Results tagged “FDA” from iVillage - Supermarket Guru
Forget “irradiation”…let's just fool people and call it electronic pasteurization! Last Friday, the Food and Drug Administration approved use of irradiation on still more foods. This time they approved the process for spinach and iceberg lettuce. Irradiation has been used for over 50 years on spices and in the past decades has spread to use on meats, poultry, and some shellfish. Irradiated foods must be labeled as such and carry the “radura” symbol. This logo is a green leaf-like abstract centered in a white circle.
Irradiated foods have not become mainstream. Many food industry experts believe that consumers are confused by the term “irradiation” and their questioning the safety of the process is an error in judgment.
Although in Friday’s announcement, the FDA did state that irradiating spinach and iceberg lettuce produces furan, a cancer-causing chemical – but did add that the level of the substance isn’t high enough to cause worry.
With all the food safety issues making the headlines, and the neverending stream of product recalls, you would think that most consumers would actually embrace a technology that could in fact prevent many food-borne illnesses and even deaths. Or, that’s what many trade associations and food companies are hoping for, which is why there is a renewed effort to have the term changed to electronic pasteurization, which may sound better to some – but I don’t think that’s the answer. And based on quotes coming from some produce trade groups and brands, neither do they.
First: in order to have the irradiation of our foods widely accepted it must be proven to be 100% safe and proven that it does not change the taste, texture or nutrient value of our foods.
Second: we need to give the FDA back the financial resources that it needs to conduct inspections and create and monitor systems that insure traceability and transparency.
Friday’s announcement was not a positive move forward. It was a band-aid that is too small, trying to cover up a wound that that no one seems to know how to heal.
The legendary success of Bill Clinton’s first election as president was all about focus. James Carville, who kept the campaign on target, and coined the phrase “it’s about the economy, stupid” knew that the key to the election was understanding was voters wanted. And it’s the same when it comes to our foods.NutraSweet, an ingredient in many packaged foods and beverages, has decided that in order to grow their business they will now offer the products in yellow, pink and blue packages as a way of…shall we be the first to say it?...confusing consumers.
NutraSweet is aspartame, wait a minute... Equal is aspartame. And wasn’t Equal supposed to be the all successful consumer packaged product for NutraSweet? By the way, it’s the number three brand with 12% of sales, behind Splenda which has about 70% of the sales and Sweet’n Low with 13%.
It will take a lot more than just a confusing package redesign. The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has received more complaints about adverse reactions to aspartame than on any other food ingredient in the FDA’s history. There are also over 90 registered side effects to aspartame. Perhaps the reason that Equal hasn’t sold more is that shoppers have read these reports and don’t want to consume the product.
The timing of this announcement is as odd as the ill-conceived concept. Just last week, Coca-Cola and Cargill published a series of scientific health-based studies on their sweetener, Truvia. Truvia is their brand name of Stevia, which I am a huge proponent for. Imagine no calories, great taste and a natural product.
While the FDA hasn’t yet approved it as a sweetener, health focused shoppers have been buying Stevia in packets in the dietary supplement aisles since the mid 1990s. But there is little doubt that now with Coke’s interest (and investments) that we should soon see yet another “new” Coke – this time sweetened naturally without either high fructose corn syrup or artificial sweeteners.
And no doubt, Truvia will also enter the individual packets war, probably in a white or beige package…and no doubt will be the winner as more of us seek out less processed, less confusing and all natural foods; regardless of the package color.
What’s your favorite sweetener?
It’s not about the science; it’s about the information!
In January, the FDA announced that food from healthy clones of cattle, swine and goat is as safe to eat as food from non-cloned animals. This finding, according to the FDA, was derived from years of detailed study, and came as no surprise to researchers who have been successfully cloning livestock since 1996. But even with some government reassurance, many consumers are still concerned about the safety of food that comes from cloned animals.
Let’s turn the clock back to 1996, when the religious, ethical, and scientific debate on cloning began as the world was introduced to Dolly, the first cloned animal. And although the idea of cloning for some is disturbing in regard to the balance of nature, the most important (at least in OUR opinion) issue at hand is whether or not food from cloned animals should be sold. That's right, the issue is whether cloned meat is safe for human consumption. Can you just imagine going into a supermarket or fast foodery near you and being asked to choose between a burger that is "natural, cloned or transgenic"?
It's about business and profits, as some farmers and some research studies are pushing to embrace this technology and are doing all they can to say that the products made from cloned animals are safe for human consumption. Companies such as Cyagra, a Pennsylvania biotechnology company, says it has cloned more than 100 cattle for farmers and ranchers and is now anxiously awaiting the day the FDA states it will allow the sale of food products coming from cloned livestock.
