Beware Industry Coalition (CRNI) Claiming to Support Nutrition Information On Menu Boards

A new coalition of state restaurant associations, state retail associations, chain restaurants and industry groups have formed to support the LEAN Act, legislation introduced by Senator Tom Carper, Senator Lisa Murkowski, and Congressman Jim Matheson. The legislation will permit fast food and chain restaurants to provide calorie and nutritional information in places other than on the menu board or the menu. It permits the use of menu supplements or sign on walls. The legislation also preempts more stringent state and local laws that mandate calorie counts be next to prices and food descriptions on menu boards. If passed, New York's successful menu board law would become void. So would California's. The watered-down federal standard offered by industry would prevail.

The Coalition for Responsible Nutrition Information’s (CRNI) web site is (www.nationalnutritionstandards.com).

Coalition members include Auntie Anne's Pretzels, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Brinker International, Burger King, Carlson Restaurants Worldwide, Darden Restaurants, Domino's Pizza, Dunkin' Brands, Grocery Manufacturers Association, International Dairy Queen, International Foodservice Distributors Association, International Franchise Association, McDonald's, National Chicken Council, National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Fisheries Institute, National Franchisee Association, National Restaurant Association, National Turkey Foundation, OSI Restaurants LLC., Sonic, and White Castle.

Some coalition members have donated substantial sums to the legislation’s sponsors.

CRNI’s press releases have been pciked up by Meat & Poultry News, Food Product Design, Drinks Media Wire, Food Equipment News, Fresh Talk, Pizza Marketplace, Nation’s Restaurant Association, Let’s Talk Franchising, and Chain Leader magazine.

It seems the coalition’s unstated goal is to prevent a mandate requiring calorie counts directly on menu boards and menus. It never mentions the MEAL Act ( a competing proposal supported by actual health organizations that would specifically require calories on menus and menu boards and that would permit enforcement of more stringent state and local laws.) The coalition wants to prevent state and local jurisdictions from mandating that calories be disclosed where people will actually read them.

Mandatory menu board disclosure as proposed in the MEAL Act is supported by Public Citizen, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the American College of Preventitive Medicine, the American Diabetes Association, the American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, the Medical Society of the State of New York, the Trust for America’s Health and many, many others.

The CRNI lacks a single member without a financial interest in its advocacy.

FDA Finds Valley Springs Artesian Gold Water Adulterated, Possibly "Contaminated With Filth" or "Injurious To Health"

An FDA inspection of Valley Springs Artesian Gold in Lewiston, WI revealed numerous deviations from federal Bottled Water Drinking Regulations. The FDA found Valley Springs' product to be adulterated because it had been prepared, packed or held under unsanitary conditions. It also found conditions where "it may have become contaminated with filth," or where it may have been "rendered injurious to health."

Specifically, among other problmes, the FDA found undocumented sources of supply for the water, a failure to sample and analyze its source water for microbiological contaminants, chemical and radiological contaminants as required by law. Valley's last documented sample analysis for radioactive contaminants was done in 2003.

Valley Springs also did not test its bottled water for bacteriological contamination as required by law, nor did it test for chemical, physical and radiological contaminants as required. Click here for the full text of the FDA's Warning Letter.

The FDA inspects food facilities it oversees on average just once every 10 years. Between 2003 and 2006, FDA inspections have dropped by 47%, and it has a current funding shortfall on $135 million. Imported foods receive even less oversight from the FDA. Less than 1% of the food imported into the U.S. is inspected. What sort of food safety emergency, domestic or imported, will it take to get Congress to properly fund the FDA and to get the FDA to properly protect American consumers?

Rockland County, NY Set to Join Menu Board Wars

Rockland County, NY seeks to join those communities requiring fast food and chain restaurants to post calorie counts on menu boards. According to the Journal News, County Legislator Joseph Meyers, (D-Airmont) proposed the “Rockland County National Food Service Establishments Calorie Posting Law” which requires an eatery that is part of a chain that has 15 or more restaurants to post the calorie counts of their standard food items on their menus, including menu boards. The law would exempt menu items listed for sale for less than 30-days in a calendar year.

If the law passes, Rockland will join New York City in mandating calorie disclosure on menus and menu boards. Westchester County, NY is set to vote on a similar law in November. New York City's menu law has already survived a court challenge from the New York State Restaurant Association in federal district court in Manhattan.

The issue has also risen to national prominence as industry groups such as the National Restaurant Association, the International Franchise Association, and the National Council of Chain Restaurants have put their weight behind the LEAN Act, proposed federal legislation that would water down the mandates of New York City’s law and preempt any state of local statute that goes beyond its provisions. Portland, Seattle and the State of California have all passed versions of calorie disclosure law for fast food and chain restaurants.

Today’s New York Times writes, “Two proposals moving through Congress would make calorie postings uniform nationwide. One, the Labeling Education and Nutrition Act, is backed by the restaurant industry and would give restaurants and grocery stores selling prepared foods a choice of labeling formats, including posters near the cash register or disclosures on the back of the menu. It would preempt tougher laws, like New York’s. A second proposal, the Menu Education and Labeling Act, is supported by public health advocates and more closely mirrors New York’s law. It would not preempt more stringent local laws.”

The MENU Act has stuck in a Senate committee since March of 2008, and its sister legislation has been stuck in committee in the House since October of 2007.

The industry supported LEAN Act was proposed in the Senate last month.

Industry Groups Support Watered Down Menu Disclosure Law (and its sponsors)

The National Restaurant Association, the International Franchise Association, and the National Council of Chain Restaurants, along with other state and local industry associations have fallen in line behind the Labeling Education and Nutrition Act (the LEAN Act, S.3575), and its sister resolution in the House (H.R. 7187). These groups support the LEAN Acts because under the Acts, calorie and nutrition information need not actually be disclosed at the point of purchase, on menus or on menu boards. Instead, the Act permits disclosure on menu inserts, appendixes or supplements, or on signs near the menu board, or near where patrons wait on line for service. There is no mandate to post information near the prices, where consumers might actually see it.

Also, the LEAN Act would preempt state and local laws that impose different and stricter standards the LEAN Act, effectively nullifying laws like those passed in New York City and California.

These groups likely oppose the MEAL Act (S.2784) also pending in the Senate. The MEAL Act, is similar to the law passed in New York City that mandates disclosure directly on menu boards and menus where consumers are most likely to access the information. In a recent lobbying filing, the National Restaurant Association listed “Mandatory Menu Labeling” and the “MEAL Act” as targets of its lobbying efforts.

The National Restaurant Association represents 52,000 member companies that own more than 254,000 restaurants. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, it has overwhelmingly supported Republican candidates since 1990, giving more than $8,000,000 to federal candidates for office – and 86% of its recipients were Republicans.

The co-sponsor of the LEAN Act, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) received $10,000 from the National Restaurant Association PAC to assist with her 2004 Senatorial Election Campaign. According to government records, Murkowski has also received $7,000 from the International Franchise Association, and $1,000 from the National Retail Federation (a division of which is the National Council of Chain Restaurants).

The sponsor of the LEAN Act’s sister Resolution in the House, HR 7187, is Representative Jim Matheson (D-UT). Matheson received $10,000 from the National Restaurant Association PAC to assist with his 2006 House Election Campaign. According to government records, Matheson has also received $3,000 from the International Franchise Association and $2,000 from the National Retail Federation.

The other Senate sponsor of the LEAN Act, Tom Carper (D-DE) received $2,540 from the National Retail Federation between 2002 and 2006.

The MEAL Act sponsor is Tom Harkin (D-IA) and its co-sponsors are Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA). The MEAL Act's House version, HR.3895 was sponsored by Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and has 14 co-sponsors.

What's Next? Chinese Melamine Suppliers Admit Sales to Animal and Fish Feed Producers in China; US Safety Laws Languish In Committees

Everyone will be talking about how eggs exported from China are contaminated with high levels of melamine, the toxic industrial additive at the heart of the adulteration scandal in Chinese milk products, and last year’s pet food recalls. Foods and food ingredients made from tainted Chinese milk products have been recalled over recent weeks. Now, we can expect food products derived from Chinese eggs to be the subject of upcoming recalls.

Here is what else we can expect. As cited in today’s New York Times, several Chinese melamine suppliers admitted to newspapers to selling melamine to animal feed operations and fish feed providers in China. Chinese manufacturers add melamine to falsely inflate the protein profile of their wheat flour or wheat gluten. The tainted wheat flour is then used to produce fish meal and animal feed and sold to fish farmers and other producers around the world. The tainted fish meal is also used in China’s immense aquaculture industry.

On October 13, 2008, this blog posed the question, “Can Chinese Catfish Be Trusted?” Chinese producers, in order to export fish to the US, must meet the same production standards as US fish farmers by December 2009. What does this really mean when there is no mechanism to police Chinese producers? Mandatory Country-Of-Origin-Labeling (mCOOL) does not apply to food components, that is -- if Chinese farmed-fish are baked into a casserole served at your child’s elementary school, there is no requirement to disclose that the fish was farmed in China, or that the casserole contains Chinese-made ingredients.

Senate Bill S.1776 (The Imported Food Security Act of 2007) would enable the FDA to withdraw the certification of any food importer that fails to meet U.S. safety standards. It has been sitting in committee since July of 2007.

And H.R. 3937 (the Food Import Safety Act) gives the FDA authority to ban imports from countries that have a pattern of food safety violations, as well as mandatory recall authority. It has been sitting in subcommittee since October of 2007.

The government is charged with insuring food safety in the United States. Its failure to act will be the proximate cause of food related illnesses and injuries in the United States. This is really a do-nothing Congress in the area of food safety.

Stand by . . .

Summary of Polls on Fast-Food Menu Disclosure Requirements & Passed, Pending and Defeated Legislation

Here is a summary of polls on nutrition labeling in fast-food and chain restaurants.

In a Caravan Opinion Research Corporation 2008 poll of 1,003 adults, 78% of respondents agreed that “fast-food and other chain restaurants should list nutritional information, such as calories, fat, sugar or salt content on menus and menu boards.”

In an ARAMARK Corporation 2005 poll of 5,297 adults, 83% of respondents agreed that “restaurants should make nutrition information available for all menu items.”

In a Technomic Inc. 2007 poll of 2,500 respondents, 74% of respondents agreed that “menu boards should list nutrition information for all items served.”

In a Global Strategy Group, 2003 poll, 67% of respondents agreed that “restaurants should be required to provide nutrition information, including calories, on menus.

In an End Hunger Connecticut 2007 state-wide poll of 501 respondents, 82% supported “requiring fast-food and chain restaurants to display calorie content on menus or menu boards” and 84% supported “requiring fast-food and chain restaurants to post nutrition information on their menus.”

It seems that when the mandate is worded more strongly or more specifically, there is a slight erosion of support. Compare the results in polls that simply say the chains “should list information” with the poll that says they “should be required to list.” Of course that same discrepancy could be explained by the age of the poll. The more recent polls show stronger support for disclosure requirements. Regardless, support is overwhelmingly in favor of menu disclosure.

California, New York City, King County (Seattle) Washington, and Portland, Oregon have all passed menu labeling laws. The Portland law passed in July of 2008 and public hearing are being held on November 6th and 20th regarding implementation of the law.

Similar laws are pending in HI, MA, MI, NJ, NY, PA, VT, IA, KY, TN and the District of Columbia. Westchester County, NY is voting on the issue in the next few weeks. Nashville, TN has a public hearing set for November 6th.

Two statewide initiatives in Washington and Indiana have been defeated.

On the national stage, competing versions of menu labeling laws are pending in Congress – The MEAL Act vs. the LEAN Act. See my earlier posting here:. The MEAL Act is similar to New York City’s court-tested law. The LEAN Act is favored by the National Restaurant Association and other industry groups. It has less stringent standards that permit calorie and nutritional information to be posted in less conspicuous places or in menu addenda, and a provision for federal preemption of state and local menu disclosure laws. Federal preemption could render all local and state laws unenforceable.

In unrelated news, the USDA FSIS posted Sensenig Meats, 6999 Cannery Road, Hanover, PA and Steely Meats, 54 Mt. Pleasant Road, Fayetteville, PA as possible recipients of recalled 60-pound bulk boxes of "BM-95 Boneless Beef."

Battlelines are Being Drawn in Fast Food Menu Board Disclosure Legislation

Battlelines are being drawn on the fast food menu board laws. Attempts by industry to federalize disclosure laws are intended to weaken those laws and permit calorie/nutrition information to be hidden away from consumer access, in places like in menu inserts and separate handouts.

Nashville could be the first city in the South to require restaurants to post calories on menus. A public hearing is set for November 6th. If adopted, the calorie count requirement would begin Janunary 31, 2009 with a 90-day grace period. The proposed regulations would apply only to restaurants with 10 or more outlets nationwide. Calories would be posted on the menu or on a menu board, in the same size type as the price. The law would also extend to food tags, such as the calories in a tablespoon of ranch dressing on a salad bar.

The California Center for Public Health Advocacy has put this video up on Youtube showing what happens when customers need to consult a brochure.



We are following this story closely and will keep posting information as it becomes available. See our prior post.

Harry & David, Nonna's Real Italian Cuccine Recall Products for Undeclared Ingredients

Harry and David, of Medford, Oregon, is recalling approximately 400 1 lb. 4 oz. boxes labeled Harry & David Moose Munch Confection, Milk Chocolate Gingerbread because the package may contain a different Moose Munch product which contains pecans not declared on the ingredient statement. Affected product was distributed throughout the United States under the Harry & David brand only in Harry and David stores.

Harry and David is recalling 1 lb. 4 oz. boxes of Harry & David Moose Munch Confection, Milk Chocolate with a "Best if used by" date of 06/28/09. The "Best if used by" date is located on a sticker on the bottom of the box. The bottom of the box also has the stock identifying number RSD142014 printed on it. This lot of product was sold beginning 10/09/08. The popcorn-based confection is packaged in 1 lb. 4 oz. brown and white paperboard boxes. The boxes have a slight wedge shape and feature a large white moose image on the front. Inside the boxes are clear plastic bags of the confection.

ALSO Recalled:

Nonna's Real Italiana Cuccine of Slidell, LA is recalling Nonna's Real Italiana Cuccine of Stuffed Artichokes, Net Wt. 15 oz. This product is being recalled because it contains milk, soy, and wheat that was distributed in packaging that does not reveal the presence of these ingredients.

This product is distributed through retailers in the Greater New Orleans area including the Northshore from October 8, 2008 to October 17, 2008. The product is individually wrapped in clear plastic wrap bearing the label: "STUFFED ARTICHOKE, Net Wt. 15 oz., NONNA'S REAL ITALIANA CUCCINE".

Consumer Label Use Down According to USDA Economic Research Service

I've just finished reading the USDA Economic Research Service's recent report titled: The Decline In Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995-2006. The report is dated August 11, 2008.

This report examines changes in consumers' use of nutrition labels on food packages between 1995-96 and 2005-06. The analysis finds that, although a majority of consumers report using nutrition labels when buying food, use has declined for most label components, including the Nutrition Facts panel and information about calories, fats, cholesterol, and sodium. By contrast, use of fiber information has increased. The decline in label use is particularly marked for the cohort of adults less than 30 years old.

I find the conclusions of the report difficult to believe, and intuitively believe this issue should be studied with a larger sample and conducted by an independent organization.

Watching the Food Safety Recall Information Act

I'm watching progress on the Food Safety Recall Information Act, HR 5762, April 10, 2008. The resolution has 25 co-sponsors, and is in the House Committee on Agriculture. It would require the Secretary of Agriculture to publish the names of retailers and school districts that have purchased meat, poultry, or egg products subject to voluntary recall. It also would prohibit the use of non-ambulatory livestock for human food.

This is a sound resolution. Write your representative and ask them to join the list of co-sponsors.