Food Labeling Workshop July 23-24, 2008

This workshop presents the FDA requirements for US food labeling. The workshop format and materials are designed to provide a user-friendly approach for those new to food labeling and also provide a thorough system and reference for those experienced with food label design and review. The workshop format allows time for questions. The focus is practical, and students are encouraged to bring problem labels for hands-on review. For more information, click here.

Early bird discount (before May 15, 2008): $795

In Lean Times, Biotech Grains Are Less Taboo

       People tend to magnify their concerns over risks when there is no practical cost to doing so. Similarly, when there is no direct burden to them, people tend to take “better safe than sorry” as their overarching principle.

       This approach makes sense in many situations. Unfortunately, this shorthand approach creates the illusion that real risk assessment has been applied. When there is no personal stake in the costs, for example, benefits are overlooked and risks and benefits are not balanced.

       With rising food prices and grain shortages looming, perhaps we will see more balanced assessments of genetic modifications.

     Andrew Pollack of the NY Times wrote recently,

Soaring food prices and global grain shortages are bringing new pressures on governments, food companies and consumers to relax their longstanding resistance to genetically engineered crops.

In Japan and South Korea, some manufacturers for the first time have begun buying genetically engineered corn for use in soft drinks, snacks and other foods. Until now, to avoid consumer backlash, the companies have paid extra to buy conventionally grown corn. But with prices having tripled in two years, it has become too expensive to be so finicky. . . .

And Everyone is Above Average

Patrick McGee writes, “But we do need to remind our industry, the media, and the public that we have the safest food manufacturing and distribution system in the world.” Mr. McGee’s editorial is titled, “The Good News” and appears in the current issue of Food Quality magazine.

Mr. McGee hasn’t been keeping up with Doug Powell of the International Food Safety Network, who has been a ubiquitous stickler for accuracy on this point. You can read his comments on barfblog.com, where he has a special safest-food-in-the-world section.

Another reality check comes from Phil Brasher of the Des Moines Register, who wrote:

America has the safest food supply in the world. True or False?

It's impossible to say. The statistics don't exist to make such a claim. But that doesn't stop meatpackers, lobbyists, lawmakers and even government regulators who should know better, from repeating the claim every time there's a food-borne illness outbreak or major food recall.

It's not just Americans who make the claim.

"I've lived in many countries that have the safest food in the world," says Canice Nolan, a food-safety official with the European Commission in Washington.

FDA Globalization Act of 2008

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce released a Discussion Draft of the "Food and Drug Administration Globalization Act of 2008." The “Discussion Draft is meant to stimulate discussion about how to provide adequate funding and authority for FDA to ensure safety of . . . food, drug, medical device, and cosmetic” products, according to a memorandum accompanying the draft legislation.

The Discussion Draft is likely to undergo significant changes during hearings and markup. Among the interesting proposals:

• an annual registration fee of $2,000 for food facilities operating in the U.S. or exporting food to the U.S.
• provide a voluntary FDA-certification program
• require 2-year inspection intervals of foreign and domestic food establishments if not certified
• require country-of-origin labeling of foods
• require labeling whether certain foods have been treated with carbon monoxide
  provide FDA with mandatory recall authority
• a registration fee to cover the cost of drug and device inspections
• drug and device country-of-origin labeling
• cosmetic facilities registration with the FDA at a cost of $2,000 per facility
  adverse-event reporting for cosmetics
• increase the capacity of FDA to monitor foreign facilities
• Fees registration, reinspection, certification, certifying agent accreditation, laboratory accreditation, export certification, and importer registration.

The Energy and Commerce Committee predicts that the food registration fees will generate approximately $600 million for food safety activities at FDA. In addition, the bill provides for the levying of substantial fines for violations of the new requirements.

A hat tip to FDA Law Blog for writing of this.

FDA: HFCS is Not "Natural"

"A Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official sent the corn refiners lobby into a tizzy today, by stating that high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), whatever merits or demerits it may have, should not be marketed as ‘natural,’” wrote Parke Wilde at U.S. Food Policy.

Lorraine Heller at FoodNavigator-USA.com reports that she wrote FDA to ask whether high-fructose corn syrup could be labeled "natural." Geraldine June at the FDA responded:

"The use of synthetic fixing agents in the enzyme preparation, which is then used to produce HFCS, would not be consistent with our (…) policy regarding the use of the term 'natural'.
"Moreover, the corn starch hydrolysate, which is the substrate used in the production of HFCS, may be obtained through the use of safe and suitable acids or enzymes. Depending on the type of acid(s) used to obtain the corn starch hydrolysate, this substrate itself may not fit within the description of 'natural' and, therefore, HCFS produced from such corn starch hydrolysate would not qualify for a 'natural' labeling term."

