Consumers Union to Vilsack: We Want Better Meat Labels

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 08:00:00 AM PST

1. Withdraw the "naturally raised" label - CU criticizes the current naturally raised claim because it only means that the animal was raised without certain antibiotics, animal byproducts, and growth promotants. In a poll, consumers want the label to mean the animal:
   • Had a diet free of chemicals, drugs and animal byproducts (86%)
   • Was raised in a natural environment (85%)
   • Ate a natural diet (85%)
   • Was not cloned or genetically engineered (78%)
   • Had access to the outdoors (77%)
   • Was treated humanely (76%)
   • Was not confined (68%)

2. Close loopholes in Country of Origin Labeling (COOL)

3. Close loopholes in "grass fed" standard - In November 2007, a new standard for a "grass fed" label went into effect. However, any company already using a "grass fed" claim was grandfathered in and allowed to continue making the claim, even if they didn't meat the standards.

4. "Harmonize" meat marketing claims across meat, poultry and dairy items - Consumers get confused when labels mean different things on meat, dairy, and eggs. For example, the grass fed standard currently only applies to ruminants (cud-chewing animals like cows) but the label also appears on poultry, milk, and eggs.

5. Define "raised without antibiotics" label claim:

   While most consumers believe that this claim means no antibiotics or antimicrobial drugs were administered, there is in fact no standard for the term.

6. Ensure consistency of "organic" label to scope of products covered - Mostly this is a request for the USDA to clean up the standards for "organic" farmed fish. This standard is currently in progress and quite frankly, it stinks. The current standard the USDA is considering allows "organic" fish to eat non-organic food. WTF?

7. Maintain "treated with irradiation" labeling for meat from irradiated surface cuts - The USDA is currently considering a request from the American Meat Institute to allow meat irradiation without labeling. Please, oh please, USDA - don't do this!

Late Night Sampler Platter

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Feb 25, 2009 at 21:00:00 PM PST

• Chinese-made milk powder produced by Danone is officially melamine-free.

• The LA Times provides slow cooker food safety tips.

• Organic Consumers Association offers up an excerpt from Toxic Sludge is Good for You. It's one of my favorite books, and I highly recommend checking out the excerpt - if not the entire book. Reading it makes you feel like you turned the light on and just now discovered that you'd been fumbling in the dark before now.

• Also from Organic Consumers Association, why does the Washington State WIC claim organic milk has no nutritional benefit?

• Check this out: You can make seed-starting pots from newspapers.

• Natasha Chart is into Pigs Gone Wild. No, it's not a sick video of pigs on spring break. Apparently wild pigs in Texas as causing $52 million per year in crop damage.

• Civil Eats applauds Dannon for going rbGH-free... but scolds Kansas for trying to ban rbGH-free labels.

• Marion Nestle recommends a few books on meat: Righteous Porkchop by Nicolette Hahn Niman and Raising Steaks by Betty Fussell.

• Nestle also comments on growing portion sizes in The Joy of Cooking.

• Should Bay Area residents choose local pork or Midwestern pork? The Ethicurean has a full-fledged debate with Bonnie calling for eating local and Samin Nosrat taking the other side.

Vilsack Issues COOL Rules

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 23:41:45 PM PST

In the USDA press release, Vilsack said that the Bush USDA's rule will go into effect as is (i.e. with loopholes you could drive a truck through) on March 16 as scheduled. Additionally, he released a letter (PDF), nicely asking industry to pretty please pretend the loopholes weren't there and instead voluntarily observe stricter rules.

His specific requests:

Labeling of product from multiple countries of origin
In order to provide consumers with sufficient information about the origin of products, processors should voluntarily include information about what production step occurred in each country when multiple countries appear on the label. For example, animals born and riased in Country X and slaughtered in Country Y might be labeled as "Born and Raised in Country X and Slaughter in Country Y." Animals born in Country X but Raised and Slaughtered in Country Y might be labeled as "Born in Country X and Raised and Slaughtered in Country Y."

Processed Foods
The definition of processed foods contained in the Final Rule may be too broadly drafted. Even if products are subject to curing, smoking, broiling, grilling, or steaming, voluntary labeling would be appropriate.

Inventory Allowance
The language of the Final Rule allows a label for ground meat product to bear the name of a country, even if product from that country was not present in the processor's inventory, for up to 60 days. This provision allows for labels to be used in a way that does not clearly indicate the product's country of origin. Reducing the time allowance to ten days would limit the amount of product with these labels and would enhance credibility of the label.

This does nothing to address the fact that all meat sold at butcher shops or fish markets are exempt from COOL, or the fact that a bag of frozen mixed vegetables is considered "processed" (so is fruit salad) because a few different foods are mixed together. If companies comply with Vilsack's voluntary requests, a lot of other things ARE accounted for - but what are the chances that everyone voluntarily complies?

I hope this is not a hint of what's to come from the Obama administration, because COOL was an issue Obama included in his platform during his campaign and once in office. If this weak treatment of COOL is how his administration handles issues they are clearly and vocally FOR, what happens on all the rest of his campaign promises or all of the things we ask for that he hasn't come out in favor of??

