Real Food Blog » FDA

FDA

...now browsing by tag

 
 

FDA Halts Poisonous Orange Juice At US Border

Sunday, January 29th, 2012

U.S. health regulators detained three shipments of Brazilian orange juice and six from Canada that tested positive for the fungicide carbendazim, which is illegal in the United States.

Two other Brazilian juice shipments tested positive for the fungicide, but the companies decided not to import the juice into the country, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said on Friday.

Orange juice futures climbed almost 3 percent in reaction to the FDA testing results, which had been widely expected.

But the futures remained below a record high hit on Monday, after traders fretted that regulators may ban all orange juice from top grower Brazil, which supplies half of U.S. imports.

The FDA said 29 of the 80 orange juice samples it had taken since testing began on January 4 were safe, including two from Brazil and seven from Canada.

Canada does not grow its own oranges, but may process juice from other countries. The nation makes up less than 1 percent of U.S. imports.

The fungicide scare flared two weeks ago after the FDA announced that a company – later identified as Coca-Cola Co – had reported finding carbendazim in juice samples from Brazil.

Growers in Brazil widely use carbendazim to combat blossom blights and black spot, a mold that grows on orange trees.

The fungicide is illegal on citrus in the United States, although it does not pose a safety risk, the FDA said.

The FDA said it would begin testing imports for the fungicide and reject shipments that were above the legal limit.

Shipments that have more than 10 parts per billion (ppb) of the fungicide will be detained, and the importers will have 90 days to export or destroy the product, the agency said.

The FDA said it would test all shipments twice, and detain any that tested positive for carbendazim at least once.

Of the six shipments detained from Canada, none had levels of fungicide higher than 31 ppb, and most were below 20 ppb. The Brazilian shipments that tested positive had carbendazim levels between 20 ppb and 52 ppb.

All the levels of carbendazim found so far have been below the legal limit in the European Union, which allows juice imports with up to 200 ppb.

In the United States, trace amounts of the fungicide are still allowed in 31 food types including grains, nuts and some non-citrus fruits. It has been banned from U.S. citrus juice since 2009.

Source: Reuters

Weston A. Price Foundation Warns FDA About Dangers Of A Salt Restrictive Diet

Wednesday, January 25th, 2012

The Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) has warned the FDA that plans for salt restriction pose a health threat to Americans of all ages, in comments submitted to the agency yesterday.

The Weston A. Price Foundation is a non-profit nutrition education foundation dedicated to accurate scientific information about diet and health.

WAPF noted that by entitling their document “Approaches to Reducing Sodium Consumption,” the FDA has signaled that it has already decided that Americans’ sodium consumption should be reduced. But neither history nor the scientific evidence support this approach.

“A study from 1991 indicates that people need about one and one-half teaspoons of salt per day,” says Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation. “Anything less triggers a cascade of hormones to recuperate sodium from the waste stream, hormones that make people vulnerable to heart disease and kidney problems. This is proven biochemistry. Yet, FDA as well as USDA want to mandate drastically restricted sodium consumption at about one-half teaspoon per day.”

WAPF testimony noted that salt plays a critical role in body physiology and brain function. In the elderly, lack of salt is associated with increased hip fractures and cognitive decline; low salt diets in growing children predisposes to poor neurological development.

Proposals to restrict salt cite benefits to hypertension. But only 30 percent of the population experiences a slight reduction in blood pressure on a salt restricted diet, while 70 percent show no benefit.

“These statistics don’t justify a population-wide policy of salt reduction,” says Fallon Morell

Recent studies show a correlation of salt restriction with increased heart failure and with insulin resistance leading to diabetes. Studies show that even modest reductions in salt cause an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Higher incidence of inflammatory markers and altered lipoproteins are also found by researchers evaluating those on salt reduced diets. These factors are precursors to metabolic syndrome, which predicts heart problems and diabetes.

Both sodium and chloride, the components of salt, are needed for digestion. These elements form the basis of cellular metabolism and our only source of adequate intake is salt.

The Foundation also cautions the FDA that salt reductions will increase food safety risks. Salt is a traditional food preservation medium with an excellent track record. Artisan cheeses, preserved meats like salami and traditional pickled foods like sauerkraut require salt to prevent contamination by pathogens.

