Seeing or hearing news about what you should or shouldn’t eat and wondering what’s true? Here is my take on the past few weeks’ news.

The New York Times: All the [nutrition] news that fits to print? As some of you know, since the late 1800s, the motto of the NY Times has been, “All the news that’s fit to print.” Although I tend to cite the New York Times a lot, I don’t always agree with their interpretation of published scientific studies. Mainly, I regard them as a good indication of what people are talking about, but too often, especially in the Sunday Magazine, feature stories about food and nutrition are extremely biased and not at all scientific (for example a recent article on the impact of genetically modified foods). Now, the American Council on Science and Health, whose site I urge everyone to frequent for no-punches-pulled reporting on mostly alternative medicine treatments, has published a cool infographic that rates the trustworthiness of many sources of science news. Not surprising to me but apparently a shock to the Times, the ACSH doesn’t give them high marks, for the reasons I cite.

Designer foods? In setting guidance, the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) publicly solicits input. Most recently, they have sought guidance on the use of a new-ish technique called genome editing that, as its name implies, allows food researchers to “edit” the DNA of food plants to encourage higher expression of desirable traits (such as flood resistance) or discourage expression of certain other genes. This technique can increase crop yield or allow farmers to grow fruits and vegetables with improved nutrient contents, flavor, size, hardiness, or other characteristics, all without introducing any foreign DNA or doing anything to the foods that could decrease the safety of the food supply. In fact, in some cases, the resulting foods are safer than their non-modified counterparts. Yet the FDA is facing pushback on approving use of the genetic technique from several vocal groups. These foods present no legitimate safety concerns; the arguments are purely economic. If you’d like to read more about this technology, you can do so and provide your input to the FDA!

Got milk? Really??? Should liquids extracted from nuts and sold as milk substitutes be allowed to call themselves “milk”? The Dairy Council thinks not. They are asking the FDA to bar food companies from being allowed to call a food “milk” unless the food is from a dairy animal. I’ve written before about the federal government’s legal standards of identity for particular foods. These standards of identity, which define precisely what a food must (or must not) contain to be allowed to call itself a certain thing (e.g., cheese, ice cream, mayonnaise, chocolate) were developed and implemented to prevent consumers from being cheated into thinking they were buying a product with certain nutrients or other desired properties. The manufacturers of nut milks argue that manufacturers of coconut milk have always been allowed to use the M word for their product. I have no particular love for the Dairy Council (they’ve footed the bill for research that probably exaggerates some of the benefits of dairy foods) but I have even less love for organizations that have devoted themselves and use the cover of pseudoscience to take down the dairy industry. Nut milks are advertised as being as nutritious as cow’s milk or other animal milks; their main consumer base seems to be vegans, those with lactose intolerance, and the very small proportion of people with true milk allergy or a condition called food protein-induced enterocolitis. But commercial nut milks almost always provide less protein and calcium than dairy milk, the nutrients that are the main advantages of consuming milk.

Say cheese! So those folks I just mentioned who want to dismantle the dairy industry? Their chief spokesperson just wrote a book decrying the supposed dangers of eating cheese. Among the supposed dangers, they allege, is that cheese is addictive. I love cheese, and if you put a wedge of soft asiago in front of me, and force me to sit there, I will probably finish it. The word “addiction” gets thrown around quite a bit, mostly inappropriately; when it is applied to food, any food, a common sense approach suggests asking the question, “Is the consumption of this food interfering with people’s ability to do their job, maintain their social relationships (well maybe if it’s that smelly Limberger), and engage in other activities they would normally engage in? The evidence that cheese is “addictive” by this definition is nonexistent. Furthermore, no evidence exists that cheese, eaten in moderation, is unhealthy, with the possible exception of an occasional batch of some raw milk cheeses (due to a toxic strain of the bacteria, E Coli, not to any addictive property), a topic the FDA is currently actively reviewing. So it’s high time the fake science food police cheese it.

Oh, to B12 again! Late last year, a Personal Health column in the NY Times reviewed some of the latest findings on our need for vitamin B12. Although all our cells require B12, deficiencies of the vitamin particularly affect brain function and have been associated with depression and signs of dementia and mental impairment among elderly people, as well as those who follow a strict vegetarian or vegan diet. Why? Because in contrast to our tendency to consume excesses of most of the B vitamins, we lose our ability to absorb vitamin B12 from food as we age and because the foods that typically provide vitamin B12 are of animal origin. Younger vegans and strict vegetarians can purchase vitamin B12-fortified foods or take a multivitamin supplement. Older folks may benefit from having their blood levels measured and from getting vitamin B12 shots from their health care provider.

Take your [gummy] vitamins? For as long as I can remember, dietary supplement companies have been trying to appeal to kids’ love for candy (Flintstones, anyone?). Over the past decade, gummy bear-like vitamins have proliferated. A few weeks ago, the NYTimes reported on the latest fad to hit the dietary supplement shelves: gummy vitamins for adults! Sure, some consumers who report difficulty swallowing the horse pills that pass for some vitamin-mineral supplements say that the fruity rainbow hued supplements are much easier to take. But real concern exists that folks could easily overdose on the tasty vitamins. And since few of us actually need to take supplements at all, why not just consume a couple of far cheaper, less risky gummy bears to satisfy your need for a sweet treat? And, regardless, don’t forget to floss and brush your teeth!