Food Law Prof Blog

California bill, SB 1420 -- calorie labeling for fast food

A California bill would require calorie labeling for fast food.  From the Los Angeles Times:

The proposed law, SB 1420, which the state Senate has passed and the Assembly will consider soon, would require chain restaurants with 15 or more outlets in California to list the calorie content for each item on their menus and menu boards. (The menus would also include other nutritional information, such as grams of fat and carbohydrates.)

Advocates believe such a "menu-labeling law" could help to halt, or at least slow, the trend that has led to 3 out of 5 Californians being overweight or obese. The new study -- by the Dr. Robert C. and Veronica Atkins Center for Weight and Health at UC Berkeley -- is the latest evidence suggesting they may be right.

The LA Times article goes on to ask the question, what difference would it make and to report on studies of consumer responses to such information.  Of course, if you never eat fast food, it probably won't help you lose weight.

"Natural" is still an unregulated term

From NaturalNews.com:  FDA Refuses to Regulate "Natural" Claim on Food Packaging

The article points out that FDA received two petitions in the last year related to the word "natural."  Here's my favorite quote:

While the FDA has not responded to either petition yet, Geraldine June of the FDA Food Labeling and Standards department, says that the agency has not seen enough evidence that consumers are being misled by "natural" labels for the issue to become a priority.

At least among my friends, "consumers are not being misled" because they already know that the word "natural" means absolutely nothing on a food label.  DMB

Country of Origin Labeling for Mississippi catfish

It's always interesting!  Julie McLemore, who works for the state of Mississippi alerted me to this bit of news.

Effective today, Mississippi restaurants offering catfish for sale must indicate the country of origin of the catfish on the menu. The law is administered by the MS Department of Agriculture and carries administrative fines for noncompliance.

The Jackson, Mississippi, Clarion Ledger website contains a slightly more complete account. I have to admit that I would have assumed catfish to be local, but The Catfish Institute has complained about imported catfish for some time, and some catfish imports have been rejected because of illegal drugs.

Here's the bill text.

CSPI: high fructose corn syrup not "natural"

  The American Medical Association recently announced its conclusion that “high fructose corn syrup does not contribute to obesity more than other caloric sweeteners.”   Not surprisingly, the Corn Refiners Association applauded this finding:

“This science-based decision by the nation’s leading medical body reaffirms that no single food or ingredient is the sole cause of obesity. Rather, too many calories and too little exercise is a primary cause,” said Audrae Erickson, president, Corn Refiners Association.

New research continues to confirm that high fructose corn syrup is no different from other sweeteners, according to Erickson. HFCS, like table sugar and honey, is natural. It is made from corn, a natural grain product.

As the Center for Science in the Public Interest is quick to point out however, there is not much natural about HFCS:

The Corn Refiners Association’s slick new advertising is deceptive in stating that high-fructose corn syrup “has the same natural sweeteners as table sugar.” HFCS consists almost entirely of glucose and fructose, but not a single molecule of sucrose. Sugar is 100 percent sucrose. It is true that adding a water molecule to sucrose and splitting it in half yields one molecule each of glucose and fructose—but that is not the same as saying that HFCS and sugar contain the same sweeteners.

It is also deceptive to imply that HFCS is natural. HFCS starts out as cornstarch, which is chemically or enzymatically degraded to glucose (and some short polymers of glucose). Another enzyme is then used to convert varying fractions of glucose into fructose. High fructose corn syrup just doesn’t exist in nature. . . .

More on the process from the Corn Refiners (they should know).

HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUPS & CRYSTALLINE FRUCTOSE
High fructose corn sweeteners begin with enzymes which isomerize dextrose to produce a 42 percent fructose syrup. By passing 42-HFCS through a column which retains fructose, refiners draw off 90 percent HFCS and blend it with 42-HFCS to make a third syrup, 55-HFCS. Further processing produces crystalline fructose.

All the syrups share advantages--stability, high osmotic pressure, or crystallization control, for example--but each offers special qualities to food manufacturers and consumers. 42-HFCS is popular in canned fruits, condiments and other processed foods which need mild sweetness that won't mask natural flavors. Sweeter 55-HFCS has earned a commanding role in soft drinks, ice cream and frozen desserts. Supersweet 90-HFCS is valued in natural and "light" foods, where very little is needed to provide sweetness. Crystalline fructose's capacity to produce greater sweetness in combination with sugar makes it useful in presweetened cereals, instant beverages and other dry mix products.

Antibiotics for Chickens

When is an antibiotic not an antibiotic?  When it is administered "in ovo" according to Tyson Foods.

Earlier this month, Tyson Foods filed suit against USDA over the agency's ruling about Tyson's "Raised Without Antibiotics That Impact Human Antibiotic Resistance" label.  USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service has found the label misleading because Tyson administered antibiotics to chicks while still in the egg.

