The U.K. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) has released a December 2013 position paper on the purported health effects of aspartame, which is currently being reviewed by the European Food Safety Authority as part of its re-evaluation of all food additives. Commissioned by the U.K. Food Standards Agency (FSA), the paper apparently analyzes a double-blind randomized crossover study conducted by University of Hull York Medical School researchers, who asked 50 participants with self-diagnosed adverse reactions to aspartame to consume a snack bar without knowing whether it contained the substance in question. Based on the study’s findings, which compared the responses of these participants to a control group, COT has concluded that “the results presented did not indicate any need for action to protect the health of public.” The committee will release the full minutes of its discussion once the study has been…
Category Archives Legislation, Regulations and Standards
The European Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee has approved a draft report of legislation that calls for stronger policing of the food industry and tougher penalties for fraud. With an aim to strengthen procedures for detection and prevention of fraudulent practices in the European food chain, the legislation calls for, among other things, (i) a clear, European Union (EU)-wide definition of the term “food fraud”; (ii) enhancements to the Food and Veterinary Office’s role and resources in food-fraud cases; (iii) legal obligations for food business operators to report fraudulent behavior; (iv) a “more policing approach” by enforcement bodies; (v) fines of “at least double the amount of the economic advances sought”; and (vi) the forfeiture of registrations for repeat offenders. The report noted that olive oil, fish, organic foods, milk, and grains are the top five products most at risk of food fraud in the EU. …
In response to a petition filed by the U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a final rule that amends select food-additive regulations referring to “food-grade specifications from prior editions of the Food Chemicals Codes (FCC) to incorporate by reference food-grade specifications from the FCC 7th Edition.” The rule took effect November 29, 2013, but objections and requests for hearing may be filed until December 30. See Federal Register, November 29, 2013.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has reopened the comment period on a proposed rule concerning the description designation for needle- or blade-tenderized beef. First published in the June 10, 2013, Federal Register, the proposed rule would require “the descriptive designation ‘mechanically-tenderized’ on the labels of raw or partially-cooked needle- or blade tenderized beef products, including beef products injected with marinade or solution, unless these products are to be fully cooked at an official establishment.” Because the first comment period expired during the recent partial government shutdown, the agency will now accept feedback until December 24, 2013. Additional details about the proposed rule appear in Issue 486 of this Update. See Federal Register, December 3, 2013.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has released its Salmonella Action Plan outlining steps theagency will take to address its “most pressing problem”—Salmonella in meat and poultry products. Key elements of the plan include modernizing an “outdated” poultry slaughter inspection system and shifting FSIS inspectors to more offline, food-safety duties, which the agency said will prevent at least an estimated 5,000 illnesses annually. The plan also calls for FSIS to (i) establish new performance standards; (ii) develop new strategies for “inspection and throughout the full farm-to-table continuum”; (iii) address all potential sources of Salmonella; and (iv) focus the agency’s “education and outreach tools on Salmonella.” Although lauded by many food-safety advocates, critics claim that it “completely ignores” one of the most crucial issues the meat industry faces— antibiotic-resistant Salmonella. “It is shocking for the agency to have stayed on the sidelines of this public health crisis, particularly in the…
Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) has reintroduced a bill (H.R. 3612) that would require clearer labeling of trans fat on food packaging. The move follows the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s recent preliminary determination that partially hydrogenated oils, a major source of artificial trans fat in processed foods, are not deemed generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for use in food. Current regulations, which permit food companies to label products that contain partially hydrogenated oils as having 0 grams of trans fat if the value per serving is 0.4 grams or less, have been criticized by Israel and others, who point out that consumers can unknowingly exceed the recommended consumption of trans fat by eating multiple servings of a product containing 0.4 grams in a day. Israel’s legislation would amend this regulation to require manufacturers to indicate that a product contains less than 0.5 grams trans fat by using an asterisk in the “amount per serving”…
San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar has reportedly unveiled a proposal for a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) similar to one released in late October by Supervisor Scott Weiner. Both proposals target SSB distributors, both impose a 2-cents-per-ounce tax and both reportedly expect to raise $30 million annually to fund health and nutrition programs to combat diabetes and other health issues allegedly associated with consumption of soft drinks, energy drinks and other SSBs. According to a news source, Weiner and two other supervisors are co-sponsoring Mar’s legislation, but Mar said all four supervisors will work together to combine both proposals into one piece of legislation that they plan to put before voters in November 2014. See SFGate.com, November 22, 2013.
Two Hawaiian counties have reportedly passed legislation designed to tighten regulations on biotech companies and the planting of genetically modified (GM) crops. After delaying the ballot to appoint a new member as a replacement for Nadine Nakamura, who vacated her seat to become Mayor Bernard Carvalho’s managing director, the Kauai County Council apparently voted 5-2 to override the mayor’s veto of a bill requiring agricultural companies to disclose information about their pesticide use and establishing no-spray zones around schools, residences, medical facilities, roads, and waterways. Slated to take effect in August 2014, the initiative has drawn criticism from seed and biotech companies, which have already considered taking the matter to court. Carvalho has also purportedly warned that the law could be open to challenge under state and federal preemption rules, the state’s Right to Farm Act and provisions in the County Charter. Additional details about the legislation appear in Issue…
California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) has changed the basis for listing 1,2-dibromo-3 chloropropane (DBCP), an agricultural fumigant that persists in groundwater despite being banned from use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1979. “Based on changes to certain federal regulations that affect the bases for the original listings, OEHHA has accordingly changed the bases for listing these chemicals,” according to the agency. DBCP was originally added to the Prop. 65 list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity in 1987 under the Labor Code, and its listing date will remain the same. Another chemical subject to the notice is ethylene oxide, which is used to make the raw material (PET) in plastic bottles. See OEHHA Press Release, November 21, 2013. Issue 505
The U.K. Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) has upheld a complaint claiming that a TV advertisement with a “prices may vary” disclaimer was misleading because the complainant was unable to purchase the product for the stated price. Created by Kentucky Fried Chicken (Great Britain) Ltd. (KFC), the commercial in question indicated that families could “save a fiver” by purchasing “the new KFC Family Burger Box,” instead of buying the components a la carte. On-screen text apparently clarified, “Item[] shown £20.51 if bought individually. Prices may vary.” According to ASA, Kentucky Fried Chicken explained that the phrase “prices may vary” “referred to both the a la carte menu pricing of individual items, the price of the Family Burger Box and the exact saving made between those two prices.” To convey this information, the company chose the text “prices may vary” rather than “price may vary” “to be clear that this referred to…
