General Mills announced this week it would drop "Smart Choices" labels from its products, including cereals.

The company planned to put these labels on up to 67 items including General Mills cereals such as Chocolate Lucky Charms and Cheerios, but bowed to public pressure after the Food and Drug Administration said the labels misled consumers, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports.

Food companies created the labels as an easy way to find healthy foods in the grocery store, but drew criticism when it appeared on mayonnaise and Froot Loops, the paper said.

[Via Minneapolis Star-Tribune]

Photo: chooyutshing, Flickr

Bon appétit?

On Tuesday, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) released its list of Top 10 riskiest foods policed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. According the the report, the items on the "FDA Top 10" account for nearly 40-percent of all reported foodborne outbreaks since 1990. The CSPI is a non-profit food safety and public health organization.

The FDA regulates nearly 80 percent of the nation's food supply including fruits and vegetables, seafood, egg and dairy products and most packaged foods.

But are they being overly cautious? Read the list after the jump.

The New York Times reports (as did The CBS Evening News last night) that a House subcommittee is going to meet today to investigate not only all of the food recalls and contaminations of the past couple of years but to examine just how the FDA operates in general.

Evidence has come to light that the FDA may have been aware of the spinach and peanut butter contamination several months before the sicknesses occurred but didn't do as much as they could have. One problem is the resources. As CBS said, even though the FDA is responsible for 80% of the food in this country and the USDA for the other twenty, for some reason, the USDA has three times as many inspectors. The FDA has also been busier with the "D" part of their name in recent years.

Looks like more food is being recalled, this time the kind humans eat.

The Food and Drug Administration is recalling olives by the Charlie Brown di Rutigliano & Figli. The Italian company bottles the olives under the names Borrelli, Cento, Flora, Roland, Vantia, Bonta di Puglia, Corrado's, Dal Raccolto, and other names. The codes start with the letter G and have 3 or 4 digits after the G.

No sickness has been reported yet, but the olives could be contaminated with a bacteria that could cause botulism. Here's more info for the U.S. and Canada.

The Food and Drug Administration has concluded that "meat and milk from clones and their progeny is as safe to eat as corresponding products derived from animals produced using contemporary agricultural practices," meaning that not only is the meat likely to be approved for human consumption and sold at stores, but that there will be no label to distinguish it from natural meat. Consumer groups want to see a label on the meat because most (64%) people are uncomfortable with the idea of eating cloned food, but the FDA's decision is based on the fact that there is no food safety issue in question, and no need to "warn" people about what they're eating in this case. "The bottom line is, we don't want to misinform consumers with some sort of implied message of difference," said one researcher, although this does seem to be at odds with existence of labels that indicate the difference between organic/nonorganic produce and grass fed beef, where there is not necessarily a health risk or benefit in question.

The Consumer Federation of America said that they, along with other groups, will ask food companies and supermarkets not to carry food from clones. "Meat and milk from cloned animals have no benefit for consumers, and consumers don't want them in their foods."

At the moment, food produced from cloned animals is not approved for sale to consumers, but the FDA said this week that they were "moving closer to approving meat and milk from cloned animals." It could happen as early as next year.

Understandably, some people are concerned about this. 60% of Americans say that they are "uncomfortable" with the idea of eating such animals. Most feel that any products resulting from a cloned animal should be clearly marked so that consumers have a choice about what they're eating - despite the fact that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has concluded there is no more danger in eating meat or other products from cloned animals than there is from conventional animals. There are no more than 2,000 or so cloned animals in the US for now, and the FDA has asked producers to voluntarily keep such products out of the production lines.

One question that has been raised is why farmers or ranchers would want cloned cattle (or other animals) in the first place, since it would cost just as much to upkeep them as natural animals. The other big question is why consumers would want cloned food over non-cloned food. There is said to be little difference between natural and non-natural meat and dairy, and if consumers can't tell the difference, why would they pay for it?

We have been told constantly since the new food pyramid was released that whole grains are essential to a healthy diet. There are many names for breads that contain whole grains: seven-grain, multi-grain, whole wheat. But the name, until this week, was actually no guarantee that the bread itself contained whole grains. A wide range of other products - from cereal to pasta - claim whole grains as a component.  This week, the Food and Drug Administration issued guidelines that define what a "whole grain" product actually is. According to CBC news, the FDA says that whole grains must have the intact, ground, cracked or flaked fruit of the grains. "The grain's principal components - the starchy endosperm, germ and bran - are also in the same relative proportions as they exist in the intact grain. Such grains may include barley, buckwheat, bulgur and corn."

The definition is merely in draft form at this point and it is unclear whether federal labeling regulations might be applied in the future. Some companies - like General Mills - asked for a specific guideline as to what might be considered to be a "good" or "excellent" source of whole grains, but the FDA has refused to issue one at this time.

Canned tuna has been tested safe by the FDA. After hearing increasing warnings about the levels of mercury in seafoods - particularly canned tuna - the United States Tuna Foundation (USTF) has reported that Food and Drug Administration tests have proven that canned tuna contains less mercury than the national allowance. It is recommended that no more than 1 part per million (ppm) of mercury should be consumed daily, and the canned tuna tested averaged 0.12 ppm, approximately 8 times less than the limit for commercial fish. The USTF director, David Burney, said that the "FDA's latest findings about mercury levels in canned tuna should end the debate over whether canned tuna is a safe and healthy food for all Americans. No one is at risk from the minute amounts of mercury in any form of canned tuna."

Tuna is high in omega-3 fatty acids and is an excellent source of lean protein. It is also a good source of a variety of minerals and nutrients, including selenium, magnesium, potassium, niacin, folic acid, B1 and B6. The national dietary guidelines and organizations such as the American Heart Association advocate eating at least two servings of fish per week, and canned tuna is perhaps the most convenient way of having it.