FSIS originally gave Tyson until June 18 to stop using the label.  (FSIS statement, June 3, 2008.)  According to the Wall Street Journal, however, the deadline has been extended to July 9.

Since Tyson seems to be challenging the government's interpretation of the word "raised" I was curious about where the word is used -- statute? regulation?  So I poked around a bit.  Here's what I learned.

"Raised without antibiotics" is one of the commonly aproved animal production claims, provided the producer can demonstrate its validity.  Here's an excerpt from the FSIS guidance on animal production claims:

Commonly Approved Claims:

RAISED WITHOUT ADDED HORMONES, RAISED WITHOUT ANTIBIOTICS, NOT FED ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS, FREE RANGE, FREE ROAMING, GRASS FED, CORN FED, GRAIN FED, CERTIFIED ORGANIC (BY CERTIFYING ENTITY).

Claims about the non-use of animal by-products have become popular lately due to fears about BSE.

UNAPPROVABLE CLAIMS:
ANTIBIOTIC FREE, HORMONE FREE, RESIDUE FREE, RESIDUE TESTED, NATURALLY RAISED, NATURALLY GROWN, DRUG FREE, CHEMICAL FREE, ORGANIC, ORGANICALLY RAISED.

Hormones are only approved for use in beef cattle and lamb production. They are not approved for use in poultry, hogs, veal calves or exotic, non-amenable species. Therefore, the phrase "no hormones administered" on a chicken label cannot be approved unless it is followed (directly) with the statement "Federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones in poultry."

USDA can withhold approval of a label if it finds it misleading. Section 457(d) of the Poultry Products Inspection Act (U.S. Code,Title 21, Ch. 10, Sec. 457(d) ) provides in part:

If the Secretary has reason to believe that any marking or labeling or the size or form of any container in use or proposed for use with respect to any article subject to this chapter is false or misleading in any particular, he may direct that such use be withheld unless the marking, labeling, or container is modified in such manner as he may prescribe so that it will not be false or misleading.

FDA amicus on New York City menu board labeling

Ricardo Carvajal and Diane McColl of Hyman, Phelps and McNamara have posted a discussion of the FDA's recent amicus brief in the New York City menu board nutrition labeling case.  From FDA Law Blog:

FDA has filed an amicus curiae brief with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that supports a New York City (“NYC”) law requiring all menu boards and menus in chain restaurants with 15 or more establishments nationally to bear calorie content information for each menu item.  The case is New York State Restaurant Association v. New York City Board of Health, Docket No. 08-1892-cv.  Oral argument in the case is scheduled for mid-June.  The NYC law is one of several similar local laws or proposals in various stages of consideration across the country.  FDA’s support for the NYC law could lend a boost to similar measures elsewhere.

Read the rest of the post on FDA Law Blog

California considering clone labeling bill this week

A California bill requiring labeling of cloned animal food products comes up for hearing this week.  SB 1121 was introduced last March.  It requires each seller of a cloned animal to inform the buyer that the animal is a clone and requires labeling of food products that contain any product from a cloned animal or its progeny. 

From the Legislative Counsel's Digest:

SB 1121, as introduced, Migden. Food labeling: cloned animals.
Existing law provides that food is misbranded if, among other things, it does not bear a label containing specified information. Under existing law, a violation of the provisions relating to the labeling of food products is a crime. This bill would require a every livestock producer, as defined, who sells or transfers any cloned animal or its progeny to disclose to the buyer or transferee that the animal is cloned or is the progeny of a cloned animal, as specified. It would also require food for human consumption that contains any product from a cloned animal or its progeny to be labeled to indicate that the food includes the product of a cloned animal or its progeny, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Label Claims and What They Mean

The San Diego Union Tribune website ran a piece on nutrition labels.  I do not agree with all of the nutritional advice in the article, but it does include a concise list of what various label claims mean. For example,

CALORIE CLAIMS

Calorie free: Less than 5 calories.

Low calorie: 40 calories or less

Reduced calorie: At least 25 percent fewer calories per serving when compared with the original or similar food. (This does not mean this version is low-calorie.)

Light or lite: One-third fewer calories per serving or 50 percent less fat of the regular version.

Sugar claims: Sugar free: Less than 0.5 grams of sugar per serving. May or may not contain artificial sweeteners.

Reduced sugar: At least 25 percent less sugar than the original or a similar product. (This does not mean this version is low-sugar, which is not a regulated claim.)

Go to Your health may depend on how closely you heed food's nutritional labels, by R.J. Ignelzi.

Ionophores and Tyson's chicken advertising -- Ionophores are antibiotics

Last month four competitors accused Tyson of displaying labels that are misleading to consumers.  The USDA originally allowed Tyson to state “Raised Without Antibiotics” on their chicken packaging.  However, the USDA revoked their label because the company uses medication that it characterizes as antibiotics – ionophores.

In December, the USDA revoked approval for "raised without antibiotics" labels on poultry that had been given ionophores, stating that the label had been approved in error.

