Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘FDA’ Category

In a never-ending cycle of “we say it’s good today, then we say it’s bad tomorrow” the recent raising of the vitamin D daily recs, while acknowledging the need to increase levels in Americans, confuses consumers with a concern about whether to supplement and what levels are actually best. The following review on the matter in Natural Foods Merchandiser is extremely helpful to read… http://newhope360.com/vitamins-and-minerals/vitamin-d-intake-levels-officially-rise?cid=nl_iu

Furthermore, I will add that those who say they aren’t sure we need to supplement Vitamin D likely haven’t looked at the food portions necessary to reach daily levels (8 glasses of milk, anyone?) or that most foods have Vitamin D2 vs Vitamin D3, which is the optimal source for humans.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

AKA: Ask FDA to vote NO on Genetically Altered fish: “one (genetically altered) fish, two (genetically altered) fish, green fish is now a blue fish…”

Is genetically altered fish OK? FDA to decide

By Susan Heavey
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. health officials are set to rule on whether a faster-growing, genetically engineered fish is safe to eat in a decision that could deliver the first altered animal food to consumers’ dinner plates.

The fish, made by Aqua Bounty Technologies Inc, is manipulated to grow twice as fast as traditional Atlantic salmon, something the company says could boost the nation’s fish sector and reduce pressure on the environment…
Click to read more.

AKA says a huge thank you to Susan and to Reuter’s for this story. That said, it makes me want to cry. As I sit here in beautiful Kununurra, Western Australia dining with five others on the barramundi that I caught earlier in the day (I must brag, its 15 pounds!), I think sadly “where is the US going with its food and food policy?” Why do we say we need more – when we eat too much already, and when the “more” not only can NOT guarantee the same nutritional benefits of a wild fish…but is almost unequivocally dangerous. Here in Australia yesterday we discussed how once you let GMO in at all – even for one crop, you can no longer guarantee that any animal, plant, or water source will be unaffected. Will our nursery rhyme soon be “one (genetically altered) fish, two (genetically altered fish), green fish is now a blue fish…” and what does that mean for our health?

What we know of pesticides and herbicides, the ones shown to have links to obesity, hormone disruption, attention disorders and more, is that the manner that many “kill” bugs or improve colors of plants and fruits is that, just like technology above they speed up the growth of the plant or they speed up the lifecycle of the pest so that it dies sooner. Where else in medicine do we encounter the rapid replication of cells…Cancer. What else does speeding up the growth of our cells mean…faster aging?

No matter what gets to you – faster aging, cancer prevention, prenatal health, inappropriate weight gain – if any of these get to you, you should be contacting the FDA to ensure a vote against GMO fish. I know I am..

Read Full Post »

WSJ: FDA Targets Nutritional Claims on food packaging

Finally! Is all I can say.

Finally! Is all I can say. The above Wall Street Journal article examines the issue that led to a “Smart Choice” labeling on a box of Froot Loops (Thank you folks like Bill Mahrer for publicly outing this ridiculousness).

My take? I have a long history with food packaging claims -12 years ago, I sat in my first packaging development meeting (I worked for an ad agency whose client was a global cereal company). I learned quickly that what appears on the package results from hours of analysis and dollars spent to determine what will BEST attract the buyer.  What I also realized is that many of the 3rd party endorsement logos (even from “non-profits”) were “for sale,” and further more that some food companies helped in the development of the criteria for these logos – not very 3rd party, eh?

As a student of nutrition, I struggled with understanding these same criteria, which often represented one aspect of the nutrition picture. For example, “fat-free” =heart healthiest – but don’t we know that certain fats are very heart healthy, and that some “naturally fat-free” (like the statement that appears on Twizzlers) products contain much sugar so that they likely wouldn’t be heart healthy for anyone and certainly not overall body healthy.

Years later, after helping countless clients navigate the grocery store aisles and teaching them how to interpret a package (only one part label reading, the other parts were what specific claims did and did not mean), I was further convinced that we needed something to help, TRULY HELP, the consumer navigate the world in which thousands of new products enter each year. Because while it may be a bit of naivete and even as some have said, a touch of laziness, that has us turning to logos and claims to influence our purchase. Isn’t it really we just want to look up and be able to TRUST what we see is truth? (more…)

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: