For those of us who have been confused as to whether or not almond milk contains actual milk, the Food and Drug Administration under Trump’s leadership is here to help. According to the FDA commissioner, Scott Gottlieb, the agency is planning on announcing a new guidance on the proper use of the term milk. In his own words,

If you look at our standard of identity—there is a reference somewhere in the standard of identity to a lactating animal…And, you know, an almond doesn’t lactate, I will confess.”

If only all confessions were obtained so easily!

Standard of Identity

So what is standard of identity? These are regulations set by the FDA that dictate what a food is, may be called, and the ingredients that must be used, may be used, or must be listed on the label. Standards of identity don’t actually have anything to do with the quality of a product, though they do help protect against fraudulent versions of a product.

A great example of the standard of identity laws at work is Kraft Singles. These marvels of engineering are legally not allowed to be called cheese, as they are not made with at least 51 percent real cheese. Until 2002, Kraft Foods labeled them as Kraft Singles Pasteurized Prepared Cheese Food until that name also ran afoul of the FDA standard of identity for cheese food due to the inclusion of milk protein isolates. They are now sold under the name Pasteurized Prepared Cheese Product.

Related: Homemade Vegan Nut Milk Recipes

Vegan Disruptions

There is a benefit to being able to set standards for what a product is. No one wants to bring home a package labeled cheese and open it to find Kraft Singles (cheap shot…sorry). But the way we eat has evolved rapidly, and what seemed ridiculous twenty years ago is now a worldwide phenomenon followed by more than a million people in the United States. When the FDA set into place the standards of identity, they did not forsee veganism.

The most notable disruption of these standards as of writing this occurred in 2014. Scrappy startup Hampton Creek, makers of popular vegan mayo Just Mayo, was reprimanded by the FDA for violating the mayonnaise standard of identity. Those circumstances are markedly different than these, as the FDA has not singled out a single specific company (likely because large businesses like Unilever haven’t complained this time).

There is still an important parallel between the two cases. Both of these products, vegan mayonnaise and non-dairy milk, threaten animal product industries struggling to cope with modern societies desire for plant-based foods and the fallout from their own unsustainable practices. In 2014, Just Mayo inadvertently capitalized on an egg industry reeling from an avian flu season that claimed nearly 40 million chickens. Meanwhile, a dairy industry in decline has been complaining about the use of the word milk since 2017, going so far as to recruit thirty-two members of Congress to advocate for them. In both of these cases, it appears that business is asking the government to step in and deal with this disruption for them.

Well Established Relationships

Based on the folksy, vaguely patronizing soundbite from the commissioner, it seems likely the FDA will come down on the side of the dairy industry. This is to be expected, though. The Trump Administration has proven itself to be extremely friendly to big business.

Gottlieb has been publically approving of big business friendly moves in the past. When the USDA moved its branch of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, a collaboration of more than 180 countries responsible for international food safety standards, he was among those to publically congratulate USDA head Sonny Perdue. While it might sound like a great idea to have the U.S. Codex Office housed at the USDA, that move leaves the national positions on food safety open to manipulation by big food producers. Internationally, this causes the rest of the world to become increasingly mistrustful of our science and safety regulations as well as our ractopamine-laced pigs and chlorine-washed chickens.

Related: Best Cooking Oils – Health benefits, Smoke Point, Which to Use and Avoid

International Agreement

But international food governing bodies are in agreement with the dairy farmers here. In fact, the EU ruled that items labeled milk, butter, cheese, cream, and yogurt must contain animal milk. A label clarifying the products plant-based origins will no longer suffice. Except for coconut milk…and almond milk…and cream filled sweets. There is also room for exceptions to the rules.

It feels almost like a punishment for soy and vegetable products clearly labeled tofu butter and veggie cheese. Will the person purchasing these products be disappointed there is no milk or butter? They clearly don’t mind the tofu or veggie part.

