Recent Government Actions Concerning Food Labels

No, the U.S. government hasn't come out with a decision on GE labeling. However, the FDA has taken a first step toward  defining the word "natural" on food labels, and Congress has  loosened regulations about country of origin labeling (COOL) on meats. Here are the latest developments in  these news stories.

"Natural" on a Food Label:

What does "natural" on a food label really tell us?  Shelf Life Advice has researched this question in the past, only to find that it means different things to  different people.  (See "Food Labeling That Doesn't Mean Much.")  As a result, "natural" has been the inspiration for many lawsuits.  Now,  the FDA is asking for help in developing an appropriate definition for this confusing word.

In its Nov 10, 2015 posting, the FDA asked for information and public comment on these matters:

• Whether it is appropriate to define the term “natural,”
• If so, how the agency should define “natural,” and
• How the agency should determine appropriate use of the term on food  labels.

The FDA is taking this action in part because it received three citizens' petitions asking that the agency define the term “natural” for use in food labeling and one 's petition asking that the agency prohibit the use of the term “natural” on food labels.  We also note that some federal courts, as a result of litigation between private parties, have requested administrative determinations from the FDA regarding whether food products containing ingredients produced using genetic engineering or foods containing high fructose corn syrup may be labeled as “natural.”

Although the FDA has not established a formal definition for the term “natural,” it does have a longstanding policy concerning the use of “natural” in human food labeling. The FDA has considered the term “natural” to mean that nothing artificial or synthetic  (including all color additives) has been included in a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food.  However, this policy was not intended to address food production methods, such as the use of pesticides, nor did it explicitly address food processing or manufacturing methods, such as thermal technologies, pasteurization, or irradiation.

 Due to the complexity of this issue, in its December 24 posting, the FDA extended the comment time for the use of the term “natural” on food labeling. The comment period will now end on May 10, 2016. After that date, the FDA will thoroughly review all public comments and information submitted before determining its next steps.

The FDA is now accepting public comments. To electronically submit comments to the docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov, and type FDA-2014-N-1207 in the search box.

To submit comments to the docket by mail, use the following address:

Division of Dockets Management

HFA-305

Food and Drug Administration

5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061

Rockville, MD 20852

Be sure to include docket number FDA-2014-N-1207on each page of your written comments.

COOL Repealed, Amid Cheers and Boos:

COOL stands for Country of Origin Labeling.  Since 2013, consumers have seen this information on meat labels, info telling them, the Chicago Tribune says, "where an animal was born, raised and slaughtered."  However, in December, 2015, a bill repealing this requirement for meat passed Congress.  Let's find out exactly what's changed and what hasn't and whether public response is that this repeal is good or bad for consumers and for the meat industry.

The  repeal applies to pork and beef.  However, labels are still required on  chicken and lamb products.  But it's not as simple as that.  If meat comes directly into a retail establishment from another country, then there must be a COOL label.  Meat that has been processed in a U.S. facility under FSIS (Food Safety and Inspection Service) inspection, it must be marked that way.  More information can be supplied to consumers, but it's not required.

Who's happy and who isn't about this COOL  repeal?  Many consumers' advocate groups are unhappy.  They argue that consumers have a right to know where their food comes from.  Why would they care?  These are the main reasons: Some consumers don't want to purchase meat from particular countries, especially if  those countries have had  made cow disease outbreaks.  Some customers want  COOL information because they want to support domestic farmers for sustainability reasons. 

 In the opposing corner...no, that corner is  not crowded with everyone in the meat business.  The Chicago Tribune explains:  "The giant North American Meat Institute--which represents US. meatpackers, processors, and their suppliers--favors the repeal. But the National Farmers Union and Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, which represents smaller domestic producers of livestock, strongly supports the label."   The World Trade Organization dislikes COOL, saying that it "unfairly discriminates against meat imports."  Supporters of COOL are not giving up.  They plan to campaign for legislation that would reinstate COOL next year.

Source(s):

shelflifeadvice.com "Food Labeling That Doesn't Mean Much"

http://shelflifeadvice.com/content/food-labeling-doesnt-mean-much

fda.gov  "FDA Requests Comments on Use of the Term 'Natural' on Food Labeling"

http://www.fda.gov/Food/NewsEvents/ConstituentUpdates/ucm471919.htm

thepacker.com ""UPDATED: Bill repeals COOL for meat, boosts FDA funding"

http://www.thepacker.com/news/bill-repeals-cool-meat-boosts-fda-funding

Chicago Tribune "New rules for meat labels: It's complicated," January 6, 2016.