New FDA “Healthy” Labeling Guidelines Coming – How Would You Define It?

We all know when a food is labeled organic it is supposed to meet specifically defined criteria. But did you know that when the term “healthy” is used on a label it is supposed to meet specific FDA criteria?

The regulatory definition established by the FDA in 1993 also covered the terms health, healthful, healthfully, healthfulness, healthier, healthiest, healthily, and healthiness. Healthiness? Really? Yes, we looked it up. It is a word.

Under the 1993 rules, the two criteria attached to any derivative of the word healthy were related to fat content and specific nutrients.

The nutrient conditions for bearing a “healthy” nutrient content claim include specific criteria for nutrients to limit in the diet, such as total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, as well as requirements for nutrients to encourage in the diet, including vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein, and fiber.” ~ FDA

Changes to the Definition of Healthy

New scientific information is causing the FDA to rethink the definition of this label. For example, the old definition embraced the belief that a low-fat was best. Current science encourages the intake of mono and polyunsaturated fats rather than limiting fats altogether.

It seems the nutrient concerns have changed over time as well. In 1993, nutrients of concern were vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, and fiber. According to the FDA, today’s concerns include potassium, vitamin D, iron, and calcium.

On July 14, 2016, the FDA released its new strategic plan for 2016-2025. In it, they address four goals: food safety, nutrition, Animal health, and organizational excellence. (see further reading)

Nutrition Facts Labels are being updated with new Daily Value (DV) requirements and the FDA is working toward changing the “healthy” definition. In the meantime, they have advised companies that they may use the healthy label for foods that meet the following:

“(1) Are not low in total fat, but have a fat profile makeup of predominantly mono and polyunsaturated fats; or

(2) contain at least ten percent of the Daily Value (DV) per reference amount customarily consumed (RACC) of potassium or vitamin D.”

These new guidelines are non-binding recommendations for the interim while the FDA goes through the process of redefining healthy.

Public Comments

The FDA is asking for the public to take part in this process. So the question is, how do you define healthy? Since we believe the only truly healthy foods are whole, fresh, organic foods in their natural form, calling any processed food healthy is a bit of a stretch. But without question, some are healthier than others.

In addition to what the food should contain, there certainly are things it should not contain. At a minimum, no food should be called healthy if it contains artificial flavors, colors or preservatives; MSG, GMOs, high fructose corn syrup, or trans fats. Should we go further? Should we declare no food is healthy of it contains processed sugar? Gluten? Dairy?

What do you think? The FDA is asking for public input. If you would like your voice to be heard on this subject, comments are being collected through Jan 26, 2017. The contact information the FDA provides on their website is as follows:

Submit electronic comments on regulations.gov to docket folder FDA-2016-D-2335.

Submit written comments to:

Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305)
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061
Rockville, MD 20852.
All comments should be identified with the docket number FDA-2016-D-2335.

For additional information on commenting, including details on making submissions with confidential information, see:

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


The FDA Announces They Will Now Test For Glyphosates

Glyphosate, the extra secret ingredient in the majority of our food supply, will now have a harder time going incognito. After the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a criticism of the FDA and the USDA’s current herbicide monitoring practices, the FDA, the highest food safety administration in the land, announced they have finally developed a “streamlined method” designed for testing foods like corn and soy for glyphosate, the active ingredient in the world’s most popular herbicide, Roundup.

Roundup use has been on the rise since its introduction in 1974, and the amount of glyphosate residue considered “safe” has ballooned by a factor of 17. The EPA allows fifty times more glyphosate to be sprayed on corn now than they allowed in 1995. Continued claims that Roundup is safe, though it was recently labeled a possible human carcinogen by the World Health Organization, and claims that residue levels are of no concern, though the FDA wasn’t even testing glyphosate residue levels on crops, has further tarnished the reputations of the EPA, the USDA, and the FDA. 

Reasons or Excuses?