Related: Hellmann’s Vs. Just Mayo – The Very Interesting Battle Within the Mayo Industry

At the same time, not everyone is informed when it comes to non-dairy alternatives. Soy milk and vegetable cheese are also fundamentally different from dairy milk and cheese, and that separation could have unintended benefits for vegan and non-dairy products. The EU no longer accepts certain animal products from the U.S. due to our lax animal welfare standards. Perhaps the FDA, in their desire to appease the dairy board and catch up with other worldwide legislation, are doing vegan companies an early favor.

Who Is Confused Here?

Vegan alternatives are everywhere. Removing the word milk from non-dairy alternatives won’t change the growing demand for them.

Here’s the biggest question. How are these products supposed to be labeled, and should their non-vegan counterparts be anywhere near that decision?

The real problem here is not the label.

Sources:

• “An almond doesn’t lactate:” FDA to crack down on use of the word “milk” – Ars Technica
• Standards of identity for food –Science Direct
• Kraft American Cheese Singles Have Been Labeled A Health Food By Professional Nutritionists (Not As A Joke) – Huffington Post
• Hellmann’s Vs. Just Mayo – The Very Interesting Battle Within the Mayo Industry – Organic Lifestyle Magazine
• A Food Fight Has Broken Out Between The USDA And FDA – Five Thirty Eight
• EU court bans dairy-style names for soya and tofu – BBC

There was an unexpected battle over a resolution supporting the use of breast milk at the World Health Organization in may. The New York Times reported that the resolution to encourage breastfeeding was expected to be approved quickly by hundreds of government delegates but the United States delegates opposed the language.

The World Health Organization (WHO) of the United Nations is an agency headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland that is concerned with international public health. A proposed resolution asked countries to restrict the misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes. In multiple studies spanning decades of research, breastmilk has been proven beyond a doubt to be the healthiest option for children. The New York Times reported that the resolution was expected to pass easily but U.S. delegates took issue with the language that encouraged countries to “protect, promote and support breastfeeding.” The U.S. did not want to impede the sale of baby formulas.

The U.S. Delegates reportedly told Ecuador, who planned to introduce the resolution, that if the proposal wasn’t dropped that the U.S. would implement trade measures and withdraw military support from northern Ecuador (violence from boarding Colombia causes ongoing issues here). The Ecuadorian delegates caved and then health advocates found another sponsor for the resolution. The Russian delegation introduced the measure, and unlike with Ecuadorian, Russia received no resistance from the U.S.

The Trump administration’s aggressive attempts to water down an international resolution supporting breast-feeding go against decades of advice by most medical organizations and public health experts.” – NY Times

Global health experts believe that the president’s stance on baby formula was due to a lack of knowledge regarding breastfeeding and the history of how baby formulas are marketed in developing countries. In these poor countries when powdered formula is mixed with unclean, unsafe water, it can lead to death.

What happened was tantamount to blackmail, with the U.S. holding the world hostage and trying to overturn nearly 40 years of consensus on best way to protect infant and young child health,” Patti Rundall, policy director of Baby Milk Action

Despite the United States’ best efforts, the final resolution retained most of the original language, but the portion calling on WHO to provide support to countries seeking to halt “inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children,” was removed.

A 2016 study published by The Lancet stated that breastfeeding could save 843,000 lives and $300 billion in reduced health care costs a year. The New York Times reported that the baby food market is a $70 billion industry.

This kind of support for corporations over health isn’t new. We could thank Trump’s administration for being so blatantly corrupt and unsubtle that the issues like this are brought out into the open. We could, but we won’t.

