The FDA announced last week that it is terminating its Food Advisory Committee (see the Federal Register notice) 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced it will not renew the charter of the Food Advisory Committee. FDA instead will address relevant issues using other standing committees and consulting with individual additional experts in appropriate subjects as needed. In addition, the agency will continue its robust stakeholder engagement program and to solicit broad public and expert input on its policy documents and regulations.

The FDA’s Food Advisory Committee has held only a handful of meetings over the past several years and has not met since 2015. Therefore, FDA has determined that the effort and expense of maintaining the advisory committee is no longer justified…The Food Advisory Committee was established on March 6, 1992. The termination of the Food Advisory Committee is effective December 12, 2017.

I was a member of the first Food Advisory Committee from 1992-1994—as one of four consumer representatives on a committee of about 30.  We were there during the time the FDA was approving genetically modified bovine somatotropin and the Flavr Savr tomato.  The four of us did all we could to get the FDA to label GMOs, but no luck.

My abiding memory of this committee was our debriefing when we rotated off it.  By that time, we were puzzled as to the committee’s purpose (since the FDA never seemed to pay much attention to our recommendations).

The answer: the purpose of the committee was to give the FDA early insight into how its decisions—decisions it had already made—would be perceived.

Oh.

Nevertheless, I co-signed a letter to the FDA calling for retention of the committee and for making it more useful.

CFSAN [FDA] has indicated that it will continue to hold workshops, meetings, conferences, and webinars to engage with its stakeholders. While we appreciate the outreach FDA does, only an advisory committee meeting can provide helpful recommendations to the agency that are the result of interactive discussion among stakeholders. Moreover, industry and academic experts may speak with an independent voice when they are members of advisory committee meetings, while in public meetings, they may be representing the view of companies that employ or fund them.  Most importantly, many of the alternative forms of outreach identified by the FDA will not be subject to the transparency and conflict-of-interest requirements associated with advisory committees.

This committee could help the FDA with the many challenges it faces carrying out its food and nutrition mandates.  But this looks like another FDA decision already made.

I know that everyone loves chocolate, but to snort???

The FDA, ever on the job, has issued a warning letter to Arco Globus Trading that its snortable Coco Loko product–cocoa powder infused with caffeine, gingko, taurine, and guarana–is being marketed illegally as an unapproved street drug.

the claims made in your promotional materials for Legal Lean Syrup and Coco Loko demonstrate that these products are intended to be used as alternatives to illicit street drugs…With respect to Coco Loko, a powder substance, you describe it in your labeling as a “snuff” and you promote it to be “snorted” (inhaled intranasally).  Intranasal administration of a powder substance can trigger laryngospasm or bronchospasm and induce or exacerbate an episode of asthma.  Furthermore, the ingredients listed on the product label for Coco Loko include taurine and guarana.  The safety of these ingredients for intranasal administration has not been evaluated.

I can’t find an official website for the product (it seems to have disappeared) but the FDA says that Coco Loko does not qualify as a supplement (it is snorted, not eaten, and it actually intended for use as a street drug:

• “Endorphin rush . . . it triggers a positive feeling of well being in your body similar to morphine.”
• “Serotonin rush . . . will produce an elevated mood and a state of euphoria similar to the feeling of ecstasy.”
• “Euphoric energy . . . Raw cacao will give you a steady rush of euphoric energy . . ..”
• “Raw cacao . . . is also known to help with anxiety and to reduce stress.”
• Coco Loko Review by I Suck At Talking (Youtube video on your website): “Raw cacao is linked to numerous health benefits . . . lower blood pressure and improved blood circulation . . ..” (1:04 – 1:13)

Snorting cocoa powder?  Really?  Not a good idea (even though no calories that way).

You can’t make this stuff up either.

ConfectionaryNews.com has collected articles and videos into a Special Edition: The future of 3D printing in confectionery

Hershey tips 3D printing to take off like the microwave oven did in the 80s – with ultra-customized designs a possibility in retail stores. Katjes subsidiary the Magic Candy Factory is already making waves with its 3D sugar confectionery printer, allowing personalized designs. Now others, such as Barry Callebaut, are entering the fray. This special explores what the future holds for 3D printing in the confectionery industry.

