"definition" news and stories

As I flipped past Maxim, Shape, and Better Homes and Gardens, a new mag caught my eye the other day - Clean Eating. Come again? I flipped through it for a minute or so, but couldn't, for the life of me, figure out what "clean eating" was. The opposite of 'dirty eating?' (see picture at right for an example of what I imagined 'dirty eating' to be). Perhaps a way of eating without spilling anything on yourself. Sadly, this intrigued me.

So I went home and consulted my trusty ol' Interweb, and there it was: the unofficial definition of clean eating: "Consuming food in its most natural state...it's not a diet, it's a lifestyle approach to food and its preparation, leading to..." My eyes glazed over at this point (and by the way, why does every new diet define itself as a "lifestyle?" Can't anyone just eat anymore without defining themselves within a food "lifestyle?"

Anyway, I digress. From what I can tell, "clean eating" is just another way of saying "eat normal-sized portions of healthy, low-fat, fresh foods." Which everyone already knows. And like every di - er, lifestyle - there's a list of stuff to avoid (refined sugars, anything fatty, alcohol - y'know, all the tasty stuff) and a "seven-day meal plan" to get you started. Oh, and the best part: the token "Before and After" pics of a woman in a muumuu and then that same woman, 200 pounds lighter and "much, much happier." Because only thin people are happy, dontcha know.

Eh, I dunno. Maybe I'm jaded - and I'm sure Clean Eating could be a good source for new healthy recipes - but healthy eating and portion control are simply that. Stop trying to slap a label on it turn it into a book, movie, stuffed animal, or lifestyle. Just eat right, right? And have a beer or a cupcake once in awhile. Tell them Ellen said it's okay.

Meat and milk from cloned animals have been deemed safe by the FDA and won't make it to market for some time yet, which is a relief to many consumers because the USDA has also determined that there needs to be no label distinguishing between cloned meat and naturally-bred meat and some would like to see that policy change before the products are on store shelves. Another issue that needs definition is whether or not clones can be organic. Many feel that as long as the clones are "raised organically," living the same lifestyle and receiving the same food as conventionally organic animals, they should receive the designation.

Others, all supporters of the organic movement, range from strongly against the issue to rabidly against it. The terms "organic" and "cloned" just don't belong together, they say. The current guidelines state that genetically modified foods cannot be consider organic. By implication, an animal made in a lab - even if it isn't "genetically modified" - should also be excluded. "Surely, these opponents conclude, no animal is more engineered than a clone."

For the moment, it seems that the current organic rules would apply and that it would not be difficult for cloned foods to qualify as such, but ultimately, the decision lies in the hands of the USDA, which could be considered by an advisory panel as early as spring. After this decision, we may see a revision of the definition of "organic" itself.

Source

A few months ago, I posted about the debate that several vodka producing countries are having over what should and shouldn't be called vodka. An article in today's New York Times picks up the story. Basically, certain countries, including Finland, Sweden and Poland, contend that for something to be called vodka, it must be distilled from either potatoes or certain grains, not from things like grapes or maple syrup. These countries are seeking labeling restrictions for these "non-traditional" vodkas. BBC News reported that such restrictions could affect up to two thirds of all the vodka currently produced in non-Baltic EU countries. The NYT article also points out that vodka's history and original ingredients are up for debate, citing possible Russian, Polish, Italian and Arabian origins that may have included plums, apples or grapes.

The British Food Standards Agency estimates that there are 3.5-million vegetarians and 250,000 vegans in the UK and, after consultation with both vegetarian and vegan groups, have decided to formulate labeling guidelines to food producers to follow. There is lots of confusion about the definitions of the terms among consumers, as well as manufacturers. Generally speaking, vegetarians refrain from eating meat products and vegans avoid all animal-derived products, including dairy and eggs. The purpose of introducing such guidelines is to prevent manufacturers from incorrectly identifying products as "vegetarian" or "vegan" when they actually contain meat-based or animal derived ingredients. To be sure all their bases were covered, the also defined the term "animals." With standards in place, consumers no longer need to worry that what they are picking up might contain undisclosed ingredients. The official guidelines are:

"Vegetarian: The term 'vegetarian' should not be applied to foods that are, or are made from, or with, the aid of products derived from animals that have died, have been slaughtered, or animals that die as a result of being eaten.

Animals means farmed, wild or domestic animals, including for example, livestock poultry, game, fish, shellfish, crustacea, amphibians, tunicates, echinoderms, mollusks and insects.

Vegan: The term 'vegan' should not be applied to foods that are, or are made from, or with, the aid of animals or animal products (including products from living animals)."

Source

There is no widely accepted definition of the word "natural" as far as the Food and Drug Administration is concerned. Many products use the term in their marketing but contain synthetic ingredients and the vast majority of people would support an  official definition. Smaller majorities favored basing the definition on the amount of processing that a product undergoes or how exactly the raw material is altered. The Sugar Association has been lobbying the FDA to adopt an official standard - such as the USDA has for beef and poultry - for some time to try and prevent manufactured sugar substitutes, like Splenda, from labeling themselves as a natural product. "Natural" is defined by the USDA as any product "containing no artificial ingredient or added color and [that] is only minimally processed (a process which does not fundamentally alter the raw product)."