Up until now, retail foodservice has been able to secure exemptions from many of the regulations and requirements that apply to the restaurant industry. That meant supermarket delis, coffee bar/bakeries and fresh meals programs didn’t have to worry about posting nutritional information, calories or ingredients for each and every item they sold (per unit sales).

That may change soon, according to a story in today’s Wall Street Journal, which got a hold of the Food and Drug Administration’s crystal ball, which apparently shows calorie-posting rules will soon come to supermarkets… as well as movie theaters, airports and other food-selling venues.

“We’re not restaurants,” The Journal quotes Erik Lieberman, regulatory counsel for the Food Marketing Institute, as saying. “The vast majority of supermarket consumers are not consuming the food they purchased at the store within the store.”

And this pithy observation from a representative of the theater industry: “People don’t go to movie theaters for the primary purpose of eating. Why aren’t ballparks covered? You think the food served at ballparks is healthy?”

Movie theaters might feel reluctance, but is this such a burden for supermarkets? Haven’t we been moving in this direction anyway? MORE…

The recent egg recall has made it clear that without proactive food safety measures, there will be recalls, the industry will get a bad “PR rap,” and the government will intercept — supported by public opinion. But what happens when suppliers are conscientious and create standards of integrity and excellence on their own?

The Leafy Green Marketing Agreement is an example of what can be done proactively. More than 100 handlers, representing nearly 99% of California-grown leafy greens, have agreed to the mandatory audit program that certifies members are implementing rigorous food safety measures.

What do these producers “get” in return? Respect and the recognition that food safety is important to these growers, both of which are reassuring to consumers, federal officials, special interest groups, supermarkets and shippers.

A marketing ploy? There are definitely public relations implications, as recent news reports are providing positive recognition of LGMA and even referencing this Agreement as an example of what can be done. But the established outreach to farmers, the educational programs, the mandatory audits by certified government inspectors at least four times per year, and a compliance-citation-decertification process, provide parameters in which to operate and make this document more than a simple service mark program.

Will this guarantee there will never be a recall of leafy greens? No, but it does reduce the likelihood. Plus, the positive position in which these suppliers have placed themselves builds trust. So, if and when a recall does occur, these providers will already have established credibility and a reputation for caring about the quality of food they provide to consumers.

That image is much better than what we are currently witnessing in the media’s coverage of the egg industry.

In 2008, we wrote a story about the resurgence in the popularity of chestnuts. 2010 seems to be the year of the almond. There have been some recent developments that remind us just how desirable almonds are among health and wellness consumers.

In the first case, farmers fighting a three-year-old pasteurization rule mandated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture won an important round in a federal appeals court, which will allow them to directly challenge a statute that has infuriated organic and raw food enthusiasts.

The regulation, implemented in 2007 after a series of salmonella outbreaks traced back to the raw nuts, require growers to use steam or chemical fumigation with propylene oxide to pasteurize the crops. What upset everyone the most was that imported almonds were exempt from the regulation.

Domestic farmers — the vast majority of whom work out of California — claim they lost most of their business in raw product to foreign farmers. At the same time, consumers expressed frustration that they were not able to support U.S. growers. What’s more, some of the approved pasteurization processes cast doubt on any organic claims. MORE…

If anyone ever wanted to get their point across in a big way, the Food and Drug Administration certainly has impeccable timing. Just last month the agency implemented new rules designed to reduce the outbreak of salmonella enteriditis from eggs processed by large egg producers — precisely the classification assigned to Wright County Egg, the Galt, Iowa-based producer believed to be the source of the current 400-million egg recall.

The regulations, under consideration for some seven years, apply to large-scale operations with more than 50,000 hens. These factory farms provide about 80% of the nation’s shell eggs, according to the FDA. Companies with fewer than 50,000 hens, but more than 3,000, have until next year to comply.

