It is a new year but let's not be fooled - The more things change, the more they will remain the same in regard to food and nutrition policies.
Activists have a heavy agenda, including but not limited to, restricting so-called junk food or non-nutritious food advertising to children, defining "natural," front panel display of certain nutritional ingredients, the display of caffeine content on energy drinks, the safety of acrylamides in food, implementation of the Food safety Modernization Act, final regulatory approval of GM foods, specifically the Atlantic Salmon and reform of the farm bill.
And yet, according to a year end report from the Food and Drug Administration, last year 7.3 million visitors clicked on Consumer Updates at fda.gov. The top 10 most popular topics in 2012 did not contain a single issue mentioned above.
Consumers wanted to know about:
1. Disposing of unused medicines.
2. Mercury in skin products sold illegally in U.S.
3. HCG diet products—a dangerous fad.
4. Dietary supplement Hydroxycut—can be hazardous to health.
5. Examining arsenic in rice
6. Tattoo inks linked to serious infection.
7. Is the common additive triclosan safe?
8. Thickening agent may be deadly for infants.
9. Expanded advice: Take statins with care.
10. Symptoms of Cushing’s disease in dogs, and how to treat it.
Congress is dysfunctional. Everything from gun laws to mental health to the basic infrastructure of the country seems broken.
The nutrition activists have there own priorities, fed by the need to show their members the need to raise money for Washington representation. The food industry does the same thing with just about every aisle of the supermarket with a lobby designed to block activist demands and advance a sympathetic regulatory environment.
It is s tempest in a teapot, far removed from the day to day concerns of hardworking consumers.
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Bah Humbug for FDA
Ho, Ho, Ho. Has FDA been naughty or nice to the food industry in 2012?
Basically, the agency has been neither, but it has been MIA on just about every major food issue, so paraphrasing one of the great TV lines from Seinfeld, "No gifts for you!"
The story is so familiar it has almost become trite – the federal agency that regulates 25% of the nation's GNP, is overwhelmed by issues, short on expert staff and resources and mostly leadership takes a pass on the "F" in FDA, again.
Now, at the very time it's plate is overflowing, FDA like all other federal agencies, face a serious, 8.2% cut in spending as part of the "fiscal cliff" negotiations. According to a recent report by OMB, FDA would see a $318 million budget reduction out of its entire budget. FDA estimates $71 million of that would come out of what's left of the agency’s food program.
Michael Taylor, FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Foods, said in September he believes sequestration would be “a huge blow to our progress on food safety. . . The Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, which has a central role in implementing the Food Safety Modernization Act, has had the same permanent FTE [full time equivalent] staffing level as it did in 1992, before the explosion of imports, before the overall growth in the complexity and size that we see in the food system, even before FSMA was enacted,” he said. “We need to beef up the staffing at CFSAN and other parts of the program, so anything that forces us backward — you can just imagine the effect that it would have.”
While the food numbers are bleak, the basic problem here, is that FDA has always been dominated by the drug side of the agency. Most days the folks in CFSAN are MIA in terms of decision-making.
Consequently, the following major policy issues rest gathering dust somewhere at the agency's headquarters. The key risk management question FDA refuses to answer is how many people have to die before FDA considers food policy a top-tier issue?
OK, none of the following rise to the level of the fiscal cliff or nominating a Supreme Court Judge, but the following laundry list is long and includes issues that invites the "greed is good people" to emerge or states, such as California and Washington State to make policy for the nation:
Basically, the agency has been neither, but it has been MIA on just about every major food issue, so paraphrasing one of the great TV lines from Seinfeld, "No gifts for you!"
The story is so familiar it has almost become trite – the federal agency that regulates 25% of the nation's GNP, is overwhelmed by issues, short on expert staff and resources and mostly leadership takes a pass on the "F" in FDA, again.
Now, at the very time it's plate is overflowing, FDA like all other federal agencies, face a serious, 8.2% cut in spending as part of the "fiscal cliff" negotiations. According to a recent report by OMB, FDA would see a $318 million budget reduction out of its entire budget. FDA estimates $71 million of that would come out of what's left of the agency’s food program.
Michael Taylor, FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Foods, said in September he believes sequestration would be “a huge blow to our progress on food safety. . . The Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, which has a central role in implementing the Food Safety Modernization Act, has had the same permanent FTE [full time equivalent] staffing level as it did in 1992, before the explosion of imports, before the overall growth in the complexity and size that we see in the food system, even before FSMA was enacted,” he said. “We need to beef up the staffing at CFSAN and other parts of the program, so anything that forces us backward — you can just imagine the effect that it would have.”