It’s kind of crazy that the FDA, the organization tasked with monitoring herbicides, has not been testing for the world’s most used herbicide. It’s like getting an STD test at a clinic and not testing for syphilis. The FDA cites the cost of testing as the reason for excluding glyphosate from their testing. Adding glyphosate testing to six of the FDA’s facilities has an estimated cost of 5 million. Monsanto makes 5 billion dollars a year in revenue from glyphosate while also supplying the FDA with some of the highest ranking individuals working there. Is it too far of a stretch to wonder if neglecting to test for Roundup residue was really an issue of cost?  Or was it an excuse to allow one of the largest corporations to keep selling massive amounts of a substance increasingly recognized as detrimental to human health?

Living in the Now

The study by the WHO that identified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic” has been a game changer. It’s possible we wouldn’t know about the lack of reliable glyphosate testing without that study, as the GAO report criticizing the FDA’s lax practices was actually released in 2014. While that timeline definitely fits, there are also other factors prompting this announcement from the FDA.

Independent testing companies like Abraxis and MIcrobe have seen an uptick in requests for glyphosate testing after the WHO study was published. Small companies, advocate groups, and doctors are among the customers asking for this information more than ever before. Test requests at some labs have increased from a few a year to a few a week, indicating that food transparency is a rising interest. Test results showed glyphosate residues in a variety of products from honey to soy sauce to infant formula.

Keep the Ball Rolling

Here’s the good news: public pressure can produce results. We still don’t know the extent to which herbicides like glyphosate can affect our health,  but we’ll never know without proper study of all available information. The push for food transparency is on its way to making a big difference in our health and our quality of life.

Related Articles:
Sources:


Web MD’s Ties with Monsanto and Big Pharma

When we look for medical information, whether or not we embrace alternative medicine, there are a few primary sources we tend to check out for the conventional treatment and the low down on any given illness. WebMD is at, or near, the top of that list, and it is clearly one of the most popular sites on the Internet.

We expect the information given on this WebMD to be clear, correct (within the limits of conventional medicine), and unbiased. Anyone with any knowledge about the way things really work will expect Big Pharma to have undue influence over the information presented because they have undue influence over doctors and every aspect of conventional medical treatment. We don’t expect to find Monsanto and the FDA also hiding behind the curtain.

But first, more about Big Pharma. In 2010, Dr. Mercola wrote about a self-test for depression that was presented on WebMD by Eli Lilly. The problem was, even if you marked no to every indicator, the test came up with the same result – “You may be at risk for major depression.” The test was completely bogus, unethical, and irresponsible. WebMD presents itself as the unbiased 3rd party, but it isn’t.

When an article is written by a sponsor, such as Monsanto, it is labeled as such. It says, “This content is from our sponsor. The sponsor has sole editorial control.” Does the typical reader realize they are reading an article that is clearly company propaganda and not content that WebMD necessarily supports? What site that was created to give its readers information publishes content they do not agree with? We don’t!

In addition, the site is used and abused by companies like Monsanto as shown by series of emails exchanged between Monsanto and Dr. Kevin Folta of the University of Florida. Monsanto approached Folta, asking him to publish their biotech propaganda as if it were his own on WebMD. Of course, he agreed – Monsanto gives his programs money.

The final surprise is the relationship between WebMD and the FDA. According to Dr. Mercola, the FDA’s first public-private partnership was with WebMD. The FDA states on their website:

  • FDA’s Public-Private Partnerships allow the FDA to partner with any number of a wide range of other organizations including, but not limited to, patient advocacy groups, professional societies, charitable foundations, industry members, trade organizations, academic institutions and other government and state entities.
  • FDA’s Public-Private Partnerships are science-driven, aim to improve the public health, and are structured to uphold the principles of transparency, fairness, inclusiveness, scientific rigor, and compliance with Federal laws and FDA policy.

The FDA does not, however, offer a list of their partners. But that’s a bit creepy, isn’t it? That a government agency created to provide oversight actually partners with private industry? Who’s watching who?