“Our biggest concern is that with FDA dictates against salt, manufacturers will add imitation salt flavors like Senomyx to processed foods,” says Fallon Morell. ”Marketed as a food, so it does not require testing, and added in amounts so small that is does not need to be labeled, this neurotropic compound can interfere with our natural taste for salt, leading to severe deficiencies. Or, people will become obese as they eat more and more, trying to satisfy the body’s need for salt.”

The Weston A. Price Foundation fully referenced commentary is posted  at http://www.westonaprice.org/images/pdfs/wapf-comments-fda-salt.pdf.

Source: www.westonaprice.org

F.D.A. To Consider Warnings For Artificial Food Coloring

Saturday, April 2nd, 2011

After staunchly defending the safety of artificial food colorings, the federal government is for the first time publicly reassessing whether foods like Jell-O, Lucky Charms cereal and Minute Maid Lemonade should carry warnings that the bright artificial colorings in them worsen behavior problems like hyperactivity in some children.

The Food and Drug Administrationconcluded long ago that there was no definitive link between the colorings and behavior or health problems, and the agency is unlikely to change its mind any time soon. But on Wednesday and Thursday, the F.D.A. will ask a panel of experts to review the evidence and advise on possible policy changes, which could include warning labels on food.

The hearings signal that the growing list of studies suggesting a link between artificial colorings and behavioral changes in children has at least gotten regulators’ attention — and, for consumer advocates, that in itself is a victory.

In a concluding report, staff scientists from the F.D.A. wrote that while typical children might be unaffected by the dyes, those with behavioral disorders might have their conditions “exacerbated by exposure to a number of substances in food, including, but not limited to, synthetic color additives.”

Renee Shutters, a mother of two from Jamestown, N.Y., said in a telephone interview on Tuesday that two years ago, her son Trenton, then 5, was having serious behavioral problems at school until she eliminated artificial food colorings from his diet. “I know for sure I found the root cause of this one because you can turn it on and off like a switch,” Ms. Shutters said.

But Dr. Lawrence Diller, a behavioral pediatrician in Walnut Creek, Calif., said evidence that diet plays a significant role in most childhood behavioral disorders was minimal to nonexistent. “These are urban legends that won’t die,” Dr. Diller said.

There is no debate about the safety of natural food colorings, and manufacturers have long defended the safety of artificial ones as well. In a statement, the Grocery Manufacturers Association said, “All of the major safety bodies globally have reviewed the available science and have determined that there is no demonstrable link between artificial food colors and hyperactivity among children.”

In a 2008 petition filed with federal food regulators, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group, argued that some parents of susceptible children do not know that their children are at risk and so “the appropriate public health approach is to remove those dangerous and unnecessary substances from the food supply.”

The federal government has been cracking down on artificial food dyes for more than a century in part because some early ones were not only toxic but were also sometimes used to mask filth or rot. In 1950, many children became ill after eating Halloween candy containing Orange No. 1 dye, and the F.D.A. banned it after more rigorous testing suggested that it was toxic. In 1976, the agency banned Red No. 2 because it was suspected to be carcinogenic. It was then replaced by Red No. 40.

Many of the artificial colorings used today were approved by the F.D.A. in 1931, including Blue No. 1, Yellow No. 5 and Red No. 3. Artificial dyes were developed — just as aspirin was — from coal tar, but are now made from petroleum products.

In the 1970s, Dr. Benjamin Feingold, a pediatric allergist from California, had success treating the symptoms of hyperactivity in some children by prescribing a diet that, among other things, eliminated artificial colorings. And some studies, including one published in The Lancet medical journal in 2007, have found that artificial colorings might lead to behavioral changes even in typical children.

The consumer science group asked the government to ban the dyes, or at least require manufacturers to include prominent warnings that “artificial colorings in this food cause hyperactivity and behavioral problems in some children.”