While the food numbers are bleak, the basic problem here, is that FDA has always been dominated by the drug side of the agency. Most days the folks in CFSAN are MIA in terms of decision-making.
Consequently, the following major policy issues rest gathering dust somewhere at the agency's headquarters. The key risk management question FDA refuses to answer is how many people have to die before FDA considers food policy a top-tier issue?
OK, none of the following rise to the level of the fiscal cliff or nominating a Supreme Court Judge, but the following laundry list is long and includes issues that invites the "greed is good people" to emerge or states, such as California and Washington State to make policy for the nation:
- Dealing with the current "voluntary" disclosure of caffeine of energy drinks and the safety of these beverages marketed to children
- Determining a no significant risk to human health level for acrylamides
- Implementing new sections of the Food Safety Modernization Act, which is years overdue
- Trying to define just what the Hell the term "natural" means
- Overhauling front panel nutrition labeling and the Nutrition Facts box. What to do with sugar vs added sugars? What do do with partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, which turn into trans fats? The last time FDA did this, it required a massive commitment of manpower and 18 months of work which resulted in more than 2,000 pages of fine print in the Federal Register. The promise of action in 2013 is laughable.
- Taking any action whatsoever to defend its position that GMO foods present no significant risk to the public
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Finally, FDA Acts Before More Poeple Die
How many deaths did it take for FDA to flex a little muscle? How many more people will end up in the emergency rooms or die due to consumption of products with no caffeine ingredient disclosures. How many more thousands of hours will the FDA spend in trying to calculate how many angels dance on the front panel lettering of food products, despite no one but a Registered Dietitian understands the information? How many of man-hours will be spent in endless meetings debating whether parents have an obligation to turn off "offensive" television advertising to children or leave it to the federal government to set rules governing what food companies can tell what consumers at what time of the day?
To to give the devil his due,yesterday the Food and Drug Administration halted operations of Sunland Peanut Butter, the country's largest organic peanut butter processor, that supplies product to companies such as Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, Safeway, Target and other large grocery chains after 41 people in 20 states, most of them children, were sickened by peanut butter manufactured at the plant in Portale. FDA cracked down on salmonella poisoning for the first time with new enforcement authority the agency gained in a 2011 food safety law, although other legal experts claim the agency could have acted much soonerf it has showed a little backbone.
FDA is an agency that lives in black-and-white. It cannot distinguish shades of gray and therefore the agency waited until Congress gave it new authority to suspend a company's registration when food manufactured or held there has a "reasonable probability" of causing serious health problems or death. Before the food safety law was enacted early last year, the FDA would have had to go to court to suspend a company's registration. To a non-lawyer, presenting a reasonable case to a judge that a plant was producing food that had "reasonable probability"of killing people was not a high legal hurdle.
A few years short and many deaths later, Michael Taylor, the FDA's deputy commissioner for foods, said the agency's ability to suspend a registration like this one is a major step forward for the agency.
"Consumers can be assured that products will not leave this facility until we determine they have implemented preventive measures that are effective to produce safe products," Taylor said. I'm confident Taylor's new found enthusiam will be of great comfort to those families that lost parents, children, aunts, and uncles and who know that FDA fiddled as Rome burned.
In the Washington world or regulation, FDA typically looks for a deep pocket company on which to enforce new statutory authority.
During a month-long investigation, after the outbreak linked to processor Sunland and to Trader Joe's, FDA inspectors found samples of salmonella in 28 different locations in the plant, in 13 nut butter samples and in one sample of raw peanuts.The agency also found improper handling of the products, unclean equipment and uncovered trailers of peanuts outside the facility that were exposed to rain and birds.The FDA said that over the past three years, the company shipped products even though portions of their lots, or daily production runs, tested positive for salmonella in internal tests. The agency also found that the internal tests failed to find salmonella when it was present. FDA inspectors found many of the same problems – including employees putting their bare fingers in empty jars before they were filled, open bags of ingredients, unclean equipment, and many other violations – in a 2007 inspection. Similar problems were recorded by inspectors in 2009, 2010 and 2011, though government officials didn't take any action or release the results of those inspections until after the illnesses were discovered this year.
Sunland's president and chief executive officer, Jimmie Shearer, denied the company knowingly shipped tainted products.
