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.

In light of the E. coli and botulism problems over the past few months that have been linked to California growers, there has been a proposal that new standards should be implemented to ensure that consumers will feel safe and comfortable buying California produce. Most growers have already increased the amount of oversight that their produce recieives, but the new plan involves the creaton of a "seal of approval" for all leafy vegetables. The standards for the seal have not yet been determined, but growers and lawmakers plan to iron out the details later this spring. Issues being considered are how to more effectively test irrigation water and how to keep livestock, primarily cattle, away from cropland.

In spite of the fact that there is no actual plan in place yet, the idea of a "seal of approval" is already being met with opposition, with critics saying that "the industry's proposal relies too heavily on policing itself." This could be a strong argument in other industries, but when it comes to food safety, no one wants to make sure consumers are protected more than the growers whose livelihoods depend on consumer satisfaction with, and confidence in, their products.

Don't get too excited from the headline.

Bars and restaurants in California aren't going to be giving away all their beer, but this year, for the first time, they will be permitted to give out free samples of beer, much in the same way that free samples of wine and spirits are sometimes given out to promote new brands or new products from those industries.

Previously, beer companies could only offer tastings at their own plants or breweries, but the new law allows for up to 8-ounces per person per day, to be given away promotionally, provided that it is served in a glass at an establishment that already serves beer or spirits. The tastings can last no more than one hour and can only feature one type of beer, which effectively prevents consumers from having more than those 8-oz (without paying for more, anyway). St. Louis-based Anheuser-Busch was the driving force behind the new law, pushing the issue on the grounds that existing law excluded a major portion of the beverage industry. They plan to offer tastings of some of their seasonal products in the future.

The primary objectors to the legislation were the religious groups behind the California Council on Alcohol Problems, which basically tried to say that all beer tasted the same (unlike wine, in their opinions) and that this would cause drinking problems. Clearly, legislators did not agree with their thinking and neither would any of the many beer lovers out there, all of whom can attest to the fact that beer does vary from brand to brand and even batch to batch.

Want to look back on some of the top news, trends and other food related goings-on of the last year? After a jam-packed year of posting, there are some topics that keep coming up again and again. From A to Z, here are our top picks from 2006:

Ad mascots made a comeback and even got spinoff merchandise of their own.

Bacon was just about everywhere

Premium and gourmet coffee is everywhere, and there is an increased appreciation for it.

Dark chocolate is more popular than ever

Energy drinks are a big hit with teens. Caffeinated vodkas are taking the trend even further.

Fois gras is banned in Chicago, although you wouldn't know it to eat there.

Gelato is nearing the top spot on the list of cold, sweet treats that people love to indulge in.

High fructose corn syrup is being looked on with a more critical eye by consumers and removed from some drinks.

Health officials in Los Angeles and Philadelphia are considering enacting legislation that would restrict or ban the use of trans-fats in restaurant foods. These announcements come after Washington State announced a similar plan earlier this week.

In Los Angeles, a committee has been formed to investigate the feasibility of such a ban. That committee has 45 days to make their recommendation. If enacted, a ban would affect all of Los Angeles County. An additional piece of legislation, modeled directly from the New York rule, would require "fast food restaurants" to post nutritional data on their menus.

Philadelphia is not planning to venture in to the calorie-counting aspect of this trend, but lawmakers are seriously considering instituting a ban that will take effect in 2008. Their proposal, like the New York law, would inclue all food service venues but would exempt manufacturers and processed food that is served, at restaurants, in its original packaging

Kosher food is a new trend in stadium food. Over the past couple of years, exclusively kosher stands have been sprouting up at more sports venues, offering food that even very strict Jewish people, those who follow the dietary laws of kashrut, can eat. The glatt kosher hot dogs and other meat products are held to a different standard from ordinary ones and, of course, do not involve pork products. They are proving popular in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, despite that fact that the stands are not typically open on the two busiest times of the sporting week: Friday nights and Saturdays. One other risk of selling the kosher food is that it is typically more expensive than the nonkosher offerings at stadiums and since stadium food is not inexpensive to begin with, this can mean that consumers might be paying as much as 25% more for kosher products. That being said, the slow and steady success of such vendors indicates that there is a market for kosher products in these settings, from both those who keep kosher and those who, like some fans, "like the taste better [and] assume the quality is better."

A bill that bans the sale of horses for human consumption passed in the House yesterday and is an important step in protecting an animal that is an icon of American culture. Though they are classified as livestock, most regard horses are companion animals due to the unique working relationships that they form with people, through work as cart and police horses and their performance in sports and recreational activities. There are three slaughterhouses in the US, all foreign-owned, that process horse meat for human consumption in places like Japan and parts of Europe. About 90,000 horses from the US are killed each year, either at those plants or after being shipped across borders to slaughterhouses in Mexico and Canada.

The bill still has to pass through the Senate before it becomes law, but this is generally regarded as a huge victory for those in the horse industry - except for those who profit from the horse slaughter industry, of course - across the country.

The Department of Agriculture has proposed some changes to the standards currently in place for grass fed beef. At the moment, there really are no specific guidelines, and farmers who produce at least 99% grass fed beef want labels that indicate that their beef is exactly what it sounds like: from cows that live in pastures and eat only grass. The proposal has no provisions that state that the cows must be kept in pastures and it defines "grass" to include "leftovers from harvested crops," including corn and silage, which feedlot finished cows are already fed. It means that some conventional beef, feedlot beef, could be labeled "grass fed."

