here is what our wonderful gov does for us so well:



Q: I saw the FDA’s Warning Letter saying KIND bars aren’t healthy for you. Is it legit?

A: KIND bars are now in 150,000 U.S. retail stores, and many active Americans are snatching and gobbling them up instead of chocolate bars or candy. According to Joe Cohen, senior vice president of communications at KIND, the company sold 455 million units (bars and granola-based snacks) in 2014. The bars are a mix of mostly nuts and dried fruit, and they even say “healthy” in small print right there on the label.



But that label claim is one of the things that got KIND, LLC in trouble with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The agency cited KIND for a number of misbranding violations tied to four varieties of its popular bars. One of the “significant violations” alleged was KIND’s misuse of the word “healthy.” Under FDA regulations, “healthy” is a nutrient content claim that only applies to foods with, among other things, only one gram of saturated fat per serving and 15 percent or less of calories from saturated fat. Four of KIND’s bars exceeded the “healthy” level of saturated fat set forth in the regulations. Because the products aren’t “healthy” under the FDA’s definition of the word, calling them “healthy” makes the products misbranded— and therefore illegal under federal law.



But does the 2.5 grams to 5 grams of saturated fat in the four products truly make them unhealthy? Well, let’s look at that. The fat in the KIND bars in question comes from nuts and coconut, and that includes the saturated fat. Years ago, many nutrition experts believed that all fat was bad, and saturated fat was downright terrible. These beliefs led to the “low-fat” craze of the 1980s, when many Americans would grab boxes of low-fat cookies and cakes, regardless of the calories or sugar content. But, curiously, rather than slimming down, these Americans fattened up. During America’s low-fat days, overweight and obesity statistics rocketed out of control.



“We are awash with solid science that dietary fat does not have to be unhealthy and in fact, can be quite health promoting,” Doug Kalman, Ph.D., RD, FACN, a nutrition author, researcher and expert and the co-founder of the International Society of Sports Nutrition, points out. “Nuts are rich in unsaturated fatty acids and most contain substantial amounts of monounsaturated fatty acid, two heart- and body-friendly types of fat. Almonds, along with Brazil nuts, walnuts and others, have been shown to lower heart disease risk. How can that be unhealthy?” He’s right. And by the FDA’s standards, foods that are generally thought to be good for you like avocados, eggs and wild salmon aren’t “healthy.”



Like Dr. Kalman, most nutrition experts now extol the virtues of healthy fats as part of an overall balanced— and decidedly not low-fat— diet. Unfortunately, the FDA hasn’t caught up to the science. It remains decades behind. By the FDA’s archaic definition, a bag of raw almonds isn’t “healthy” for you. Still, food and dietary supplement marketers alike are required to follow these regulations, no matter how outdated or inappropriately applied.



Remember how awesome your uncle thought he looked in that powder blue leisure suit in 1987? Now it’s cringe-worthy, and photos of it are hidden in a box in the back of his closet. But the FDA’s definition of “healthy” wasn’t some embarrassing, half-forgotten fossil unearthed by critics to humiliate them. It was the agency itself that recently investigated KIND’s products and publicly applied the regulation, lobbing a grenade at the company’s image for all the world to see.



My point has less to do with KIND bars per se than with the stunning disconnect between government agencies like the FDA and the current state of science. I’m sure many folks within the FDA mean well. But government bureaucracies seem to lumber along with little ability or interest in keeping up with the research. A few issues back, I wrote about another government agency, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), which once foisted upon us the ridiculous “Food Pyramid” that advised eating six to 11 daily servings of bread, cereal, rice and pasta— more than the suggested amounts of fruits and vegetables combined— and recommended eating fats and oils only sparingly. If the government’s bias toward high carbs and low fat reflects a “flat Earth” understanding of what’s actually “healthy,” how reliable are its other views and definitions in the area of nutrition … or maybe on other subjects as well?