The American Egg Board is a promotional marketing board

appointed by the U.S. government whose mission

is to " increase demand for egg and egg products"

"on behalf of U.S. egg producers."

Now if an individual egg company

wants to run an ad campaign

they can say whatever they want,

but if an egg corporation wants to dip

into the 10 million dollars the American Egg Board

sets aside for advertising,

because the board is overseen by the federal government

corporations are not allowed to lie with those funds.

What a concept!

Which leads to quite revealing exchanges

between egg corporations that want to use that money

and USDA on what egg companies

can and cannot say about eggs.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act

I was able to get my hands on some of those emails.

Of course, a lot of what I got looked like this...

"Please note a number of items"

about our salmonella crisis module—

"any questions?"

Or even better entire sheets of paper

that literally just said this.

That was the whole sheet of paper.

Our tax dollars hard at work.

But check this out.

This is some egg company trying to put out a brochure

on healthy snacking for kids.

But because of existing laws

against false and misleading advertising

the head of the USDA's poultry

research and promotion programs reminds them

that you can't couch eggs or egg products

as being healthy or nutritious.

See the words nutritious and healthy

carry certain connotations

(you know that a food is actually good for you),

but because eggs have the amount of cholesterol they do

(plus all the saturated fat)

the words healthy and nutritious are problematic

when it comes to eggs.

This is the USDA saying this!

However, the USDA helpfully suggests,

you could say eggs are nutrient dense.

Wait a second!

Why can you say eggs are nutrient dense but not nutritious?

Because there's no legal definition of nutrient dense.

You can say Twinkies and Coca Cola are nutrient dense,

but legally, you can't say something is nutritious

unless it's actually... nutritious!

So for example, the egg industry wanted to run this ad

calling eggs a nutritional powerhouse

that aids in weight loss.

The USDA had to remind the industry

you can't portray eggs as a diet food

because of the fat and cholesterol content.

In fact, they have nearly twice the calories

of anything that can be called low-calorie.

"Nutritional powerhouse" can't be used either.

Fine, the industry said, they'll move to plan B,

and headline the ad Egg-ceptional nutrition.

Nope, because again given the saturated fat and cholesterol

you can't legally call eggs nutritious.

So, the ad ended up "find true satisfaction"

and instead of weight loss they had to go with

"can reduce hunger."

USDA congratulated them on their cleverness.

Yes, a food that when eaten can reduce hunger—

what a concept!

You can't even call eggs a food relatively low in calories.

Can't say eggs are low in saturated fat—they're not.

Can't say they're relative low in fat.

Can't even call them a rich source of protein,

because they're not.

It's illegal to advertise that eggs pack a nutritional wallop—

can't truthfully say that,

or have a high nutritional content.

You can't say eggs are "nutritious" at all.

Can't say nutritious;

cannot say eggs are nutritious.

(Sometimes you have to tell the industry a few times).

Eggs have so much cholesterol

you can't even say they contribute nutritionally.

Can't say eggs are healthful,

certainly can't say they're healthy—

have you seen how much cholesterol

there are in those things?

Can't say healthy.

Can't even say eggs contribute healthful components.

Since you can't say eggs are a healthy start to the day,

the USDA suggests satisfying start.

Can't call eggs a healthful ingredient,

but you can call eggs a recognizable ingredient.

Can't truthfully say eggs are good for you.

Can't say they're good for you.

By law, the egg industry

"needs to steer clear of words like healthy or nutritious."

For a food to be labeled "healthy" under FDA rules,

it has to be low in saturated fat—

eggs fail that test—

and less that 90mg of cholesterol per serving—

even half an egg fails that criteria.

For the same reason you can't tout ice cream

for healthy bones,

you can't say eggs are healthy because

they exceed the limit for cholesterol.

Egg corporations aren't even allowed to say things like

"Eggs are an important part of a well balanced, healthy diet",

on an egg carton because

it would be considered misleading,

according to the USDA's National Egg Supervisor

since eggs contain significant amounts of fat and cholesterol,

and therefore contribute to the

leading killer in the United States, heart disease.

The industry can't afford to tell the truth about eggs,

or even the hens that lay them.

The industry crams 5 to 10 birds in cages

the size of a file cabinet their whole lives,

but when providing footage to the media

the American Egg Board instructs

"do not show multiple birds in cages-"

"they look too crowded "

"and open us up to activist criticism."

In other words, do not show… the truth.

Not only is the industry barred from saying

eggs are healthy,

they can't even refer to eggs as safe,

"all references to safety must be removed."

because more than a hundred thousand Americans

are salmonella poisoned every year from eggs.

The egg board response to this eggborne epidemic is that

Salmonella is a naturally occurring bacteria.

The egg industry didn't think that should

necessarily be the key message,

fearing "it may be counterproductive"

"by implying there is no avoiding salmonella in eggs"

"aside from avoiding eggs altogether."

That's why the American Egg Board

can't even mention anything but eggs cooked hard and dry.

No soft-boiled, no over-easy, no sunny-side up

because of salmonella.

The American Egg Board's own research showed

that the sunny-side up cooking method

should be considered unsafe.

And because of avian influenza as well, not just salmonella.

In light of bird flu viruses eggs must be cooked firm.

The VP of marketing for the Egg Board complained

to the USDA saying they'd really like to not have to dictate

that yolks are firm.

What about some Washington Post article

saying runny yolks may be safe for everyone

except pregnant women, infants, elderly,

or those with chronic disease?

Turns out that was a misquote—

they can't be considered safe for anyone.

Instead of safe you can call eggs fresh,

the USDA marketing service helpfully suggests.

But you can't call eggs safe,

you cannot say eggs are safe to eat,

can't say they're safe,

can't even mention safety,

can't say they're healthful.

All "references to healthfulness must be deleted" as well.

Wait a second...eggs can't really be called healthy?

Eggs can't even really be called safe?

Says who…

Says the United States Department of Agriculture.