Center for Science In The Public Interest

CSPI Says FDA Findings at Egg Farm are "Stomach Churning"

2010-08-30

Statement of CSPI Food Safety Director Caroline Smith DeWaal

While it is really helpful that FDA is disclosing the results of their recent inspections of two facilities linked to a major illness outbreak from contaminated eggs, FDA's findings are truly stomach churning. FDA found rodents and wild birds in the facilities, and five of the Wright County Egg facilities had giant manure piles inside their buildings. These violations are reminiscent of similar findings in another major outbreak linked to peanut butter.

Equally troubling is that the inspections occurred the month following the date that the new egg-safety regulation went into effect. Both companies involved had been on notice that they needed to meet requirements of the new egg-safety rule for over a year. Instead of finding companies that were ready to meet those requirements, FDA's inspections document companies with long-standing violations and apparently little intention to comply. The decrepit conditions in these hen houses reflect the fact that companies know that FDA inspections are so rare�even following the adoption of a new safety regulation�that there is no urgency to fix their buildings and their operations to assure compliance with FDA statutes and regulations.

Super Sizing Alive and Well at Nation's Chain Restaurants

2010-08-30

Nutrition Action Healthletter Illustrates How One 'Serving' Is Really More Like Two, Three, or Four

WASHINGTON�A typical burrito weighs about 5 ounces, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Yet a Chicken Burrito at Chipotle weighs four times as much, delivering 970 calories�including 300 calories from the white-flour tortilla alone. As Nutrition Action Healthletter illustrates in its September issue, Chipotle and other chain restaurants are reprogramming Americans' expectations of what a "serving" of a food is.

Fortunately, calorie counts are soon coming to chain restaurant menu boards, thanks to the federal health care reform law now being implemented. And, from the article, here are 4 other examples of how far an actual serving exceeds the official serving size:

"Chain restaurants have helped dissolve any sense of perspective when it comes to what a reasonable serving of food is," said Bonnie Liebman, nutrition director at the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, Nutrition Action's publisher. "When 300-calorie bagels and 1,000-calorie burritos became the norm, it's easy to understand why two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese."

Nutrition Action Healthletter is the largest-circulation health newsletter in North America, with 850,000 subscribers. Introductory subscriptions are $10 in the U.S. and $15 in Canada.

Largest Egg Recall in History Exposes Cracks in Egg Oversight

2010-08-19

Statement of CSPI Food Safety Director Caroline Smith DeWaal

It is truly ironic that the largest egg recall in history has unfolded just the month after long-awaited egg regulations went into effect. This outbreak will likely grow over the coming weeks, as at least 10 states are investigating outbreak clusters.

Jurisdiction over eggs has been scrambled between numerous government agencies for the last 20 years, resulting in enormous delays in addressing the hazard posed by Salmonella enteriditis, a pathogen that infects the ovaries of chickens, causing their eggs to be internally contaminated. Today, FDA claimed that it did not have jurisdiction to inspection this facility until last month when the egg regulation finally took effect.

This outbreak demonstrates the need for a food safety cop-on-the-beat. FDA needs a strong inspection force with the tools to mandate recalls, impose civil and criminal penalties, and require testing at farms and production facilities. The agency should be able to impose fines for violations when they find them, detain and recall food, and impose enhanced criminal penalties when companies intentionally violate the law, resulting in harm to the public.

The Senate should move immediately to pass S. 510 and Congress should move a bill that incorporates the strongest enforcement provision of each bill promptly to the President's desk for signature.

CSPI to Drop Litigation Over Coke's Faded "Enviga"

2010-08-17

Sales Reportedly Plummeted After State Attorneys General Won Labeling Concessions

WASHINGTON�The Center for Science in the Public Interest will not appeal a federal appeals court decision blocking a New Jersey woman's lawsuit over false weight-loss claims made by Coca-Cola for Enviga. Enviga is a line of artificially sweetened green tea-based soft drinks whose labeling and advertising claims that the drink "burns calories." Launched with considerable fanfare in 2006, Enviga has since faded into obscurity.

Under a February 2009 settlement agreement reached with 27 states and the District of Columbia, Coca-Cola agreed to pay $650,000 and to stop making overt weight-loss claims for Enviga. Coke (and partner Nestl�) agreed to add language to labels and marketing materials stating that the product will not promote weight loss without diet and exercise. Three months later, the trade publication New Nutrition Business reported an Enviga "sales collapse." The Court of Appeals decision this week hinged on whether the plaintiff had documented her weight loss or gain, and not on the merits of CSPI's allegations about Enviga's deceptive claims.

"We believe that the Court of Appeals erred in not letting a consumer pursue her claim about the demonstrably false advertising and labeling on these expensive and fraudulent drinks," said CSPI litigation director Steve Gardner. "But since the attorneys general cracked down and have since won modest labeling concessions, we won't appeal. Consumers seem to have gotten the message that Coca-Cola does not have the science to back up its laughable 'calorie burning' claims for Enviga."

The taste of Enviga might also be partly to blame for its decline. Tasters at Bevnet.com, an online site that covers the beverage industry, were generally unkind. The Wild Berry flavored Enviga "tastes pretty artificial and saccharine." The Peach flavor, now discontinued, "is a bit too acidic, and allows some of the chemical sweeteners to intervene, creating something of an unpleasantly fuzzy mouthfeel." The Green Tea flavor fared better but Bevnet wondered whether its "strong, tangy flavor" is "going to be too much" for dieting consumers.

CSPI's lawsuit sought an injunction barring Enviga from making deceptive claims.

"It's ironic that Coke, a company that has been a major promoter of weight gain, is now pretending that it is coming to the rescue of overweight people," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson when the lawsuit was filed in 2006. "They should have called this drink 'Fleece,' since that's what they're trying to do to consumers. Plain old tap water has zero calories, five calories fewer than Enviga, but unlike Enviga, tap water doesn't cost 15 bucks a gallon."

Besides maintaining the Enviga doesn't contain "negative calories," CSPI is concerned about the caffeine levels in Enviga. The marketing materials urged consumers to drink three cans a day to achieve a maximum calorie burning effect. At 100 milligrams per can, three cans of Enviga would have the caffeine of nine cans of Coke. And that is at the upper limit of what experts consider safe for pregnant women or women who may become pregnant.

"If you want to lose weight, drink less Coke, not more Enviga," said Jacobson.

Enviga aside, CSPI is moving full-speed ahead with a class action lawsuit against Coca-Cola over deceptive claims associated with its Vitaminwater line of drinks. The company makes a wide range of dramatic�and according to CSPI, false�claims, including that its drinks variously reduce the risk of chronic disease, reduce the risk of eye disease, promote healthy joints, and support optimal immune function. Vitaminwater has 33 grams of sugar per bottle, but no juice from any of the fruits mentioned on the labels of its several flavors. The names of the drinks, along with other statements on the label, "have the potential to reinforce a consumer's mistaken belief that the product is comprised of only vitamins and water," wrote U.S. District Court Judge John Gleeson, denying Coca-Cola's motion to dismiss.

CSPI Warns of More Recalls Linked to Beef, Lettuce

2010-08-16

Statement of CSPI Staff Attorney Sarah A. Klein

As August grilling season marches on and consumers top their burgers with lettuce, the unfortunate parade of outbreaks and recalls linked to contaminated food continues. USDA and FDA have each recently announced significant recalls of ground beef contaminated with E. coli and bagged lettuce contaminated with Listeria.

Valley Meat Company is recalling approximately one million pounds of frozen ground beef patties and bulk ground beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. At least seven consumers have already been sickened. E.coli 0157:H7 can cause severe illness with lifelong medical repercussions, or death. Consumers should check their freezers for meat labeled with any of the product names or codes listed here: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/Recall_048_2010_Release/index.asp. In addition, consumers should always cook ground beef to at least 160 degrees, using a meat thermometer in the thickest part of the patty to determine this. Consumers should also be careful when thawing and handling ground beef to avoid cross-contamination on cutting boards, utensils, and kitchen surfaces.

Fresh Express has recalled nearly 3,000 cases of Veggie Lovers salad because it may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. Listeria is particularly dangerous for pregnant women, and can cause miscarriage, still-birth, or severe birth defects. Consumers are advised to check their refrigerators for this product, labeled with a Product Code of I208 and Use-by Date of August 10, 2010. Unfortunately, re-washing bagged lettuce does not remove pathogens and may spread contamination around the kitchen.

Consumers who suspect they may have contracted a foodborne illness should seek medical care and contact their local health department.

Most "All Natural" Ben & Jerry's Flavors Have Unnatural Ingredients

2010-08-12

Alkalized Cocoa, Hydrogenated Oil, Fake Vanilla Among Them, Says CSPI

WASHINGTON�At least 48 out of 53 flavors of Ben & Jerry's "All Natural" ice cream and frozen yogurt contain alkalized cocoa, corn syrup, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, or other ingredients that either don't exist in nature or that have been chemically modified. Calling products with unnatural ingredients "natural" is a false and misleading use of the term, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Today, CSPI urged Ben and Jerry's to drop the claim or else the nonprofit watchdog group will take its concerns to the Food and Drug Administration and state attorneys general.

Founded in 1978 by Vermonters Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, Ben & Jerry's is now a unit of the Anglo-Dutch consumer product conglomerate Unilever, which besides owning familiar food brands such as Hellman's and Lipton, also makes Vaseline, Dove soap, and Axe deodorant. Thanks to the ice cream company's concerns about the environment, the company has garnered consumer trust and a reputation for social responsibility�but that image risks being sullied by the allegations of misleading labeling.

The label claims the ice cream is all natural,
but it contains cocoa processed with alkali,
partially hydrogenated soybean oil, and corn syrup.

In 2002, CSPI alerted the FDA and the company to Ben & Jerry's deceptive use of the "All Natural" claim, but neither took action, and the problem seems to have only gotten worse, according to CSPI. The consumer group says that the deceptive labeling is as unfair to competitors as it is to consumers.

For instance, "All Natural" Chubby Hubby ice cream contains three non-natural ingredients: alkalized cocoa, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, and corn syrup. Dublin Mudslide contains alkalized cocoa and anhydrous dextrose. A list of all the improperly labeled flavors and their ingredients is included in CSPI's letter.

"These ingredients are safe�only a small amount of partially hydrogenated oil is used�but it's a stretch to call any of them 'natural,'" said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "Ben & Jerry's sylvan labels notwithstanding, these ingredients come from the factory, not the farm. And slapping an 'all natural' label on the products certainly implies that the products are top quality and deserve to fetch a higher price."

Cocoa processed with alkali is the most frequently used unnatural ingredient as it used in 36 Ben & Jerry's flavors. Treating cocoa with an alkalizing agent changes the chemical structure, taste, and appearance of cocoa and reduces its acidity and flavonol content. Flavonols are antioxidants with possible health benefits. Indeed, Unilever itself recently sponsored research to investigate an association between flavonol intake and the incidence of stroke. In addition, the Hershey Center for Health and Nutrition (part of the candy company) specifically distinguishes alkalized cocoa powder from natural cocoa powder. Corn syrup and corn syrup solids are created by chemically or enzymatically converting cornstarch into sugar and short chains of sugar molecules. They occur in 28 flavors. Other artificial ingredients in Ben & Jerry's frozen desserts include dextrose and maltodextrin (both are chemically or enzymatically converted from cornstarch) and vanillin (a synthetic vanilla flavor).

Although the FDA does not have a formal definition of the word natural, the agency's acting director of regulatory guidance explained in a letter that the agency has "consistently discouraged the use" of the term "because its meaning is ambiguous and may unjustifiably imply to consumers that foods labeled as 'natural' are inherently superior to other foods�" Later, the agency wrote that the term natural means "that nothing artificial or synthetic � has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected in the food."

In any event, emphasized CSPI, the biggest problem with Ben & Jerry's ice creams is saturated fat�a major promoter of heart disease. A one-scoop (half-cup) serving of a typical flavor has about half-a-day's worth of saturated fat.

Senate Adopts Historic Improvements for School Foods

2010-08-05

Junk Foods Out, Good Foods In, as Child Nutrition Reauthorization Passes in Senate

The United States Senate achieved a rare, bipartisan consensus this afternoon as it passed by unanimous consent child nutrition legislation in advance of the food programs' September 30 expiration date. The legislation, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, increases reimbursements to school systems for lunches, provides more training to help schools serve healthier meals, and strengthens school wellness policies on nutrition and physical activity. Passage of the bill also signals an eventual removal of junk foods from school vending machines, hallways, and elsewhere on the school grounds as it requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to set science-based nutrition standards for foods that may be sold.

"The Senate bill changes the school food landscape in ways that are all positive," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "Put simply, it will get junk food out of, and put more healthy food into, America's schools. It preserves the free and reduced-cost meals that many families depend on in an economic downturn. And it supports farmers by improving farm-to-school programs. Chairman Blanche Lincoln and Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss deserve credit for forging a bipartisan agreement on the bill and for fighting to secure a vote despite a crowded Senate schedule."

According to CSPI, First Lady Michelle Obama made an important, last-minute push for the bill with a widely noticed op-ed in the Washington Post on Monday, reflecting on her work with children in the White House garden and the Let's Move campaign to reduce childhood obesity. "The last thing parents need or want is to see the progress they're making at home lost during the school day," Mrs. Obama wrote. "Right now, our country has a major opportunity to make our schools and our children healthier. It's an opportunity we haven't seen in years, and one that is too important to let pass by."

CSPI and other members of a broad coalition of health groups are urging the House to pass its version of the legislation, and then to have the two bills conferenced, before the programs expire on September 30.

CSPI Urges Congress to Address Child Nutrition Before August Recess

2010-07-29

Statement of CSPI Nutrition Policy Director Margo G. Wootan

Congress has a lot on its plate this legislative session, but it needs to address what's on kids' plates: now! Renewal of the Child Nutrition programs has been delayed for a year. Our children can't wait any longer.

The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (S. 3307) is a much needed step to address child nutrition and obesity. It would remove junk food from school vending machines, increase school lunch reimbursements, and provide more training to help schools serve healthier meals. Unlike the many controversial issues in Washington, this bill is bipartisan, won't add to the deficit, and is popular with voters. It should take no more than a day of the Senate's time.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell need to bring the child nutrition bill to the Senate floor for a vote before they go home for summer recess, and kids go back to school. A day is not much to ask for our kids' health and well being.

Lawsuit Over Deceptive Vitaminwater Claims to Proceed

2010-07-23

Court Finds Coke in Violation of Various FDA Regs and Denies Its Motion to Dismiss the Lawsuit

WASHINGTON�A federal judge has denied Coca-Cola's motion to dismiss a lawsuit over what the Center for Science in the Public Interest says are deceptive and unsubstantiated claims on the company's "vitaminwater" line of soft drinks. The company claims that vitaminwater variously reduces the risk of chronic disease, reduces the risk of eye disease, promotes healthy joints, and supports optimal immune function, and uses health buzz words such as "defense," "rescue," "energy," and "endurance" on labels.

Photo Credit: Jeff Cronin
Vitaminwater is hardly a health drink with 33 grams of sugar in each 20-ounce bottle.

Besides denying Coca-Cola's motion to dismiss, the ruling contains other bad omens for the company. Judge John Gleeson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York found that the company's use of the word "healthy" violates the Food and Drug Administration's regulations on vitamin-fortified foods. The FDA's so-called "Jelly Bean" rule prohibits companies from making health claims on junk foods that only meet various nutrient thresholds via fortification. The judge also found that vitaminwater's claim on the "focus" flavor of vitaminwater that it "may reduce the risk of age-related eye disease" runs afoul of FDA regulations.

The judge also took note of the fact that the FDA frowns upon names of products that mention some ingredients to the exclusion of more prominent ingredients such as, in the case of vitaminwater, added sugar. The names of the drinks, along with other statements on the label, "have the potential to reinforce a consumer's mistaken belief that the product is comprised of only vitamins and water," Gleeson wrote.

"In sum, plaintiffs' allegations sufficiently state a claim that defendants have violated FDA regulations by making health claims about vitaminwater even though it does not meet required minimum nutritional thresholds, by using the word 'healthy' in implied nutrient content claims even though vitaminwater's fortification does not comply with FDA policy, and by using a product name that references only two of vitaminwater's ingredients, omitting the fact that there is a key, unnamed ingredient [sugar] in the product," Gleeson continued.

"For too long, Coca-Cola has been exploiting Americans' desire to eat and drink more healthfully by deceiving them into thinking that vitaminwater can actually prevent disease," said CSPI litigation director Steve Gardner. "In fact, vitaminwater is no more than non-carbonated soda, providing unnecessary added sugar and contributing to weight gain, obesity, diabetes, and other diseases. We look forward to representing all Americans whom Coke has deceived."

The judge also rejected Coke's argument that disclosing sugar content on Nutrition Facts labels eliminates the possibility that consumers may be misled into thinking the product has only water and vitamins, and little or no sugar. Gleeson cited a similar case involving deceptive fruit imagery on packages for Gerber's Fruit Juice Snacks, which are mostly corn syrup and sugar. That court held that "reasonable consumers should [not] be expected to look beyond misleading representations on the front of the box to discover the truth from the ingredient list in small print on the side of the box." Vitaminwater has 33 grams of sugar in each 20-ounce bottle.

The judge excluded one group of New Jersey-based plaintiffs from the case but otherwise rejected Coke's arguments to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds, paving the way for the plaintiffs' lawyers to ask to take depositions of Coca-Cola executives, to ask for discovery of key vitaminwater marketing documents, and to seek certification as a class action. Besides CSPI's litigation unit, Reese Richman LLP and Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC are representing the plaintiffs. Michael Reese of Reese Richman and CSPI's Gardner argued in court for the plaintiffs.

CSPI is also on the verge of suing McDonald's over its use of toys to market unhealthful foods directly to young children. In previous cases, CSPI has won a major pre-lawsuit settlement agreement improving the nutritional quality of the foods Kellogg markets to children, and a settlement refunding millions of dollars to consumers who were deceived by the marketing of Airborne, a dietary supplement. CSPI is also in court in another case against Coca-Cola over deceptive claims by the company that its Enviga green-tea-flavored soft drink has "negative calories," thus promoting weight loss.

In Europe, Dyed Foods Get Warning Label

2010-07-20

Products with Yellow 5, Red 40, Other Dyes "May Have an Adverse Effect on Activity and Attention in Children"

WASHINGTON�Starting today in the European Union, most foods that contain artificial food dyes must bear warning labels stating that the food "may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children." As a practical matter, it's unclear exactly how many foods will have to use that language on labels, since dyes were never as widely used in Europe as in the United States. Also, the British government asked companies to remove most dyes by last December 31st. The Center for Science in the Public Interest says it hopes the European labeling rule gets the attention of officials at the Food and Drug Administration, which to date has not shown interest in protecting American consumers from the controversial dyes, as well as American companies�including those that are not using dyes in Europe.

Photo Credit: Michael Jacobson
Companies should replace Red 40, Yellow 5 and other synthetic dyes with natural colorings like these. British consumers enjoy food products free of most food dyes, but the same can't be said for Americans.

Synthetic food dyes have been suspected of triggering behavior problems in children since the 1970s, when Dr. Ben Feingold, a San Francisco allergist, reported that his patients improved when their diets were changed. Numerous controlled studies conducted over the next three decades proved that some children's behavior is worsened by artificial dyes. A 2004 meta-analysis concluded that artificial dyes affect children's behavior, and two recent studies funded by the British government found that mixtures of dyes (as well as the preservative sodium benzoate) adversely affect kids' behavior.

In 2008, CSPI filed a regulatory petition that called on the FDA to ban dyes because of the problems documented in children.

"At this point, American food manufacturers and regulators alike should be embarrassed that we're feeding kids foods with chemicals that have such a powerfully disruptive impact on children's behavior," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "European officials are taking the issue much more seriously, and are moving toward a safer food supply as a result."

Because the FDA hasn't encouraged food manufacturers to switch to safer natural colorings, many American food companies use the chemicals in the United States products but not in the U.K. equivalents. For example, the topping for a McDonald's Strawberry Sundae sold in the United States contains Red 40.

In the U.K., the topping's color comes from strawberries. Representative Louise Slaughter, Chairman of the House Rules Committee and the only microbiologist serving in Congress, has written the FDA twice expressing concern about the widespread use of artificial dyes in food.

