Search results: USDA meat

Are you puzzled, annoyed, or irritated beyond belief by the word “natural” on food product labels?

FoodNavigator must think so.  It conducted an opinion survey on what to do about marketing foods as “natural”.

FoodNavigator asked: Do we [food companies] need a clearer definition of ‘natural’ for food marketing?

The response options:

I keep getting questions about saturated fat.  Does it really pose a health risk?  If so, how serious a risk?  And isn’t eating real food OK even if it contains saturated fat?  Good questions.  Here are a couple of recent examples:

Reader #1: I think that the idea that saturated fats in meat and dairy are unhealthful is errant, based on correlative – not causative – scientific studies…I propose that instead of demonizing one nutrient over another, we favor whole, high-quality foods of both animal and plant origin…designed by nature (and thousands of years of trial and error) to meet the needs of their respective populations. What do you say?

Reader #2: I wonder how the government can be so focused on low-fat milk. Is that really such a huge problem? Isn’t the bigger problem that the state of NY is telling people pretzels make a healthy snack? Isn’t it soda and cheese doodles and eating every dinner from a box that is the problem? Whole milk, really? I’d appreciate your clarity on this… we are full fat milk and cheese people, and all of this perplexes me.

I can understand why anyone might be confused about saturated fat.  Food fats are complicated and it helps to be a biochemist (as I once was) to sort out the issues related to degree of saturation and whether the omegas are 3, 6, or 9 (I explain all this in the chapter on fats and in an appendix to What to Eat).

And yes, the science is complex and sometimes seems contradictory but scientific committees for the past 50 years have concluded one after another that substituting other kinds of fatty acids for saturated fatty acids would reduce levels of blood cholesterol and the risk for coronary heart disease.

And no, those scientists cannot have all be delusional or paid off by the meat or dairy industries.  They—like scientists today—mostly call the science the way they see it.

What makes the research especially hard to sort out is that all food fats—no exceptions—are mixtures of saturated, unsaturated, and polyunsaturated fatty acids (just the proportions differ), that some saturated fatty acids raise blood cholesterol levels more than others do, and that one kind—stearic acid—seems neutral with respect to blood cholesterol.

But overall, the vast majority of expert committees typically conclude that we would reduce our heart disease risks if we kept intake of saturated fat below 10% of calories, and preferably at or below 7%.   On average, Americans consume 11-12% of calories from saturated fat, which doesn’t sound too far off but the average means that many people consume much more.

As is often the case with studies of single nutrients, research sometimes comes to different conclusions.  Several studies—all quite well done—have appeared just in the last year or so.

One of these is a meta-analysis (a review of multiple studies). It concludes:

…there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] or CVD [cardiovascular disease]. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat [my emphasis].

What saturated fat gets replaced with is the subject of three other well conducted studies that come to a different—the mainstream—conclusion.  One, another recent meta-analysis, confirms decades of previous observations (sorry about the annoying abbreviations):

These findings provide evidence that consuming PUFA [polyunsaturated fatty acids] in place of SFA [saturated fatty acids] reduces CHD events in RCTs [randomized clinical trials]. This suggests that rather than trying to lower PUFA consumption, a shift toward greater population PUFA consumption in place of SFA would significantly reduce rates of CHD.

Translation: replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats would be healthier.

Another meta-analysis comes to the same conclusion:

The associations suggest that replacing SFAs with PUFAs rather than MUFAs [monounsaturated fatty acids] or carbohydrates prevents CHD over a wide range of intakes.

A very recent consensus statement concludes:

the evidence from epidemiologic, clinical, and mechanistic studies is consistent in finding that the risk of CHD is reduced when SFAs are replaced with polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). In populations who consume a Western diet, the replacement of 1% of energy from SFAs with PUFAs lowers LDL cholesterol [the “bad” kind] and is likely to produce a reduction in CHD incidence of ≥2–3%. No clear benefit of substituting carbohydrates for SFAs has been shown, although there might be a benefit if the carbohydrate is unrefined and has a low glycemic index.

The advisory committee to the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans reviewed this and other research relating saturated fatty acids to heart disease risk and concluded:

Cholesterol-raising SFAs, considered SFA minus stearic acid…down-regulate the low density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor by increasing intracellular cholesterol pools and decreasing LDL cholesterol uptake by the liver.