So, does this tell us? FDA knew for a very long time the Sunland plant was a problem. They collected data but took no action. Then, armed with new legislative authority. It swooped in and shut the plant down and issued a press release. How many people died in the meantime?
Friday, November 9, 2012
New Media Relations Rules for Future Candidates
Now that the election is over, here are a few new rules (with apologies to Bill Maher) for future candidates and their media relations sherpas:
New Rule: In an interview, debate or conversation NEVER say anything you would not want your mother to see on the first page of her morning paper.
New Rule: Whether you are gay, straight, transgender or bi-sexual, a CIA Director, Army General, Governor, Senator or Member of the House of Representatives, if you plan to run for office or hold high office, take off your pants for your spouse or companion and your doctor, and nobody else. No one but Bill Clinton can carry off multiple infidelities and come back.
New Rule: Know your shit. "Oops" is not an acceptable third message point, no matter what Texas Governor Rick Perry says to the contrary.
New Rule: In a debate, when your opponent says, "Governor, please proceed...," SLAM ON THE BRAKES, shut your mouth, breathe and turn around to see the knife that is just about to stab you in your heart.
New Rule: When an interviewer or opponent includes "bayonets and horses" immediately step back from the question. Do not walk into the issue.
New Rule: Answer the damn question, before leaping into your memorized message point, it's not that hard. It's "yes that's right," or "No, that's wrong and let me tell you why," or "That's an excellent question, let me get back to you." Only POTUS has the right to ignore your question as Marine One prepares for takeoff from the South lawn of The White House.
New Rule: Under no circumstance try to change Newton's law of motion -- that’s the one about creating an equal and opposite reaction, just in case you skipped that class in college. If you try to suppress the vote, the people whose vote is threatened will come out in mass numbers and kill you at the voting booth.
New Rule: If you are going to lie, stick to it. Do NOT flip-flop, waffle, walk back, or try to parse, your words. The correct answer is, "That's what I said and I am sticking to it." The only exception is when you really fuck up and then you say "I am sorry, my staff gave me bad information."
New Rule: If you are an old, angry, rich white guy, just forget about running for national office AND if you are a old, angry, rich white guy forget about giving ANYBODY millions of dollars in contributions, except a legitimate charity.
Strategic Communications, LLC is prepared to work with you now for a modest amount to help you master these new rules. And, I am more than willing to work with you for a whole lot more money, if you ignore these rules.
New Rule: In an interview, debate or conversation NEVER say anything you would not want your mother to see on the first page of her morning paper.
New Rule: Whether you are gay, straight, transgender or bi-sexual, a CIA Director, Army General, Governor, Senator or Member of the House of Representatives, if you plan to run for office or hold high office, take off your pants for your spouse or companion and your doctor, and nobody else. No one but Bill Clinton can carry off multiple infidelities and come back.
New Rule: Know your shit. "Oops" is not an acceptable third message point, no matter what Texas Governor Rick Perry says to the contrary.
New Rule: In a debate, when your opponent says, "Governor, please proceed...," SLAM ON THE BRAKES, shut your mouth, breathe and turn around to see the knife that is just about to stab you in your heart.
New Rule: When an interviewer or opponent includes "bayonets and horses" immediately step back from the question. Do not walk into the issue.
New Rule: Answer the damn question, before leaping into your memorized message point, it's not that hard. It's "yes that's right," or "No, that's wrong and let me tell you why," or "That's an excellent question, let me get back to you." Only POTUS has the right to ignore your question as Marine One prepares for takeoff from the South lawn of The White House.
New Rule: Under no circumstance try to change Newton's law of motion -- that’s the one about creating an equal and opposite reaction, just in case you skipped that class in college. If you try to suppress the vote, the people whose vote is threatened will come out in mass numbers and kill you at the voting booth.
New Rule: If you are going to lie, stick to it. Do NOT flip-flop, waffle, walk back, or try to parse, your words. The correct answer is, "That's what I said and I am sticking to it." The only exception is when you really fuck up and then you say "I am sorry, my staff gave me bad information."
New Rule: If you are an old, angry, rich white guy, just forget about running for national office AND if you are a old, angry, rich white guy forget about giving ANYBODY millions of dollars in contributions, except a legitimate charity.
Strategic Communications, LLC is prepared to work with you now for a modest amount to help you master these new rules. And, I am more than willing to work with you for a whole lot more money, if you ignore these rules.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
What does the election mean for the food industry?