OK, OK, before we all decide to go download Soylent Green in order to get a primer on the subject (just joking!), we must get the answer to the simple question: do we need to clone animals for food? Some believe the birth of "supercows" could bring such benefits to consumers as less fatty meat and more nutritious milk. But the truth is always in the action and not the hype. Let's not forget that hog farmers did an exceptional job of producing hogs that were less fatty and more nutritious by changing the feed; not cloning the perfect hog. As a result pork got a brand new image, and soon became the "other white meat". And, oh yeah, sales did go up.
Reports indicate that scientists believe animal clones could be more disease resistant and may yield healthier food. The Pew Institute of Food and Biotechnology, an independent agency that helped the FDA review the issue; reports that their findings suggest that cloned animals are no different from their conventionally bred counterparts. Basically, "a copy is just a copy." Past research indicates that genes are altered in the cloning process and that there is a chance that this could result in toxins. But, according to the data that is out there, there are not any strong indications that cloning would have adverse effects on the food.
It was on Valentine’s Day in 2003 that the world-famous Dolly (the first cloned animal) was put to sleep by doctors after being diagnosed with progressive lung disease. She was only six years old. Before that, Dolly was diagnosed as having arthritis. It was not clear whether the condition was a result of the cloning process causing premature aging of her cells or if it was just a fluke. Anyone's mouth watering for some succulent "cloned" Frenched Lamb Chops?
Some benefits of cloning include making animals disease resistant, more suitable to the climate in which they are raised, more fertile and more tailored to suit the tastes of different markets. Just as farmers look for qualities like leanness, tenderness, color and cut when breeding animals through traditional, slower methods, cloning allows farmers to reproduce the most productive, healthiest, best tasting animals quickly, efficiently and reliably.
As far as we know, there are no animal products derived from cloned dairy and beef cattle available at supermarkets at the moment, as the FDA continues to recommend that these products stay out of the food supply while more research is conducted. After the FDA lifts the existing voluntary moratorium on selling these products, the USDA will work with industry professionals to plan an orderly market transition. According to reports, it could take as long as three to five years (post lifting of the voluntary moratorium) for products from cloned animals to be available at market.
Once at market, the FDA will not require any additional labeling to indicate that a product comes from a cloned animal, and that’s a mistake with long-term implications. Labeling will only be required when the nutritional content of an item is changed, or if a potential allergen is added. The FDA believes that clone labels could create confusion along consumers, as they would imply that there were nutritional or safety differences between products from clones and products from animals breed conventionally. We say that not labeling does just the opposite: eliminates confusion and gives people the right to choose between cloned and non-cloned foods.
What do you think? Should our supermarkets be selling cloned meats and other dairy products? Should labeling of cloned foods be mandatory? Send me an email at PLempert@SupermarketGuru.com and share your thoughts!
It is obvious that our lawmakers aren’t watching television, listening to the radio, reading newspapers or magazines…or reading SupermarketGuru.com.
After scathing reports on how under-funded the USDA and FDA are these days, we bet on the fact that the folks in Washington DC had finally woken up and heard the pleas from shoppers (as well as just about every food trade group) that implored them to increase the budgets to protect our food better. The FDA advisory panel report warned that the present situation at the FDA was so bad that American lives were at risk. The report noted that the FDA food inspections were actually 78% less based on volume of foods over the past 35 years.
This is a glaring and missed opportunity to raise consumer confidence in our food supply; however, it seems that message was lost on the politicos who must have already checked out for Christmas break.
The spending bill now in Congress is a mere $513 million for FDA’s food safety programs, up $56 million (that’s just 12%) from the 2007 budget.; it's important to note that about half the increase will be used up by annual cost increases and pay raises.
Your opinion?
Michael Leavitt, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), is in China to hold talks with the government and sign agreements related to product safety. He told a press conference there that while the issue of unsafe and substandard products from China has been in the headlines in recent months, the US and Chinese governments have been working well in developing protocols that will improve product safety.
Right.
Leavitt’s truths came out when he actually said that it is up to US consumers to take greater responsibility for assuring that the products we purchase are safe. His exact quote: “Consumers can in fact do things that would ensure quality for themselves,” he said. “We encourage them to deal with retailers they trust, to ask those retailers what they're doing and what the process is they're following.”
Last time I checked it was pretty hard for a shopper to determine just where our foods and ingredients are being sourced. Of course, if Country of Origin Labeling actually came to fruition, you and I might have a fighting chance.
The question that we consumers need to ask is whether our federal government is more worried about maintaining trade relations with China than it is about protecting us. It is worrisome that Leavitt (or should I say Bush & Co.) actually thinks that consumers need to take on greater responsibility for product safety, but opposes such initiatives which would give us the information to do exactly that.
Leavitt’s statements and trip makes a mockery of those manufacturers, retailers and trade groups who are insisting for higher food safety standards and fixing the problems at the FDA. There is no doubt we consumers may have to protect ourselves, but the question is from whom and what?
It is estimated that the average American consumes between 3,000 and 4,000 milligrams of sodium each day, mostly from processed or prepared foods – and not from the salt shaker. Yet, the FDA guidelines set 2,300 mgs as the “safe” upper limit.
And it appears that the FDA just might go an extra step and require food manufacturers to cut their sodium content. The World Health Organization earlier this year called for sodium reduction in all processed foods. And to further add substance to the prediction, a few weeks ago the Grocery Manufacturers Association and Center for Science in the Public Interest actually sat on the same side of the table to discuss just how this could be accomplished.
And quickly.
All indications are that we are quickly approaching the time for a sodium change: one in three adults have high blood pressure, hypertension is a leading cause of heart attacks, strokes and kidney failure. The issue is so charged these days, that the American Medical Association predicts that if the sodium levels in processed and restaurant foods was reduced over the next ten years by 50 percent, 150,000 lives per year would be saved.
In 2010 the first of the baby boomers turn 65, and there is little doubt looking at this generation’s current medical condition, that these disease states will most likely increase even further.
Low sodium foods are now widely available in just about every category in the supermarket, but while it might be hip to purchase low fat or fat free foods, “no salt” still seems to carry a health stigma which U.S. shoppers need to get past. The proof is in the pudding: since Finland instituted its mandatory “high salt” label 30 years ago, the advent of strokes decreased significantly, along with a drop of 40 percent in overall sodium consumption.
After all, do we really need 2,460 mgs of sodium in a box of Jell-O Instant Chocolate Pudding that makes 3 one cup servings?
What’s your “take” on sodium?
When Kermit first uttered this now famous line, he didn’t even imagine the implications for supermarket shopping. But now, as more of us want to do our fair share to protect the planet and ease the impact of products’ global footprint by choosing wiser, we need a bit of help to really understand what these labels do (and don’t) mean.
USDA Certified Organic – organic foods seem to be everywhere, but did you know there are different designations?
100 percent organic - Organic standards require that the land used to grow organic crops go through a three-year "transition period" to make sure the crops are free of synthetic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. All organic agriculture prohibits the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, irradiation, sewage sludge, and growth hormones, and no genetically modified organisms can be contained in anything labeled organic.
Organic— is defined by the USDA as containing 95 percent organic ingredients.
Made with organic— may be used on the front of the product label that contains at least 70 percent organic ingredients. Note: products with less than 70 percent organic ingredients are only allowed to list the organic items in the ingredient panel.
Oregon Tilth – you may have seen in addition to the USDA seal, another one for Oregon Tilth Certified Organic (OTCO). This seal is an internationally recognized symbol of organic integrity which some organic producers feel has even stricter standers than the federal rules. OTCO provides a system that combines strict production standards, on-site inspections, and legally binding contracts to protect the producers and buyers of organic products, to ensure that the agreed upon conventions of organic agricultural systems are being practiced not only by the growers or producers, but also by all the people who handle and process organic food, feed and fiber on its journey to the consumer.
You may have noticed that many products are now touting the fact that they are “local”.
Local – while there is no legal definition for what is and isn’t “local”, the general consensus seems to be that these foods are grown or processed within approximately 200 miles of your location – typically, somewhere you can drive to and from in one day.
One of the most overused, and confusing terms that first appeared on foods back in the 1940s is “all natural”
Natural/ All Natural - the phrase "all natural" can mean just about anything; it actually has no nutritional meaning whatsoever and isn't truly regulated by the FDA. Natural in most cases means unprocessed food that has undergone no or minimal processing and contains no additives such as preservatives or artificial coloring.
Labels, labels and more labels:
Cage-Free or Free-Range – is not a health claim — this just means that the chickens are not locked in cages, and are "free" to roam. "Free-range" means the chickens are allowed to roam outdoors. Read the label carefully and look for more detail; sometimes "cage-free" eggs come from hens packed side by side in massive sheds with access to the outdoors.