By the way - Byron Dorgan and 6 other Senators wrote Vilsack a letter asking him to close the loopholes. I doubt Dorgan and his fellow Senate Democrats meant that the loophole fix should be voluntary.

Vilsack is Not as COOL as I Thought

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 09:20:44 AM PST

Well, the man chickened out. At the last minute, he canceled his press conference on the subject (due to a "scheduling conflict"). Looks like Canada's winning this round - beating out the 92% of Americans who want their food labeled with country of origin:

The Canadian government has criticized strict labeling rules on meat in the U.S., fearing that American consumers would prefer homegrown beef, and is likely to raise objections to Mr. Vilsack's plans.

Canada would resume its World Trade Organization complaint against U.S. labeling rules for meat and fresh produce if Obama decides to change them, Canadian Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz told Bloomberg news. "Should the Obama administration continue on with protectionism, we will then re-ignite our WTO challenge," Ritz said.

Obama listed COOL on his platform during the campaign and once in office. Vilsack said that Obama will discuss it with the Canadians during his time there. Obama's got until March 16 to do something about Bush's weak COOL rules (they'll be permanent as of that day). Let's hope he can come to some agreement with the Canadians.

But Obama Foodorama has even more speculation - is the problem that held up Vilsack's press conference perhaps meat industry lobbyists, and not Canada at all?

More on Vilsack below (about his recent public appearances)...

Tom Vilsack, A Man of Contradiction

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 17:03:52 PM PST

The specific rule in question is COOL - Country of Origin Labeling. Bush issued a pitifully inadequate rule that is set to go into effect March 16, and the Obama administration committed to reviewing it before that date. Vilsack says that the Bush rules are inadequate, but he didn't want to start up a new round of rulemaking because he didn't want "a vacuum that would be created by the process."

So instead, Vilsack's just asking the meat industry nicely if it would please label each meat package with the country in which the animal was born, the country where it was raised, and the country where it was slaughtered. If the meat packers don't respond to Vilsack quickly, THEN he'll start making an actual rule.

Secretary Vilsack, the problem voluntary rules is that industry can voluntary comply until it doesn't want to anymore - and then there's no enforcement mechanism. Please don't make this a common strategy for the USDA under your watch.

More below...

Afternoon Sampler Platter

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Feb 05, 2009 at 14:11:23 PM PST

• U.S. Food Policy tells about a local food wheel - a handy tool that tells you which foods are in season and when. Neat!
• Organic Consumers gives tips on how to waste less food. I think that's something I need to read.
• Also from Organic Consumers: Want strong bone? Eat more greens.
• Change.org thinks local and healthy food should be for everyone. I quite agree.
• Eat Well Guide's Green Fork blog describes a handy new wallet guide to meat labeling.
• The Greenhorns tells about The Choice to Farm, a report characterizing farmers as crucial activists for sustainability
• Want to know Obama's secret to staying thin? Watch this video.
• One concerned eater put together a list of products containing HFCS. And be warned, it's a long list.
• Ever wonder why so many politicians absolutely love "clean" coal? Well, wonder no more - you can read the coal industry's PR strategy. (My dream, by the way, is to make bumper stickers that say "Clean coal is a dirty lie.")
• Want to know more about seafood? You're in luck. Tom Philpott reports from the Seafood Summit in San Diego. Now the only question I've got is why he didn't call me when he was in San Diego.
• Tom Laskawy suggests that instead of comparing red states and blue states, we look at brown states and green states - after all, bad climate policy seems to span party lines.
• Oh, and the bad news of the day? The EPA completely fails at knowing whether or not chemicals are bad for people. Cuz, you know, it's not like that's their job or something.

This Food Maybe Sort Of Might Kinda Make You Healthier

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 10:00:00 AM PST

The nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest objected today [January 15] to a "midnight" attempt by the outgoing Bush Administration to institutionalize a Food and Drug Administration practice permitting so-called "qualified health claims" on food labels. Such claims can be based on flimsy scientific evidence. The FDA first began permitting them on food labels in 2002. Prior to the Bush years, such claims were only allowed on dietary supplements. An example of these claims would be,"Very limited and preliminary scientific research suggests that eating one-half to one cup of tomatoes and/or tomato sauce a week may reduce the risk of prostate cancer. FDA requires that the claim be followed by the statement, "The FDA concludes that there is little scientific evidence supporting this claim."

To my chagrin, I've been unable to figure out exactly what Bush did on Regulations.gov or even Google. With luck, this one falls under the stuff that Obama froze when he came into office.

COOL Final Rule Issued by USDA

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 22:10:12 PM PST

muscle cuts and ground beef (including veal), lamb, pork, chicken, and goat meat; perishable agricultural commodities; peanuts; pecans; ginseng; and macadamia nuts.

The law also specifies that the label must be in a "conspicuous location" so that you, the consumer, can actually SEE it. What an idea!

Retail Notification to the Consumer - The label must be in a conspicuous location and legible to allow consumers to identify the country(ies) of origin.  Retailers may commingle covered commodities from more than one country of origin provided all possible origins are listed.

The fine print and an explanation of loopholes in the law is detailed below. This rule will not go into effect for 60 days (right now there is an interim final rule that is in effect though, so you SHOULD be seeing some labels on your food.)

More on the Kansas rbGH Hearing

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Dec 03, 2008 at 15:51:17 PM PST

This issue began in Pennsylvania in 2007 when Dennis Wolff decided to ban anyone from labeling milk as rbGH-free. Fortunately Gov. Rendell overturned his decision and Pennsylvanians retained the right to know how their milk was produced. After Pennsylvania, other states took up this cause, supposedly because "all milk is the same" (it's not) and "labels confuse consumers" (they don't). The truth is that consumers do NOT want the cows who produce their milk treated with growth hormones. They've resoundingly rejected rbGH, so much so that Monsanto finally got out of the rbGH business. This is just a desperate last-ditch effort to keep using rbGH by a small minority who have not yet seen the light on it.

Here is what I've gathered from those who were there, as well as a smattering of articles written about the debate in Kansas papers.

The rBGH-Free Labeling Fight Goes On in Kansas

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Nov 20, 2008 at 14:49:24 PM PST

An editorial appeared in the Hays Daily News November 16 that said the following:

First and foremost, cows apparently produce such growth hormones naturally. So even analysis in the laboratory cannot distinguish milk that comes from a "normal" cow or an artificially stimulated cow. So any label would be meaningless. ...

And if such acceptable guidance is determined, it more than likely would require extensive paper trails and an additional cadre of enforcement personnel to visit individual dairy farms. Since it is estimated more than 80 percent of state farmers do not use the artificial production boosters, those additional costs likely would be shared by consumers to monitor a minority of producers. ...

While we believe in full disclosure to consumers, we're not sure the proposed label will serve any real purpose. We get the feeling the Kansas Department of Agriculture doesn't either. In fact, it is accepting public comment at this time and will have a public hearing Dec. 2 in Topeka to discuss the matter.

Whoa, excuse me? Yes cows produce hormones naturally. No they don't produce SO MUCH of the hormones naturally. And yes the levels of one hormone in particular, IGF-1, do go up drastically in the milk when cows are treated with rBGH. IGF-1 is linked to cancer in humans.

Kansas, please speak up for your right to know how your food was produced! Take action by writing Gov. Sebelius and the Kansas Dept of Ag.

COOL Labels are Coming Soon!

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Sep 15, 2008 at 16:00:00 PM PDT

COOL is already required for seafood but now it will be extended to beef, pork, chicken, lamb, fruits, veggies, and peanuts. Processed foods are exempt. The Chicago Tribune ran a pretty good article on the subject, New Law Requires Labels on Meat.

Please note that the USDA's rules for COOL are currently considered "interim," which means that they are in effect but they will be issuing final rules in the near future. In the meantime, we'll probably have the opportunity to comment on the interim rule at Regulations.gov. Also, check out this PDF by Consumers Union that helps consumers understand the new rules.

Future Food Labels?

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 13:19:06 PM PDT

But how about these future labels?
- Calorie labeling on menu boards in restaurants (now available in some parts of the country)
- Labeling of GMO ingredients
- Labeling of added sugars (so you can tell how much of your yogurt is high fructose corn syrup, vs. natural sugars from fruit and milk)
- Labeling of rBGH (my dream!)

I'm also eager to get rid of labels promising health benefits from food. IMHO, if someone is eating something as a medicine, they should just head over to the supplement aisle and get what they want minus extra fat and sugar. I've seen ginger snap cookies marketed to help calm upset tummies. Yes, it's widely believed that ginger is good for upset tummies but you can get it in the form of ginger tea, minus all the sugar in the cookies.

What are your thoughts? What food labels do you want to see?

Does Natural Equal Healthy? Label-Reading Hints from a Dietitian

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 18:53:46 PM PDT

Michael Pollan would probably tell you to stay away from it. If it says the food is natural, it has a label. If it has a label, it is a packaged food. If it's in a package, it's probably processed. And if it's processed, well... go get a vegetable or something and eat that instead.

Below the flip you'll find some choice quotes from the linked article.

Most foods aimed at kids are full of....

by: Asinus Asinum Fricat

Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 07:10:45 AM PDT

The majority of food items aimed specifically at children have poor nutritional content and yet many of these products continue to make positive healthy claims on the label, a new study claims. Really?

Eighty nine percent of regular foods were found to have high levels of sugar, fat or sodium, according to the study of 367 products which specifically excluded confectionery, soft drinks and bakery items.

Of the foods classed as having poor nutritional quality (PNQ), 62 per cent made positive claims about their nutritional value on the front of the packet.

However the findings of the study, which is published in the July issue of the UK-based journal Obesity Reviews, are said to highlight the problem of accurately separating figures for the quantity of natural sugar and the quantity of added sugars in manufactured products.