While I believe this is more of a elite problem (oh noes! that $80 jar of caviar was really fish eggs from Mississippi!) than a general public health problem, there is the issue of allergies, which could come into play, as well as general mistrust of the system.
There is new hope that the FDA is finally ready to get serious about BPA.
The agency said Friday that it had “some concern about the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children,” and would join other federal health agencies in studying the chemical in both animals and humans.
BPA is a chemical that is technically not in food, instead it can be found in hard plastic bottles (look for recycling number 7) and the lining of aluminum cans. However, the chemical doesn’t always stay there, and has been found to leach into the food it holds, often at toxic levels.
The first major concern was the high levels of BPA found in baby bottles and sippy cups. While manufacturers have been moving to remove BPA from those items, people are starting to ask about BPA affects on the rest of us.
Naglene and Camelbak have stopped using BPA in their products, however if you have an older item, you may want to look into an upgrade. Sadly, most canned goods manufacturers have resisted a BPA-free diet. Requiring product labeling, coupled with a good education program, amy be an easier and almost effective strategy than attempting an outright ban.
Kelloggs took superfluous marketing claims to a whole new level with it’s recent claims that Cocoa Krispies, a cereal that boasts 11 grams of sugar in a single potion of 31 grams - yes, ONE THIRD of the cereal is pure sugar, “Now helps support your kid’s Immunity” in huge type splashed across the front of the cereal box.
The city of San Francisco sent a letter of concerns to both Kellogg and the FDA, questioning whether the claims go too far and outwardly misleading to parents with H1N1 concerns. The Rudd Center pointedly noted:
Of all claims on cereal boxes, “this one belongs in the hall of fame,” says Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. “By their logic, you can spray vitamins on a pile of leaves, and it will boost immunity.”
No sooner did Smart Choices fade from prominence, Big Food came up with something equally devious and absurd. Food labeling lies - its like playing wack-a-mole at the grocery store.
But, as pointed out by Dr. Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, “You could start out with some sawdust, add calcium or Vitamin A and meet the (Smart Choices) criteria.”
As I’ve been trying to wade through the myraid of explanations for the dairy crisis these past few months, my gut has told me that at the end of the day we will find that the recent events are really a purposeful outgrowth of a process of consolidation. It seemed too much of a coincidence that just a year after WalMart announced they would carry organic milk that small organic dairies were going under. Wisconsin organic dairy farmers agree:
Under the Bush administration the USDA was accused of “looking the other way” as large corporate agribusinesses invested in organics while allegedly violating federal standards. In the dairy sector there are now estimated to be 20 large industrial dairies, each milking 1500-7000 cows, producing as much as 40% of the nation’s organic milk supply. A glut of factory farm milk has flooded the organic dairy sector squeezing the incomes of family farmers as dairy processors cut payments and demand production cutbacks.
Just like the consolidation of the pork and poultry industries, big business is now coming for dairy. With national chains buying up organic milk in large quantities, an opportunity opened for dairy mega-farms to emerge. Now over 40% of the organic milk is coming from just 20 dairies. That is an unprecedented number. These farmers are not going to stand by as their livelihoods get wiped out. The big question is, will Vilsack act?
Mark Kastel, rally organizer with The Cornucopia Institute, told Secretary Vilsack that, “We’d like you to re-open the Aurora investigation.” Aurora, operator of five factory farms in Colorado and Texas and the organic milk store-brand supplier for Wal-Mart, Target, Safeway, Costco and other national chains, was found to have “willfully” violated numerous organic regulations by USDA investigators in 2007. The company received mild sanctions from USDA political appointees who rejected staff recommendations calling for revocation of Aurora’s organic certification.
Cornucopia has questioned the legality of the USDA’s agreement with Aurora allowing the nation’s largest corporate organic dairy operator to remain in business. The Bush administration permitted Aurora to retain over 10,000 conventional cows illegally brought onto their operations.
Vilsack has claimed he is looking into rules that will level the playing field for small and medium size dairies. But will he review Aurora’s organic label?
American Dairy shares on the New York Stock Exchange has dropped 40%. Another bad indicator of the continuing dairy crisis, right? Well, not so fast, this story takes an odd twist. Turns out that American Dairy is not so American. In fact, it is a Chinese company based in Beijing.
American Dairy primarily produces baby formula and was one of the few Chinese companies that wasn’t tainted by the horrible baby formula contamination disaster that killed 6 children. Thanks to gaining a reputation for being the safe baby formula, American Dairy’s revenue growth exploded 190% last year. So what gives?
The reason for that stalled growth? In its press release, the company cited stiffer Chinese regulations in the wake of the contamination scandal, which require new labels with more information disclosed on them.
But some feel that the effects of those tighter regulations remain difficult to quantify in dollar figures. Because of that obscurity, the thinking goes, other problems may be curtailing the company’s expansion. Said Hao Hong, an analyst with Brean Murray Carret, a small investment bank that specializes in Chinese small-cap companies, “Without some numbers, it’s difficult to say what the main reason is” behind the slowdown. “People are getting a little concerned here,” he said. “I don’t blame them.”
This is a very odd excuse for slowed sales growth. Too much labeling? That in itself is not enough to reverse the fortunes of a mjor company, so what gives? What exactly is on those labels that are scaring people off? Or is this just another victim of the seizing world economy?
I got goosebumps reading some of the remarks made by Kathleen Merrigan, the USDA Deputy Secretary.
On the integrity of the organic label:
In terms of enforcement, the integrity of the organic label is fundamental to the growth of this industry. If consumers don’t have confidence in the label, industry growth will stall—it’s just that simple. It’s not a matter of expanding standards, but making sure the standards we have are enforced. I understand that it takes a while for standards to really sink in and for people to fully understand the rules of the game.
But, the honeymoon is over. It’s time to show the world that our standards have teeth; that we mean them and if people are not adhering to the standards, they’re going to be kicked out of the program. It will take staff work and it will take eyes out in the field because the USDA can’t be everywhere all the time. Part of our enforcement program has to be based on whistle blowing within the industry itself.
On the challenges the organic sector faces:
I’m going to tell you what I think the biggest challenge is—and I know I’m like a broken record on this, or a broken CD or iPhone—but the point is that the biggest challenge the organic community faces is internal. It is about not letting the “perfect” be the enemy of the “good”; not to self-destruct by pointing accusing fingers at each other.
There’s definitely a need for whistle blowing on enforcement issues, but I think this community sometimes explodes issues unnecessarily on the front pages of the newspapers, which leads to consumer confusion and erosion in belief for the organic label. People need to keep their eyes on the prize and think of this as a long-term haul and to just be really cautious before they throw bombs.
Be still my heart! Not only does the woman recognize the precarious position the organic label is in by being so dependant on consumer trust, but she also recognizes that in order for organics to work and be cost effective, we can’t be too extremist when it comes to defining what organic means. All she has to do now is declare that the cost of food needs to reflect its nutritional value and I’ll be popping the champagne.
A class action suit against many of the top sellers of organic milk has been dismissed:
U.S. District Judge E. Richard Webber in St. Louis ruled last week that regardless of whether the dairy always met organic standards, a certification by U.S. Department of Agriculture agents allowed the dairy to market its milk as organic.
Webber also dismissed claims against Costco Wholesale Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Target Corp., Safeway Inc. and Wild Oats Markets Inc. The plaintiffs said those companies should have investigated whether the milk they were selling was truly organic. Organic milk typically sells for higher prices.
Lastly, Webber dismissed claims against QAI, a USDA certifying agent.
The lawsuit was lead by the Cornucopia Institute which says they will appeal the ruling:
Last week, a judge in federal district court in St. Louis, rejected 19 class-action lawsuits filed by consumers who are claiming fraud in the sale of “organic” milk coming from one of the giant operations. In 2007, federal investigators found the Aurora Dairy had “willfully” violated 14 different federal organic regulations. Consumers in 40 states sued, alleging fraud in the manufacture of organic milk sold as storebrands in Wal-Mart, Target, Safeway, Costco and other national chains served by Aurora.
Lawyers representing consumers involved with the class-action lawsuits vow that they will appeal the judge’s initial ruling, especially in light of a recent Supreme Court decision that clearly gives citizens the right to sue corporations that allegedly act illegally even though federal regulatory agencies provide statutory authority over certain industries.
It’s important that consumers feel confident in the organic label. Bad actors need to be removed in order for people to trust the system. Faking organic hurts the entire organic community. There is a few things consumers can do - buy at farmers markets as opposed to the big grocery stores. And when you do buy at the store use the Cornucopia Institute cow rating.
Tim Ferriss via Herbiv.org takes a look at all those fancy labels that meat supplies stick on their wares, and tells us what’s bull, what’s for real, and what it all really means.