The corn refiners association released a press statement:

A comment today by a single Food & Drug Administration employee regarding whether High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is “natural” was mistakenly portrayed by an online news outlet as the official position of the agency, but actually reflects only the personal view of that one employee who was responding to a reporter’s question.

Last year, under pressure from possible consumer group lawsuits, Cadbury Schweppes agreed not to use the term "all natural" in advertising 7-UP, a carbonated beverage made with HFCS.

Funding for Food and Agricultural Research

Congress is now in the final stages of writing a new Farm Bill (H.R. 2419), which should be a critical source of food and agricultural research funding through 2012. However, funding for land-grant universities conducting vital food science and technology research is in jeopardy.

Food and agricultural research, extension, and education are already chronically underfunded. The most recent proposed cut in funding for research is in excess of 75%. Federal funding for land-grant universities supports research on key problems of global, national, and regional importance in biological, environmental, physical, and social sciences relevant to agriculture, food, and the environment on a competitive, peer-reviewed basis.

We face a world with many new and emerging challenges in food and agriculture. A lack of funding will stifle scientific discovery and the spirit of innovation that will help us meet these challenges. If we are to advance the science of food and achieve our long-range vision of “a safe and abundant food supply for healthier people everywhere,” we must increase research funding, not decrease it. Food and agriculture research is an affordable program with priceless results.

This research is vital. Therefore, I urge you to help land-grant universities retain the modest level of funding for food and agricultural research, extension and education.

Please contact your Representative and Senators and ask them to maintain the overall funding level for food and agriculture research. You may find the contact information for your senators and representatives at www.house.gov and www.senate.gov.

Here is the letter I sent:

Dear (Senator/Representative):

I am writing to express my strong concern with regard to the House-Senate conference on H.R. 2419, the Farm Bill.

I am distressed by indications that existing mandatory "Research Title" funding for land-grant research, extension, and teaching will be devastated.

We need for more research funding, not less. Additional university funding is necessary to combat the growing problem of obesity; to find new conservation techniques for preserving soil and water; to develop methods to provide agricultural production at less cost (to the farmer, the consumer, and the environment); to establish key links between food and human disease; to make our food supply safer; and to find ways to feed our citizens and people in the rest of the world.

The most recent conference documents indicate a reduction of $1.244 billion from the Research Title - a cut of over 75%! This would appear to be the largest percentage cut from the baseline of any title in the Farm Bill. Food and agricultural research and education is already chronically underfunded,

We recognize that difficult decisions lie before the conferees. But these massive cuts to the Research Title are inconsistent with the increase in overall Farm Bill spending and are disproportionate to that being contemplated in other titles of the bill (such as trade and crop insurance).

The challenges facing rural America and the nation's nutrition-challenged populations have never been greater - and neither have the opportunities to meet these challenges. We cannot address these and other problems without an enhanced investment in land-grant research, extension, and teaching.

The best opportunity to do that is in this Farm Bill.

Please do not let the outcome of this Farm Bill be the destruction of existing Research Title funding. If you cannot find ways to enhance funding, I urge you to at least protect the current land-grant funding baseline.

Sincerely,

Neal Fortin

NY Calorie Posting Law Upheld

In a decision released today, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld the constitutionality of New York City’s calorie-posting requirement for certain restaurants. The Court ruled that the federal Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 does not pre-empt the city’s regulation, and it held that the posting requirement does not violate the free speech rights of New York State Restaurant Association members. For the complete ruling: http://www2a.cdc.gov/phlp/docs/Calorie%20decision.pdf.

Mitigating Liability

I had the pleasure to meet Kenneth Odza last week at the “Who’s Minding the Store?” seminar at Seattle University. Mr. Odza’s specialty is food liability defense law. He publishes a useful blog on this subject, the Food Liability Law Blog. You can subscribe via RSS feeder or email.

A recent blog entry talked about how meat grinding logs can mitigate supermarket liability. In one case, an salmonellosis outbreak was tied to ground beef from a supermarket chain. The meat producer could not be identified largely because the supermarket chain did not keep clear grinding logs. “For no reason other than poor record keeping, the supermarket chain, not the meat producer, bore responsibility for the outbreak (and any resulting liability). . . . Meat grinding logs can be vital tools in defending against and mitigating liability claims attributed to ground beef (especially those related to E. coli, BSE, Salmonella, etc.).”