Understandably, the farmers who have pasture-raised cattle don't like the proposal because it devalues the "grass fed" label, barely separating it from conventional beef as far as consumers are concerned. They propose a more specific definition of "grass" and a minimum amount of time that the cows must spend grazing in pasture each day. The Agriculture Department says those rules are too strict and that their standards put less strain on ranchers, particularly in years of bad weather or drought when pastures may suffer.

Under the Agriculture Department's standards, more beef labeled "grass fed" will reach the market. But will consumers want it, or be willing to pay a premium for it, if it has no distinction from conventional?

Coincidentally related to Nicole's post, The Great Taco Hunt, a blog dedicated to "the Los Angeles Taco Scene" recently pointed out that new fines and regulations are making things a little more difficult for the taco trucks of L.A. Apparently parking fines for catering trucks have increased to up to $310 for repeat offenders. Trucks can now no longer stay in one place for more than an hour in commercial areas or a half hour in residential areas. The new ordinance says that the trucks must move at least a half a mile away and be gone for at least an hour. The Great Taco Hunt also points to an online petition to get the ordinances changed. At the moment the petition has 127 signatures.

When you see the alcohol percentage noted on the side of a bottle of wine, you probably don't think too much of it, but it may not be as accurate as you might think. The alcohol content is required by law by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Trade Bureau (TTB) to be listed on the front of a bottle, but there is a range allowed. The benchmark for the alcohol content of wine is 14% because that is the level at which taxes go up. For wines that have less than 14 percent alcohol by volume, they are allowed to have plus or minus 1.5% of the content listed. So, for example, a 12.5% wine could actually have either 11% or 14%, which can be a fairly significant different if you're having more than one glass with dinner. Wines over 14% alcohol are allowed to be plus or minus 1%.

In general, the more precisely the alcohol content is written, whether it is 12.9% or 14.2%, the more accurate it is likely to be. If nothing else, you can always estimate based on the 14% benchmark if you really need to know how much alcohol you're consuming.

After banning foie gras on the grounds that it is unnecessarily cruel to animals, a member of the Chicago City Council is seeking to impose more food regulations on the city. Looking out for the heath of Chicago residents, Councilman Edward M. Burke has proposed a city-wide prohibition on trans-fats.

If passed, the measure would prevent restaurants from using oils during cooking if they contain trans fats. Burke said, "The end result could well be longer, healthier lives and reduced health costs for many Chicagoans." Participation would not be voluntary and fines from $200 to $1,000 per day would be implemented for restaurants who fail to comply with the law.

The biggest effects would probably be seen in fast food restaurants. The Wendy's chain has removed trans fats from their menu items, but other chains have yet to follow suit. If passed, they would be forced to do so in order to continue to do business in the city.

 

More trans-fat news:

• Limits for trans-fat consumption proposed
• KFC faces trans fat lawsuit
• Trans fats can give you a pot-belly

Legislators in Illinois have voted against a proposed junk food ban. The bill would have eliminated all junk foods from vending machines in elementary and middles schools, grades K-8, in the state.

Though the governor supported it, the rest of the law makers said that it was not enough to look only at the foods offered in vending machines. A bill that was to support good nutrition in schools should require that the nutritional content of cafeteria food be examined as well. Not only would the bill have to be more balanced, it would have to apply equally to all children. Some of the original drafts contained rules that varied by age and were full of product exceptions. For example, children through grade 5 "would be limited to beverages containing 100 percent fruit juice, while drinks for middle school students could contain as little as 50 percent juice" and pretzels would be allowed, though almost no other "chips" would be.

It sounds as though the school board, which is collaborating with the law makers, and the government are on the right track in their desire to have healthier kids. Once a balance is reached, the legislature is sure to push a bill through.

On its way to the Senate, after getting approved by the house, is a bill that would require all states to have uniform food labeling laws. In addition to the standard information that is nationally regulated, like calories, fat and trans-fats, states can currently pass laws to require food produced in their state to have additional information on the packaging. Uncommon allergens, potentially toxic substances and various food additives are commonly required to be revealed in this way.

Food producers and grocers support the bill because they would have a standard set of expectations to meet, but some consumers are unhappy that some information currently on their state's food labels will be removed. Opponents of the bill say that it will affect as many as 200 state laws across the country. While an amendment has already been added to keep mercury warnings in place, there are 16 states that have shellfish regulations and Arkansas and Illinois have egg-safety laws, none of which would still be required. On the surface, it seems to be a certainty that any regulations stripped from the states will be reinstated at a later time, but going through the federal process is likely to take longer and face more opposition from large lobbies than with in-state legislation. Some warnings may not make it back onto labels for a number of years, if ever, even though consumers in some states will find themselves with new warnings on their packaging.

On January 1st, a new law went into effect in California prohibiting seafood from being labeled "organic." The bill was supported by consumer and organic food groups, as well as the Monterey Bay Aquarium. State Senator Jackie Speier, who authored the bill, stated that it is designed to protect consumers in the absence of national standards regarding the production of organic seafood, which would ideally be both healthier and better for the environment.

Some markets and seafood production companies are objecting to the legislation, claiming that they can only recoup their costs for feeding their “organic everywhere but California” seafood by using the “organic” label to command higher prices. But while truly organic producers may find themselves hurriedly searching for new buzz-words to describe their fish and shellfish, the less scrupulous producers will be prevented from falsely marketing their own products as organic.