Food Labeling - general

Food Labeling and Nutrition Information Food and Drug Administration

FDA Acts to Provide Better Information to Consumers on Trans Fats Food and Drug Administration

FDA to Encourage Science-based Labeling and Competition for Healthier Dietary Choices Food and Drug Administration

Read Food Labels National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

Skimming the Milk Label Food and Drug Administration

What's on a Food Label? - Kansas State University

Labeling and Marketing Information U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Marketing Service
·  In Spanish

Economics of Food Labeling Economic Research Services - USDA

FDA Food Label and Package Survey (FLAPS) 2000 - 2001 is an FDA study of processed, packaged food labels in the U.S. food supply. FLAPS provides the most reasonable and comprehensive overview of label information on food products in the United States today. The FLAPS database includes all significant information from product labels, including the ingredient list, nutrition label, claims, as well as food safety and other statements about the product. Using the FLAPS data, FDA can monitor the food industry's response to its food labeling regulations and support agency policy, regulatory, and food safety decisions.  http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/lab-flap.html.

Nutrition Labels and Health Claims: The global regulatory environment (WHO) 2004 By Dr. Corinna Hawkes  http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241591714.pdf.  Nutrition labeling and health claims from a global regulatory perspective.

ALLERGEN LABELING

Food Allergen Labeling, expanded version of Allergen Labeling on the Horizon, FOOD PRODUCT DESIGN 168 (June 2005). 

Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/alrgact.html

Food Allergen Awareness: An FDA Priority, Food Safety Magazine (February-March 2001) http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/alrgawar.html

Draft Guidance on Allergen Control and Consumer Information  http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/Consultations/consulteng/allergenconsult.

MORE FOOD ALLERGY INFORMATION (click for link)

NUTRITION LABELING & CLAIMS

Claims That Can Be Made for Conventional Foods and Dietary Supplements FDA/CFSAN

Guide to Nutrition Labeling and Education Act NLEA Requirements Food and Drug Administration

Guidance the Nutrition Facts Panel on Food Labels Food and Drug Administration

Examples of Revised Nutrition Facts Panel Listing Trans Fat FDA CFSAN

The Food Pyramid - Food Label Connection Food and Drug Administration

Economic Efficiency and Consumer Choice Theory in Nutritional Labeling
McCann, Michael, Wisconsin Law Review, 1161 (2004) http://ssrn.com/abstract=567764

Fats in the Fast Lane: Changes in Fatty Acid Regulation, Labeling, and Allowed Claims, Food Product Design 148 (March 2005) available at: http://www.foodproductdesign.com/articles/463/463_0305LR.html.  

Food Fortification in Public Health Policy (slides) http://www.pitt.edu/~super1/lecture/lec15921/001.htm

Soda vs. the jelly bean rule
Jeff Stier, Esq. American Council on Science and Health (December 20, 2004)http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.477/news_detail.asp.
Cadbury Schweppes' new calcium-enriched 7 Up Plus has really shaken up the soda market.Until now, soda companies have been under pressure not to add nutrients to sodas because of the FDA's so-called "Jelly Bean Rule," which forbids health claims on low-nutrient foods and drinks. The rule doesn't forbid fortification, but it has had that effect. The new 7 Up, which seems to get around the rule by not making any specific health claims, as well as by adding a bit of fruit juice to the soda, may open a whole new market. 7 Up Plus shatters the "good food/bad food" false dichotomy buttressed by the Jelly Bean Rule and preached by "food police" activists. Before 7 Up Plus, activists such as Michael Jacobson at the Center for Science in the Public Interest railed against soda pop as "liquid candy." Calls for bans on soda in school have gained in popularity. And in New York City schools, as part of an effort to fight obesity, even Diet Coke was banned from schools (only to be replaced with high sugar fruit juices.) But adding nutrients to soda takes the fizz out of the "liquid candy" argument. 
Those who argue against fortifying fun but non-nutrient-rich foods with important nutrients have it all wrong. They won't tolerate less than "perfect" choices for consumers who don't get adequate amounts of calcium in their diets -- especially teenagers. This is a counterproductive attitude.
Certainly, we should redouble our efforts to educate consumers about overall good dietary habits, but until those efforts are fully effective, fortified sodas -- and yes, even candies, if marketed under a reasonable regulatory framework -- can be a positive development.
As long as large sections of society (teenage girls, for instance) are not getting enough calcium, and as long as those very same consumers are already drinking sodas, why not provide them the choice of drinking a more nutrient-rich soft drink?

