The carbon offsetting industry has enjoyed unregulated growth over the past couple of years, but it appears the party may soon be over.

In that time, a number of offset providers have been exposed for fraudulent acts ranging from substituting credits, to failure to follow through on eco-projects. The lack of oversight allowed firms to take advantage of consumers and even entire companies who sought to participate in the movement with good intentions. Now that problems have been uncovered, action is being taken to quickly button up guidelines and best practices in order to save the image of offsets as a legitimate method of reducing the carbon footprint.

In November The Climate Group, a London-based nonprofit, established the Voluntary Carbon Offset Standard, meant to serve as a rulebook for the industry. Then last month the Federal Trade Commission held a hearing on the issue — its first in a series of hearings focused on green marketing.

Momentum is continuing to build. Yesterday the Center for Resource Solutions and its widely recognized Green-e label announced the first voluntary certification program for carbon offsets sold at the retail level. This new process follows an offset through its entire lifecycle, making sure it’s properly labeled and that it actually does, say, provide for the planting of trees in Brazil’s rainforests.

“Consumers are going to want transparency. They’re going to want to know where their money went,” said Jeff Swenerton, spokesman for the Center for Resource Solutions.

A certification like this serves mainly as a marketing tool, but that shouldn’t downplay its significance. Consumers want assurances that the credits they’re purchasing at their local supermarket are truly going where they want them to. As these certification guidelines hit the market, it might be time for all businesses to check their offset programs against the standards, to see how they measure up. This is one time you don’t want to get caught with your plants down.

With a 2007 growth rate of more than 20% and sales of roughly $4 billion, the organic category runs the constant risk of attracting scammers. Luckily there’s Craig’s List to keep them occupied — for now. Each participant in the food industry needs to take some responsibility for helping to ensure that the food, beverages and other products labeled “organic” are authentic. Fraud can occur at any stage of distribution.

Several initiatives currently underway are worth keeping an eye on. On the retail end, the National Cooperative Grocers Association has been testing a retailer-based organic fraud detection and prevention program launched last October. The aim is to figure out what methods and best practices food retailers can adopt to limit the incidence of fraudulently traded organic products and to increase the chances of early detection when it takes place within the retail supply chain. NCGA is hoping to be able to offer some sort of program by the middle of this year.

Meanwhile, back at the farm, researchers are attempting to develop protocols capable of detecting the presence of synthetic fertilizers in crops labeled organic. A new report published in the Journal of Environmental Quality described successful trials of a process called nitrogen isotopic discrimination to see if fertilizers not approved by the National Organic Program were used on a sweet pepper plant.

While these trials are being conducted, it might be a good time to think about ways your company is protecting organic integrity. Getting in-store departments and entire stores certified, or contracting with third-party certifiers is all good. These actions demonstrate good intentions.

But it may not be enough. Organics continues to attract more consumers, and generate millions more dollars in revenue. Those interested in taking ill-gotten profits are captivated as well.

An annual report on construction trends put out by the management consulting firm FMI Corp. (no relation to the Food Marketing Institute) is something we wouldn’t usually read.

That’s changing, however, and this new FMI report reminds us that the entire health and wellness movement is just one part of a much larger megatrend that also includes sustainability, social issues and world economics. The 2008 U.S. Construction Overview highlights three trends that are pushing green building practices to the forefront of all industries, including supermarkets.

According to the report, green nonresidential construction installed in 2006 reached $13.4 billion; by the end of this year it will pass the $21 billion mark — big growth on a big scale.

FMI cites three trends driving this increase:

* Government Initiatives. Many states and cities have adopted new ordinances that push sustainable practices in the construction of new buildings. There are also more tax rebates, credits and other incentives to go green. These projects also tend to get approved quicker, a benefit in and of itself.

* Residential Demand. There is a heightened level of interest in adding green elements at home, and this is spilling over in to the commercial construction sector, according to FMI. As homeowners increase their own investment, materials volume is increasing and becoming more common. Expectations grow that their retailers and other service providers will join in.

* Green Materials. Demand is creating increased inventory of sustainable building materials. People are making a conscious effort to source carpet, paint, wood and other supplies that are more healthful, more energy efficient and economically sensible. The growing demand is helping to drive down prices, and as the materials become more affordable, demand will likely increase even more.

Consumers in Pennsylvania will still be able to examine containers of milk to see if it was produced without artificial growth hormones.

In what one consumer advocate called “a complete backdown,” the state’s department of agriculture issued revised rules this week concerning on-pack mentions of hormones in milk. The old rule, issued last October and to take effect Feb. 1, banned any statements from appearing on cartons or jugs. Officials argued consumers could be led to believe hormones were bad.

Why is this case important? It was the first time a state had pursued such a policy, and would set a precedent. Opponents quickly voiced their concerns, characterizing the debate as a “right to know” issue which, in turn, attracted the interest of average shoppers. They caught the ear of Gov. Ed Rendell, who ordered a review of the proposed standards (read: Fix this!).

