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.

There is a problem with using a strategy known as "nutrient profiling," a strategy designed to help regulatory agencies determine what is - and what is not - junk food quickly and easily. It works by setting limits on the number of calories and the amount of fat, salt, sugar, etc. that any food product can have. Everything is held to the same standard based on a predetermined portion size. Advertisers, schools and government agencies using this see the food world in black and white and it makes it very easy to sort out the goof from the bad.

In theory, that is.

The problem is that it doesn't take into account what the food actually is. Last year in the US, Illinois introduced similar standards that left whole milk classified as "junk food." Now, in the UK, Ofcom's guidelines for food advertising classify cheese as junk food, as well as several other foods that wouldn't necessarily be perceived as junk food by the average consumer, because it is "high in fat, salt and[/or] sugar ." This means that cheese cannot be advertised on TV programs made for children or where a high proportion of the viewers are under 16.

The nutrient profiling system has led to complaints from food organizations, including the British Cheese Board, and calls for a change in structure. The BCB says that the portion size of cheese used was much too large and other groups say that it is unfair that natural, balanced foods are restricted while diet sodas and other low-cal processed foods are permitted.

"Functional" foods have no official definition or regulation at the moment, but the FDA is hoping to change that soon, giving both manufactuerers and consumers some guidelines to go by. Functional foods are those that have something extra added to them that promises "a special [nutritional] punch," one which may or may not be backed up with solid science. For example, some products with herbs like ginseng and kava kava promise, respectively, to "energize" and "enlighten" - and because these things are directly attributed to the two herbs, that makes them "functional" foods. The functional label doesn't just apply to herbs, however. It applies to cereals that are fortified with extra nutrients, or juices that have calcium added to them.

Right now, adding extraneous nutrients to foods is a huge trend in the food processing industry. Consumers are looking for quick fixes to getting all the nutrition that they need, so when they're offered a soda with calcium added, they're going to opt for that over the regular product.

Calcium, of course, is not really the biggest problem. The FDA is more concerned with the companies that hint at claims of increased intelligence, stamina or energy, things that are difficult to prove and can be confusing for consumers. The companies themselves say that as long as their foods meet the existing food safety standards and the ingredients themselves are considered safe, they should be able to continue on as they are doing.

We'll have to wait to see what restrictions, if any, are implemented, but it seems likely that there will at least be some. After all, we live in a world where toy superman costumes come with warnings that "cape does not enable user to fly," so it is reasonable to assume that we will also see some sort of warnings associated with "functional" foods.

Canada does not have a country-wide organic certification system - not yet, anyway. Organic farming and ranching is an almost $1 billion dollar industry in the country, but currently, the farmers cannot seek certification from a central source. Some are certified by the US Department of Agriculture, which would be required for export to the US anyway, and farms in Quebec and British Colombia are regulated by rules put in place by the individual provinces.

A new system would allow for a "Canada Organic" label, increasing awareness of the farmers nationally and internationally and the country has been working on developing a standard set of guidelines and regulations since 2004. Recently, the process was sped up to meet a deadline set by the EU that would prohibit uncertified organics from trade after December 31st. Such a ban could cost Canada millions of dollars, so after much deliberation, a draft of the new rules was published on September 2. It will be up for discussion and revision for 75 days, at which point it will become law.

Last week, I posted about the problems that heightened airline security measures were causing for those trying to carry wine with them on their flights. The gel packs often used to keep live lobsters cool during their travels are also a problem. To get around this, Clearwater Seafoods in Nova Scotia, Canada, has replaced their usual gel packs with bags of frozen vegetables like peas, carrots and corn, according to a recent CBC story. One Clearwater manager told the CBC that the veggies actually stay colder for longer than the gel packs.

[Via Fark]

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.

Recognizing that television is not the sole media source that children are exposed to, British ministers are wondering whether a proposal that bans junk food ads on television will be effective. As a result, they are now considering whether to add restrictions to the ad content of websites, computer games, cinemas and packaging, as well as corporate school sponsorships. Such measures "could be voluntary or compulsory depending on the response of the food industry." Strict measures like these are being supported by the Labour Party and various parent groups.

The Food Standards Agency, backing the ban, has devised a "nutrient profiling system" to identify "junk foods" according to their nutritional information. It could be used to determine whether or not a food product could be advertised if a ban becomes legislation.

Ofcom, a television regular, thinks that measures like this seem too strict. A pre-9pm television ban alone would cost networks and advertisers at least £141 million, but there is not telling what the cost of essentially prohibiting "junk food" ads would be.

Starting next month, poultry providers will have to meet a new set of packaging standards for their products. For example, the labels will clearly have to state if the product needs to be cooked. Regulators say that there is a good deal of confusion among consumers, especially over frozen, raw poultry that may already be partially prepared with a stuffing or breading, so the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has devised this label: Uncooked: For Safety, Must be Cooked to an Internal Temperature of 165 degrees F as Measured by Use of a Thermometer. The new labels will be added to all frozen poultry products.

The FSIS is in the process of approving cooking instructions that will accompany all the chicken products, with guidelines that suggest consumers use traditional food preparation methods as opposed to the microwave. "A fundamental part of label evaluation is to ensure that labeling will be understood and followed by consumers," said the FSIS.

I wonder exactly how many consumers are "fooled" into thinking that their raw chicken is already cooked. Are the artificial grill marks and colorings, not to mention breading, so convincing as to actually make people think their raw chicken was cooked before being frozen? Are people so used to buying frozen, pre-cooked meals that the concept of a non-precooked item is foreign to them? I would certainly like to think not. It is possible the the labels will help consumers be more prepared should the bird flu suddenly pop up.

 

According to consumer groups, the beer industry's standards for advertising are not high enough. And they're not talking about their propensity to appeal to the lowest common denominator by showing belching contests and bikini-clad women. The New York Times reports that critics are upset because they do not feel the industry is abiding by their own standards and is still producing ads which are seen by children.

The industry self regulates via the Beer Institute, which creates guidelines and monitors advertising content. Their standard is to only air beer ads when no more than 30 percent of the audience is under the legal drinking age. Steven Rowe, attorney general of Maine and vocal critic, stands firm in his believe that the standard should be lowered to 15 percent. Critics also feel that the Beer Institute's advertising code, which state ads "should not portray beer drinking before or during activities, which for safety reasons, require a high degree of alertness or coordination," is being violated in ads. To support their "unsafe activities" claim, fingers are pointed at the ad aired during the Olympics that showed men drinking beer while pretending to be fixing their roofs, though beer companies stated that commercials obviously meant as parody were exceptions to the "unsafe activities" code, not violating any standards.

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.

A report was issued this week by the auditor of the US Department of Agriculture revealing the department's failure to properly control and regulate the trials of genetically modified crops. "In many cases, the report said, regulators didn't even know where the field trials were." Numerous violations were noted, such as not inspecting sites and failing to ensure that the trial crops with genetically modified genes were destroyed after the test was complete. This increases the risk that these genes may have been released into the environment. 

The release of the report followed the announcement that two of Monsanto Company's engineered corn traits had received final clearance from the USDA. One of the corn traits protects from a pest know as rootworm, as well as providing weed control around the crops, while the other trait combines the first with protection against a corn borer pest. Receiving final clearance for deregulation means that Monsanto can now market its products at state level and in foreign markets