"This is a sensible policy and a smart move to help protect the health and well being of children in Europe," Slaughter said. "For too long, studies have raised questions about the impact food dyes are having on the development of children and the possible link between dyes and behavior. I have been troubled by the lack of solid data on this issue for more than a decade. It's my hope that the Food and Drug Administration reviews the abundance of science on this issue and considers implementing a similar restriction or outright ban."

Besides being linked to behavior problems in children, food dyes are also inadequately tested and may pose cancer risks as well, according to a CSPI report�Food Dyes: Rainbow of Risks�published last month.

House Education and Labor Committee Approves Child Nutrition Reauthorization Bill

2010-07-15

Statement of CSPI Director of Nutrition Policy Margo G. Wootan

The Center for Science in the Public Interest congratulates Chairman George Miller and strongly supports his Improving Nutrition for America's Children Act (H.R. 5504), which passed out of the House of Representatives Education and Labor Committee today.

This bill includes a landmark provision to get soda and junk food out of school vending machines, which is supported not only by parents, health groups, and the Administration, but also by leading food and beverage companies. The bill also would provide resources and training to improve the nutritional quality of school lunches, expand nutrition education for children, and strengthen school nutrition and physical activity wellness policies.

The bill's passage will hopefully give a nudge to the Senate to pass its child nutrition bill, the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (S. 3307). That bill passed unanimously out of the Senate Agriculture Committee in March, but has yet to be brought to the Senate floor for a vote. To be sure, there's a lot on the Senate's plate. But unlike a lot of truly contentious issues, passing of child nutrition bill would only require about a day of Senate floor time, and is bipartisan.

The clock is ticking. Congress has less than three weeks left until they go home for summer recess and then, kids go back to school. Both the House of Representatives and Senate need to make our children's health their next priority and vote on child nutrition as soon as possible.

Should Taxpayers Subsidize Soda?

2010-07-15

Scientists Question Whether Federal Nutrition Assistance Funds Should Be Used to Buy Obesity-Promoting Sugar-Sweetened Beverages

WASHINGTON�The soft drink industry receives a $4 billion subsidy from taxpayers each year, according to an editorial published today in the American Journal of Public Health.

According to the paper, that's about how much carbonated soda is purchased with money from the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), the program formerly known as Food Stamps. And that total doesn't include non-carbonated soft drinks. Considering that the overconsumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is helping fuel an epidemic of obesity that disproportionately affects low-income people, the authors raise the question of whether it is time to exclude soda or other junk foods from the SNAP program in the same way that alcohol, tobacco, dietary supplement pills, and hot prepared foods are already excluded.

To be sure, efforts to limit SNAP purchases to healthier foods would draw intense opposition, writes Jonathan D. Shenkin, clinical assistant professor of the Boston University Henry M. Goldman School of Dental Medicine and Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. SNAP participants appear to purchase at least 40 percent more carbonated soft drinks than other consumers do. At one major supermarket chain, SNAP participants bought 4.3 percent of carbonated soft drinks even though they only represented 1.8 percent of transactions. At another large chain, carbonated soft drinks accounted for 6.19 percent of the grocery bills of SNAP participants.

"The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is intended to help low-income families buy the foods they need to promote good health. It's time to question whether the program should support the purchase of foods that promote disease," said Shenkin.

If disallowing the use of SNAP funds to buy sugar-sweetened beverages proved to be politically unfeasible, as the authors acknowledge it might, a less controversial option might be to provide SNAP participants with a financial incentive to purchase the healthiest foods. Recipients' Electronic Benefit Transfer cards could be credited with 30 additional cents for every dollar spent on fruits, vegetables, or whole grains, for example. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, for every 10 percent decrease in the price of fruits or vegetables, SNAP recipients would increase their purchase by 6 or 7 percent.

The federal government's largest nutrition education program is also funded by SNAP. Called SNAP-Ed, the program gives almost $400 million in matching grants to states to encourage low-income consumers to adopt healthier diets. But Shenkin and Jacobson point out that the USDA actually prohibits the use of SNAP-Ed grants for campaigns that steer people away from junk foods. USDA stopped health officials in the city of San Francisco, and the states of Maine, California, and Wyoming from using federal money for programs aimed at reducing soda consumption. CSPI has called on the Obama administration to end what it calls a "gag rule" instituted during the Bush administration.

"The federal government should be doing everything it can to reduce the consumption of soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages, which promote tooth decay, weight gain, obesity, diabetes, and other diet-related diseases," said Jacobson. "SNAP should be oriented toward increasing the consumption of good, healthy food. None of the $65 billion invested in nutrition assistance in 2010 should end up paying for Coke, Pepsi, or Mountain Dew."

Shenkin and Jacobson also say that Congress should fund an Institute of Medicine review of the goals, successes, and limitations of the SNAP and SNAP-ed programs. Such a report could identify ways that the programs could foster healthier diets and provide an authoritative basis for Congress to make changes.

The authors point out that another powerful means of discouraging soft drink consumption is taxation. A federal excise tax of 12 cents per 12 ounces could raise upward of $15 billion a year and decrease consumption by about 10 percent. Taxes on that order have been proposed in New York State, Philadelphia, and nationally, but have been beaten back by well-funded industry lobbying and advertising campaigns. At least 24 states and the city of Chicago have special sales or excise taxes on soda that raise substantial revenues, but aren't large enough to decrease consumption.

Though excluding sugar-sweetened beverages from the SNAP program is controversial, setting nutrition standards for government food programs is hardly new. The school lunch and breakfast programs administered by USDA comply with strict nutrition standards that exclude soda and junk food, as does the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, which is geared to pregnant and breastfeeding women and young children.

"Soda is already one of the cheapest things in the supermarket, and it promotes expensive-to-treat diseases and stark health disparities," Jacobson said. "Short of cigarettes and alcoholic beverages, it's hard to imagine a product less worthy of a government subsidy than soda. It's time to put the 'N' back in SNAP."

Food Frauds on Sale at FDA Headquarters!

2010-07-07

CSPI Says Federal Labeling Cops Should Raid Their Own Cafeteria

WASHINGTON�On a recent visit to the sprawling new Food and Drug Administration headquarters in the White Oak area of Silver Spring, Md., a lawyer from the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest stopped for a quick, healthy lunch. Hiding in plain sight in the FDA cafeteria�quite literally under the noses of the officials tasked with policing misleading labels�were at least three beverages with illegal claims on their labels. The contraband drinks included:

Purity.Organic Functional Drinks Pomegranate Blueberry. Its label claims it has "Ginkgo Biloba to enhance your memory and keep you thinking straight," but government-funded studies show ginkgo has no effect on memory and does not lower incidence of Alzheimer's or dementia, either. Ginkgo may have been "grown by monks for millennia" as the web site claims, but it isn't Generally Recognized as Safe (or GRAS) as a food additive, according to FDA. (Plus, this product has more added sugar than it has pomegranate or blueberry juice.)

Photo Credit: Jeff Cronin
These drinks, all with illegal claims on the labels, were found in the FDA cafeteria.

Crystal Light Immunity Berry Pomegranate. This bright purple beverage's label pictures blueberries and a pomegranate, yet the drink has no juice of any kind. Natural flavoring accounts for less than 2 percent of the product, and only an unknown fraction of that comes from the named fruits. The color comes from Red 40 and Blue 1 and the artificial sweetness comes from sucralose and acesulfame potassium. Vitamins A, B, C and E are listed on the ingredients list, but there is no evidence to support the implication that this drink will ward off colds or diseases, which is what is implied by the use of the word "immunity." CSPI urged the FDA to take enforcement action against this product in 2008. (Plus, the bottle CSPI found in the FDA cafeteria was long past its "Best before 26 December 2007" expiration date.)
SoBe Lifewater B-Energy Black Cherry Dragonfruit. Again, this drink has no black cherry or dragonfruit juice, but it does have guarana and ginseng (neither considered GRAS by FDA although the food industry considers them safe) and added vitamins. Using the word "energy" in the name and claiming that its B vitamins "help your body unlock the energy in foods," implies that the drink will make one feel more energetic. But while B vitamins do help to convert protein, fat, and carbohydrates into energy, they don't provide an energy boost that can be felt by the body. The "all natural" claim is unjustified because Lifewater contains added citric acid. And those without magnifying glasses might miss the fact that the bottle (described improbably as 2.5 servings) will supply 62.5 milligrams of caffeine, more than what you'd find in a 12-ounce can of Coke.

"To be fair, the FDA under the Obama Administration has done more to crack down on deceptive food labeling in the last 12 months than the Bush FDA did in eight years," said CSPI legal affairs director Bruce Silverglade. "But the fact that we were able to find so many labeling problems in the FDA's own cafeteria neatly illustrates why the agency needs to issue industry-wide rules, not just send warning letters to individual companies."

Last December, CSPI sent the FDA a 158-page report documenting more than 50 false or misleading claims, ingredient obfuscations, and other labeling shenanigans that it found in supermarkets. CSPI recommended that FDA establish a systematic regulatory framework to prohibit misleading health-related claims, and require that nutrition information be based on realistic serving sizes�something that the drinks CSPI found in the FDA cafeteria fail to do.

"Consumers who want to ensure that they're getting enough vitamins and minerals should focus on eating a wide variety of fruits and vegetables first," Silverglade said. "No one should believe that the added vitamins, herbs or other ingredients in these flavored waters are going to ward off disease, improve memory, or make one more energetic. The FDA should frog-march these products into the food label penitentiary."

High-Risk Consumers First Victims of Florida Budget Cuts

2010-07-01

Florida Ends Food Safety Inspections in Day Cares, Hospitals, and Nursing Homes

WASHINGTON�State budget cuts have led to yet another fatality�the death of food safety inspections at facilities serving the state's most vulnerable populations. A sweeping budget bill signed by Governor Charlie Crist last month eliminates food safety inspections at hospitals, day cares, and nursing homes�facilities feeding those people who are already most at-risk from foodborne illness. Three state agencies are responsible for food inspections, but House Bill 5311 means that none of these agencies will have the authority or the mandate to inspect these facilities from now on. Foodborne illnesses linked to these facilities have sickened hundreds of Florida consumers in at least 15 separate outbreaks since 1995.

"Florida politicians were clearly not thinking about their young children or their aging parents when they passed this bill," says Sarah Klein, a staff attorney at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "These consumers�and anyone who is immuno-compromised�are already at greater risk of being hospitalized from foodborne illness. Ending food safety inspections in the kitchens that feed those populations is like taking seatbelts out of their cars and hoping no one has an accident."

News of the change to Florida's inspection policy comes on the heels of a recommendation by the Institute of Medicine, urging the Food & Drug Administration to delegate more food facility inspections to the states. Consumer groups have criticized the recommendation, in part because state health departments are already understaffed and underfunded. Florida's action provides more evidence that at least some states are unequipped to accept any additional inspection duties.

"Florida consumers deserve more from their legislature than budget cuts to critical public health services," says Klein. "A budget savings on the front end, by eliminating inspections, can lead to huge costs later�when people get sick from foodborne illness. And if it's your child, or parent, or sick loved one�you can bet those savings weren't worth it." Inspections at restaurants and prisons will continue.

CSPI Says Food Dyes Pose Rainbow of Risks

2010-06-29

Cancer, Hyperactivity, Allergic Reactions

WASHINGTON�Food dyes�used in everything from M&Ms to Manischewitz Matzo Balls to Kraft salad dressings�pose risks of cancer, hyperactivity in children, and allergies, and should be banned, according to a new report by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. A top government scientist agrees, and says that food dyes present unnecessary risks to the public.

The three most widely used dyes, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6, are contaminated with known carcinogens, says CSPI. Another dye, Red 3, has been acknowledged for years by the Food and Drug Administration to be a carcinogen, yet is still in the food supply.

Despite those concerns, each year manufacturers pour about 15 million pounds of eight synthetic dyes into our foods. Per capita consumption of dyes has increased five-fold since 1955, thanks in part to the proliferation of brightly colored breakfast cereals, fruit drinks, and candies pitched to children.

"These synthetic chemicals do absolutely nothing to improve the nutritional quality or safety of foods, but trigger behavior problems in children and, possibly, cancer in anybody," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson, co-author of the 58-page report, "Food Dyes: A Rainbow of Risks." "The Food and Drug Administration should ban dyes, which would force industry to color foods with real food ingredients, not toxic petrochemicals."

Blue 1, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 have long been known to cause allergic reactions in some people. CSPI says that while those reactions are not common, they can be serious and provide reason enough to ban those dyes. Furthermore, numerous studies have demonstrated that dyes cause hyperactivity in children.

But the biggest concern is cancer. Back in 1985, the acting commissioner of the FDA said that Red 3, one of the lesser-used dyes, "has clearly been shown to induce cancer" and was "of greatest public health concern." However, Secretary of Agriculture John R. Block pressed the Department of Health and Human Services not to ban the dye, and he apparently prevailed�notwithstanding the Delaney Amendment that forbids the use of in foods of cancer-causing color additives. Each year about 200,000 pounds of Red 3 are poured into such foods as Betty Crocker's Fruit Roll-Ups and ConAgra's Kid Cuisine frozen meals. Since 1985 more than five million pounds of the dye have been used.

Tests on lab animals of Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 showed signs of causing cancer or suffered from serious flaws, said the consumer group. Yellow 5 also caused mutations, an indication of possible carcinogenicity, in six of 11 tests.

In addition, according to the report, FDA tests show that the three most-widely used dyes, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6, are tainted with low levels of cancer-causing compounds, including benzidine and 4-aminobiphenyl in Yellow 5. However, the levels actually could be far higher, because in the 1990s the FDA and Health Canada found a hundred times as much benzidine in a bound form that is released in the colon, but not detected in the routine tests of purity conducted by the FDA.

"Dyes add no benefits whatsoever to foods, other than making them more 'eye-catching' to increase sales," said James Huff, the associate director for chemical carcinogenesis at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' National Toxicology Program. "CSPI's scientifically detailed report on possible health effects of food dyes raises many questions about their safety. Some dyes have caused cancers in animals, contain cancer-causing contaminants, or have been inadequately tested for cancer or other problems. Their continued use presents unnecessary risks to humans, especially young children. It's disappointing that the FDA has not addressed the toxic threat posed by food dyes."

CSPI's report notes that FDA's regulations mandate a stricter standard of safety for color additives than other food additives, saying that there must be "convincing evidence that establishes with reasonable certainty that no harm will result from the intended use of the color additive." The standard of "convincing evidence" does not apply to preservatives, emulsifiers, and other additives.

CSPI charges that the FDA is not enforcing the law in several regards:

Red 3 and Citrus Red 2 should be banned under the Delaney amendment, because they caused cancer in rats (some uses were banned in 1990), as should Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6, which are tainted with cancer-causing contaminants.
Evidence suggests, though does not prove, that Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, and Yellow 6 cause cancer in animals. There certainly is not "convincing evidence" of safety.
Dyed foods should be considered adulterated under the law, because the dyes make a food "appear better or of greater value than it is"�typically by masking the absence of fruit, vegetable, or other more costly ingredient.

In a letter sent today, CSPI urged the FDA to ban all dyes because the scientific studies do not provide convincing evidence of safety, but do provide significant evidence of harm.

A ninth dye, Orange B, is approved for coloring sausage casings, but in 1978 the FDA proposed banning it because it was found to be toxic to rats. The industry has not used Orange B in more than a decade. Also, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has labeled Citrus Red 2 a carcinogen, and the FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives said "this color should not be used as a food additive." However, it poses little risk because it is approved only for coloring the skins of oranges.

Because of concerns about dyes' impairment of children's behavior, the British government asked companies to phase out most dyes by last December 31, and the European Union is requiring, beginning on July 20, a warning notice on most dyed foods. CSPI predicted that the label notice�"may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children"�likely will be the death knell for dyes in all of Europe.

The greater government oversight and public concern across the Atlantic results in McDonald's Strawberry Sundae in Britain being colored with strawberries, but in the United States with Red dye 40. Likewise, the British version of Fanta orange soda gets its bright color from pumpkin and carrot extract, but in the United States the color comes from Red 40 and Yellow 6. Starburst Chews and Skittles, both Mars products, contain synthetic dyes in the United States, but not in Britain.

Fortunately, says CSPI, many natural colorings are available to replace dyes. Beet juice, beta-carotene, blueberry juice concentrate, carrot juice, grape skin extract, paprika, purple sweet potato or corn, red cabbage, and turmeric are some of the substances that provide a vivid spectrum of colors. However, CSPI warns that "natural" does not always mean safe. Carmine and cochineal�colorings obtained from a bright red insect�can cause rare, but severe, anaphylactic reactions. Annatto, too, can cause allergic reactions.

"Food Dyes: Rainbow of Risks" was written by Sarah Kobylewski, a Ph.D. candidate in the Molecular Toxicology Program at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Jacobson is author of Eater's Digest: The Consumer's Factbook of Food Additives (Doubleday, 1972).

Gulf Coast Oysters Unsafe (But Not For the Reason You Think)

2010-06-24

Deadly Vibrio Vulnificus Bacteria, Not Oil, Contaminate Gulf Oysters Every Summer

WASHINGTON�Gulf Coast politicians are tripping over themselves to assure consumers that seafood from the Gulf is safe to eat. And to be sure, some shrimp and finfish may not be contaminated by the petroleum gushing from the Deepwater Horizon spill. But those statements from officials obscure the real danger presented to some consumers by Gulf Coast oysters�nearly all of which are contaminated with deadly Vibrio vulnificus bacteria during warm summer months, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. CSPI is calling on federal and state government officials to remind consumers that the normal risks associated with Gulf oysters are still present.

"We've seen several reassuring statements that seafood from the Gulf on the market is safe," said David W. Plunkett, a CSPI staff attorney. "While some Gulf oysters may be 'safe' from oil contamination, that doesn't mean they are 'safe' to eat," he explained. At risk populations should not eat raw oysters from the Gulf, Plunkett said.

Vibrio vulnificus is a common bacterium that thrives in warm Gulf waters in the spring and summer and contaminates Gulf oysters. While it may cause mild illnesses in healthy individuals, it can kill people who have diabetes, liver disease, hemochromatosis or compromised immune systems.

Last year, serious Vibrio vulnificus infections from eating raw oysters claimed 26 victims, 10 of whom died, according to the Centers for Disease Control. In any year, half the people who develop serious symptoms die, and many of those who survive live with the scars from the skin debridement or amputation that may have been necessary to keep them alive.

It is especially shocking to see statements on the Food and Drug Administration's website that shellfish harvested from areas unaffected by the spill are safe to eat, Plunkett said. Only last fall, Mike Taylor, Deputy Commissioner for Foods at FDA, called Vibrio vulnificus a significant hazard, saying that "seldom is the evidence on a food safety problem and solution so unambiguous," and announced plans to require post-harvest processing of Gulf oysters to destroy the bacteria.

FDA eventually backed down from its plans under pressure from Members of Congress who responded to industry posturing over potential job losses. To date, only California has implemented an effective control plan to protect its consumers, according to CSPI.

"While everyone wants to support people in the Gulf right now, government statements that ignore well-known risks only mean that more could suffer unnecessarily," Plunkett said.

CSPI to Sue McDonald's If It Continues Using Toys to Market Junk Food to Children

2010-06-22

Using Toys to Promote "Happy Meals" Is Unfair, Deceptive & Illegal, Group Says, Citing State Laws

WASHINGTON�Tell it to the judge, Ronald: A nutrition watchdog group will sue McDonald's if the fast-food chain continues to use toys to promote Happy Meals. According to the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, using toys to lure small children into McDonald's is unfair and deceptive marketing and is illegal under various state consumer protection laws. CSPI today served McDonald's a notice of its intent to sue, fulfilling a legal requirement of several states in which CSPI might bring the lawsuit.

"McDonald's is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children," said CSPI litigation director Stephen Gardner. "McDonald's use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children's developmental immaturity�all this to induce children to prefer foods that may harm their health. It's a creepy and predatory practice that warrants an injunction."

Photo Credit: Jeff Cronin
CSPI will sue McDonald's if it continues to use toys
to market directly to small children.

McDonald's is currently offering children toys related to Dreamworks' latest Shrek movie. (CSPI's action is unrelated to the recent recall of McDonald's Shrek drinking glasses contaminated with the toxic heavy metal cadmium.) While Shrek may appear on packaging for low-fat milk and Apple Dippers, when children or parents order Happy Meals they are given French fries 93 percent of the time, according to a CSPI study.