The rules add a series of preventative measures for eggs that do not undergo any treatment such as pasteurization. Companies must:

• Buy chicks and young hens only from suppliers who monitor for Salmonella bacteria;

• Establish rodent, pest control, and biosecurity measures to prevent spread of bacteria throughout the farm by people and equipment;

• Conduct testing in the poultry house for salmonella enteritidis (SE). If the tests find the bacterium, a representative sample of the eggs must be tested over an eight-week time period (four tests at two-week intervals); if any of the four egg tests is positive, the producer must further process the eggs to destroy the bacteria, or divert the eggs to a non-food use;

• Clean and disinfect poultry houses that have tested positive for SE; MORE…

Last week we wrote about the warning issued by Consumer Reports against 12 potentially dangerous dietary supplements. That report proved what many skeptical consumers felt all along — that even with federal regulation, there are just too many bad stories floating around out there about questionable ingredients, adverse effects and overzealous promises.

Now there’s a new report that fleshes out that skepticism a bit. It’s from Ipsos, a market research firm, and it compares consumer interest in foods and beverages that specifically promote digestive health, weight loss, energy levels, and so on, versus vitamins and supplements targeting the same conditions.

It’s an interesting concept, especially when you consider the strides companies have taken in making foods and beverages functional. Living long and staying healthy is on a lot of people’s minds. From such concerns spring profitable enterprises, and so we see on shelves now everything from probiotic yogurt to baby formula infused with DHA, which studies suggest may improve mental acuity.

Not surprisingly, many people prefer eating and drinking to popping pills. According to the Ipsos survey, 38% of consumers say they’re interested in food and beverages that address digestive health, versus 32% who preferred vitamins and supplements. “Increased Energy” and “Weight Loss” told the same story, as did managing “Healthy Blood Sugar Levels”. MORE…

We all know the publicity that Consumer Reports magazine received a few weeks ago when tests performed by its technology researchers confirmed reception flaws in the new Apple iPhone. The report fueled the story like gas on a fire, and Apple accelerated its damage-control response to address the problem.

Just this week, the magazine issued a list of 12 dietary supplements that consumers should avoid. Some, such as comfrey, country mallow and colloidal silver (which has turned people blue), have already been subject to warnings from the Food and Drug Administration (going back as far as 1993), yet they continue to be sold — legally — in retail outlets and online.

The report poses the question: If they’re known to be dangerous, why are these ingredients still for sale?

“Two national retailers we contacted about specific supplements said they carried them because the FDA has not banned them. The agency has ‘the authority to immediately remove them from the market, and we would follow the FDA recommendation,’ said a spokeswoman for the Vitamin Shoppe chain.” MORE…

The Food and Drug Administration has tried for more than three decades to pass limits on sub therapeutic use of antibiotics in poultry and livestock. Each time, they’ve been turned away by Congress, which is lobbied heavily by agricultural and drug industry interests.

It’s a cyclical tale, for sure, but one that becomes more interesting as public interest and scientific evidence on the issue increases. Now, for the first time in several years, the FDA is going at the industry again. In a draft guidance issued yesterday, the agency recommended banning the use of antibiotics to promote growth in animals.

What’s at stake, the FDA and numerous health experts claim, is the future potency of antibiotics for humans. Drugs like tetracycline and penicillin transfer from animals to the people who consume them, and their overuse has given rise to new strains of antibiotic-resistant superbugs.

“Antimicrobial resistance, and the resulting failure of antimicrobial therapies in

humans, is a mounting public health problem of global significance,” the draft guidance document reads.

Industry groups like the National Pork Board, in response, say that the FDA is overreacting. They claim that there is not enough scientific evidence to support such claims. Furthermore, they point out that the majority of producers do give antibiotics for health reasons only, and not to promote growth. MORE…

As a parent, one of my rules is “Safety First!” This is a simple precaution to take with my kids, and it makes them aware of their surroundings in any and all activities.

But in the food world it can mean the difference between life and death.

