The FDA has sent out warning letters to 17 food manufacturers claiming that certain products violate the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The development follows last October’s statement by FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg urging companies to review their nutrition claims.

Yesterday’s letters serve as a reminder that the agency is serious about holding manufacturers accountable for the promises they make to their customers. The vast majority of companies making health claims have been careful to include studies, research findings and other data supporting their claims on their websites, or otherwise make them available to consumers.

Even so, the FDA is saying companies continue to overreach, or neglect to balance their claims with statements that point out other nutritional aspects that are not so healthy.

For example, many of the manufacturers on this most recent list were cited for making claims such as “0 grams of trans fat” – a statement that, in and of itself, is accurate. However, many of these products contain significant amounts of saturated (bad) fats, or cholesterol, or sodium. FDA regulations state that if these nutritional elements exceed a certain amount, then manufacturers must include an ancillary notice next to any front-panel health declarations that directs the consumer to the Nutrition Facts panel.

There, they’ll see that the product does not have any trans fats as stated but, Wow, it’s loaded with saturated fat, cholesterol or sodium. No thanks, I’ll pass. more

Attempting to quantify the health-related costs associated with foodborne illness is, at best, an inexact science. There are so many variables to weigh. Some, like medical expenses and lost wages, are fairly obvious and easy to calculate. Research can reveal some pretty concrete numbers for those types of factors.

What about pain and suffering? Or the cost of financial burdens placed on a family whose primary wage-earner died as the result of a foodborne pathogen?

This “Big Picture” approach was taken with the new report: Health-Related Costs from Foodborne Illness in the United States (no mistaking the topic here, eh?). The study was authored by Robert Scharff, an assistant professor in the Department of Consumer Sciences at Ohio State University (and a former U.S. Food and Drug Administration economist). The report itself was sponsored by the Produce Safety Project at Georgetown University.

The most astounding revelation in this study is that Scharff came up with a new number for the cost of foodborne illness: $152 billion. What makes that figure such an eye-opener? Past official government estimates have topped only $35 billion.

“The cost of foodborne illness is significantly greater in this report than in some past studies, but only because this study included costs of all pathogens and a more comprehensive measure of economic cost,” wrote Scharff in the report. “It is my hope that the improvements made here will lead to better decision-making, both at the legislative and regulatory level.”

more

There have been numerous efforts over the years to tackle childhood obesity in this country, but nothing so ambitious as what First Lady Michelle Obama announced on Tuesday. The new initiative she’s spearheading, dubbed Let’s Move, seeks to bring together government agencies and the private sector — basically, anybody and everybody that impacts children’s health — to combat the problem. The ultimate goal: Eliminate childhood obesity within a generation.

No doubt, it’s a sweeping response to a sweeping problem, with one in every three children in this country considered “obese”. As the name suggests, Let’s Move looks to get kids off the couch and moving around. There are many thoughtful food-related proposals, as well.

Expanding access to healthy foods is one of the major themes. Schools, for one, could soon see reform as the new plan looks to update the National School Lunch Program to include more healthy options. Neighborhoods where fresh, healthful food is hard to find, known as “food deserts” (which we wrote about here), are also a focus. Listen up, supermarkets: The administration’s 2011 budget calls for a $400 million investment to bring grocery stores to these underserved neighborhoods. That’d probably include generous tax breaks for any retailers that move in.

The Let’s Move agenda also looks to invest in educating consumers and enhancing transparency at the shelf level. more

And just when we were starting to think the storyline had gone stagnant: Last week the Food and Drug Administration stated that they had “some concerns” about health risks posed by bisphenol-A, or BPA, the chemical used to strengthen plastic that appears in food packaging, baby bottles and other reusable containers.

The statement goes against one the agency made in 2008 that said the chemical was safe. That decision was a disappointment to many in the environmental and medical community — a disappointment compounded by a report that came shortly after from the National Toxicology Program (part of the National Institutes of Health) criticizing the FDA’s stance.

So what made the FDA change its mind? Credit the progressive new attitude coming from the Obama administration, under whom the agency has taken aggressive steps to safeguard public health. There’s also been the increased media attention on studies linking BPA to various ailments, from cancer to impaired brain development.

“I think that they could no longer hide from the evidence,” said Alex Formuzis, spokesman for the Environmental Working Group, when I interviewed him earlier today. “The facts were so stacked against their former position that they had no place to go.”

The chemical and manufacturing industries, for their part, are stating that the evidence is inconclusive. The American Chemistry Council released a statement saying they are “disappointed that some of the recommendations are likely to worry consumers and are not well-founded.”

But consumers have already made up their mind. more

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack paid a visit to Hy-Vee in Des Moines, Iowa this week to talk a bit about healthy eating and that topic that seems to be on everyone’s mind these days — nutrition labeling.

The point of reference here was the NuVal system Hy-Vee uses, which ranks food on a 100-point scale, with higher numbers indicating more nutritious choices. It’s definitely one of the easier-to-understand programs out there, and Vilsack, having strolled the aisles with Hy-Vee CEO Ric Jurgens checking out products (Frosted Mini Wheats, Mr. Secretary?), seems to agree. He praised NuVal and seemed — maybe? — to hint at the need for further label reform.

“If you take a look at a label — unless you’re a dietician or a chemist or a doctor — it’s really hard to determine between two products which is the best product for you and your family,” Vilsack said during a news conference at the store.

