Not by Cereal Alone

Since the charge was made three weeks ago that most cereals offer little nutritional value, the issue has grown from a tempest in a breakfast bowl to a national debate that has provided wits and pundits with plenty of grist. In one of many newspaper cartoons, a worried father says to his child: "I want to talk to you, son. It's about the cereal we have insisted that you eat ..." Columnists, with varying degrees of levity, have called the health promises for cereals so much pap, cackle and puff. Bumper stickers note that "Jack Armstrong died of malnutrition."

Preoccupied though it was with other weighty matters, Congress last week provided a forum at which the cereal makers defended themselves. For representatives of the industry, which spends $87.5 million yearly in TV advertising, the hearing was a sober matter. They had to face charges by Robert Choate, a consultant to last year's White House Conference on Food Nutrition and Health, that their health claims are harmful because they divert consumer dollars away from more nutritious foods.

A Matter of Taste. In testimony before the Senate consumer subcommittee, industry officers and some nutritionists contended that dry cereals should not be evaluated alone, but in combination with milk. Even cereal with milk, they said, was never intended to be the sole source of protein, minerals and vitamins at breakfast. "A breakfast of cereal and milk," testified Harvard Nutritionist Fredrick Stare, "along with some fruit, a couple of pieces of toast, some polyunsaturated margarine, a little jelly and jam, is just as nutritious as a bacon-and-eggs breakfast with fruit, toast and something to put on .the toast." As for the cereal makers' marketing tactics, Dr. Robert Nesheim, research and development chief at Quaker Oats, argued: "No one will get food nutrition into his stomach unless the product has an appealing taste. I see nothing wrong with promoting quality products on the basis of taste, convenience and even premiums."

An equally distinguished panel of nutritionists disputed the industry's defenders. Dr. Michael Latham, a Cornell professor, condemned cereal advertising. "The consumer has been led to believe that ordinary cereals have a nutritive value superior to common foods such as bread, hominy grits, rice, spaghetti, baked beans, potatoes and pizza," he said. "This is not true." Besides, Latham added, "Puffed rice is five times as expensive as ordinary rice and yet provides smaller amounts of most nutrients."

Harvard Nutritionist Dr. Jean Mayer pointed out that different brands of cereals vary widely in nutritional values. "Such differences," he argued, "could easily be avoided and many products upgraded." It would be fairly easy, for example, for the companies to add more vitamins and minerals to cereals. They already produce some highly fortified cereals, notably Kellogg's Product 19 and General Mills' Kaboom and Total.

Ironically, the Food and Drug Administration has proposed limiting the amounts of minerals and vitamins in cereals, on the grounds that too much of these good things can be harmful to some people. The FDA is backed by the American Dietetic Association, but opposed by the American Medical Association. While the great breakfast-food debate goes on, many parents can echo the tag line of a cartoon in the Arkansas Gazette: "Isn't anything sacred any more?"

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.