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.