From the USDA announcement: "Specifically, the RWA claim is present on the labeling of some poultry products that were produced from poultry that were fed a diet that included ionophores, e.g. salinomycin, narasin, and monesin. The term “antibiotics” is defined by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) as “a chemical substance produced by a microorganism, which has the capacity, in dilute solutions, to inhibit the growth of or to kill other microorganisms.” It is longstanding FSIS policy that ionophores are antibiotics because they meet the AVMA definition. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) agrees that by strict definition, ionophores are antibiotics thus; poultry meat from birds to which ionophores have been administered is not eligible to bear a “RWA” claim."

Evidently Tyson did not change its advertising fast enough for its competitors.  The following are excerpts from a Wallstreet Journal article by Laura Ketter (abstract here):

Four of Tyson’s competitors – Perdue Farms, Sanderson Farms, Inc., Gold’n Plump Poultry Inc. and Foster Poultry Farms – accused Tyson of displaying misleading advertising claims in violation of federal and state law and sent a letter to Tyson asking the company to pull its ads.

“Tyson said the USDA never outlined a time-frame for the phaseout of “nonlabel advertising such as television ads,” according to a legal declaration by Nancy Bryson, an attorney representing Tyson.  She is also the former general counsel of the USDA that oversaw the original approval of Tyson’s label.

In May, the agency approved Tyson’s antibiotic-free label.  In June, the company announced that it was “the first major poultry company to offer fresh chicken raised without antibiotics o a large scale basis” and it rolled out the new ad campaign titled “Than You,” which was intended to “convey how Tyson products help make Mom a hero at mealtime.”  But in September the government agency said that it had mistakenly approved the label and demanded that Tyson remove the labels or clarify them.

At issue is Tyson’s use of an animal medication called ionophores, commonly added to poultry feed to help prevent an intestinal parasite that can lead to lower body weight or death in poultry, causing economic loss to producers.  Ionophores aren’t used in human medicine and therefore don’t pose an immediate risk of causing antibiotic resistance in humans.

Thank you to William Mitchell College of Law student Lauralee Fritz for preparing this post.

California reintroduces clone labeling bill

This news is not brand new. On January 24, 2008,California Senator Barbara Migden introduced Senate Bill 1121, which would require cloned animals to be identified and food products to be labeled:

This bill would require a every livestock producer, as defined, who sells or transfers any cloned animal or its progeny to disclose to the buyer or transferee that the animal is cloned or is the progeny of a cloned animal, as specified. It would also require food for human consumption that contains any product from a cloned animal or its progeny to be labeled to indicate that the food includes the product of a cloned animal or its progeny, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Read the whole of SB 1121 on the Center for Food Safety website.

California farmed salmon cases: state food labeling law not preempted

The California Supreme Court has reversed a California Appellate Court decision holding that the state's food labeling law was preempted by the federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act. 

In Farm Raised Salmon Cases, several individuals had commenced separate actions against owners and operators of grocery stores alleging that the defendants sold artificially colored farmed salmon without disclosing to consumers the artificial coloring. 

The California Supreme Court held that the state cause of action is NOT preempted when the state statute is identical to the federal.

Farm Raised Salmon Cases California Supreme Court Opinion

Comment period on Labeling of Ultrafiltered Milk in Cheeses closes February 11, 2008

Comment period on labeling of ultrafiltered milk in cheese products ends next week.

Background (from the December 11, 2007 Federal Register Docket announcement--Cheeses and Related Cheese Products; Proposal to Permit the Use of Ultrafiltered Milk; Reopening of the Comment Period):

   In 2005, in response to two citizen petitions, one submitted by the American Dairy Products Institute and another submitted jointly by the National Cheese Institute, the Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc., and the National Food Processors Association, the FDA issued a proposed rule allowing the use of "ultrafiltered milk" in cheeses and cheese products.

The FDA approved the use of ultrafiltered milk, but also tentatively concluded that fluid UF milk is significantly different in its composition from the starting material "milk'' and, therefore, proposed that fluid UF milk must be declared as "ultrafiltered milk'' in the ingredient statement of the finished cheese.

Some of the comments received on the proposed rules objected to the labeling requirement on the grounds that it would be costly and impracticable, and also that it would be misleading to consumers.

So now FDA is seeking comments only on those two issues:

FDA is seeking public comment only with respect to two of their reasons that:

(1) Due to economic and logistical burdens, it would be impracticable for cheese manufacturers to comply with the labeling requirement; and

(2) the proposed provision to declare fluid UF milk as "ultrafiltered milk'' would be misleading to consumers in that consumers incorrectly believe that cheeses that declare "ultrafiltered milk'' as an ingredient are different from those cheeses that declare "milk'' as an ingredient or "milk and ultrafiltered milk'' as ingredients.