Recommended Reading:

• Galactagogues Foods, Herbs, and other Ways to Increase Breast
• Shaken Baby Syndrome – Child Abuse or Vaccine Injury?
• Common Bad Parenting Advice You Should Ignore
• Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children
• New Study Suggests Women Could, and Maybe Should, Eat While In Labor

For a month before President Obama signed the first federal GMO labeling law in 2016 Vermont’s own labeling law took effect. The labels implemented in Vermont were clear and concise and informed customers of products “produced with genetic engineering” or “partially produced using genetic engineering.” Two years after that program, researchers at the University of Vermont found that those labels made consumers more likely to trust GMOs. Researchers examined more than 7,800 surveys of Vermonters and their attitudes towards GMOs and saw opposition to genetically modified foods dropped 19% after the labeling law took effect. The research doesn’t provide sales numbers, but people reported they were more likely to trust in GMOs. What does this mean, and will we see that same shift in attitudes when the federal labeling law is finalized at the end of July?

Related: Monsanto’s Name To Be Retired – Bayer Aims To Erase Sordid History

Just Gimme A Reason

Why do labels make consumers more likely to feel positively towards GMOs? There isn’t a definitive answer to that question, but the study of from the University of Vermont points to the control that labeling gives consumers.

A choice is important in the modern world, and the staunch opposition to GMO labeling by biotech companies has served to make many people suspicious of their intentions and frustrated with the lack of transparency. The Vermont labeling did nothing to indicate that GMOs are safer, yet allowing people a choice improved attitudes towards GMOs by nearly 20 percent. For today’s consumer, the ability to opt out of a service is crucial.

Related: GMO Rice Approved While Other GMO Grasses Cannot Be Contained

Label Confusion

How will that dynamic play out with the federal labeling law legally required to be finalized by July 29?

To begin with, there are differences in the way labeling will be implemented. Labels in Vermont were simple and concise. In contrast, national labels will be a single sentence, a standardized icon, or a QR code. The labels are likely to look something like this:

Companies are also able to label their products as “bioengineered” as opposed to genetically modified or GMO, an option that could confuse consumers. Plans are not finalized yet, but there is also the possibility that highly refined sugars and oils made from genetically modified corn, soybeans, and sugar beets, will not require the GMO label. What began as a clear indication of food with genetically modified ingredients in a single state has evolved into a tentative nationwide plan that significantly muddies the waters of the GMO issue.

Loopholes proposed by the Trump administration could exempt more than 10,000 – or one out of six – genetically modified foods from a new GMO disclosure law.” – New analysis by EWG.

Related: How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering

So Bored

Confusing labels likely won’t matter much. The world seems to have moved on from the debate over the problems caused by GMOs. Allowing people the choice to opt out of these products has the potential to calm public anxiety more than years campaigning and safety studies from Monsanto ever could. In fact, GMOs are in the best position, politically, they’ve been in years due to the positive press from the step forward in labeling, the disappearance of the Monsanto name, and a public focused on more immediate political issues.

Is this the point where the public expresses approval for GMOs? Or do we say nothing and achieve the same thing?

Sources:

• Consumers Fear GMOs Less When They’re Labeled, Vermont Study Finds – WBUR
• Mandatory GMO labels are coming to your food – Washington Post
• Mandatory labels can improve attitudes toward genetically engineered food – Science Advances
• USDA on GMO labeling law: ‘Still on track, but a little behind’ – Food Dive

Georgia took custody of a 15-year-old child named David in April when he tested positive for marijuana. The parents, Matthew and Suzeanna Brill, say they gave their son marijuana to treat his seizures. They are fighting to regain custody of David while they are charged with reckless conduct and facing jail time.

The Brills say David had up to ten seizures a day but was completely free from seizures when their son began smoking marijuana. The couple said he had not gone that long without a seizure before.

Nine states and Washington D.C. allow recreational marijuana, and Medical marijuana is legal in 29 states. But Georgia has very strict marijuana laws. The state does allow those with a state-issued medical card to possess “low THC oil” but physicians are not allowed to prescribe marijuana for medical use and it’s illegal to sell or possess marijuana.

The only way he could get a medical card would be a six-year waiting list,” Suzeanna said.

So the Brills, frustrated with traditional prescription medication, took matters into their own hands. Matthew said he smoked the illegally-purchased marijuana first to make sure it was okay before giving it to his stepson.

Someone alerted the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services to the marijuana that David was using. The couple was in jail for six days. On April 20, David was taken away and remanded to state custody. On that very day, he had a seizure and had to be rushed to a hospital.

When I talked to him tonight… the 10-minute phone call I was allowed to have with him, he is on the verge of going into a seizure,” Suzeanna said.

David is currently living in a group home 60 miles from his parents.

They’re facing real criminal charges. I think even if they beat the criminal case…They still are definitely in hot water with regard to Child Protective Services.” – Criminal defense attorney Rachel Kugel

Recommended:

• Marijuana Laws by State
• How Raw Milk Can Be Dangerous & Where It Is Legal
• Co-Sleeping is Not the Reason for High Infant Mortality Rates in the U.S.
• Common Bad Parenting Advice You Should Ignore

When Trudeau’s Liberal Party was elected in 2015 he ran on a promise to legalize marijuana. Canada is about to realize that promise. The South American nation of Uruguay was the first and only to fully legalize cannabis. Uruguay legalized marijuana in 2013, and now Canada will be the second nation to do so, and the first wealthy nation to do it. The Senate approved Bill C-45, also known as the Cannabis Act, on June 18th.

We will legalize, regulate, and restrict access to marijuana. Canada’s current system of marijuana prohibition does not work. It does not prevent young people from using marijuana and too many Canadians end up with criminal records for possessing small amounts of the drug.” – Canada’s Liberal Party

The new law will go into effect on October 17, 2018. The bill legalizes marijuana possession, growing cannabis, and selling it to adults. The federal government will still enforce remaining criminal sanctions like selling to minors and the licensing of cannabis production, and provincial governments will oversee sales, distribution, and other related regulations. This means that provinces will be able to impose stricter rules, like raising the minimum age.

Nine states in the US so far have legalized marijuana for recreational use and 29 states allow cannabis for medicinal use.

The United Nations’ international drug treaties explicitly ban legalizing marijuana, so will be in violation of international law. The US is still considered to be in accordance with the treaties because federal law still prohibits cannabis.

Canada’s decision to end cannabis criminalization should come as no surprise. Canadian marijuana policy has been at odds with the United States’ policies for decades. Canadians allowed commercial cultivation of industrial hemp, species of marijuana that possesses zero psychoactivity, two decades ago. Canada also controls a federally licensed medical cannabis production and distribution program, a program that has been in place since 2001. In the U.S. federal law makes no legal distinction between marijuana and hemp.

Like in Canada, voters in the U.S. also endorse cannabis legalization. According to polling data reported last week, 68 percent of registered voters “support the legalization of marijuana.” That is the highest percentage ever recorded in a nationwide, scientific survey. The support is mostly non-partisan. The poll showed that 77 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of independents, and 57 percent of Republicans want federal legalization.

Recommended Reading:

• How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering
• Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections
• Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones

The majority of chicken for purchase in the United States has been subjected to a chlorine cleaning, a simple yet problematic procedure currently banned by the European Union. Farming practices in the U.S. like overcrowding and lax welfare standards have prompted companies to wash poultry with chlorinated water to meet health and safety standards. The E.U. does not accept treated poultry, but American poultry producers hoping to sell their wares in a post-Brexit Britain may be stymied by a new study that found bacteria like salmonella and listeria remained active after the controversial chlorine wash.

False Positives

Microbiologists from the University of Southhampton discovered that the American chicken cleaning process does more to camouflage the bacteria than it does to neutralize it. The chlorine washing makes it impossible to culture the chicken in a lab, making poultry treated like this appear less likely to spread food poisoning. Professor William Keevil led the university team behind the study from Southhampton.