• Katjes’s Magic Candy Factory installs 3D candy printers at Warner Bros. World: Katjes-owned, Magic Candy Factory has partnered with Warner Bros. World Abu Dhabi to install multiple 3D candy printers across its theme park, which opens in April 2018… Read
• byFlow to focus solely on 3D printing for food as it sells 100th printer: byFlow has changed its business model focusing solely on 3D printers for food as it sells its 100th printer… Read
• Hershey continues to explore the possibilities of 3D printing: Hershey says it is continuing to explore the possibilities of 3D chocolate printing partnering with a ‘world-renowned culinary school’ and funding two students to focus on exploring real-world applications of the technology… Read
• Elephant-shaped gum: Wacker highlights 3D printer capabilities: Wacker has demonstrated the personalized shapes it can produce for candy, which turns into chewing gum, on its 3D printer at ProSweets 2017… Watch now
• 3D-printed candy selfies coming to theme parks: Katjes-owned company the Magic Candy Factory has introduced 3D Sweets Selfies, which it hopes will open up new channels for the industry at events and amusement parks… Watch now
• FOOD VISION 2017: Food evangelists, 3D printed selfies and the importance of ingredient diversity: Industry movers and shakers gathered in London last week for Food Vision discussing the some of the hottest trends and issues affecting the industry today. Here are some highlights if you couldn’t be there… Display
• 3D food printing: Precision and accuracy an obstacle to fulfilling potential: Printing precision and accuracy, process productivity and the production of colourful, multi-flavour, multi-structure products remain the biggest challenges to wider industry adoption of 3D food printing. .. Read

For months now, I haven’t posted an industry-funded studies with results favorable to the sponsor, but this one about deserves mention.

Title: Critical review of the current literature on the safety of sucralose, by BA Magnuson, A Roberts, and ER Nestmann.

Journal: Food and Chemical Toxicology 2017:106:324-355.

Conclusion: “Collectively, critical review of the extensive database of research demonstrates that sucralose is safe for its intended use as a non-caloric sugar alternative.

Financial support was provided by the Calorie Control Council, Atlanta GA, to the employers of the authors for the preparation and publication of this review.

My comment: This lengthy review of literature on the safety of sucralose (Splenda) was commissioned by the Calorie Control Council, a trade association representing “manufacturers and suppliers of low- and reduced-calorie foods and beverages, including manufacturers and suppliers of more than two dozen different alternative sweeteners, fibers and other low-calorie, dietary ingredients.”

It paid authors affiliated with Health Science Consultants, Inc and Intertek Scientific and Regulatory Consultancy to produce this review.

• The Calorie Control Council has a vested interest in demonstrating Splenda to be safe.
• The consultant groups have a vested interest in pleasing the Calorie Control Council.
• Therefore, this review has a higher-than-average likelihood of bias.

Is Splenda safe?  It very well may be safe, but some contrary evidence exists (this paper dismisses it).  It would be interesting to see how independent scientists view the matter.

The Canadian Heart & Stroke Foundation has released a report on consumption of processed food consumption in Canada.

The report is based on the NOVA (not an acronym) system for classifying foods by their level of processing: unprocessed or minimally processed, processed ingredients, processed foods, and ultra-processed foods.  The last category is the one that matters; consumption of ultra-processed foods is highly correlated with obesity.

The report found:

• Canadians consume nearly half their calories as ultra-processed foods.
• This is true among all socioeconomic groups, except for immigrants.
• Children aged 9-13 consume the most ultra-processed food (57% of calories)
• The most frequently consumed ultra-processed products are pizza, burgers, sandwiches and frozen dishes, followed by packaged breads and sweetened drinks.

Lots of room for improvement here.

In the late 1980s, nutrition scientists identified fat and saturated fat as key nutrients that needed to be reduced in US diets.

One result was the Snackwell’s phenomenon in the early 1990s—“no-fat” cookies with just as many calories as the ones with fat.  They flew off the shelves.

Now the push is to get rid of carbs, especially sugars.  The result?  Fat is back, along with its calories (fat has more than twice the calories per gram as carbohydrates, 9 as opposed to 4).

A tweet from Kevin Bass tells the story:

Why are Americans getting fatter? A food love-story in six graphs. (P.S. It's not the carbs or the sugar.) pic.twitter.com/8V2BmIs97k

— Kevin Bass, MS (@kevinnbass) December 3, 2017

The USDA tells the same story, but with respect to specific products:

These products may be more satiating, but watch the calories!

Also watch out for the saturated fat:

The FDA is responsible for food labeling but in the peculiar way things get done in federal agencies, the USDA governs front-of-package labeling for organics and also gets involved in labels for non-GMO, no-antibiotics and those for country-of-origin.

It has just published a report on all this:

The report is a good place to learn about the labeling laws passed in 1990, and it has an interesting case study on GMO labeling:

It has a lot to say about organic labeling:

Do such labels influence what the public buys?  Yes.  (That’s what the USDA is worried about)

Does the public understand what the labels mean?  Not really. (The USDA worries about this too)

The USDA derives many conclusions from this study, but boils them down to this statement:

There are fundamental tradeoffs in how information is presented to consumers. If it is presented simply, then important nuance or complexity may be missed. On the other hand, if standards and labels attempt to convey complexity, then consumers may just be confused. Policymakers and marketers will need to consider these tradeoffs in the future when developing new process-based labels.

What the USDA does not discuss is the fundamental issue behind fights over food labels.  They work well to discourage people from buying products that may not be good for them or do not meet their values.  That’s why the food industry opposes them so strongly.