Updated Dietary Guidelines
The government Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee proposed its new federal dietary guidelines, which are issued every five years and form the basis of the food pyramid.  The final report of the Committee is available electronically at http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines.   

Carbohydrate Claims

FSIS Statement of Interim Policy on Carbohydrate Labeling Statements http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/larc/policies/carblabel.htm

FDA Set to Publish Regs on Low Carb
Steven Shapiro, Esq., Low Carb Retailer http://www.low-carbretailer.com/articles/4a1regulatory1.html

Laws will prevent sale of food labeled as low-carb
The Vancouver Sun (British Columbia) (09/22/04) Bruce Cheadle
Manufacturers have launched almost 2,000 new “low-carb” products in the United States this year, trying to capitalize on the Atkins diet craze.  But the low-carb products do not face a bright future in Canada.  The Canadian federal government has announced it will ban all food labels that contain low carbohydrate claims, effective in December 2005.  “There was -- and still is -- no reason from a nutrient point of view to be concerned with the amount of carbs that we eat,” said Carole Saindon, a spokeswoman for Health Canada.  The new regulations prohibit both “express or implied” representations on carbohydrates, which means low-carb labeled products will be illegal in Canada.  Meanwhile, food manufacturers say the low-carb food craze may be abating.  “While we are clearly seeing that the low-carb trend, or fad, has peaked and it looks like it is taking a bit of a dive in the supermarkets, we have yet to see the recovery of those (other food) categories that were impacted by low-carb,” said Kellog CEO Carlos Gutierrez at a recent investor conference.  Surveys show, however, that some 63% of survey respondents in Canada are trying to limit carbohydrate consumption.  http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/OttawaSun/News/2004/09/22/638599.html

U.S. TTB issues ruling on low-carb labeling in alcoholic beverages (April 7, 2004)  The U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) issued a ruling to provide guidance for advertising and labeling claims associated with the use of caloric and carbohydrate claims on alcohol beverages. The ruling allows for the use of specific statements about carbohydrate and calorie content while prohibiting statements that are false, misleading, or imply that consumption of low-carbohydrate alcohol beverages may play a healthy role in a weight maintenance or weight reduction plan. TTB believes that such claims are misleading in that they provide incomplete information about the health effects of alcohol consumption.  As part of the ruling, the Bureau is issuing interim standards for the use of terms such as "low carbohydrate".  Before the setting of a final standard through the rulemaking process, the term "low carbohydrate" may be used only in the labeling and advertising of alcohol beverages that contain no more than 7 grams of carbohydrates per serving.  Read the press release at http://www.ttb.gov/press/fy04press/040804ttbissuesrulling.htm.   Read the TTB Ruling 2004-1 at http://www.ttb.gov/alcohol/info/revrule/rules/2004-1.pdf.

HEALTH CLAIMS

Qualified Health Claims http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/lab-qhc.html

FDA’s Interim Procedures for Qualified Health Claims in the Labeling of Conventional Human Food and Human Dietary Supplements http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/nuttf-e.html

FDA allows qualified health claims for omega-3 fatty acids
September 8, 2004, http://www.fda.gov:80/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01115.html
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced the availability of a qualified health claim for reduced risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) on conventional foods that contain eiscosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) omega-3 fatty acids. Typically, EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids are contained in oily fish, such as salmon, lake trout, tuna and herring. These fatty acids are not essential to the diet; however, scientific evidence indicates that these fatty acids may be beneficial in reducing CHD.  While this research is not conclusive, the FDA intends to exercise its enforcement discretion with respect to the following qualified health claim:

"Supportive but not conclusive research shows that consumption of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease. One serving of [name of food] provides [x] grams of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids. [See nutrition information for total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol content.]

