FDA’s oversight and enforcement efforts have not kept pace with the growing number of food firms. As a result, FDA has little assurance that companies comply with food labeling laws and regulations for, among other things, preventing false or misleading labeling. Specifically:GAO does offer up some solutions. See the recommendations.
* FDA does not have reliable data on the number of labels reviewed; the number of inspections, which include label reviews, has declined. For example, of the tens of thousands of foreign food firms in over 150 countries, just 96 were inspected by FDA in 11 countries in fiscal year 2007—down from 211 inspections in 26 countries in 2001.
* FDA’s testing for the accuracy of nutrition information on labels in 2000 through 2006 was limited. FDA could not provide data for 2007.
* Although the number of food firms in FDA’s jurisdiction has increased, the number of warning letters FDA issued to firms that cited food labeling violations has held fairly steady.
* FDA does not track the complete and timely correction of labeling violations or analyze these and other labeling oversight data in routine reports to inform managers’ decisions, or ensure the complete and timely posting of information on its Web site to inform the public.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
GAO reports on food labeling
A report (.pdf) by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) says that federal food label regulators are not keeping up with the growth in food products.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Does advertising expand food demand?
When food companies advertise, do they increase consumer demand for food categories, or do they just steal market share from other companies within a category?
This question is important in U.S. food policy, because only demand expansion raises concerns about the impact of advertising on over-consumption and obesity. For many types of food and beverage advertising, I take these concerns about health impacts seriously.
In the case of the new soup wars between Campbell and Progresso, however, it is safe to say that these advertisements are not going to expand consumer demand for the category!
From Campbell, the accusation that Progresso soups use MSG.
From Progresso, the accusation that Campbell soups use MSG.
Marion Nestle covers this beat in two posts. BrandWeek also covers the two campaigns. It reminds me of those federally sponsored ads from the beef checkoff program a couple years ago, disparaging chicken (with a side swipe against carrots).
This question is important in U.S. food policy, because only demand expansion raises concerns about the impact of advertising on over-consumption and obesity. For many types of food and beverage advertising, I take these concerns about health impacts seriously.
In the case of the new soup wars between Campbell and Progresso, however, it is safe to say that these advertisements are not going to expand consumer demand for the category!
From Campbell, the accusation that Progresso soups use MSG.
From Progresso, the accusation that Campbell soups use MSG.
Marion Nestle covers this beat in two posts. BrandWeek also covers the two campaigns. It reminds me of those federally sponsored ads from the beef checkoff program a couple years ago, disparaging chicken (with a side swipe against carrots).
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Melamine food recalls
Thanks to
I would suggest paying close attention to the growing list, as a lot of the products are candy, and Halloween is around the corner. Fricat points out, "Foods with low levels of dairy based ingredients, such as candies and biscuits, are likely to be infrequently consumed and in small amounts so they are not considered to be a high-risk food for potential dietary exposure to melamine even if the dairy ingredient has been adulterated."
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) this week updated its general FAQ page for melamine contamination. This is a global food list. FDA has only recalled Mr. Brown instant coffee and milk tea products.
