Currently browsing posts about: Labels

As I mentioned yesterday, the American Beverage Association represents the interests of soft drink companies that use sugars and artificial sweeteners in their products.  Its goal: to make you think both are just fine for your health.

Today, let’s take a look at a related, but different trade association, this one The Sugar Association.  Its goal: to make you not worry about sugars and to think that they are better for you than artificial sweeteners.

Here, for example, is a press release from this Association from this past summer: New Research Shows Large Majority of Consumers Understand Real Sugar Comes from Plants & That it Can Be Part of a Healthy Diet; Data reveals significant shift in perceptions of sugar and artificial sweeteners.

And here is its infographic showing data on public suspicions of artificial sweeteners.

Now, we have a new campaign from The Sugar Association: The Campaign for Sweetener Transparency.

More than 10,000 consumers across the United States have joined the fight for sweeping reform of the government’s labeling regulations covering the use of alternative sweeteners in packaged food by signing an online petition urging the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to require food companies to place clear, complete and accurate information on food labels…it’s virtually impossible for shoppers to know what alternative sweeteners are in which packaged foods because the FDA only requires food companies to list the chemical names of sugar substitutes on food ingredient labels. So, consumers only see names like Xylitol, Hydrogenated Starch Hydrolysates, Saccharin, Acesulfame Potassium, Neotame, Isomalt and Lactitol on ingredients lists without even knowing what they are and why they are used.

The Sugar Association wants artificial sweeteners clearly labeled so customers will switch to products that have sugars instead.

• Products containing artificial sweeteners fall in the category of ultra-processed—foods that should be avoided or eaten in small amounts.
• Products containing added sugars also should be avoided or eaten in small amounts.

That’s why this campaign is about market share, not health.

For a basic guide to what to do about sugars, see this resource guide from Hunter’s Food Policy Center.

I saw this question on The Lunch Tray, Bettina Siegel’s column on Substack.

Turns out that lots of people have no idea what’s in these things.

That’s what my NYU colleague Jennifer Pomeranz and Jennifer Harris of the University of Connecticut’s Rudd Center found in their recent study,  Misperceptions about added sugar, non-nutritive sweeteners and juice in popular children’s drinks: Experimental and cross-sectional study with U.S. parents of young children (1-5 years)

Their overall finding: Most parents in their survey did not know what was in these drinks.

• 62% could not identify most drinks that contained diet sweeteners, even when shown the information panel with nutrition and ingredient information.
• Parents overestimated the average percent juice content in sugar-sweetened drinks, believing that these drinks contained 22% juice, when they actually contained 3% juice on average.
• Even with the nutrition information and ingredient list on the information panel, 53% incorrectly believed that unsweetened 100% juice and/or juice/water blends contained added sugar.
• Parents were more likely to believe that statements of identity with the words “natural” and “water beverage” meant the drink did not contain added sugar or diet sweeteners and did contain juice, although they are commonly used on children’s flavored water drinks that contain added sugar, diet sweeteners, and no juice.

These drinks are confusing (deliberately, I’m guessing) and it’s understandable why their contents are obscure.

The authors recommendation is a  good one, in my view.

Put on the front label of juice drinks:

• Added sugars (this is currently buried in the Nutrition Facts label)
• Diet sweeteners
• Juice content

Food Navigator reminds me that GMO labeling has not yet been implemented.

Compliance with the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS) – which requires firms with annual sales of $2.5m to label ‘bioengineered’ foods, beverages, and supplements – is mandatory from January 1, 2022. So is the industry up to speed? It’s a pretty mixed bag, according to labeling experts.

We know that corn, soybeans, and cotton are genetically modified (also canola and sugar beets).

But what about products that you might buy in supermarkets?  Those remain a mystery.

The FDA lists “completed consultations” for genetically modified foods—effectively, approvals—here.  These include Fuji and other apples, potatoes, and squashes, but that doesn’t mean they are necessarily in supermarket produce sections.

Confusingly, the USDA has its own list.

• Alfalfa (pdf)
• Apple (Arctic^TM varieties) (pdf)
• Canola (pdf)
• Corn (pdf)
• Cotton (pdf)
• Eggplant (BARI Bt Begun varieties) (pdf)
• Papaya (ringspot virus-resistant varieties) (pdf)
• Pineapple (pink flesh varieties) (pdf)
• Potato (pdf)
• Salmon (AquAdvantage®) (pdf)
• Soybean (pdf)
• Squash (summer) (pdf)
• Sugarbeet (pdf)

It would be nice to have supermarket produce labeled, although the label, as I’ve written previously, is not as helpful as it might be.

I can’t wait to see if stickers like this actually appear on GMO squash, apples, and salmon.  The compliance date is coming soon!

The FDA released its final guidance on the new food labeling rules late in December.

I have a collection of Kellogg Froot Loop cereal boxes (or facsimiles) going back to its first year.  I’ve been tracking it closely and have just started seeing the new label in stores.

The Spanish translation is optional, but I’m for it.

Industry groups are still complaining that they need more time.  

Really?  Let’s review the history.

• Between 1993 and 2013: FDA receives 12 citizen petitions calling for changes to the Nutrition Facts and Supplement Facts labels.
• 2003 to 2007: FDA issues 3 advance notices of proposed rulemaking seeking public comment on issues relevant to updating the Nutrition Facts label.
• 2014: FDA issues proposed rules.
• 2015: FDA issues supplemental proposed rule covering added sugars, DV, and footnote text.
• 2016: FDA issues final rules, expects all companies to comply by 2019.
• 2017: FDA delays compliance date until 2020.
• 2019: FDA issues final rules; FDA says it will give six-month leeway for compliance.

I say it’s about time.  Yes!

I love “free-from” labels (no sugar, no salt, no GMOs, no gluten, etc).  My first question is always “OK, so what IS in them?”

But “free-from” works for marketing, as these articles show.

Special Edition: The rise of free from

What is driving the free from trend – grain-free, gluten-free, lactose-free, egg-free, dairy-free, sugar-free, fat-free and even free from additives, animal products and unrecyclable properties – and will it have legs?

Research shows consumers perceive free from (and clean label) products to be healthier and are synonymous with the wider trend of sustainability and social responsibility. However, the big challenge for producers remains to create products that have the same texture, taste and mouthfeel as regular products. Despite their desire for more natural foods, consumers are not prepared to sacrifice these ideals.

We examine the ingredients being developed to accommodate the consumer’s growing penchant for healthy snacking driving the growth of alternatives to traditional snack ingredients.

• Potassium bromate in bread: Outlawed in Europe, but considered safe in America: Bread has been baked for millennia using the same basic ingredients – flour, yeast, salt and water. However, what many Americans may not know is that some of their breads may also contain ingredients that are banned in many countries, including the EU and Canada… Read
• Will low FODMAP be the new gluten-free?  Industry trend watchers have hinted that interest in following a Low FODMAP lifestyle could grow in popularity to rival the gluten free trend… Read
• Overcoming the challenge to create vegan baked goods without compromising on taste and texture: Verity Clifton, applications technologist at specialist ingredients company Thew Arnott, looks at the challenges facing food makers of vegan products regarding texture and sugar… Read
• When product innovation, legal compliance and marketing collide: The labeling challenges of the vegan trend: Marjolein Regelink, international regulatory advisor at food labelling compliance expert Ashbury Labelling, looks at the challenges of labeling snack products like vegan chocolate… Read
• ‘The sky’s the limit’ for Kelloggs’ vegan jerky: The US cereal and snack giant unveiled Leaf Jerky at Natural Products Expo East in Baltimore, Maryland, earlier this month, mooted to appeal to vegan, vegetarians and flexitarians alike… Read
• Kind Healthy Snacks fingers synthetic dyes for retail failure of its Fruit Bites: Kind is pulling its line of better-for-you fruit snacks – made without dyes – from store shelves because of poor sales, noting kids ‘prefer to eat snacks that resemble candy gems.’.. Read
• At IBIE, Bartek hopes malic and fumaric acid can win over mass-scale artisan bread: The Canadian acidulant producer presented its ingredients at the International Baking Industry Exposition (IBIE) for the first time, following a refreshed marketing approach and private equity acquisition… Read
• Mondi, BASF & COROOS create prototype stand-up pouch from recycled plastic: Mondi, BASF and COROOS, a European company in the preservation of fruits, vegetables and pulses have produced a stand-up pouch that is safe for food contact, partly made with raw material, derived from chemically recycled plastic… Read

Trump’s USDA has issued final rules for labeling food products of biotechnology, commonly known to all of us as GMOs.

Since GMOs have taken on a pejorative—Frankenfood—connotation, the USDA wanted to fix that.  And did it ever.

It drops GMOs, and substitutes “Bioengineered.”

Its logo depicts food biotechnology as sun shining on agriculture.And the rules have a loophole big enough to exclude lots of products from having to carry this logo: those made with highly refined GMO sugars, starches and oils made from GMO soybeans and sugar beets.

If the products do not contain detectable levels of DNA, they are exempt.  Never mind that GMO/bioengineered is a production issue.

When Just Label It was advocating for informing the public about GMOs, this was hardly what it had in mind.

Count this as a win for the GMO industry.

Two new Index Systems rank countries for sustainability and corporations for promoting health.

I.  Sustainability Index.

The Economist and Barilla have devised a new, interactive Index that ranks countries on the basis of food loss and waste, sustainable agriculture, and the ability to meet nutritional challenges.  Its scoring system goes from 0 (terrible) to 100 (perfect).

The top ten scoring countries are:

None of the scores is exemplary.  The US rank is #26.

II.  Access to Nutrition Index

The Access to Nutrition Foundation (Netherlands) ranks corporations on their strategies, policies, and actions to address obesity and diet-related diseases in the US.

The overall rankings, shown here, are relatively low.  Some do better than others on governance, products, accessibility, marketing, lifestyles, labeling, and engagement.

The highest scores are for labeling.  The lowest scores are for accessibility.

Indexes like these are useful for understanding where we are.  They should inspire us to action.

FoodNavigator-USA has collected its recent articles on food industry lawsuits.  As it puts it,

There have been hundreds of class action lawsuits directed against food and beverage companies in the past five years, spanning everything from added sugar, ‘natural’ and ‘healthy’ claims, to glyphosate residues, and alkaline water claims. We take a look at some high profile cases, some emerging hot topics from Non GMO claims to a new wave of kombucha lawsuits, and what’s coming up from the FDA, from plant-based ‘milk’ labeling guidance to a fresh look at ‘healthy’ and ‘natural’ labeling.

I’ve organized these into categories.

GMOs

• And now the food lawsuits… General Mills sued over glyphosate residue post Monsanto $289m verdict: Monsanto has just been ordered to pay $289m in damages to a man who alleged its glyphosate-based herbicide caused his cancer (a ruling it is appealing). But what, if anything, does this verdict mean for food companies manufacturing products containing trace levels of glyphosate?.. Read
• Nestlé USA lawsuit highlights confusion over Non-GMO claims, say attorneys: A lawsuit alleging that Nestlé USA is misleading shoppers with its ‘No GMO Ingredients’ seal is unlikely to make much progress, predict legal experts, but it does highlight the confusion surrounding Non-GMO claims given that the standards underpinning them can differ from one product to another… Read
• The Non-GMO Project may emerge as the big winner from federal GMO labeling legislation: The Non-GMO Project will “only become more relevant” as mandatory GMO labeling kicks in, in part because its scope could be so narrow that consumers will not simply be able to assume that anything without a bioengineered label is automatically Non-GMO, says executive director Megan Westgate… Read

Warnings about chemicals in foods

• ‘Significant increase’ in Prop 65 notices over lead, acrylamide, and cadmium in 2017/18, says Perkins Coie: There has been a significant increase in food and beverage Prop 65 actions in the past five years, with particularly strong growth in notices relating to lead, acrylamide and cadmium, according to new data compiled by attorneys at Perkins Coie… Read
• Amended Prop 65 regulations likely to prompt a significant uptick in litigation, predict attorneys: Amendments to Prop 65 – which requires firms selling products in California to provide warnings if their products expose consumers to 900+ chemicals linked to cancer or reproductive toxicity – will likely trigger a sharp rise in litigation as manufacturers struggle to get to grips with the new rules, predict attorneys… Read

Compliance with labeling and health claims requirements

• RXBAR sued over minimalist labels, ingredients declaration; but case is a stretch, say legal experts: ‘We tell you what’s on the inside on the outside’ protein bar brand RXBAR has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit* by the same law firms challenging the minimalist ingredients declarations of fellow bar brand That’s It.**.. Read
• Halo Top routinely under-fills its pints, alleges lawsuit, ‘dramatically so, at times…’: A month after being hit with a lawsuit alleging it made false and misleading representations about its light ice cream, Halo Top has been targeted again, this time with a proposed class action alleging it routinely under-fills its pints, “and has been doing this for years.”.. Read
• ‘No reliable scientific evidence’ supports Trader Joe’s alkaline water claims, alleges lawsuit: “There is no greater benefit to ingesting Trader Joe’s alkaline water than ingesting an equivalent bottled water or tap water,” argues a lawsuit alleging Trader Joe’s is duping shoppers into paying over the odds for the water, although legal experts predict that proving Trader Joe’s is making false implied health benefit claims will be “close to impossible.”.. Read
• Plant-based ‘milk’ row heats up as FDA commissioner says ‘public health concerns’ inform the agency’s renewed interest in dairy standards of identity: The war of words over labeling conventions for plant-based ‘milk’ intensified this week as FDA commissioner Dr Scott Gottlieb indicated that a “a new compliance policy” may be on the cards as the agency hosted a public meeting on its nutrition innovation strategy… Read
• Do consumers expect kombucha to contain live organisms? Court gives green light to lawsuit: Do consumers expect products labeled as ‘kombucha’ to contain live organisms, even if they don’t make any claims to this effect? Maybe, according to a court filing in a case that could have broader ramifications for the burgeoning category going forward, say attorneys… Read
• How much sugar do consumers expect in a ‘lightly sweetened’ cereal? Judge certifies classes in Kellogg added sugar case:  If up to 40% of the calories in breakfast cereals are from added sugar, and brands describe them as ‘lightly sweetened,’ are they misleading shoppers? Perhaps, says a federal judge who has just certified three classes of consumers in a false advertising lawsuit vs Kellogg, which is now heading into mediation… Read
• Tofurky CEO: It’s not the role of lawmakers to choose winners or losers in any given industry: As long as protein products are safe and shoppers are not being misled, it’s not the role of lawmakers to write new labeling laws favoring one production method over another, says the CEO of plant-based meat brand Tofurky, which is challenging a Missouri law* limiting the term ‘meat’ to slaughtered livestock or poultry… Read
• Clif Bar fires back at ‘absurd’ lawsuit: Consumers expect energy bars to contain sugar: Clif Bar has hit back at allegations made in a recent lawsuit* that it is duping consumers by presenting bars that are “loaded with sugar” as wholesome and nutritious, and urged the judge to toss the “absurd” and “implausible” case… Read

And here’s a more recent one from CBS News:

• LaCroix ingredients: Lawsuit alleges “all natural” claim is false: LaCroix sparkling water is facing a lawsuit alleging its claims of “all natural” and “100 percent natural” are misleading because…”Testing reveals that LaCroix contains a number of artificial ingredients, including linalool, which is used in cockroach insecticide.”

And here’s one more from CSPI (an October 24 addition):

• CSPI sues Jamba Juice: its juices, CSPI charges, are made from cheap concentrates as well as fresh fruit.

Addition, December 11

• Article about the five most active lawsuits