In 2000, FDA announced a similar qualified health claim for dietary supplements containing EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids and the reduced risk of CHD. FDA recommends that consumers not exceed more than a total of 3 grams per day of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids, with no more than 2 grams per day from a dietary supplement.  The EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acid qualified health claim is the second qualified health claim that FDA has announced for conventional food. For additional information about QHC visit: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/lab-qhc.html.

FDA Allows Qualified Health Claim on Monounsaturated Fats and Decreased Risk of Coronary Heart Disease
FDA (November 1, 2004).  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced the availability of a qualified health claim for monounsaturated fat from olive oil and reduced risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). According to the FDA, there is limited but not conclusive evidence that suggests that consumers may reduce their risk of CHD if they consume monounsaturated fat from olive oil and olive oil-containing foods in place of foods high in saturated fat, while at the same time not increasing the total number of calories consumed daily. A qualified health claim on a conventional food must be supported by credible scientific evidence. This claim is the third qualified health claim FDA has announced for conventional food since the process for establishing such claims took effect last year. Additional information about qualified health claims is available online at: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/2004/NEW01129.html and www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qhcolive.html.

Organic Food

The Organic Food Placebo
Richard Gallagher, The Scientist, Volume 18 | Issue 19 | 6 (Oct. 11, 2004)
. . . He characterizes the organic food movement as a massive con trick: "...the craze for organic food is built on myth. It starts with a scientific howler, has rules with neither rhyme nor reason. None of the claims made for it have ever been substantiated, and if it grows it will damage the nation's health."  The "scientific howler" in question is that "natural" chemicals are good and synthetic chemicals bad. Are organic foods safer? No. While foods can be unsafe for any number of reasons, normal farming procedures are perfectly safe. The head of the UK Food Standards Agency has written: "A single cup of coffee contains natural carcinogens equal to at least a year's worth of carcinogenic synthetic pesticides in the diet." . . .  Given all this, how has the organic movement become so successful? Why have so many been taken in? We now have our answer: the placebo effect writ large. http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2004/oct/edit_041011.html

obesity

"FDA aims at obesity epidemic: Food labels to be revised to ease caloric counting"
Rob Stein, The Washington Post  (March 13, 2004)  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53414-2004Mar12.html  (registration required). 
FDA announced a series of moves that will make it easier for people to count calories.  The actions are the result of recommendations made by an FDA task force on obesity and are part of an anti-obesity campaign announced earlier by Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson.  FDA plans to revise its requirements for packaged food labels to make the caloric content easier to read and understand.  FDA also sent letters to food manufacturers warning that the agency would be more aggressive in policing such things as how packaged foods are divided into servings.  Some manufacturers divide packaged foods into unrealistically small servings; this falsely reduces the apparent caloric content, officials said.  FDA may also change the criteria for foods that can claim to be "reduced" or "low" in calories or carbohydrates. 

“The brand king’s challenge” http://www.fortune.com/fortune/fortune500/articles/0,15114,602835,00.html
Patricia Sellers, Fortune (04/05/04)  The obesity epidemic is forcing marketing giant PepsiCo to re-think its brand strategy amid fears of legal liability.  In 2002, the Wall Street Journal started warning investors about what it termed the “health risk” in Pepsi stock.  Add to that the recent reports that obesity may soon overtake smoking as the biggest health threat facing Americans, and PepsiCo finds itself in need of a brand makeover.  The company, which makes billions of dollars a year purveying sweetened drinks and fat-filled snacks, now wants to be know as “the corporate leader of the wellness movement in America,” to use the words of Steve Reinemund, the company’s CEO.  Health advocates are critical of the effort.  “What PepsiCo is doing is shocking … it is aggressively marketing junk food as health food,” said Marion Nestle, a nutrition expert and New York University professor.