If anything, the new regulations bring Pennsylvania in line with other states’ policies. Labels can still highlight the absence of recombinant bovine growth hormone, manufactured by Monsanto and approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration in 1994. However, such assertions must now be accompanied by a disclaimer stating there is no difference between milk from rBGH-treated cows and rBGH-free cows. It basically amounts to little more than a pain in the asterisk.

Dairy is one of the gateway categories to health and wellness. Retailers should be extremely wary of any measures that cloud the transparency essential to the vitality and success of the entire whole health movement. When you look at it in those terms, Pennsylvania is making the right decision.

This afternoon the Food and Drug Administration gave its official approval of food coming from cloned animals and their offspring. In its final report, totaling nearly 1,000 pages, the agency stated that it had taken all moral, religious and scientific factors into account, and concluded that food from cloned animals is just as safe as food coming from ordinary animals.

There are currently 600 or so cloned animals in the United States, and officials note it may be several years before milk or meat from cloned animals even is ready for the consumer market. Because they’re so expensive to produce, most of them right now are only used for breeding purposes.

“Many farmers and ranchers are already using other assisted reproductive technologies, such as artificial insemination, embryo transplant, and in-vitro fertilization to produce superior animals,” said Bruce Knight, under secretary for marketing and regulatory programs with the USDA, which supported the FDA in its announcement. “Cloning is another breeding technology that has evolved and has now been demonstrated to be safe.”

Let’s see how consumers demonstrate their support.

Last week saw two very different answers to a question that’s on the minds of many retailers and consumers: What to do about all those plastic bags?

For New York City, the answer is recycling. The city council there passed a resolution requiring supermarkets 5,000 square feet or more in size, or with five or more locations in the city, to provide in-store recycling bins for plastic bags.

China on the other hand — not exactly renowned for its environmental stewardship — imposed a ban on ultra-thin plastic bags and a fee on all other varieties. The state department there urged citizens to instead use cloth sacks and baskets to carry groceries.

The benefit of recycling is that it allows retailers to continue using low-price plastic bags. But critics argue it won’t keep most consumers from continuing to trash the bags they use (also, plastic never gets fully recycled). A total banning seems to address the problem at its root, but some groups say that just shifts the burden — often to paper bags, which require tons of petroleum to produce.

Last March, San Francisco imposed a plastic bag ban for all large-scale supermarkets and drug stores, at the same time giving these retailers the option to use compost-friendly bags or bags made from recycled paper. Environmental groups lauded this decision, but others say the shift to the more expensive biodegradable bags amounts to an unfair hidden tax on consumers.

Retail advocates like the California Grocers Association believe San Francisco missed the boat by failing to address consumer behavior.

“It’s about attacking the problem at its root,” said Tim James, local government relations manager with the CGA. “Just by banning a certain type of bag, you don’t necessarily change bag-use behavior.”

Many would argue, however, that behavior isn’t the issue. It’s cutting down on the 84 billion plastic bags that Americans use every year, and the 12 million barrels of oil used to produce them.

This is a lively, ongoing debate, and we’d love to hear your side of it. Should retailers have to recycle plastic bags, or ban them outright? Or should they institute usage fees? Let us know what you think.

The spinach scare of 2006 and rash of meat recalls from this past year have made retailers anxious for a fresh start. That’s why many are making improved food safety their top resolution this new year.

Of the many areas that food safety addresses, it appears traceability leads the list in 2008. On the produce front, there’s the Produce Traceability Initiative, holding its first meeting tomorrow in Atlanta. Comprised of more than 30 companies throughout the food industry — including Wal-Mart, Safeway, Food Lion, Schnuck Markets and HEB — the group looks to create traceability standards that will apply across the supply chain. Right now inefficiency runs rampant, often with each step in the process — from producer to distributor to retailers and stores — utilizing different tracing technologies.

This means a grower might tag a carton of tomatoes with its own scanning code, which then gets sent on to a distributor who can’t read or store that information because they use an entirely different system. The result: a negation of all traceback efforts, and a huge waste of money.

“Companies think they have traceability solved, but they only have it solved within their own four walls,” said Gary Fleming, VP of industry technology and standards for the Produce Marketing Association. “Right now, we’re all over the board.”

The meat category is an even more complex maze of tracing systems — everything from electronic ear tags to DNA cataloging. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is pushing its National Animal Identification System, which involves electronic tracking tags; earlier this year Michigan became the first state to make parts of the program mandatory. But the meat industry has resisted the idea, mainly out of cost concerns.

Although produce is definitely ahead of the curve, it’ll take time to resolve traceability for all fresh food categories. Hopefully we’ll see this resolution at the top of retailer’s lists next year, as well.

For low-income families, buying cheap, high-calorie processed foods isn’t just an easy decision — it’s often a necessity. According to a study published by researchers at the University of California-Davis, most low-income families can’t fit the USDA’s recommended amount of fruits and vegetables into their tight food budgets.