BAIRONG GRAPE CREAM CRACKERS
DOVE H/NUT ALM & RAISIN CHOC
DOVE HAZELNUT CHOC
DOVE MILK CHOCOLATE
Dreyers Choc Cake Ice Cream 887ml
Dreyers Choc Cake Ice Cream 887ml
Dreyers Cookie & Cream Ice Cream 887ml
Dreyers Cookie & Cream Ice Cream 887ml
Dreyers Mint Chip Ice Cream 887ml
Dreyers Mint Chip Ice Cream 887ml
Dreyers Rocky Road Ice Cream 887ml
Dreyers Rocky Road Ice Cream 887ml
Dreyers Strawberry Ice Cream 887ml
Dreyers Strawberry Ice Cream 887ml
Dreyers Toast Almond Ice Cream 887ml
Dreyers Toast Almond Ice Cream 887ml
Dreyers Vanilla Ice Cream 887ml
Dreyers Vanilla Ice Cream 887ml
DUTCH LADY STER M LF BANANA
DUTCH LADY STER MK LF PLAIN
DUTCH LADY STER MK LF CHOC
DUTCH LADY STER MK LF SBERRY
DUTCH LADY STER M LF HNYDEW
DUTCH LADY STER M LF HNYDEW
DUTCH LADY STER MILK PLAIN
DUTCH LADY STER MK LF CHOC
DUTCH LADY STER MK LF SBERRY
DUTCH LADY STER M LF BANANA
FIRST CHOICE CALCIUM SESAME CRACKERS
FIRST CHOICE CALCIUM SALTINE CRACKERS
FIRST CHOICE CALCIUM S ONION CRACKERS
FIRST CHOICE CALCIUM SEAWEED CRACKERS
GINBIS IMAL BUTTER BISC
GINBIS PARTY ANIMAL SEAWEED BIS
GINBIS PARTY ANIMAL CNUT
GINBIS ANIMAL BISCUIT
Koala Cocoa Biscuit 40g
Koala Cocoa Biscuit 40g
KRAFT OREO WAFER STICKS 18S
KRAFT OREO WAFER STICKS 5S
KRAFT OREO W/STICK WH CHOC 18S
KRAFT OREO W/STICK WH CHOC 5S
Lotte Koala Cocoa Funpack 210g
Lotte Koala Cocoa Funpack 210g
M & M Chocolate Peanut 200g
M & M Chocolate Peanut 200g
M&M CHOC CANDIES PLAIN%
M&M CHOC CANDIES PEANUT%
M&M CHOC CANDIES-PLAIN
M&M CHOC CANDIES-PEANUTS
M&M FUNSIZE MILK
M&M FUNSIZE PEANUT
M&M Chocolate Candies Plain 200g
M&M Chocolate Candies Plain 200g
MEIJI UJIKINTOKI 2978
MEIJI UMAKABO CHOCOLATE
MEIJI FAMILY PACK-GREEN TEA
MEIJI CHESTNUT & REDBEAN
MENTOS BOTTLE YOGHURT PROMO PK
MENTOS BOTTLE YOGHURT
Monmilk BREAKFAST MILK MALT
Monmilk BREAKFAST MILK WALNUT 6S
Monmilk BREAKFAST MILKMALT 6S
Monmilk CHOCOLATE MILK 6S
Monmilk COFFEE MILK 6S
Monmilk HI CAL LOW FAT
Monmilk HI CAL LOW FAT MILK
Monmilk HI CAL LOW FAT MILK 6S
Monmilk HI CAL MILK
Monmilk HI CAL MILK 6S
Monmilk MILK DELUXE 12S
Monmilk PURE MILK
Monmilk PURE MILK
Monmilk PURE MILK 6S
MonmilkBREAKFAST MILK WALNUT
NABISCO IN A BISKIT CHICKEN
NESTLE NES D/STICK MINI VANILLA
NESTLE NES DISTICK MINI CHOCO
NESTLE MILK & BERRY STARS CRL
NO FRILLS WAFER BLUEBERRY
NO FRILLS WAFER CHOCOLATE
NO FRILLS
WAFER PEANUT
Orion Fresh Pie 138g
Orion Fresh Pie 138g
Orion Tiramisu 138g
Orion Tiramisu 138g
PEI TIAN CREAM BISCUIT
Rabbit Milk Sweet 150g
SILANG NATURAL OAT CRACKER
Snicker Candies Funsize 240g
Snicker Candies Funsize 240g
SNICKERS PEANUT CHOCOLATE%
SNICKERS SNACKSIZE BARS PNUT 5
TAKE ONE BABY BITES 24S
TAKE ONE BABY BITE CK VG
TAKE ONE BABY BITE CARROT
Vitasoy Chocolate Drink 4s 125ml
Vitasoy Chocolate Drink 4s 125ml
Vitasoy Melon Soya Bean Milk 4s 125ml
Vitasoy Melon Soya Bean Milk 4s 125ml
Vitasoy Q Soya Milk 4s 125ml
Vitasoy Q Soya Milk 4s 125ml
WANT WANT MILK CANDY
Want Want Flavoured Milk 250ml
Yili Hi Cal Low Fat Milk 1L
Yili Hi Cal Low Fat Milk 6s 250ml
Yili Hi Cal Milk 1L
Yili Hi Cal Milk 6s 250ml
Yili Pure Milk 1L
Yili Pure Milk 6s 250ml
Youcan Masterbean Multipack
Youcan Passion Multipack
Youcan Silk Sliced and Passion Strawberry
Youcan Stawberry Multipack
Youcan Traditional Sesame Multipack 4s
Youcan Unusual Multipack 4s
Systematic thinking about food deserts
It is surprisingly difficult to design an objective way of measuring "food deserts" -- neighborhoods with inadequate food retail.