To Mr. Odza’s advice, I would also add that keeping cooking temperature logs can similarly be vital. I once cleared a grocery store of a salmonellosis case because it had clear cooking temperature logs. Logs also can and should be an important tool for management to ensure that delegated tasks are be carried out by employees.

New FDA Food Labeling Guide

FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition has published a new version of “A Food Labeling Guide.” This is an excellent basic guide to food labeling. Most frequently raised questions have been answered in easy to read, question-and-answer format.

The document note: “FDA receives many questions from manufacturers, distributors and importers about the proper labeling of their food products. This guidance is a summary of the required statements that must appear on food labels under these laws and their regulations. To help minimize legal action and delays, it is recommended that manufacturers and importers become fully informed about the applicable laws and regulations before offering foods for distribution in the United States.”

For the complete guide: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/2lg-toc.html. For a complete list of all of FDA’s Food and Cosmetic Guidance Documents: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/guidance.html.

Food Safety Conference at Seattle University Draws Experts from the US and Abroad

Posted on April 7, 2008 by Bill Marler

Seattle University School of Law hosts an in-depth conference titled “Who’s Minding the Store: The Current State of Food Safety and How It Can Be Improved” on April 11th and 12th, 2008. Participants include international, national and local representatives of government, the food industry, consumer organizations, scientists, and the media.

Recent years have seen a plethora of food warnings and recalls, raising new questions about the quality and integrity of our existing system for assuring food safety. Seattle was the epicenter of the Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak that sickened 600 and killed four 15 years ago. In addition to explaining how the present system works, this program is intended to discuss how changing consumer preferences are affecting the development and distribution of food, examine whether federal, state and industry oversight roles are changing, and discuss how the regulatory and judicial processes can be most efficiently balanced.

Washington Governor Christine Gregoire will present the keynote address. Featured speakers include Dr. Richard Raymond, Under Secretary for Food Safety, United States Department of Agriculture, and Dr. Patricia Griffin, Chief; Enteric Diseases Epidemiology Branch, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention.

In addition, the conference brings together international experts, including Jorgen Schlundt of the World Health Organization, Qiu Yueming of the China National Institute of Standardization, Deon Mahoney of Food Standards Australia New Zealand, Chris Griffith of University of Cardiff Wales, and Dr. Canice Nolan, of the EU.

For a detailed agenda and registration, visit:
http://www.law.seattleu.edu/cle/archive/2008/foodsafety.

2007-2008 H. Thomas Austern Memorial Writing Competitions -- Deadline is June 13

The FDLI H. Thomas Austern Memorial Writing Competitions encourage law students interested in the areas of law that affect foods, drugs, devices, cosmetics and biologics. Additionally, winning papers will be considered for publication in the Food and Drug Law Journal. Entrants must be currently enrolled in a J.D. program at any of the nation's law schools. To learn more about the 2007-2008 Writing Competitions, download the brochure.

FARM BILL ACTION ALERT -- IMMEDIATE ATTENTION NEEDED

The following Action Alert was sent to National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC)Board of Agriculture Assembly and the Councils on Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching and Governmental Affairs. I encourage you to consider adding your voice in concern over funding for the "Research, Teaching, and Extension" Title of the Farm Bill.

Below the Action Alert is a plea to the Farm Bill Conferees that provides additional information that you can may find useful.

ACTION ALERT – HOUSE and SENATE CALLS/EMAILS NEEDED - IMMEDIATELY!

TO: Board on Agriculture Assembly
Council on Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching
Council on Governmental Affairs

As you know, (see: www.create-21.org/alerts/02-13-2008.htm) the top Farm Bill priority for the land-grant system is mandatory funding for research, extension, and teaching.

Current documents from the House-Senate Farm Bill conference show a $1.244 billion reduction in such funding -- a 75% reduction in the "Research, Teaching, and Extension" Title. No other title in the Farm Bill received such a large percentage reduction.

We need you -- and your researchers, extension personnel, graduate students, and any other parties willing to help -- to immediately call and/or email your senators and representatives. Please urge them to communicate with the Agriculture Committee leadership in their respective chamber. (Senators Harkin and Chambliss or Representatives Peterson and Goodlatte)

WE NEED TO INUNDATE CAPITOL HILL WITH OUR CALLS AND EMAILS!

The message follows:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear (Senator/Representative):

I am calling/writing to express my strong concern with regard to the House-Senate conference on H.R. 2419, the Farm Bill.

While it is encouraging to hear of progress being made which would bring the conference to a conclusion, I am distressed by indications that existing mandatory "Research Title" funding for land-grant research, extension, and teaching will be all but wiped out.

