Search results: natural

The Department of Agriculture, apparently concerned about consumer confusion over what “natural” meat might be, is proposing to define the term. Right now, “natural” means minimally processed plus whatever the marketer says it means, and nobody is checking (I devote a chapter of What to Eat to explaining all this). This proposal, as the USDA explains, would be a voluntary marketing claim (“no antibiotics, no hormones”). The proposal is open for comment until January 28. Want to comment? Do that at this site.

Another question today: “I BUY FARM RAISED SALMON FROM SUPERMARKET IT IS FROM ASIA. DOESN’T SAY COLOR ADDED. I SEE ATLANTIC FISH SO CALLED, NATURAL COLOR ADDED. WHY WOULD THEY SAY THAT IF IT IS NATURAL?? DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT ONE.. THANKS.
LOVE YOUR ARTICLES. AL.”

Weird, no? I discuss this problem in the Fish Quandaries chapter of What to Eat in the section called Label Quandary #3: Artificial Color. The bottom line: all farmed salmon is colored pink because otherwise it would be an unappetizing gray and nobody would buy it. The color, which is fed to fish in the food pellets, usually is a synthetic version of the natural pigment (which originates from krill) but is sometimes isolated from yeast. Is either “natural?” This could be argued either way but the real point is that the FDA has not produced a regulatory definition for “Natural.” It should, if for no other reason than to end the confusion. Food companies want everything to appear “natural” because they know it sells. The fish section is the wild west of the supermarket. Caveat emptor!

[Personal note: my graduation address today at Hopkins has been rain-postponed to 1:00 EDT .  It will be streamed here.]

Food safety is always a difficult topic because nobody wants to talk about it.

• We expect the food we buy to be safe (a quite reasonable expection, in my view).
• Food companies, by law, are supposed to produce foods safely.
• Regulators are supposed to make sure they do.

Any breakdown in rules and regulations causes problems.  Three troubling examples:

I.  Sentient Food: Federal Inspectors Found Antibiotics in Beef ‘Raised Without Antibiotics.’ They Took No Action

These letters, recently obtained by the advocacy group Farm Forward through a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal that the world’s largest meat producers — JBS, Cargill, and Tyson — raised cattle that tested positive for antibiotics prohibited under USDA-approved labels advertising the beef as free of antibiotics…These findings were announced last August, but the names of the companies which tested positive for antibiotics were not made publicly available until recently, as part of a new report released by Farm Forward questioning the validity of this popular label.

II.  Phyllis Entis: Manufacturer repeatedly shipped pet food after presumptive-positive pathogen test results

During the 2024 calendar year, Morasch Meats, Inc. (Portland, OR) sold dozens of batches of Northwest Naturals raw pet foods and pet treats after the finished products tested presumptive-positive for Salmonella or Listeria monocytogenes.

Instead of confirming the presumptive result as required by the test kit manufacturer, the company repeated the same rapid test on fresh samples. When the repeat test did not find the pathogen, Morasch released the production batch for sale.

III.  Food Safety News:   Intent or impact? New rules redefine food safety justice

On May 9, President Trump signed Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations, an executive order directing agencies like the FDA and USDA to limit criminal charges for food safety violations unless companies knowingly break the law. The executive order discourages criminal charges for unintentional violations…while deliberate acts, like falsifying tests, remain subject to prosecution…Critics, including consumer advocates, warn that the executive order, combined with reported cuts to FDA and USDA staff, could weaken deterrence against food safety violations.

Comment: When it comes to food safety, enforcement regulation is essential.  History tells us that unwatched food companies sometimes tend to let safety measures slide.  FDA and USDA food safety inspectors need to be on the job.  FDA inspectors have been cut.  USDA staff cuts undoubtedly will affect meat inspections.   None of this bodes well for the safety of the US food supply.

The FDA is an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, now headed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  It is getting busy on carrying out Secretary Kennedy’s stated agenda.  It took four actions of interest last week.  Check out #3; it requires action.

I.  Approved Three Food Colors from Natural Sources

Since the HHS and FDA announcement last month during a press conference at HHS on petroleum-based food dyes, more U.S. food manufacturers have committed to removing them within the FDA’s set time frame of the end of next year.

“On April 22, I said the FDA would soon approve several new color additives and would accelerate our review of others. I’m pleased to report that promises made, have been promises kept,” said FDA Commissioner Martin A. Makary, M.D., M.P.H. “FDA staff have been moving quickly to expedite the publication of these decisions, underscoring our serious intent to transition away from petroleum-based dyes in the food supply and provide new colors from natural sources.”