Many retailers are stringent when it comes to the safety of where their private label food. The vast majority require their own third-party, superior-rated audits. This is a multi-faceted step — initiated by the retailer — that can include a social responsibility component, technical product specifications to ensure quality consistency and a factory visit by their professional in-house quality assurance team.

So it shocks me that there continues to be certain well-known, national retailers who assume that their brand is protected by the manufacturers that produce for them. They wrongly assume that these manufacturers are taking on the “Safety First” responsibility of the business, so that no harm could possibly befall the retailer for which they produce a myriad of products.

That may be true. Quality and safety start with the manufacturer. But they must be reinforced by each retailer that buys their goods.

Why is it that durable goods manufacturers even have slogans touting quality claims (think Ford Motor Co’s “Quality is Job 1” slogan), yet when it comes to the food we eat this is not necessarily the case? I’ve been to hundreds, if not thousands, of food manufacturing plants around the world and it seems to me that the United States is one of the few countries that remain comparatively lax when it comes to food manufacturing.

Retailers and manufacturers need to work hand in hand to ensure that all items produced are given the safety seal of approval akin to Ford’s slogan. There are enough obstacles in this business and we don’t want the food we eat to become one more of them, especially when it is relatively easy to maintain quality and still protect our health through basic food safety measures.

Retailers, you know who you are, Please take the extra precautionary steps to ensure food safety by requiring annual third-party audits and technical product specs at the very least. Your health — and ours — depend on it.

Ever since it became exempt from pre-market approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 1994, the supplement industry has reassured consumers and retailers that it can regulate itself. The ensuing years have cast some doubt on that assertion, and now there’s a report from the Government Accountability Office that makes it look like the Wild West out there in the aisles.

“Deceptive”, “questionable”, “dangerous”. These are words the GAO used to describe practices employed by sellers and manufacturers it recently investigated. Representatives scoped out brick-and-mortar and mail-order retailers, posing as elderly customers seeking relief for diabetes, memory loss, cancer and other ailments. One herbal supplement seller told investigators that ginseng could cure cancer. Another recommended taking gingko biloba along with asprin to enhance memory — a combination that studies have shown may increase the risk of internal bleeding.

The GAO also found evidence of metals such as lead and mercury, as well as pesticides, in all but three of the 40 herbal supplements it tested. None of the metal levels violated federal regulations, though 16 of the 40 appear to exceed the acceptable threshold for pesticides.

The Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade group that represents the supplement industry, claims that the 22 retailers who were investigated are “outliers” that don’t accurately represent the whole. That’s hard to believe when you consider that sellers were picked at random. The GAO didn’t just happen to light on the several worst practitioners out there. MORE…

There’s plenty of demand for locally raised meat and poultry, and enough farmers willing to supply it. So what’s the problem? The problem is that grisly middle step: the slaughterhouse. Consumers prefer not to think about the stunning, killing and carving of the animals they eat — but with a shortage of processing options for small-scale farmers, they may soon have to.

Having too few regional slaughtering facilities has been a problem for years. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which regulates the industry, has updated its standards to the point where small processors are now required to follow the same protocol as large-scale operations. The compliance is costly, and that means limited options. The Hudson Valley region of New York, whose farmers provide much of the free-range meat and poultry that Manhattanites love to nosh on, has only four facilities. Those who can’t get a time slot often end up traveling to conventional slaughterhouses in surrounding states, thus defeating the purpose of “locally raised”.

Now, in light of recent foodborne outbreaks, the Obama administration has proposed changes to the safety plan, known as the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points, or HACCP. Officials claim the changes are minor, but small producers and processors are claiming the opposite is true. They point to a regulation that would require facilities to conduct microbial testing.

“Perhaps a large plant slaughtering 5,000 animals per day can afford its own lab and microbiology staff, and can pass the cost along to the consumer, but most small plants can’t,” writes Joe Cloud, co-owner of True & Essential Meats, which processes animals in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley region, in a column for The Atlantic MORE…