"labeling" news and stories

Some chatter over at The Soapbox caught our eye. Should boozy beverages sport nutritional labeling? It's a topic federal regulators have been reviewing and one that's been brewing since 2003.

Current labeling regulations are complex. Wine, beer and liquor producers are not required to list actual ingredients on the label, but must list items like sulfites or FD&C Yellow No. 5 for consumers who are sensitive. Whether or not nutritional information like calories, carbohydrates and serving size should be added to labels is up for discussion, but Tom Hogue, spokesman for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) told USA Today that it's unclear when federal officials might make a decision.

"I hear echos of the topic, but I don't think it will become a government mandate," says Rob Cooper, president and founder of St-Germain/Cooper Spirits Company. "There are already a lot of regulations surrounding alcohol. You have to go through the TTB formal approval process to ensure consumers are getting a safe product. It's not the Wild West. You can't just do what you want. They're strict about the ingredients."

And besides, adds Cooper, "Alcohol is not a critical component of ones sustenance. It's for recreational use. Who cares if it's good for you?"

He's got a point.

Just as worldwide fish consumption has reached an all time high, a bevy of new labels are in the works to provide consumers with even more information about the seafood they're buying. Whether that will clarify fish-buying decisions or muddle an already complicated purchase remains to be seen.

Starting in April, Fair Trade International -- the same folks who certify items like coffee, tea, cocoa and bananas -- will begin work to establish standards for small-scale shrimp farmers, mostly located in Southeast Asia, where roughly 70 percent of farmed shrimp is produced.

Even the most careful calorie-counters would be duped by the newfound limitations on trans-fat labeling. Those "trans fat free" foods may not be so.

Case Western Reserve University of Medicine graduate student Eric Brandt published a piece in the January/February issue of the American Journal of Health Promotion stating that the Food and Drug Administration allows foods containing less than .5 grams of trans fat to be labeled "trans fat free" or "zero trans fat," reports My Health News Daily.

"That's because the policy requires that fat amounts less than 5 grams be listed in 0.5 gram increments, and allows food producers to round down to the lower increment," reports the Daily. "Foods with more than 5 grams of fat are required to use one gram increments."

Brandt notes that eating at least three such items could take you over the daily recommended max of 1.11 grams of trans fats -- three items at .49 grams would equal 1.47 grams -- which could lead to increased risk of coronary artery disease and diabates. The article makes a call to arms (that is, the FDA) to change labeling laws to indicate trans fats starting with .1 grams, so we can finally see what those "zero trans fat" Krispy Kreme donuts are really made of.

Read "The Skinny on Fats" at KitchenDaily for more info, and click "Continue" for a video on trans-fat labling.

Our food system may not be perfect, but we have to admit we've come a long way since last December, with a new eye for public health and environmental responsibility. Here's a 2010 recap of the top stories worth a revisit before we move forward into the new year.

Redefining Organic
Until February 2010, the term "organic" was taken pretty loosely. Consumers weren't too sure what the organic stamp actually guaranteed. So the USDA released new rules, including the minimum time animals should have access to pasture: 4 months each year, with 30 percent of their diet sourced from said pasture.

Sustainable Seafood
In 2010, people weren't just concerned for their own health; they started really thinking about the health of what they ate as they reached for more locally grown, sustainably raised foods, and nothing became more political than seafood. We become more aware of the Seafood Watch Guide, which tells us which fish are sustainable to consume and where we can find it. We learned that bluefin tuna, a popular fish used in sushi, was going extinct and there was no move by the U.S. to protect it. And we saw the beginning of the battle over the first genetically engineered animal: salmon, which is yet to be approved but may face required labeling.

New York Cracks Down For Health
Mayor Bloomberg started this year off with a war against health-plaguing substances in New York City restaurants, which are historically models for restaurants across the country. We said good-bye to trans fats and almost lost salt and bake sales, too. In came proposed taxes to high-sugar items, as well as menu labeling and letter grades.

We know that purchasing seafood can be fraught with complicated decisions. We're right there with you at the fish counter, flipping through our pocket guides, fumbling with our iPhone apps, or eyeing some of the new labeling -- all designed to help us make better, more informed choices about supper. But environmental watchdog group Food & Water Watch said yesterday that the bevy of seafood eco-labels may be causing more confusion for consumers, not less.

"Our push is to make consumers aware of the labels out there and what they might, or might not stand for," Marianne Cufone, director of F&WW's fish program told Slashfood.

Specifically, the group criticizes certification organizations like the Marine Stewardship Council, Global Aquaculture Alliance, Friends of the Sea, Global Trust Certifications, Ltd., International Fishmeal and Fish Oil Organization, and the yet to be launched Aquaculture Stewardship Council.

"People often think that if they buy seafood with an eco-label, it's automatically a good choice," said Wenonah Hauter, F&WW executive director in the press release. "Unfortunately, those certifications don't assure that the product consumers are getting is actually eco-friendly."