We therefore tested the strains of listeria and salmonella that we had chlorine-washed on nematodes [roundworms], which have a relatively complex digestive system…All of them died. Many companies and scientists have built their reputations promoting anti-microbial products. This research questions everything they’ve done.”

Recommended: Best Supplements To Kill Candida and Everything Else You Ever Wanted To Know About Fungal Infections

Bigger Does Not Mean Better

Faulty food safety tests and American factory farming are a dangerous combination.

The majority of the British population is against introducing American poultry that’s been treated with chlorine. Poultry farmers in the U.K. concentrate their food safety efforts on the birds while they’re still alive, relying on smaller flock densities to avoid rampant infections. The conditions in U.S. poultry facilities allow bacteria to thrive. Instances of food poisoning may be ten times higher in the U.S. than in Europe. The U.S. has a much bigger system, but farmers choose sustainability for short-term gain.

If the U.K. accepts American chicken that has been treated with the chlorine wash at the end of its production cycle, the impact on public health could be serious. Kath Dalmeny, the chief executive of British food and farming pressure group Sustain, described the Southampton research as a wake-up call:

Those dead nematodes are telling us something. This research suggests US chlorine washing may give a false impression of food safety. Proper food safety relies on clean production methods with high animal welfare, resilience to disease, and full traceability and labeling – not just end-of-pipe chemical washes.”

Doubling Down

The U.S. has long been able to rely on its status as a world leader to find markets for our products. There is a distinct possibility that period is over, and that isn’t a bad thing. Factory farmed chicken might be cheaper from a money standpoint, but the world has only seen a portion of the actual bill in terms of our health, the environment, and human rights. In that respect, the chlorine wash is an apt metaphor. The chicken has the appearance of clean chicken, but dig a little deeper and you’ll find it’s all on the surface.

Recommended:

• How to Avoid GMOs in 2018 – And Everything Else You Should Know About Genetic Engineering
• Best Cooking Oils – Health benefits, Smoke Point, Which to Use and Avoid
• Homemade Vegan Nut Milk Recipes
• Does Meat Cause Cancer? Yes and no…

Sources:

• Chicken safety fear as chlorine washing fails bacteria tests – The Guardian
• Will modern American farming methods soon dominate British agriculture? – New Food Magazine
• Too fat to stand and their flesh rots while they’re alive: The REAL reason America’s ‘Frankenchickens’ have to be washed with chlorine as US industrial farming practices are exposed ahead of possible post-Brexit trade deal – Daily Mail

The Trump administration is considering allowing states to require drug testing for some food stamp recipients. The plan would narrowly target and affect mostly “able-bodied” people, according to an anonymous administration official, AP reports. The rule would apply to around five percent of those enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), according to AP’s source. In addition, the plan would target people without dependents who are seeking certain specialized jobs, the AP reported.

Conservatives have been pushing for mandatory drug testing for people who receive SNAP benefits for years. Federal law prevents states from implementing their own conditions for individuals to be eligible for SNAP.

Secretary Sonny Perdue wants to provide states with “greater control over SNAP.”

As a former governor, I know first-hand how important it is for states to be given flexibility to achieve the desired goal of self-sufficiency for people. We want to provide the nutrition people need, but we also want to help them transition from government programs, back to work, and into lives of independence.”

On Tuesday, Trump signed an executive order calling for federal agencies to establish expand on existing work requirements for individuals on federal welfare programs.

Ed Bolen, the senior policy analyst at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities think tank thinks implementing drug testing for SNAP recipients is legally murky.

Are people losing their food assistance if they don’t take the test, and in that case, is that a condition of eligibility, which the states aren’t allowed to impose? And does drug testing fall into what’s allowable under a state training and employment program, which typically lists things like job search or education or on-the-job experience? This is kind of a different bucket.”

Utah did its own welfare drug testing on 4,730 applicants from Aug 2012 to July 2013 for their Temporary Assistance For Needy Families program. Less than one percent were found to be using illegal drugs.