It's only "Natural" and the FDA wants your opinion!
Options
Replies
-
Is there a TL:DR version?
The word natural doesn't have any legal definition according to the FDA, which is now taking comments from people about what, if anything, the term should mean when used in marketing food.
Then something, something additives are bad. Didn't read anything to see if our great grandparents who had half our life expectancy and far lower food security didn't need any stinking additives.0 -
Labeling, yes. Banning, no.
I have a gazillion issues with the FDA and with the USDA and with the lack of appropriate funding for them to do a better job. The supplement industry in the USA gets away with outrageously dangerous claims under the standard warning "these statements have not been evaluated etc...". I remember a particularly bad outbreak of E. coli connected to baby spinach in which the source of the bacteria was the water they were washing the spinach with - now, that is not only dumb, it is scary.
When it comes to food intolerances and sensitivities, however, the burden has to be on the consumer.
When it comes to cancers, lots of things can and do increase the odds that an individual will develop it (Sun exposure, processed red meats, obesity, to name a few) - but at some point running those risks are an individual choice. Making the public aware of those risks might be (I think it is) the government's job- stopping an individual from running those risks (which ultimately affects not society but the self) it's not.
Philosophically there is always a tension between freedom and safety. There is no perfect balance (we have daily reminders).
In my opinion, even if there were studies confirming a link between carrageenan and cancer that - in and on itself - would not be reason to ban it. You would have to analyze the data and come up with a significant risk to do it.0 -
Oooooohhhhhh.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/ConstituentUpdates/ucm471919.htm
Too bad as a Canadian I can't throw in my two cents. I suggest the FDA use the same definition already developed by the Brazilian food guide.
"Natural foods are those obtained directly from plants or
animals (such as green leaves and fruits, or eggs and milk)
and purchased for consumption without having undergone
any alteration following their removal from nature.
Minimally processed foods are natural foods which have
been somewhat altered before being purchased. Examples
include grains that are dried, polished, or ground as grits or
are cooled or frozen; and pasteurised milk."
http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/Brazilian-Dietary-Guidelines-2014.pdf0 -
eugenia94102 wrote: »Labeling, yes. Banning, no.
I have a gazillion issues with the FDA and with the USDA and with the lack of appropriate funding for them to do a better job. The supplement industry in the USA gets away with outrageously dangerous claims under the standard warning "these statements have not been evaluated etc...". I remember a particularly bad outbreak of E. coli connected to baby spinach in which the source of the bacteria was the water they were washing the spinach with - now, that is not only dumb, it is scary.
When it comes to food intolerances and sensitivities, however, the burden has to be on the consumer.
When it comes to cancers, lots of things can and do increase the odds that an individual will develop it (Sun exposure, processed red meats, obesity, to name a few) - but at some point running those risks are an individual choice. Making the public aware of those risks might be (I think it is) the government's job- stopping an individual from running those risks (which ultimately affects not society but the self) it's not.
Philosophically there is always a tension between freedom and safety. There is no perfect balance (we have daily reminders).
In my opinion, even if there were studies confirming a link between carrageenan and cancer that - in and on itself - would not be reason to ban it. You would have to analyze the data and come up with a significant risk to do it.
Consumers can not make the distinction as to what is in the food if it is not labeled properly. We will have to disagree about banning carageenan, there is no true use for it. It's useless and provides nothing to benefit the human body.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »eugenia94102 wrote: »Labeling, yes. Banning, no.
I have a gazillion issues with the FDA and with the USDA and with the lack of appropriate funding for them to do a better job. The supplement industry in the USA gets away with outrageously dangerous claims under the standard warning "these statements have not been evaluated etc...". I remember a particularly bad outbreak of E. coli connected to baby spinach in which the source of the bacteria was the water they were washing the spinach with - now, that is not only dumb, it is scary.
When it comes to food intolerances and sensitivities, however, the burden has to be on the consumer.
When it comes to cancers, lots of things can and do increase the odds that an individual will develop it (Sun exposure, processed red meats, obesity, to name a few) - but at some point running those risks are an individual choice. Making the public aware of those risks might be (I think it is) the government's job- stopping an individual from running those risks (which ultimately affects not society but the self) it's not.
Philosophically there is always a tension between freedom and safety. There is no perfect balance (we have daily reminders).
In my opinion, even if there were studies confirming a link between carrageenan and cancer that - in and on itself - would not be reason to ban it. You would have to analyze the data and come up with a significant risk to do it.