Looking at last night's election from 30,000 feet presents a different long-term vision of the nation than a view from the trenches; however, one thing is certain, both views have changed.
On the national level, GOP leaders, such as U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (SC), realize, in this striking defeat, that his party is now comprised of old, white, rich, angry men, dinosaurs. Without a massive restructuring, it may have lost the ability to elect any candidate to national office. The GOP also learned that Jim Crow voting repression efforts put Newton's law of motion into play and created an "equal and opposite reaction." I guess Rove and friends slept through that class.
A view from the trenches brings a somewhat more familiar vision. The food industry has a marvelous track record of identifying changing consumer needs, producing new products and marketing them with cutting edge technology to all consumers. It strikes me as somewhat ironic that food companies, which market to every kind of consumer, do not share any common political values with their customers.
In practical terms the question is - How fast will the folks, who work in mahogany offices, figure out the real issue is not what is on the front nutrition panel, since nobody but an RD understands it, but how quickly they can get the information on their products in Spanish, for a start? Remember, the California election ballot, for example, was printed in eight languages from American Indian to Vietnamese.
All this is good news for food industry trade associations, which can take dues dollars, form coalitions and slow down the pace of change, permitting member companies the freedom to create their own branded initiatives to address consumer health and safety issues.
Let's look at what the election may mean to just a few of the major issues facing the industry:
Many Agency watchers have concluded the "F" in FDA has been MIA for years. The budget cuts will make matters worse since all the major food health and safety issues are complex and controversial. Here is how I think they may break out:
Most Do
Now that POTUS has been re-elected, there is no longer any reason for OMB to hold the very expensive food safety modernization regulations, an effort that will save lives and prevent serious illnesses.
Will Have To Do Something
Front panel nutritional labeling. The question here is whether the industry's peremptory strike has enough science behind it so FDA can tinker with it rather than overhaul it. A proactive social media campaign focused on health professionals would help.
Caffeine content transparency - Yes, I know these products are diet supplements and are subject to different rules but energy drink products owned by major beverage companies voluntarily disclose caffeine content. Why not spend some political capitol and encourage FDA to require caffeine and stimulant disclosure, establishing a level competitive playing field? The industry would win major kuddos from the public health community.
Forget It
California's overwhelming rejection of Proposition 37's mandatory labeling of GMO foods should put this issue back in the freezer for the FDA. If you are an investor in the "super-sized salmon" you have my sympathies, but a huge amount of preparing the marketplace work needs to be done with health and nutrition experts before FDA needs to tackle this one. Just one footnote, except more action on this issue at the state level.
USDA
The Farm Bill - While the GOP retains control of the House, the Tea Party has been weakened. Perhaps the industry should take a fresh look at the nutrition and sugar programs and try to restore the old McGovern-Dole Agreement. And, despite personal politics, that fact is no domestic sugar producer or state (Florida is still too close to call) voted for the president. The Administration owes nothing to them and revenge is a dish best served sweet, I mean "cold."
CSPI, Marion Nestle, Mark Bittman, Virginia Stallings, Rachel Johnson, FNS, maybe AND
On the national level, GOP leaders, such as U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (SC), realize, in this striking defeat, that his party is now comprised of old, white, rich, angry men, dinosaurs. Without a massive restructuring, it may have lost the ability to elect any candidate to national office. The GOP also learned that Jim Crow voting repression efforts put Newton's law of motion into play and created an "equal and opposite reaction." I guess Rove and friends slept through that class.
A view from the trenches brings a somewhat more familiar vision. The food industry has a marvelous track record of identifying changing consumer needs, producing new products and marketing them with cutting edge technology to all consumers. It strikes me as somewhat ironic that food companies, which market to every kind of consumer, do not share any common political values with their customers.
All this is good news for food industry trade associations, which can take dues dollars, form coalitions and slow down the pace of change, permitting member companies the freedom to create their own branded initiatives to address consumer health and safety issues.
Let's look at what the election may mean to just a few of the major issues facing the industry:
FDA
It is certain that FDA's budget will be cut. Absent a grand bargain on the budget, an 8.2% sequestration will cut FDA's budget by about $320 million - $205 million from the Treasury and about $115 million from industry user fees. FDA would have to cut or furlough about 1,000 staffers. Importantly, no matter how much is cut, no regulatory responsibilities will be reduced. An Agency plagued for years with having too much to do with too few resources will have to pick and choose much more carefully where it spends its time and money.