Grass Fed - The Department of Agriculture has announced standards that would for the first time allow meat to be labeled as grass fed only if it came from animals that ate nothing but grass after being 
weaned. But the trade association representing many raisers of grass-fed livestock, which has long sought regulation of labeling, criticized the standards, because they do not restrict the use of antibiotics and hormones and do not require grass-fed animals to live on pastures year round. The rules, which take effect November 15, 2007 would require animals to eat nothing but grass and stored grasses like hay, and to have access to pasture during the growing season, which is defined as the time from last frost to first frost. In some places that could mean from as late as May to as early as October. The new standards require growers to have their farm and records inspected by the Agriculture Department before they could use a “U.S.D.A. Process Verified” seal. Meat could also be labeled as grass-fed, but without the seal, if the growers submit documents showing their animals were raised according to the standards.
Fair Trade - Fair trade is an organized social movement and market-based model of international trade which promotes the payment of a fair price as well as social and environmental standards in areas related to the production of a wide variety of goods. The movement focuses in particular on exports from developing countries to developed countries, most notably handicrafts, coffee, cocoa, tea, bananas, honey, cotton, wine, fresh fruit etc. Fair trade's strategic intent is to deliberately work with marginalized producers and workers in order to help them move from a position of vulnerability to security and economic self-sufficiency.
Food allergies are on the rise, with almost ten million people now suffering from some reaction!
As of January 2006, all food products must clearly say on the package if they contain any of the foods that are responsible for most allergies: milk, tree nuts, peanuts, soy, wheat, egg, crustacean shellfish or fish. And with more than 170 foods already identified as allergens, it's critical to read not only the front of the label carefully, but also each of the ingredients. One troubling designation is when you see the words “may contain” which is an unregulated label which is little more than a safety net for what's called unintentional "cross-contamination" of a food product. That is, a chocolate bar may not be made with peanuts, but it may have been contaminated with a trace amount of peanut because it was produced on the same manufacturing line as a peanut candy bar.
Gluten Free - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is recommending that voluntary standards be established for the first time that would govern how gluten-free products are sold and labeled. The first draft of the FDA proposal suggests that "companies may label foods ‘gluten-free’ if they don't contain wheat, barley, rye or their hybrids, or if they contain fewer than 20 parts per million gluten." Currently, some companies use the label to describe products that are naturally gluten-free, such as fruits or meat — which fuels the deepening nutrition confusion taking place in our grocer’s aisles. Under the FDA's proposal, that would be misbranding. There is also confusion about cross-contamination, the gluten contained in oats, and also that modified food starch often contains gluten. A food with a "gluten-free" label may not be gluten free at all. Such products may contain trace amounts of the wheat protein — enough to trigger a reaction in some people.
Dairy Free - "Free" labels, such as "peanut free" and "gluten free," aren't regulated by the FDA. "Dairy free" can be particularly tricky. On the front, a product may say "dairy free," but on the back, casein/milk may be listed under ingredients. Examples of food advertised as "dairy free" that may contain milk: coffee whiteners, whipped toppings, imitation cheeses and some soft-serve ice creams.
And one of our favorite supermarket secrets is in the produce department!
The "PLU" label is that annoying little numbered sticker that is now on every piece of produce you buy. That’s called a “produce look up” (PLU) number that is designed to help the cashier properly identify the item. But it also has a secret code: Organic adds a '9' in front of the four digit PLU code. Example: an organically grown standard yellow banana would be '94011' and genetically engineered foods add an '8' in front of the four digit PLU code. Example: a genetically engineered standard yellow banana would be '84011'.
Last week’s announcement that Coca-Cola and Cargill are about to introduce a Stevia-based sweetener (Rebiana) made me smile. Not only have I long been an advocate of Stevia, but the fact that these two food giants have finally woken up to the fact we want more natural and less chemically derived sweeteners was a pleasant surprise.
For those who don’t know much about Stevia – here’s the 101:
Stevia rebaudiana (stevia) is a plant of the daisy family and a South American shrub. The plant material between the veins of the leaf contains the sweet compounds, which is 250-300 times as sweet as sugar; but stevia, or stevioside, has not been approved by the FDA as GRAS (generally regarded as safe).
The Dietary Supplement Act of 1994 allows stevia to be sold in the U.S. as a dietary supplement. So most retail stores sell it, not with sugar or the artificial sweeteners, but rather with the nutritional supplements. It has been used in South America for centuries and Japan for over 30 years as a sweetener.
And if Coke is serious about reversing the soft drink consumption trend, using Stevia in Diet Coke might just do the trick.
