high in most of their items (far worse than any fast food place I know of), and trans fat isn't even listed (which means it's loaded with them). I have actually never eaten at Chili's and after seeing this info, have no real desire to risk sudden cardiac arrest by doing so.
@Short Bus - #2 Oh really? Do you ordinarily split a can of Pepsi, or do you put the other serving back in the fridge for later. The Nutrition Facts might indicate that there are six servings of appetizer on the plate, but that doesn't mean anywhere close to that many people are actually sharing it. That 910 calories is "per serving" anyway, mainly to keep the FDA happy, but also to keep that all-important calories number in the three figures. If you're eating the whole plate yourself, you're probably getting some multiple of 910.
Replies not working for me, so...
@Dragonfire - I found it somewhat inspiring that there are (were) people in government that believe in what they do and are willing to resort to things like this.
@ShortBus - Say she splits it, she's just consumed 50% of her daily fat and sodium intake, and this is only a few bites into the meal.
@ShortBus: Unfortunately I've dined with people many times who just order one or two appetizers as their main meal. I'm not sure if they think they're consuming less calories - a quick glance at the description should do away with any notion of that.
@Shortbus: Appetizers are designed to stimulate appetite, yes. Much to the disadvantage of people who eat them. It's not healthy to eat fat, sugar, and salt that makes you crave more fat, sugar, and salt. Your admission that the food is designed to make you want more is one of Mr. Kessler's main points.
So, how big is (or was) this appetizer? If it's big enough to divide amongst at least two people, it's just surprisingly salty.
Still, that's pretty awesome of Mr. Kessler. I'm surprised this isn't tagged "Above and Beyond".
Dr. Kessler is good people. Unfortunately, as soon as he left the FDA in 1997, DTC Pharmaceutical advertising got a whole lot more legal.
Coincidence? Not one bit.
@ShortBus: You've seen how fat people have become, haven't you?
Appetizers, while at their barest definition are supposed to make you hungry, but half of a day's healthy caloric intake? That's overkill, and that's what this article is about.
Excellent! It's always comforting to know that at least some people at the FDA care about their jobs. It's also nice to see a book about food and eating right that isn't trying to sell some ultimately unrealistic diet plan for once. (Atkin's, anyone?)
@consciousj: I generally avoid appetizers as I really fail to see the need in them. Typically an entree is more than enough to satisfy me.
I saw this guy plug his book on the Colbert Report. He seems like an interesting person.
@Jacob Morgan: The Southwestern Eggrolls at Chili's (which I think is what they're talking about) aren't that huge. It's definitely a restaurant-sized-meal if you eat them yourself (that is, 2ish actual meals).
My husband adores them. Sometimes we get their "triple treat" appetizer as a take-out dinner for the two of us (small orders of the southwestern eggrolls, motz sticks, and like potato skins or something).
They definitely try to present them as semi-healthy, as appetizers go. And they're definitely not.
"Kessler equates big food with big tobacco, accusing industrial food producers of mucking with our brain chemistry to encourage overeating."
I told a friend a few years ago that food companies jerked with their products to keep people eating and eating. I said that that would be the next big consumer scandal after tobacco.
Now I wish I'd made a bet on it.
Three problems with the issue that people tend to overlook, especially the FDA:
1) Recommended daily allowances are just that: RECOMMENDED. So what if you eat Pork Brains in Gravy and get 1120% of your recommended sodium for ONE DAY? As long as you don't make a habit of it or you actively balance it over the stretch of your life, it doesn't make any difference. Unless you are OCD about your diet, what you eat balances out with a vigorously varied diet.
2) Serving/Portion sizes: What normal human being uses the allocated "Serving Size", unless it is part of a recipe or menu?
If I open a can of chile, I eat the whole can. But, if I add cornbread, or wienies, or salad to the menu, then I might split the can.
As with the allowances, serving/portion sizing is a RECOMMENDATION, not the arbiter of all cuisine.
3) Individuality. The brown fat/white fat controversy is coming back, and illustrates once more...what you eat isn't what I eat which isn't what they eat.
Your metabolism may digest that Mars bar faster and more efficiently than mine, so maybe I should only eat half; but why should you be limited in your choice bt my plodding gullet?
All FDA recommendations are based on the mythical "common person" that does not exist, and has as much credibility as the Center for Science in the Public Interest: NONE WHATSOEVER.
Sum total? Eat what you want, in moderation. Don't let the Food Nazis dictate your menu.
@ShortBus: See, that's an odd concept in most restaurants. If I'm sitting down to eat, I'm already hungry. Ordering an appetizer to stimulate my appetite is rather redundant. Typically, an appetizer is enough to fill me up, and the portions are usually a decent size.
I'm guessing the common restaurant's definition of an appetizer is completely opposite of their original intent to stimulate the appetite.
Comments not working for me so:
@HPCommando: I think anyone who eats a can of Pork Brains with Milk Gravy is unlikely to read or follow any health recommendations. I agree that a massive dose of sodium for one person may have more or less of a massive effect on someone else, but it's still a massive dose of sodium.
We should have an army of people like David Kessler around to keep an eye on things and kick ass.
@HurtsSoGood: I don't know about Pepsi, but a can of Coca-Cola is only one serving... I usually don't eat over the average serving amount. Maybe you eat a lot more than me but it's not the FDA's fault. Their serving sizes are pretty accurate for me.
Its possible to get an allergic reaction to sodium if you consume too much and you won't even know its happening until it happens and you have to go to the hospital in the middle of your day for treatment.
A Chili's just opened up here, yeah not touching it with a 10 foot pole.
@HPCommando: This guy's point is that restaurant foods contain hidden calories. Go into a restaurant and order chili, and you get 3 cans of chili with a can of pork brains thrown in for flavor
@ HPCommando- I'd love to see where you're drawing all these conclusions from cause I think you're making all that shit up.
FYI...
- 1.) RDA stands for Recommended Dietary Allowances. Sure it's "recommended." So then nothing happens to you if you go past your RDAs? And I say "your" RDAs cause it's different for everybody.
- 2.) I don't quite understand what you mean when you said that serving sizes are "recommended." If x portion equals 5 oz/8 fl oz/5 crackers/ etc, then it contains y calories, z grams of fat, etc. There's nothing recommended about that. Period.
Do you even know what a serving of meat is?
- 3.) Fat, regardless of saturation (or color) will ALWAYS be 9 calories per gram. Please explain this white/brown fat "controversy" is. I've never once heard of that shit. Every gram of carbohydrate or protein will always yield 4 calories. For every human. Even your "normal" or not so normal human. Period.
Your FDA/CSPI comment falls flat on its face. Neither of them are driven by profit or corporations. Have you ever read CSPI's publication? Everything is backed by scientific research so how the hell are you going to object to that?
Do yourself a favor and take a nutrition class at a college. You won't believe how much you'll learn.
Food police - GO AWAY!!! I know what the heck I am eating. I think everyone else does too. I recognize the glorious golden brown that only comes from deep frying. I recognize the melted charms of the cheeses when the hit my palette. And I definitely know the ranch based dip is my turn at creamy heaven. Leave me and my food choices alone. One day they are going to start refusing to serve someone something other than steamed vegetables if they don't 'look' like they should order anything else. Watch Demolition Man - they will outlaw what THEY THINK you shouldn't eat. (Before you start fussing - my chem numbers are excellent - so that 'norm' crap is just that - crap.)
Cue the "OMG IT'S COMMUNISM!!!" comments about how "the gub'mnt is dictating what we eats" because this guy is trying to give us facts on what is being sold to us. I hate facts so I'm just going to tune in to the No Fact Zone with Bill O'Reilly.
@ArcanaJ: I have known this for years, so glad to see someone doing something specific about exposing it.
I would love to see someone obtain and put on the web the ingredient and nutrition information for all of the chain restaurant items. I think it would be near scandalous.
BUDWEISER salutes Real Men of Genius...*real men of geeenius* today we salute Dumpster diving nutrition info FDA guy!
to keep the consumer safe you dive the dumspsters and trash those cans looking for hidden fat and calories that the big shot corporate guys wanna keep secret *background singer* oh yeahh
WE support you MR Dumpster diving nutrition info FDA guy!
*background singer
MR DUMPSTER DIVING NUTRITION INFO FDA GUYYYYY
@chris_d: see HPCommando, who sounds an awfully lot like someone from the "Center for Consumer Freedom" aka tobacco, food and alcohol lobbyists.
@bohemian:
Saw a book that listed quite a lot of it in Barnes & Noble once. Wish I could remember the title for you.
@ Shortbus
As a matter of fact, I have eaten the Southwest Egg Rolls as a meal before at Chili's. I don't know how they measure up to the entrees but I sure as hell didn't expect five little egg rolls to add up to so much.
Honestly I didn't choose it because I thought it was healthier; just because they are so darned delicious. But it is quite common to eat appetizers as a meal. Also I would charge that if the plate comes with five of those things which I think was accurate when I ate it, nearly 200 calories for one roll is STILL ridiculous especially when followed up by the typical American entree.
aguacarbonica: Thanks, I was just wondering how many rolls came in a serving. So even if you had five people, and each person ate a roll, that would be 182 calories per roll? With a meal to come after that?
The amount of calories you should eat daily to maintain your weight varies depending on how much you weigh, but it's generally somewhere in the 2000-2500 range. Three square meals a day would be (roughly) 650-850 calories per meal. And you're supposed to spend 182 out of that on one stupid little egg roll? Unreasonable. I wonder how many of their entrees even fall into a reasonable range.
This kind of thing is even worse for someone like me, who finds it best to eat several smaller meals per day. Two of those egg rolls and my dinner is over. Oh boy, let's go to Chili's!
shouldn't this be filed under [Above and Beyond]?
wish more people who had powerful jobs took them this seriously.
Sure there are explanations for it all..RDA..sodium intake, fat calories, blah blah blah. But come on...shouldnt it come down to the morals of this country? How is it right that restaraunts can serve food with ghastly amounts of fat and sugar to customers, knowing that customers are none the wiser? Its really sad. I really wish people would take the time to educate themselves more. Knowledge=power!
When I was in high school, I worked at a restaraunt on an Air Force base. I recall a time when I was walking past a prep table, and saw a huge box of cheesecake thawing. The calorie content said that it was a approximately 1,200 calories for a SLICE! That was enough to scare me away from stealing a piece!
@ShortBus:
Appetizers are also often less expensive than an entree so some people, in an attempt to save a few bucks, will order an appetizer in lieu of an entree.
David Kessler is an ass. He was shitcanned as Dean of the School of Medicine at UCSF because of mismanagement and misappropriation of money.
Screw him and the horse he rode in on, and good riddance. I'm disgusted that I had my picture taken with him.
I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't eat, but I do want to know what I'm eating. I know what's in every meal I prepare at home, and I should be able to easily find out what's in every meal I eat out. Easily, as in there is ingredient and nutritional information handed out to the table along with menus. It would be the government forcing restaurants to provide us with information, not telling them what they can and can't serve. Of course, I would fully expect a bunch of chains, when forced to disclose what's actually in their dishes, to say, "Uh oh, we can't serve this," out of shame.
@ecwis: Both Coke and Pepsi come in at least 3 different can sizes, as well as 3 different bottle sizes. The regular sized cans are 12oz, which is 50% more than the generally recognized serving size of 8oz. Those squat cans you see on end caps once in a while are a single serving.
My view is that if someone is fat it would not take long for them to figure out why. Don't eat shitty mass marketed egg rolls all the time-- go pick up a salad or yogurt or something. You can even drive your car there to pick them up!
It amazes me that people can be so outraged by something that seems so obvious.
@anachro882: Salads and yogurt can be some of the most fattening things you can stick in your mouth, which is the man's whole point. Food is often delivered in ways that make it difficult to determine just how much you should be eating of that specific item.
Fat people are usually in slightly less danger as a group than people who aren't visibly overweight (which is most people you know). They don't realize that eating just a few too many calories a day (less than 100 will do it easily) makes you just as likely to keel over dead from something as binging. It just takes longer, and that's even worse because the effects of weight gain spread out over 10 years is nearly impossible to notice early enough to avoid damage.
So, no, it's not obvious.
@SpearXXI: Absolutely! Hell, put him on both TDS and CR if they'll do it...one for the hardback and one for the paperback release later.
@greyer: Well my 12 oz. can of Coke says it's only one serving. I don't know if it's Coca-Cola or the FDA that adjusts it from 1.5 servings to 1 but it makes more sense this way.
RoosterCockburn: I don't get it. None of the articles provided any proof he was involved in any wrongdoing. I have a family member who was once involved in a wrongful termination - basically one person above him declared him guilty, and all of his associates knew otherwise. In fact, 4 others soon resigned in protest, and eventually the institution issued an apology.
@RoosterCockburn: I just read a few of the top hits in your google link and none of them support your claim. They all say he was brought in, thought he was missing money in the Deans account, tried to find it, and couldnt. Then HE was auditied for overspending, and that didnt find anything. Then he was fired. It doesnt sound like he even took any money, if anything. Do you have a mores specific link?
greyer, yes it is obvious if your salad is chock full of cheese, bacon and creamy sauces or if your yogurt has an inch of syrupy fake "froot" on the bottom. whatever happened to common sense?
If a restaurant is including crack or an excess of other ingredients purely designed to activate the craving process and get you hooked, it's information that should be made available if not legislated against. They are preying on well researched human weaknesses and pleasure centers in order to sacrifice our health for profit.
Easy to say "just say no" to this stuff as though we were as ignorant as Nancy Reagan, but mind and emotion and addiction are complicated things, you can bet that these companies pay big bucks to find ways to overcome personal will...
It's pretty obvious how useless the courts and government regulatory bodies are when a guy has to dumpster dive at restaurants to get ahold of extremely important information.