It is certain that FDA's budget will be cut. Absent a grand bargain on the budget, an 8.2% sequestration will cut FDA's budget by about $320 million - $205 million from the Treasury and about $115 million from industry user fees. FDA would have to cut or furlough about 1,000 staffers. Importantly, no matter how much is cut, no regulatory responsibilities will be reduced. An Agency plagued for years with having too much to do with too few resources will have to pick and choose much more carefully where it spends its time and money.
Many Agency watchers have concluded the "F" in FDA has been MIA for years. The budget cuts will make matters worse since all the major food health and safety issues are complex and controversial. Here is how I think they may break out:
Most Do
Now that POTUS has been re-elected, there is no longer any reason for OMB to hold the very expensive food safety modernization regulations, an effort that will save lives and prevent serious illnesses.
Will Have To Do Something
Front panel nutritional labeling. The question here is whether the industry's peremptory strike has enough science behind it so FDA can tinker with it rather than overhaul it. A proactive social media campaign focused on health professionals would help.
Caffeine content transparency - Yes, I know these products are diet supplements and are subject to different rules but energy drink products owned by major beverage companies voluntarily disclose caffeine content. Why not spend some political capitol and encourage FDA to require caffeine and stimulant disclosure, establishing a level competitive playing field? The industry would win major kuddos from the public health community.
Forget It
California's overwhelming rejection of Proposition 37's mandatory labeling of GMO foods should put this issue back in the freezer for the FDA. If you are an investor in the "super-sized salmon" you have my sympathies, but a huge amount of preparing the marketplace work needs to be done with health and nutrition experts before FDA needs to tackle this one. Just one footnote, except more action on this issue at the state level.
USDA
The Farm Bill - While the GOP retains control of the House, the Tea Party has been weakened. Perhaps the industry should take a fresh look at the nutrition and sugar programs and try to restore the old McGovern-Dole Agreement. And, despite personal politics, that fact is no domestic sugar producer or state (Florida is still too close to call) voted for the president. The Administration owes nothing to them and revenge is a dish best served sweet, I mean "cold."
White House, MyPlate and Dietary Guidelines - No change in policy is expected from the East Wing of the White House or the nutritional nonsense eminating from its chef. What is really interesting to me is that many in the nutrition community believe the current regulatory regimen is fatally flawed and there is a growing social media discussion about how to change it before the next round of the DG begin. Now is the time for industry to jump on board, and encourage this discussion.
FTC
Kid-Vid Advertising - Control of advertising is a fall on your sword and bleed out issue. The industry is using the old chestnut of working with the Better Business Bureau. It has hired a former high Ranking FTC staffer to run the effort, but will the industry's current positioning be able to withstand the coming onslaught of attacks, because the activist community knows this is the game for all the marbles, too? Here's another opportunity to build support through social media aimed at health professionals.
Kid-Vid Advertising - Control of advertising is a fall on your sword and bleed out issue. The industry is using the old chestnut of working with the Better Business Bureau. It has hired a former high Ranking FTC staffer to run the effort, but will the industry's current positioning be able to withstand the coming onslaught of attacks, because the activist community knows this is the game for all the marbles, too? Here's another opportunity to build support through social media aimed at health professionals.
CSPI, Marion Nestle, Mark Bittman, Virginia Stallings, Rachel Johnson, FNS, maybe AND
It's November, and just as trade associations begin to draft their dues letters, the activists will be drafting their own, which will stress the need to have the resources to drive home many of their issues, since POTUS and FLOTUS are now free of political considerations. Look for an uptick in their "now is the time" rhetoric, fundraising, communications and lobbying.
In sum, lots of challenges with opportunities to play offense and defense. Of course, this can all change if the Administration decides to make obesity prevention a cornerstone of its second term. Remember, the Obama team are now thinking about how historians will view it. So, we end up where we began, at 30,000 feet.
To talk about health professional social media efforts shoot me a note or give me a call.
To talk about health professional social media efforts shoot me a note or give me a call.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Academy of Dietetics and Nutrition Pulls a Romney on GMOFood Policy
Drated, redrafted, peer-reviewed and finally published in JADA (American Journal of
the American Dietetic Association, Vol. 108, No. 7.) in 1992 and updated in
1995 and 1998, the position of the AND is in line with FDA policy, and
safety analyses conducted by the World Health Organization, National Academy of Sciences, and most recently by
the American Medical Association in addition to countless other science based
organizations such as an IFT expert panel. The policy remained unchanged for twenty years was on the AND website and just about every science-based organization involved with the issue pointed to it as a voice of reason. AND loved it.Suddenly,without a word of explanation, in September the AND website was wiped clean of all references to the JADA article. According to an email from the AND media relations office, "the Agricultural and Food Biotechnology position paper expired on December 31, 2009" and removed from the website.
The curious thing is although the paper technically "expired" in 2009, it remained active on the organization's website and was a core document in the public debate about GMO labeling for almost three years. It may be more than coincidence that the date AND wiped its website coincided with the launch of the GMO labeling Initiative, Proposition 37, in California. In fairness to AND, it did post a convoluted press release which basically said the prior position "expired" and the Academy now had no position on the issue of GMO foods pending a new study due out in 2013. How convenient?
I know something about food, politics and the way large hierarchical organizations work when they get unhappy calls and emails -- pressure and bullying -- from members. I am a political realist not a conspiracy wingnut.
This is what I think really happened. In the dark of night, behind closed doors, when AND thought no one was looking, the AND leadership rolled over and played dead to robust opposition from its largest state delegation, California. Having the position paper on the website was causing the anti Prop 37 AND members heartburn and they were not happy campers, so AND pulled a "Romney" -- a position that was developed in 1992, peer-reviewed and published in JADA, and promoted for 20 years as science based suddenly was not the position of the AND. In fact, according to AND's press release AND has no position at all. What changed besides the politics, certainly not the science?
I don't want to get into political ad homonyms descriptions, but an old DC medical story makes the case. I will clean it up for general consumption. Two surgeons are killing time in the Doctor's Lounge debating what kind of patient is easiest to operate on. The first surgeon says it is an accountant because once you open the person up everything is connected by numbers. The second surgeon disagrees and says it is a politician because when you open one up you discover there is no brain, no guts, no heart, no spine, no .... well, you get the point.
What did happen was an organizations that prides itself to the public about integrity and transparency showed none of those core character values. For a national organization that represents RDs in states where 80 percent of the food that is produced contains GMO ingredients, the AND action represents a callous disregard for their views. For an organization that rakes in millions from the food industry, including many of the companies that produce wholesome, safe, nutritious products from GMO raw materials, their message was "we will take your money because we do science-based policy," but on hot issues we are going to flip and flop and leave science twisting slowly in the wind because some our more activist members are upset.
AND is a huge centrally controlled organization. It stands by its press release. It has failed to learn one of the basic rules of political issue management-- the cover up it almost always worse than the original act. If the paper "expired in 2009 it should have been pulled at that time, not left in the public domain, promoted and cited for three more years. Did an AND staffer just make a career limiting decision? Did he or she quote Rick Perry and said, "Oops?"
People will draw their own conclusions whether AND just was too inept to manage all the issues of the disappearing policy paper. To me it is just too coincidental that an approved and updated 20 year old science-based paper, which may have "technically expired," yet remained on the AND's website for almost three years after its "best used date," a paper that remained part of the debate about GMO labeling suddenly was Mission Impossible disavowed because it challenged the political correctness of California politics. For twenty years AND had a position on this most important issue. Today, AND has no position whatsoever. Go figure.Kudos to the anti-Prop 37 Proposition AND folks for bullying the masters in Chicago into impotence.And shame on AND. Mitt would be proud. The Academy's nose just grew a bit longer and it lost a whole lot of public credibility.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Prop 37: Fasten Your Seatbelts It Is Going to Get Bumpy
About four weeks from now, voters in California will go to the polls to decide whether some foods, sold in some locations, containing some amount of genetically modified organisms (GMO) should bear a consumer label if Proposition 37 passes. The Initiative is ahead in the polls, despite the fact that almost every major newspaper in the state has opposed it editorially. Social media activity is hot and heavy.
For those of you old enough to remember back to 1986, Prop 37 is modeled after Proposition 65, which required companies doing business in California to label their products with a cancer or birth defect warning if they contained certain chemicals listed by the State. So, now every California gasoline pump bears a cancer warning because of the benzene in the gas and every room service menu in the state that lists wine bears a birth defect warning.
Neither warning has slowed consumption. And, consumers are no safer than before despite huge funds spent by production agriculture and food makers. At one time, the activists wanted Vitamin A listed as causing birth defects until they discovered the amount of Vitamin A contained in every carton of milk sold in the school lunch program would trigger a birth defect warning. Vitamin A was quickly dropped from the state's list.
Prop 37 has been called many things by political junkies and pundits. Some say it is the Lawyers Full Employment Act, since there is a bounty hunter provision in it and affected industries always sue. Others call it a consumers right to know provision, but like much of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign positions we are left scratching our heads about the details.
Prop 65 was passed at a time when the federal food use chemical safety program was out of date. The passage of Prop 65 forced Congress to modernize the science and the law. As a result many chemicals used on foods were pulled from the marketplace. The feds did need a firm kick in the ass.
Prop 65, the Clean Water Act, was artfully crafted. Prop 37, not so much.
There are some parts of Prop 37 that make political sense but defy any rational scientific explanation. For example, it requires labels on soy milk (because it may contain GMOs and is "bad"?) but exempts all other milk, even milk from cows fed GMO feed. Coincidentally, dairy is a huge business in California. Foods sold in traditional supermarkets require labels but the exact same product sold in restaurants or delis are exempt (a small business exemption?).A real, where in the Hell did that provision come from, exempts imported food if it bears a "GMO free" statement. Can you imagine what China would do with a loophole so large you could steer a container vessel through it carrying contaminated product?
Taking advantage of the fact that FDA has been unable or unwilling or both to define natural for decades, Prop 37 solves the problem in a few sentences. Any food that is pasteurized, heated, dried, juiced or processed, by definition, is not natural, even though a food, such as almonds, may not contain GMOs. But, if the almonds are roasted and put in a container for sale, they are no longer "natural." Go figure.
In regard to GMOs, the FDA has had firm policy on this issue for a long time. In short, it reiterates basic law. The food sold must be safe and the labeling must be truthful and not misleading.The National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the American Medical Association (AMA) all believe GMO foods as safe. In the European Union, where labeling is required, politicians will tell you that the labeling decision had absolutely nothing to do with science and everything to do with green party politics. In sum, in the US, the current law is up-to-date and there is no need for a checkerboard pattern of state by state regulation.
By 2012, genetically engineered varieties will be grown on 88 percent of U.S. field corn acres, 93 percent of soybean acres, and 94 percent of cotton acres. A majority of packaged foods on typical grocery shelves include some ingredients derived from corn, soybean or cotton, so if this Proposition passes, most packaged products would be subject to its requirements.
Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, the food industry rolls over and plays dead and major companies will work to meet the obligations of the new law. There is one unsolvable problem - there is not enough GMO free corn available to meet the needs of all food manufacturers. Prices of the GMO free corn would skyrocket, good for those producers, but bad for poor consumers who would see the price of corn flakes and other foods jump sharply up just at a time when Romney and Ryan propose to slash federal funding for nutrition programs.
One thing is certain, the Proposition will be challenged in court and millions will be spent.
Next, enormous pressure will be put on FDA to step up and defend its own policy. The only problem is that FDA is in shambles. It is overworked, understaffed and have bigger issues, such as microbiological contamination, where people die, to manage better. It never has had the backbone to challenge California's desire to set food policy and law for the entire country.
Or, if the GOP maintain control of the House, it would take the GOP leadership in the House a heartbeat to use the biggest piece of lumber they can find to take the FDA Commissioner, the USDA Secretary, the HHS Secretary to the political woodshed and smack them soundly around their heads and shoulders. The GOP caucus could decide to threaten to slash more Agency funds, haul its senior leadership to the Hill day after day, week after week, for an endless series of hearings. In effect, they could tell FDA to pick its poison - to defend its policy or face political retribution. All is fair in divorce and politics.
In sum, this Initiative hangs like a sword over the heads of major crop producers, food manufacturers and biotech seed providers. Consumers face skyrocketing price increases. The Proposition represents a massive regressive tax on the poorest of our nation and rewards the wealthiest.Sound familiar?
As the pilots of all the Fortune 100 food companies' G-4's will say, "Fasten your seat belts, it is about to get a little bumpy."
For those of you old enough to remember back to 1986, Prop 37 is modeled after Proposition 65, which required companies doing business in California to label their products with a cancer or birth defect warning if they contained certain chemicals listed by the State. So, now every California gasoline pump bears a cancer warning because of the benzene in the gas and every room service menu in the state that lists wine bears a birth defect warning.