It’s always a good idea to follow the money connected to any source. WebMD makes lots and lots of money. Averaging 210 million unique users a month with 4.25 billion page views, WebMD reported a profit of $10 million from a revenue of $143.3 million for the first quarter of 2015. So if you choose to use the site in the future, keep these facts in mind, especially if you are seeking information on any controversial subject in which the pharmaceutical companies, the biotech companies, or the FDA may share an interest.

Sources:


Corruption and Pork – Agricultural Boards Behaving Badly

Pork. The other white meat. The incredible, edible egg. Beef. It’s what’s for dinner.

The majority of Americans are probably familiar with these slogans. But have you ever heard, “Pork: Be Inspired?” Probably not, despite the three million dollar licensing fee that the slogan has incurred each year from 2011 on.

What is the point of the slogan, and who has that kind of money to burn? The United States Department of Agriculture Research and Promotion (R and P) programs.

What Are They and Should I Care?

The pork industry is not the only agricultural industry to have its own board formed as part of the R and P. There are more than 20 agricultural products that have been classified by the USDA as research and promotion programs under the Agricultural Marketing Services department, from expected products like soybeans, dairy, beef, and eggs to potential head scratchers like sorghum and mangos. These R and P programs are set up and funded by the farmers in the industries they represent through set charges on specific amounts of units sold. An initial look at the programs shows their benefit in creating a demand and building a brand for a specific commodity, but there have been increasing concerns about a growing lack of transparency and the potential promotion of the interests of large producers at the expense of smaller farmers. There is also a concern about how close these organizations are to the taxpayer-funded USDA. Are our taxes promoting industries that are causing many of our health and environmental problems?

Questionable Decisions

If you’ve paid attention to the world of mayonnaise lately (and let’s face it, who hasn’t), you might have heard of a small startup called Hampton Creek being sued for misleading the public by Unilever, the maker of Hellmann’s mayonaise. While Unilever dropped the lawsuit, the FDA pursued the matter, claiming they were following up a complaint and that Hampton Creek’s product, Just Mayo, cannot be labeled as mayonnaise because the product doesn’t contain eggs.  A little investigation revealed emails from the National Egg Board executives that were targeting the company in ways both benign and malicious, from jokes about having “old buddies from Brooklyn” paying the Hampton Creek CEO a visit to a program promoting real eggs and contacting Whole Foods in an attempt to have the product removed from shelves. There is also the fact that Unilever reached out to the Egg Board for support during their lawsuit, leading to speculation that the Egg Board used its influence to convince the FDA to focus on Hampton Creek and Just Mayo.

While much of this seems to be within the guidelines of the R and P programs stated promotion goals, specifically calling retailers to get a competing product off the shelves has raised some eyebrows. It is troubling when an association linked to the USDA feels comfortable blocking the free market, proving that America capitalist preachings come hand in hand with rampant corruption. When the agency managed by the USDA spurs the FDA into action at the behest of an international corporation determined to eliminate a small startup, what chance does anyone else have when government is for the few?

A Mismanagement of Funds

The majority of people want to get their money’s worth when they pay for goods or services. The National Pork Board is not in this majority. Originally, they were licensing their previous popular slogan, “Pork. The other white meat.” from the National Pork Producers Council for a dollar a year. That cost increased to 818,000 in 2004 and then jumped to an incredible 20 year, 60 million dollar contract despite the lack of competition for the slogan and an actual market value of under 400,000 dollars. Though the Pork Board has retired the slogan, they continue to pay a yearly 3 million dollar fee to the NPPC. For farmers required to pay 40 cents for every 100 dollars they make to the Pork Board, that particular expense must sting quite a bit.

But even more interesting is who the money is going to and how it’s pushing out small farmers. The National Pork Producers Council is responsible for licensing the slogan and receives the yearly fees from the National Pork Board. The NPPC is a lobby group dedicated to lobbying political candidates on behalf of large-scale pig operations with environmentally detrimental policies. Despite trying to eliminate the program in the early 2000s, small farmers are still stuck with a government system that ignores their needs and lacks the necessary oversight to correct itself.