Whole health advocates would like this year’s farm bill to narrow the price gap between the snack food aisle and the produce bin, which sits at just under $17 per 1,000 calories, according to a recent study by the University of Washington’s Center for Obesity Research. But it appears that’s a bust. The bill, which just recently regained momentum after being stalled for weeks, has many of the same staple crop subsidies in place that it’s had in the past.

The USDA, however, has decided to step up. Last week the agency announced significant changes to its supplemental nutrition program Women, Infants and Children (WIC), which supplies vouchers for specific foods to approximately 8 million low-income individuals. This overhaul — the first in nearly thirty years for the program, according to the USDA — will rearrange WIC’s payouts so that it gives more for whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, and less for dairy, eggs and juice. These changes will go into effect next February.

Under the new guidelines, monthly vouchers for fruits and vegetables will be $6 for children, $8 for women, and $10 for breast-feeding women. That’s higher than previous years, but it may not be enough to adequately cover the rising cost of produce, which has jumped nearly 20% in the past two years (unlike the price of Twinkies, Doritos and the like, which has remained relatively stable).

Indeed, there’s been a string of studies and articles recently highlighting the negative link between the nation’s poor and the rising cost of healthy food.

“The gap between what we say people should eat and what they can afford is becoming unacceptably wide,” noted University of Washington researcher Adam Drewnowski.

Beyond the price issue, there’s also the troubling fact that low-income areas often lack access to grocery stores with healthy selections — “food deserts”, as they’ve come to be known. Last month, Louisville’s Courier-Journal commissioned a study that found the poorer west side of town to have only one full-service supermarket per 25,000 residents, while the rest of the metropolitan area had one for every 12,500 residents.

Supermarkets and the food industry as a whole have their work cut out for them. Whether they choose to actually take action is another story altogether.

When it comes to the meat category, the term “natural” is as wide open as a Midwest cattle range. That’s because the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s definition, which dates back to the early 1980s, merely stipulates that the product be “minimally processed.” This, of course, fails to cover the way animals are raised, and as a result numerous processors today are slapping a “natural” claim on their meat even as they pump their animals full of hormones and antibiotics.

There are companies out there, like Coleman Natural Meats, who actually do raise and process without additives. But who can tell the difference at the supermarket level? “We need to get the labeling changed so that when you see a ‘natural’ label at retail, it specifically defines how the animal is raised,” CEO Mel Coleman, Jr. told us earlier this year. To differentiate themselves and prove their integrity, some companies have started adding their own claims. Ken Chapin, meat director at Yoke’s Fresh Market in Spokane Wash., for example, carries a line of “true natural” meat.

The USDA plans to take action, but it doesn’t plan to do as Coleman, Jr. would like and revise the “natural” marketing claim. Rather, they’ve decided to put forth a “naturally raised” label. Up for public comment until the end of January, it’s a voluntary standard wherein manufacturers raise their animals without hormones, antibiotics or animal by-products. It stops short of organic, which has been troubled by high prices.

The agency’s Agriculture Marketing Service, which oversees these claims, says it’s cutting through the confusion and setting a clear standard for something that many manufacturers have decided to define on their own.

“We are just trying to do what the industry and consumers want,” said USDA spokesman Billy Cox.

But is simply adding another label — and a voluntary one at that — really the way to go? “Naturally raised” covers a hole that needed to be filled, but consumers who want to eat right will just grow more confused with this, yet another claim. The USDA should work towards cutting down on the clutter, not add to it.

The Food and Drug Administration is holding its first ever hearing on sodium regulation today in the nation’s capital. This is mainly an informational session, but that shouldn’t downplay the significance of the occasion. Sodium has long enjoyed GRAS status, but this first-ever hearing could remove the Generally Recognized As Safe designation.

For the medical community and watchdog groups like the Center for Science in the Public Interest, this hearing is a big victory. For years they’ve decried overconsumption of the popular flavor agent and have prodded the agency to take action. Numerous studies have subsequently backed them up. The CSPI has been particularly persistent, appealing to the FDA regularly over the past three decades, and going so far as to sue them twice — in 1983 and 2005. Armed with evidence and overwhelming support from the scientific community, CSPI and others want the FDA to reclassify sodium and limit the amount food retailers and restaurants can use. They’d also like the agency to require warning labels detailing the health hazards of consuming too much salt.

Studies show there’s an urgent need for regulation. The average American currently consumes around 4,000mg of sodium per day. That’s bad news, considering the recommended daily amount is almost half that. According to the American Medical Association, cutting the amount of salt companies now use by half could save 150,000 lives each year.

So will the FDA take action? If change happens, it’ll come slowly. That’s because sodium is entrenched in our food system, to the extent that we’re not even aware of its presence. Just reading the amounts found in most processed foods like frozen meals is enough to make you thirsty. Even seemingly healthy items like Caesar salads can hold as much as 1,500mg. Please pass the water.