The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has awarded the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health $16 million “to establish a global center of excellence to address the childhood obesity epidemic.” According to a Johns-Hopkins news release, the initiative will involve more than 40 investigators from 15 U.S. and international institutions to integrate basic science, epidemiology, nutrition, medicine, engineering, and environmental and social policy research, among other disciplines. Johns Hopkins University and other institutions will contribute an additional $4 million to the enterprise. Founding Director Youfa Wang said, “The new Center will address many needs in the prevention and study of childhood obesity. This initiative will help create research and training opportunities that go beyond traditional methods, and on an unprecedented global scale.” The center’s focus will be on “studying the drivers of the childhood obesity epidemic and environmental and policy interventions,” as well as providing “rapid-response grants to investigators…
Category Archives Other Developments
A recent article published in Nature Nanotechnology examines how governments, scientists and food companies can better anticipate the public reaction to nanofoods based on lessons learned from the commercialization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Timothy V. Duncan, “The communication challenges presented by nanofoods,” Nature Nanotechnology, October 2011. Authored by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) research chemist Timothy Duncan, the article argues that individual receptiveness to nanotechnology applications depend, not just on scientific evidence, but on myriad factors such as “cultural worldview, religiosity, governance philosophy, knowledge and familiarity level, trust (in government, scientists or industry), emotion, age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, general knowledge of/attitude towards science, and awareness of previous technology-based controversies.” In particular, Duncan warns that the failure of governments and industry to account for these factors in the past has left consumers even more wary of processes like genetic engineering which are seen, however erroneously, as “tampering with nature.” “Attitudes…
Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity has issued an October 2011 report claiming that “young people are exposed to a massive amount of marketing for sugar drinks.” Titled Sugary Drink F.A.C.T.S.: Food Advertising to Children and Teens Score, the report apparently analyzes “600 products from 14 companies that contain added sugar,” including full-calorie soda, energy drinks and diet energy drinks, flavored water, sports drinks, iced tea, and diet children’s fruit juices. Researchers also reviewed traditional, digital and in-store marketing, as well as collected data on media exposure and spending from syndicated sources such as Nielsen, comScore Inc. and Arbitron Inc. In particular, the Rudd Center alleges that industry pledges to market fewer sweetened beverages to children have not curbed advertising for these products. Among its key findings, the report concludes that (i) “More than half of sugary drinks and energy drinks market positive ingredients on their packages, and…
The nonprofit organization Common Sense Media (CSM) has issued a report titled Zero to Eight: Children’s Media Use in America that documents how infants, toddlers and young children are exposed to media “on everything from television to mobile devices to apps.” Billed as the first national research study to examine young children’s use of iPads and other new devices “along with older media platforms such as television, computers and books,” the report concludes that digital media “has become a regular part of the media diet of children ages 0 to 8, with four in 10 2- to 4-year olds and half (52%) of 5- to 8-year-olds using smartphones, video iPods, iPads or similar devices.” Working on CSM’s behalf, the research consultant Knowledge Networks “used a probability-based online panel designed to be representative of the United States” to survey 1,384 parents from May 27-June 15, 2011. Building on previous studies conducted…
A recent study analyzing federal oversight of substances added to food has reportedly concluded that the current program, while expediting the review process, both inhibits transparency and delegates critical food safety decisions to manufacturers. Thomas Neltner, et al., “Navigating the U.S. Food Additive Regulatory Program,” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, October 2011. Based on research conducted by the Pew Health Group, the study was designed “to assist food science and technology professionals and others to navigate the food additive regulatory program to more fully understand the program’s structure and operation.” In particular, the authors examined how FDA has used the Food Additives Amendment Act of 1958 to categorize and regulate (i) food additives, (ii) substances generally recognized as safe (GRAS), (iii) pesticide chemicals or residues, (iv) substances sanctioned before the Act came into effect, (v) color additives, (vi) drugs in animal feed, and (vii) dietary supplements. The researchers reported…
A natural foods co-op in Durango, Colorado, has reportedly rolled out a new labeling initiative for products free of genetically modified organisms (GMO) to recognize “October’s designation as national non-GMO month.” According to an October 19, 2011, article in The Durango Herald, the local co-op displays two labels on shelves to indicate products certified by the Non-GMO Project and those verified by manufacturers as containing no GMOs. “Normally, consumers would have to do the research or call manufacturers themselves if they wanted that information,” the store’s marketing manager told the Herald while noting that the co-op itself is also a member the National Cooperative Growers Association, Just Label It Campaign and Non-GMO Project. As another natural grocer apparently elaborated, “Without GMO labeling, the only way to know if products contain genetically engineered foods is if they are made with 100 percent USDA-certified organic ingredients.” The manager of a third area…
According to legal commentators, including Shook, Hardy & Bacon Agribusiness & Food Safety Practice Co-Chair Madeleine McDonough, while the floodgates have opened on litigation against food and beverage makers accusing them of misleading consumers with “All Natural” labels, proving that each plaintiff relied on the representation to purchase a given product may ultimately doom this recent class action trend. In a Law360 article titled “‘All Natural’ Class Action Wave May Be Short-Lived,” even plaintiffs’ lawyers concede that consumers expecting “all natural” products to provide some undefined quality will have difficulty proving that everyone relied on the representation when purchasing the product. Noting that the Food and Drug Administration has not placed a priority on defining the term in conjunction with foods and beverages, which makes it a fertile ground for litigation, McDonough also said that plaintiffs face the hurdle of proving a concerted effort to defraud them. In her experience,…
The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM’s) Food and Nutrition Board has announced an October 20, 2011, public workshop in Washington, D.C., titled “Alliances for Obesity Prevention: Finding Common Ground.” Funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and hosted by IOM’s Standing Committee on Childhood Obesity, the event will include discussion of ways to engender dialogue and develop new alliances among obesity-prevention allies. Speakers will include Susan Linn of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood.
The Cornucopia Institute has published a report titled “Cereal Crimes: How ‘Natural’ Claims Deceive Consumers and Undermine the Organic Label—A Look Down the Cereal and Granola Aisle.” Noting that, with one exception, no government agency has defined what the term “natural” means on food packages, the organization explains how companies that make cereal products exploit consumer confusion over the difference between “organic” and “natural” products, charging a premium for “natural” products that actually contain ingredients containing pesticides or ingredients grown and processed with genetically engineered (GE) organisms. The report, accompanied by an “online scorecard with nearly 50 cereal and granola brands, available on the Cornucopia website,” (i) details current legal requirements that distinguish organic from “natural” claims; (ii) discusses individual company definitions of “natural” to demonstrate “how vastly different they can be”; (iii) summarizes the results of consumer polling showing that many “erroneously believe that the ‘natural’ label has merit,…
Thumb Oilseed Producers’ Cooperative has reportedly recalled nearly 400 tons of soybean flour and soy meal used in human food and animal feed due to possible Salmonella contamination. According to a press release posted on the Food and Drug Administration’s website, “[t]he recalled soybean flour and meal was distributed to a limited group of wholesale customers” in Canada, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wisconsin between November 2010 and September 2011. While no illnesses have apparently been linked to the potentially contaminated products, “[t]he recall resulted from routine sampling conducted by the company and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which revealed the bacteria in finished product and the manufacturing environment.” See Thumb Oilseed Press Release, October 4, 2011.