In 2007, McDonald's made a pledge to an industry-funded self-regulatory group not to advertise to children meals that have more than 600 calories and no more than certain percentages of fat and sugar. Thus, the brief glimpses of actual food in McDonald's youth-directed advertising, show Apple Dippers and low-fat milk as part of either a 4-piece Chicken McNuggets Happy Meal or a Hamburger Happy Meal. But toys, a powerful temptation for kids, are included with all Happy Meals, regardless of nutrition.

Of the 24 possible Happy Meal combinations that McDonald's describes on its web site, all exceed 430 calories (430 is one-third of the 1,300- calorie recommended daily intake for children 4 to 8 years old). A Happy Meal of a cheeseburger, French fries, and Sprite has half a day's calories and saturated fat (640 and 7 grams, respectively), about 940 milligrams of sodium, and about two days' worth of sugar (35 grams). And even that meal might have come with a toy related to Star Wars, iCarly, How to Train Your Dragon, Night at the Museum, or, of course, Shrek. Getting children accustomed to eating burgers, fries, and soda puts them at greater risk of developing obesity, diabetes, or other diet-related diseases over the course of their lifetimes, according to CSPI.

"But regardless of the nutritional quality of what's being sold, the practice of tempting kids with toys is inherently deceptive," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "I'm sure that industry's defenders will blame parents for not saying 'no' to their children. Parents do bear much of the responsibility, but multi-billion-dollar corporations make parents' job nearly impossible by giving away toys and bombarding kids with slick advertising."

"We know from scientific research that young children�and even older ones�do not have the ability to understand how marketing has been designed to influence them," said Kathryn Montgomery, professor of communication at American University and an expert on media and children. "In the era of digital marketing, these vulnerabilities are magnified even further. McDonald's use of these techniques raises troubling questions, for health professionals, parents, and policy makers."

The practice of using toy promotions to promote fast-food to children is under scrutiny elsewhere, too. In May, the Santa Clara County, Calif., Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance preventing McDonald's and other restaurants from including toys or other kid-oriented incentives with the purchase of unhealthy meals. And the Federal Trade Commission may have something to say about toy promotions when it releases a set of voluntary standards for food marketers later this year. According to a 2008 report from the FTC, food companies spend more than $350 million on toy giveaways each year.

"McDonald's makes my job as a parent more difficult," said Sheila Nesbitt, 36, a project manager from Champlin, MN, and a parent of a six-year-old boy and a three-year-old girl. "They market cheap toys that appeal to kids and it works. My kids always want to go to McDonald's because of the toys. I try my best to educate my kids about healthy eating but it's hard when I am competing against the allure of a new Shrek toy."

"McDonald's marketing has the effect of conscripting America's children into an unpaid drone army of word-of-mouth marketers, causing them to pester their parents to bring them to McDonald's," wrote Gardner in a notice letter to McDonald's vice chairman, CEO, and president Jim Skinner, and McDonald's USA president Jan Fields.

CSPI's notice letter says that McDonald's toy-related promotions violate state consumer protection laws in Massachusetts, Texas, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and California. CSPI's letter gives McDonald's 30 days to agree to stop the practice before a suit is filed.

CSPI's litigation unit has taken on food marketing to children before. In 2006, CSPI notified Kellogg that it would be sued for marketing sugary cereals and other junk food directly to children. After negotiating for more than a year, CSPI and Kellogg reached a historic settlement agreement that set nutrition standards for the foods the company may advertise on media with young audiences. Since then, Kellogg only advertises to young audiences if a serving of the food has no more than 200 calories, zero grams of trans fat and no more than 2 grams of saturated fat, no more than 230 milligrams of sodium, and no more than 12 grams of sugar.

In previous fast-food litigation, CSPI sued KFC for using partially hydrogenated oil, which made KFC's chicken very high in trans fat. CSPI dropped that lawsuit when the company agreed to phase out partially hydrogenated oils. KFC chicken is now trans-fat-free.

This is the first time that CSPI has planned to take McDonald's to court.

New York City Passes Restaurant Grading

2010-06-15

Statement of CSPI Food Safety Attorney Sarah Klein

Congratulations to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for enacting restaurant food-safety grading. Beginning in July, consumers will finally be able to see how a restaurant fared on its most recent health inspection, simply by glancing at the letter grade in the front window or vestibule. Foodborne illness sickens 76 million Americans each year, and 40 percent of those illnesses are linked to restaurant food. With a greater emphasis on food safety in restaurant kitchens, we hope to see a lot fewer sick consumers in the New York City.

Los Angeles has been doing restaurant grading for over 10 years with great results�including a documented 20 percent decrease in hospitalizations due to foodborne illness. With cities on both coasts now providing this import food safety information to consumers, the only question remaining is: Why aren't all cities doing restaurant grading?

Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Releases Report

2010-06-15

Statement of CSPI Nutrition Policy Director Margo G. Wootan

Basic nutrition advice hasn't changed much over the 30 years that the Dietary Guidelines for Americans has been published. That key report has long advised people to eat less unhealthy fats, salt, and added sugars and more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains�and, for the most part, that advice has been ignored by individuals and institutions.

The new Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee report, at long last, recognizes that what is most needed is an unprecedented effort to help people follow the Dietary Guidelines, including changes in policy and the food environment. The report wisely recommends that USDA and HHS develop a national strategy to help people eat better, including ramping up nutrition education, expanding access to fruits and vegetables, and getting industry to provide more healthful products.

House Child Nutrition Bill Promotes Good Nutrition for Kids

2010-06-10

Statement of CSPI Nutrition Policy Director Margo G. Wootan

The Center for Science in the Public Interest applauds Chairman George Miller for pulling together a strong child nutrition bill. The bill would do much to help support and promote healthy eating by children. Like the Senate child nutrition bill, it is the beginning of the end for junk food and sugary drinks in schools. There also are a number of provisions to increase resources, technical assistance, and training to improve the nutritional quality of school meals. The bill would expand nutrition education in schools and strengthen school nutrition and physical activity wellness policies.

The clock is ticking for child nutrition. While Congress has a lot on its plate, it needs to address what's on children's plates�and soon. In order to ensure that the strong reforms in the House and Senate child nutrition bills reach children as soon as possible, the full Senate needs to pass the bipartisan bill that was unanimously passed out of the Senate Agriculture Committee. The House also should move quickly to pass Chairman Miller's child nutrition package.

Both the House and Senate child nutrition bills contain a historic agreement between health groups and food and beverage companies to improve the nutritional quality of foods sold out of vending machines and other venues outside of school meals. Getting junk food out of schools is important for improving children's diets and ensuring that those so-called competitive foods don't undermine the school lunch program.

IOM Report Offers Useful Guidance for FDA, With One Major Exception

2010-06-08

Statement of CSPI Food Safety Director Caroline Smith DeWaal

Today's report from the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council offers several strong recommendations for improving food safety under the Food and Drug Administration, and serves as yet another call to Congress to pass critical food safety reform legislation. Many of the recommendations made in the report are contained in the food safety legislation pending in the Senate.

Among the improvements IOM suggests are the creation of a centralized risk-based analysis and data management center, and the development of a specialized food safety inspection workforce. The data center envisioned by IOM, which resembles that of the European Food Safety Authority, could be a useful model for FDA. IOM's recognition of the need for a specialized food safety inspection workforce is a welcome suggestion, recognizing that inspectors cannot be cross-trained adequately in food safety, drugs, and medical devices.

Unfortunately, the report also recommends that FDA pursue delegating additional responsibility for food inspections to the states�an experiment destined to increase the number of food safety failures we have already experienced. One need only look to the Peanut Corporation of America for evidence that states are ill-equipped to provide the level of inspection required. States and local governments have responsibility for food safety inspections of all restaurants, hospitals, nursing homes, schools, and day care centers�responsibilities that are already taxing state governments. Instead of tasking overburdened and underfunded agencies with additional responsibilities, FDA should create a more efficient federal inspection force, including by utilizing other federal agencies.

The IOM also recommends moving toward a single unified food safety agency, a plan championed by CSPI and used with success by other countries.

Most Companies Replace Trans Fat with Healthier Fats, Study Finds

2010-05-26

WASHINGTON�When food manufacturers and chain restaurants reduced or eliminated artificial trans fat, the reformulated foods almost always ended up lower in their total amount of trans and saturated fat. That finding, published in the May 27 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, effectively disproves speculation that food manufacturers would merely replace partially hydrogenated oils�the source of artificial trans fat�with saturated fat from butter, lard, or palm oil. And, it means that getting rid of artificial trans fat usually resulted in foods that are healthier for hearts, according to the researchers.

In the largest survey of its kind ever done in the United States, researchers identified 83 brand-name packaged and restaurant foods that had been made with trans fat prior to 2007, but then were reformulated to largely eliminate the trans fat.

The study found that the overall content of both fats combined was reduced in 90 percent (52 of 58) of the supermarket products and 96 percent (24 of 25) of the restaurant products, with average total reductions of 1.2 and 3.9 grams per serving, respectively. The study was conducted by Dariush Mozaffarian of Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health and Michael F. Jacobson and Julie S. Greenstein of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

"This study should alleviate concerns that most food manufacturers and restaurants would simply switch to a shortening high in saturated fat when they reformulated their products without trans fat," Mozaffarian said. "In only a small handful of baked goods, more saturated fat was added than trans fat subtracted following reformulation. Still, because a gram of trans fat is more harmful than a gram of saturated fat, even those changes represented relative improvements. In the majority of products, trans fat was reduced or eliminated without corresponding increases in saturated fat. In the case of reformulated restaurant foods, not only was trans fat largely eliminated, but saturated fat also was reduced�making for a much healthier food."

For example, a large order of McDonald's French fries used to have 13 grams of saturated and trans fats, but ended up with only 3.5 grams. The total amount of trans and saturated fats in Gorton's Crunchy Golden Fish Sticks declined from 7 grams to 4 grams. In one of the exceptions, an Entenmann's frosted doughnut, which started with 5 grams of saturated fat and 5 grams of trans fats, ended up with no trans fat, but 12 grams of saturated fat. The authors note that some foods, such as pie crusts and pastries, may need a small amount of hard fat, like butter or palm oil, to have a flaky texture.

"This paper demonstrates that the U.S. food industry has been generally responsible in replacing partially hydrogenated oils with more healthful oils," Jacobson said. "That should pave the way for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to eliminate partially hydrogenated oils from the food supply. The agency could do that quite easily by stating that it no longer considers partially hydrogenated oil to be 'generally recognized as safe,' and give companies a year or two to switch to healthier oils."

And the Envelope, Please: The 2010 Xtreme Eating Awards Go To...

2010-05-25

Nutrition Action Healthletter Exposes 9 Caloric Heavyweights

WASHINGTON�Would you top a Pizza Hut Personal Pan Pepperoni Pizza with six Taco Bell Crunchy beef Tacos? And then eat the whole thing? Well, pass the Pepto-Bismol, please: The nutrition and food safety watchdogs at the Center for Science in the Public Interest today conferred its Xtreme Eating awards on nine items from seven American restaurant chains.

"One might think that chains like Outback Steakhouse and The Cheesecake Factory might want to lighten up their meals now that calories will be required on their menus, courtesy of the health care reform law signed in March," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "But these chains don't promote moderation. They practice caloric extremism, and they're helping make modern-day Americans become the most obese people ever to walk the Earth."

Photo Credit: Melissa Pryputniewicz
The Outbeak Steakhouse New Zealand Rack of Lamb plus the
sides has 1,820 calories, 80 grams of saturated fat, and 2,600
milligrams of sodium.

Most people wouldn't think to order two orders of deep-fried steak and eggs for breakfast at a casual chain like Bob Evans. But if you order Bob Evans' Cinnamon Cream Stacked & Stuffed Hotcakes, you'll be getting 1,380 calories and 34 grams of bad fat�about what you'd get in two country-fried steaks and four eggs. But the hotcakes are worse because seven grams of their bad fat comes from trans fat�more than one should get in three and a half days. Syrup adds another 200 calories for every four-tablespoon serving.

Pancakes, which are usually lightly fried white flour topped with sugary syrup, have never been a healthy breakfast. But Bob stuffs his hotcakes with cinnamon chips made of sugar and fat; adds a layer of cream-cheese-flavored filling; and tops them with sugary "cream" sauce, whipped topping, and powdered sugar. And that makes the item one of CSPI's top Xtreme Eating dishonorees for 2010.

To put these numbers into context, keep in mind that the average American should consume about 2,000 calories per day, and consume no more than 20 grams of saturated fat. Others examples of Xtreme Eating include:

California Pizza Kitchen Tostada Pizza with Grilled Steak. With 1,680 calories,1� day's worth (32 grams) of saturated fat, and more than 2 day's worth (3,300 mg) of sodium ordering the single-serve pizza is like eating a Pizza Hut Personal Pan Pepperoni Pizza topped with six Taco Bell Crunchy beef Tacos.
Five Guys Bacon Cheeseburger. At McDonald's, most people probably wouldn't opt for a second Quarter Pounder (410 calories each). But at one of the trendy Five Guys' 550 outlets, one Bacon Cheeseburger sans toppings has 920 calories and a day-and-a half's worth (30 grams) of saturated fat. A large order of French fries at Five Guys has 1,460 calories�about triple the calories of a large order of fries at McDonald's. (Famous Five Guys patrons please take note.)
P.F. Chang's Double Pan-Fried Noodles Combo. You could eat 10 egg rolls and not top the 1,820 calories in this dish. "They fry these noodles to make them hard and crunchy, while you end up soft and flabby," says CSPI nutrition director Bonnie Liebman. If this noodle dish does indeed have the 7,690 milligrams of sodium to which the chain confesses, that would be about three teaspoons of salt�a five-day supply.
The Cheesecake Factory Pasta Carbonara with Chicken. When CSPI first dubbed fettuccine Alfredo a "heart attack on a plate," it was because CSPI's lab tests found it had 1,500 calories and 48 grams of saturated fat. But, according to the company, this dish�with four cups of white-flour pasta, smoked bacon, chicken, and Parmesan cream and butter sauce�has 2,500 calories and more saturated fat (85 grams) than one should consume in four days. It's like eating the chain's onion-ring-topped Grilled Rib-Eye Steak with French Fries, and a slice of Tiramisu Cheesecake.
The Cheesecake Factory Chocolate Tower Truffle Cake. A tower of any food is rarely a good idea. This six-inch-long, three-quarter-pound slab of cake has 1,670 calories and two-and-a-half days' worth (48 grams) of artery-clogging saturated fat. Feel like eating 14 Hostess Ho Hos for dessert?

The full list of the 2010 Xtreme Eating Awards is published in the June issue of Nutrition Action Healthletter.

"I wouldn't accuse California Pizza Kitchen or P.F. Chang's of being a threat to national security, but with a quarter of young Americans too heavy to join the military, these and other chains ought to get the extremes off their menus," said Liebman. "At a minimum, they should disclose calories on menus now, even before federal regulations make it mandatory."

Packaged-food manufacturers recently made a commitment to slash a trillion calories from the foods they produce by 2012. But the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation includes only one restaurant company, Darden, the parent company of Olive Garden and Red Lobster. And none of the companies involved in the initiative are revealing any details on how calorie reductions will be achieved. CSPI noted that, while a trillion calories sounds like a lot, it represents only a drop in the bucket of the more than 350 trillion calories that Americans consume every year.

"For all the industry's rhetoric about providing consumers with 'choice,' the choices at restaurants mostly range from bad to terrible," Jacobson said. "The healthy choices are largely afterthoughts and Xtreme Eating reigns supreme. If chain restaurants want to practice corporate responsibility, they should substitute fruits, vegetables, and whole grains for white flour, sugar, salt, and fat."

The health-reform law enacted in March gives the Food and Drug Administration a year to propose a regulation specifying how restaurant chains with 20 or more outlets should disclose calories on menus and menu boards. The law will also require chains to make information about saturated fat, carbohydrates, sodium, and other nutrients available to diners upon request.

Council Urged to Put DC School Kids Ahead of Special-Interest Opponents of Soda Tax

2010-05-13

Cheh Proposal Would Provide for Healthier School Foods

WASHINGTON�The nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest today called on members of the District of Columbia Council to support a proposal by Council Member Mary Cheh to levy a penny-per-ounce tax on soda to help pay for healthier school meals. The nonprofit nutrition and food-safety group is aiding a petition drive in support of the proposal along with Save the Children, Earth Day Network, and other organizations at www.supporthealthyschools.org.

Cheh's Healthy Schools Revenue Act would provide $6.5 million a year to fund the Healthy Schools Act. Together, the acts would improve school nutrition, provide free breakfast in all District schools, eliminate the reduced-price copayment for lunch, and triple the amount of physical and health education. An additional $6 million would fund healthy food access, faith-based anti-obesity programs, and programs to improve the diets and wellness of the elderly in the District.

"Soda consumption in the District is fueling an expensive epidemic of diet-related disease, including obesity, diabetes, and other health problems," said CSPI executive director and District resident Michael F. Jacobson. "A modest tax on this nutritionally worthless, disease-promoting product would give our seniors and children greater access to fresh fruits, vegetables, and other health-promoting foods."

Residents of Washington, DC, collectively spend about $472 million on the medical costs of obesity alone, Jacobson wrote in a letter delivered today to Council Members. Fifty-five percent of District adults and 35 percent of children are obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and sugar-sweetened drinks are the only foods or beverages that have been shown to increase the risk of overweight and obesity. One study found that for each additional sugared drink consumed per day, the likelihood of a child becoming obese increases by 60 percent.

A web site set up by soda tax opponents lists a number of liquor stores and fast-food outlets that oppose the Cheh proposal. United Medical Center, the hospital formerly known as Greater Southeast Community Hospital, also appears on that list, apparently without authorization. The hospital told CSPI that it would ask to be taken off the list.

"I'm not surprised that Coke, Pepsi, liquor stores, and fast-food chains would object to a soda tax," Jacobson said. "But their concerns must take a back seat to the health of our students and seniors."

CSPI Applauds IOM Recommendations to Strengthen Standards for Health-related Claims for Foods and Dietary Supplements

2010-05-12

Statement of CSPI Legal Affairs Director Bruce Silverglade

The Institute of Medicine report gives the Food and Drug Administration a basis to establish a regulatory framework for health-related claims on foods and dietary supplements labels. While the FDA has recently begun a case-by-case crackdown on misleading food labeling claims, the agency lacks a comprehensive regulatory framework for many types of labeling claims. Misleading health-related claims on food labels are an industry-wide problem and need an industry-wide solution.

We support the IOM conclusion that when foods or dietary supplements claim to provide drug-like benefits, they should be held to rigorous scientific standards. Right now, FDA policies are riddled with loopholes that let companies make phony promises on weak scientific evidence.

CSPI petitioned the FDA in 2002 to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for foods with added ingredients that claim special health benefits. The IOM report now gives the agency a firm scientific basis to act.

Right now the supermarket is a jungle of unsupported health-related claims. We hope that the IOM report will provide the basis for fundamental change of how food labeling claims are regulated.

White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity Praised

2010-05-11

Statement of CSPI Nutrition Policy Director Margo G. Wootan

The White House has laid out a comprehensive strategy that if made a national priority and implemented should reduce obesity. From urging companies to improve restaurant children's meals and reduce unhealthy food marketing to getting good food in and junk food out of schools, the recommendations are bold, yet achievable.

Straight away, Congress could deliver on many of the Task Force recommendations by completing the child nutrition reauthorization. With one day's attention, the Senate could pass the Agriculture Committee's bill, which would provide a historic increase in school lunch funding, get junk food out of vending machines, and help schools implement stronger nutrition and physical activity wellness policies.

USDA's New Performance Standards Promise Safer Poultry; Need Strong Enforcement Powers from Congress

2010-05-10

Statement of CSPI Food Safety Director Caroline Smith DeWaal

The newly announced performance standards for Salmonella and Campylobacter�the most common hazards in the meat and poultry supply�represent the most significant food-safety development from the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 15 years. USDA has cut the target levels for Salmonella in poultry by over 60 percent, and set the first-ever performance standard for Campylobacter.

These long-awaited changes will push poultry processors to improve the safety of their products. When HACCP was first adopted in 1996, USDA promised it would continuously update its performance standards, but the agency never delivered on this promise, until now. Performance standards are the metric for measuring whether a company is maintaining control over the pathogens that are often present on poultry, and which cause millions of illnesses each year. Beginning in July, poultry processors will be operating under a stricter testing standard for Salmonella, and for the first time, the same products will be evaluated for Campylobacter, the most common foodborne pathogen in poultry.

