PepsiCo, Inc. has reportedly launched a “fat-blocking” soda in Japan, sparking media interest in the latest product to take advantage of a Japanese government study finding that the water-soluble fiber supplement dextrin blocks fat absorption in the digestive system. According to various sources, “Pepsi Special” containing “indigestible dextrin” has received a “Food for Specified Heath Uses” label in Japan, which awards the designation to products with a demonstrated health benefit. Although Pepsi Special will not be available in markets outside Japan, the product has already attracted criticism from scientists and consumer groups questioning whether dextrin is as safe and effective as advertised. “Unless Pepsi can provide data from controlled studies in humans to the contrary, their claim should be regarded as bogus and deceptive,” Harvard School of Public Health Chair of Nutrition Walter Willett told Time magazine. This sentiment was echoed by Center for Science in the Public Interest Executive Director…
Category Archives Other Developments
The Obesity Policy Coalition (OPC) has sent a report to Australian officials on the country’s current self-regulatory system for food marketing, which OPC has described as “seriously flawed.” According to the coalition, the codes developed by the food industry to govern marketing to children “are extremely complex,” resulting in “a litany of loopholes” that companies have allegedly exploited “to promote their products despite childhood obesity sitting at record levels.” In particular, the report claims that self-regulatory codes (i) do not apply to all food advertisers or all age-groups of children, (ii) “only cover advertising that is ‘directed primarily to children,’” (iii) fail to cover many forms of promotion and media, and (iv) rely on “unclear” criteria for determining what is healthy or unhealthy. It also finds the administration and enforcement of these codes “grossly inadequate” since “the scheme relies entirely on complaints from the public.” Faulting the Advertising Standards Board…
Dr. Pepper Snapple Group has reportedly announced that it will remove its 7UP products with antioxidants from the market by early 2013. The company evidently denied that its decision was related to a lawsuit filed against it by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which had alleged that the products were falsely advertised. Additional information about CSPI’s lawsuit appears in Issue 461 of this Update. According to a Dr. Pepper statement, the decision to reformulate the product for consistency across its brands was made in 2011 and that it had met with CSPI to discuss the organization’s claims this summer. The company also noted that its 7UP Cherry clearly states on the label that it is a “cherry-flavored soda that does not contain juice.” See Associated Press, November 8, 2012.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has written a letter to the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Compliance, claiming that caffeinated snack foods violate the agency’s determination “that caffeine is generally recognized as safe only in cola-type beverages and only at concentrations at 0.02 percent or less (about 72 mg per 12 oz.).” Singling out a new line of Frito-Lay’s Cracker Jack® snacks, Kraft’s MiO Energy “water enhancer” and Jelly Belly’s “Extreme Sport Beans,” CSPI alleges that these products could represent “the beginning of a craze in which many companies, large and small, disregard FDA’s regulation and begin adding caffeine to all kinds of foods and beverages.” In particular, the consumer group has raised concerns that caffeinated snacks like “Cracker Jack’D” are child-friendly even if they are not marketed directly to children. “Kids will naturally be attracted to a tasty, finger-friendly snack food packaged and advertised with…
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has asked members of the U.S. House of Representatives to exclude certain provisions in the Farm Bill that would limit the government’s authority to conduct environmental analyses of genetically engineered (GE) crops. According to CSPI, “the bill language at issue would specifically limit the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s regulatory review to specific issues, such as whether the engineered crops could act as ‘plant pests’—a scenario CSPI says is not supported by science. Instead, Congress should write stand-alone legislation that would give USDA specific regulatory authority over genetically engineered crops and consider the full range of actual potential problems with such crops, such as the development of weeds or insects that were resistant to the crops’ technology, and the impact of gene flow to weedy relatives.” CSPI Biotechnology Director Greg Jaffe asks, “Why would Congress add to the public’s skepticism of genetically engineered crops by…
Two health experts who recently appeared on Australia’s ABC Lateline have reportedly called for additional government regulation to help combat rising obesity levels. University of Melbourne Professor Rob Moodie, who previously chaired Australia’s Preventative Health Taskforce, reportedly suggested that because voluntary programs have failed to curb obesity and diabetes rates, the government should step in with mandatory policies designed to tackle “the junk food industry the same way it confronted the tobacco industry.” “What they’ve failed to do is bring in the policies to reduce the obesigenic food environment,” Deakin University Professor Boyd Swinburn told Lateline’s Margot O’Neill. “Restrict marketing of junk foods to children, take fiscal policies, taxes, subsidies to make healthy foods cheaper and so on. That’s where the failure is: not addressing the unhealthy food environment.” But a representative from the Australian Food and Grocery Council countered that childhood obesity rates have already stopped increasing thanks, in…
According to Hank Campbell, writing for Science 2.0, lawyers who made their fortunes suing cigarette manufacturers are now prepared to replace “Big Tobacco” with “Big Food.” “Not because they have done anything wrong, but rather because we live in a culture where a dizzying cross-section of people assume anyone working for a corporation must be unethical. And creating nuisance laws that make it possible to sue over labels without actually having any evidence of harm are a dream for litigation attorneys,” says Campbell. He suggests that the passage in California of Proposition 37 (Prop. 37), which will require foods containing genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such, will create a goldmine for plaintiffs’ lawyers. The article discusses attorney Don Barrett, “who forced a settlement that cost tobacco companies more than $200 billion.” Barrett contends that money is not motivating him to target food manufacturers. “I’m 68 years old, frankly…
Nutritionists and consumer groups have reportedly criticized the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for reducing its per capita sugar consumption estimate from approximately 100 pounds per year to 76.7 pounds per year. According to an October 26, 2012, New York Times article, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CPSI) Executive Director Michael Jacobson “stumbled across” the agency’s latest assessment “while working on a project on sugar consumption.” Lowering the previous benchmark by 20 percent, the revised numbers apparently raised red flags with Jacobson, who suggested that the methodology used by USDA researchers was “built on a foundation of sand.” “The new estimate is still relying heavily on experts making what seem to me to be largely guesses,” he told Times reporter Stephanie Strom. “Other than the 4 percent they’re getting [from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey], what do they really know for certain?” In particular, Strom questioned…
Food & Water Watch has issued a report detailing how the consolidation of business along the entire food chain has resulted in farm losses, layoffs and higher prices with fewer choices for consumers. Titled “The Economic Cost of Food Monopolies,” the report discusses the effects of consolidation in Iowa’s hog sector, New York’s dairy industry, Maryland’s poultry production, the organic soybean market, and California’s processed fruit and vegetable industry. According to the advocacy organization, “The agriculture and food sector is unusually concentrated, with just a few companies dominating the market in each link of the food chain.” The pace of consolidation is attributed, particularly in the produce sector, to international trade agreements, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, that by facilitating “lower U.S. tariffs, combined with loosened investment rules for U.S. companies operating in other countries, encouraged U.S. food processing companies to invest in factories overseas and shutter plants…
A Reuters special report has claimed that the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), a regional office of the World Health Organization (WHO), has accepted “hundreds of thousands of dollars” from food and beverage companies to combat obesity. According to journalists Duff Wilson and Adam Kerlin, WHO and five of its regional offices already prohibit industry funding, but PAHO—“founded 46 years before it was affiliated with WHO in 1948—had different standards allowing the business donations.” In particular, the report cites contributions from Nestlé and Unilever as evidence that PAHO and other WHO entities are partnering with industry out of necessity since the international agency “cut its own funding for chronic disease by 20 percent since 2010—an even bigger decline than for the agency as a whole.” “The recent infusion of corporate cash is the most pointed example to date of how WHO is approaching its battle against chronic disease. Increasingly, it…