I would bet that before April 26th, most Americans had never even heard of the substance that would prompt some of the biggest food recalls in history.
You've already read that the deaths of thousands of pets have been traced to pet foods with wheat gluten and rice proteins imported from China, which were found to contain melamine and melamine-related compounds. And then we heard about the same substance being fed to hogs and chickens, and found in fish.
But do you know what melamine is?
Melamine is an organic-based chemical substance, which is often combined with formaldehyde to produce melamine resin, a durable plastic. Melamine resin is commonly used in food packaging and tableware, and due to the fact that resins can leech into foods because of heat or pressure, melamine has been detected in foods and beverages, albeit at very low levels.
The International Herald Tribune reported on May 8th that three Chinese chemical makers have said that animal feed producers often purchase cyanuric acid from their factories to use in livestock feed. The reason? Both melamine and cyanuric acid are used in feed to artificially raise the levels of protein. So when we read those nutrition labels, we now have to wonder about that number that follows the word “protein”.
FDA/USDA are assuring the public that there is very little threat of illness in humans. Dr. David Acheson of the FDA says that, "The reason for that is several-fold, and essentially it's based on what we know of the levels of melamine that are toxic and what we know of the dilution effect of the pet food."
The amount of pet food incorporated into the feed for the hogs and chickens has been estimated to be around 5% of their feed mixture (and of the 5%, less than 10% of the wheat gluten is melamine). By the time the adulterated pork or poultry reaches our mouths, the amount of melamine has been significantly diluted.
There is little doubt that the on-going investigation of the contamination of food products, whether intended for humans or animals, raises important questions as to the safety of our food supply. And the latest reaction from Washington DC?
A new food safety czar, Dr. David Acheson, with the title of “assistant commissioner for food protection” has been charged with guarding against hazards in the food supply. Not only does the job come with a rather unimpressive title, but it also comes with no authority to order a recall of food products.
By the way, the focus and scrutiny on melamine has prompted the food agency responsible for food safety in China to ban export and domestic sale of melamine and has announced the deployment of mobile food safety testing units that can detect problems in 30 minutes.
I’m not!
And while you could argue that it’s been a busy 12 months for the FDA – its going to get even busier. E. coli 0157, found in bagged spinach, infected more than 170 people over 25 states. Salmonella Tennessee, found in peanut butter, infected more than 400 people in 44 states. Last week it was reported that inspectors actually visited the peanut butter plant in 2005 to investigate food safety complaints; but the company refused to turn over the documentation that was requested. The inspectors left…and never followed up again. Pet food was recalled, and it was also just reported late last week that shipments of said contaminated pet food was actually fed to hogs that were destined to be slaughtered and put in our food supply (thankfully they weren’t). And the list goes on.
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that 76 million Americans get sick from foodborne illnesses each year – a startling number. According to a database analysis of federal records by The Associated Press, inspections dropped 47 percent between 2003 and 2006, with 12 percent fewer FDA employees in field offices concentrating on food issues. An increase in foreign food imports is also partially to blame; Mexican green onions were implicated in a Hepatitis A outbreak in 1998.
In early April we polled our SupermarketGuru.com consumer panel to find out just how safe we consumers really do feel our food supply is and who they really feel is ultimately responsible for making sure our foods are safe. Although zero consumers answered “100% safe” when asked, “How safe is our food supply?” only 15% answered “not safe.” And, 71% said “safe, but could be better” while 14% said, “very safe, we will always have a small amount of food safety problems”.
Even though many consumers seem to be taking matters of food safety seriously when it comes to their own practices, ultimately most shoppers feel that the responsibility is ultimately in someone else’s hands. When asked, “Who do you believe has the greatest responsibility to insure our food is as free from food safety problems as possible?” 47% answered “food manufacturers” and 37% answered FDA/USDA and other Governmental Agencies.
Only 10% answered, “consumers”. And it appears that very little blame is being placed on “supermarkets/retailers”, with only five percent placing the responsibility on stores.
So what’s creating all these food recalls of late? First and most important to understand is that we do have the safest food supply in the world. The chink in the armor, in my opinion, is that the 12 federal agencies that are responsible for food safety issues have two basic problems: severe budget cuts (mostly due to the War budget zapping just about every other Federal budget) and ... that we have 12 federal agencies. In 2001, as a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, the Senate Government Affairs Subcommittee recommended one single entity having the food safety responsibility – which, in my opinion, would certainly help matters.
In the meantime – for the most up-to-date food safety recall information you can call 888-INFO-FDA or log on at http://www.fda.gov/opacom/7alerts.html
