Hard-boiled look at eggs

Press, 15 May 1985, Page 24

Hard-boiled look at eggs

By

DON KENDALL,

Associated Press

Washington

The Centre for Science in the public interest has taken a hard-boiled look at eggs and concludes that, from a nutrition standpoint, they aren’t what they’re cracked up to be. Eggs are not junk food, but they are hardly all-star dietary performers, says a report by Bonnie Liebman, director of nutrition for the non-profit public interest organisation based in Washington. The centre, funded by private grants and dues from about 30,000 members, frequently examines truth-in-advertising issues, including a claim by the American Egg Board that the incredible, edible egg provides a significant share of recommended daily amounts of key vitamins, plus important nutrients and minerals.

Eggs are one of nature’s most nearly perfect foods, the Egg Board said. They’re also one of your best and least expensive sources of high quality protein. Ms Liebman’s report acknowledges that the egg’s protein is highly digestible, and it does contain a balance of amino acids that closely meets the body’s needs.

The egg gets a net protein utilisation (N.P.U.) score of 94 out of 100 points, the report said. But scores for

poultry, fish, meat and milk products are not far behind. Even when N.P.U. is considered, an egg still has less usable protein than a serving of milk, yogurt, fish, poultry or meat, the report said. Eggs are simply not the unique source of highquality protein that the Egg Board would have us believe.

Noting that egg consumption has declined gradually for many years, the report said one reason must be concern over eggs as a source of cholesterol.

Since 1965, it said, the American Heart Association has recommended that egg consumption be limited to three per week to reduce the risk of heart disease.

The centre’s report challenged the Egg Board’s claim that one egg delivers a significant percentage of recommended daily allowances of certain vitamins and nutrients.

By Food and Drug Administration definition, a food must contain at least 10 per cent of a United States recommended daily allowance to be called a significant source of a vitamin or mineral. One egg does not meet that requirement, the report said. According to some industry officials, the error was in the claim that one egg provided all those vitamins, when the flap might have been avoided if the advertisement has said one

serving of eggs would do the job.

The Egg Board is an 18member panel authorised by the Egg Research and Consumer Information Act of 1974. It oversees a pro-ducer-financed programme to help promote and improve the use of eggs. The ?USS million-a-year (?11 million) programme is financed through a levy of 5c on each 30-dozen case of eggs marketed and its operations are subject to review by the Agriculture Department. According to the Government’s economic research

service, per capita egg consumption has generally declined for the last 30 years. The peak was an average of 403 eggs consumed by each American in 1945, the last year of World War 11. The use of eggs dropped from 265.3 eggs for each American in 1982 to an average of 261.2 eggs in 1983 and 1984.

This year, according to the agency, per capita consumption may rise by about one egg — which is good news for producers. But the over-all trend is downward. Since 1954, consumption has declined an

average of 3.8 eggs per year.

If this trend were to continue, per capita consumption would be 228 eggs by 1990, the agency said in a recent outlook report

Some recent recommendations by the medical community to limit cholesterol intake will probably contribute to a continued decline in per capita consumption, the report said. If everyone adopted the recently publicised dietary recommendations, supplies of eggs would greatly outstrip demand.