The committee’s research review addressed the question, “What is the Effect of Saturated Fat Intake on Increased Risk of Cardiovascular Disease or Type 2 Diabetes, Including Effects on Intermediate Markers such as Serum Lipid and Lipoprotein Levels?”  It judged the evidence strong

that intake of dietary SFA is positively associated with intermediate markers and end point health outcomes for two distinct metabolic pathways:

1) increased serum total and LDL cholesterol and increased risk of CVD and

2) increased markers of insulin resistance and increased risk of T2D [type-2 diabetes]. Conversely, decreased SFA intake improves measures of both CVD and T2D risk.

The evidence shows that 5 percent energy decrease in SFA, replaced by MUFA or PUFA, decreases risk of CVD and T2D in healthy adults and improves insulin responsiveness in insulin resistant and T2D individuals.

How much saturated fat might increase the risk of heart disease or type-2 diabetes depends on how much you eat as well as what you eat.

What to do to reduce your dietary risks for heart disease?  Take a look at the top 15 sources of saturated fats in U.S. diets:

• Regular cheese
• Pizza
• Grain-based desserts (cakes, cookies, pies, pop-tarts, donuts, etc)
• Dairy desserts
• Chicken and chicken mixed dishes (e.g. fingers)
• Sausage, franks, bacon, and ribs
• Burgers
• Mexican mixed dishes
• Beef and beef mixed dishes
• Reduced fat (not skim) milk
• Pasta and pasta dishes
• Whole milk
• Eggs and egg mixed dishes
• Candy
• Butter
• Potato/corn/other chips
• Nuts/seeds and nut/seed mixed dishes
• Fried white potatoes

Explanation: These foods do not necessarily have the most saturated fat.  If the list surprises you, recall that all food fats have some saturated fats.  These foods are leading sources because they contain some saturated fat and many Americans eat them.

It is surely no coincidence that these foods are also among the leading sources of calories in U.S. diets.  The health effects of diets, let me repeat, have to do with quantity as well as quality.

If you do not habitually eat most of the foods on this list, and are not gaining weight, saturated fatty acids are much less likely to be a problem for you.

And just because saturated fats raise the risk of heart disease does not mean they are poisons.   Eat fats.  Just not too much.

 

 

 

I’ve been rounding up information about the Cargill recall of ground turkey contaminated with Salmonella Heidelberg.  William Neuman at the New York Times related the story on August 3. Same old same old.

Cargill is a huge company with, as Bill Marler counts them, a long history of food safety problems.  Did Cargill not bother to test for pathogens?   As I explain in my book Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety, no meat company wants to test for pathogens.  If they found pathogens, they would have to recall the products.

And where was the USDA in all of this?  Best not to ask.

The USDA was testing.  The testing found Salmonella.  The USDA did nothing.

According to the Wall Street Journal,

Federal officials said they turned up a dangerous form of salmonella at a Cargill Inc. turkey plant last year, and then four times this year at stores selling the Cargill turkey, but didn’t move for a recall until an outbreak killed one person and sickened 77 others.

How come?

Food-safety specialists said the delay reflected a gap in federal rules that don’t treat salmonella as a poisonous contaminant, even if inspectors find antibiotic-resistant forms such as the Heidelberg strain implicated in the latest outbreak.

But CDC investigations show that turkey-related illnesses have been reported for months.  Despite the reports, the USDA took its own sweet time insisting on a recall.

The rationale for the delay is—get this—the USDA believes it does not have the authority to order recalls for any contaminant except E. coli O157:H7.  It has no authority to recall meat contaminated with Salmonella or other toxic forms of E. coli.

Or at least that’s how USDA interprets the legal situation (for the history of all this, see Bill Marler’s summary.

One reason for the USDA’s foot-dragging must surely be pressure from the meat industry which wants as little testing as possible and preferably none.  The meat industry would rather leave it up to you to cook your food safely.

According to a report by Elizabeth Weise in USA Today,

The reasons these bugs aren’t currently regulated are a mix of politics, money and plain biology — the bacteria are constantly evolving and turning up in new and nastier forms, making writing rules about them a bit of a nightmare. For example, the German E. coli variant that sickened more than 4,075 in Europe and killed 50…wasn’t known before this spring.

The meat industry takes advantage of this situation and argues:

“We don’t have a true baseline determining the prevalence of these organisms in the beef supply,” says Betsy Booren of the American Meat Institute (AMI) Foundation, the research arm of AMI. Without knowing how common they are, it’s impossible to say whether they should be considered adulterants, she says.

What they seem to be saying is that meat always has bacteria on it.  And just because these particular bacteria can kill people doesn’t mean the industry is responsible if anyone gets sick.  But shouldn’t the industry be doing a better job?

In Food Safety News, Michele Simon has a terrific analysis of the safety loopholes that allow this absurd situation to continue:

How did the meat industry get so powerful that it can keep USDA from doing its job? Now, instead of preventing illnesses from occurring by requiring testing with teeth, we have USDA regulations that are so lax they allow almost half the samples tested at ground turkey plants to be contaminated with Salmonella — a pretty easy standard to meet. And one that allowed this outbreak to occur.

I keep asking: how much worse does it have to get before Congress does something about ensuring safe food.  Cargill’s inability to protect the public from unsafe meat is reason alone to create a single food safety system that unites the functions of USDA and FDA.

If Congress isn’t ready to take that step, it could at least give USDA the power to act and the FDA the funding it needs to do its job.

I’ve just turned in the copy-edited manuscript of Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics (pub date March 2012) and now have time to catch up on some questions:

Q. I was recently given to read a book titled “The China Study” which is based on research conducted in 1970’s in China by Dr. Colin Campbell. His main conclusion is that eating dairy and meat causes cancer. His resolution is that a plant-based diet (i.e. vegan) is the (only?) healthy diet for humans. This book has made strong enough of a point to convince several of my friends to “convert” to a vegan diet in order to save their health. Could you share some comments on the validity of the research and conclusions this book presents with regards to detrimental effects of dairy and meat on human health?

A. Campbell makes a forceful argument based on his interpretation of the research and on case studies of people whose diseases resolved when they became vegans. And yes I’ve seen Dr. Campbell’s new movie, Forks over Knives. The first half is a terrific introduction to how the current food environment promotes unhealthy eating.  The second half promotes Dr. Campbell’s ideas about the hazards of meat and dairy foods.

Whether you agree with these ideas or not, the film is well done and worth a look.

Some scientists, however, interpret the research as demonstrating that people are healthier when they eat dairy foods.  For example, the enormous consensus report on diet and cancer risk from the American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund concluded in 2007 that eating lots of red meat and processed meat is convincingly associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer (but no others).

On the other hand, they found dairy foods to be associated with a decrease in the risk of colorectal cancer.  They found limited and less convincing evidence that dairy foods might decrease the risk of bladder cancer but increase the risk of prostate cancer.

How to make sense of this?  These are two food groups in the diets of people who consume many kinds of foods and who do many things that might increase or decrease cancer risk.  Given this complexity, one food or food group seems unlikely to have that much influence on cancer when considered in the context of everything else people eat and do.

Nutrition research, as I am fond of saying, is difficult to do and requires interpretation. Intelligent people can interpret the studies differently depending on their point of view.

The new Dietary Guidelines say to cut down on saturated fats. Those are most plentiful in meat and dairy foods (plant foods have them, but in smaller amounts). Pretty much everyone agrees that plant-based diets promote health/  But whether they have to be 100% plant-based is highly debatable.

The new USDA MyPlate food guide suggests piling plant foods—fruit, vegetables, and grains—on 75% of your plate so the argument is really about what goes on the remaining 25%, what USDA calls the  “Protein” section. You can put beans in that quarter if you don’t want to eat red meat, poultry, or fish.

Q. I’d love to hear your take on the recent walnut flap [accusations that the FDA now considers walnuts to be drugs].  I suspect walnuts got caught with such offenders as Pom, Froot Loops, and Juicy-Juice, but I’d love to find out what the FDA actually said about this. For some odd reason I don’t believe the article is presenting the whole truth.

A. This is a health claims issue. The FDA is not saying walnuts are drugs. It is saying that Diamond Walnut is claiming walnuts as drugs on package labels. How so?

The labels say the omega-3 fatty acids in walnuts may help lower cholesterol; protect against heart disease, stroke and some cancers (e.g. breast cancer); inhibit tumor growth; ease arthritis and other inflammatory diseases; and even fight depression and other mental illnesses. These are disease claims for which the FDA requires scientific substantiation.

The company’s petition did not provide that substantiation so the FDA issued a warning letter. In general, you should be skeptical any time you see a nutritional factor advertised for its ability to prevent or treat such a broad range of problems.

