National Food Policy Conference April 22 & 23

The Consumer Federation of America presents the National Food Policy Conference each year.  It's an excellent event with great speakers.  Here is a link to the brochure.  There is a special student rate of $45 if you can get there and find lodging.

USDA Making Strides in National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs; Implementing Meal Standards and Proposing Professional Standards for School Nutrition Staff

A recent article on FarmFutures.com detailed new developments in meal standards and professional staff standards that are being implemented by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).  The USDA has proposed changes to two of its core programs related to the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA).  The HHFKA’s main goal is to improve child nutrition in the US.  It authorizes funding and sets policy for the National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program.  The USDA is proposing new professional standards for school nutrition staff in order to achieve consistent, quality meal standards in these programs that are designed to provide nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school day.

Janey Thornton, Deputy Undersecretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services helps to clarify the goal of the new standards,

"These proposed standards will ensure that all school nutrition professionals meet the same national requirements as they prepare healthy meals served in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs."

In addition to requiring annual training for consistency among school nutrition professionals, the proposed rule will create minimum hiring standards for nutrition professionals and directors of state agencies; and will provide consistent, national standards for nutrition professionals and staff alike.

In order to ensure that the professionals are able to meet the required standards once the proposed requirements are in place, the USDA has worked directly with both school nutrition professionals and has presented information at the School Nutrition Association’s Annual National Conferences for two years running.  

This post was prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Julie Rea.

Grocery Manufacturers Association Seeks Federal Legislation against GMO-Labeling Mandates

Here is more information about the possibility of national GMO labeling (also blogged here)

Capital Public Radio reports on food industry lobbying groups that seek to federal legislation making the labeling of GMO foods voluntary, not mandatory, thereby preempting a state’s ability to adopt more rigorous policies related to the labeling of GMO foods.  One of those lobbying groups is the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) (whose website offers visitors to “Get the Facts on GMOs” with reference to a  Fact Sheet promoting the benefits of food biotechnology provided by IFIC’s website).  The Capital Public Radio report quotes Louis Finkel (see link for bio), the Executive Vice President for Government Affairs for the GMA who states, “Government mandates a label to convey important information about health, safety and nutrition to consumers.  Any other mandatory label would just be confusing and misleading."

In that report, Finkel also states, “We shouldn’t be making food safety and labeling decisions through political campaigns on a state by state basis.  All Americans deserve to have a uniform system that they can rely on that’s based on sound science and based on our preeminent food safety authority which is FDA.”

But, according to Just Label It (referencing a survey conducted by The Melman Group), support for mandatory labeling of GMOs is nearly unanimous among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.  It’s clear that much of the public is interested in knowing whether foods include GMO ingredients or not.  Just Label It also cites consistent surveys by other media sources, such as

•  93% believe GE foods should be labeled (10/10,Thomson Reuters PULSE™ Healthcare Survey, “National Survey of Healthcare Consumers: Genetically Engineered Food”)

•  96% believe genetically modified foods should be labeled (6/11, MSNBC)

•  95% of consumers believe GE foods should be labeled (11/08, Consumers Union, “Food-Labeling Poll: 2008,” p. 13)

•  94% believe genetically modified food should be labeled (9/10, Washington Post)

•  93% of the American public wants the federal government to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (6/11, ABC News)

So, while Finkel articulates a need for a uniform system of demonstrating food safety that’s not confusing or misleading to consumers, he seems to disregard that consumers by and large want foods with GMO ingredients to be labeled so that they’re NOT confused at the grocery store.

Finkel, also as a representative of the GMA, expressed opposition to grocery chain Whole Foods’s announcement in March of 2013 giving their suppliers five years to either source non-GMO ingredients or to clearly label products with ingredients containing GMOs.  Finkel’s response was that, “These labels could mislead consumers into believing that these food products are somehow different or present a special risk or a potential risk.”  Again, he appears to express an interest in avoiding consumers being misled by such labeling, even though they want such labels.  Here’s a New York Times article covering the Whole Foods announcement and referencing comments either expressing praise (e.g., Just Label It), disapproval (e.g., Finkel’s), or ambivalence (e.g., Karen Batra of BIO, a biotech industry trade group representative) toward the decision by Whole Foods.

This post was prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student David Gower

National GMO Labeling Standard?

The food world has been abuzz for the past several years in response to the increasing percentage of foods that are genetically modified (GMO).