Obesity weighing down state health care budgets, Genelle M. Hoban,  Stateline.org  (April 8, 2004) 
Lawmakers are facing a crunch as obesity-related expenses gobble up a bigger piece of state health care budgets, according to an Issue Brief by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices.  Obesity is now costing states almost as much as tobacco-related health spending. States across the country are looking for new ways to address the problem, as evidenced by the recent flood of obesity-related legislation.   Most states are taking a three-pronged approach that includes changing the eating habits of children, taxing soft drinks, and encouraging people to exercise.  Texas is leading the charge against junk food in schools, with new restrictions on candy, soda, and deep-fried foods to take effect in August.  More than 28 states are considering similar restrictions, in addition to proposals that would increase physical education in schools.  Arkansas is using its tax authority to collect two cents per drink on sodas to help finance the state’s share of the Arkansas Medicaid program.  Colorado is employing a statewide initiative designed to get the population moving, encouraging them to walk more and eat less.  Obesity legislation will likely continue to grow in popularity as more states are faced with budget shortages.  “What is going to turn lawmakers’ heads is when they see a dollar sign for obesity costs for the state.  Once they see this, they will start implementing programs into elementary schools,” said Charlotte Postlewaite, a policy analyst for The Council of State Governments.  http://www.stateline.org/stateline/?pa=story&sa=showStoryInfo&id=363165

Lawyers shift focus from big tobacco to big food,  Kate Zernike, The New York Times, (April 9, 2004)    
Defense attorneys experienced in representing makers of tobacco and guns are shifting gears, ready to take on clients from the food industry who have been targeted in the obesity wars.  They are advising their new clients to reduce portion sizes, ditch “problem ingredients,”  and accurately report fat grams.  Obesity litigation was in the news sixteen months ago, when obese teenagers unsuccessfully sued McDonald’s for their weight problem.  Now there is pending legislation that would bar obesity lawsuits against restaurants and food manufacturers.  Even if such laws are eventually adopted, there is a potential for litigation in related areas, such as deceptive labeling and advertising aimed at children.  “I’m old enough to remember when they first started talking about suing the cigarette companies and everyone thought it was a joke,” said Joseph M. Price, a Minneapolis defense attorney.  Five out of ten prominent cases against the food industry have had some success - McDonald's paid $12 million to settle a complaint that it failed to disclose beef fat in its French fries; Kraft agreed to stop using trans fats in Oreos; the makers of Pirate's Booty, a puffy cheese snack, paid $4 million to settle a claim they understated fat grams.  Both sides expect to see more litigation, especially cases involving children. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/09/national/09OBES.html?ex=1082088000&en=7fbada3418034f08&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

FAST Food and Federalism
Lew Rockwell - Burlingame,CA,USA.  Although the pending legislation is intended to combat frivolous litigation, preemption of state administration of criminal and civil justice violates principles of Federalism. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/watkins3.html

Report Urges Expanded Role for Law to Combat Obesity Epidemic
BOSTON, Sept. 9 (AScribe Newswire) -- A comprehensive analysis of legal approaches to the obesity epidemic has concluded that the law must play a far more vigorous role in changing the "food environment" in which obesity flourishes. It defines that environment as "one that encourages over-consumption of high-energy, low-nutrition foods, especially by children." http://www.ascribe.org/cgi-bin/spew4th.pl?ascribeid=20040909.094611&time=10%2037%20PDT&year=2004&public=1

"Eateries Push for Obesity Suit Protection"
ABC7.com, 07/28/2004 http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0804/169201.html

organic labeling

Organic Food Standards and Labels: The Facts
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Marketing Service

National Organic Program home http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/indexIE.htm

National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/standards/ListReg.html

Trans Fat

Trans fatty acids in nutrition labeling, nutrient content claims, and health claims (final rule). Federal Register 68(July 11):41433-41506. Available at http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/03-17525.htm  

Questions and answers about trans fat nutrition labeling. July 9. Available at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/qatrans2.html  

FDA acts to provide better information to consumers on trans fats. July 9. Available at http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/transfat/backgrounder.html  

What every consumer should know about trans fatty acids. July 9. Available at http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/transfat/q_a.html  

Harvard School of Public Health http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats.htm   

Revealing Trans Fat, FDA Consumer magazine, September-October 2003 available at: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/503_fats.html

No Hiding Most Trans Fat, Science News Online, July 19, 2003; Vol. 164, No. 3

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030719/food.asp

Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to ban partially hydrogenated oils from our food supply http://cspinet.org/new/pdf/trans-restaurantpetition-final.pdf

NFPA calls CSPI petition "The wrong way to address trans fat" NFPA Press Release (May 18, 2004) In response to a petition filed by the Center for Science in the Public Interest to prohibit the use of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils as food ingredients, Regina Hildwine, Senior Director of Food Labeling and Standards for the National Food Processors Association (NFPA), commented: "CSPI's petition is the wrong way to address this issue. Nutrition experts - including FDA - have called for consumers to choose diets low in trans fats, not to eliminate them.” http://www.nfpa-food.org/content/newsroom/article.asp?id=32

Australia New Zealand Trans Fat Labeling FAQ
Food Standard Australia New Zealand, which develops food standards for Australia and New Zealand, has issued a trans fatty acid fact sheet. At present, the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code does not require manufacturers to label the trans fatty acid content of foods unless they make a nutrition claim. A decision not to mandate the labeling of trans fat content of foods was made based on the relatively low intakes of trans fatty acid consumption and most that a similarly sized reduction in saturated fatty acid intake was more likely to have a larger impact on health outcome compared with reductions in trans fats.  http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/mediareleasespublications/factsheets/factsheets2005/transfattyacids12apr2869.cfm

USDA

USDA Labeling 101 Presentation http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/larc/Policies/Label101/Index.htm

FSIS Labeling and Establishment Responsibility http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oa/news/labelresp.htm

NEWS

Senators want USDA out of the Food Pyramid business
Senators Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) introduced legislation that would take responsibility for the Food Guide Pyramid away from USDA.  The text of the bill is available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:s2399is.txt.pdf  

What's natural?
Washington Post, Page F01 (May 12, 2004) Robert L. Wolke, professor emeritus of chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh and the author, most recently, of "What Einstein Told His Cook: Kitchen Science Explained" writes that his dictionary lists 14 meanings for the adjective natural, ranging from "not adopted" (for the parent of a child) to "neither sharped nor flatted" (for a musical note).
Many consumers appear to believe that natural is a synonym for good or healthful, as opposed to anything made or processed by humans, which is inherently evil and harmful. But Nature hides many decidedly unfriendly chemicals in our foods. Consider, for example, that the chemical amygdalin, found in "natural" apricot and peach pits reacts with stomach acid to produce hydrogen cyanide, the lethal gas that has been used to execute convicted criminals. (Amygdalin is also known as Laetrile, a supposed cure for cancer promoted by a certain doctor in Mexico. The fact that the American Cancer Society has labeled Laetrile "quackery" hasn't stopped many Americans from traveling to Mexico for "treatment.") Moreover, many of the trace-amount chemicals responsible for the natural flavors of foods are so toxic that they would never be approved by the Food and Drug Administration for addition to foods.

Wolke says that to control the rampant use of the word natural on the labels of food products, the FDA has come up with a definition, at least in the context of flavor additives. (The ubiquitous "all natural," which manufacturers use to sell everything from cosmetics to bathroom cleaners, is not regulated and probably cannot be, because the words "all natural" can mean almost anything the manufacturer wants them to mean -- including nothing at all.)
The official FDA definition of natural flavoring is published in the Code of Federal Regulations (21CFR101.22) in the form of more than 100 words that meticulously plug every conceivable loophole.

In simple terms, a natural flavor is defined as a substance extracted, distilled or otherwise derived from plant or animal matter, either directly from the matter itself or after it has been roasted, heated or fermented. Note the inclusion of "animal matter" in this definition, an important revelation to vegetarians and those who adhere to the kosher segregation of meat from dairy products. But animals are just as natural as plants, are they not? Note also that a natural flavor need not come from the very food it is flavoring. For example, a flavor chemical derived from chicken -- and it need not taste like chicken -- can be used to flavor a can of beef ravioli.

An artificial flavor, on the other hand, is defined straightforwardly by the FDA as any substance that does not fit the definition of a natural flavor. Ironically, such synthetic flavoring chemicals, though unabashedly "unnatural," are acceptable in all restrictive diets from vegan to kosher, because they are neither animal nor vegetable. (I searched in vain to find any historical, philosophical or religious injunctions against the prominent artificial flavor chemical in chocolate that chemists know as 2,6-dimethylpyrazine, for example.) Furthermore, most of the chemical compounds in both artificial and natural flavors are not recognized as food by our digestive systems and are not metabolized. That's why you won't find them listed in the Nutrition Facts chart; they are not nutrients and are at any rate present in only trace amounts.
Not often realized is the fact that all flavoring additives, natural or artificial, are made by humans. To make an artificial flavor, a flavor chemist (called a flavorist) in a laboratory has to select and blend the right chemical compounds in the right amounts to simulate the natural flavor. And to obtain and concentrate the natural flavoring compounds, someone in another laboratory or factory has to extract or distill them from the raw plant or animal materials. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17036-2004May11.html

"CHEESEBURGER BILLS"
Reuters, August 24, 2004. Bills to protect restaurants and food companies against lawsuits by people who claim the meals or snacks made them fat are moving ahead in states like hamburgers passed out of a drive-thru window.  Measures known as "cheeseburger bills" bar people from seeking damages in court from food companies for weight gain and associated medical conditions, including heart disease and diabetes. Supporters say the proposals shield businesses from having to pay to defend themselves against frivolous suits. Opponents contend the claims often are valid and ought to be heard in court. So far this year, a dozen states have enacted laws against such suits, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The states are Washington, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, South Dakota, Missouri, Louisiana, Illinois, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida.  http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=reutersEdge&storyID=6058296&pageNumber=0

New Food Labels Winning Few Fans
New York Times - USA, March 28, 2004.   http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/28/business/yourmoney/28rule.html?ex=1081054800&en=5dc448c32e515a72&ei=5062
. . . After several court cases and pressure from the food industry, the Food and Drug Administration lightened up last year, deciding to permit health claims on food even when scientific evidence was less than conclusive. . . . But getting what you want, as John Stuart Mill once observed, does not always turn out to be so satisfying.

FIGHT over Smucker’s ‘100% Fruit’ Label Claim Spreads to Court.  East Valley Tribune, Mesa,AZ,USA.   . . . lawsuit argues that what Smucker’s markets under the "Simply 100% Fruit’’ label as strawberry spreadable fruit is only 30 percent actual strawberries. Another 69 percent is fruit syrup, the legal papers claim, which is made not from strawberries but from other ingredients including apple and pineapple juice. What is labeled as blueberry spread has only 43 percent actual blueberries.  Badertscher [Smucker’s manager of corporate communications] said the labels disclose what is in the jars. For example, the strawberry product contains, in descending order, fruit syrup, strawberries, lemon juice concentrate, fruit pectin, red grape juice concentrate added for color, and natural flavors. "It clearly indicates on the label what is in there,’’ she said.  http://www.aztrib.com/index.php?sty=25247

Recipes without borders?
Deborah Ball and others, The Wall Street Journal (08/18/04) 
In an attempt to create international branded products, food companies are varying the nutritional content of familiar items such as Philadelphia cream cheese, Hellmann’s mayonnaise, and Lunchables for kids.  The result is that many of the world’s best-known foods end up with a higher content of fat, salt, and calories in the U.S. than in other countries.  Hellmann’s mayonnaise sold in Britain, for example, has about half the saturated fat as Hellmann’s sold in Chicago.  Part of the reason is that Unilever, Hellmann’s manufacturer, uses soy oil in American Hellmann’s and a less caloric oil in the mayonnaise sold in Britain.  Soy oil is difficult to sell in Britain because it is often genetically modified and the modification must be announced on the label.  As a rule, products sold in Japan and Europe are healthier than identically branded products sold in the U.S.  Japanese and European consumers are more health-aware than American consumers, according to food marketing experts.  But food manufacturers are coming under pressure to reconcile their products’ nutritional profiles across borders.  “We’re less tolerant of local exceptions now,” says Jan Westrate, chairman of Unilever’s Health Institute.  Regulators, too, are moving toward standardization.  The European Union and WHO have both made moves in that direction, but manufacturers say establishing recipes for global brands is difficult because of local regulation, market conditions, and tastes. http://www.wsj.com  (subscription required)

  Back to Top