Citizen petitions are routinely dismissed by the F.D.A. without much comment. Not this time. Still, the agency is not asking the experts to consider a ban during their two-day meeting, and agency scientists in lengthy analyses expressed skepticism about the scientific merits of the Lancet study and others suggesting any definitive link between dyes and behavioral issues. Importantly, the research offers almost no clue about the relative risks of individual dyes, making specific regulatory actions against, say, Green No. 3 or Yellow No. 6 almost impossible.

The F.D.A. scientists suggested that problems associated with artificial coloring might be akin to a peanut allergy, or “a unique intolerance to these substances and not to any inherent neurotoxic properties” of the dyes themselves. As it does for peanuts and other foods that can cause reactions, the F.D.A. already requires manufacturers to disclose on food labels the presence of artificial colorings.

A spokeswoman for General Mills refused to comment. Valerie Moens, a spokeswoman for Kraft Foods Inc., wrote in an e-mail that all of the food colors the company used were approved and clearly labeled, but that the company was expanding its “portfolio to include products without added colors,” like Kool-Aid Invisible, Capri Sun juices and Kraft Macaroni and Cheese Organic White Cheddar.

The panel will almost certainly ask that more research on the subject be conducted, but such calls are routinely ignored. Research on pediatric behaviors can be difficult and expensive to conduct since it often involves regular and subjective assessments of children by parents and teachers who should be kept in the dark about the specifics of the test. And since the patents on the dyes expired long ago, manufacturers have little incentive to finance such research themselves.

Popular foods that have artificial dyes include Cheetos snacks, Froot Loops cereal, Pop-Tarts and Hostess Twinkies, according to an extensive listing in the consumer advocacy group’s petition. Some grocery chains, including Whole Foods Market and Trader Joe’s, refuse to sell foods with artificial coloring.

Source: New York Times

 

Raw Milk: Is The FDA Fighting Against Your Health?

Monday, May 10th, 2010

Are raw, living foods sourced from safe local producers better for your health and immune systems than processed, genetically modified, pasteurized, homogenized, or irradiated foods?

Do you have a right to decide for yourself, and to choose healthy, raw, nutritious, natural foods from local growers and purveyors?

Take raw milk as an example. Since California established the nation’s most stringent raw milk standards, more and more people are consuming raw dairy products. Many of those people tout what they view as raw milk’s beneficial properties. They claim that raw milk and cultured raw dairy products help to relieve symptoms of allergies, asthma, arthritis, and other digestive issues, including symptoms of celiac disease.

Speaking from my own experience, after switching to raw dairy about six months ago, my hay fever has disappeared, my nose is never stuffed up any more, my stomach loves me, and I have never felt better. Moreover, my nephew suffers from classic milk allergy. If he drinks milk, his mouth swells up and he has to take an antihistamine. Recently, after witnessing the disappearance of my own allergies, and after reading that raw milk is hypoallergenic, we took the plunge and had him drink a glass. mom anxiously waited to see if he would have an allergic reaction. He had none. Nothing. Felt fine. Since then, I’ve been treated like the wise uncle. But enough of my story.

Raw milk is also rich in natural probiotics such as bifidobacteria, which along with prebiotics, have been shown to reduce inflammation and lessen symptoms in people with celiac disease and associated inflammatory conditions.

For example, a team of European researchers recently demonstrated that dietary probiotics and prebiotics can improve quality of life for people with celiac and associated conditions, such as type 1 diabetes and some autoimmune disorders. Their results offer some of the strongest support for the idea that eating foods rich in probiotics and/or prebiotics, such as raw milk, yogurt, and kefir can help a number of patients with celiac disease reduce inflammation and lessen symptoms of celiac disease.

However, the rights of consumers to access foods on their own terms are under assault from powerful agribusiness and food manufacturers through their influence over the FDA. The Farm-to-consumer legal defense fund summarizes the FDA position on consumer food rights as follows:

*Consumers have no absolute right to any raw unprocessed food, unless the FDA says it’s okay

*There’s no right to good health, except as approved by the FDA

*There’s no right for citizens to contract privately for their food

That’s right, according to the FDA, we have no right to contract with a farmer to grow or produce food outside of FDA approval and control. Approval and control that is heavily influenced by major industrial producers.