Marion Nestle, NYU nutrition professor, ex-HHS policy advisor, and foodie author extraordinaire was invited to join the board of the Smart Choices program of the American Soceity of Nutrition. Most would have jumped at the chance to put another line in their bio and bullet in their resume. Sounds great, right? But there is a slight catch. As Marion has noted in the past, the recommendations for the max limits on certain additives, such as sodium, are way high, which defeats the purpose of having the Smart Choice label. Of course Big Food loves it - one more stamp to put on their products to market themselves as healthier than they really are.
So what does one do, keep their mouth shut and go with the flow? Not Marion. She writes a letter:
Dear Katrina—
Thank you for inviting me to join the Board of Directors of the Smart Choices program. I regret that I cannot accept. Participating in Smart Choices represents a serious conflict of interest for nutrition educators who wish to maintain independence from the influence of the food industry on nutrition advice.
But participation also represents a serious conflict of interest for the American Society of Nutrition (ASN). I am dismayed that the ASN—an organization devoted to the highest standards of nutrition research–is involved in this project. I think the ASN should reconsider this involvement and withdraw immediately.
The ostensible purpose of Smart Choices is to guide the public to select more healthful foods. I am unaware of a research basis indicating that the program is likely to succeed in this goal.
Evidence does, however, support two additional goals of the program. The first is to provide a basis for marketing highly processed food products. I think we would all agree that highly processed foods are, in general, demonstrably nutritionally inferior to whole or minimally processed foods.
The second is to stave off federal regulations requiring a traffic-light food rating system such as that in use in the United Kingdom. Preliminary research indicates that consumers prefer this system to numerical scores and understand the colors to mean that they should choose green-lighted foods and avoid red-lighted foods.
Ouch. It goes on from there, check out the rest on her site. Marion deserves some serious props for standing up for what’s right, even if its against some seriously powerful interests. We don’t get to see that kind of courage everyday. Furthermore, its key to mark clear lines in the sand when it comes to nutrition science. Big Food is reading right out of the playbook that was so sucessful for Big Oil and Big Tobacco - blur the science and lean on politicians to give them a pass in the name of “self regulation”. So thanks Marion!
Governor Kathleen Sebelius
The Consumer Union and other Dairy friends write to Governor Sebelius, and ask her to veto HB 2121, which would force dairy farmers who would like to label their products rbST-free to add the the additional disclaimer, “The FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbGH-supplemented and non-rbGH-supplemented cows” on the same panel in the same font size.
The problem is, no one knows if that statement is true or not. As the letter states:
First and foremost, we urge you not to require the disclaimer, which was developed in 1994, because there is significant evidence it is not accurate. There are, in fact, significant differences between milk from cows treated with rbGH and from cows not treated, some of which have emerged in the last decade as the science has developed. FDA’s own publications have demonstrated that milk from cows treated with rbGH show statistically significant increases of the hormone insulin-like growth factor 1(2) (IGF-1) (which more recently has been linked to breast(3) , colorectal (4), and prostate(5) cancer, although whether the increased IGF-1 levels due to rbGH in milk would affect health has not been established).
The milk of treated cows also shows increases in average somatic cell counts (indicative of mastitis infections in cows and an indication of the quality of the milk)(6). The additional antibiotic required to treat these infections can’t help but contribute to the overall problem of antibiotic resistance in humans, a major and increasingly critical national health problem.
You’ve just been tossed the hot potato, Governor. What are you going to do?
In my mind, Big Food is the equivalent of Big Oil. Both are commodities that provide energy. Both have serious environmental impacts. For both Big Food and Big Oil we need to convince people to consume less, but we shouldn’t and can’t straight-out outlaw the substances.
However, Kelly Brownell makes a very convincing case that Big Food is much more akin to Big Tobacco. In terms of how we approach solving the problems caused by these very lucrative industries, this is very true.
Brownell rightly points out that both products are/were heavily marketed to children in the hopes of created life-long loyal costumers. Both refute sound science (as does Big Oil in regards to climate change) in the hopes of creating doubt about the dangers of their products. Big Food is even dabbling in adding affeine, an additive substance, to their products.
Most interesting, there may be lessons to be learned on how to deal with and how to regulate Big Food from the fights that have been led against Big Tobacco. When it was first announced that McDonald’s was being sued for making customers fat, many were aghast that lawsut would be filed for what was thought to be an issue of personal responsibility. But back in the day, it was commonly believed that smoking was a personal responsibility issue also.
It is interesting to look at Big Tobacco as a blueprint for deal with Big Food. Already, there has been movements for better labeling and for blocking marketing to children. Perhaps one day there will be an eleven-figure decision against Big Food and the government will set up a huge healthcare fund with the proceeds.