I've been thinking for a long time about how horrible the Bush administration has been—the worst in United States history to date, as far as I can tell—but to my surprise I realize I can say something good about it in terms of celiac disease and food allergies.
Yes, I have to recognize that it was under Bush's watch that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued its Consensus Statement on Celiac Disease (2004) and other publications devoted to increasing public awareness. Also during this period, the FDA improved food labeling and enforced rules preventing marketers from presenting spelt products as wheat-free or gluten-free.
None of that makes up for the damage done to the country and the world by the Bush-Cheney regime. Even where progress was made for people with celiac disease, health care suffered and under-regulated food marketers still got away with irresponsible labeling. But it's interesting to note that some progress was made, and encouraging to imagine that much more progress might be made under Barack Obama and Joseph Biden.
Showing posts with label spelt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spelt. Show all posts
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Friday, January 09, 2009
Bad Labeling
Newman's Own Organics Takes Years to Respond to FDA
As I've been reporting ad nauseum, Wellshire Farms seems to have used inaccurate or misleading labels for years, hoping that it can get away with the practice, no matter the damage that might be done to children and other consumers.
Sometimes the FDA clamps down on bad labelers: In 2006, the agency actually confiscated French Meadow Bakery spelt bread that was marketed as wheat-free; French Meadow has since tried to make amends.
Food labels should be accurate and informative, but when it comes to bad labels, other possibilities exist between the two poles of getting busted or trying to get away with them. In December, Nature's Path undertook a "voluntary" recall of its Penguin Puffs cereal because the kamut was not identified as a form of wheat.
Companies may also get warnings from the FDA—but they might not respond promptly to the warnings. This can happen with companies that appear to very sensitive to consumer needs. I believe this was the case prior to the big French Meadow Bakery bust, but here's another examples: Apparently, the FDA issued a December 26, 2006 warning to Newman's Own Organics stating that the company failed to note the presence of wheat in its Spelt Pretzels, and then issued a December 22, 2008 warning letter noting that the problem had still not been addressed sufficiently. Newman's Own Organics now says that will change the packaging. But why does it take years for companies that market themselves as health-oriented to improve their poor labels, even after the FDA brings the problem to their attention?
As I've been reporting ad nauseum, Wellshire Farms seems to have used inaccurate or misleading labels for years, hoping that it can get away with the practice, no matter the damage that might be done to children and other consumers.
Sometimes the FDA clamps down on bad labelers: In 2006, the agency actually confiscated French Meadow Bakery spelt bread that was marketed as wheat-free; French Meadow has since tried to make amends.
Food labels should be accurate and informative, but when it comes to bad labels, other possibilities exist between the two poles of getting busted or trying to get away with them. In December, Nature's Path undertook a "voluntary" recall of its Penguin Puffs cereal because the kamut was not identified as a form of wheat.
Companies may also get warnings from the FDA—but they might not respond promptly to the warnings. This can happen with companies that appear to very sensitive to consumer needs. I believe this was the case prior to the big French Meadow Bakery bust, but here's another examples: Apparently, the FDA issued a December 26, 2006 warning to Newman's Own Organics stating that the company failed to note the presence of wheat in its Spelt Pretzels, and then issued a December 22, 2008 warning letter noting that the problem had still not been addressed sufficiently. Newman's Own Organics now says that will change the packaging. But why does it take years for companies that market themselves as health-oriented to improve their poor labels, even after the FDA brings the problem to their attention?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Turnaround for the French Meadow Bakery?
Back in 2006 the French Meadow Bakery finally got in hot FDA water for marketing spelt bread as wheat free. Lately it's attempted to appeal to wheat-free and gluten-free consumers with products that are authentically gluten-free. So far I've seen the GFCO-certified frozen brownies and cookie dough...and now I've seen a video that discusses celiac disease and the gluten-free market.
It's not too bad and worth watching, though one can find quibbles with it. The video presents gluten as something as damaging as Drano to people with celiac disease; I'm not expert on the subject, but I think Drano is actually more dangerous. It also claims that celiac disease is uniquely treatable by diet, but I believe that people with food allergies fall would qualify.
But enough prattling. Let's go on with the show!
Source (9:45)
It's not too bad and worth watching, though one can find quibbles with it. The video presents gluten as something as damaging as Drano to people with celiac disease; I'm not expert on the subject, but I think Drano is actually more dangerous. It also claims that celiac disease is uniquely treatable by diet, but I believe that people with food allergies fall would qualify.
But enough prattling. Let's go on with the show!
Source (9:45)
Monday, December 03, 2007
WHAT SHOULD WE PAY FOR THE FDA?
Like it or not, we count on the Food and Drug Administration to establish and maintain standards of quality and honesty when it comes to foods, medications, nutritional supplements, and the like. Currently involved in defining "gluten-free," the FDA also went after the French Meadow Bakery in 2006 after the bakery proved slow in removing the wheat-free label from its spelt products.
The FDA is, of course, hardly above criticism. The latest comes in the form of yet another report, entitled "FDA Science and Mission at Risk," that finds that consumers are at risk due to the FDA being underfunded and understaffed. As reported by Julie Schmit of USA Today, foodmakers are only inspected about once every ten years, poor IT at the agency results in slow responses to product complaints, and FDA inspections of the food supply have dropped 78% over the past 35 years due to inadequate FDA funding combined with dramatic increases in products, to cite just three of the worrisome findings.
According to "FDA Science and Mission at Risk," taxpayers contribute about 1.5 cents per day to the agency, but a contribution in the vicinity of 3 cents per day would enable the agency to better fulfill its mission. That would mean paying about $11 per year instead of $5.50 for FDA services—certainly food for thought during a big election year.
Like it or not, we count on the Food and Drug Administration to establish and maintain standards of quality and honesty when it comes to foods, medications, nutritional supplements, and the like. Currently involved in defining "gluten-free," the FDA also went after the French Meadow Bakery in 2006 after the bakery proved slow in removing the wheat-free label from its spelt products.
The FDA is, of course, hardly above criticism. The latest comes in the form of yet another report, entitled "FDA Science and Mission at Risk," that finds that consumers are at risk due to the FDA being underfunded and understaffed. As reported by Julie Schmit of USA Today, foodmakers are only inspected about once every ten years, poor IT at the agency results in slow responses to product complaints, and FDA inspections of the food supply have dropped 78% over the past 35 years due to inadequate FDA funding combined with dramatic increases in products, to cite just three of the worrisome findings.
According to "FDA Science and Mission at Risk," taxpayers contribute about 1.5 cents per day to the agency, but a contribution in the vicinity of 3 cents per day would enable the agency to better fulfill its mission. That would mean paying about $11 per year instead of $5.50 for FDA services—certainly food for thought during a big election year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