Over the past many years, I have heard senators and representatives from both sides of the aisle talk about the need for more funding, not less.

Additional university funding is absolutely necessary to combat the growing problem of obesity; to find new conservation techniques for preserving soil and water; to develop methods to provide more plant and animal production at less cost (to the farmer, the consumer, and the environment); and to find ways to feed our citizens and people in the rest of the world.

The most recent conference documents indicate a reduction of $1.244 billion from the Research Title — a cut of over 75%!

This would appear to be the largest percentage cut from the baseline of any title in the Farm Bill. And, it would be far below what either House or Senate Bills contained when originally passed.

We recognize that difficult decisions lie before the conferees. But these massive cuts to the Research Title are inconsistent with the increase in overall Farm Bill spending and are disproportionate to that being contemplated in other titles of the bill (such as trade and crop insurance).
The challenges facing rural America and the nation’s nutrition-challenged populations have never been greater — and neither have the opportunities to meet these challenges. We cannot address these and other problems without an enhanced investment in land-grant research, extension, and teaching.

The best opportunity to do that is in this Farm Bill.

Please do not let the outcome of this Farm Bill be the destruction of existing Research Title funding. If you cannot find ways to enhance funding, I urge you to at least protect the current land-grant funding baseline.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is a tremendous stake for the land-grant system in a positive outcome. We need you and all of your faculty, staff, graduate students, and outside supporters to make these calls and emails!

Thanks, as always, for your assistance.

PLEA TO FARM BILL CONFEREES:

DO NOT KILL THE AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH BASELINE

Based on limited available information, we are of the understanding that the tentative agreements reached by House and Senate Agriculture Committee staff on the Research Title of the Farm Bill will, if ratified by the Conferees, result in three significant fiscal impacts regarding agricultural research:

1. It eliminates current law Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS) funding – a net loss in the Farm Bill of $1.6 billion in budget authority ($1.244 billion in budget outlays)
2. It creates two or three new targeted mandatory research programs for specialty crops, organics, and energy. No figures are available but the total is approximately $200 million over five years.
3. It terminates these targeted programs in 2012. This will result in ZERO dollars in the Committee baseline for agricultural research in FY 2012 and the future.

This course of action would be a huge step backwards for the federal commitment to agriculture, nutrition, energy and related research – with permanent negative repercussions far beyond the five year life of the Farm Bill.

• REPEALS MORE THAN $1.2 BILLION (OUTLAYS) IN MANDATORY AG RESEARCH FUNDING: The tentative agreement would abandon funding for the IFAFS program provided in current law in the amount of $200 million per year for eight fiscal years (2010 through 2017). This would repeal $1.6 BILLION in mandatory research budget authority (and $1.244 Billion in outlays) over the 10 year budget baseline of the bill.


• TARGETED RESEARCH FUNDS ARE NOT A SUBSTITUTE: While the tentative agreement reportedly includes some mandatory funding targeted to specialty crops, organics, and renewable energy, the total amount of new mandatory research funds made available are more than ONE BILLION DOLLARS LESS THAN CURRENT LAW.
  
  


• KILLS LONG TERM COMMITMENT TO AG RESEARCH BY REPEALING PERMANENT LAW BUDGET BASELINE: Not only does the tentative agreement specifically terminate IFAFS funds beginning immediately, it would eliminate the new, targeted funds in FY 2012. This means that the budget baseline for all of these agriculture research priorities will be ZERO when the next Farm Bill is written in 2012. Specialty crops research baseline = ZERO. Renewable energy research baseline = ZERO. Organics research baseline = ZERO. IFAFS research baseline = ZERO. This would reverse more than 10 years of effort in building the budget baseline for agricultural, nutrition, renewable energy, and related research.

HOW YOU CAN HELP!

PRESERVE THE BUDGET BASELINE FOR MANDATORY AGRICULTURE RESEARCH FUNDING BY:

1. PROVIDING MANDATORY FUNDS THROUGH FY 2012. DO NOT MAKE BASE FUNDING “SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS” IN THE FARM BILL.

2. MAINTAINING FUNDING FOR IFAFS AT THE HIGHEST AMOUNT POSSIBLE—ESPECIALLY IN FY 2012.

Aspartame safety study

Direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2008) 62, 451–462; doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602866; published online 8 August 2007 http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v62/n4/abs/1602866a.html

This study explored the direct and indirect cellular effects of aspartame on the brain.  Aspartame and its breakdown compounds may disturb the brain concentrations of catecholamines.