From Food and Water Watch (which wants the ultrafiltered milk to be labeled):

The problem is, ultrafiltered milk isn't the same as milk. Ultrafiltered milk has been filtered to remove things like lactose, minerals, and vitamins.  It is cheaper than fluid milk or powdered milk and that's why the food processing industry wants to use it.  They just don't want you to know about it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the part about how to submit comments:

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 2000P-
0586, by any of the following methods:

Electronic Submissions
   
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the Agency Web site: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments.
Written Submissions
Submit written submissions in the following ways:

FAX: 301-827-6870.

Mail/Hand delivery/Courier [For paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions]: Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

To ensure more timely processing of comments, FDA is no longer accepting comments submitted to the agency by e-mail. FDA encourages you to continue to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal or the agency Web site, as described previously, in the ADDRESSES portion of this document under Electronic Submissions.

Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket No(s). and Regulatory Information Number (RIN) (if a RIN number has been assigned) for this rulemaking. All comments received may be posted without change to http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm,
including any personal information provided. For additional information on submitting comments, see the "Comments'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

EU proposes new food labeling requirements to fight obesity

According to a statement issued this week by the European Commission, it has adopted a proposal to change food labeling requirements. From the Boston Globe:

“With Europe fast catching up to the United States in obesity tables, the EU health commissioner, Markos Kyprianou, warned of an "emerging health threat" and of the need for consumers to eat better.”

The food labeling plans are “designed to help consumers reject junk food and choose a healthier diet.”

“Under the proposals put forward yesterday, six measures will have to appear on the front of packages of food giving information on energy, total fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, sugar, and salts. The labels, which will have to be prominent, will also indicate what percentage of advisable daily intake the measures represent.”

Link to EU Commissioner's proposal

Consumer groups and industry groups attacked the proposal on two fronts. The “consumer group Which?, based in Britain, attacked the proposal as insufficient given the scale of the problem.” They recommend a red-yellow-green traffic light system to indicate whether fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt levels are high, medium or low.

See an example of the Traffic Light Label System.

.

.

“The group's chief policy adviser, Sue Davies said, ‘…traffic lights are the best way to help busy shoppers identify healthy choices quickly and easily.’” She concluded that the European Commission’s proposal has “…ignored what works best for consumers and opted for what works best for some sections of the food industry."

Link to Which? Group criticism

The same story on EUObserver.com includes similar criticism by the European Consumers' Association (BEUC). "To be really meaningful," said Monique Goyens, the director general of BEUC, "the information which is provided must be comprehensive and easily understandable and some improvements are clearly needed on these points."

Link to EUObserver.com

Link to BEUC Statement on Food Labeling

Thank you to William Mitchell College of Law student Joan Pearson for preparing this post

Ben and Jerry's v. rBGH

Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream – famous purveyors of flavored pints such as Chubby Hubby and Chunky Monkey – has launched a national campaign  against state legislative efforts to prohibit the labeling of dairy products for rBGH (Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone) content.

From the Minneapolis Star Tribune:

"We're very concerned about, from a primary standpoint, the freedom of speech to be able to put what we believe is truthful and appropriate messaging on our packaging," said Rob Michalak, a spokesman for Ben & Jerry's, which has mounted a campaign to get consumers on its side.

The StarTribune article says a newly formed farmers' group,  AFACT -- American Farmers for the Advancement and Conservation of Technology, allegedly backed by Monsanto, is pushing for labeling changes because the hormone-free labels imply that the milk is safer than other milk, when the group argues it is not.

Links to other state efforts to ban rBGH labeling:
Pennsylvania’s revisions to its ban on labeling milk (blogged here)
Indiana legislation providing that dairy products are misbranded if they contain “claims that cannot be confirmed through laboratory analysis.

Thank you to William Mitchell College of Law student Jessica Webster, who prepared this post.

PA won't ban rBGH-free label after all

From a Center for Food Safety press release:

The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) has backed down from a controversial ban on the use of labels on milk products. The agency had issued new rules in October (blogged here), set to go into effect February 1st that would have barred dairy companies or milk producers from labeling their products as from cows not treated with rBGH. PDA argued that a misleading impression might be conveyed by identifying milk as coming from cows not treated with synthetic hormones. Pennsylvania would have been the first state to implement such a labeling ban.

Yesterday the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture released revised regulations.  The revised regulations, in response to consumer outcry, do not ban the "not treated with rBST" information:   

(B) Permitted Claims. The following claims are permitted:

i. RBST. If the product is represented as, or intended to be represented to consumers as, containing or produced from milk from cows not treated with rBST:

1. “From cows not treated with rBST. No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rBST-treated and non-rBST-treated cows” or a substantial equivalent. Hereinafter, the first sentence shall be referred to as the “Claim,” and the second sentence shall be referred to as the “Disclaimer.”

a. A substantial equivalent Claim would include, for example: “Produced without the use of rBST” instead of “From cows not treated with rBST.”

b. The phrase “Farmer’s Pledge” may precede any such Claim, provided that what follows clearly articulates a difference in farming practices or dairy herd management methods and does not state or imply a compositional difference between milk from rBST-treated and non-rBST treated cows. An example of a permissible pledge would be “Our farmers pledge not to use rBST.”

c. Wherever used in 7(B), the term rBST shall also include the terms rBGH, artificial bovine growth hormone, artificial growth hormone, synthetic bovine growth hormone, synthetic growth hormone, and their plurals.

