In an ever-continuous effort to mesmerize the public, the American Egg Board and egg farmers are partnering for the "Good Egg Project," which is an initiative to convince Americans that modern egg farming is a good thing.
The program touts Hickman's Egg Ranch in Arizona and Herbruck's Poultry in Michigan as good stewards our food system. Hickman's houses about 4,000,000 hens and Herbruck's houses about 5,000,000 eggs, primarily in battery cages, raised indoors, on complex industrial diets.
On board seem to be Rachael Ray (whose name is obviously for sale for almost any project) and Sesame Street (so that children can be fooled early on), who have "lent" their names to the project. No mention is made of confinement systems, de-beaking, and hens unable to spread their wings, turn around, bathe themselves, or engage in any natural behaviors. Oh, wait, there is a section on "Animal Well-Being" where mention is made of a "comfortable environment" and "happy" hens.
The web site for the "project" is www.goodeggproject.org.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Maine's Restaurants Hide Behind Costs to Avoid Calorie Disclosure
Source: From Maine Public Broadcasting Network
Representatives of Maine's restaurant industry say a proposal to require restaurants to post the number of calories in their offerings on their menus and menu boards will cost the state's eateries thousands of dollars apiece.
At an Augusta news conference today, the Maine Restaurant Association came out in oppostion to LD1259, which was up for a hearing on May 5, 2009 before lawmakers.
Dan Gore of Amatos says now is not the time to require expensive new mandates for restaurants. "The timing of this is poor in our view, as far as the additional cost that would be associated with us having to change all of our menu boards and lables and menus to comply," Gore told MPBN's Susan Sharon. He was unable to provide an estimate of how much it would cost the chain, but he said the expense would be borne by individual franchisees.
Dick Grotton of the Maine Restaurant Association says he's concerned about a "patchwork quilt of rules and regulations across the country." Grotton said he would prefer a federal measure now pending called the LEAN -- or Label Education and Nutrition -- Act. "We think a better way to go is to have federal legislation that wpuld make it the same for restaurants that have 15 or more in the country under the same name to follow the same rules everywhere they go," he said.
The federal proposal requires restaurants to make nutrition information available, but not necessarily on their menus and menu boards. The measure being considered in Maine is sponsored by House Speaker Hannah Pingree.
[Editor's Note: This is typical restaurant industry nonsense -- but they do have the presentation down quite well.]
Representatives of Maine's restaurant industry say a proposal to require restaurants to post the number of calories in their offerings on their menus and menu boards will cost the state's eateries thousands of dollars apiece.
At an Augusta news conference today, the Maine Restaurant Association came out in oppostion to LD1259, which was up for a hearing on May 5, 2009 before lawmakers.
Dan Gore of Amatos says now is not the time to require expensive new mandates for restaurants. "The timing of this is poor in our view, as far as the additional cost that would be associated with us having to change all of our menu boards and lables and menus to comply," Gore told MPBN's Susan Sharon. He was unable to provide an estimate of how much it would cost the chain, but he said the expense would be borne by individual franchisees.
Dick Grotton of the Maine Restaurant Association says he's concerned about a "patchwork quilt of rules and regulations across the country." Grotton said he would prefer a federal measure now pending called the LEAN -- or Label Education and Nutrition -- Act. "We think a better way to go is to have federal legislation that wpuld make it the same for restaurants that have 15 or more in the country under the same name to follow the same rules everywhere they go," he said.
The federal proposal requires restaurants to make nutrition information available, but not necessarily on their menus and menu boards. The measure being considered in Maine is sponsored by House Speaker Hannah Pingree.
[Editor's Note: This is typical restaurant industry nonsense -- but they do have the presentation down quite well.]
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Rockland County, NY Takes Another Stab at Calorie Counts on Menu Boards
Rockland County Legislator Joseph L. Meyers has reintroduced a local law called the "National Food Service Establishments Calorie Posting Law. " Similar to legislation he introduced last year, the law, if passed, will largely mirror a similar and successful law in nearby Westchester County and New York City.
There is an abundance of speculation based on recent comments by Governor Patterson that New York may attempt again a state-wide version of a calorie posting law. If a state or federal law is passed, the Rockland law recognizes that it may be preempted, and permits a recognition of preemption by a mere resolution of the legislature. Such a resolution would render the local law void.
