I found this label on the back of a juice bottle amusing.
It is easy to stand on principle when there is no cost to doing so.
Blog
All Natural Law Suits
Back in May, I wrote the following:
there is a large contingent of lawyers with eyes set on the food industry Some were involved in the Tobacco lawsuits and are looking for a new target. Others are food lawyers and public health advocates using the legal system to invoke the change they want. In other cases, food company A is suing food company B in an attempt to limit competition. Whatever the reasons, one lawyer told me something to the effect that: if you've got the word "natural" on your food product, there is good chance you're going to get sued.
It seems the Wall Street Journal is now on the story. They ran a piece yesterday on natural food labels. They write:
Meanwhile, lawsuits are piling up, alleging false advertising. Attorneys say at least 100 lawsuits have been filed in the past two years challenging the natural claims of UnileverULVR.LN +0.32% PLC's Ben & Jerry's, Kellogg Co. K +0.41% 's Kashi, Beam Inc. BEAM +2.39% 's Skinnygirl alcohol drinks and dozens of other brands. Some lawsuits have been thrown out, but others have ended with multi-million-dollar settlements. Still others are pending. For the most part, the suits are filed by plaintiffs' lawyers on behalf of consumers who purchased the products, seeking class-action status.
The problem is, as the WSJ notes, that:
The Food and Drug Administration has no definition, says a spokeswoman, but rather a long-standing policy that it considers "natural'' to mean that "nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food.'' The agency's website says it is "difficult to define a food product that is 'natural' because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth."
No only does the FDA not have a definition, another deeper problem is that consumers don't know what they think natural means. As I pointed out in a survey in June, 66% of consumers think foods with added salt are natural, but only 32% think foods with added sodium chloride are natural.
How safe is the poultry you buy?
All told, Mr. Millman and his mother, Ann Marks, gathered 213 samples of chicken drumsticks from supermarkets, butcher shops and specialty stores in the New York area.
Now they and several scientists have published a study based on the project in the journal F1000 Research. The results were surprising.
Almost twice as many of the kosher chicken samples tested positive for antibiotic-resistant E. coli as did the those from conventionally raised birds. And even the samples from organically raised chickens and those raised without antibiotics did not significantly differ from the conventional ones.
That's from this post in the NYT.
But, as the story reminds us, don't forget that:
The contamination does not mean the chicken is dangerous to eat. Generally, poultry is safe if handled carefully and cooked to an internal temperature of 165 degrees Fahrenheit, according to guidelines from the Agriculture Department
.
I-522 Tomorrow
Tomorrow Washingtonians will vote on I-522, which will require mandatory labeling of foods produced with biotechnology if passed.
I came across this interesting (and apparently neutral) web site from Voter's Edge MapLight that catalogs the major arguments, donors, endorsements, etc.
The list of donors on both sides is predictable, but after clicking through on the donations page, I found it interesting to see where the donations originated.
This is not a fight between regular people but vested interested and organizations on both sides of the issue.
Less than 1% of donations against I-522 are from individuals and only about 20% of donations for I-522 are from individuals. The rest comes from "organizations" and "other" (I have no idea what "other" refers to).
Also of interest is the location of donors. Neither pro or anti I-522 camps can list Washington state as the largest source of donations. The largest share of donations for I-522 (38.5%) comes from California and against I-522 (25%) are from Missouri (that's Monsanto). Interesting that 7.5% of donations for I-522 are from the tiny geographic spot of D.C.
Make no mistake about it, this is a proxy fight for something much bigger than whether people in WA see labels on GMO foods.
For interested readers, I've already offered my thoughts on the substance of the debate here.
Mexico Passes Soda Tax
Friday the Mexican congress passed a nationwide soda and "junk food" tax.
l've written so much on these sorts of taxes, it is hard to know what more can be said. I suppose the best, succinct thing I can say is what I sent in a letter to the New York Times, in response to a previous story they ran about the issue:
Writing about a proposed 7.7 cent per liter soda tax in Mexico, Elisabeth Malkin cites a Mexican corner store vendor who doubts the tax will make a dent in sales. The economic research concurs with this assessment. Study after study has shown that soda taxes of this magnitude will have trivial effects on weight, and yet will raise revenue from many consumers who can least afford to pay. For example, my co-authored study in the Journal of Health Economics estimates that a 10% tax on sugar-sweetened soft drinks would reduce weight by only about two tenths of a pound. Another study from Cornell University has even found evidence of adverse unintended effects from soda taxes that arise from increased consumption of higher calorie juices or alcohol. Denmark recently repealed their fat tax for precisely these reasons: complications arising from unintended consequences and consumer backlash. We all want people to lead healthy, fulfilling lives but we must also marry these concerns with the evidence on whether the policies being pursued will actually create the benefits we desire.
This comes on the heels of another "simulation" study was released, this one in the journal BMJ, which concludes:
A 20% tax on sugar sweetened drinks would lead to a reduction in the prevalence of obesity in the UK of 1.3% (around 180 000 people). . . . Taxation of sugar sweetened drinks is a promising population measure to target population obesity, particularly among younger adults.
I suppose the good thing about the Mexican developments is that we can finally put to test the predictions of some of these simulation models.