I was thinking about this recently, because USDA's Economic Research Service is hosting a conference on the topic this week, which unfortunately I cannot attend.
I read a lot of advocacy research on food deserts, but I also try to "ground truth" the formal research. A few months ago, I did a post on a walk through the South End and Roxbury in Boston. Below, I discuss a walk in June through Central Harlem with a friend who lives there. I have much longer experience living in mixed-income but high-poverty neighborhoods of downtown Washington, DC.
A key challenge is defining retail conditions that characterize a food desert, but not a typical wealthy neighborhood. The walk through Central Harlem, for example, passed Citarella, an upscale small storefront market with fabulous produce. If one excludes such stores, then many wealthy neighborhoods would also be classified as food deserts, which is clearly not the intended meaning of the term.
Does the presence of a Citarella make a low-income neighborhood adequate for fruit and vegetable retail? Many readers may say "no." Does the same store make a high-income neighborhood adequate? Many readers may say "yes." If these are the answers, has the classification become tautological -- having nothing to do with the retail, but really based on income alone?
To make things more complicated, suppose one decides that low-income neighborhoods must have fresh fruits and vegetables in retail settings targeted to low-income consumers, in order not to be classified as a desert, but a Citarella is adequate for a wealthier neighborhood. In that case, what does one make of fruit stands like this one from the walk in Central Harlem?
Is a neighborhood with fruit and vegetable stands no longer a desert? Do we assume that a brand-name corporate supermarket, typically oriented toward automobile traffic, is essential for adequate food retail in a densely populated low-income neighborhood? If we say neither the fruit stand nor the Citarella counts, then are we "fixing" the definition out of determination to classify this neighborhood as a desert?
While we are on the topic of driving, what is our expectation for driving distances? If you plot supermarkets on Google Maps, richer suburban neighborhoods generally seem to have less retail access than low-income urban neighborhoods. Does that make the rich neighborhoods supermarket deserts? In the United States, even many low-income people travel to the grocery store by car. Clearly, a single neighborhood may have adequate retail from the perspective of some neighbors and not others. Do we assume that nobody in poor neighborhoods shops by car, while assuming that everybody in rich neighborhoods shops by car?
The research on food deserts sometimes turns not on adequacy but on the ratio of "good" stuff like fruits and vegetables to "other" stuff like fast food restaurants or corner stores without fresh produce. For example, see this 2007 study of the same Harlem neighborhoods discussed above. Does the presence of liquor stores or fast food restaurants drown out the value of the fresh produce that exists in a neighborhood, such that the ratio is what matters? I have doubts.
I don't ask these questions out of heartlessness. They are important because some of the implicit remedies, such as tax breaks to bring in supermarkets, have seriously expensive tradeoffs for poor neighborhoods that are already suffering from an inadequate commercial property tax base. I am just not sure that retail location decisions are the sort of decisions that governments make better than markets do.
What do you think? How would you define a "desert" objectively, so that the definition is both reasonable and captures low-income neighborhoods you have in mind, without applying equally well to richer neighborhoods?
I was thinking about this recently, because USDA's Economic Research Service is hosting a conference on the topic this week, which unfortunately I cannot attend.
