Green Options » food labeling

COOL - Good, Bad, Indifferent?

Stuart Stein — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:22:53 +0000

On September 30, 2004 the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued an interim final rule for the mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) program for fish and shellfish as required by the 2002 Farm Bill. On November 10, 2005, President Bush signed Public Law 109-97, which delayed the implementation for all covered commodities except wild and farm-raised and shellfish until September 30, 2008.

Under the interim final rule, fish and shellfish covered commodities must be labeled at retail to indicate their country of origin and method of production (wild and/or farm raised). However, covered commodities are excluded from mandatory COOL if they are an ingredient in a processed food item.

Food service establishments, such as restaurants, lunchrooms, cafeterias, food stands, bars, lounges and similar enterprises are exempt from the mandatory COOL requirements.

Fast forward to August 2008, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) issued an interim final rule for mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of beef, pork, lamb, chicken, goat meat, perishable agricultural commodities, peanuts, pecans, ginseng, and macadamia nuts. The 2008 Farm Bill added chicken and goat; pecans, ginseng and macadamia nuts as covered commodities to what had been previously proposed. This interim final rule (IFR) will go into effect September 30, 2008.

Food Facts: Milk Labels, Choices, and rBGH

Carla Wise — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:41:57 +0000

Milk is big in our house. We eat ice cream, butter, cheese, and yogurt. I love my morning coffee with just enough half-and-half to turn it a lovely shade of caramel. My daughter drinks milk with lunch and dinner. When you factor in the pizza with mozzarella and the breakfast cereal, hardly a meal goes by that is dairy-free.

Haunting all this milk, filled with calcium, protein, and fat, has been a single question: what is the real story behind recombinant bovine growth hormone?

If you read about food in general, or genetically engineered organisms specifically, it can’t have escaped your notice that there is a battle raging in this country about the use of rBGH in dairy cows. It’s a battle being fought in grocery stores, state legislatures, the corporate offices of Monsanto Corporation and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

“Natural” Means Nothing – FDA Declines to Define “Natural”

mcmilker — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:48:48 +0000

The FDA dealt a disappointing blow recently to consumers hunting for natural choices for their families. Despite petitions from The Sugar Association and major manufacturer, Sara Lee, Food Navigator reports that the FDA declined to issue a regulation that would define use of the word “natural” on food and household product packaging in the near future, stating:

…”we’re not sure how high of an issue it is for consumers”. .

Now, how often do consumers and manufacturers agree that less confusing is better? This is one of those cases.

In an interview with (Food Navigator-USA.com), Geraldine June from FDA’s Food Labeling and Standards department said the agency had not put the ‘natural’ issue on its priority list because there is not enough evidence that the current situation means consumers are being misled.

“even if people interpret it in different ways it doesn’t mean there is confusion out there. If there was, then we would definitely raise it as a priority”.