Search results: Complaint

Front-of-Package Labels: The FDA is hard at work trying to do something about public understanding of food labels.  What with the fuss about the Smart Choices program (now withdrawn), FDA wants to get the front-of-package labeling under control.  It is considering various formats for giving a quick overview of the nutritional quality of food products.  FDA is asking for public comment on the various formats (see Federal Register notice).

The FDA chose five versions (plus variations) for comment:

1. A mini Nutrition Facts version called Nutrition Tips
2. A UK traffic lights version
3. A version like Hannaford’s Guiding Stars
4. A version like the discontinued Smart Choices
5. One that just highlights calories/servings

I rather like this one, a variation of #1 (colorful, easy to understand, not too cluttered, and makes calories clear).

The Nutrition Facts Panel: The FDA also is taking another look at the Nutrition Facts panel on the back of food packages.  It is seeking public comment on  a plan for consumer research to test understanding of elements on the Nutrition Facts panel.  Here’s the Federal Register notice with all the information about what’s going on and where to file comments.

What’s interesting about this is that the FDA has great social science researchers on staff.  They’ve been kept under wraps the last eight years and apparently are being let loose again.  Even so, they don’t get to just go out and do studies like we academics do (with human subjects approval, of course).  Oh no.  First, they have to announce that they plan to do the studies (which they did some time ago) and get comments on the idea.  Then they do the research plan and have to ask for further comments on the research design.  That’s what this notice is about.  Once they deal with these comments, they can finally get to work.    It’s a miracle if they do anything at all.  Keep them busy: send comments!

Agency Transparency: The Association of Health Care Journalists (ACHJ) and ten other journalism organizations have filed a complaint.  The FDA, they say, is still requiring journalists to obtain permission from an agency official in order to conduct interviews with staff members.  This is a leftover from the Bush administration.  Time to get rid of it.

Blogging: It is especially time to open up to reporters because Michael Taylor, who is now senior advisor to the FDA commissioner, is now blogging on the Atlantic Food Channel (which also reprints my posts).  If he can blog, FDA staff can talk to reporters.

Addendum: Beverages pretending to be dietary supplements: The FDA has just issued guidance to the beverage industry to stop putting herbal supplements into beverages and calling them dietary supplements so they can get around food rules on health claims.  If a beverage is consumed as a food, it should be labeled as a food.  Guidance, of course, is non-binding but I see this as a warning that the FDA is going to be enforcing its own rules.  Good show!

I can’t believe the number of times I have been asked that question but it has just come up again in the context of recent complaints about the health and environmental hazards of eating meat.  So here, once again, is my nutrition academic’s take on the nutritional implications of vegetarian diets.

Full disclosure: I eat meat.  Humans are omnivores and I am one nutritionist who fully subscribes to basic, if banal, principles of healthful diets: variety, balance, and moderation. As I explain in my book, What to Eat, if you eat a variety of foods within and among groups – meat, dairy, fruit, vegetables, and grains – you don’t have to worry about nutritional details.  As long as calories are adequate and the foods are relatively unprocessed, the different kinds of foods complement each other’s nutrient contents and provide everything that is needed in reasonable amounts and proportions.

With that said, it is not necessary to eat meat.  Meat is not an essential nutrient.  I can think of plenty of advantages to eating no meat, eating less meat, or eating meat produced in ways that are far better for the health of animals, people, and the planet.

Why anyone would question the benefits of eating vegetarian diets, or diets that are largely vegetarian is beyond me.   People who eat vegetarian diets are usually healthier – sometimes a lot healthier – than people who eat meat.

But before getting into all this, there is the pesky problem of definition.  What, exactly, is a vegetarian?  As it happens, people who call themselves vegetarians eat many kinds of diets.  The least restrictive vegetarians do not eat beef but occasionally eat pork or lamb.  Next come the groups that eat no red meats, or restrict poultry, dairy, fish, or eggs.  The most restrictive are vegans who eat no foods of animal origin at all.

Nutritional implications depend on the degree of restriction.  The least restrictive diets, those that exclude meat but include fish, milk, or eggs, raise no nutritional issues whatsoever.  People who eat such diets are likely to have a lower risk of heart disease and certain cancers than the average meat-eating American, and a risk of osteoporosis no higher.

Only the most restrictive vegetarian diets raise nutritional concerns.  Vegans, who eat no foods of animal origin, need to do three things:

• Find an alternative source for vitamin B₁₂ (supplements or fortified foods).
• Eat enough calories to maintain a good weight.
• Eat a variety of grains and beans to get enough protein.

Vitamin B₁₂ is found only in foods of animal origin – meat, dairy, eggs, or fish.  With this one exception, fruits, vegetables, and grains provide plenty of the other vitamins and minerals.  Vegans who obtain enough calories from varied plant food sources should be taking care of those nutrients as well as protein.

On the protein question: Foods from animals are higher in protein than those from plants.  Their proteins are of somewhat better quality, meaning that they more closely resemble human proteins.  If calories are adequate, protein is rarely a problem.   Protein is hardly lacking among Americans.  The protein requirement is about half a gram for each pound of body weight, which works out to 55 grams for a 120-pound woman and 65 grams or so for a 180-pound man. On surveys, women report eating a daily average of 70 grams of protein, and men 100 grams, and these amounts are likely to be underestimates.  Even vegans get more than enough protein from grains, beans, and vegetables as long as they get enough calories.

In relatively unprocessed foods, protein is closely linked to calories.  Diets with enough calories usually contain enough protein unless the diet is unusually restrictive or includes a lot of junk food.  Think about it: entire civilizations – in ancient Egypt, China, and Mexico, for example – were based on wheat, rice, beans, or corn as sources of protein.   We used to think that vegetarians had to be careful to combine plant foods (beans and corn, for example) to get enough protein but we know now that variety and calories take care of it.

Developing countries are another matter.  In places where food is scarce, children thrive better when they are fed a little meat (or dairy, fish, or eggs) along with whatever else they are eating, but a richer plant-based diet also works well.

That brings us to children.  Is it OK to feed vegetarian diets to kids?  This too depends on what is meant by “vegetarian.”  If the diet restricts just beef or red meat, it poses no problems.  Dairy foods, fish, and eggs are adequate substitutes.  And keeping sodas and junk foods to a minimum is always a good idea.

Vegan diets are another matter and I can think of plenty of reasons why they are controversial for children.  Supplements can take care of kids’ needs for vitamin B₁₂ and other nutrients, but calories can be a serious problem.  Children sometimes have a hard time when they have to get all their food energy from vegetables, grains, or beans.  I advise vegan parents to pay close attention to calories, to make liberal use of olive oil and nut butters, to make sure plenty of beans, grains, and potatoes are available, and to monitor their children’s weight in comparison to lines on standard growth charts.

Except for the most restrictive diets, I wouldn’t worry at all about vegetarian diets for adults or for kids.  They have plenty of what’s good for health and a lot less of what is not so good.  The health advantages can be impressive.    So eat your veggies!

The FDA has a new “Dear Industry” letter announcing that it is going to set some rules for those “better-for-you” stickers on the front of junk food packages.  Why?   “FDA’s intent is to provide standardized, science-based criteria on which FOP [front of package] nutrition labeling must be based.”

What this is about, of course, is all those self-endorsement labels food companies like PepsiCo (Smart Spot),  Kraft (Sensible Solution), and many companies collectively (Smart Choices) have been putting on their products.

The companies set up their own nutrition criteria and then applied those criteria to their own products. Surprise!  A great many of their products qualified for the “better-for-you” labels.

I’m guessing Smart Choices was the final straw for the FDA. The idea that the Smart Choices check mark could go onto Froot Loops was so astonishing, and the subject of so much ridicule, that the FDA had to act.  If nutrition criteria are developed independently, most junk foods would not qualify.

The FDA also says it will be testing how well consumers understand different kinds of package labels.  It gives a bunch of examples.  Want to know how the FDA is thinking about this?  Check out its handy backgrounder, which if nothing else is an excellent introduction to the entire issue of front-of-package labels.

Have a preference about what to use?  Write the FDA at this address:

Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the title of the guidance document: Guidance for Industry: Letter Regarding Point of Purchase Food Labeling.

Addendum, October 22: Here are two additional documents to add to the collection.  First, a letter to representative Rosa DeLauro responding to her complaint about the Smart Choices program.  Second, is a a summary of the talking points used by Commissioner Margaret Hamburg in her press conference on the new FDA initiatives.   My conclusion:  the FDA is back on the job!

Kim Severson’s piece about school food in last week’s New York Times food section discusses some of the barriers to producing decent and tasty school food: cooking skills!  There are plenty of others, as detailed in Dana Woldow’s terrific 3-minute video detailing the situation in San Francisco’s public schools – as seen by kids in that system.  As the kids put it, “We need better school food!”

On the day the Times piece appeared, I was doing a tour of a couple of New York City school lunch programs.  One was to a small K-to-9th grade school in the low-income Bedford-Stuyvesant area of Brooklyn.   This school may not have had much money, but it had everything else needed to make school food work: a devoted and smart principal, a committed staff, and a school food director who set high standards.  The food looked, smelled, and tasted good and the kids were eating it.

How did this school perform this miracle?  Easy.  Everyone cared that kids got fed and liked what they were eating.

The next stop was Brooklyn Tech.  Same food; different experience.  If caring was present, it didn’t show.

For one thing, the junk-food vending machines were in the lunch room (not a good sign).  Worse, they were open for business (a flat out violation of federal rules).   Even worse, nobody seemed to be doing anything about it, at least as far as I could see.

My conclusion: school food can be really good, even in poor neighborhoods, if everyone involved cares about it.  Can we teach schools to care?  Of course we can.

And officials can make it harder for schools not to care.  The New York City Education Department says schools have to cut way down on bake sales, with exceptions for parent groups, parent-teacher associations, and birthday celebrations.

This policy will undoubtedly elicit complaints, but I don’t have much sympathy for complainers.  School kids are bombarded with junk food from multiple sources all day long.  If they didn’t eat so much of it, they might eat real food and support the school lunch program to a greater degree.  That’s why those open vending machines are so troubling.  The messages they send are “it’s OK to eat junk food in school,” and “it’s OK to disobey federal rules any time we want to.”  Not a good idea.

I wish I could answer all the questions that come in under Feedback but the one from Sophie about the recent recall of Nutro pet foods is on my mind, not least because it is so mysterious.

Some history: As I discuss in Pet Food Politics, Nutro brands were caught up in the melamine recalls in 2007.  The company initially recalled several lines of dog and cat foods.  When owners reported animals sick from eating brands that had not been recalled, Nutro recalled others.  In the wake of that mess, the company was sold to Mars Petcare (yes, the maker of M&Ms) later that year.

The present fuss: Since then, more than 800 pet owners have complained to a website, ConsumerAffairs.com, that their pets got sick or died after eating Nutro products.  Consumer Affairs’ Lisa Wade McCormick followed up by contacting the FDA and filing a Freedom of Information Action (FOIA) to see what the agency had on consumer complaints about Nutro.  Someone at the FDA told her they were denying her FOIA request because Nutro was under investigation.  But then the FDA said it was not investigating Nutro.  But then, people who contacted Consumer Affairs said the FDA had talked to them about their sick pets. So was the FDA investigating Nutro or not?

While Consumer Affairs was trying to figure this out, Nutro announced its “voluntary” recall of dry cat foods, found to contain “incorrect levels of zinc and potassium…resulting from a production error by a US-based premix supplier.” Translation: The FDA does not have recall authority; all recalls are “voluntary.”   Zinc and potassium are essential minerals.  Vitamins and minerals in pet foods – or breakfast cereals for that matter – are added as  pre-manufactured mixes.

The Nutro press release says the company has had not gotten any consumer complaints about the recalled products but that cat owners should watch out for loss of appetite, refusal of food, weight loss, vomiting, or diarrhea.  These are precisely the symptoms that have been reported to Consumer Affairs over the last couple of years and that might be expected from zinc poisoning.

So how much zinc was in the pet food? The company press release did not give the amount of zinc found in its products.  Neither did the FDA.  The FDA announcement merely said that the premixes contained too much zinc and too little potassium.  Lisa McCormick, however, reports that levels of zinc in Nutro dog (not cat) foods were once found to contain 260 parts per million (ppm).  The AAFCO standard for zinc in cat foods is 75 ppm dry weight.  For dog food it is 150 ppm.

Would a level of 260 ppm be dangerous?  Nobody really knows.  According to the most recent National Research Council report, not enough information is available to establish a safe upper limit, but 260 ppm seems like it ought to be within tolerable limits.  But maybe it’s not?  For humans, the recommended intake level is about 10 mg/day with an upper limit of 40 mg/day.

So what is going on here?  In this, as in anything having to do with pets, I defer to Christie Keith, who writes about pets for petconnection.com and for the San Francisco Chronicle. In her recent column on the Nutro business, she lays out the issues as only she can do:

Call me crazy.  Call me a dreamer.  Call me a radical progressive liberal socialist.  Or instead, call the real FDA a failure as a watchdog on the American food supply – both human and animal – that it was created to protect…this was and is a story about the safety of Nutro foods…But I think there’s a much bigger story here.  The FDA works for us.  We pay its bills.  And it’s supposed to ensure the safety of the American food and drug supply for both people and animals…[The result is that] Nutro is left to mop up after a PR mess made all over the Internet, pet owners have no idea what to believe or what pet food to buy, and the FDA has nothing more to say.  We lose.  Our pets lose.  Even the pet food companies lose.  And that’s the story.

Let’s hope that the facts emerge soon.  In the meantime, a few conclusions seem clear.

For pet owners: Don’t buy recalled Nutro products for your pets (the list is in the press releases from Nutro and the FDA).  Insist that Nutro and every other pet food company give you information about what’s in the foods, how they know the amounts are correct, and what their test results show.

For pet food companies: Know your suppliers and test every every ingredient.  If you want your customers to trust your products, release the test results on your websites. 

For the FDA: Take pet foods seriously. I keep insisting that we only have one food supply, and it’s the same for animals, pets, and people.  If the melamine recalls taught us anything, it is that if something is wrong with pet foods, people foods will be in trouble too (recall: melamine in Chinese infant formulas).  And how about being more transparent about what you are doing?  That too might help instill trust.

For the government: How about funding some research on the dietary needs of dogs and cats.  The more we know about their nutrient needs, the more we will know about our own.

For everyone: Insist that the companies that make foods for people and pets tell you what is in their products, where the ingredients come from, whether they are testing, and what the results of those tests might be.

This is why pet food politics matter (and why I went to the trouble of writing a book about the melamine recalls).

One of the things about living in New York City is that you run into celebrities all the time and pay no attention.  As it happens, my partner and I were meeting Sidney Mintz and his wife tonight at my neighborhood restaurant, Blue Hill. We wondered why the street was blocked off, a huge crowd gathered at one end, and secret servicemen all over the place.

The Obamas!  At the next table!  Six feet away!  I can’t tell you what they ate because Dan Barber cooked for them.  But I saw the President pay the bill.

Turns out this was their promised night out, and the Republicans are already complaining that it cost the taxpayers too much.  From the applause in the restaurant when they were leaving, the picture-taking mob in front of the restaurant, and the crowds lining 6th Avenue, this is one expense nobody minds.   They looked they were having fun.  We did too.

And here they are dressed for Blue Hill and Joe Turner’s Come and Gone.

June 1 update: Obama Foodorama has some more details, as does the New York Times. And then there’s Frank Bruni’s complaint about the choice of restaurant.  Well, you had to be there.

A federal judge in New Jersey rejected a complaint against Snapple that its claim to be “natural” is false because the drinks contain high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) and HFCS is no way “natural.” If the FDA won’t decide what “natural” means, we certainly aren’t going to , says the judge. So, FDA, how about it?

So yesterday’s New York Times report on methylmercury in sushi tuna–a shocker because the most expensive tuna has the most of this toxin (of course it does; it’s bigger and accumulates more)–is now experiencing the expected backlash. Sushi eaters don’t seem to care much, and the tuna industry is fighting back through its public relations agency, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). What is a tuna lover to do? If you aren’t pregnant, about to become pregnant, or a very young child (if you are, you should avoid big predatory fish like king mackeral, swordfish, tilefish, shark, and albacore tuna) the FDA and EPA say up to 6 ounces a week is OK. That leaves plenty of room for spending a fortune on sushi.

Here’s what Newsweek has to say about the CCF complaints. It’s great to see a news magazine blow the whistle on that group. Every word CCF says is paid for, and some tuna association pays it to say that methylmercury is not a problem.