FDA approved color additive petitions for:

• Galdieria extract blue, a blue color derived from the unicellular red algae Galdieria sulphuraria (by petition from Fermentalg).
• Butterfly pea flower extract, a blue color that can be used to achieve a range of shades including bright blues, intense purple, and natural greens (Sensient Colors LLC)
• Calcium phosphate, a white color approved for use in ready-to-eat chicken products, white candy melts, doughnut sugar, and sugar for coated candies (Innophos Inc).

II.  Announced top priorities for the Human Foods Program

FoodNavigator-USA report that Mark Hartman, who directs the new Office of Food Chemical Safety, Dietary Supplements, and Innovation, says the FDA soon will:

• Reveal how it will deal with the safety of chemicals in the food supply
• Create a new Office of Post Market Review to conduct risk reviews of chemical additives
• Increase transparency and stakeholder engagement in the review process
• Work through 70,000 comments on the FDA’s proposal for reviewing the safety of chemical additives
• Partner with the NIH to research how food additives affect children’s health
• Work with the food industry to phase out synthetic color additives
• Work through comments on sodium guidance
• Think about ways of addressing added sugars
• Identify ultra-processed foods as an “area of emerging study”

III.  Extended the comment period for front-of-package labeling until July 15

We are taking this action in response to requests to extend the comment period to allow interested parties additional time to submit comments. Comments should be submitted to Regulations.gov and identified with the docket number FDA-2024-N-2910.

Recall: This is what the Biden FDA proposed.  Here’s what I said about it (basically, we need something better).

Here’s a real opportunity.  If you want a front-of-package warning label like those in Latin America, here’s your chance to weigh in.

RFK Jr says he wants to Make America Healthy Again.  One way to do that is to discourage sales of food products high in saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars, but also discourage sales of ultra-processed foods.  Identifying foods as ultra-processed, on the basis of their chemical additives as well as their fat, sugar, and salt, would be an excellent step forward.

If you like the warning labels used in Latin American countries, send a note to the FDA Docket.  You have until July 15 to do that.

IV.  Announced a joint research initiative with NIH to address, among other unspecified questions,

• How and why can ultra-processed foods harm people’s health?
• How might certain food additives affect metabolic health and possibly contribute to chronic disease?
• What is the role of maternal and infant dietary exposures on health outcomes across the lifespan, including autoimmune diseases?

Comment

OK.  This represents action or proposed action.  My question: What will the FDA actually do?  I’m particularly interested in the joint NIH research initiative on ultra-processed foods.  Will NIH reverse its stance on Kevin Hall, whose research aimed to answer precisely that question?  I will be watching all this with much curiosity.

We need good news.  This announcement comes from the Norwegian government.

It will still be legal to sell these products to children and youth, but marketing unhealthy products to this group will be illegal.

When it comes to products covered by the ban, the most unhealthy products, such as candy, soft drinks, ice cream and energy drinks, cannot be marketed particularly towards children. For other products, such as cereals, yogurt and fast food, limits for different nutrients are used to cover the most unhealthy products in these categories. For example, for breakfast cereals, the content of sugar and dietary fibre determines whether the product can be marketed particularly towards children or not.

The foods that are covered by the ban are listed in a product list attached to the regulation (in Norwegian, PDF).

I looked for an English translation and found this from Obesity Action Scotland:

The ban on unhealthy food advertising will cover all forms of marketing, including television, print, online, and in schools. Products affected by the ban include sugary drinks, salty snacks, and fast food…The regulation will ban the advertising of unhealthy foods that are high in fat, salt, or sugar. It will also ban the advertising of foods that are marketed as being “healthy” or “natural,” if they are high in unhealthy ingredients.

Impressive!  I wish RFK Jr’s MAHA campaign would do this as well as removing color additives.

Thanks to Marit Kolby for sending this.

I am greatly in favor of removing synthetic dyes from foods, and applaud RFK Jr’s enthusiasm for doing this.

The Mic Drop (according to Bakery & Snacks): ““If you want to eat petroleum, do it at home. But don’t feed it to our children.”

But this is not a ban.  Not even close.

Here’s the official announcement.

The FDA is taking the following actions:

1. Establishing a national standard and timeline for the food industry to transition from petrochemical-based dyes to natural alternatives.
2. Initiating the process to revoke authorization for two synthetic food colorings—Citrus Red No. 2 and Orange B—within the coming months.
3. Working with industry to eliminate six remaining synthetic dyes—FD&C Green No. 3, FD&C Red No. 40, FD&C Yellow No. 5, FD&C Yellow No. 6, FD&C Blue No. 1, and FD&C Blue No. 2—from the food supply by the end of next year.
4. Authorizing four new natural color additives in the coming weeks, while also accelerating the review and approval of others.
5. Partnering with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct comprehensive research on how food additives impact children’s health and development.
6. Requesting food companies to remove FD&C Red No. 3 sooner than the 2027-2028 deadline previously required.

“Working with industry?”  “Requesting food companies?”  That’s all?

Food companies have never done anything voluntarily that they didn’t have to.  No company wants to go first and risk losing market share.

Food companies need a firm, mandated level playing field.  Despite the rhetoric, this does not do that.

For one thing, food companies were not part of the announcement and deny agreeing to it.  As Bloomberg reported, Food Industry Says There’s No Agreement With US Health Agency to Cut Dyes,

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said his agency and the Food and Drug Administration had an “understanding” with the industry about their removal on a voluntary basis.

Yet multiple people familiar with the matter, who were not authorized to speak publicly, said there was no agreement…When asked Tuesday why industry groups said there was no agreement on dyes, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said “no one said there was an agreement.” He called it “an understanding.”

Food companies can—and should—get rid of these dyes.

Here’s what’s at stake for them.

The box at the left comes from France (2024); the cereal is colored with vegetable dyes.

The box at the right comes from Canada (2025); the cereal is colored with artificial dyes.

Kids greatly prefer brightly colored cereals; they think they taste better.  The companies that tried getting rid of the dyes lost sales.  That won’t do it for them.

I hope food companies comply with RFK Jr’s understanding.  Will they?  We will see.

Resources [and thoughts] on all this

My video interview with CNN about this and my cereal box collection

The HHS press conference

FDA Commissioner Marty Makery’s statement [He manages to sound sensible throughout].

Stat News coverage:  “Food companies agree to phase out synthetic dyes, handing MAHA a victory.” [Hmm.  Not sure about that].

Food companies have voluntarily consented to getting rid of the artificial dyes, Makary said, but there is currently no formal agreement or ban. “I believe in love, and let’s start in a friendly way and see if we can do this without any statutory or regulatory changes,” he said.

Fox News coverage of “RFK bans petroleum-based food dyes”  The Tweet (X) says “We use chemicals in Fruit Loops (sic) that are banned in virtually every country in the world,” says @SecKennedy” [Not exactly.  The UK requires a warning label.  I bought that box in Canada a couple of months ago.]

RFK Jr also says: “If you look at the ingredients for Fruit Loops 20 years ago it was very very different than it is today.”  [Nope.  I’ve got a complete set of Froot Loop box facsimilies since the first year they were introduced—1963.  They had all those dyes from the beginning; they just were listed as certified or artificial colors until they had to be fully disclosed in 1993].

Calley Means on how these dyes are poisoning children and call on Democrats to work with MAHA [Low salaries combined with job instability may be a hard sell].

Vani Hari (the Food Babe) reports on her speech at the HHS press conference and elebrates [She’s been trying to get dyes out of foods for years]

I don’t say much about candy on this site, mainly because it’s best consumed in small amounts, if at all.

Candy sellers, however, have a very different view.  Their job is to sell candy, and the more the better (never mind consequences).

I’m always interested to see what they say and do to increase sales, especially when they try to make candy seem healthier (oops).

• What ‘unlikely’ social factors are shaping the candy market?  Surprising reasons like cultural changes and social shifts are transforming confectionery consumption habits. Here’s what you need to know… Read more  [Would you believe fewer marriages and an older population?]
• Freeze-dried sweets boosted by TikTok as new confectionery craze: Bursting onto our shelves and socials with eclectic flavours and novel textures, freeze-dried candies are set to be the coolest confectionery trend of 2024…. Read more
• How gifting brings together top confectionery trends: Sweet-treat gift-giving creates engagement and brand loyalty, so it’s no wonder many global brands are tapping into the purchasing driver…. Read more
• Has the world’s first ‘super candy’ arrived?  Protein candy aims to revolutionize confectionery with high-protein treats… Read more  [Oh great; candy as a superfood]
• Scientists develop better-for-you chocolate, and it’s better for the planet:  Healthier and more sustainable chocolate? While it sounds almost too good to be true, that’s exactly what scientists have created in Switzerland…. Read more  [Anything to get you to eat more chocolate and not feel guilty]
• The race to replace red no 3: Is your brand ready?Colour manufacturers advise confectioners on top considerations when replacing soon-to-be-banned synthetic food dye… Read more  [This will be a big issue, given RFK Jr’s concerns about artificial food dyes] 
• Governor Patrick Morrisey Signs Food Dye Legislation Into Law: Charleston, W.Va. – Today, Governor Patrick Morrisey signed House Bill 2354 into law, which prohibits certain harmful food dyes in school lunches and unhealthy food items for sale in West Virginia. [The dyes are red 3 and 40, yellow 5 and 6, blue 1 and 2, and green 3].
• How Prevalent Are Dyes in Foods? We Crunched the Numbers. RFK Jr. and consumer advocates want to rid Americans’ diets of artificial colors; switching to natural alternatives can be costly.   [Candy will get hit hardest]

Thanks again to Jim Krieger of Healthy Food America for sending this one.

The study: Sievenpiper JL, Purkayastha S, Grotz VL, Mora M, Zhou J, Hennings K, Goody CM, Germana K. Dietary Guidance, Sensory, Health and Safety Considerations When Choosing Low and No-Calorie Sweeteners [LNCSs]. Nutrients. 2025 Feb 25;17(5):793. doi: 10.3390/nu17050793.

The greater sweetness intensity of LNCSs compared to sucrose allows for the use of lesser amounts to achieve a similar level of sweetness, facilitating a reduction in an individual’s caloric and sugar consumption. Furthermore, the substitution of LNCSs for sugar supports individual and public health outcomes by addressing issues related to obesity, diabetes, and chronic illnesses…Lastly, emerging evidence from in vitro and a randomized controlled trial have investigated food intake and satiety management and suggests that natural LNCSs may be beneficial…The diverse range of LNCSs available in global food and beverage choices, coupled with their varying sweetness intensities, offers enjoyment and pleasure to consumers on their respective health and wellness journeys.

Conflict of interest statement: The following authors are employed at Ingredion, Inc.: Margaux Mora, Jing Zhou, Katie Hennings, and Kristen Germana. The following authors received an honorarium from Ingredion, Inc. for professional services provided: John L. Sievenpiper, Sidd Purkayastha, V. Lee Grotz and Cynthia Goody. Dr. John L Sievenpiper has received research support from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, Ontario Research Fund, Province of Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation and Science, Canadian Institutes of health Research (CIHR), Diabetes Canada, American Society for Nutrition (ASN), National Honey Board (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] honey “Checkoff” program), Institute for the Advancement of Food and Nutrition Sciences (IAFNS), Pulse Canada, Quaker Oats Center of Excellence, INC International Nut and Dried Fruit Council Foundation, The United Soybean Board (USDA soy “Checkoff” program), Protein Industries Canada (a Government of Canada Global Innovation Cluster), Almond Board of California, European Fruit Juice Association, The Tate and Lyle Nutritional Research Fund at the University of Toronto, The Glycemic Control and Cardiovascular Disease in Type 2 Diabetes Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by the Alberta Pulse Growers), The Plant Protein Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund which has received contributions from IFF among other donors), The Plant Milk Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by the Karuna Foundation through Vegan Grants), and The Nutrition Trialists Network Fund at the University of Toronto (a fund established by donations from the Calorie Control Council, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and Login5 Foundation). He has received food donations to support randomized controlled trials from the Almond Board of California, California Walnut Commission, Danone, Nutrartis, Soylent, and Dairy Farmers of Canada. He has received travel support, speaker fees and/or honoraria from FoodMinds LLC, Nestlé, Abbott, General Mills, Nutrition Communications, International Food Information Council (IFIC), Arab Beverage Association, International Sweeteners Association, Calorie Control Council, and Phynova. He has or has had ad hoc consulting arrangements with Almond Board of California, Perkins Coie LLP, Tate and Lyle, Ingredion, and Brightseed. He is on the Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committees of Diabetes Canada, European Association for the study of Diabetes (EASD), Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS), and Obesity Canada/Canadian Association of Bariatric Physicians and Surgeons. He serves as an unpaid member of the Board of Trustees of IAFNS. He is a Director at Large of the Canadian Nutrition Society (CNS), founding member of the International Carbohydrate Quality Consortium (ICQC), Executive Board Member of the Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group (DNSG) of the EASD, and Director of the Toronto 3D Knowledge Synthesis and Clinical Trials foundation. His spouse is a former employee of Nestle Health Science and AB InBev.