Consumers can not make the distinction as to what is in the food if it is not labeled properly. We will have to disagree about banning carageenan, there is no true use for it. In My Opinion It's useless and provides nothing to benefit the human body.
fixed it for you0 -
Actually, it has pretty decent macros and nutrients so I wouldn't say "it provides nothing to the human body".0 -
Which is the very definition of GRAS under FDA. One could say the same of fiber. Or pepper.... there is no true use for it. It's useless and provides nothing to benefit the human body.0 -
Oooooohhhhhh.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/ConstituentUpdates/ucm471919.htm
Too bad as a Canadian I can't throw in my two cents. I suggest the FDA use the same definition already developed by the Brazilian food guide.
"Natural foods are those obtained directly from plants or
animals (such as green leaves and fruits, or eggs and milk)
and purchased for consumption without having undergone
any alteration following their removal from nature.
Minimally processed foods are natural foods which have
been somewhat altered before being purchased. Examples
include grains that are dried, polished, or ground as grits or
are cooled or frozen; and pasteurised milk."
http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/Brazilian-Dietary-Guidelines-2014.pdf
Thank you, that is all I ask, to know what is in the product. If it is truly natural, and not derived of something to get something else, just so they can plump it up, or make it a thicker consistency, well then I'm game. Carageenan may come from red seaweed, but it is no longer a complete food when they separate it from the seaweed. Then they add it to foods and use it without acknowledging it on the packaging, this is what causes me and many others to become ill.
Your link is the one included in my links above, I have already printed it and will take my time to answer all of their questions so they can take it with a grain of salt, I believe we will all be a grain of salt but maybe if enough people respond to their request it can add up to a huge truck load of salt. Maybe they will take more consideration on making these producers be more forth coming in telling of all ingredients in their foods. One can only hope for that.
Here is a portion of what they are asking for, I have copied and pasted it below and it directly relates to what I am asking for regarding allergens being noted on labels.
======================================================================
"advises that the issue of declaring allergenic ingredients in food is being discussed on an international level. Several individual governments and the Codex Alimentarius Commission have begun to formulate policy for the labeling of foods containing allergenic ingredients to ensure that consumers are provided sufficient information to avoid substances to which they are allergic. While packaged foods sold in the U.S. are among the most comprehensively labeled foods in the world (some countries provide broader exemptions from ingredient declaration), FDA is studying its labeling requirements, and considering whether rulemaking is necessary, for the labeling of allergenic ingredients.
While the agency does so, FDA asks manufacturers to examine their product formulations for ingredients and processing aids that contain known allergens that they may have considered to be exempt from declaration as incidental additives under 101.100(a)(3), and to declare the presence of such ingredients in the ingredient statement. Where appropriate, the name of the ingredient may be accompanied by a parenthetical statement such as "(processing aid)" for clarity."
======================================================================
My HEB has cookies my husband likes, I don't generally eat store bought cookies but wanted to know why he always came home with them, so I tried one. The cookie is named, "The Big Chip" and the package shows a picture of chocolate chips along side the cookies. By looking at the package you would not have a clue that there is coconut in them. When I tried the cookie I told him it had coconut in it and he told me it did not. I tasted it again, then I read the package ingredients again and found "unsweetened coconut". That's an allergen and many people have reactions to coconut, but the package doesn't say, "Chocolate Chip Coconut Cookies". It shouldn't be that way, the allergens should be right there for people to see. I never thought they would have coconut and only the one time I ate one I noticed it. I had read over the list of ingredients, but I was intently looking for carageenan before I ate one. I'm not allergic to coconut so it wouldn't be an ingredient I would look for. So, the problem for us that need to know what's in our food need the ingredients to be forth coming, and someone looking at a chocolate chip cookie wouldn't expect coconut in it without it in the name of the cookie. Would you not think? I don't know, it's how I think anyway, truth in labeling.
Here is the ingredient list,-you would never know by the picture unless you read the entire ingredient list.
Ingredients: Chocolate Chips (Chocolate Liquor, Sugar, Anhydrous Dextrose, Soy Lecithin [Emulsifier], Artificial Flavor), Enriched Bleached Flour (Wheat Flour, Niacin, Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Butter, Brown Sugar, Sugar, Liquid Whole Eggs, Dried Unsweetened Coconut, Whey Powder, Sodium Bicarbonate, Baking Powder (Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Sodium Bicarbonate, Corn Starch, Monocalcium Phosphate, Calcium Sulfate), Natural Flavor.0 -
Oooooohhhhhh.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/ConstituentUpdates/ucm471919.htm
Too bad as a Canadian I can't throw in my two cents. I suggest the FDA use the same definition already developed by the Brazilian food guide.
"Natural foods are those obtained directly from plants or
animals (such as green leaves and fruits, or eggs and milk)
and purchased for consumption without having undergone
any alteration following their removal from nature.
Minimally processed foods are natural foods which have
been somewhat altered before being purchased. Examples
include grains that are dried, polished, or ground as grits or
are cooled or frozen; and pasteurised milk."
http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/Brazilian-Dietary-Guidelines-2014.pdf
I'm not sure what this would add for the consumer's benefit that we don't already know.