"Naturally raised" meat

From the Chicago Tribune:

Federal meat regulators this month are soliciting public comments on a label they believe will better define "natural" meat. The label, dubbed "naturally raised," would attest that a cut of meat came from an animal free of antibiotics and growth hormones. . . .

The USDA, which regulates meat and poultry, has a definition: Natural products have no artificial flavors or colors, or synthetic ingredients or chemical preservatives -- and they are "minimally processed."

But that definition deals only with an animal after it's been .slaughtered. Many consumers believe natural meat also entails how an animal lived, said Rangan of Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports magazine.

Read more

rBGH Labelling Debate -- Ohio considering labeling ban

Pennsylvania recently announced it will no longer allow dairies to label milk as coming from cows not treated with rBGH (blogged here). The rule takes effect February 1, 2008. Now Ohio is considering the same move.  The Ohio Dairy Labeling Advisory Committee heard testimony this week on whether to ban rBST labels.

Link to Consumers Union testimony with useful links and citations.

NYTimes article November 11, 2007, Consumers won't know what they're missing (about the the Pennsylvania decision; contains links)

More food rating systems. And more. And more.

From the New York Times:

Is It Healthy? Food Rating Systems Battle It Out, by Andrew Martin

. . . Within months, shoppers across the country may find numerical ratings, star ratings or letter grades plastered on the shelf next to virtually every product in a store. . . .

But consumer advocates worry that the sudden flurry of rating systems could add to shopper confusion, not ameliorate it, at least until one of the systems wins out and becomes a national standard. Moreover, determining what foods are healthier is as much art as science, requiring judgment about how much value to attach to various scientific findings about diet and health.

read the article

Hannaford's Chain concludes nutrition sells

The Hannaford Brothers grocery store chain, based in Maine, has developed a nutritional rating system to help guide customers towards healthier foods.  The system that Hannaford developed, called Guiding Stars, rated the nutritional value of the grocery items in the store on a scale of zero to three stars, with three representing the most nutritious products.  A survey of Hannaford customers found that 81% were aware of the system and half of the customers used it fairly often.

NY Times article

Consumers protest PA ruling on milk labels -- want info on rBGH

From a press release from Goodman Media and Consumers Union:

Sixty-Five Consumer, Environmental Groups and Dairies Urge Pennsylvania Governor Rendell to Rescind Ban on Milk Hormone Labeling; Consumers Want to Know About Hormone Use on Dairy Cows

More than 65 dairy farmers, consumer, farm and agricultural, public health, animal protection and environmental organizations, food processors and retailers today wrote to Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. Rendell to protest the recent Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) action which would prohibit state farmers from telling consumers that they aren’t using artificial hormones on their dairy cows. A copy of the letter can be found here:

http://www.consumersunion.org/campaigns//notinmyfood/005230indiv.html

In late October, PDA informed 16 dairies that they cannot use certain labels on milk, including “Our farmers’ pledge: no artificial growth hormones,” “From cows not treated with the growth hormone rBST,” and “free of artificial growth hormones.” The ban on using these labels will go into effect on February 1, 2008.

read more

Pennsyvania milk label controversy

Pennsylvania has banned the "no-RBST" information on dairy labels (blogged here).  From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

State's labeling changes raise ire of industry, consumers, health experts

"Critics of the decision -- including consumers, milk processors and Allegheny County Health Department Director Bruce Dixon -- argue they still want to know what's in milk, regardless of what the latest science says about potential health effects. . .

Labeling milk products to distinguish between the two give a false suggestion that some products are bad and others are good, say Ryder and other proponents of the Agriculture Department's decision. Wolff said all milk in Pennsylvania is tested at least 10 times to ensure it does not contain illegal substances, such as pesticides or antibiotics. "

Heksher Tzedek -- kosher food with a conscience

From Fair Trade News:

Rabbi Morris Allen, of Beth Jacob Congregation in Mendota Heights, MN, has been promoting kashrut, Jewish dietary laws, to his congregation for twenty years. He says that kashrut provides “a way in which we as Jews understand a daily opportunity to sanctify our lives, to create a sense of holiness and a sense of awareness of God in our lives.” This consciousness means that Allen takes his food and its production seriously.

More than a year ago, Allen learned of labor abuses at an Iowa kosher meat processing plant that supplied the Twin Cities Jewish community. He was faced with a contradiction: The worker may slaughter an animal according to the laws of kashrut, but he or she may be underpaid and mistreated. What if the ritual is observed, but the ethics are undermined?

Allen distinguishes between “ritual,” the letter of the law that describes specific procedures for kosher slaughter and food handling, and the ethics of how kosher food is actually produced. While he does not privilege one over the other, he thinks current certification practices do. According to Allen, “kashrut has become more...  more

Link to the Heksher Tzedek website

Video -- Jim Chen on Beyond Food and Evil

Jim Chen has posted a RealPlayer video of his Duke Law Journal Administrative Law symposium presentation of Beyond Food and Evil (blogged here) on the Agricultural Law Blog.  The presentation was delivered via videoconference after Jim's flight was cancelled.  I don't actually know whether that's the only reason the digital version exists, but if so, what a lucky break for the rest of us!  Click here to go to the Agricultural Law post and view the video.

Pennsylvania bans no-rBST labels

The Pennsyvlania Department of Agriculture, as part of an effort to more carefully monitor dairy labeling is in the process of requiring all milk labels to be reapproved.  (Link to new fluid milk labeling standards).  As part of this reapproval process, the Department has notified at least 16 dairies that they must change their labels. 

From the Philadelphia Inquirer:

The department said yesterday that it had examined labels from 140 companies and notified 16 companies that they would have to correct their labels by Jan. 1. Those labels contain variations on the claim that cows were not injected with synthetic growth hormones. Three also include a "no antibiotics" claim.

Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff said in a news release that "antibiotic-free" and "pesticide-free" are misleading because all processed milk sold in the state is tested a minimum of 10 times for such substances, which are not permitted in milk.

Carbon monoxide treatment of meat

Two interesting pieces in the Washington Post.  In 2004, USDA approved the use of carbon monoxide to keep raw meat red.  Regular air makes meat turn brownish, which does not mean it has spoiled.  As it turns out, though, the scientific studies showing the safety of carbon monoxide treatment had some flaws:

Meat Treatment Got Approval Despite Safety Concerns, by  Rick Weiss, Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, November 14, 2007; Page A09

The Agriculture Department in 2004 gave the green light to using carbon monoxide gas to keep older cuts of meat looking red and fresh, even though scientists at the two companies promoting the technology had questioned the validity of their own safety tests, congressional investigators revealed yesterday.

The tests, conducted by Cargill and Hormel Foods, both of Minnesota, were part of a joint effort to persuade federal regulators to allow use of the gas without going through a public approval process. Inexplicably, however, the tests found that microbial counts on meat that had been left under-refrigerated went down over time instead of up, as expected, even as other indicators of spoilage increased, suggesting the possibility of some kind of error.

Meanwhile, Target Corp. and some others want to label carbon monoxide treated meat.  Labeling has never been required because, evidently, consumers were thought to rely on the sell by date and not on the appearance of the meat.  If consumers do not rely on the appearance of the meat, then keeping it fresh leading would not be misleading.

Target Seeks to Add Meat Warning Labels, By HOPE YEN, The Associated Press
Tuesday, November 13, 2007; 4:58 PM

WASHINGTON -- Target Corp. said Tuesday it was working to add labels that warn consumers when meat is treated with carbon monoxide to make those steaks and chops look fresh as federal regulators faced criticism for allowing a practice that critics call unsafe.

Hormel Foods Corp. and Cargill Inc. also announced they would be willing to add similar labeling if necessary. . . .

Testifying at the House hearing, USDA's Food, Safety and Inspection Service defended its decision to allow sales of the packaged meat without warning labels, saying the use of carbon monoxide was not deceptive. The agency pointed to a past study it said found that consumers rely primarily on the sell-by date, rather than color, to determine a product's freshness.

USDA officials said they would approve Target's proposed labeling if they determine the wording is "truthful and not misleading." They said they would also consider reevaluating whether mandatory labeling for all packaged meat was appropriate. Under government regulations, the USDA must approve labels for use on meat and poultry products.

House Ag committee hearing on meat technology materials online

Last Tuesday the House Agriculture Committee held a hearing on meat technologies.  Speakers were Transcripts and/or visual materials are available on the committee website.  One of the speakers was FSIS head, Alfred V. Amanza . An excerpt from Mr. Amanza's comments follows.  The panel roster is below.

"One form of technology used by the meat industry that has received a great deal of attention in recent months is carbon monoxide in packaging. Carbon monoxide is used to stabilize the color pigment of meat, when it is red and, therefore, most appealing to consumers.  Use of carbon monoxide in packaging does not impart a color to the meat; it simply maintains its naturally occurring color. 

In 2002, carbon monoxide, for use as a component of modified atmosphere packaging, was accepted by FDA as being “Generally Recognized as Safe,” or GRAS.  Carbon monoxide does not become a part of the product and dissipates as soon as the package is opened.  This is unlike other ingredients used to stabilize the red color of meat, such as citric acid, sodium ascorbate, and rosemary extract, all of which actually do become a part of the product.  However, to be sure consumers are not misled, FSIS has established a use-by/sell-by date to be included on meat products that use carbon monoxide packaging.  This is to ensure that the shelf life of the product ends before spoilage occurs.