I read a lot of advocacy research on food deserts, but I also try to "ground truth" the formal research. A few months ago, I did a post on a walk through the South End and Roxbury in Boston. Below, I discuss a walk in June through Central Harlem with a friend who lives there. I have much longer experience living in mixed-income but high-poverty neighborhoods of downtown Washington, DC.
A key challenge is defining retail conditions that characterize a food desert, but not a typical wealthy neighborhood. The walk through Central Harlem, for example, passed Citarella, an upscale small storefront market with fabulous produce. If one excludes such stores, then many wealthy neighborhoods would also be classified as food deserts, which is clearly not the intended meaning of the term.
Does the presence of a Citarella make a low-income neighborhood adequate for fruit and vegetable retail? Many readers may say "no." Does the same store make a high-income neighborhood adequate? Many readers may say "yes." If these are the answers, has the classification become tautological -- having nothing to do with the retail, but really based on income alone?
To make things more complicated, suppose one decides that low-income neighborhoods must have fresh fruits and vegetables in retail settings targeted to low-income consumers, in order not to be classified as a desert, but a Citarella is adequate for a wealthier neighborhood. In that case, what does one make of fruit stands like this one from the walk in Central Harlem?
Is a neighborhood with fruit and vegetable stands no longer a desert? Do we assume that a brand-name corporate supermarket, typically oriented toward automobile traffic, is essential for adequate food retail in a densely populated low-income neighborhood? If we say neither the fruit stand nor the Citarella counts, then are we "fixing" the definition out of determination to classify this neighborhood as a desert?
While we are on the topic of driving, what is our expectation for driving distances? If you plot supermarkets on Google Maps, richer suburban neighborhoods generally seem to have less retail access than low-income urban neighborhoods. Does that make the rich neighborhoods supermarket deserts? In the United States, even many low-income people travel to the grocery store by car. Clearly, a single neighborhood may have adequate retail from the perspective of some neighbors and not others. Do we assume that nobody in poor neighborhoods shops by car, while assuming that everybody in rich neighborhoods shops by car?
The research on food deserts sometimes turns not on adequacy but on the ratio of "good" stuff like fruits and vegetables to "other" stuff like fast food restaurants or corner stores without fresh produce. For example, see this 2007 study of the same Harlem neighborhoods discussed above. Does the presence of liquor stores or fast food restaurants drown out the value of the fresh produce that exists in a neighborhood, such that the ratio is what matters? I have doubts.
I don't ask these questions out of heartlessness. They are important because some of the implicit remedies, such as tax breaks to bring in supermarkets, have seriously expensive tradeoffs for poor neighborhoods that are already suffering from an inadequate commercial property tax base. I am just not sure that retail location decisions are the sort of decisions that governments make better than markets do.
What do you think? How would you define a "desert" objectively, so that the definition is both reasonable and captures low-income neighborhoods you have in mind, without applying equally well to richer neighborhoods?
Thursday, October 02, 2008
GAO illustrates FDA priorities on the safety of fresh produce
According to a remarkable GAO report (.pdf) last month on the safety of fresh produce, here is the trend in FDA food safety staff during the last several years, a period of heightened alarm about food safety (click for clearer image):
[Update: this sentence corrected slightly 10/3/2008.] Here is the distribution of food safety job losses across FDA units (CFSAN, which is mentioned in two of the pie slices, is the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, responsible for food safety):
And here is the trend in FDA enforcement letters related to fresh produce, during precisely the years before and during major outbreaks of foodborne illness associated with produce.
[Update: this sentence corrected slightly 10/3/2008.] Here is the distribution of food safety job losses across FDA units (CFSAN, which is mentioned in two of the pie slices, is the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, responsible for food safety):
And here is the trend in FDA enforcement letters related to fresh produce, during precisely the years before and during major outbreaks of foodborne illness associated with produce.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Covering food issues as part of climate change reporting
From researchers the Center for a Livable Future at Johns Hopkins, a new article (.pdf) in Public Health Nutrition argues that newspaper coverage of climate change commonly overlooks food sourcing as a contributing cause. In related news, the Take a Bite out of Climate Change blog, which focuses on this connection regularly, points out the online video at Fora.tv of the discussion of climate change and food issues at the Slow Food conference in August.
2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
The federal government is expected to appoint a new Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee soon. The committee's appointment and first meeting were originally expected (.pdf) before the end of September.
Every five years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) collaborate on a revision of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, based in part on a summary of the scientific evidence on nutrition and health prepared by an external advisory committee. The next edition is 2010.
It is important that a high-caliber and impartial committee be appointed, because each sector of the food industry generally expresses intense interest in having the federal government endorse particular messages -- or refrain from particular messages -- that affect commercial interests.
My first suggestion would be to simplify. The 2005 Dietary Guidelines were more complex than earlier editions, focusing more on nutrients than widely recognized foods. The 2010 edition could make recommendations in plain English about real foods. Alongside any recommendation about a nutrient, the Guidelines should immediately explain the leading food sources of that nutrient. For example, saturated fat comes predominantly from meat, butter, and cheese, and to a lesser extent from vegetable oils.
My second suggestion would be to explain more specifically what messages are inconsistent with the Dietary Guidelines. For example, at a cost of several hundred million dollars per year collected from producers under federal authority, the federal government endorses industry-run checkoff advertising programs that encourage increased consumption of meat, butter, and cheese. The Guidelines should be sufficiently clear so that an independent observer could tell which advertising campaigns are consistent with the Guidelines.
My third suggestion is that the Guidelines specifically address the most common misleading nutrition messages used in advertising and marketing. For example, they should plainly comment on fad weight loss diets and misleading claims for particular micronutrients.
My fourth suggestion is that the Guidelines strongly endorse home cooking. Many chain restaurants have been reluctant to provide clear nutrition information at the point of sale, except when forced to do so. Even when nutrition facts are provided, I think we all eat high-calorie and unhealthy foods in restaurants that we would never have cooked for ourselves or prepared for a loved one at home.
You will have an opportunity for input on the 2010 Dietary Guidelines this Fall, but why not get the conversation started now? What are your suggestions for the revised Guidelines? What are your criteria for the independence and qualifications of the advisory committee?
Every five years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) collaborate on a revision of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, based in part on a summary of the scientific evidence on nutrition and health prepared by an external advisory committee. The next edition is 2010.
It is important that a high-caliber and impartial committee be appointed, because each sector of the food industry generally expresses intense interest in having the federal government endorse particular messages -- or refrain from particular messages -- that affect commercial interests.
My first suggestion would be to simplify. The 2005 Dietary Guidelines were more complex than earlier editions, focusing more on nutrients than widely recognized foods. The 2010 edition could make recommendations in plain English about real foods. Alongside any recommendation about a nutrient, the Guidelines should immediately explain the leading food sources of that nutrient. For example, saturated fat comes predominantly from meat, butter, and cheese, and to a lesser extent from vegetable oils.
My second suggestion would be to explain more specifically what messages are inconsistent with the Dietary Guidelines. For example, at a cost of several hundred million dollars per year collected from producers under federal authority, the federal government endorses industry-run checkoff advertising programs that encourage increased consumption of meat, butter, and cheese. The Guidelines should be sufficiently clear so that an independent observer could tell which advertising campaigns are consistent with the Guidelines.
My third suggestion is that the Guidelines specifically address the most common misleading nutrition messages used in advertising and marketing. For example, they should plainly comment on fad weight loss diets and misleading claims for particular micronutrients.
My fourth suggestion is that the Guidelines strongly endorse home cooking. Many chain restaurants have been reluctant to provide clear nutrition information at the point of sale, except when forced to do so. Even when nutrition facts are provided, I think we all eat high-calorie and unhealthy foods in restaurants that we would never have cooked for ourselves or prepared for a loved one at home.
You will have an opportunity for input on the 2010 Dietary Guidelines this Fall, but why not get the conversation started now? What are your suggestions for the revised Guidelines? What are your criteria for the independence and qualifications of the advisory committee?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)