These and other issues regarding raw milk and other raw foods are the subject of a recentMercola.com interview with Mark A. McAfee, owner of Organic Pastures Dairy. McAfee was instrumental in resisting attempts by big dairy interests to prohibit raw milk, and in pushing lawmakers to establish the nation’s highest raw milk standards here in California. The article talks about the quality and standards for raw milk, and instructs consumers in what to look for when searching out raw dairy products.

A growing number of people who believe that raw, living foods provide health and immune benefits are organizing to fight what many regard as an assault on the commercial viability of these foods and their producers by major food manufacturers.

Many people who currently enjoy access to raw, living, biodynamic foods from local, sustainable growers and purveyors are concerned about what they see as an FDA that is using laws targeted at major manufacturers to obstruct, restrict, and prohibit small farmers and food purveyors, especially of raw, living, natural foods such as dairy, almonds, juices, eggs, etc.

Regarding raw milk, McAfee points out that only six states presently permit the retail sale of raw milk: California, Connecticut, Maine, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Arizona. However, it’s important to realize that each state sets their own standards. California, specifically, has its own special set of standards for raw milk for human consumption, in which farmers must meet or exceed pasteurized milk standards, without pasteurizing.

You can find raw milk retailers in California by using the store locator available at Organic Pastures.  For other areas, check out the Campaign for Real Milk Web site. You can also look here to find out the legal status of raw milk in the U.S. state or country where you live.

Bay Area consumers may buy raw dairy and other probiotic, biodynamic foods at: Rainbow Grocery;Falletti’s; Molly Stone’s; Berkeley Bowl; and The Foodmill in Oakland.

People who want to learn more about the campaign for raw milk access may read about it at RealMilk.com, or OrganicPastures.com:

Consumers may learn more about supporting farm to consumer foods, including raw milk by accessing the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund.

Source: Examiner.com

FDA Says is Has Concerns About BPA

Sunday, January 17th, 2010

Bisphenol A, commonly abbreviated as BPA is a  building block of several important plastics and plastic additives.

In August 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a ruling saying BPA was safe for all uses. The ruling sparked a public firestorm, as critics called the research flawed.

On January 9th, 2010 the FDA officials said there is “some concern” about the health risks to children and babies from the plastics additive known as BPA. They won’t, however,  restrict use of the substance pending further study.

Suspected of being hazardous to humans since the 1930s, BPAs have undergone much scientific scrutiny recently. Concerns about the use of  BPA in consumer products have been growing amongst the public and some retailers have removed products made of it from their shelves.

Click to continue »

Filth in your Food

Sunday, December 27th, 2009

You might want to think twice before eating the olive out of your martini or the cherry off of your next sundae.  The levels of filth allowed by the FDA are enough to turn your stomach.

Have you ever wondered how much rodent shit the FDA will allow in the wheat that ends up in your bread or how much mold is okay in frozen strawberries?  All of the numbers are available in the FDA Defect Levels Handbook, if you are brave enough to look.

Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 110.110 allows the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to establish maximum levels of natural or unavoidable defects in foods for human use that present no health hazard. These “Food Defect Action Levels” listed in this booklet are set on this premise–that they pose no inherent hazard to health.

You can look forward to reading about contamination by:

Copepods

Extraneous Materials -Including objectionable matter contributed by insects, rodents, and birds; decomposed material; and miscellaneous matter such as sand, soil, glass, rust, or other foreign substances.

Foreign Matter -Including objectionable matter such as sticks, stones, burlap bagging, cigarette butts, etc. Also includes the valueless parts of the raw plant material, such as stems.

Mouse Infested Bread

Infestation - The presence of any live or dead life cycle stages of insects in a host product, (e.g., weevils in pecans, fly eggs and maggots in tomato products); or evidence of their presence (i.e., excreta, cast skins, chewed product residues, urine, etc.); or the establishment of an active breeding population, (e.g., rodents in a grain silo).

Mildew, Mold, Rancidity, Rot

Whole or Equivalent Insects – A whole insect, separate head, or body portions with head attached.

Enjoy the Handbook. But wait until you have finished your lunch!

FDA Defect Levels Handbook