Amen to that. But if the secretary and the industry hopes to send a message about the need for clarity in nutrition labeling, they should be aware of what critics say about industry-led programs. According to them, the proliferation of different systems, each operating under different criteria, has only created further confusion. NuVal is different from Supervalu’s Nutrition IQ is different from Hannaford’s Guiding Stars, and so on. In one store you’ve got numbers, the other you’re reading the stars. more

There’s considerable talk about the ways the Food and Drug Administration might change the rules on nutrition labeling. The agency said in October that it would review front-of-pack labels for violations, and there’s good evidence that it will implement a universal system.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest — one of the more vocal critics of the current, disorganized labeling landscape — just weighed in with its recommendations. You’ll recall that back in 1990 the CSPI successfully campaigned for the legislation that brought us Nutrition Facts. Now, the group says, the Facts aren’t as useful as they used to be — food companies have figured out ways to skirt them and mask what’s really in products.

To ensure complete transparency, the CSPI recommends several changes to the Nutrition Facts panel. First off, make the type showing calories and serving size bigger. Second, provide context for servings of fat, sodium, cholesterol and so on by indicating high content percentages in red. And rather than list ingredients by prevalence, separate the major ingredients from the minor ones, and group these together so consumers can see the different types of sugars, oils and so on.

The group also wants the FDA to get stricter on claims like “Strengthens Immunity” and “0 Grams of Trans Fat” that it says can be deceptive. more

Apps have been great for the natural foods industry. Long-time wellness consumers are used to creative thinking. I mean, back in the days before online shopping, if there was a natural/organic lifestyler who needed something special, they either did it themselves or tapped into the word-of-mouth network, shopped specialty catalogues or subscribed to newsletters.

Those inspired approaches to filling their pantries is serving them well as mobile technology continues its dizzying expansion. Indeed, a recent app in particular has the potential to satisfy all consumers with real-time data on food recalls. ReachEverywhere, developers of the Shopper iPhone Shopping Assistant application, announced that it is integrating real-time recall information from the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Now, both the FDA and USDA currently offer online access to the information (FDA even has its own app), but this new one promises to take the confusion out of trying to figure out which agency oversees the product in question.

According to my colleague, SN tech editor Michael Garry, “Users of the application who put an item on their list that is associated with a recall will automatically see the warning information for that product.”

In addition, ReachEverywhere, which launched personalized retailer circulars on the Shopper application one month ago, has added weekly circulars from Stop & Shop, Publix, Giant Food and Winn Dixie to the more than 100 existing retailers on the platform.

(Photo credit: Thibault Poix )

There’s a new Food and Drug Administration in town, and its serious about label reform.

This has been apparent for some time now — ever since early this year, when the agency fired a warning shot at General Mills — and we’ve been on the case, covering the issue as its evolved. There’s only so much insight we can offer, however. For the best idea of where things are headed, check out yesterday’s column in The Atlantic’s food section by Michael Taylor, the FDA’s advisor in charge of food safety and nutrition labeling.

In it, Taylor talks about the problems with labeling systems developed by retailers and manufacturers. Companies claim they’re providing helpful guidance and transparency — but to Taylor, it’s all an overload of dubious information.

“Consumer studies show that some people feel these messages are helpful point-of-purchase shortcuts,” he writes. “But many people are overwhelmed by these messages–and skeptical of their legitimacy.” more

The appeal of caffeinated alcoholic beverages is pretty limited. Federal officials said as much when they announced this morning that the Food and Drug Administration was cracking down on these drinks, which combines malt base in the 6%-8% by-volume range, with roughly 100 milligrams of caffeine (about the same as a cup of coffee) and guarana, taurine and other additives. The agency has sent letters to nearly 30 manufacturers asking them to prove the safety of these drinks.

In comments announcing the move, Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, the FDA’s principal deputy commissioner of food and drugs, pointed out that the products have been targeted specifically at young people attending college.

“The increasing popularity of consumption of caffeinated alcoholic beverages by college students and reports of potential health and safety issues necessitates that we look seriously at the scientific evidence as soon as possible,” he said.

No one likes a hyper-alert drunk, particularly when they’re so inebriated they become a genuine danger to themselves and others. To the average person, the addition of caffeine seems to serve no other purpose than to keep a person awake, and alert, long enough to purchase or consume another beverage.

The nation’s two largest brewers, MillerCoors and Anheuser-Busch have already agreed to discontinue their popular caffeinated alcoholic beverages, Tilt and Bud Extra, and Sparks and promised the FDA they would make none down the road. The companies being questioned now are include not only beer makers, but Diageo North America, makers of Smirnoff Raw Tea Malt Beverage, Constellation Brands
Products, with its Wide Eye label, and other manufacturers who offer caffeinated malt-based drinks. more

Three days after the Food and Drug Administration notified the food industry that it would begin reviewing all nutrition labeling programs, the much-maligned Smart Choices program announced it would “voluntarily postpone operations and not encourage wider use of the logo” for the time being.

Critics of Smart Choices, who included Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, said the program’s nutritional criteria was too lenient, allowing products like Froot Loops cereal and the popcorn-based Cracker Jack snack to qualify for the green checkmarked logo.

In a written statement, posted in the media section of the Smart Choices website, Mike Hughes, program chairman and vice president for science and public policy at the Keystone Center, said he welcomes FDA’s interest in developing uniform front-of-package and shelf-labeling criteria.

“The Smart Choices Program shares that exact goal, and was designed to provide a voluntary front-of-package labeling program that could promote informed food choices and help consumers construct healthier diets. We continue to believe the Smart Choices Program is an important step in the right direction,” he wrote.

Smart Choices was unveiled earlier this year by a group that includes the largest U.S. food manufacturers — Kellogg’s, General Mills, Kraft Foods, among others. more