Efforts in Minneapolis/St. Paul to pass calorie posting laws have slowed as opponents to the law have cited the slumping economy and the added burdens to restaurants as reasons to delay passage.
There is an abundance of speculation based on recent comments by Governor Patterson that New York may attempt again a state-wide version of a calorie posting law. If a state or federal law is passed, the Rockland law recognizes that it may be preempted, and permits a recognition of preemption by a mere resolution of the legislature. Such a resolution would render the local law void.
Efforts in Minneapolis/St. Paul to pass calorie posting laws have slowed as opponents to the law have cited the slumping economy and the added burdens to restaurants as reasons to delay passage.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
The FDA Should Ban Bromated Flour
Potassium Bromate is typically added to bread and other flours as maturing agent which promotes gluten development in doughs, making the bread stronger and more elastic. Commercial bakers use bromated flour because it yields dependable results and can stand up to bread hooks and other commercial baking tools. It is also used to render inferior flour with low protein levels more useable since these flours do not develop enough gluten on their own.Bromate is also considered a category 2B carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), meaning that it may be harmful when consumed. In theory, the substance is supposed to bake out of bread dough as it cooks, but if too much is added, or if the bread is not cooked long enough or not at a high enough temperature, then a residual amount will remain.
Potassium Bromate has been banned from use in food products in Europe, as well as the United Kingdom in 1990, and Canada in 1994, and most other countries. It was banned in Sri Lanka in 2001 and China in 2005. It is also banned in Nigeria, Brazil and Peru.
In the United States, it is not banned. In California a warning label is required when bromated flour is used. Some organizations such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest have lobbied the Food and Drug Administration to ban Potassium Bromate as a food additive in the United States. Instead, since 1991 the FDA has urged bakers to voluntarily stop using it.
The FDA currently permits the addition of Potassium Bromate in flour provided that its inclusion does not exceed .0075 parts for each 100 parts of weight of the flour (or 750 parts per million). These regulations are found at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/FCF136.html.
To avoid packaged foods that contain bromate, look for “potassium bromate” or “bromated flour” in the ingredient list. Bromated flour is likely to be found in your local pizza shop, but not in Dominos Pizza or Pizza Hut (though it uses bleached flour). You will also find bromated flour in Arby’s French Toastix and Burger King’s hamburger buns. It is also found in the hoagie rolls at your local Johnny Rocket Restaurant (http://www.johnnyrockets.com/themenu/ingredients.php). You may also find in your supermarket flour brands, especially Gold Medal flours by General Mills.
Whole Foods Markets lists both bromated flour and potassium bromate as unacceptable ingredients for food on its web site: http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/products/unacceptable-ingredients.php.
Consumers should be ever-aware of the ingredients they ingest from corporate bakers and fast food chains, and push for local legislation banning bromated flour until the FDA (and the federal government) gets its act together.
The FDA currently permits the addition of Potassium Bromate in flour provided that its inclusion does not exceed .0075 parts for each 100 parts of weight of the flour (or 750 parts per million). These regulations are found at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/FCF136.html.
To avoid packaged foods that contain bromate, look for “potassium bromate” or “bromated flour” in the ingredient list. Bromated flour is likely to be found in your local pizza shop, but not in Dominos Pizza or Pizza Hut (though it uses bleached flour). You will also find bromated flour in Arby’s French Toastix and Burger King’s hamburger buns. It is also found in the hoagie rolls at your local Johnny Rocket Restaurant (http://www.johnnyrockets.com/themenu/ingredients.php). You may also find in your supermarket flour brands, especially Gold Medal flours by General Mills.
Whole Foods Markets lists both bromated flour and potassium bromate as unacceptable ingredients for food on its web site: http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/products/unacceptable-ingredients.php.
Consumers should be ever-aware of the ingredients they ingest from corporate bakers and fast food chains, and push for local legislation banning bromated flour until the FDA (and the federal government) gets its act together.
Monday, January 5, 2009
USDA Revolving Door Swings Again
The USDA’s Revolving Door Turns Again
Chuck Conner has been named President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC), a Washington, D.C.-based trade association representing the interests of U.S. agricultural cooperatives.
He will begin work on or about February 1, 2009.
Conner has served as Deputy Secretary for the US Department of Agriculture since May 2005. From August 2007 to January 2008, Conner served as both USDA Secretary and Deputy Secretary. He also served as Special Assistant to the President from October 2001 to May 2005.
Before being brought in by the Bush administration, Conner served as President of the Corn Refiners Association from May 1997 through October 2001.
Chuck Conner has been named President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC), a Washington, D.C.-based trade association representing the interests of U.S. agricultural cooperatives.
He will begin work on or about February 1, 2009.
Conner has served as Deputy Secretary for the US Department of Agriculture since May 2005. From August 2007 to January 2008, Conner served as both USDA Secretary and Deputy Secretary. He also served as Special Assistant to the President from October 2001 to May 2005.
Before being brought in by the Bush administration, Conner served as President of the Corn Refiners Association from May 1997 through October 2001.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service Accepting Nominations to National Advisory Committee
I'm taking a few days off from blogging, but I wanted to get this post up:
The Food Safety and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is accepting nominations for membership on the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection. The deadline to submit a nomination is Jan. 23.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is accepting nominations for membership on the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection. The deadline to submit a nomination is Jan. 23.
The N.A.C.M.P.I. consists of 16 to 18 members and each is expected to serve a two-year term. The committee provides advice and makes recommendations regarding federal meat and poultry inspection programs and includes representatives from industry, academia, state and local government agencies, public health officials and consumer groups.
Nominations must include the nominee’s resume or curriculum vitae and should be submitted by e-mail to NACMPI@fsis.usda.gov or by mail to Mr. Alfred Almanza, Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, in care of Faye Smith, Room 1175-South Building, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, D.C. 20250, or by fax to (202) 720-5704.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Kenya's Parliament Opens Door to American Genetically Engineered Products
According to the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), Kenya's parliament voted overwhlemingly to embrace agricultural biotechnology. The vote established the Bio-Safety Bill which is the first step in the creation of regulations for the implementation of widespread use of genetically engineered seeds and plants. Kenya's president is expected to sign the bill before January 1, 2009.
The real bonus for American agribusiness is the bill will permit Kenya to import genetically modified products from US growers.
Once opened, this door can never be closed.
The real bonus for American agribusiness is the bill will permit Kenya to import genetically modified products from US growers.
Once opened, this door can never be closed.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Mixed Feelings About Food For Progress Program Grants, Genetically Engineered Foods Featured
Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer recently announced plans for $212 million in international assistance under Food for Progress (FFP) Program for the current fiscal year.
Under the enabling legislation, agricultural commodities may be sent to countries that are “emerging democracies” and “have made commitments to introduce or expand free enterprise elements into their agricultural economies.”
Related food aid programs state that (1) the policy of the United States is to use food aid to “develop and expand export markets for United States agricultural commodities” and, (2) that priority for food aid should be given to countries that “have the demonstrated potential to become commercial markets for competitively priced United States agricultural commodities.”
Genetically Engineered Foods the Focus of This Year’s Food Aid
This year’s allocations announced by the secretary include more than 280,000 tonnes of U.S. wheat and wheat flour, soybean and vegetable oil, soybean meal and yellow corn that will be purchased on the U.S. market and donated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These commodities are eligible because they have been acquired by the US government through its price support operations.
92% of planted soybean acres in the US are genetically engineered. 63% of corn acreage in the US is genetically engineered. Many recipients of food aid from the US still prohibit the import and planting of genetically modified seed, but they accept genetically modified food from the United States.
One may not want to dwell on the politics of hunger and food aid, but one has to note that the opening and maintaining of markets is a key objective of the Food For Progress program.
CARE opts out of monetized food sales and most Food For Progress Programs
In CARE USA’s White Paper on Food Aid Policy, recognition is given that “under some circumstances food aid can harm local production and markets, undermining long-term food security.” Based on this and other reasoning CARE has decided to transition out of monetization under the Food For Progress Program. Monetization is the sale of US donated food to generate cash for humanitarian programs. CARE has taken the position that food aid should not be used to enable a donor country to establish an unfair commercial advantage and must not create disincentives to local production and markets. By September of 2009, CARE will no longer accept Food For Progress resources that come from subsidized sales or surplus disposal, nor will CARE monetize resources from the FFP Program.