Can You Actually Do Anything?

Government shouldn’t actively work against the people who pay for it. The idea behind the USDA’s Research and Promotion Programs is sound, but the lack of actual transparency and oversight make it an easy target for corporate corruption. The transparency issue also makes it difficult for consumers to understand what’s going on and to sort through myriad information, studies, and advertisements that serve to forward the agendas of Big Agriculture. Knowing about the dirty business taking place immediately beyond the public’s eye makes it even more important to support small farmers and to know where your food is coming from. You can make a difference by choosing products from small farms committed to animal welfare, the environment, and health.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


Formaldehyde in GMOs, Yet Another Unlisted Ingredient

By policy, the FDA considers GMO foods to be substantially equivalent to their non-genetically modified counterparts, and to be generally recognized as safe. GMOs do after all, look very similar to their conventional counterparts and they are grown under somewhat similar conditions. Under FDA guidelines, this leaves foods that are newly invented to be poorly tested, and the FDA assumes them to be safe without sufficient evidence to reach such conclusions. Under the limitations of our current biotechnology, whenever genes are artificially manipulated, unintended consequences inevitably result.

Independent Scientists Are Finding That GMOs are Not Substantially Equivalent to Their Conventional Counterparts

A new study from Cambridge University demonstrates that GMO soy is less nutritious and more toxic than conventional soy. Each GMO crop is unique, and this study focused solely on one type of genetically modified soy. Undoubtedly, more research is needed on other GMOs. So far the FDA’s notions of substantial equivalence, are not holding up in independent research. As is often the case, independent science is yielding objective results, giving us the good news with the bad.

The Revolving Door Told Us GMOs Were Safe

FDA assumptions of substantial equivalence were at best based upon wishful thinking, but much more likely to have been decisions made with the intention of prioritizing profit over health. The FDA is after all, staffed by a revolving door of management level biotech and pharmaceutical employees. FDA hierarchy move back and forth between the private and public sectors, reaping huge benefits along the way. Consumer advocates don’t work at the FDA; it is the industry insiders who do. The independent scientists are doing the testing for safety that the FDA should have done.

System Biology is Yielding New Insight Into GMOs

Using a systems biology approach, two researchers from Cambridge University have demonstrated how the genetic modifications made to CP4 EPSPS, better known as Roundup Ready soy, has resulted in significant systemic changes to the plant’s nutritional value, rendering the GMO soy bean less nutritious and more toxic.

Dr. Ayyadurai and Dr. Deonikar’s results show how instead of the plant producing normal levels of enzymes and antioxidants such as glutathione and super oxide dismutase, Round Up Ready soy is almost completely devoid of glutathione. This GMO soy produces significant amounts of formaldehyde, a substance that is widely known to be toxic and a carcinogen.

Formaldehyde Is Not The Kind of Chemical That You Would Want in Your Food

Formaldehyde has a lot of uses in manufacturing. It is often used as an additive in glue, in wrinkle free shirts, as an additive in hair straighteners, and it has been used as an embalming agent for thousands of years. (It is believed that the Egyptians were the first to use formaldehyde). The chemical is falling out favor with many funeral directors. When used in embalming, great effort is made to avoid accidentally breathing in the fumes. Despite improved ventilation and modern protective gear, many funeral homes refuse to work with formaldehyde simply because it is too dangerous. Its ubiquitous use in manufacturing has come under scrutiny as well.

We can add formaldehyde as yet another one of the ingredients that is being hidden in our food. The struggle to label genetically modified soy can be thought of as the struggle to label formaldehyde laden, antioxidant deficient soy as well. There is no scientific justification to assume that GMOs are substantially equivalent to other foods. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that GMOs kill beneficail microbes in our gut and damage our digestive system (see Leaky Gut Syndrome and Autoimmune Diseases). Afterall, that’s what they’re designed to do.

Recommended Reading:
Sources: