DEAR DR. BLONZ: Do dried blueberries have the same antioxidant benefits as fresh ones? -- C.D., Albany, California

DEAR C.D.: Depending on the size and degree of hydration before harvest, a fresh blueberry is about 80% water by weight; a dried one is about 15% water (it may be less, depending on the degree of drying). With a dried berry, you get more nutrients and calories by weight (check the added sugars if they are sweetened). When dried, there will be a just slight loss of nutrients, but the loss of antioxidant substances is negligible -- nowhere near enough to dampen the flavor and nutritional value.

Dried blueberries are an excellent source of dietary fiber, and they contain the bountiful nutrients and beneficial phytochemicals found in fresh berries, so use fresh or dried -- whichever you prefer. I use fresh blueberries, preferably organic, in my morning breakfast, which includes plain whole-milk yogurt and a high-fiber granola.

When out of season, I rely on frozen blueberries. I always have dried fruits in the house, including cranberries, raisins, raspberries, cherries and blueberries, which I enjoy with various nuts (and a few dark chocolate chips) for my homemade trail mix, which also works as an office snack, allowing convenient access to flavorful, real food.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: One of my friends got his elevated cholesterol back in the desired range since he started taking a statin drug more than a year ago. Lately, however, he has become a bit lax in how he eats. Is there any reason, except perhaps for weight issues, why it would be best for him to stay away from foods that are high in cholesterol and fat if those statin pills keep his numbers in the good range? -- K.M.

Dear K.M.: I will offer general advice, as this is best discussed with a professional familiar with his family history and the specifics of his health situation. Medications prescribed to control an elevated blood cholesterol level should not be thought of as a license to eat and live in an unhealthful manner. Taking a statin or any cholesterol-lowering drug provides a means to correct a symptom of imbalance associated with an increased risk of disease.

Whether due to a genetic predisposition, poor diet or lifestyle factors, our blood cholesterol values become elevated for a reason. It makes little sense to think that a pharmaceutically lowered cholesterol level is the only fix needed. Such meds do not relieve us of the responsibility to treat our bodies with care. If you need the medication, by all means, use it. But wouldn't it be a worthy goal to make the appropriate changes to reduce or eliminate the need for the medication? (Read more about cholesterol in the blood at b.link/suaf5qb. See b.link/vq74z82 for an article on the impact of family history on heart disease and stroke.)

Send questions to: "On Nutrition," Ed Blonz, c/o Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: You often refer to the "Nutrition Facts" label in your columns, but I have always wondered about the information listed. How are these figures arrived at, by whom, and how reliable are the values? -- A.W., Walnut Creek, California

DEAR A.W.: The accuracy of the information on the "Nutrition Facts" label is the responsibility of the company selling the food bearing the label. With few exceptions, all regulated foods must display nutrition information on the package or have that information available to consumers in other ways.

There are exceptions for small businesses with fewer than 100 full-time-equivalent employees or food product sales of less than 100,000 units annually. (For importers, the exceptions are: fewer than 10 full-time-equivalent employees and sales under 10,000 units annually.) Retailers are exempt if their annual gross sales are less than $500,000 or their gross sales of foods to consumers in the U.S. are less than $50,000. Nutrition labeling for fresh fish or produce is voluntary.

The information on nutrition labels is generally reliable, and is subject to periodic review. The FDA takes samples from store shelves to check for accuracy, and they allow up to a 20% difference between what's listed on the label and what is found in product analysis. Infractions can result in penalties such as fines and product seizures. Food companies, especially larger ones, have much at stake, as the penalties can be hefty. (For more on Nutrition Facts label accuracy, check b.link/z22pgnw.)

There are several consumer options if you have doubts. First, it helps to do a side-by-side comparison of similar products from different companies. Be sure to factor in serving size and the similarity of the top ingredients, which must be listed in order of decreasing prevalence. Another option is to check the company website, or contact the company directly.

There are now extensive food composition resources available online. The USDA's FoodData Central database can be accessed at b.link/7f92kh5. For a nutrition value calculator, including nutrient options in standard servings, adjusted serving sizes and totals for recipes, see b.link/avx5kqc.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: Since my husband's heart attack earlier this year -- which was caught early, and he is doing quite well, all things considered -- we have limited our fat intake to olive, avocado and canola oils. I find many "healthier" foods and desserts contain expeller-pressed canola oil. What is that? Is it hydrogenated? -- K.K., Palm Springs, California

DEAR K.K.: Expeller pressing is used to extract oil from an oil seed. This process utilizes mechanical pressure rather than a chemical solvent, resulting in cleaner oil -- no solvent residues -- higher in natural colors and flavors. It has nothing to do with hydrogenation. The mechanical pressure used for extraction can generate heat and decrease some nutrients, albeit to a minor degree. When looking for an expeller-pressed oil, consider opting for ones that keep things cool during extraction, referred to as "cold pressed."

Send questions to: "On Nutrition," Ed Blonz, c/o Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.

DEAR DR. BLONZ: I appreciate that you answer questions about health claims made on social media. I am continually amazed when I want to learn about a condition and then find it can be treated successfully using a particular promoted product. It seems there are cures out there for everything, often promoted by doctors, but it is unclear whether these are doctors with genuine credentials. What bothers me is the lack of guardrails, and I wanted your comment on how all this continues to exist. -- S.K., Lombard, Illinois

DEAR S.K.: I am less concerned with who hawks the products, and more so with the products themselves. A laissez-faire attitude over the past few decades has spawned an unbridled atmosphere of health claims associated with nutritional supplements. Social media, often with an anti-science bent, has amplified the situation. While it is against the law to make unsubstantiated health claims, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and other consumer protection agencies don't have the resources to make any significant dent in the infractions.

Another element of uncertainty involves adding supplements alongside a doctor-prescribed medication regime. A 2017 study in the respected journal American Family Physician reported that nearly 25 percent of U.S. adults take supplements along with their prescription medications -- and possible interactions must be considered. (For more on drugs, supplements and potential interactions, see b.link/cvkx2c3.)

While consumer protection laws can vary between states, scientific literature has no such boundaries. The FDA, FTC, state agencies and other respected elements of the supplement industry wouldn't dispute the need for a mechanism to regulate claims that lack clinical evidence, but testing for safety and effectiveness can be a thorny issue. Manufacturers might have a lack of economic incentive to fund research if it involves non-proprietary substances -- because other companies selling the same substances could benefit from their results when published. Many companies offer "proprietary blends," but the missing link is clinical evidence showing that their product's blend works as they claim. Then there is the issue of bogus claims that escape any accountability. The burden of proof should rest with the companies profiting from supplement sales -- not consumer protection agencies inadequately funded for the task.

I would support a goal for the supplement industry to establish a self-policing policy to evaluate their health claims. A panel of independent scientists could be empowered to decide on the essential proof for any particular claim. A ratings system as simple as the red-yellow-green of a traffic light could link to a consumer-friendly database of evidence.

Having something like this on the product's label or website could empower consumers to patronize brands that favor consumer protection and education. In the meantime, I will continue to respond to my readers' queries.

Send questions to: "On Nutrition," Ed Blonz, c/o Andrews McMeel Syndication, 1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106. Send email inquiries to questions@blonz.com. Due to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.