CARE’s primary objection to participation is that these programs have as their stated objectives the support of US farmers, and the promotion of free enterprise and competition in agricultural economies in recipient countries.
Eliminate Objectives that Link Food Aid to Expansion of Export Markets
Policies and programs for U.S. food aid should be established and operated based on the food security needs of recipient countries and vulnerable populations rather than donor country objectives to expand its export markets.
While US food aid programs do not overtly include objectives to expand US markets (and to promote GE crops and seeds) and their success is not measured on this basis, there are provisions in current law that state market expansion as an objective. Changes are needed to correct this problem. Congress should eliminate the statement in the preamble to PL 480 that it is the policy of the United States to use food aid to “develop and expand export markets for United States agricultural commodities.”
And, in PL 480 Title I, Congress should eliminate the priority for countries that “have the demonstrated potential to become commercial markets for competitively priced United States agricultural commodities” and other references to using Title I for market development purposes.
Using food aid to compel recipient countries to accept genetically engineered crops or to open their fragile markets to US subsidized crop competition is an exploitation of our comparative advantages in food production to the detriment of the recipient countries. We should not benefit economically by the destruction of recipient countries’ ability to feed themselves or to provide for their own food security.
The Food For Progress and other food aid programs should be continued, but the purposes of the program should exclude development of export markets and the fortunes of agribusiness conglomerates.
Under the enabling legislation, agricultural commodities may be sent to countries that are “emerging democracies” and “have made commitments to introduce or expand free enterprise elements into their agricultural economies.”
Related food aid programs state that (1) the policy of the United States is to use food aid to “develop and expand export markets for United States agricultural commodities” and, (2) that priority for food aid should be given to countries that “have the demonstrated potential to become commercial markets for competitively priced United States agricultural commodities.”
Genetically Engineered Foods the Focus of This Year’s Food Aid
This year’s allocations announced by the secretary include more than 280,000 tonnes of U.S. wheat and wheat flour, soybean and vegetable oil, soybean meal and yellow corn that will be purchased on the U.S. market and donated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These commodities are eligible because they have been acquired by the US government through its price support operations.
92% of planted soybean acres in the US are genetically engineered. 63% of corn acreage in the US is genetically engineered. Many recipients of food aid from the US still prohibit the import and planting of genetically modified seed, but they accept genetically modified food from the United States.
One may not want to dwell on the politics of hunger and food aid, but one has to note that the opening and maintaining of markets is a key objective of the Food For Progress program.
CARE opts out of monetized food sales and most Food For Progress Programs
In CARE USA’s White Paper on Food Aid Policy, recognition is given that “under some circumstances food aid can harm local production and markets, undermining long-term food security.” Based on this and other reasoning CARE has decided to transition out of monetization under the Food For Progress Program. Monetization is the sale of US donated food to generate cash for humanitarian programs. CARE has taken the position that food aid should not be used to enable a donor country to establish an unfair commercial advantage and must not create disincentives to local production and markets. By September of 2009, CARE will no longer accept Food For Progress resources that come from subsidized sales or surplus disposal, nor will CARE monetize resources from the FFP Program.
CARE’s primary objection to participation is that these programs have as their stated objectives the support of US farmers, and the promotion of free enterprise and competition in agricultural economies in recipient countries.
Eliminate Objectives that Link Food Aid to Expansion of Export Markets
Policies and programs for U.S. food aid should be established and operated based on the food security needs of recipient countries and vulnerable populations rather than donor country objectives to expand its export markets.
While US food aid programs do not overtly include objectives to expand US markets (and to promote GE crops and seeds) and their success is not measured on this basis, there are provisions in current law that state market expansion as an objective. Changes are needed to correct this problem. Congress should eliminate the statement in the preamble to PL 480 that it is the policy of the United States to use food aid to “develop and expand export markets for United States agricultural commodities.”
And, in PL 480 Title I, Congress should eliminate the priority for countries that “have the demonstrated potential to become commercial markets for competitively priced United States agricultural commodities” and other references to using Title I for market development purposes.
Using food aid to compel recipient countries to accept genetically engineered crops or to open their fragile markets to US subsidized crop competition is an exploitation of our comparative advantages in food production to the detriment of the recipient countries. We should not benefit economically by the destruction of recipient countries’ ability to feed themselves or to provide for their own food security.
The Food For Progress and other food aid programs should be continued, but the purposes of the program should exclude development of export markets and the fortunes of agribusiness conglomerates.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Philadelphia Mayor Signs New Calorie Posting Law
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter signed a bill that orders most chain restaurants to display calorie, fat and other information. The bill was signed at the Center for Obesity Research Education at Temple University.
In November, the bill passed the City Council by a vote of 12-5. The law takes effect on Jan. 1, 2010.
The Philadelphia ordinance applies to restaurant chains — including coffee shops, ice cream parlors and convenience stores — with a total of 15 or more stores, whether in the city or elsewhere. It will require their outlets in the city to tell customers about calories, saturated fat, trans fat, carbohydrates and sodium.
Because it covers more items and has fewer exemptions, it is broader than laws passed in other places including New York City and California.
Philadelphia was once labeled the fattest city in the land by Men's Fitness magazine.
This is a follow-up to an earlier post on November 14, 2008 applauding Philadelphia's City Council for its passage of what may be the nation's toughest calorie and nutrition posting law.
In November, the bill passed the City Council by a vote of 12-5. The law takes effect on Jan. 1, 2010.
The Philadelphia ordinance applies to restaurant chains — including coffee shops, ice cream parlors and convenience stores — with a total of 15 or more stores, whether in the city or elsewhere. It will require their outlets in the city to tell customers about calories, saturated fat, trans fat, carbohydrates and sodium.
Because it covers more items and has fewer exemptions, it is broader than laws passed in other places including New York City and California.
Philadelphia was once labeled the fattest city in the land by Men's Fitness magazine.
This is a follow-up to an earlier post on November 14, 2008 applauding Philadelphia's City Council for its passage of what may be the nation's toughest calorie and nutrition posting law.
G&J Gourmet Market Cocoa Products Recalled for Melamine Taint
Dorsey Marketing Inc. (DMI) of Ville St. Laurent, Quebec, Canada, has recalled the following three G&J Gourmet Market cocoa products because these products may contain melamine:
G&J Hot Cocoa Stuffer Item 120144 (UPC 061361201444). This hot cocoa product was sold in small green and blue boxes with a backer card, candy cane and marshmallows.
G&J His and Hers Hot Cocoa Set Item 120129 (UPC 489702201296). This cocoa product was sold with 2 ceramic mugs in a brown box.
G&J Cocoa item 120126, sold in 2 flavors: French Vanilla Cocoa and Double Chocolate Cocoa. G&J French Vanilla Cocoa (UPC 061361201260). This product was sold in a small green bag with a whisk attached. G&J Double Chocolate Cocoa (UPC 061361201260). This product was sold in a small pink bag with a whisk attached.
The above recalled products were imported into the United States by DMI and distributed nationwide to retailer Big Lots during the weeks of September 22, 2008 and September 29, 2008 and to retailer Shopko during the week of October 10, 2008.
G&J Hot Cocoa Stuffer Item 120144 (UPC 061361201444). This hot cocoa product was sold in small green and blue boxes with a backer card, candy cane and marshmallows.
G&J His and Hers Hot Cocoa Set Item 120129 (UPC 489702201296). This cocoa product was sold with 2 ceramic mugs in a brown box.
G&J Cocoa item 120126, sold in 2 flavors: French Vanilla Cocoa and Double Chocolate Cocoa. G&J French Vanilla Cocoa (UPC 061361201260). This product was sold in a small green bag with a whisk attached. G&J Double Chocolate Cocoa (UPC 061361201260). This product was sold in a small pink bag with a whisk attached.
The above recalled products were imported into the United States by DMI and distributed nationwide to retailer Big Lots during the weeks of September 22, 2008 and September 29, 2008 and to retailer Shopko during the week of October 10, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