As members of the committee are no doubt aware, FDA has received a petition asking it to withdraw its decision that carbon monoxide in meat packaging is Generally Recognized as Safe.  FSIS will continue to make its labeling decisions and its suitability reviews on the basis of FDA’s safety conclusions."

The speakers:

Panel I

• Dr. Phil Minerich, Vice President, Research and Development, Hormel Foods Corporation, Austin, Minnesota
• Mr. Scott Eilert, Vice President, Research and Development, Cargill Meat Solutions, Wichita, Kansas
• Mr. Rick Roop, Senior Vice President, Science and Regulatory Affairs, Tyson Foods, Inc., Washington, D.C.
• Dr. Joseph Sebranek, Professor, Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA

Panel II

• Mr. Alfred V. Almanza, Administrator, Food Safety Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.   

German food labeling

Found this on Foodnavigator.com

Germans develop new scheme for nutrition labelling

The German government has contributed to the labelling debate by producing new guidelines for increased nutritional information on food packaging, which focus on calorie content as the best way to inform the consumer.

The labelling initiative was announced last week by Horst Seehofer, the federal minister for Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection. It is part of the Education and Information about Nutrition, Movement and Health plan, which aims to combat obesity and improve consumer information and choice.

. . .

The best approach to labelling nutritional information has caused lively debate amongst regulators, industry and retailers. The two main schools of thoughts are the GDAs on one side, and the scheme on the other. This was developed by the UK's Food Standards Agency and represents good and bad foods by colour codes.

NY City Trying Again to Require Calorie Content

Last month a federal judge threw out the New york City regulation that would have required restaurants to provide calorie contents for their dishes.  (See Judge Throws Out New York Rule Requiring Restaurants to Post Calories , New York Times, 9-12-07).

Now New York City is trying again.   City Tries Again With Labeling Fast-Food Menus (NYT, 10-24-07). Exerpt:

The new regulation would apply to all restaurants with 15 outlets or more across the country, though it’s aimed squarely at the fast food industry. Many chains, like McDonald’s, Burger King and Starbucks, already provide calorie information on their Web sites, or on posters or tray liners available in their restaurants. But health officials say customers rarely see this information before deciding what to order.

A survey by the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene this spring found that, excluding Subway restaurants, 97 percent of fast-food customers never saw any nutritional information before or after their purchase.

A public hearing is scheduled for Nov. 27 and the Board of Health is expected to vote on the measure in January.

read the NYT article

Grass fed beef labeling standards

Agricultural Law blog posted about this last week.  The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service announced new standards for grass (forage) fed beef :

The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is establishing a voluntary standard for a grass (forage)fed livestock marketing claim. This standard incorporates revisions made as a result of comments received from an earlier proposed standard. A number of livestock producers make claims associated with production practices in order to distinguish their products in the marketplace. With the establishment of this voluntary standard, livestock producers may request that a grass (forage) fed claim be verified by the Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Verification of this claim will be accomplished through an audit of the production process in accordance with procedures that are contained in Part 62 of Title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (7 CFR part 62), and the meat sold from these approved programs can carry a claim verified by USDA.

One of the issues was the percentage of an animal's diet that had to come from grass (forage). The original proposed rule was 80 percent but after an initial comment period, the proposal was changed to 99 percent.  The final rule announced in the notice removes the percentage altogether:

Therefore, AMS will not adopt any of the other suggested percentage levels and will remove any reference to a percentage in the standard. Accordingly, the grass (forage) fed marketing claim will only apply to ruminant animals whose diet throughout their lifespan is derived solely from grass (forage), with the exception of milk consumed prior to weaning.

FDA to hold public hearing on salt and sodium

From an FDA/CFSAN news release:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public hearing concerning FDA's policies regarding salt (sodium chloride) and sodium in food. FDA also is announcing the availability for comment of a citizen petition, submitted by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), requesting that FDA make changes to the regulatory status of salt, require limits on salt in processed foods, and require health messages related to salt and sodium. The purpose of the hearing is for FDA to share its current framework of policies regarding salt and sodium and to solicit information and comments from interested persons on this current framework and on potential future approaches, including approaches described in the citizen petition.

The public meeting takes place November 29, 2007.  For more information and to register online go to the FDA website announcement.

To read the Center for Science in the Public Interest position on salt and to read the petition to the FDA, go to the CSPI website.   

Dietary Supplements Siezed because of health claims

From an FDA news release:

At the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Marshals seized on Tuesday approximately $71,000 of goods from FulLife Natural Options, Inc., of Boca Raton, Fla., which marketed and distributed Charantea Ampalaya Capsules and Charantea Ampalaya Tea.

Although these products are labeled as dietary supplements, they are being promoted by FulLife for use in treating serious conditions, such as diabetes, anemia, and hypertension. These claims are evident in the products' labeling, including promotional literature and FulLife's Internet Web site.

The agency takes seriously its responsibility to protect Americans from unapproved drugs. FDA considers these products to be unapproved new drugs because they make claims related to the prevention or treatment of diseases in the products' labeling. Before a new drug product may be legally marketed, it must be shown to be safe and effective, and approved by FDA. Tuesday's action protects consumers who may rely on unapproved products and unsubstantiated claims associated with these products when making important decisions about their health.

Beyond Organic -- Food Alliance certification for Cedar Grove Cheese

Eco-labels and fair trade certification are becoming more noticable.  The USDA organic standards don't address all of the issues that are important to some consumers. (Recent news items regarding Target, Wal-mart, and Aurora/ Horizon dairy products issues illustrate the issue.) This article from wisbusiness.com caught my eye this morning:

PLAIN, Wis.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Cedar Grove Cheese, a family-owned company in operation since 1878, is the first food processor in the Midwest to meet comprehensive standards for sustainable practices established by Food Alliance, a national nonprofit that provides third-party certification throughout North America. The certification assures buyers of the company’s safe and fair working conditions, conservation of energy and water, reduction and recycling of waste, and other sustainable practices. Thirteen dairy farms were also certified for standards that include labor conditions, humane animal treatment, and conservation of soil and water, enabling them to supply Cedar Grove Cheese with milk for Food Alliance certified cheeses. more

Wine labels

Ever notice how wine labels don't have nutritional information (or even an ingredients list)?  Here's an interesting piece from CNBC.com on what else goes into wine and whether we should know about it.

Wine Labels: Should They Include the Fish Bladders? by Jane Wells

You like wine? I do. That's one reason an estimated $30 billion in wine was sold in this country last year. You think wine is made out of fermented grapes? Well...mostly. Here's what most winemakers don't want you to know: they put other stuff in wine, and they use a lot of non-grape materials in processing it.    Read More

NOSB Organic Aquaculture Symposium papers online

Papers to be presented at the US National Organic Standards Board 'Organic Aquaculture Symposium' in Washington, DC, November 27 are now available on the Symposium website.

FISH FEED AND FISH MEAL PANELISTS

Md. Shah Alam, University of North Carolina, Center for Marine Research Replacement of Menhaden Fishmeal by Soybean Meal for the Diet of Juvenile Black Sea Bass (PDF)

Torbjorn Asgard, Akvaforsk, NorwayFlexibility in the Use of Feed Ingredients can turn the farmed salmon industry sustainable (PDF)

Craig Browdy, Marine Resources Institute, South Carolina Dept of Natural ResourcesAlternative Approaches for Removing Fish Meal and Oils from Farmed Shrimp using Plant and Poultry Meals and Marine Algal Products (PDF)

Steven Craig, VA/MD Regional College of Veterinary Medicine, VA Tech, Total Replacement of Fishmeal and Fish oil in Diets for Nile Tilapia and the Marine Obligate Carnivore, Cobia

Brad Hicks, Chair, Pacific Organic Seafood Association, BC, CanadaFeeding Fish, Fish Meal and Fish Oil Fulfill Organic Tenets (PDF)

Jonathan Shepherd, International Fishmeal and Fish Oil OrganizationSustainable Marine Resources for Organic Aquafeeds (PDF)

OPEN CAGE NET PENS PANELISTS

Sandra Bravo, Aquaculture Institute, Universidad Austral de ChileUse of Antifouling in the Chilean Salmon Industry (PDF)

Kenneth Brooks, Aquatic Environmental Sciences, WashingtonA Comparison of the Environmental Costs Associated with Open Net Pen Culture of Atlantic Salmon and Production of some other human foods (PDF)

Andrea Kavanagh, Director, Pure Salmon CampaignA review of research on the caused and quantities of farmed fish escapes from open net cage systems and a literature review of the impact of escapes on wild fish populations, using farmed salmon as a case study (PDF)

Martin Krkosek, Centre for Mathematical Biology, University of Alberta, CanadaDisease Threats of Salmon Aquaculture to Wild Fish (PDF)

George Leonard, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Center for the Future of OceansPerformance Goals for Net Pen Production of Organic Finfish (PDF)

Neil Sims, Kona BlueApplicability of Organic Principles to Marine Finfish Aquaculture: Comparing Open Ocean Net Pens to Closed-Containment Systems for Production of Kona Kampachi

POSTER SESSION PARTICIPANTS

All oral presentation panelists will be participating in the poster session.  Everyone who had submitted abstracts but who were not selected for oral presentation, were very much encouraged to submit full papers and participate in the poster session. In addition, some of the individuals who were selected for oral presentation had submitted additional abstracts and may also be pr