This article examines the latest squabble at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration over the circumstances under which food products can properly be labeled “natural.” Noting that a number of chicken producers inject their “all natural” birds with salt water and broth, a practice some call fraudulent, journalist Andrew Bridges reports that even Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, finds the issue confusing; he was quoted as saying, “It’s worth bringing in the rabbis to analyze these situations because it’s complicated, it’s subtle. You can argue from both sides. It has fine distinctions.” Petitions, comments and lawsuits have been filed over the matter involving foods ranging from poultry, beef and pork to soft drinks and other products containing high-fructose corn syrup. The final word is given to a Consumers Union scientist and policy analyst who observed, “The ‘natural’ thing…
Category Archives Legislation, Regulations and Standards
A poultry producers coalition has reportedly launched a campaign to end “natural” labeling claims for chickens enhanced with water, salt or binding agents such as carrageenan. Sanderson Farms, Inc., Foster Farms and Gold’n Plump Poultry have asked USDA, which is currently redrafting its rules on “natural” claims, to exclude chicken products that are mechanically injected or tumbled with a marinade solution to improve appearance and moisture retention. The current definition specifies only that products cannot contain artificial ingredients and must be “minimally processed.” The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) contends that “some unscrupulous poultry producers add as much as 15 percent saltwater–and then have the gall to label such pumped-up poultry products ‘natural.’” U.S. Representatives Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.) and Charles Pickering (R-Miss.) claimed in a recent press release that approximately 33 percent of fresh chicken sold to consumers was altered via injection or “vacuum tumbling.” They also argued…
Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) has introduced a bill (S. 3095) that would amend the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to “require premarket consultation and approval with respect to genetically engineered foods.” The Genetically Engineered Foods Act, which has been referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, defines genetic engineering as “a transformation event,” i.e., one that involves “the introduction into an organism of genetic material that has been manipulated in vitro,” “to derive food from a plant or animal or to produce an animal.” Any producer of a genetically engineered food would be required to obtain FDA approval before introducing such food into interstate commerce. Such approval would require a determination that the food is (i) safe, (ii) safe under specified conditions of use, or (iii) not safe because the food “contains genes that confer antibiotic resistance,” “contains an allergen,” or “presents 1 or more other safety…