Neither warning has slowed consumption. And, consumers are no safer than before despite huge funds spent by production agriculture and food makers. At one time, the activists wanted Vitamin A listed as causing birth defects until they discovered the amount of Vitamin A contained in every carton of milk sold in the school lunch program would trigger a birth defect warning. Vitamin A was quickly dropped from the state's list.
Prop 37 has been called many things by political junkies and pundits. Some say it is the Lawyers Full Employment Act, since there is a bounty hunter provision in it and affected industries always sue. Others call it a consumers right to know provision, but like much of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign positions we are left scratching our heads about the details.
Prop 65 was passed at a time when the federal food use chemical safety program was out of date. The passage of Prop 65 forced Congress to modernize the science and the law. As a result many chemicals used on foods were pulled from the marketplace. The feds did need a firm kick in the ass.
Prop 65, the Clean Water Act, was artfully crafted. Prop 37, not so much.
There are some parts of Prop 37 that make political sense but defy any rational scientific explanation. For example, it requires labels on soy milk (because it may contain GMOs and is "bad"?) but exempts all other milk, even milk from cows fed GMO feed. Coincidentally, dairy is a huge business in California. Foods sold in traditional supermarkets require labels but the exact same product sold in restaurants or delis are exempt (a small business exemption?).A real, where in the Hell did that provision come from, exempts imported food if it bears a "GMO free" statement. Can you imagine what China would do with a loophole so large you could steer a container vessel through it carrying contaminated product?
Taking advantage of the fact that FDA has been unable or unwilling or both to define natural for decades, Prop 37 solves the problem in a few sentences. Any food that is pasteurized, heated, dried, juiced or processed, by definition, is not natural, even though a food, such as almonds, may not contain GMOs. But, if the almonds are roasted and put in a container for sale, they are no longer "natural." Go figure.
In regard to GMOs, the FDA has had firm policy on this issue for a long time. In short, it reiterates basic law. The food sold must be safe and the labeling must be truthful and not misleading.The National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the American Medical Association (AMA) all believe GMO foods as safe. In the European Union, where labeling is required, politicians will tell you that the labeling decision had absolutely nothing to do with science and everything to do with green party politics. In sum, in the US, the current law is up-to-date and there is no need for a checkerboard pattern of state by state regulation.
By 2012, genetically engineered varieties will be grown on 88 percent of U.S. field corn acres, 93 percent of soybean acres, and 94 percent of cotton acres. A majority of packaged foods on typical grocery shelves include some ingredients derived from corn, soybean or cotton, so if this Proposition passes, most packaged products would be subject to its requirements.
Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, the food industry rolls over and plays dead and major companies will work to meet the obligations of the new law. There is one unsolvable problem - there is not enough GMO free corn available to meet the needs of all food manufacturers. Prices of the GMO free corn would skyrocket, good for those producers, but bad for poor consumers who would see the price of corn flakes and other foods jump sharply up just at a time when Romney and Ryan propose to slash federal funding for nutrition programs.
Or let's assume a more probable outcome, that the food industry's prime trade associations go into court and argue Prop 37 violates federal law, namely that the food is safe, as established by FDA and the California labeling, provides false and misleading information,since it implies the product is inferior or dangerous or ought to be avoided when, in fact, the GMO free products are identical nutritionally to their GMO cousins.
What happens next?
Next, enormous pressure will be put on FDA to step up and defend its own policy. The only problem is that FDA is in shambles. It is overworked, understaffed and have bigger issues, such as microbiological contamination, where people die, to manage better. It never has had the backbone to challenge California's desire to set food policy and law for the entire country.
Or, if the GOP maintain control of the House, it would take the GOP leadership in the House a heartbeat to use the biggest piece of lumber they can find to take the FDA Commissioner, the USDA Secretary, the HHS Secretary to the political woodshed and smack them soundly around their heads and shoulders. The GOP caucus could decide to threaten to slash more Agency funds, haul its senior leadership to the Hill day after day, week after week, for an endless series of hearings. In effect, they could tell FDA to pick its poison - to defend its policy or face political retribution. All is fair in divorce and politics.
In sum, this Initiative hangs like a sword over the heads of major crop producers, food manufacturers and biotech seed providers. Consumers face skyrocketing price increases. The Proposition represents a massive regressive tax on the poorest of our nation and rewards the wealthiest.Sound familiar?
As the pilots of all the Fortune 100 food companies' G-4's will say, "Fasten your seat belts, it is about to get a little bumpy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)