I think it's been long understood that "natural" as used on US food products means basically nothing and I'd be just as happy for it to be removed as a marketing term. I don't need "natural" stamped on my potato or carton of eggs or even my pasta, which has a list of ingredients (usually extremely short, of course).
It seems like what OP is really upset about is "[c]arrageenan may be present in the final product but not listed on the ingredients label when it is used as a 'processing aid,' for example in cream."
(Also, apparently: "The law does not require ingredients to be listed on alcoholic beverages, and carrageenan is commonly used to clarify beer.")
http://www.cornucopia.org/shopping-guide-to-avoiding-organic-foods-with-carrageenan/
I have not looked at the evidence for why it wouldn't be listed if used as a "processing aid," so have no opinion yet on that.0 -
anewstart22 wrote: »eugenia94102 wrote: »Labeling, yes. Banning, no.
I have a gazillion issues with the FDA and with the USDA and with the lack of appropriate funding for them to do a better job. The supplement industry in the USA gets away with outrageously dangerous claims under the standard warning "these statements have not been evaluated etc...". I remember a particularly bad outbreak of E. coli connected to baby spinach in which the source of the bacteria was the water they were washing the spinach with - now, that is not only dumb, it is scary.
When it comes to food intolerances and sensitivities, however, the burden has to be on the consumer.
When it comes to cancers, lots of things can and do increase the odds that an individual will develop it (Sun exposure, processed red meats, obesity, to name a few) - but at some point running those risks are an individual choice. Making the public aware of those risks might be (I think it is) the government's job- stopping an individual from running those risks (which ultimately affects not society but the self) it's not.
Philosophically there is always a tension between freedom and safety. There is no perfect balance (we have daily reminders).
In my opinion, even if there were studies confirming a link between carrageenan and cancer that - in and on itself - would not be reason to ban it. You would have to analyze the data and come up with a significant risk to do it.
Consumers can not make the distinction as to what is in the food if it is not labeled properly. We will have to disagree about banning carageenan, there is no true use for it. In My Opinion It's useless and provides nothing to benefit the human body.
fixed it for you
Yeah, thanks, aren't we all providing our opinions without having to note it? LOL
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Oooooohhhhhh.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/ConstituentUpdates/ucm471919.htm
Too bad as a Canadian I can't throw in my two cents. I suggest the FDA use the same definition already developed by the Brazilian food guide.
"Natural foods are those obtained directly from plants or
animals (such as green leaves and fruits, or eggs and milk)
and purchased for consumption without having undergone
any alteration following their removal from nature.
Minimally processed foods are natural foods which have
been somewhat altered before being purchased. Examples
include grains that are dried, polished, or ground as grits or
are cooled or frozen; and pasteurised milk."
http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/Brazilian-Dietary-Guidelines-2014.pdf
I'm not sure what this would add for the consumer's benefit that we don't already know.
I think it's been long understood that "natural" as used on US food products means basically nothing and I'd be just as happy for it to be removed as a marketing term. I don't need "natural" stamped on my potato or carton of eggs or even my pasta, which has a list of ingredients (usually extremely short, of course).
It seems like what OP is really upset about is "[c]arrageenan may be present in the final product but not listed on the ingredients label when it is used as a 'processing aid,' for example in cream."
(Also, apparently: "The law does not require ingredients to be listed on alcoholic beverages, and carrageenan is commonly used to clarify beer.")
http://www.cornucopia.org/shopping-guide-to-avoiding-organic-foods-with-carrageenan/
I have not looked at the evidence for why it wouldn't be listed if used as a "processing aid," so have no opinion yet on that.
Yes, thank you.
0 -
I once filed a complaint letter to the government that too much dryer lint was being thrown in to the landfills. The passionate writer included a sample along with her letter. One of the most interesting complaint letters I've ever filed. Nothing came of it however, no matter how passionate and creative her complaint. The government response was kind and nearly as creative.
I don't think it is realistic to demand that manufacturers FULLY describe their products in the title. The font would have to be too small. Titles have to be big, bold and punchy for us to notice them at all. Educated consumers can line up various products with the nutrition and ingredients labels facing forward (which hubby and I have done with cereals and hot-dogs) to pick the "better" product.
We found the no-name hot-dogs to be lowest in fat, salt, and additives by the way. Big surprise.
Your Big Chip cookie, if your complaint were taken seriously, would have to be labelled. "Chocolate-Chip-Brown-Sugar-and-other-sweeteners-read-the-label-Wheat-Coconut-rising-agents-read-the-label-Cookie".0 -
The poor Irish. Now their moss is getting dissed (the source of carrageenan). For vegetarians and vegans, it is very helpful so they can avoid gelatin.
0 -
Actually, it has pretty decent macros and nutrients so I wouldn't say "it provides nothing to the human body".
Okay, so it has no use for me and the many others who have problems with it. There are three different forms of carageenan out there and all can be derived in different ways to be used in our food sources. It is not original to a natural food form unless you eat the seaweed in it's true form to get all of the fiber and other nutrients it provides. Then you have a whole food without removing one component of that food to get something else to use for something else. Does any of that make sense to you? I am honestly not sure how to get across what it is I am trying to say, I do know I don't want it in my food.0 -
I don't think it is realistic to demand that manufacturers FULLY describe their products in the title. The font would have to be too small. Titles have to be big, bold and punchy for us to notice them at all. Educated consumers can line up various products with the nutrition and ingredients labels facing forward (which hubby and I have done with cereals and hot-dogs) to pick the "better" product.
Yes, I agree with this. Labels should be accurate, but the burden should be on the consumer to read it or not, period. If they choose not to, that's their choice.0 -
-
anewstart22 wrote: »anewstart22 wrote: »eugenia94102 wrote: »Labeling, yes. Banning, no.
I have a gazillion issues with the FDA and with the USDA and with the lack of appropriate funding for them to do a better job. The supplement industry in the USA gets away with outrageously dangerous claims under the standard warning "these statements have not been evaluated etc...". I remember a particularly bad outbreak of E. coli connected to baby spinach in which the source of the bacteria was the water they were washing the spinach with - now, that is not only dumb, it is scary.
When it comes to food intolerances and sensitivities, however, the burden has to be on the consumer.
When it comes to cancers, lots of things can and do increase the odds that an individual will develop it (Sun exposure, processed red meats, obesity, to name a few) - but at some point running those risks are an individual choice. Making the public aware of those risks might be (I think it is) the government's job- stopping an individual from running those risks (which ultimately affects not society but the self) it's not.
Philosophically there is always a tension between freedom and safety. There is no perfect balance (we have daily reminders).
In my opinion, even if there were studies confirming a link between carrageenan and cancer that - in and on itself - would not be reason to ban it. You would have to analyze the data and come up with a significant risk to do it.
Consumers can not make the distinction as to what is in the food if it is not labeled properly. We will have to disagree about banning carageenan, there is no true use for it. In My Opinion It's useless and provides nothing to benefit the human body.
fixed it for you
Yeah, thanks, aren't we all providing our opinions without having to note it? LOL
well when you are trying to make a statement of fact about additives leading to cancer with no scientific proof, I think it needs to be noted that these statements are a matter of opinion.
and as @Hornsby pointed out carrageenan does actually provide macro and micronutrients so it is not, as you stated, "useless" and provide nothing of benefit.0 -
Here's an article about why certain processing aids don't need to be added to the label in the US: http://www.motherearthnews.com/real-food/processing-aids-whats-not-on-the-label-and-why-zwfz1306zsal.aspx0
-
I once filed a complaint letter to the government that too much dryer lint was being thrown in to the landfills. The passionate writer included a sample along with her letter. One of the most interesting complaint letters I've ever filed. Nothing came of it however, no matter how passionate and creative her complaint. The government response was kind and nearly as creative.
I don't think it is realistic to demand that manufacturers FULLY describe their products in the title. The font would have to be too small. Titles have to be big, bold and punchy for us to notice them at all. Educated consumers can line up various products with the nutrition and ingredients labels facing forward (which hubby and I have done with cereals and hot-dogs) to pick the "better" product.
We found the no-name hot-dogs to be lowest in fat, salt, and additives by the way. Big surprise.
Your Big Chip cookie, if your complaint were taken seriously, would have to be labelled. "Chocolate-Chip-Brown-Sugar-and-other-sweeteners-read-the-label-Wheat-Coconut-rising-agents-read-the-label-Cookie".
Well, I got a good laugh from that, I haven't known anyone to be allergic to sugar, except a diabetic not being able to process it, and if someone has a gluten problem they certainly won't be eating a flour laden cookie. Coconut however is right up there with nut allergies for a large majority. A simple piece of coconut sitting next to the chocolate chips would do just fine to alert the buyer of the cookie that a known allergen is in it.
I am not surprised that you found the better product to be the no name product. I don't eat hot dogs, so I wouldn't know though.0 -
But...but....where does one stop when it comes to bolding and highlighting various sensitivities and allergies? All the bolding and highlighting does is cloud the message. I'm in favor of a very plain nutrition label, very consistent, in the same font, with the elements listed in order so that educated consumers can scan and confirm if the food concern they have is there.
I read labels for total calories, sugar, salt and fat content by the way.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 404 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 986 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions