The FDA and Misleading Labels

I eventually plan on writing a long series of FDA-related posts, but for now I will settle with this news article about how the FDA has sent official warnings to 17 different food companies about misleading claims on the labels of their products, including threats to take further action (including product seizure) if they don't correct the labels.

While it's a nice idea to try and "protect the public" from misleading labels, in most cases the public should be able to defend themselves and the corrections can be just as misleading thanks to the FDA's twisted logic.

Of course, this is the governmental organization that thinks the serving size of Fig Newtons is "2 cookies", ice cream is eaten by the "1/2 cup" and a normal person will eat HALF of a ramen packet for a meal and save the other half for later.

I'm partially torn on the issue. On the one hand, people are generally idiots and usually (1) don't care about the nutrition info and just want to buy tasty food, (2) are easily swayed by the label when choosing a product and don't bother with real nutritional info or (3) bother to check the nutritional info but "abuse" the servings and overeat.

Those in Group 2 are the people who the FDA is trying to "protect" with this crackdown on misleading labels by citing their guidelines and the company's failure to adhere to them by improperly using certain words on the label.

Now while I both loathe the coddling of those who deserve what their idiocy brings them as well as the government forcing their rules on the free market and making it less free - I do agree that false advertising is just plain wrong and I applaud the FDA for cracking down on falseties in the advertising on the labels of these food products.

On that other hand, though - the FDA has some pretty frickin' insane rules. Insane that they made the rule in the first place, insane that the rules have so many stipulations, and insane that the stipulations in and of themselves sometimes make the rule pointless.

Just to give you an idea, one of the companies that was targeted for mislabeling was Ken's Foods, Inc. for their salad dressing line called "Ken's Healthy Options™". The crime? The content claim of "healthy". Here's what the FDA requires in order for a company to put the word "healthy" on their product label:

To bear the nutrient content claim "healthy," a food such as a salad dressing: (1) must be "low fat" as defined in 21 CFR 101.62(b)(2) (total fat content of 3 g or less per Reference Amount Customarily Consumed (RACC) and per 50 g of food); (2) must be "low saturated fat" is defined in 21 CFR 101.62(c)(2) (saturated fat content of 1 g or less per RACC and no more than 15 percent of calories from saturated fat); (3) must not exceed the disclosure level for cholesterol set forth in 21 CFR 101.13(h) (60 mg cholesterol per 50 g of food); (4) must contain no more than 480 mg sodium per 50 g of food (21 CFR 101.65(d)(2)(ii)(B)); and (5) must contain at least 10 % of the Daily Value per RACC of one or more of the following nutrients: vitamin A, vitamin C, calcium, iron, protein, and fiber (21 CFR 101.65(d)(2)(i)).

Ken's "healthy" salad dressing options apparently exceed the 3 g of fat per 50 g of food maximum in the "low fat" definition and do not not contain 10% of the Daily Value of at least one of thosee nutrients. And that's the definition of "healthy"!

Another letter recipient was Spectrum Organic Products, Inc. for their product called "Organic All Vegetable Shortening". Sadly, the violation was not regarding the "organic" label (which is a hilarious can of worms to open) but the fact that the label says it is "cholesterol free".

The term "cholesterol free" may be used on the label or in the labeling of a food with a Reference Amount Customarily Consumed (RACC) of two (2) tablespoons or less that contains more than 13 g of total fat per 50 g only if the following criteria, set forth in 21 CFR 101.62(d)(1)(ii), are met: (1) the food contains less than 2 mg of cholesterol per RACC and per labeled serving; (2) the food contains no ingredient that is generally understood by consumers to contain cholesterol; (3) the food contains 2 g or less of saturated fatty acids per RACC; and (4) the label or labeling discloses the level of total fat in a serving (as declared on the label) of the food.

The shortening exceeds the maximum 13g of fat per 50g of product and also exceeds the maximum 2g of saturated fatty acids per RACC. But did you notice that a product is cool with the FDA to say they are "cholesterol free" even if it contains 1.9mg of cholesterol per RACC? That's the FDA for you!

In the "totally deserves it" category for the FDA calling out a company's falsehoods - POM Wonderful got a very long letter basically chastizing them for claims made on their website (included on the label).

"The therapeutic claims on your website establish that the product is a drug because it is intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease. The marketing of this product with these claims violates [the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act]."

Even worse is the fact that in additional to blurring the line between food and drug, the product fails to meet EITHER label, as the letter itemizes how POM Wonderful is misbranded as a food (claiming a high level of a nutrient that doesn't even have a Recommended Daily Intake) AND misbranded as a drug (saying they treat diseases means they are a drug but they don't provide adequate directions for use).

I could go on. These are just 3 of the 17 company letters that were sent out, including one to Gorton's, Inc. for their Gorton's Fish Fillets and to Dreyer's Ice Cream Inc. for some products of theirs for advertising "0 grams trans fat" but not also notifying the consumer to "See nutrition information for fat and saturated fat content". Which apparently is part of the FDA's rule about saying your product contains no trans fat...?

So back to my original point - I'm not sure whether to applaud or boo at the FDA for these letters. Sure, according to the Federal Law, their products were in violation due to improper labels. But what does any of it mean? The Pompeian, Inc. company got hit because of the usage of the word "light" on their bottles of "Pompeian Imported Extra Light Olive Oil" - but Frank Patton, the company's president, said the label should have said "Extra Light Tasting Olive Oil" and that it was a printing error, which he intends to correct when the next labels are printed.

So the FDA only cares about a product using the term "light" as long as it's not followed by the word "tasting"? How does that protect consumer Debbie Dumbass who sees the word "light" and couldn't give a damn what the rest of the label says? Am I allowed to market a line of ice creams that say "Fat-Free Tasting Ice Cream" and rake in the money from people who see the words "fat free" and couldn't be bothered to do the legwork and investigate the nutritional info to see that I use extra lard for that "perfect fat free taste"?

What the hell does "Extra Light" taste like, anyway? It's OLIVE OIL! Are there seriously taste testers guzzling shots of olive oil and checking off the "tastes like 'extra light'" box instead of the "tastes like 'light'" or "tastes like my arteries are clogging" boxes?

(Note to self: "Uncle Aaron's Artery-Cloggin' Tasting Olive Oil" will likely not sell well in today's marketplace.)

In the end, I think I'm still on the fence. I like to think that the free market should decide what is or isn't appropriate marketing for products and that the government should butt out. But I'm also sick and tired of Debbie Dumbass suing large corporations because a nightly cup of their "Extra Light" olive oil still made her fat despite claims of being "Extra Light". In these cases, I'm glad that the FDA can nip these in the bud by having companies adhere to these nonsense laws.

So if I had to choose, I'd be forced to tip my hat to the FDA. Their laws may be nonsensical and outdated, but at least they're helping to curb the frivolous dumbass lawsuit population.

What do you think? Do you approve or disapprove of the FDA and these letters? Leave a comment and let me know!

And then Digg this article!

Read more!

Food for Thought

Once again, a small offhand comment triggers a mental debate in my head that needs to come outside and play. It started as I pushed away the remains of my Caesar Salad for lunch with a disgusted look on my face.

"Why don't you finish your salad ever?" she asked.
"Because it's disgustingly bland and they use so little dressing," I replied.
"Well, food isn't supposed to be delicious - it's supposed to maintain life," she retorted.
"No," came my reply.

Just "No." Food IS supposed to be delicious. We wouldn't be here (in America) if the facts were any other way. If she were right (and she is not), we would have vitamins and calorie pills and flavorless mush like you read about in bad (and some good) science-fiction pieces. Such is farthest from the case. Sure, some idiots out there choose a bland and flavorless life in order to get nutrients and sustain life and nothing else - but it's just a minute population that it barely is worth mentioning at all.

The rest of us in the normal human race understand that food is supposed to be tasty. That's why we have taste buds in the first place.

Argument #1: A rational deity/entity would not have provided us with taste buds if food were not meant to have taste.

The atheist corrolary to that would be the concept of Nature or chaos theory or something like that. Fact remains that we HAVE taste buds. Ergo, food is meant to have taste. Otherwise we would have evolved to no longer HAVE taste buds. Humans not only have been focus on taste (and its partner in crime, smell) for so long that we recently discovered a new taste: umami. We continue to strive to understand how we taste and what the building blocks of taste are - which we would never have done if food were not meant to be delicious.

Argument #2: Cooking is proof that flavors can be created, enhanced and mixed - which would never have been necessary if food simply needed to be consumed for survival alone.

It's called COOKING. Recipes exist to remember what flavor creations have been created so that they can be replicated. Some are kept secret (something about 11 herbs and spices?) so that others cannot replicate those flavors for themselves. If food were not meant to be delicious, then why would billions of dollars and jobs be dependant on one flavor or recipe being more delicious than another? Why would billions in advertising be spent to compare one taste to another similar taste just to boast about which is more delicious?

Argument #3: Without spices, exploration would have been stagnated.

Spices have always been where the money is. In fact, ever since ancient Rome, spices have been vital to life and prosperity. Salt, for its curing purposes long long before the days of refrigerators, was a freakin' CURRENCY. That's how Roman soldiers were paid - and how the word "salary" came to exist. In fact, a poor soldier was not "worth his salt". As culture progressed, we searched for MORE flavors and spices, not fewer. With each new spice, new trade routes were established and this led to the whole notion of the "faster route to India" and all their lovely spices. Which accidentally led to, well, Columbus and the New World debacle.

I could go on further. I REALLY could. You don't want to mess with a fat guy who enjoys food and goes on a rampage when you insult his food or food in general. Sadly, though, I must get back to work now.

Your thoughts? Read more!

Serving Sizes: I've Got Your "Fun Size" Right Here!

If there were ever doubts that the marketing and advertising world is just a tangled web of lies - you'd find it evident in two simple words: "Serving Size". For as long as I can remember, I've had people telling me to "read the food labels" and make "healthy choices". So, for most people, that involves picking up two things, looking at the calorie and RDA numbers sitting on the label on the back of the package, and then picking one with smaller numbers. Of course, NONE of that matters without bothering to take a look at the horrific description sitting next to those two simple words...

Who the hell gets to decide what a serving size should be??

Because they're not doing a very good job.

Case in point: A normal package of ramen noodles contains TWO servings.

That means that some people actually believe that while you're boiling water on a hot plate in some dilapidated dormroom to cook up a package of 10-cent noodles, you actually plan on only eating HALF of it. As if you're going to "save the rest for another meal". That right there is an outrage - and it's just the tip of the iceburg. Just about anything you purchase, food-wise or beverage-wise, has unacceptable ideas about how much you should be eating at once.

Fig Newtons: 2 cookies.

As Brian Regan says, "Two cookies? I eat Fig Newtons by the sleeve! Two sleeves is a serving size! Who the hell only eats two cookies? 'Oh, would you like a Fig Newton?' 'I don't know, I already ate two whole entire cookies - I don't know if I could muscle another one in... *mmmmph* No! I am stuffed to the rafters!' 'We got one for the E.R. here, we have a three Fig Newton eater!' 'HOW MANY DID HE HAVE???'"

Snickers: 35g-58.7g!

This one actually varies! I've seen a few wrappers (and I think you KNOW I've seen a few wrappers). The first one I had to look at was the "Fun-Size" wrapper, which thankfully admits that a serving size is TWO bars (40g). Then you move on to the regular-size candy bar, and the serving size changes to ONE bar, which is now 58.7 grams of candy confection. So okay, what about the King-Size bar? Now the serving size DROPS to ONE-THIRD of the bar, which is only 35 grams! As if I'm supposed to eat one-third of that bar, and then fold over the wrapper and go, "Boy, that was a tasty treat! Now I'll save the other two-thirds for two different snacking opportunities at later times!" That's bullshit, wrapped in a lovely chocolate coating.

Doritos: 11 or 12 chips.

Another interesting variance here. No matter what the size of the bag, the servings at least stay at a consistent unbelievable amount. Whether it's a "Snack-Size" bag (which pretty much contains only 11 or 12 freakin' chips) to a normal-sized bag to the Family-Sized bag (because they eliminated Super-Size for no real reason) - it's always 11 or 12 chips. This variance is strangely dependant on the FLAVOR of Doritos being consumed. If it's Nacho Cheese, you get 11 chips in your 28-gram serving. If it's Cool Ranch, you can actually get to eat 12 chips as your 28-gram serving. I guess all that orange powder weighs more on each chip than the green/red powder. Go figure!

Seriously, I could go on all day citing horrible amounts of serving sizes that just aren't true. I didn't even touch upon the nature of a 1/2-cup serving of ice cream. And the fact that most SCOOPS of ice-cream are more than 1/2-cup, so shouldn't that throw up a warning sign that a serving OBVIOUSLY is more than what's being printed?

Bottom line - serving sizes need to be revamped, big time. I'd say that if an average American can open up a package and consume the entire contents and not think twice about it - the serving size is "one package". Adjust the calorie/fat content nutritional label accordingly, so we can understand that we KNOW we're going to be eating the whole thing, so just tell us how bad it is for us. Don't lie and say that my ramen is "only" 38% of my daily recommended allowance of sodium if one actual package really contains 76%! There's too many large packages out there that hide behind the motto of "but we printed that you're only supposed to have ONE cookie as a serving! Not our fault if you ate half the package, which is 6 cookies!"

I also want to briefly touch upon one more FDA-bullshit fact: if a serving contains less than 0.5 grams of fat per serving, a product can be labelled as "nonfat" or "fat-free". Legally. Approved by the FDA. What they DON'T regulate is the serving size! A spraycan of aerosolized cooking spray (MADE ENTIRELY OF FAT) has a serving size of less than 0.5 grams. So it logically doesn't contain more than 0.5 grams of fat in the serving. So it can print "NONFAT" on the label! Imagine! A product MADE OF FAT can declare itself NONFAT if the serving size is small enough!

If that's not enough to convince you to never ever trust the FDA, I've got lots more stories I could tell. But for now, I'll leave it at that - and open the floor for any other complains about poor choices of serving sizes! Feel free to post some of your own!







Read more!