Q. A question about sugar and how it is counted: My books say: 4 g = 1 teaspoon = 15 calories. My Illy Caffe says 10 g of sugar, but 50 calories. Ingredients: coffee, sugar, potassium bicarbonate, potassium citrate. If the drink is 50 calories, shouldn’t it say 12 g or more for the sugar listing?

A. Sugar should be the only ingredient that has calories in this coffee but I’ve seen calorie lists that say 5 calories per gram for sugars. Food companies have some leeway in the way they compute calories. Illy may be using a method that gives 5 rather than 4. But the difference between 40 and 50 is hardly measurable and I wouldn’t worry about amounts this small, annoying as imprecise figures may seem.

My monthly (first Sunday) San Francisco Chronicle Food Matters column is on guess what?  This will be the last post on the new food icon for a while at least, I promise.

Food plate icon improvement of pyramid

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q: What’s the big deal over the government’s new food icon? A plate? That seems really boring.

A: The Department of Agriculture’s plate may look banal, but it is a key part of first lady Michelle Obama’s healthy eating campaign and I see it as a big step forward. Unlike the 2005 MyPyramid, this one is mostly about food, is easy to understand, and does not require use of a computer.

The plate does a better job of reflecting current thinking about healthy diets than previous guides. Its four sectors are unequal. Vegetables get the most space, and dairy – a discretionary choice – is off to the side.

You are to pile half your plate with fruit and vegetables, and a quarter with grains (half of them whole grains). All these come from plants.

I’m less happy about the sector marked “protein.” Protein is not a food. It is a nutrient.

USDA must think everyone knows that “protein” means beans, poultry and fish, as well as meat. But grains and dairy, each with its own sector, are also important protein sources. The meat industry wants you to equate protein with meat. It should be happy with this guide.

What I like best are the messages that come with the plate. My favorite? “Enjoy your food, but eat less.”

At last! Enjoyment is part of dietary advice. High marks to USDA for this one.

Other messages are designed to help you eat less while eating better. Smaller portions keep calories under control. Making half your plate fruits and vegetables is a profound switch from the six to 11 calorie-rich grain servings you were supposed to eat daily under the old MyPyramid.

For people who drink milk (really, you don’t have to), switching to low-fat is an effective way to save on calories, and whole grains are better for health than refined, rapidly absorbable starches that behave like sugars in the body.

So far, so good. But next come the politically charged “foods to reduce.” Here, the USDA is leaning in the right direction, but still pulling punches. USDA tells you to reduce sodium from soup, bread and frozen meals, but says nothing about salty snacks or other sodium-laden processed foods. This is a glaring omission.

And the final principle – “drink water instead of sugary drinks” – puts naturally sweet fruit juices (fine in small amounts) in the same category as sugar-added juice drinks, sports drinks and sodas, which ought to be reserved for occasional treats.

Let’s give USDA credit for going as far as it could without directly confronting the processed-food and soft-drink industries.

Optimist that I am, I think the icon has plenty for everyone to work with. It emphasizes the positives – fruits, vegetables, whole grains – and leaves lots of room for enjoyment. You can pile whatever foods you like on that plate as long as they fit within their assigned sectors.

Best of all, you do not have to count numbers of servings. If you want to control the size of your servings, just use a smaller plate.

Consider the alternatives. From 1958 until 1979, the USDA’s uncontroversial Four Food Groups advised eating two or three servings a day from dairy, meat, fruits and vegetables, and breads and cereals – half the plate from animal-source foods.

In 1979, in an effort to help reduce dietary risks for chronic diseases, USDA stacked the groups with plant foods above animal foods, eliciting a furor that led USDA nutritionists to begin a 12-year project to research a new food guide.

USDA released a food guide Pyramid in 1991, withdrew it under protest from meat producers, and re-released it a year later. Meat and dairy producers did not like being at the “eat less” top of the Pyramid. Nutritionists thought it promoted too many servings of high-calorie grains.

In 2005, the USDA replaced that Pyramid with the unobjectionable, food-free MyPyramid. This was impossible to teach (you had to know what each color stood for), eliminated any sense that it is better to eat some foods than others, and required a computer to personalize your own diet.

USDA officials say they spent about $2 million to research and test the new plate logo, create its website, and publicize it. This is a lot or a little depending on your perspective, but a plate is not exactly a new concept. The American Diabetes Association, American Institute for Cancer Research and Canadian government have all used similar plant-focused plates for years. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has one with a similar design but 100 percent vegetarian.

We can argue over nutritional details, but I think USDA’s plate-plus-messages works better than anything it has done before. The plate works for health and for disease prevention. It took courage to make half of it fruit and vegetables. That’s real progress.

Now the challenge is to Congress: How about fixing agricultural policies so they support these recommendations?

 

 

I’ve been collecting public reactions to MyPlate, not least because I’m quoted in many of them.

The USDA collected supportive blurbs from a wide ranging group of supporters (mine among them)

Weight Watchers saluted the new icon in a full-page ad in the Washington Post

The Los Angeles Times covered it (I’m quoted)

The New York Times covered it (I’m quoted)

The Washington Post covered it (I’m quoted)

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) covered it (I’m quoted)

The New York Daily News covered it (I’m quoted)

The Des Moines Register covered it (I’m quoted)

USA Today covered it and published a photo of the plate with not-quite-fitting food models (I’m quoted)

ObamaFoodorama covered the many restrictions on using the plate (I’m quoted)

FoodNavigator.com covered it, focusing on the protein issue (I’m quoted)

Marian Burros wrote about it for Rodale (I’m not quoted).  She points out:

First of all, the complexities of good nutrition haven’t disappeared. You can find some of them at ChooseMyPlate.gov. And there are factors contributing to obesity—the unhealthy practices of the food industry, the presence of obesogens in the environment, an unsustainable food system to name a few—that won’t go away just because the pyramid is gone.

The American Heart Association supports it.

The American Dietetic Association supports it:

As we have in past years, the American Dietetic Association was deeply involved in the development of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines. And we will use the Guidelines and the new MyPlate to provide the unequalled advice and services of registered dietitians to individuals and communities alike.

Unsurprisingly, the produce industry loves it, according to The Packer and the trade association, United Fresh.

The meat industry spins it (MeatPoultry.com):

We are pleased that the new food icon unveiled today…affirms in a clear and simple fashion that protein is a critical component of a balanced, healthy diet….Lean meat and poultry products are some the most nutrient rich foods available, are excellent sources of complete protein, iron and zinc and maintain an excellent nutrition per calorie ratio.

Amber Healy of Food Chemical News (the site is only open to subscribers) has collected a bunch of food industry responses.  Here are some excerpts:

Jeane Wharton, executive director of the U.S. Dry Bean Council, couldn’t be more delighted with Thursday’s news.  “Beans are a great protein, and they’re also a vegetable,” says Wharton, who observes that her industry’s product benefits twice from the new image.

The American Bakers Association joined in with their praise of the plate, especially for grains “appropriately occupying a large portion on the dinner plate,” which shows that the agencies responsible for nutrition advice “are making a strong statement regarding the importance of grains as the foundation of a healthy lifestyle.

The National Dairy Council, National Milk Producers Federation, International Dairy Foods Association and Milk Processor Education Program (MilkPEP) also praise the new image in a statement released Thursday. While dairy isn’t included on the plate directly, the importance of dairy products in a healthy diet is clear, they say.

“Dairy foods are rightfully being recognized — from the school house to the White House — as an important part of everyone’s diet,” says Jerry Kozak, NMPF’s president and CEO. “USDA’s new icon, with a simple visual metaphor of a serving of dairy products alongside a plate, says it’s vital to consume three servings of low-fat and fat-free dairy foods every day.” [Really?  Vital?  That’s not how I read it.]

Last but not least, Andy Bellatti in his Small Bites blog and Melanie Warner on BNET provide excellent analyses of the disconnect between MyPlate recommendations and current agricultural policies—both coming from the same, historically schizophrenic USDA.

You think “schizophrenic” is too harsh?  The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine explains why agricultural policy needs a fix.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On May 26, the USDA announced that it will be releasing a new “food icon” to replace the foodless and useless 2005 MyPyramid:

 

The USDA’s press announcement explained:

The 2010 White House Child Obesity Task Force called for simple, actionable advice to equip consumers with information to help them make healthy food choices. As a result, USDA will be introducing the new food icon to replace the MyPyramid image as the government’s primary food group symbol. It will be an easy-to-understand visual cue to help consumers adopt healthy eating habits consistent with the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

What will the new icon look like?  The USDA isn’t saying, but William Neuman of the New York Times did some sleuthing.  According to his account:

The circular plate, which will be unveiled Thursday, is meant to give consumers a fast, easily grasped reminder of the basics of a healthy diet. It consists of four colored sections, for fruits, vegetables, grains and protein, according to several people who have been briefed on the change. Beside the plate is a smaller circle for dairy, suggesting a glass of low-fat milk or perhaps a yogurt cup.

And WebMD scored an interview with Robert C. Post, PhD, deputy director of the USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, who gave additional hints:

“There will be a ‘how-to’ that will resonate with individuals. That is the behavioral part that is needed. We need to transcend information — ‘here’s what the science says’ — and give people the tools and the opportunities to take action.”

He referred to six how-to messages to guide healthy eating that were released with the 2010 Dietary Guidelines, and which I enthusiastically posted when the Guidelines were released (I was disappointed that they weren’t actually part of the Guidelines):

Balancing Calories

• Enjoy your food, but eat less.

• Avoid oversized portions.

Foods to Increase

• Make half your plate fruits and vegetables.

• Switch to fat-free or low-fat (1%) milk.

Foods to Reduce

• Compare sodium in foods like soup, bread, and frozen meals—and choose the foods with lower numbers.

• Drink water instead of sugary drinks.

A bit of history:

From 1958 until 1979, the USDA’s food guide was sort of a rectangle illustrating four food groups: Dairy, meat, fruits and vegetables, breads and cereals.  In 1979, USDA introduced a highly controversial design with food groups stacked on top of each other, with the plant-food groups at the top and the animal-food groups underneath (the producers of these foods did not like that).

Beginning in 1980, the USDA conducted an extensive research project to develop a new design—the pyramid—which it released in 1991 and withdrew immediately under pressure from meat producers.

In 1992, after a year of extraordinary controversy (recounted in my book Food Politics), the USDA released its highly controversial Food Guide Pyramid.

 

Why was it controversial?  The food industry objected that the Pyramid make it look as if you were supposed to eat more foods from the bottom of the pyramid than the top (which, of course, was its point).

Nutritionists objected that it encouraged eating too many servings of grains and, therefore, encouraged obesity.

In 2005, the USDA replaced it with the unobjectionable MyPyramid.  The food industry liked this one because it did not indicate hierarchies in food choices.  Most nutritionists that I know hardly knew what to do with it.  It required going online and playing with a website, and was unteachable in clinic settings.

I thought the 1992 pyramid had a lot going for it, particularly the idea that it’s better to eat some foods than others.  But MyPyramid was a travesty–hopelessly complicated, impossible to teach, and requiring the use of a computer.

Given this situation, the new image is highly likely to be an improvement.  If the new icon keeps the hierarchy, conveys concepts easily, and does not require online access, I will consider it a great step forward.

Fingers crossed.

Details about the release:

The announcement will be Thursday, June 2, 10:30 a.m. EDT. It will be live-streamed at www.usda.gov/live.   All information will be posted at www.cnpp.usda.gov.

I’ll be there.  Stay tuned.

 

 

In April, the FDA released proposed rules for listing calories on menu labels (see previous post).  One surprising omission was an exemption for alcoholic beverages.  The surprise was that FDA had included alcoholic beverages in earlier versions.

The FDA’s reason for omitting alcohol is that these drinks are regulated by the Treasury Department, which proposed rules for calories on the labels of such drinks.  Yes it did, but that was at least four years ago and Treasury has done nothing since.  And Treasury has never said a word about menu boards.

Jurisdiction cannot be the real reason.  FDA does not regulate meat and poultry (USDA does) but its proposed regulations cover those foods.

If you think the FDA should require restaurants to display calories for alcoholic beverages, now is the time to say so.

I think consumers’ right to know is a sufficient reason for demanding calorie labeling on alcoholic beverages, but if you want more, the Marin Institute  lists useful talking points.

• Alcoholic beverages contain calories and few nutrients.
• It is difficult for drinkers to calculate the number of calories contained in a specific alcoholic beverage on their own.
• Congress did not explicitly exclude alcoholic beverages from food labeling requirements.
• The FDA has jurisdiction over the regulation of alcoholic beverages for health purposes.
• The TTB [Treasury Department agency] continually fails to act regarding the labeling of alcoholic beverages.
• Exempting small alcohol producers can remove burden of obtaining nutritional information.

If you are convinced by these arguments, or have others of your own, be sure to share them with FDA.  Do it right away.  The deadline is July 5.