Despite the fact that almost 90 percent of America’s corn and soybeans are genetically modified, there has been no requirement for companies to state on their label whether their product is GMO. That may change. According to Capital Public Radio, California and other states are now taking the fight for mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods to the federal level. Proponents for the labeling are pushing for a national standard to avoid state-by-state variances and confusion among consumers. Large food companies are trying to get ahead of the congressional game by proposing voluntary food labels. This way, companies could make the decision for themselves whether or not to use the labels as some groups such as Grocery Manufacturers Association fear that mandatory labels would mislead consumers into thinking that engineered ingredients are unsafe.

So what might mandatory labeling legislation mean for food producers? For one, there is likely to be a push for non-GMO agriculture in response to consumer demands. One example is companies like Whole Foods who now says it shelves more than 3,000 products that are certified non-GMO. And Illinois farmer Lynn Clarkson, who has been in the grain business for 40 years, describes his GMO free practices as a means to support the values his customers have expressed. Clarkson, and other GMO free farmers, are leading the trend in attention to consumer wants, needs, and preferences.

This post was prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Alison Schmidt.

Sewer sludge -- crop fertilizer

Most people do not know that sewer sludge – anything flushed down their toilet or washed down their drain, enters into the making of their food through fertilizer. According to the Center for Food Safety, 

Beginning in the early 1990s, millions of tons of potentially toxic sewage sludge have been applied to millions of acres of America’s farmland as food crop fertilizer. Selling sewage sludge to farmers for use on cropland has been a favored government program for disposing of the unwanted byproducts from municipal wastewater treatment plants.

This fact – and its disgust factor – makes a good case for opting for organic foods. Organic foods at least require that fertilizer used to grow food comes from livestock instead.  Andrew McGuire of Washington State University explains that the sludge used in organic production is not so wonderful either:

 The USDA organic standards designate manure, whether from organic or non-organic livestock production, as an allowed “organic” fertilizer, presumably because it came from a living organism. This means that, in the U.S., organic farmers are permitted to use manure from non-organic feedlots, chicken houses, pig barns, and fish farms… Most of this manure comes from confined animal feeding operations, which are prohibited under organic standards…The manure is then used on many organic farms where it is often their main source of nitrogen. 

USDA guidance explains that only composted manure can be applied directly to crops.  Raw manure must be used, if at all, 90 to 120 days before crops are planted.   

This post was prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Sara Stoltz Eken.

A Medical Study Concludes that Sugar Consumption by US Citizens Increases Risk of Heart Disease

In a report published by the JAMA Internal Medicine organization, a study showed that while consumption of added sugar increased over the 90s to the mid 2000's and then decreased, US adults are still consuming greater than recommended levels of sugar in their diets. While the consumption of sugar certainly adds calories, and increases risk of obesity and diabetes type II, the study examined the link between cardiovascular diseases and sugar consumption, and concluded there is a positive correlation. In an entry on CNN's Health section:

Participants in the study who consumed approximately 17 to 21% of their calories from added sugar had a 38% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, compared with those who consumed approximately 8% of calories from added sugar, the study authors concluded. 

This relative risk was more than double for those who consumed 21% or more of calories from added sugar, . . .” 

Dr. Laura Schmidt, a professor of health policy at the University of California of San Francisco's medical school, writes that these new findings “provide physicians and consumers with actionable guidance. Until federal guidelines are forthcoming, physicians may want to caution patients that, to support cardiovascular health, it’s safest to consume less than 15% of their daily calories from added sugar.” 

The article notes that there are no official US government guidelines on adding sugar to products. In fact, the FDA has classified sugar as a 'generally safe' ingredient, meaning manufacturers can add as much as they wish in a product.

This should provide more reason for cutting down on unhealthy foods is one's diet. The article does not mention if or how exercise could mitigate effects from high sugar consumption. The author of the piece, Ben Tinker, notes that fifteen other countries have tried 'sin taxes', raising the costs on sugary products. Dr. Laura Schmidt, states,“‘Sin taxes,’ whether on tobacco, alcohol, or sugar-laden products, are popular because they are easy to enforce and generate revenue, with a well-documented evidence base supporting their effectiveness for lowering consumption."

Unfortunately, there are no related sources explaining why Schmidt is so optimistic about their success. Numerous other sources have indicated that raising prices on tobacco and alcohol has shown no success in reducing consumption. Would a 'sin tax' on sugar be effective? 

This post was prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Andrew Wallace.

European “Whole Grain” definition published

According to the February 4, 2014, online journal Food and Nutrition Research, the most comprehensive definition of whole grain has been published. Based on a Science Daily article:

Historically, there's been no complete, legally endorsed definition of whole grain flour and products," explains Jan-Willem van der Kamp, corresponding author of the paper and Senior Officer of International Projects at TNO Food and Nutrition.

The HEALTHGRAIN definition is the next step in reaching a precise, common understanding of what constitutes whole grain in food products -- from breads to pasta to breakfast cereals -- regardless of where they originate, adds van der Kamp.

The need for developing a more comprehensive, detailed whole grain definition was identified during the course of the HEALTHGRAIN EU project, an initiative intended to increase the use of whole grains and their health protecting constituents in food products for improved nutrition and health benefits.

  

This post was prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Ye (Lydia) Xu.

Is Organic Milk Healthier?

According to a study reported in the December 10, 2013, New York Times, organic whole milk contains more omega-3 fatty acids than conventional milk.  The research, which was largely funded by Organic Valley, was published in the journal PLOS One.  According to the Times’ article the study represents, “…the most clear-cut instance of an organic food’s offering a nutritional advantage over its conventional counterpart.”   Researchers in the study reviewed 384 samples of organic and conventional whole milk taken over 18 months and found that the organic milk contained 62 percent more omega-3 fatty acids.

This post was prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Christine Jackson.

When “5-spice donkey meat” is tainted with Fox DNA…

Donkey meat, fox meat, you pick one.

You may pick neither. But for a lot of Chinese foodies, donkey meat is a delicacy. Fox meat? No way. But according to the BBC, a recent recall of a favorite snack “5-spice donkey meat” at Wal-Mart stores in China is bad news for the Wal-Mart customers: the supposedly delicate and yummy donkey meat was found to contain traces of fox DNA.

So how was fox DNA tested in the donkey meat? Wal-Mart says that it voluntarily tests food samples “beyond what is legally required in China.” The increased safety measures have been taken after Wal-Mart was troubled with contamination and mislabeling incidents, including a selling sesame oil and squid with hazardous levels of chemicals in 2012, and mislabeling of regular pork as organic in 2011. 

Food safety has become a very serious issue in China. Wikipedia explains that In 2008, infant formula tainted with melamine had sickened an estimated 300,000 people, including 54,000 hospitalized babies. China surely has food regulations, but they are complex and somewhat ambiguous.  Although the State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA) is presumably the state agency that oversees and enforces the food polices, there are many other agencies having overlapped duties and functionalities as SFDA. Effectually no single agency is responsible for all food safety regulations and enforcement. The inefficient enforcement of food law can also be attributed to the dilution of responsibilities under China’s multilevel government structure (state, provinces, and counties), implicit regulation-free industry policies, and legal underdeveloped system.

The latest update on the incident: Wal-Mart is reportedly used unlicensed suppliers of the donkey meat in Shandong province of China.  Wal-Mart’s finger-pointing may not effectively relieve it of liability, though. The inspection process, such as to ensure that vendors have all necessary permits including government inspection reports and business licenses, has to be established before a product goes on sale. Wal-Mart uses “special approvals” in China with suppliers it already does business with. Unfortunately, the approval process for suppliers is either governed by a relatively low standard, or no checks of suppliers have ever been involved in the approval process. 

This post was prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Dan Li.

Quartz: America’s health craze for fish oil is wiping out the world’s rarest shark

Photo by Zac Wolf / CC BY

An article by Gwynn Guilford, writing for Quartz discusses how the whale shark, an endangered species close to extinction, is being fished by Wenzhou Yueqing Marine Organisms Health Protection Foods Company, a factory in China at the rate of 600 sharks per year. The factory pays up to $31,000 per whale shark, and has a global network of fishing boats that will sell to them. (Source: Wildliferisk.org) Most other countries, including the United States, have banned the fishing of whale sharks. The factory in China exports at least 300 tons a year in oil leached from the livers of whale sharks, blue sharks and basking sharks. This oil is then blended with other ingredients at another location and sold in capsule form in the U.S. and Canada.

Whale sharks help feed the growing market for fish oil used in supplements and cosmetics sold in the US and Canada. “According to the Nutrition Business Journal, fish oil products generated about $1.2 billion in sales in the United States last year, making them among the most popular dietary supplements on the market.” (Source: New York Times Well Blog)

The recent popularity of fish oil supplements is due largely to their reported health benefits: “An analysis of 20 studies involving hundreds of thousands of participants indicates that eating approximately one to two 3-ounce servings of fatty fish a week—salmon, herring, mackerel, anchovies, or sardines—reduces the risk of dying from heart disease by 36 percent.” (Source: Harvard School of Public Health)

Not all fish oil contains whale shark oil, and the fish oil products from this particular factory are a small proportion of the overall fish oil market. But the whale shark species is still being fished closer to extinction by this factory and other factories to satisfy consumer demand for fish oil.

Post prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Michael Storlie

Food Safety News: Proposed Virginia Bill Would Exempt Homes and Small Farms From Food Safety Laws

Virginia House of Delegates member Robert Bell (R-Charlottesville) has proposed new legislation that would exclude all homes and small farms with less than 10 employees from all state food safety laws. Virginia House Bill 135 would require foods produced by exempted homes or farms to label their foods as products produced without state inspection.

According to an article on Food Safety News, "legislative experts say in recent years state lawmakers have made it easier to make and sell so-called cottage foods from home kitchens in as many as 40 states.”  The article goes on to explain that the movement to deregulate the production of “Cottage Foods” has grown over the past decade.

This post prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student John Carbone.

House Passes Farm Bill at Last, Senate Expected to Follow Suit

As reported in the New York Times, the House of Representatives passed a farm bill, 251 to 166, ending a two-year period of inaction.  The bill, which received bipartisan support, increases the amount the government pays toward crop insurance, but makes significant cuts to food stamps and direct payment farm subsidies.  From the Times article:

The new farm bill, which had been mired in partisan gridlock, makes fundamental changes to both nutrition and farm programs. It cuts the food stamp program by $8 billion, and about 850,000 households will lose about $90 in monthly benefits under the change.
…
Farm programs were not spared from the cuts in the new bill. The most significant change to farm programs is the elimination of a subsidy known as direct payments. These payments, about $5 billion a year, are paid to farmers whether or not they grow crops, and the issue had become politically toxic over the last several years as farm income has risen to record levels.

Some critics of the bill call the cuts to SNAP benefits “draconian,” and the elimination of subsidies illusory, since the bill increases crop insurance benefits to farmers.

The House breakdown by district on the bill is here.

Here’s the bill from the House Committee on Agriculture’s website.

The Senate is expected to pass the bill and president Obama indicated he will sign it into law, as discussed here.

 This post prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Neil Pederson

Minnesota took over St. Paul’s food establishment inspections, citing “serious error”…Does that really make us safer?

Until recently, St. Paul, along with Minneapolis and a handful of suburban cities, had delegation agreements with the State of Minnesota allowing each city to conduct its own food safety inspections of restaurants. In July 2013, the city lost a court battle to continue the delegation agreement with the state. AMinn Post Story about the court's decision is here. Minnesota is now responsible for inspecting food establishments in St. Paul.

According to Ramsey County’s website, "Food Establishments" are defined in the Ramsey County Food Protection Ordinance (pdf) as restaurants, boarding houses, taverns, cafeterias, delicatessens, snack bars, grocery stores, convenience stores, caterers, clubs, public and private schools, day care centers, and similar establishments where food or beverages are prepared or served for consumption on the premises or immediate consumption off the premises.” This means the state now has many more establishments to inspect.

Ramsey County’s website details a tiered system for inspections; the length of time between inspections is based on the type of establishment being inspected. (for example, a high risk establishment includes “serves foods that require extensive processing on the premises, including manual handling, cooling, reheating, or temporary holding for service; prepares foods several hours or days before service; or serves menu items that are known to be common vehicles of food-borne illness.”) RamseyCounty FAQs are here.

The state revoked its delegation agreement with St. Paul citing “serious errors in inspection reports.” According to the StarTribune, the state told the city to more than double the number of inspections it was doing each month, asking for an increase 8.25 to 25 per month. St. Paul added employees and funding after failing the state’s evaluation of its inspection system. According to a PioneerPress article detailing city action, this apparently did not remedy the problem, and the state decided to step in.

As a resident of St. Paul, and of Minnesota, I am not sure which entity is better equipped to inspect food establishments. I could not find detailed information about the type of errors inspectors made in their reports, but it seems like the answer should hinge at least in part on exactly what the inspectors were missing.

 Local officials probably know the area more thoroughly than state officials. Most likely the city would be better able to build relationships with business owners, who have to deal with the city in other aspects of their businesses.  St. Paul theoretically would be more readily available to respond to concerns due to the smaller number of complaints it would have to respond to.

On the other hand, the state technically is in charge of food inspections; St. Paul and the other communities that have a delegation agreement had the privilege of being trusted to carry out these inspections to the state’s satisfaction. The state sets the standard. The state also is generally better funded, and can retain a greater number of experts in the field. A quick Google search shows that most states implement their own inspection standards and inspections; it appears to be the typical practice. The state may have been correct in revoking the delegation agreement.

This post prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Abby Lindekugel.

Organic Chocolate: 50 Shades of Green

Organic farming may result in the destruction of wild habitat.  The Daily Mail reports that foods like organic chocolate could be having a negative impact on Third World countries.  The article notes that “organic farms often need more land than conventional ones; [therefore] organic chocolate may not be as green as believed.”   A study out of Oxford University claims that while “organic farming clearly helps wildlife threatened by intensive agriculture in developed countries… the jury is still out on the Third World where virgin land may be cleared for crops such as cocoa beans and bananas.”   Dr. LindsayTurnbull, of Oxford’s department of plant sciences says more research is needed.  The study collected the majority of its research from Europe creating an undeniable bias in the outcomes.  Considering three quarters of organic farming occurs outside of Europe, Dr. Turnbull aptly notes that “we cannot assume the same applies all over the world.”

  

Another article citing the same study: Organic produce could be worse fortropical wildlife

This post prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Elizabeth Meske.

Homemade food for sale in California

California enacted a law that legalized selling food that is made at home that went into effect on January 1^st, 2014.  From a Forbesarticle:

“Under the California Homemade Food Act, local governments cannot ban cottage food businesses based in private homes.  Instead, home-based entrepreneurs can sell their goods after passing a ‘food processor course’ (which can be done online), properly labeling their goods and practicing common-sense sanitation when cooking and baking.”

Assemblyman Mike Gatto drafted the California Homemade FoodAct (AB 1616).

This post prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Ashley Jones.

Are You Going to Eat That?

Soon, the packages in your fridge may be able to send you text messages when the contents are about to go bad. Environment Minister Dan Rogerson appeared before the House of Lords European Sub-Committee D (Agriculture, Fisheries, Environment, and Energy) on January 21 to discuss food waste. The BBC and the UK's Daily Mail report that committee chair, Baroness Rosalind Scott of Needham Market, told him that a witness giving evidence to the committee in the Netherlands said:

“We’re quite close to commercial production of a small chip which would go into packaging which would measure the actual deterioration of the rate of food.”

The Daily Mail reports that the UK wastes 920,000 tonnes of food every year. This number was estimated by the Waste and Resources Action Programme. WRAP’s overview of commercial food waste report can be found here.

While the news reports are quite vague, Netherlands-based university and research center Wageningen participated in the development of a wireless chip that can be placed on a batch of produce or meats to monitor environmental conditions during transport and storage. Wageningen partnered with NXP to produce this award-winning Pasteur tag in 2013.

While it may not be economically feasible to put a sensor chip in every package of perishables, Scotland-based Insignia Technologies also drew investors last year with a color-changing smart label that indicated how long a package of food had been open. These smart labels may be more practical for the average consumer, but the computer chips may have an impact on the amount of food wasted by commercial consumers.

Listen to the House of Lords Sub-committee inquiry with Dan Rogerson here.

This post prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Nadja Baer.

Monsanto Changing its Ways

Monsanto’s vegetable seed division is focusing its R&D on producing enhanced versions of vegetables using the same method that Nature does: carefully cross-breeding to promote desired traits. It seems now it’s starting to make cents to go green.

To see the difference between this technique and GMO, read this article, or look at this excerpt:

The Old Way

•  Identify plants with recognizable, desirable traits.
•  Crossbreed those plants together.
•  Grow the offspring.
•  Wait to see if the traits show up. Repeat as necessary.

The Genetic Modification Way

•  Identify plants or other organisms with recognizable, desirable traits.
•  Isolate the genes that manifest those traits.
•  Use enzymes to clip out those genes and paste them into the genomes of other plants, or inject them using a “gene gun” (for real) or by piggybacking them on a bacteria or virus.
•  Grow the plant with the inserted gene. If the gene has successfully incorporated into the plant, you’ll have a novel phenotype.

The New Monsanto Way

•  Identify plants with recognizable, desirable traits.
•  Crossbreed the plants.
•  Sift through the offspring genome for known markers for desirable traits.
•  Grow only the plants with those markers.

And then check out the BigAg monster everyone loves to hate itself: Monsanto Vegetable Seeds Division

This post prepared by William Mitchell College of Law student Maya Missaghi