These standards could have a greater impact on consumers than any food safety measure since 1996. Chicken and turkey will be safer once they are implemented, especially if retailers avoid companies that are named by USDA as needing improvement. Unfortunately, USDA still lacks authority to enforce these standards by closing failing plants�an authority stripped away in 2001 by a federal court in Supreme Beef, Inc. vs. USDA. For consumers to fully realize the benefits of the improved standards, Congress should reinstate USDA's authority to enforce its performance standards.

Lettuce Recalled Due to E. Coli: Another Reason Senate Should Take Up Food Safety Bill

2010-05-06

Statement of CSPI Food Safety Director Caroline Smith DeWaal

If members of the United States Senate need another reason to bring the food safety bill to the floor, may I recommend tomorrow's newspapers? Once again, lettuce contaminated with dangerous bacteria, in this case, E. coli O145, is implicated in a multistate outbreak that has hospitalized at least 12 people so far and may be responsible for three cases of Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS). New York State identified the pathogen during testing of unopened bagged lettuce from Ohio-based Freshway Foods, and the Food and Drug Administration issued a recall of products from the Freshway plant.

While consumers wait for Congress to pass food safety legislation, the plants that process and bag lettuce and the farms that grow it are operating under an industry honor system which clearly failed in this case. The FDA can't tell us when it last had inspectors in the plant where this lettuce was processed. Congress urgently needs to give the FDA the resources and authority from the farm forward, transforming it from a reactive agency to an agency focused on preventing contamination.

Freshway is conducting this recall on a voluntary basis, because � even with the presence of this serious food safety hazard � FDA lacks the ability to order a recall. Giving the FDA mandatory recall authority is another reason why the Senate should bring S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, to the floor without further delay.

In the meantime, consumers should check FDA's web site for specific information about this recall. Reports from FDA indicate that the recalled lettuce was intended for food service establishments, including some supermarket salad bars, but not bagged lettuce for retail sale.

Safeway May Face Lawsuit for Failing to Alert Purchasers of Recalled Food

2010-05-06

Unlike Other Chains, Safeway Won't Use Club Card Data to Notify Members of Recalls, Says CSPI

WASHINGTON�Even though it collects phone numbers and email addresses from its Club Card members, Safeway won't use that data to contact people who bought contaminated food. The nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest today notified Safeway that CSPI will file a lawsuit against the grocery chain if it fails to adopt a policy to notify Club Card members who purchased contaminated food subject to recalls.

Many other leading retailers do use customer contact information generated by their bonus card programs to notify consumers when they've purchased recalled food. In 2009, as thousands of peanut-containing products tainted with deadly Salmonella bacteria were being recalled, chains such as Costco sent letters or automated phone calls out to people who bought those foods. That was also the practice of Giant, Harris Teeter, Price Chopper, ShopRite, Wegman's, and other chains. Even though that outbreak sickened hundreds and claimed nine lives, Safeway did not contact its Club Card shoppers during that or other recalls.

"It shocks the conscience that a major retailer would sit on its hands, even though it has easy access to the emails, addresses, and phone numbers of those who have purchased food that might be contaminated," said CSPI litigation director Steve Gardner. "Perhaps Safeway saves a few pennies by remaining silent. But why would you knowingly risk letting your customers fall ill, or worse, die?"

Unless Safeway makes a commitment to notify consumers of Class 1 recalls�those recalls of products "that predictably could cause serious health problems or death"�CSPI will file a lawsuit aimed at compelling the company to do so, the group said in a letter to Safeway chairman and CEO Steven A. Burd. In the letter, CSPI says that Safeway's failure to notify consumers that they've bought potentially dangerous products violates state consumer protection laws in Texas, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and California.

According to the privacy policy on Safeway's web site, Club Card data "may be used to help make Safeway's products, services and programs more useful to its customers." And, the company reserves the right to "disclose personal information to our related companies and third parties." Yet, even when it has sold foods that might have been contaminated with E. Coli, Salmonella, botulism, or other deadly hazards, Safeway does not use its Club Card information to prevent customers from eating that food, according to CSPI.

New York City Action on Salt Reduction Praised

2010-04-26

Statement of CSPI Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson

New York City's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene has once again proven why it is the most effective health department in the country. The goals announced today by the city-led National Salt Reduction Initiative will encourage major companies to begin cutting sodium. While I'm glad that 16 companies have chosen to participate in the initiative, too many companies�including giants such as PepsiCo, ConAgra, McDonald's, and Burger King�have chosen to skip it. The limited participation indicates the need for federal health agencies to set mandatory national limits on the amount of sodium allowed in packaged and restaurant food.

Previously, under the leadership of prevention-oriented health commissioners and public-health advocate Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York has taken the lead on putting calories on menus and menu boards of chain restaurants, phasing artificial trans fat out of restaurant foods, and mounting creative campaigns against smoking and soft drinks. The city's leadership of the National Salt Reduction Initiative will help put American consumers back in charge of their salt intake, and lead to longer, healthier lives for millions of people in New York and beyond.

Attack of the Zombie Trans Fat!

2010-04-26

Bob Evans, White Castle, & Long John Silver's Still Using Heart-Stopping Artificial Trans Fat, Despite Known Danger

WASHINGTON�Just when you thought that artificial trans fat was dead, it staggers zombie-like out of the culinary graveyard: Bob Evans, White Castle, and Long John Silver's are all still using artificial trans fat in French fries, onion rings, hotcakes, and other foods. But this nutritional zombie isn't out for your brains; it's after your heart.

Artificial trans fat is such an uncommonly powerful promoter of heart disease that it has been dropped by the largest fast-food chains; it has been forced out of restaurants in New York City, California, and other jurisdictions; and has been increasingly hard to find in supermarkets since trans fat labeling went into effect in 2006. But while McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Starbucks, and other big chains have phased out their use of partially hydrogenated oil (the source of artificial trans fat), America's chain-restaurant B-Listers have yet to get the memo, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

"Bob Evans, White Castle, and Long John Silver's are now the roguish outliers among the restaurant industry," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "Many Americans might have thought that the era of artificial trans fat was over. At these chains, it lives tragically on." The three chains, with total sales of $3 billion a year, range between the 39th- and 51st-biggest in the country.

Trans fat promotes heart disease by raising one's LDL, or "bad" cholesterol, which clogs arteries, while lowering one's HDL, the "good" cholesterol that guards against heart attacks. The Institute of Medicine recommends consuming as little trans fat as possible, while still eating a healthy diet, and the American Heart Association advises people to limit trans fat to no more than 2 grams per day. Since small amounts of trans fat occur naturally in milk and beef, that doesn't leave much room for trans fat from artificial sources, according to CSPI.

At Bob Evans, the fries aren't the problem; it's the pancakes: An order of Stacked & Stuffed Caramel Banana Pecan Hotcakes has 7 grams of trans fat; a standard order of three unadorned Bob Evans Buttermilk Hotcakes has 9 grams. At White Castle, even Harold and Kumar might look askance at the French fries, onion chips, and onion rings, which have between 2 and 10 grams of trans fat per order, depending on the product and the size, says CSPI.

CSPI said it was particularly disappointed to find that zombie trans fat still lurks at Long John Silver's. That chain, owned by Yum! Brands, the parent company of KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut, knows better, according to the group. KFC phased trans fat out of its fried foods in 2006, four months after CSPI filed a lawsuit against the chain. Taco Bell also phased out artificial trans fat several years ago. Nevertheless, at LJS, battered fish and shrimp has between 2.5 and 4.5 grams of trans fat; a side order of cryptic "Crumblies" has 4 grams; and every single meal on the chain's Dollar Stretcher menu has artificial trans fat, ranging from the Small Golden Fries (2.5 grams) to the Two Jr. Fish and Fries (7 grams).

"The FDA has all the scientific evidence and legal authority it needs to send partially hydrogenated oil to the chemical boneyard quickly and permanently, but it has failed to do so," Jacobson said. "Banning it would save thousands of lives annually."

Institute of Medicine Recommends Quick Government Action to Reduce Salt in the Food Supply

2010-04-20

CSPI Urges FDA and USDA to Set Limits on Salt

WASHINGTON�Legislators and public health groups today praised a long-awaited report from the National Academies' Institute of Medicine that calls for urgent, government action to reduce salt in packaged and restaurant foods.

"Limiting salt in packaged and restaurant foods is perhaps the single most important thing that the Food and Drug Administration could do to save hundreds of thousands of lives and save billions of dollars in health-care expenses," said Center for Science in the Public Interest executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "The FDA and U.S. Department of Agriculture should quickly implement the Institute of Medicine's recommendations, starting with mandatory limits on salt, which could be phased in gradually over time."

For more than 30 years, CSPI has been pressing the federal government to take steps to reduce salt in packaged and restaurant foods. A 2005 regulatory petition filed by CSPI asks the Food and Drug Administration to treat salt as a food additive, subject to reasonable limits. CSPI supports limits, since the high levels of salt in the American diet promote high blood pressure, which in turn promotes stroke and heart disease. Senator Tom Harkin and Representative Rosa DeLauro also joined CSPI in support of limits on salt.

"As this report points out, Americans' salt intake has continued to increase since the early 1970s, and thus so have our taste preferences," said DeLauro. "The problem is, we have reached a point where our sodium intake is endangering our health, and we are paying a heavy price in heart attacks, strokes, and hypertension. The public health implications of this are really astounding. According to the IOM, reducing salt intake could prevent more than 100,000 deaths a year. The FDA should set national standards for sodium content in foods."

"Removing the barriers to healthy living leads to longer, healthier lives and lower health care costs down the road," said Harkin. "It is difficult for Americans to control the amount of sodium they consume when dangerously high amounts are being added to processed foods. Nearly 80 percent of our daily sodium intake isn't added at the table or during cooking�it's added in processing plants before it ever gets to us. When sodium is so clearly linked to heart disease and strokes, it's time to give Americans more information and better control over their daily intake. This is good common sense and it is a wise investment in our public health too."

"As the Institute of Medicine report unambiguously points out, 40 years of voluntary initiatives on the part of manufacturers have failed to reduce salt intake," Jacobson said. "But we call on food manufacturers and restaurant chains to step up their efforts at salt reduction while the FDA and USDA implement the IOM's recommendations." Jacobson noted that 20 percent of Americans' salt intake actually comes from the meat- and poultry-containing products regulated by the USDA.

Seventy percent of the population�a group that includes the elderly, African Americans, and people with existing high blood pressure�should consume no more than 1,500 milligrams of sodium per day, according to the federal government. Everyone else should limit themselves to 2,300 mg per day. But according to CSPI, average sodium intake is actually north of 4,000 mg per day. And some restaurant meals are capable of providing even more than that in a single meal. At Chili's, a meal made of Buffalo Chicken Fajitas and a bowl of Black Bean Soup contain 7,770 mg of sodium�more sodium than is safe for most people to consume in five days. The Admiral's Feast with a Caesar Salad, a Cheddar Bay Biscuit and a Light Lemonade at Red Lobster has 5,925 mg of sodium. In 2009, CSPI sued restaurant chain Denny's to disclose sodium levels on its menus and include warnings for high sodium content. Even foods purchased at the grocery store have unsafe levels of salt, says CSPI. A Swanson Hungry Man frozen dinner of Grilled Bourbon Steak Strips in sauce with rice and green beans contains 1,990 mg of sodium. Even foods intended for children, like an Oscar Mayer Lunchables with Lean Ham and Cheddar Cracker Stackers has more than 1,000 mg of sodium�nearly an entire day's worth for kids aged four to eight.

"Outrageously high salt levels are turning Americans hearts and brains into ticking time bombs. It's about time for policymakers at all levels of government to bring salt levels back down to safer, more reasonable levels," Jacobson said.

According to CSPI, intervention by the British government to reduce sodium has succeeded in bringing many packaged foods' sodium levels below the levels of comparable foods sold in the United States.

Health Advocates Cheer Decline in Soda Drinking

2010-04-14

Taxes, Media Campaigns, Warning Labels Could Reduce Consumption Further, Says CSPI

WASHINGTON�Health advocates see an encouraging trend in the fight against obesity and diet-related disease: Americans are drinking less soda pop. Per capita consumption of carbonated soft drinks has declined for 11 straight years, according to data from Beverage Marketing Corporation. Per capita consumption of sugary soft drinks is 22 percent below its peak in 1998, according to the trade publication Beverage Digest and calculations by the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

To be sure, even with the declines in consumption in recent years, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Dr. Pepper Snapple, and other companies produced 9.4 billion cases of sugary soda and energy drinks in 2009. At the 1998 peak, when CSPI first published its Liquid Candy report, companies were producing 638 8-ounce servings of non-diet soft drinks per person. By 2009, that figure was down to 543 8-ounce servings. Still, that's about 140 empty calories a day, for every man, woman, and child in the United States.

"The recognition that soda pop promotes weight gain and disease is gaining traction, contributing to the steady decline in soda consumption," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "Ten years from now, it would be great to see that Americans are drinking a can and a half a week, instead of a can and a half a day."

Besides concern over obesity, Jacobson said that the growing popularity of bottled water, the low-carb Atkins and South Beach diets, bans on soft drinks in schools, and rising unemployment rates are all partly responsible for the decline in soda consumption.

According the United States Department of Agriculture and Beverage Digest, the proportion of carbonated soft drinks that are non-caloric diet drinks increased from 23 percent to 30 percent between 1998 and 2009.

CSPI and other health advocates are urging state legislators to increase soda taxes where they already exist, or to institute them for the first time. A state such as California, which already imposes a small sales tax on soft drinks, could raise nearly $2 billion each year if the state added a penny-per-ounce excise tax on soda. The state could put some of that money toward the state's share of the $10 billion in medical expenses incurred each year by obese Californians. The revenues could also fund programs to encourage healthy eating and physical activity, such as media campaigns to discourage the consumption of sugary beverages.

"Reasonable taxes could help drive down consumption a bit more, particularly among children," Jacobson said. "And if those taxes could fund hard-hitting media campaigns, like the one being run in New York City, that's even better. The goal should be to restore sugary soda to what it once was�an occasional treat in a reasonable portion, not the every-day super-sized tub."

Another policy approach would be to require health notices on soft-drink containers, something that in 2005 CSPI petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to do. CSPI proposed "The U.S. Government recommends that you drink less (non-diet) soda to help prevent weight gain, tooth decay, and other health problems," as one such notice. The FDA hasn't yet acted on that proposal.

Half-Empty Food Packages Harm Consumers, Environment

2010-04-05

CSPI Calls on FDA, State Attorneys General to Crack Down on "Slack Fill"

WASHINGTON�A biggish box of Hamburger Helper only half full of food. A giant box of Ginger Snaps half full of air. A solitary chicken quesadilla in a Lean Cuisine box that could easily fit two. The food industry calls it "slack fill." But the Center for Science in the Public Interest calls it a form of deception�and an environmental nightmare to boot. The nonprofit nutrition and food safety watchdog group is urging the Food and Drug Administration and state attorneys general to crack down on illegal slack fill in food packages.

Photo Credit: Stephen Schmidt
What seems like a full bag of ginger snaps before opening
the box is actually a half-full combination of food and air�
what the industry calls "slack fill." CSPI calls it deception.

The federal government already has regulations on the books regarding slack fill, which is defined as the difference between the capacity of a container and the volume of product inside. Those rules are meant to restrict slack fill to those situations where some air in the packaging actually helps protect the contents, or where some settling of the product makes a little slack fill unavoidable. But according to CSPI, food manufacturers and the regulators who oversee them don't seem overly concerned with the spirit of those regulations.

"It would be disheartening, even shocking, if it weren't so commonplace," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "But as consumers we've almost come to expect that our food packages will be half full of food and half full of air. Slack fill is just one trick that food marketers employ to make us thing we're getting more for our money than we are."

A box of Betty Crocker Wholesome Hamburger Helper is roughly 19 centimeters tall, 12 cm wide, and three-and-a-half cm deep. If it were filled to the very top, it could accommodate nearly 800 cubic cm of food. Instead, a small plastic bag of macaroni and a flat packet of sauce mix take up only about half of the package. The box does include the 5.8 ounces of food described on the label, but would the company dare do this if the package were see-through, asks CSPI?

And what of the environmental cost of shipping half-full containers around the country and world? "If food companies cut packages of Ginger Snaps or Hamburger Helper in half, what now takes two trucks to ship would only take one," Jacobson said. "Some of us might appreciate some extra space in our cupboards, too. I wish the Food and Drug Administration or state attorneys general would take steps to ensure that consumers are getting their money's worth at the grocery store."

"Cut the Slack" is the lead editorial in the April issue of CSPI's flagship publication, Nutrition Action Healthletter. Introductory subscriptions are $10 a year.

Child Nutrition Bill Advances in Senate

2010-03-24

Statement of CSPI Nutrition Policy Director Margo G. Wootan

America's schools are one step closer to being junk-food-free today.

Congratulations to Senators Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) for passing a strong child nutrition bill out of the Senate Agriculture Committee. This bipartisan bill contains numerous important steps to improve child nutrition and address childhood obesity, including a historic agreement between health groups and food and beverage companies to improve the nutritional quality of foods sold out of vending machines and other venues outside of school meals. Getting junk food out of schools is important for improving children's diets and ensuring that those so-called competitive foods don't undermine the school lunch program.

Although USDA regularly adjusts school meal reimbursement rates for inflation, this is the first time in four decades that Congress would provide an additional increase in funding. The reimbursement rate increase is supported by several other provisions that expand financial resources, increase technical support to schools, and strengthen compliance with school meal nutrition standards to ensure healthier school meals for children.

Nearly Half of States Need to Improve Outbreak Reporting, Says CSPI

2010-03-24

Better Reporting of Foodborne Illness Outbreaks Could Speed Recalls and Save Lives

WASHINGTON�The national cost of foodborne illness has been estimated at the astronomical sum of $152 billion annually, but the information on who is getting sick and what is causing those illnesses is part of a state-by-state surveillance system that shows mixed results around the country, raising important new questions about how to improve state outbreak reporting.

In 2006, more than 200 people fell ill and 5 died after eating spinach contaminated with deadly E. coli bacteria. So in 2007, which also saw several nationwide outbreaks, state and local public health agencies should have been on full alert to investigate illnesses and report outbreaks to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). According to an analysis of 2007 outbreak reporting data by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, outbreak reporting varied widely from state to state: nine states reported 10 to 15 outbreaks per million people, but many others reported only one. If states' reporting performance during 2007 (the most recent year when such information is available) is any indication, at least 23 states need to make dramatic improvements in their surveillance and reporting systems, according to CSPI.

"State and local health departments are our first line of defense when it comes to identifying the food that causes an outbreak," said CSPI food safety director Caroline Smith DeWaal. "But some states may not have enough investigators or the money to train and equip their staff, which can lead to lower-quality investigations and lower rates of reporting."

Oregon and Minnesota are well-recognized as having strong programs for foodborne outbreak surveillance, investigation, and reporting. Those states, which have excellent laboratory facilities and which quickly interview people who test positive for dangerous pathogens, each reported 10 outbreaks per million people in 2007. CSPI considered that a baseline for its analysis, and found that 7 states had even better reporting records, including Maine, Kansas, Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii and North Dakota. Those states generated more reports and provided CDC with better information to prevent future outbreaks.

On the other end of the spectrum, twelve states reported just one outbreak of foodborne illness per million people, and 11 states had reporting rates almost as low. Because there is no reason to think that those states would have such low incidences of outbreaks, CSPI is concerned that this variability in reporting reflects a failure to identify, fully investigate, and report outbreaks. The 23 states with the lowest reporting rates in 2007 were Delaware, Georgia, Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts, each with three outbreaks per million; Missouri, New Jersey, Virginia, Alabama, West Virginia, and Kentucky, each with two outbreaks per million; and Texas, North Carolina, Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, Utah, Arkansas, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Mississippi, and Oklahoma, each reporting just one outbreak per million.

In September of 2007, 19-month-old Isabelle Reinert of Sauk Rapids, MN, became violently ill with unrelenting diarrhea and a 104-degree fever. Her diarrhea persisted for nearly six weeks, and her mother Amy Reinert told the Associated Press that it "was the worst thing I've ever experienced as a parent." Epidemiologists working for the state of Minnesota were eventually able to identify the source of the Salmonella that sickened Isabelle and others that year: Banquet Turkey Pot Pies. That link between the outbreak and ConAgra's pot pies led to a recall of over 3 million pot pies and new package cooking instructions, including advice that the pies should be cooked to 165 degrees F.

Legislation that passed the House of Representatives would help improve state reporting, according to CSPI. The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, now pending in the Senate, would require FDA to improve coordination between federal, state and local surveillance systems; develop a national network of laboratories; and improve epidemiological tools available to the states. The bill would also integrate foodborne illness surveillance with other bio-surveillance capabilities.

"State outbreak reporting is a vital piece of our national food safety system, and the information gathered in the course of outbreak investigations can reduce the impact of outbreaks and prevent future ones. Action on Senate bill would help strengthen both federal and state food safety programs," DeWaal said.

According to recent research done by S.T.O.P.�Safe Tables Our Priority, a number of factors may also explain the variation in state investigations.

"States' systematic differences in response to foodborne illness case reporting may also explain variations in rates," said S.T.O.P's public health specialist, Susan Vaughn Grooters. "Time differences in surveying cases of foodborne illness and lack of integrated data collection may also affect how well states accurately capture data." DeWaal will present CSPI's findings today at a food safety conference in Atlanta cosponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and NSF International.

Health Care Reform to Deliver Calorie Counts to Chain Restaurant Menus Nationwide

2010-03-21

CSPI Celebrates "Huge Victory for Consumers" After 7-Year Fight

WASHINGTON�Tucked neatly inside the health reform legislation headed to the Oval Office for a presidential signature is language that will require calorie labeling on chain restaurant menus, menu boards, and drive-through displays, as well as on vending machines. The legislation applies to chains with 20 or more outlets, and requires them to provide additional nutrition information on request.

Similar measures are already in effect or are awaiting implementation in California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, New York City, Philadelphia, and a dozen other localities. The federal standard will supersede the varied state and local requirements.

This Subway in New York City has posted calorie information
for all menu items since the implementation of the local
menu-labeling law in 2007. Soon all chain restaurants with
20 or more outlets nationwide will be required to post this
information on menus, menu boards, drive-through displays
and vending machines.

"Coffee drinks can range from 20 calories to 800 calories, and burgers can range from 250 calories to well over 1,000 calories," said CSPI nutrition policy director Margo G. Wootan. "With the health reform legislation passed today, Congress is giving Americans easy access to the most critical piece of nutrition information they need when eating out. While it's a huge victory for consumers, it's just one of dozens of things we will need to do to reduce rates of obesity and diet-related disease in this country."

CSPI began pressing for nutrition labeling at chain restaurants in 2003. In past sessions of Congress, stand-alone menu labeling bills were introduced by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT). New York City became the first jurisdiction to enact menu labeling, via regulations issued by the city's Board of Health, in 2006. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed California's menu labeling law in 2008, after vetoing a similar measure the year before. The National Restaurant Association dropped its longstanding objection to menu labeling last year, and actually supported the language passed by Congress today.

"The historic legislation that President Barack Obama will sign will do so much to give more Americans access to health care, but it also does much to help prevent disease in the first place," Wootan said. "Menu labeling at restaurants will help make First Lady Michelle Obama's mission to reduce childhood obesity just a little bit easier."

The bill exempts small businesses, and does not apply to daily or temporary specials and customized orders. It requires the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to propose specific regulations not later than one year from now. Those regulations will be finalized through a formal rulemaking process, and the FDA must make quarterly reports on its progress to Congress.

Bipartisan Agreement Likely Means USDA Will Set Nutrition Standards for Vending in Schools

2010-03-18

Statement of CSPI Nutrition Policy Director Margo G. Wootan

In an otherwise contentious time in Washington, it's good to know that Republicans and Democrats can come together for the sake of child nutrition and health. The agreement that Chairman Blanche Lincoln and Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss have forged, along with the support of industry leaders and health groups, will allow the U.S. Department of Agriculture to ensure that the federal investment in healthy school meals isn't undermined by foods that harm kids' health.

USDA is currently updating the school meal standards; now Congress is poised to allow USDA to take care of the rest of school foods. The current national nutrition standards for foods sold out of school vending machines and a la carte lines in cafeterias are 30 years out of date and no longer make sense. They don't address key nutrition problems like calories, fats, salt, and sugar.

USDA needs to update its nutrition standards for school foods sold outside of meals, and apply those standards to the whole campus, the whole school day. We're pleased that industry leaders like Mars, Nestl�, Coke, and Pepsi see the need for this as well.

There has been an absolute sea change when it comes to parents' expectations for the foods that are available in schools. Many cities, states, and companies have already begun to improve the nutritional quality of foods they sell in school. However, two-thirds of states still have weak or no school nutrition standards. When Congress passes the child nutrition reauthorization bill, it will help get all junk food out of every school once and for all.

Start Spreading the News! New York City Passes Food Safety Letter Grades for Restaurants

2010-03-17

CSPI Urges Other Jurisdictions to Do the Same

WASHINGTON�New York City's trailblazing Department of Health and Mental Hygiene voted yesterday to require the city's restaurants to post letter grades reflecting the establishment's cleanliness. That move was applauded today by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, which has been calling on cities and state legislatures to adopt such measures. Letter grades have been used in Los Angeles County restaurants for the past 11 years, and that popular measure is credited with reducing the number of hospitalizations due to foodborne illness there.

A 2008 CSPI review of 539 restaurant inspections in 20 cities found that two-thirds of restaurants had troubling critical food safety violations. That report, Dirty Dining, contained harrowing accounts of chicken salad stored at a bacteria-friendly 50 degrees, mouse droppings in ice machines, and roaches scampering across cutting boards. CSPI found that many of those inspection reports were hard for the public to obtain; CSPI investigators had to pry reports from some secretive health departments with formal requests made under the Freedom of Information Act.

"When some said it was impossible to get artificial trans fat out of restaurant food, New York City proved them wrong," said CSPI food safety attorney Sarah Klein. "When others said that calorie counts on menus were impractical, New York City made it look easy. L.A. was the first to put food safety letter grades in restaurant windows. But with 24,000 restaurants representing virtually every cuisine on Earth, New York City can show that if you can make it happen there, you can make it happen anywhere."

Klein will represent CSPI at the Conference on Food Protection in Providence, RI, next month. That conference brings together food industry stakeholders, consumer groups, and food-safety officials from state, local, and federal agencies, and makes recommendations to the Food and Drug Administration on updating its model food code. That code forms the scientifically sound technical and legal basis for regulating retail food sales, and is then typically adopted by state and local agencies. CSPI wants it to include letter grades for restaurants.

"Of course, we also want to prevent food from being contaminated before it even enters a restaurant, which is why Congress needs to give the FDA the authority and resources it needs to do that job," Klein said. The Senate is expected have a vote on final passage of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act this spring.

CSPI Applauds Pepsi for Making World-Wide Commitment Not to Sell Sugary Soft Drinks in Schools

2010-03-16

Coca-Cola Will Still Target High School Kids in Most Countries

WASHINGTON�PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi has announced that the company will phase out full-sugar carbonated soft drinks from all schools around the world. The move followed from the Global Dump Soft Drinks Campaign led by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The group proposed negotiations in 2008, which were led by the Geneva-based World Heart Federation with PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, and the International Council of Beverage Associations.

PepsiCo's policy will still allow the sale in high schools of non caloric drinks and sports drinks such as Gatorade that have about half the calories of regular carbonated soft drinks, and the policy will not limit the portion sizes of fruit juice.

Last week Coca-Cola, the world's largest purveyor of what CSPI calls "liquid candy," announced a policy, which also springs from the negotiations, that the company will "not offer our beverages for sale in primary schools." But the policy then states that if school authorities request drinks "to meet hydration needs, we will endeavor to meet those requests." The Coke policy explicitly allows the sale of its sugary soft drinks in high schools.

Smaller regional and national companies represented by the International Council of Beverage Associations, and others not represented by the association, did not make any commitments to change their policies.

"We applaud PepsiCo for its global commitment not to sell carbonated sugary soft drinks in schools," said Bruce Silverglade, legal affairs director of CSPI and president of the International Association of Consumer Food Organizations, which represented CSPI and other consumer groups in the talks. "But shame on Coca-Cola for insisting on targeting high school students in most countries around the world. Childhood obesity is a world-wide problem and high school students everywhere deserve the same help as American high schoolers."

The new policies come on the heels of a study by the American Beverage Association that shows that in the United States the industry has made very significant progress in getting high-calorie sodas out of all schools as a result of state and local pressure to remove soft drinks, a threat of litigation, and a 2006 agreement with health groups. That study found that non-diet soda, sports drinks, diluted fruit drinks, and ice teas have decreased dramatically over the past five years.

When the school lunch and other child nutrition programs are reauthorized by Congress this year, health advocates expect that the bill will require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to update the nutrition standards for foods sold in vending machines and a la carte programs in cafeterias, presumably excluding soda and other high-calorie drinks.

Pepsi's new policy takes effect on January 1, 2011, and the company says it hopes to have full compliance by January of 2012. The company says that in some countries, parts of the distribution chain are out of its control. Coca-Cola's policy does not go into effect until 2013 when the company says its existing beverage contracts with schools will expire. The International Diabetes Federation was also represented in the negotiations leading up to PepsiCo's and Coca-Cola's announcements.

Retailers Could Use Bonus Card Data to Alert Buyers of Recalled Foods

2010-03-11

Statement of CSPI Food Safety Attorney Sarah Klein

Now that the CDC has shown that customer loyalty cards provided crucial information to pinpoint the items that sickened nearly 250 people in 44 states, this valuable tool should be used by all retailers to alert their customers when they purchase food products that are later recalled.

A year ago, CSPI called on retailers to use the information generated by bonus cards to contact consumers who have purchased recalled products. That's already the practice of Costco, Wegman's, and Price Chopper. These cards which speeded identification of the contaminated salami and prevented another giant outbreak are a valuable tool. This get other grocery chains thinking about how they can protect their customers when the next dangerous outbreak hits.

The bonus cards swiped at grocery stores can do more than just save consumers money and generate powerful marketing databases for retailers. If a retailer knows the address, phone number, or email address of someone who has purchased contaminated peanut butter, spinach, or salami, the company should take advantage of that opportunity to prevent future illnesses from recalled products.

Most Food & Entertainment Companies Get Failing Grade for Policies on Marketing Food to Children

2010-03-09

Few Have Any Policies in Place at All, According to CSPI Report Card

WASHINGTON�Most food and entertainment companies have received Fs from the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, which today issued a report card that rates 128 companies' policies with regard to food marketing aimed at children. Three-quarters of companies are getting an F, either for having weak policies or for failing to have any policies whatsoever.

CSPI's highest grade, a B+, went to Mars, Inc., though the group emphasized that the grade is not for the foods Mars sells, but rather for its policy on marketing to children. Mars' policy excludes marketing to children under 12 and covers most of the key marketing tactics used to reach children. The entertainment company given CSPI's highest grade, a B, is Qubo, a family-friendly children's television channel delivered nationwide over ION Media Networks 59 local digital television stations. Qubo's policy is comprehensive, applying reasonably good nutrition standards to its full range of programming, according to CSPI.

One food company (Procter & Gamble, which makes Pringles) received a B, six got a B-, 17 got a C, and 7 a D. Ninety-five companies received an F.

Photo Credit: Jeff Cronin
The Most Disappointing Toy Ever? At first glance it resembles the classic Easy Bake, but the Chuck E. Cheese's� EZ-2 Make!� Pizza Maker doesn't even have a heating element; it's just a cheap plastic shell.

"Despite the industry's self-regulatory system, the vast majority of food and entertainment companies have no protections in place for children," said CSPI nutrition policy director Margo G. Wootan. "If companies were marketing bananas and broccoli, we wouldn't be concerned. But instead, most of the marketing is for sugary cereals, fast food, snack foods, and candy. And this junk food marketing is a major contributor to childhood obesity."

According to the Institute of Medicine, TV commercials affect children's food choices, food purchase requests, diets, and health. And the mere act of watching commercial television is linked to obesity

CSPI gave restaurant chain Denny's an F for marketing to children through its children's menu, which includes many nutritionally poor items; games on its Web site; and a kid's birthday club. Lucasfilms received an F for not having a policy. Presently, Lucasfilms is licensing Star Wars toys as a premium to go with McDonald's Happy Meals, many of which are nutritionally poor. Candy company Topps also got an F. That company makes, among other things, Baby Bottle Pop, a powdered candy sold in a miniature baby bottle, eaten by dipping a candy nipple in a sugary powder and licking it off. Over the years Topps has retained the services of the Jonas Brothers and Clique Girlz singing groups to convince children to purchase that infantilizing product, whose 140 calories all come from sugar.

Companies spend about $2 billion each year marketing foods and beverages to children. Food manufacturers and restaurants more often had policies for television, radio, print, Internet, and product placement than for digital marketing, like cell phones, iPods, and social networks, characters, games, and contests on food packages, toy give-aways with children's meals at fast-food restaurants, or branded marketing programs for schools. Half of the entertainment companies with policies, like the Cartoon Network, apply nutrition standards to the licensing of their characters, but few have policies for their television advertising or Web site, which are the primary ways they market to children.

In 2006, the Council of Better Business Bureaus announced a self-regulatory program called the Childrens Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. Sixteen major food and restaurant companies, representing about 80 percent of television food advertising expenditures, have joined the program and announced that they will not market foods to children under 12 that don't meet companies' individual nutritional standards. But those standards often are carefully tailored and still allow a considerable volume of junk-food advertising to reach young kids, according to CSPI. The group's analysis of advertising on Nickelodeon, conducted in November, found that 80 percent of food ads on the popular children's network were for junk food.

While 64 percent of food manufacturers that advertise to children have marketing policies, only 24 percent of restaurants and 22 percent of entertainment companies do. For Qubo's part, the company says its nutrition policy reinforces an overall message about healthy living and providing children with the foundations for self-esteem that the company promotes in popular kids' programs such as Turbo Dogs, Willa's Wild Life and Babar.

"Shortly after the launch of the Qubo kids' channel in 2007, we established very stringent nutritional guidelines for advertising only healthy foods to children," said Brandon Burgess, chairman and CEO of ION Media Networks, the parent company of the Qubo Channel. "We were responding to the alarming increase in childhood obesity and the seminal work established by the FCC's Task Force on Media and Childhood Obesity. Then and now, we were happy to work with policymakers, CSPI, and our industry colleagues to fight childhood obesity and provide children with important educational building blocks in making healthy lifestyle choices."

In the next few weeks, the Federal Trade Commission together with other federal agencies is expected to propose a set of nutrition criteria and other standards for foods marketed to children that, when finalized in July, the agency hopes companies will adopt on a voluntary basis.

"If food, toy, and media companies fail to adopt those voluntary standards, they will be clanging the death knell for their self-regulatory initiative and inviting strong government involvement in food marketing aimed at kids," Wootan said.

Study Shows Progress Made Removing Sugary Sodas from Schools

2010-03-08

Statement of CSPI Nutrition Policy Director Margo G. Wootan

We congratulate the beverage industry for working to remove sugary sodas from schools. Together with stronger state laws and local school wellness policies, the country is making good progress in getting sugary drinks out of schools.

But, there is still much work to be done. According to the industry study, unhealthy full-calorie sodas, sports drinks, imitation fruit drinks, and ice teas have decreased from three-quarters to one-third of the beverages sold in high schools over the past five years.

We're pleased that the beverage industry and many snack food companies support having Congress address school beverages and snacks through this year's reauthorization of the school lunch and other child nutrition programs. It's time to pass national legislation to finish getting sugary drinks out of schools and to also address junk foods.

Foods With Contaminated Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein Recalled

2010-03-04

Statement of CSPI Food Safety Attorney Sarah Klein

The massive voluntary recall announced today by Basic Food Flavors, Inc.�of products containing a widely used flavor enhancer, hydrolyzed vegetable protein,�is yet more proof that the Food and Drug Administration needs more authority, more inspectors, and more resources to ensure that our food supply is safe. Fortunately, this recall has been started before any illnesses have been linked to this strain of Salmonella.

Most Americans would be stunned to learn that FDA doesn't even have the authority to make recalls like these mandatory. And it's worth asking: When was the last time an FDA inspector visited this particular facility in Nevada? This is why the Senate must act now to pass the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, so that the agency can help prevent contamination in the first place, rather than chase down tainted products long after they've left the manufacturer.

FDA Crackdown on Misleading Food Labels Praised

2010-03-03

Statement of CSPI Legal Affairs Director Bruce Silverglade

The FDA's coordinated enforcement actions today against 16 food manufacturers, including Gerber, Beech-Nut, Gorton's, Sunsweet, Nestl�, Pom, and Diamond, should send a loud and clear signal to industry that time is running out on misleading health-related claims on labels. For far too long, manufacturers have exaggerated the healthfulness of their products, or even implied that their products contain special "functional" ingredients that provide drug-like protection against various diseases. The previous administration tolerated such shenanigans, but I hope that the party is now over.

While today's action is the largest crackdown on deceptive food labeling in more than a decade, the FDA must now turn its individual enforcement actions into binding regulations.

Some companies highlighted in CSPI's recent report found themselves targets of FDA action today, while others apparently escaped scrutiny. The FDA dodged some issues, like not cracking down on false claims that Ocean Spray Cranberry Juice and other foods help strengthen your immune system. And the agency should have banned misleading "0 grams trans fat" claims for foods high in saturated fat, instead of just instructing companies to add a disclosure like "see nutrition panel for saturated fat information." FDA also needs to set standards for claims such as "made with whole wheat" by specifying that the percentage of whole grains appear on the label in conjunction with the claim.

In addition to issuing industry-wide regulations to halt misleading claims, the FDA should update the 20-year-old Nutrition Facts label and improve the readability of ingredient lists. The FDA currently is studying various schemes for providing key pieces of nutrition information prominently on front labels.

The warning letters sent by FDA today are a welcome step. But unless the FDA uses its authority to issue new, industry-wide regulations to prevent such abuses, the agency will forever be playing a game of Whac-A-Mole with companies that use deceptive labeling.

Salt-Water-Soaked Chicken Not at all Natural, Says CSPI

2010-02-24

Statement of CSPI Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson

Chicken, salt, and water all are natural, but when you combine the three what you get is chicken that is anything but "all natural."

When Americans take their hard-earned dollars to the supermarket, they want the most value for their money. And when they see labels like "100 percent natural," they assume that the foods really are. Unfortunately, too many unscrupulous poultry producers, with the regrettable acquiescence of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, have drained the meaning from those words.

A 4 oz. serving of this chicken has 550 mg
of sodium, a major promoter of high blood
pressure, stroke, heart disease, and other
ailments. Reducing sodium to recommended
levels would save about 100,000 deaths a year.

The practice of pumping up poultry with salt water is basically a hidden tax of up to 15 percent that extracts about $2 billion from American consumers each year. This isn't about "enhancing" chicken, it's about enhancing profits.

Think of it this way. You think you're buying 7.5 pounds of chicken, if 15 percent is water weight; you're really getting less than six and a half pounds of chicken and more than one pound of added water.

Harm to our pocketbook would be bad enough, but adulterated chicken is also harmful to our health.

Sodium chloride, or salt, is probably the single most harmful ingredient in the food supply. It's a major promoter of high blood pressure, stroke, heart disease, and other ailments.

Most adults should not consume more than about 1,500 milligrams of sodium per day, yet the average adult is consuming closer to 4,000 milligrams a day. Researchers have estimated that reducing sodium to recommended levels would save on the order of 100,000 deaths a year.

One of the practices that has made our food supply so dangerously high in sodium is the adulteration of chicken with a salty broth. Just three days ago the Institute of Medicine called for sharply lower sodium levels in our food supply. Salted chicken would be one good place to start.

Government Health Agency Urged to Drop Coca-Cola as Heart-Health Partner

2010-02-16

Like Allowing Philip Morris to Sponsor Anti-Smoking Campaign, Says CSPI

WASHINGTON�The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute should not partner with Coca-Cola to raise awareness of heart disease among women, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. In a letter to the NHLBI, the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest says overweight and obesity are prime risk factors for heart disease, and the agency shouldn't be bolstering the dismal reputation of the Coca-Cola Company, the world's biggest manufacturer of obesigenic soft drinks.

"It is as inappropriate as it would be to allow Philip Morris to sponsor NHLBI's anti-smoking efforts," wrote CSPI's executive director Michael F. Jacobson and nutrition policy advocate George A. Hacker, in a letter to NHLBI director Susan B. Shurin.

On the NHLBI web site, Diet Coke is listed first and most prominently among several pages of corporate sponsors for The Heart Truth campaign. Supermodel Heidi Klum is described on the government web site as the "Diet Coke heart health ambassador."

"Though Diet Coke is the ostensible sponsor, it is the entire Coca-Cola product line that is basking in the credibility conferred by a government heart-health agency and a slender supermodel, when in fact Coca-Cola promotes heart disease by marketing drinks that contribute to obesity," Jacobson said. "Coke has long sought to affiliate with or co-opt health groups, and associate its brand with athletes and models. I fervently hope that NHLBI officials understand that letting Coke bask in their agency's good reputation does American hearts far more harm than good."

Last week, President Barack Obama signed an executive order directing a number of cabinet agencies, including NHLBI's parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, to develop a coordinated strategy to solve the childhood obesity problem within one generation. The order pointedly notes that heart disease is one of several obesity-related health problems.

In addition to Coke, the NHLBI Heart Truth Web site publicizes two other corporate sponsors: Snyder's of Hanover, which CSPI describes in its letter as "a major producer of snack foods made largely of white flour and salt," and Sara Lee, which "is famous for its artery-clogging cheesecakes, salty Ball Park hot dogs, and Jimmy Dean sausages."

Those foods, like Coke and other soft drinks sugary, are exactly the kinds of foods that the Dietary Guidelines for Americans advises people to eat less of, according to CSPI.

"Promoting the corporate image of Coca-Cola Co. and other junk-food makers undermines the advice in the government's Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and is contrary to the spirit of the executive order signed by the President just last week," Jacobson said.

Childhood Obesity Initiative Announced by First Lady Michelle Obama

2010-02-09

Statement of CSPI Nutrition Policy Director Margo G. Wootan

For far too long, the nation's response to childhood obesity has been underwhelming, considering obesity's massive impact on the nation's physical and fiscal health. The First Lady has the clout and visibility to change that and mobilize the nation's resources to address the problem.

Helping to support parents' efforts to feed their children well and get them engaged in physical activity will require not only working cooperatively with food and entertainment companies, but also calling on them to do better for our children. Beverage companies have taken some notable steps to get sugary sodas out of schools, but Mrs. Obama should call on beverage and food companies to support Senators Tom Harkin and Lisa Murkowski and Representative Lynn Woolsey in their bipartisan effort to update the disco-era national standards for school vending machines and get junk food and all sugary beverages out of schools once and for all. Entertainment conglomerates like Nickelodeon and Disney are limiting the use of their characters on junk foods and running PSAs, but should be pressed to remove junk-food advertising from their television channels and other media.

This year, Congress must reauthorize the school lunch and other child nutrition programs--a key opportunity to improve the diets and health of millions of American children. The First Lady can help by working with Congress to fund the full $1 billion per year recommended in the President's budget and urging them to move the bill quickly, so new reforms can be in place for the next school year.

Coke to Fleece America by Charging More for Less, Says CSPI

2010-01-29

$8.50 a Gallon for Small Cans of Water & High Fructose Corn Syrup?

WASHINGTON�In recent ads, Coca-Cola cheerfully congratulated itself for introducing a new, 7.5-ounce can of soda. While calorie counters may appreciate the convenience of a 90-calorie can, dollar counters may be in for sticker shock: On an ounce-for-ounce basis, the new cans cost 50 to 140 percent more than 12-ounce cans.

In Washington, D.C., 12-packs of 12-ounce cans have been available for between $4 and $5.99 at Giant and Safeway stores. Both stores charge $3.99 for 8-packs of the new 7.5-ounce cans. So while the bigger cans have been selling for between $0.89 and $1.33 per quart, the new cans sell for $2.13 a quart, or about $8.50 a gallon.

So far, the vaunted 7.5-ounce cans are only available in some New York City and Washington, D.C., retail outlets. The company says they'll be available nationwide in April. Sandy Douglas, the president of Coca-Cola North America, claims the new mini can is an "innovation" that "reinforces the Company's support for healthy, active lifestyles." But attentive shoppers may wonder what all the fuss is about. Coca-Cola has sold 8-ounce cans and bottles of Coke for years (again, at significantly inflated prices).

"The only 'innovation' here is that Coke is charging more money for less product," Jacobson said. "Then again, these are the same folks who are ripping off Americans with expensive frauds like the 'calorie-burning' Enviga. And 'endurance peach mango' VitaminWater, which, besides doing nothing for one's endurance, contains no peach or mango. Now, the company wants a pat on the back for selling little cans of water and high-fructose corn syrup for $8.50 a gallon."

Recently, New York Governor David Paterson proposed a penny-per-ounce excise tax on soda to help pay for health programs. An angry press statement issued by the soda industry's top lobbyist called the proposal a "money grab, pure and simple," and patronizingly reminded the Governor that New Yorkers "continue to struggle through a tough economy with double-digit unemployment rates." Yet the price difference (a "convenience tax" perhaps?) assessed by Coca-Cola on the 7.5-ounce cans is bigger than Paterson's proposed tax�about two or three cents per ounce.

New York City to Nudge Food Companies to Lower Salt Nationwide

2010-01-11

CSPI Praises Move and Urges Industry to Cooperate

WASHINGTON�The single most dangerous ingredient in the food supply is salt, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which today praised New York City health officials for pressuring food companies to reduce salt levels in packaged foods and restaurant meals by 25 percent over the next five years. CSPI called New York's program "smart, sophisticated, and timely."

Too much salt in the diet is a major contributor to hypertension, stroke, heart and kidney disease, and other ailments. Starting in 1978, CSPI has been urging the Food and Drug Administration to use its regulatory authority to treat salt, or sodium chloride, as a food additive, as opposed to classifying it as an ingredient that is "generally recognized as safe," or GRAS. CSPI filed lawsuits against the FDA in 1982 and in 2005 to try to compel it to take action, and later in 2005 filed a regulatory petition which asked the agency to set maximum levels of salt in various categories of food. The agency held a public hearing in 2007 but hasn't taken any action since.

"Reducing sodium levels in packaged and restaurant foods could save thousands of lives a year in New York City alone," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "Food companies should cooperate with New York City authorities and set achievable targets to reduce salt nationwide. If companies don't cooperate, they can certainly expect other state and local governments, and perhaps at long last, the Food and Drug Administration, to begin regulating in this area."

Reducing sodium by 25 percent over the next 5 years could also save the federal government billions in direct medical expenditures, according to CSPI.

New York City similarly helped spur nationwide changes in the food industry when it became the first jurisdiction to require calories on chain restaurant menus, and to phase out the use of artificial trans fats in all restaurants.

CSPI Urges FDA Crackdown on False & Misleading Food Labeling

2009-12-29

New Report Makes Case for Ending Food Labeling Chaos

WASHINGTON�Can orange juice really help prevent or treat arthritis? That's the implication on the label of a Minute Maid orange juice fortified with glucosamine hydrochloride "designed to help protect healthy joints." And it's exactly the kind of misleading health claim that the Center for Science in the Public Interest wants the federal government to stop. Today the group is sending the Food and Drug Administration a 158-page report that documents some of the most egregious examples of false claims, ingredient obfuscations, and other labeling shenanigans.

Though under the Obama Administration the FDA is sending more warning letters to food manufacturers about misleading labeling, many major companies, including Coca-Cola, Kellogg, Kraft, General Mills, and Nestl�, continue to confuse or defraud consumers about the health effects, ingredients, or "natural"-ness of their products. Some notable offenders include:

Kellogg: On labels for Smart Start Strawberry Oat Bites cereal, the company deliberately misreads a report from the Institute of Medicine to claim, falsely, that consumers can eat 125 grams�more than half a cup�of added sugars per day. CSPI says FDA should establish a Daily Value for added sugars, require its disclosure on Nutrition Facts panels, and provide definitions for terms such as "low sugar."

Nestl�: Labels for the company's Carnation Instant Breakfast misleadingly claim that its antioxidants "help support the immune system." While it is true that serious deficiencies in vitamins A, C, and E and other antioxidants can lead to serious health problems, consuming this or other products that make this common claim won't help ward off colds, the flu, or other maladies.

Kashi: A Kellogg-owned brand, Kashi falsely claims that the green tea in its Heart to Heart Instant Oatmeal will "support healthy arteries." The FDA does have a so-called qualified health claim for green tea that relates to cancer but has not agreed that green tea can protect arteries or fend off heart disease.

Glac�au: The Coca-Cola-owned product bears a confusing double-column Nutrition Facts label that gives the impression that a 20-ounce bottle of VitaminWater contains multiple servings. Yet the company knows full well that the product is typically consumed by one person on a single occasion, delivering 125 calories, not the 50 in a "serving." CSPI says the dual-column format should be barred.

Edy's: Labels for Dibs Bite Sized Snacks boast "0g trans fat!"�giving the impression that the product is heart-healthy. Yet a serving of this ice cream snack has 16 grams of saturated fat�80 percent of the daily value. CSPI says the FDA should prohibit companies from boasting of "0 grams trans" on foods with more than 1 gram of saturated fat per serving. FDA already has similar limits on "cholesterol free" and "healthy" claims.

Thomas': Labels for Thomas' Hearty Grains English Muffins claim that the food is "made with the goodness of whole grain" and "made with whole grains." Yet the primary ingredient is "unbleached enriched wheat flour," meaning white flour. The product has more water than whole wheat flour, which is the third ingredient.

Gerber: Labels for Gerber Graduates Juice Treats�a product intended for pre-schoolers�picture an abundance of fruit: oranges, grapes, peaches, cherries, pineapple, and raspberries. Yet there is no cherry, orange, or pineapple in the product, and less than 2 percent is raspberry and apple juice concentrate. The main ingredients are corn syrup and sugar, providing 17 grams�or about four teaspoons�of refined sugars per serving.

The main ingredients are corn syrup and sugar, not the abundance of fruit shown on the package, providing 17 grams�or about four teaspoons�of refined sugars per serving.

Minute Maid: The words "all natural" appear on Minute Maid's Cranberry Apple Cocktail. Yet the product contains added citric acid�meaning citric acid that didn't occur naturally in the juice. FDA has long held that adding citric acid disqualifies a company from claiming the food is all natural. This product also contains high-fructose corn syrup�the end result of a highly complex series of chemical changes whereby corn starch is converted to glucose and fructose. FDA should disallow "all natural" claims on food that contain HFCS, according to CSPI.

"For far too long, some of the world's biggest food manufacturers have designed their labels either to exaggerate the amount of healthy ingredients, or to imply that the food has magical, drug-like qualities that could prevent or treat various health problems," said CSPI legal affairs director Bruce Silverglade. "The Bush Administration gave manufacturers more and more license to deceive. But the party's over�or at least it should be."

In May, the FDA instructed General Mills to drop exaggerated heart disease and cancer claims on labels and its web site for its Cheerios cereal. And in October, FDA expressed concern over the industry-wide Smart Choices front-of-packaging labeling program. Both moves were praised by CSPI and were seen as a sign that the agency will more aggressively police food labeling.

CSPI wants the agency to prohibit qualified health claims for foods. Unlike "health claims," which must meet a "significant scientific agreement" standard, qualified health claims include disclaimers explaining that the scientific evidence is uncertain. CSPI also wants the FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to prohibit misleading "structure/function" claims that a given food will "support" or "maintain" healthy immune systems, joints, vision, and so on. Consumers simply can't distinguish between stringently regulated health claims, which require FDA approval, and structure/function claims, which don't, according to CSPI.

"Consumers need honest labeling so they can spend their food dollars wisely and avoid diet-related disease," said CSPI senior staff attorney Ilene Ringel Heller, co-author of the report. "Companies should market their foods without resorting to the deceit and dishonesty that's so common today. And, if they don't, the FDA should make them."

CSPI Finds a Troubling Decline in Foodborne Outbreak Investigations by State Health Officials

2009-12-23

WASHINGTON�In a troubling trend, state health departments completed fewer foodborne outbreak investigations in 2007 than in the previous decade, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

"The decline in fully-investigated outbreaks could reflect a serious gap in state public health spending," said CSPI food safety director Caroline Smith DeWaal. "Fewer outbreaks were fully investigated by state public health departments in 2007 than in any of the previous 10 years�and a smaller percentage of outbreaks were fully characterized than in any of the previous 7 years."

The trend showed up in the latest Outbreak Alert! report by CSPI. It found that states reported 33 percent fewer fully investigated outbreaks to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2007 than in 2002. This doesn't mean that outbreaks aren't occurring, DeWaal stressed. Nearly 1,100 outbreaks were reported in 2007 to CDC, but in only 378 cases did states identify both a food and the pathogen (the mark of a complete investigation).

Outbreaks are first investigated at the local and state level. To provide the most useful data for controlling food safety problems, those investigators need to identify both the pathogen and the specific food responsible for the outbreak, and then state departments of health need to report the outbreaks to CDC. Fewer completed investigations mean that less information is available to the CDC and other federal health agencies�affecting their ability to identify problems in the food safety system or issue recalls to protect the public.

CSPI has been tracking foodborne outbreak reports for over 10 years and publishing the data in its Outbreak Alert! report and on its website. CSPI analyzes state reports compiled by CDC, sorts them by food category, and makes the aggregated data available to federal policymakers to guide priority setting, to the industry to address production problems, and to the public.

CSPI says that a food safety bill passed several months ago by the U.S. House of Representatives and another bill that is pending in the Senate would greatly enhance the government's surveillance systems and ensure better coordination between state officials and the CDC. Most important, the legislation would create a food-safety system focused on preventing contamination in the first place, by requiring food processors to prepare food safety plans and requiring the FDA to inspect food processing facilities more frequently.

"Congress should pass legislation to dramatically reduce the numbers of needless deaths and expensive hospitalizations caused by contaminated food," said CSPI senior staff attorney David Plunkett. "Americans deserve food safety legislation early in the new year."

CSPI analyzed a total of 4,638 outbreaks of illness linked to specific foods, involving 117,136 individual illnesses that occurred between 1998 and 2007. An "outbreak" involves two or more people sickened by the same food. The food categories (other than "multi-ingredient") most commonly linked to outbreaks during this ten-year period were:

Seafood: 838 outbreaks involving 7,298 cases of illness
Produce: 684 outbreaks involving 26,735 cases of illness
Poultry: 538 outbreaks involving 13,498 cases of illness
Beef: 428 outbreaks involving 9,824 cases of illness
Pork: 200 outbreaks involving 4,934 cases of illness

Foods regulated by the FDA, such as seafood, produce, eggs, and dairy products, were associated with more than twice as many outbreaks as foods regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees meats and poultry. The data also show several changes in food trends. For instance, in this 10-year analysis of the data, eggs dropped out of the top five causes of outbreaks, probably due to the implementation of safety programs by egg producers, programs recently made mandatory by FDA. Also, dairy outbreaks increased dramatically after 2004 due to the increased availability of unpasteurized dairy products.

The outbreaks in CSPI's database represent just the tip of a much larger problem. The CDC estimates that contaminated foods kill thousands and sicken up to 76 million Americans each year. The vast majority of foodborne illnesses are undiagnosed and most are never reported to state officials. For those that come to their attention, state officials may lack the resources to track down the cause of most illnesses and outbreaks, and are not required to report foodborne illness outbreaks to CDC.

Proposed Federal Standards for Foods Marketed to Kids Praised

2009-12-15

Statement of CSPI Nutrition Policy Director Margo G. Wootan

The federal government is headed in exactly the right direction with the draft nutrition standards proposed for foods that are marketed to children. If adopted, the landscape of kids' food advertising would shift quite dramatically in favor of foods that promote health, and away from foods that promote obesity and disease. If these standards are adopted, it would be one of the most significant developments in this area in 30 years.

Food marketers, and their self-regulatory body, the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, should adopt these standards on a voluntary basis. Rather than trying to weaken these standards, I hope that the industry sees the Interagency Working Group's recommendations as a wake-up call, and soon phases out the discredited practice of marketing junk food to kids altogether.

General Mills' Move to Reduce Sugar in Cereals Advertised to Children Praised

2009-12-09

Statement of CSPI Nutrition Policy Director Margo G. Wootan

General Mills�which has included whole grains in all its cereals�is taking another important step in the right direction by pledging to cut the sugar in the cereals it advertises to children. As sugary cereal is one of the top products marketed to children, we hope the company swiftly implements these changes and that Kellogg, Post Foods, and other competitors quickly follow General Mills' lead.

Food Label Makeovers Proposed by CSPI

2009-12-07

Designs for New Nutrition & Ingredient Facts Labels Unveiled in Nutrition Action Healthletter

WASHINGTON�Nutrition Facts labels on packaged foods have helped guide Americans' food choices for 15 years. But in that time, companies have cooked up a number of schemes to trick consumers about what's in�or isn't in�packaged foods. Today, the Center for Science in the Public Interest�the group that campaigned for the 1990 law requiring nutrition labeling�exposes some of the tricks that occur on the front of the label, and unveils makeovers of the Nutrition Facts panel and ingredient lists to last for the next 15 years.

One innovation CSPI has long urged is the use of symbols on the fronts of packages to give shoppers a quick snapshot of the key nutrients. (The packaged-food industry, under pressure from the Food and Drug Administration, recently halted its own recently adopted system, Smart Choices, which allowed some junk foods like Froot Loops to use the program's logo.) The FDA recently announced that it will conduct some preliminary tests to see which front-label system helps consumers the most.

CSPI is also calling on the FDA to crack down on deceptive claims ("Strengthens your immune system," "Helps Protect Healthy Joints!" and others) and to tighten up industry-loosened definitions of "fiber" and "all natural." Companies shouldn't be able to brag about having "0 grams trans fat!" if the item contains significant amounts of saturated fat, says the group. And companies that boast that their foods are "made with whole grain" should be required to disclose how much of that grain is whole. It's often less than half, according to CSPI.

"So many packaged foods are little more than white flour, fat, sugar, salt and additives in various combinations, yet they are marketed as modern-day medical miracles, offering vague benefits for virtually every part of the body," said CSPI legal affairs director Bruce Silverglade. "The FDA has recently challenged some especially egregious health claims, such as the exaggerated cholesterol-reduction claims on Cheerios. But the agency should put a permanent stop to a wide range of other deceptive claims."

CSPI's reimagined Nutrition Facts label puts a greater emphasis on calories, and indicates when a food is high in saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, or added sugars ("added" means sugars that do not occur naturally in fruit and milk). Only fiber from whole grains, beans, fruits, and vegetables, and not faux fibers such as polydextrose and maltodextrin, would be considered to be fiber on the nutrition label.

CSPI also would like to see ingredient lists presented as clearly as the Nutrition Facts panel is, as opposed to the condensed, all-caps type often used. The new Ingredient Facts panel also would separate the major ingredients from minor ones. And for foods with several forms of sugar scattered around the ingredients list, those sugars would be combined so that they would show up higher on the list of ingredients. Percentages of key ingredients would be disclosed.

"Food marketers bring their graphic design firepower to bear on the front of food packages, but then go to great lengths to make their ingredient lists almost indecipherable," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "The fine print shouldn't taketh what the big print giveth."

CSPI illustrates how food labels can trick consumers and shows "before" and "after" Nutrition labels in the December issue of Nutrition Action.

Most Food Ads on Nickelodeon Still for Junk Food

2009-11-24

Self-Regulation Proving Insufficient to Protect Children, Says CSPI

WASHINGTON�Nearly 80 percent of food ads on the popular children's network Nickelodeon are for foods of poor nutritional quality, according to an analysis conducted by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. That represents a modest and not quite statistically significant drop from 2005, when CSPI researchers found that about 90 percent of food ads on Nick were for junk food. Between the 2005 and 2009 studies, the food industry instituted a self-regulatory program through the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI).

CSPI also examined the practices of the food companies that participate in that self-regulatory program. Of the 452 foods and beverages that companies say are acceptable to market to children, CSPI found that 267, or nearly 60 percent, do not meet CSPI's recommended nutrition standards for food marketing to children, such as General Mills' Cookie Crisp and Reese's Puffs cereals, Kellogg Apple Jacks and Cocoa Krispies cereals, Kellogg Rice Krispies Treats, Campbell's Goldfish crackers and SpaghettiOs, Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, and many Unilever Popsicles.

"While industry self-regulation is providing some useful benchmarks, it's clearly not shielding children from junk food advertising, on Nick and elsewhere," said CSPI nutrition policy director Margo G. Wootan. "It's a modest start, but not sufficient to address children's poor eating habits and the sky-high rates of childhood obesity."

Of the foods companies say are appropriate to market to children, no puddings, cookies, or fruit-flavored snacks meet CSPI's nutrition standards, but 73 percent of yogurts did. Other foods that meet CSPI's standards include Nabisco Teddy Grahams, Kellogg Frosted Mini-Wheats, Kellogg Eggo Waffles, and several Kid Cuisine frozen dinners. Most beverages (64 percent), such as fruit drinks with little fruit juice, sports drinks, and high-fat milk, didn't meet CSPI's nutrition standards.

None of the 10 products PepsiCo says are appropriate to market to children actually are according to CSPI's standards. Only three of 47 Kraft-approved products, one of eight McDonald's-approved meals, and 22 of 86 General Mills-approved products met CSPI's standards. Burger King only identified one meal as appropriate to market to children at the time of the study�a Kids Meal with Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, apple fries with caramel sauce, and a Hershey's 1 percent milk, which also met CSPI's standards. Four companies that belong to the CFBAI (Coca-Cola, Hershey's, Mars, and Cadbury Adams) state that they do not advertise any products to children (according to the CBBB definition).

Of the food ads on Nickelodeon, a fourth were from companies that don't participate in the industry's self-regulatory program. Almost none of those ads were for foods that met CSPI's nutrition standards, and only 28 percent of the ads from companies in the CBBB Initiative met them.

In 2006, the National Academies' Institute of Medicine recommended that food and media companies shift the mix of foods marketed to youth toward healthier foods within two years. Currently, an Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children, including representatives from the Federal Trade Commission, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is developing nutrition standards for foods marketed to children. Those are expected in July of 2010, and CSPI is urging the Council of Better Business Bureaus to adopt them for the CFBAI.

CSPI also has urged Chuck E. Cheese's, IHOP restaurants, Topps Candy, Yum! Brands (which owns KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut) and Perfetti van Melle (maker of Air Heads candy) to join the CFBAI. Nickelodeon and other media companies should also have comprehensive policies covering all their food marketing aimed at children.

"Nickelodeon should be ashamed that it earns so much money from carrying commercials that promote obesity, diabetes, and other health problems in young children," Wootan said. "If media and food companies don't do a better job exercising corporate responsibility when they market foods to children, Congress and the FTC will need to step in to protect kids' health."

CSPI's nutrition standards include reasonable limits on saturated and trans fats, sodium, and added sugars and encourage the presence of key vitamins, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. CSPI says that ideally, companies would market only the most healthful foods to children, but that its guidelines strike a practical balance between that ideal and the current food marketing climate.

'Two Thumbs Down' for Movie Theater Popcorn

2009-11-18

New Lab Tests of Movie Theater Popcorn Show It's Still the Godzilla of Snacks

WASHINGTON�It's hard to picture someone mindlessly ingesting three McDonald's Quarter Pounders with 12 pats of butter while watching a movie. But according to new laboratory analyses commissioned by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, that food is nutritionally comparable to what you'd find in a medium popcorn and soda combo at Regal, the country's biggest movie theater chain: 1,610 calories and three days' worth�60 grams�of saturated fat. (Nutrition aside, that combo costs $12�for raw ingredients that must cost Regal pennies.)

"Regal and AMC are our nominees for Best Supporting Actor in the Obesity Epidemic," said CSPI senior nutritionist Jayne Hurley. "Who expects about 1,500 calories and three days' worth of heart-stopping fat in a popcorn and soda combo? That's the saturated fat of a stick of butter and the calories of two sticks of butter. You might think you're getting Bambi, but you're really getting Godzilla."

Photo Credit: Stephen Schmidt
A medium combo at Regal has 1,610 calories and 60 grams of saturated fat. That's roughly the saturated fat of a stick of butter and the calories of two sticks of butter.

Regal says that its medium popcorn has 720 calories and that its large has 960. But CSPI's lab tests found that those numbers were understated. Regal's medium and large sizes each had 1,200 calories and, thanks to being popped in coconut oil, 60 grams of saturated fat. (The large size looks bigger, thanks to its titanic tub, but it costs a dollar more and comes with a free refill.) A "small" at Regal has 670 calories and 34 grams of saturated fat. That's about as many calories as a Pizza Hut Personal Pan Pepperoni Pizza�except the popcorn has three times the saturated fat. Even shared with another person, that size provides nearly an entire day's worth of the kind of fat that clogs arteries and promotes heart disease. And every tablespoon of "buttery" oil topping adds another 130 calories. Asking for topping is like asking for oil on French fries or potato chips, according to CSPI.

AMC, the second largest theater chain, also pops in coconut oil but has smaller serving sizes. Its large popcorn has 1,030 calories and 57 grams of saturated fat. That's like eating a pound of baby back ribs topped with a scoop of H�agen-Dazs ice cream�except that the popcorn has an additional day's worth of saturated fat. A medium has 590 calories and 33 grams of saturated fat; and a small has 370 calories and a day's worth�20 grams�of saturated fat. (Like Regal, AMC reports calorie counts lower than those returned in CSPI's lab tests.)

Third-largest Cinemark pops in heart-healthy canola oil. A large has 910 calories with 4 grams of saturated fat; a medium has 760 calories and 3 grams of saturated fat; and a small has 420 calories and 2 grams of saturated fat. Though popping in canola gives this chain's popcorn far less saturated fat than its competitors, it's almost as high in calories and has the most sodium�about twice as much as Regal or AMC. With 1,500 milligrams of sodium�a day's worth of sodium for most people�a large popcorn without topping from Cinemark will be less likely to clog your arteries but more likely to elevate your blood pressure. And while Cinemark uses a "buttery" oil topping similar to the toppings used at Regal and AMC, at some outlets, particularly in the West, it uses a topping made with real butter. That version has 9 grams�half a day's worth�of saturated fat per tablespoon.

CSPI also took a look at the sodas and candies sold at the movies. A small non-diet soda ranges from 150 calories at Cinemark to 300 calories at Regal. Mediums have 300 calories at AMC and Cinemark and 400 calories at Regal. With 33 teaspoons of sugar in nearly 2 quarts�54 ounces�Regal has the most outsized large soda, with 500 empty calories.

Photo Credit: Stephen Schmidt
Eating an 8-ounce bag of Reese's Pieces is like eating a 16-ounce T-bone steak and a buttered baked potato.

The oversized boxes and bags (four to five ounces) of candy sold at movie chains are universally high in calories. A 5-ounce bag of Twizzlers has 460 calories and 15 teaspoons of sugar. A 7-ounce box of Nerds has 790 calories and 46 teaspoons of sugar. Chocolate candies like Butterfinger Minis, Raisinets, Sno-Caps, or M&M's have between 400 and 500 calories and at least a half day's worth of saturated fat. An 8-ounce bag of Reese's Pieces is just a cup of candy. But with 1,160 calories and 35 grams of saturated fat, it's like eating a 16-ounce T-bone steak plus a buttered baked potato.

"Sitting through a two-hour movie isn't exactly like climbing Mt. Everest," Hurley said. "Why do theaters think they need to feed us like it is?"

The study, published as the cover story in the December issue of Nutrition Action Healthletter, updates a famous expos� the group conducted 15 years ago. For Regal and AMC, CSPI tested samples from theaters in the Washington, D.C., area. For Cinemark, samples came from Texas, Illinois, and Maryland.

Bipartisan Food Safety Bill Poised for Floor Vote

2009-11-18

Food Safety Reform Legislation Clears HELP Committee

WASHINGTON�Americans may soon be able to enjoy their peanuts, peppers, spinach and cookie dough with greater confidence that those foods are safe to eat if the full Senate passes the food safety legislation that cleared a key committee today. The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510), offered by Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Tom Harkin (D-IA), was passed unanimously in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee.

Food safety advocates are calling on the full body to pass the bill before the end of the year. Similar legislation passed the House in July.

"Americans expect the businesses that grow, fish, process and handle our food are following the best practices to ensure it is safe," said CSPI food safety director Caroline Smith DeWaal. "This bill gives FDA needed new authorities to manage food safety from farm to table, through improved standards and more frequent inspections."

The bill calls on food processors to register with the government periodically, implement food safety plans, meet FDA performance standards, and verify that the food they import complies with U.S. law. The House-passed bill also requires more frequent risk-based inspections of food processing facilities and microbial testing for dangerous pathogens like Salmonella or E. coli O157:H7. Under the current system, food manufacturing facilities might only receive visits from an FDA inspector once every five or 10 years. Both bills also give the FDA authority to issue mandatory recalls of contaminated foods.

"Senator Durbin and Senator Harkin have been championing food safety for years, and they deserve enormous credit for crafting a bill with such broad bipartisan support," said DeWaal. "We're also grateful for the cosponsorship of Ranking Member Mike Enzi and Senators Judd Gregg and Richard Burr and the rest of the Republicans who joined the Democrats in advancing this legislation."

The bill is widely supported by a diverse coalition of consumer and health groups, including the American Public Health Association, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Safe Tables Our Priority, the Pew Charitable Trusts, and Trust for America's Health. The Make Our Food Safe coalition will continue to seek some strengthening amendments to the legislation, but urge rapid passage in order to restore consumer confidence, which has been shaken by numerous outbreaks of food-borne illness.

Public Health Loses Out to Politics in Oyster Decision

2009-11-13

Statement of David Plunkett, Senior Staff Attorney

Public health lost out to the politics of special interests with FDA's announcement today that it may delay a requirement for processing Gulf Coast oysters to destroy the deadly bacteria Vibrio vulnificus, pending the findings of a feasibility study. A group of Gulf Coast Senators and Representatives weighed in on the side of a small but vocal industry in their states and won. Unfortunately this political victory for the Gulf Coast oyster industry is a health tragedy for their customers, and the action condemns scores of consumers to serious illness and death from this potent pathogen. This small portion of the shellfish industry should not have a free pass from FDA to sell adulterated and potentially deadly oysters to the public.

FDA Investigation of Safety & Legality of Caffeinated Alcoholic Drinks Praised by CSPI

2009-11-13

Statement of CSPI Alcohol Policy Director George A. Hacker

We strongly support the investigation announced today by the Food and Drug Administration into the safety and legality of caffeinated alcoholic "energy" drinks.

For many years, federal regulators have stood mutely by as these potentially dangerous products, which resemble non-alcoholic energy drinks in many ways, gained in popularity among young people. No studies exist that demonstrate the safety of alcohol and caffeine or other stimulants combined in any quantity, much less the high levels of each found in products like Joose and Four Loko. In fact, emerging research suggests that the young consumers of these products are more likely to be the perpetrator or victim of sexual aggression, to ride with an intoxicated driver, or to become otherwise injured.

Our negotiations with Anheuser-Busch, our lawsuit against MillerCoors, and, importantly, the actions taken by state attorneys general helped get the biggest manufacturers out of this category. We hope the FDA's move today will result in enforcement action that represents the beginning of the end of the category as a whole.

Along with cracking down on unsupportable health claims on cereal, pushing for the elimination of salmonella in eggs and Vibrio bacteria in oysters, and enforcing a ban on candy-flavored cigarettes, this is one of several moves that indicates the new leadership at FDA is serious about protecting public health.

Make Our Food Safe Coalition Urges Congressional Support for FDA Action on Tainted Shellfish

2009-11-09

Protections for Gulf Coast Shellfish Industry Would Increase Death Toll

WASHINGTON�The Center for Science in the Public Interest was joined today by victims, consumer advocacy, and public health organizations in urging Congress to support the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to protect consumers from contaminated oysters that each year cause scores of serious illnesses and deaths. The blood infection caused by Vibrio vulnificus bacteria in oysters is one of the most deadly foodborne illnesses, killing half of the people infected. Those who survive can have painful lesions and fluid-filled blisters all over their bodies, sometimes requiring limbs to be amputated. Four methods of post-harvest processing have proven effective at destroying the bacteria without harming the texture or flavor of the oysters.

But fearing the loss of jobs in the state, Florida Senator Bill Nelson and Representative Allen Boyd don't want the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to implement this life-saving measure and have instead proposed legislation putting the convenience of a tiny industry ahead of the lives and health of those who enjoy eating oysters. The Gulf Oyster Protection Act by Rep. Boyd and a similar bill by Senator Nelson are in response to FDA's announcement last month that it will no longer tolerate the interstate sale of Gulf Coast oysters infected with the bacteria Vibrio vulnificus. Starting in 2011, oysters harvested from the Gulf of Mexico will have to be treated to destroy the bacteria in warm months when water and temperature conditions indicate it may be most prevalent.

"The lives snuffed out prematurely by contaminated oysters should not be coldly dismissed by the shellfish industry or by their allies in Congress as the 'cost of doing business,'" said CSPI senior staff attorney David Plunkett. "The industry has known for years how to prevent these deaths with readily available post-harvest processing techniques. Over 250 people have become ill and half of those have died since 2001, and if this industry-supported legislation passes, the toll of preventable death and disease caused by contaminated oysters will continue to rise."

The Gulf Coast oyster industry is fighting the new requirements, claiming they will affect jobs while only saving the lives of 15 to 20 people each year. The Gulf oyster harvest was valued at $60 million in 2008, including processed and unprocessed oysters. FDA meanwhile estimates that three-fourths of the Gulf Coast harvest won't even be affected by the new requirement.

"Instead of speculating on lost jobs, Gulf Coast communities should expect that companies engaged in treating oysters would expand their business in the Gulf in anticipation of the new rules going into effect." Plunkett said.

For many years, the FDA allowed the shellfish industry to essentially police itself, in the form of the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference, which is dominated by representatives from industry and coastal states. But that system has failed to prevent contaminated oysters from killing almost a score of people each year, according to CSPI.

In September, an Ohio man honeymooning in Panama City, Florida ate oysters at a beach-side oyster bar and became infected with Vibrio vulnificus. According to a report published in the Dayton Daily News, Darrell Dishon, who has diabetes, had to have his legs amputated in order to save his life. He told the paper that Florida used to be one of his favorite places but that he will never return: "Now it reminds me I'll never have legs again. I don't need to be reminded about that. I just have to look down to know about that."

"The FDA does not want to ban oysters, it wants to eliminate Vibrio vulnificus contamination in oysters," Plunkett said. "Advising high-risk consumers to avoid Gulf Coast oysters may have reduced overall demand for oysters, but has unfortunately done nothing to reduce the toll of deaths and illnesses. Making Gulf Coast oysters significantly safer will increase consumers' willingness to buy them, and will benefit all segments of the industry."

Too Many Farmers Growing Genetically Engineered Corn Not Complying with Key Environmental Requirements

2009-11-05

CSPI Urges EPA Not to Re-Register Products Unless Compliance Improves

WASHINGTON�One out of every four farmers who plants genetically engineered (GE) corn is failing to comply with at least one important insect-resistance management requirement. That increases the likelihood that pesticide-resistant bugs will threaten the future of biotech crops and some of their non-biotech neighbors. That finding comes in a report released today by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is calling on the Environmental Protection Agency to not renew registrations of the GE corn varieties unless compliance rates improve.

In 2008, 57 percent of the corn acreage in the United States was planted with corn spliced with genes from the Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium, or Bt. Those crops produce natural toxins that are harmless to humans but will kill corn rootworms and corn borers, which otherwise reduce crop yields. Farmers who plant such crops are supposed to plant a refuge of conventional corn in, adjacent to, or near the GE crop. That refuge is designed to reduce the risk that pests that survive the toxin will breed with each other and produce resistant offspring. Resistant offspring would not only reduce yields of the Bt crops, but could also threaten organic or conventional farmers who use natural Bt-based pesticides on non-GE crops.

Depending on the location of the crop and the pests targeted by the strain of corn, farmers have varying requirements specifying the size of the refuge and its distance from the GE crop. According to industry surveys submitted to EPA in 2008:

Only 78 percent of growers planting corn-borer-protected crops met the size requirement, and only 88 percent met the distance requirement.

Only 74 percent of growers planting rootworm-protected crops met the size requirement, and 63 percent met the distance requirement.

Only 72 percent of farmers growing stacked varieties of GE corn�corn protected against both corn borer and rootworm�met the size requirement and 66 percent met the distance requirement.

Those compliance rates are down, in some cases sharply, from 2003 to 2005, when compliance rates were often above 90 percent. Though compliance assessments made on the farm tend to show higher compliance rates than the surveys, those rates also decreased in the last three years, according to CSPI.

"Given the tremendous growth in the acreage given over to genetically engineered corn since its introduction, it is intolerable for farmers not to be meeting their refuge requirements," said CSPI biotechnology director Greg Jaffe. "Given the stakes, regulators should insist on compliance rates much closer to 100 percent to prevent insect problems that threaten all farmers, not just those planting biotech crops."

In a letter sent today to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, CSPI said that the agency should not re-register the existing varieties of Bt corn until the companies demonstrate higher levels of compliance. But, if the EPA does re-register the products, registrants such as Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta, and Dow AgroSciences should be subject to severe fines or seed sales restrictions if noncompliance rates remain high, according to the letter. Those biotech companies should also provide farmers with incentives to meet their obligations. CSPI also wants the EPA to obtain more reliable data by requiring biotech companies to pay for independent, third-party assessments of farmer compliance with refuge requirements, and to require labeling on bags of biotech seed corn to specify refuge requirements.

Senate HELP Committee Weighing FDA Reform Legislation

2009-10-22

CSPI Urges Quick Action, With More Frequent Inspections & Testing

Yes, the United States Senate is focused on health care reform. But if legislators want to save 5,000 lives and prevent 325,000 unnecessary and expensive hospitalizations each year, they should fix food safety too, according to the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. And the chance that the Senate will act this year on legislation that would reform the nation's creaky and outdated food safety laws got a boost with a key hearing held on the topic today.

"Consumers would rather pay at the check-out counter for safer foods than at the emergency room. In fact, unsafe foods pose a huge burden both to individuals and society at large, with estimates of the financial toll ranging from $40 billion to well over $100 billion annually," said CSPI food safety director Caroline Smith DeWaal, who testified today before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. "Outbreaks over the last few years are the clear consequence of an antiquated legal system that limits the Food and Drug Administration's ability to ensure the safety of the food supply."

Senators are considering the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (S. 510), sponsored by Assistant Senate Majority Leader Richard Durbin (D-IL). Like legislation passed in July by the House, S. 510 requires that food processors register with the government periodically, implement food safety plans and meet performance standards, and verify the food they import complies with U.S. law.

While CSPI urges the Committee to move the bill forward to passage, CSPI also asked on behalf of the Make Our Food Safe coalition that the bill is amended to require more frequent and risk-based inspection of food processing facilities. The bill should also require more microbial testing for pathogens and other contaminants, as well as require government-to-government certification to help assure the safety of imports.

Many in the food industry support FDA reform legislation also. Besides CSPI, representatives from the Food Marketing Institute and the United Fresh Produce Association testified at the Senate hearing.

"It is rare to see the level of consensus reflected among such diverse consumer and industry organizations on the need to fix our national food safety system," DeWaal testified. "Congress can, with simple changes, take action this year to make food safer for American consumers."

The hearing comes on the heels of a CSPI report detailing the ten riskiest foods regulated by the FDA. That list that included a number of healthy foods that the group recommends Americans should be consuming more of, like leafy greens, tomatoes and berries.

Despite the outbreaks linked to those products, CSPI's advice to consumers remains the same: Eat your veggies. "Just wash them first, and ask your Senators to reform the FDA," DeWaal said.

Family Doctor Group Squanders Credibility by Taking Tainted Coke Cash

2009-10-21

Coke "Philanthropy" Buys Friends, Silences Critics, and Advances Anti-Health Extremism, According to CSPI

WASHINGTON�The American Academy of Family Physicians, which claims its mission is "to improve the health of patients, families and communities," is coming under fire for a controversial new partnership with Coca-Cola, the world's leading producer of obesity-promoting soft drinks. The six-figure payment from Coke will fund "consumer education content related to beverages and sweeteners" on the group's web site.

Today a number of leading physicians, nutritionists, and health experts are calling on the AAFP to return the money. The Center for Science in the Public Interest says that the AAFP should be urging patients and consumers to avoid sweetened soft drinks�which promote obesity, diabetes, tooth decay, and other health problems�and not helping Coca-Cola advance its anti-health agenda in Washington.

"Because of the kinds of products it markets, Coca-Cola Co. is desperate to burnish its soiled reputation ... which is why it is paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to have a relationship with your organization," the health advocates wrote in a letter to AAFP leaders. "The AAFP web site should be criticizing beverages sweetened with sugars in the strongest language � But with Coca-Cola providing funding, the AAFP simply cannot do that."

Besides paying for web content about soft drinks, the incoming president of the AAFP said that the money will help the group engage in federal advocacy efforts on health care reform. Presumably, says CSPI, the AAFP's lobbying efforts won't depart sharply from those of its generous new benefactor, which is spending a lot of time and money trying to convince legislators not to include taxes on soda to help pay for health care reform.

This is hardly the first time that Coca-Cola has used its grant-making power to win new friends among health professionals. In 2003, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentists took a $1 million payment from Coca-Cola. Before the payment, the dentists' group acknowledged the connection between sugary drinks and dental disease. But after the payment, the president of the AAPD told reporters that the "scientific evidence is certainly not clear" on the role soft drinks play.

"Coke wields its 'philanthropy' with all the subtlety of a baseball bat," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "In some cases, it can buy useful friends; in other cases, it might be purchasing the silence of a potential critic. Elsewhere, it funds anonymous front groups to do real p.r. dirty work, as when it pays the Center for Consumer Freedom to deny that obesity is a problem."

Besides Jacobson, other signatories on the letter to AAFP include Henry Blackburn of the University of Minnesota, George A. Bray of the Louisiana State University, Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., of the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute, Joan Gussow of Columbia University, Lisa R. Young of New York University, and Carlos A. Camargo, Jr., Meir Stampfer, Walter Willett, and Grace Wyshak of the Harvard School of Public Health.

In September, a soda industry lobby group ran print and television advertisements under the rubric of "Americans Against Food Taxes," urging Congress not to adopt a soda tax. The ad lists some predictable supporters, like the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the right-wing Institute for Liberty, which promoted the "tea party" protests that became notorious for their inflammatory, and sometimes racist, rhetoric and signage.

But the ad listed some surprising supporters, including a number of Latino organizations, ranging from obscure (the Hispanic Alliance for Prosperity) to the well known (the League of United Latin American Citizens). The ad also listed a number of unlikely groups that don't ordinarily get involved in issues of taxation or health care reform, like the National Hispanic Foundation for the Arts and the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities. Those seemingly improbable signatories to the soda industry's ad list Coca-Cola and/or PepsiCo as donors on their web sites.

"The stakes are so high in the health care debate, yet I fear that these groups, some of which are well respected, are selling out at such bargain-basement prices," Jacobson said. "Low-income people, Latinos, and African Americans disproportionately suffer from obesity, diabetes, and diet-related disease and have the most to gain from health care reform. I hope that the leadership of these organizations, as well as the AAFP, comes to realize that Coke isn't advancing their interests. Coke just wants to sell more liquid candy."

FDA To Scrutinize "Smart Choices" & Other Front-of-Label Nutrition Symbols

2009-10-20

Statement of CSPI Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson

Simplified nutrition information on the fronts of food packages could be very helpful in enabling consumers to choose healthier packaged foods and have healthier diets. Unfortunately, though, a growing number of privately devised�and sometimes inconsistent�labeling systems may be confusing, not enlightening, some consumers. After all, foods like General Mills' Cocoa Puffs or Kellogg's Froot Loops belong more in our "food porn" category than a better-for-you category.

Consider Kraft's Strawberry Bagel-ful, which is a mostly white-flour bagel stuffed with cream cheese and strawberry pur�e that is sweetened with sugar and colored with red dye 40. It's exactly the kind of food we should be eating less of, but it gets the Smart Choices logo. The American Heart Association's well-intentioned labeling program is also flawed, considering that the heart-check logo is on Uncle Ben's instant white rice and a number of other relatively poor dietary choices.

In 2006, the Center for Science in the Public Interest petitioned the FDA to implement a national front-of-package labeling system, and more recently CSPI urged Congress to fund Institute of Medicine research to identify the optimal system. Fortunately, the FDA recognizes the potential value of labeling and the deception that is now occurring. Ideally, the end result of FDA's initiative, and the parallel Institute of Medicine study, will be one national, mandatory system that will truly help consumers choose healthier diets.

School Meals to Get Nutritional Makeover

2009-10-20

Statement of CSPI Nutrition Policy Director Margo G. Wootan

The school lunches and breakfasts eaten by tens of millions of American kids are due for a nutritional makeover thanks to strong new recommendations from the Institute of Medicine. The recommendations, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture will write into regulations, will increase the amounts of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains in school meals; reduce the content of sodium and trans fat; and ensure that the milk is low or no fat. Those important changes will help to address the biggest problems in children's diets and foster healthier eating habits. However, the IOM unfortunately didn't recommend limits on added sugars.

Schools shouldn't wait for USDA's final regulations to implement IOM's sensible new school meal standards. USDA should help schools work toward the new standards, so by the time they are required schools are already most of the way there.

And when Congress reauthorizes child nutrition legislation, it also should give USDA and school districts the resources and support they need to make these healthier meals appeal even to the most finicky of young eaters. To do that, Congress should provide adequate and consistent funding for USDA's Team Nutrition Network in the upcoming Child Nutrition Reauthorization to provide technical assistance for schools and nutrition education for students.

Few things are more important than the food we feed our kids and funding healthier school meals is an investment worth making.

FDA Acts to Protect Consumers from Vibrio in Oysters

2009-10-19

Statement of CSPI Food Safety Director Caroline Smith DeWaal

For 15 years, the Center for Science in the Public Interest has been urging the Food and Drug Administration to protect consumers from Vibrio vulnificus�the deadly bacteria found in almost all Gulf Coast oysters harvested in warmer months. The FDA announced this weekend that the agency will now require those oysters shipped to other states to be processed to kill the pathogen.

That's a major advance for public health, one that will prevent 10 to 25 needless deaths each year. Technology to kill these dangerous bacteria has existed for many years, but the shellfish industry has steadfastly opposed requirements that it be used. Numerous plans to address the hazard have been tried, but they have ultimately proved ineffective.

One plan was effective, but it was only available to the citizens of California. When the state of California banned the sale of untreated Gulf Coast oysters deaths plummeted from about five a year to zero. As the FDA's Mike Taylor said over the weekend, seldom is the evidence of a food safety problem and its solution so unambiguous. This is the approach being adopted for consumers nationwide by the new FDA policy.

More broadly, this move by the new leadership at the FDA is yet another signal that the agency is reasserting its vital public health and consumer protection mission. This long-awaited action on tainted oysters follows FDA's action to require on-farm controls for Salmonella in eggs.

FDA and USDA Not Kept in the Loop on Food Imports, Says GAO

2009-10-15

CSPI Says Gaps in Import Safety Controls Identified are Troubling

WASHINGTON�Multiple agencies share responsibility for ensuring the safety of the increasing volume of imported food, including the Food and Drug Administration, the Agriculture Department's Food Safety and Inspection Service, and Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection division. But in a report made public yesterday, the Government Accountability Office found that those agencies' efforts are hampered by what the GAO said are gaps in enforcement and collaboration.

The report was released at a Global Food Safety Forum on Capitol Hill convened by the Center for Science in the Public Interest and co-hosted by the Waters Corporation, a leading manufacturer of equipment for testing the safety of food and water.

The GAO found that while importers report information about food shipments to the Customs agency, that agency's computer system does not notify FDA or FSIS when shipments arrive at the border, increasing the risk that contaminated food passes through border checkpoints undetected. The report found that Customs and FDA do not use an unique identification number for importers, making it difficult for FDA to track high-risk imports and importers. The report also found that FDA lacks the authority to fine importers who don't comply with its regulations. As a result, importers can ignore rules against selling food shipments before they are cleared by FDA.

"A high and growing portion of the American food supply is imported, so it is essential that those foods meet U.S. safety standards," said CSPI food safety director Caroline Smith DeWaal. "Border inspection provides an important � and sometimes the only � food safety checkpoint. GAO describes a food safety framework for imports that doesn't keep the regulators 'in the loop' to the extent that they can inspect risky products before they are released to the public."

Besides CSPI and Waters, Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), FDA senior advisor Mike Taylor, and representatives from the GAO, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cargill, and Consumers Union made presentations at the policy forum.

In July, the House of Representatives passed the Food Safety Enhancement Act with broad, bipartisan support. That measure would give FDA the authority to require food processors to design and implement food safety plans, provide specific safety standards that growers would have to meet, establish and pilot test tracking systems for foods, and require FDA to visit inspect food facilities regularly. It also addresses problems identified in the GAO report. The House bill calls for closer collaboration between the Customs and Border Protection and the FDA, requires each importer to have and use an unique identification number that is registered with FDA, and gives FDA authority to impose civil fines. In the Senate, similar legislation, sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), is pending.

Leafy Greens, Eggs, & Tuna Top List of Riskiest FDA-Regulated Foods

2009-10-06

CSPI Urges Senate to Pass Food Safety Modernization Act

WASHINGTON�Leafy greens, eggs, and tuna are on the top of a list of the 10 riskiest foods regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. Those and seven other foods account for nearly 40 percent of all foodborne outbreaks linked to FDA-regulated food. That's no reason to forgo the occasional salad Ni�oise, says the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which authored the report, nor need one pass up tomatoes, sprouts, and berries, even though those foods are also on the list. But the nonprofit watchdog group says the presence of so many healthy foods on such a list is exactly why the United States Senate should follow the House and pass legislation that reforms our fossilized food safety laws.

The FDA is responsible for regulating produce, seafood, egg and dairy products, as well as typical packaged foods such as cookie dough and peanut butter�nearly 80 percent of the food supply. More than 1,500 separate, definable outbreaks were associated with the top 10 riskiest FDA-regulated foods, causing nearly 50,000 reported illnesses. Since most foodborne illnesses are never reported, these outbreaks are only the tip of a large, hulking iceberg.

"Outbreaks give the best evidence of where and when the food safety system is failing to protect the public," said CSPI staff attorney Sarah Klein, the lead author of the report. "It is clearly time for FDA's reliance on industry self-regulation to come to an end. The absence of safety plans or frequent inspections unfortunately means that some of our favorite and most healthful foods also top the list of the most risky."

CSPI identified 363 outbreaks linked to iceberg lettuce, romaine, spinach, and other leafy greens, variously contaminated with E. coli, Norovirus, or Salmonella, and causing 13,568 cases of illness. Manure, contaminated irrigation water, or poor handling practices are all possible culprits in those outbreaks. The FDA does not currently require farms and processors to have written food safety plans, nor does it provide specific safety standards for even the largest growers to meet.

Eggs were linked 352 outbreaks and 11,163 illnesses; tuna to 268 outbreaks and 2,341 cases of illness, and oysters�despite their limited consumption�to 132 outbreaks causing 3,409 illnesses. Outbreaks involving potatoes don't seem to make headlines, but nevertheless they are linked to 108 outbreaks and 3,659 cases of illness. Cheese, ice cream, tomatoes, sprouts, and berries round out the top 10 list. The data come from CSPI's Outbreak Alert! Database, which includes outbreaks from 1990 to 2006, using data collected from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other sources.

In July, the House of Representatives passed the Food Safety Enhancement Act with broad, bipartisan support. That measure would give FDA authority to require food processors to design and implement food safety plans, provide specific safety standards that growers would have to meet, and require FDA to visit high-risk facilities every 12 months or less, and most other facilities every 3-4 years. In the Senate, similar legislation, sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), is pending.

"As consumers, we don't have the power to check on these products," said Kathleen Chrismer, whose 9-year-old daughter Rylee Gustafson was hospitalized for a month after becoming seriously ill from eating spinach salad contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. "Without a better system to protect us, we are totally at the mercy of the next outbreak."

Bayer Sued Over Unsupported Prostate Cancer Claims on One A Day

2009-10-01

Drug Giant Tries to Silence CSPI With Threat of Libel Suit

WASHINGTON�The Center for Science in the Public Interest has sued the German drug company Bayer for falsely claiming that the selenium in Men's One A Day multivitamins might reduce the risk of prostate cancer. The lawsuit is filed in the Superior Court of California in San Francisco.

CSPI first contacted Bayer in June to demand that the drug maker alter its marketing of Men's One A Day because the largest prostate cancer prevention trial ever conducted found eight months earlier that selenium supplementation does not prevent prostate cancer. More alarmingly, that study and another found that selenium supplements may increase the risk of diabetes.

A day after CSPI contacted Bayer, the FDA issued a letter containing qualified health claim language for use on labels that said, in part, that it was "highly unlikely that selenium supplements reduce the risk of prostate cancer." That forced Bayer to alter much of its marketing, but it pointedly refused to recall existing packages bearing the false claims. The company also refused to remove all false prostate claims from some marketing for Men's One A Day, and failed to put in writing that it will not make those claims in the future.

Photo Credit: Jeff Cronin
"Bayer continued to run deceptive ads even after SELECT found that selenium supplements weren't helping and might even be hurting," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson.

"Given Bayer's long history of wrongdoing in other cases, CSPI is acting to ensure that Bayer is permanently stopped from deceiving consumers about selenium," said CSPI litigation director Stephen Gardner.

The largest prostate cancer prevention trial ever conducted found that the mineral selenium was no more effective in reducing prostate cancer risk than a placebo. That trial, the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial, known as SELECT, was halted early when it became clear that the men were not benefiting from selenium and may have developed more cases of diabetes than men in the control group. Another study of selenium and prostate cancer found an alarming three-fold increased risk of diabetes among men taking selenium.

Writing about the SELECT trial in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Peter Gann of the University of Illinois at Chicago cautioned that "physicians should not recommend selenium or vitamin E�or any other antioxidant supplements�to their patients for preventing prostate cancer." Hopes that selenium might be beneficial to the prostate were further dashed when a 2009 study of men with prostate cancer found more aggressive cases of the disease in men with high selenium blood levels and a common genetic trait shared by three out of four men.

"Bayer has been giving American men false hope about the selenium in One A Day multivitamins," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "Bayer continued to run deceptive ads even after SELECT found that selenium supplements weren't helping and might even be hurting."

In a recent letter to CSPI, Bayer threatened to sue CSPI for libel for calling attention to Bayer's selenium claims. Much of Bayer's courtroom experience, however, comes as a criminal or civil defendant.

In 2001, Bayer paid $14 million to U.S. and state governments to settle allegations that the company's actions helped health care providers submit inflated Medicaid claims for drugs.

In 2003, Bayer pleaded guilty to a criminal charge and paid $257 million in fines and penalties after a whistleblower exposed a scheme by the company to overcharge for the antibiotic Cipro. Media accounts at the time described it as the biggest recovery for Medicaid fraud.

In 2004, Bayer pleaded guilty to a criminal charge and paid a $66 million fine after a Justice Department investigation into Bayer's role in a price-fixing conspiracy involving a chemical used to make rubber products. Two Bayer executives separately pleaded guilty and were sentenced to prison for their role in the scandal.

In 2007, Bayer paid $8 million to resolve allegations by state attorneys general that the company failed to warn physicians and consumers about safety issues surrounding its cholesterol-lowering drug Baycol, which is no longer on the market.

Bayer has even gotten into hot water with the federal government in the past over its One A Day marketing. In 2007, it paid a $3.2 million civil fine as part of a consent decree reached with the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice. The case centered on weight-loss claims that the FTC said violated an earlier order requiring that all health claims for One A Day be supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence. CSPI says that Bayer's prostate claims for Men's One A Day violate the consent decree, which could compound the company's legal problems.

And this year, Bayer was required to run a $20-million corrective advertising campaign about its birth control pill Yaz, and to submit its ads for FDA approval, as part of a legal settlement secured by a number of state attorneys general and the FDA.

"Bayer's threat to sue CSPI is clearly designed to have a chilling effect on free speech and to intimidate us into silence," Jacobson said. "I'm confident, however, that the FTC, the FDA, and the courts will all take careful note of the facts of this case, as well as Bayer's long history of flouting the law. It takes a lot of chutzpah for a company with such a long record of corporate malfeasance to level libel charges against a nonprofit organization."

CSPI is suing on behalf of itself and its members, and is represented by its in-house litigators Stephen Gardner and Katherine Campbell, alongside Harry Shulman of The Mills Law Firm of San Rafael, Calif., and Washington, D.C.-based lawyers Steven N. Berk and Chris Nidel.

Taxing Soda Could Trim State Deficits (and Waistlines), Says Report

2009-09-30

"I actually think it's an idea that we should be exploring.There's no doubt that our kids drink way too much soda." � President Barack Obama to Men's Health

WASHINGTON�Even as 48 states and the District of Columbia are facing grim budget shortfalls, only 25 states currently impose special taxes on soda and other beverages with added sugar, and all of those taxes are very small. And according to a new paper from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, states could generate a total of more than $10 billion per year by levying a tax of 7 cents per 12-ounce can of Coke or Mountain Dew. If implemented by Congress in the form of a national excise tax, that $10 billion could make an important contribution toward paying for health coverage for all Americans.

Plus, says CSPI, the decrease in soda consumption due to a higher price would help reduce the incidence of obesity, diabetes and other costly chronic diseases. Americans spend approximately $147 billion a year on medical expenditures related to obesity, of which half is paid with Medicare and Medicaid dollars.

CSPI's report comes shortly after seven prominent nutrition experts made the case for a tax on soda in a separate paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Earlier this month, the prestigious Institute of Medicine included soda taxes as one of several policies that should be adopted to help reduce obesity, and a Brookings Institution committee on health reform, led by former Medicare and Food and Drug Administration director Mark McClellan, issued a report that called for a soft-drink tax. President Obama's interview with Men's Health magazine is further renewing interest in soda taxes, according to CSPI.

"President Obama is exactly right when he say kids are drinking too much soda," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "Soda is dirt cheap and promotes expensive and debilitating diseases, which in turn run up health-care costs at all levels of government. Federal, state, and even local governments would be wise to institute or increase taxes on a product that causes so much medical and financial harm."

Also recently, a joint statewide study from the California Center for Public Health Advocacy and the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research confirmed that soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages are one of the largest�if not the largest�contributors to obesity. According to the study, the 24 percent of adults who drink one or more non-diet sodas a day are 27 percent more likely to be overweight than adults who don't drink soda.

On its web site, CSPI has a Liquid Candy Calculator that enables legislative staffers or citizens to calculate the revenue their state could raise from sales or excise taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages.

The Senate Finance Committee raised the prospect of soda taxes and higher alcohol taxes when it released a policy options paper on health care reform in May. Such taxes were not included in the draft legislation released by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) yesterday, nor have they been offered in an amendment during the committee's ongoing markup, but CSPI and other health groups are still urging members of both houses of Congress to include soda taxes in the final legislation.

"About half of the states have small soda taxes and there certainly hasn't been any outrage over them," said Jacobson. "If the Senate Finance Committee decides to leave these billions and billions of dollars on the table, I suspect more state legislatures will tap soda taxes to help pay for their own prevention efforts. In fact, more states could do what New York City is doing, and fund an ad campaign designed to discourage soda consumption."

Food Industry Seeks to Maintain Junk-Food Marketing in Schools

2009-09-22

Bill Introduced Today Seeks Thorough Study of School-Based Marketing

WASHINGTON�Despite rising public concern over childhood obesity, food companies, through an industry-funded self-regulatory group, have proposed a set of "principles" by which the companies can use a variety of approaches to market junk food to children in schools. The nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest today urged the industry group to go back to the chalk board and consider whether Ronald McDonald truly belongs in the classroom. Also today, a bill introduced in Congress would require the Department of Education to conduct a thorough assessment of school-based food marketing.

The industry document at issue is a "Fact Sheet on the Elementary School Advertising Principles" released by the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, which is funded by industry and administered by the Council of Better Business Bureaus.

Members of the initiative include Burger King, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Hershey Company, McDonald's, Campbell Soup Company, and other major food companies. The fact sheet begins with an introduction stating that the member "companies agree that they will not advertise any food or beverage in elementary schools," and lists coupons, food samples, posters, and book covers among several other forms of prohibited advertising. That sounds promising, but the document then spends much of the following 10 pages describing what food marketing it does not include, such as marketing on vending machine exteriors, label-collection programs, branded display racks, tray liners that promote food sold in schools, and menu boards, many of the techniques that are used most widely in schools.

The self-regulatory scheme also allows companies to sponsor curricula, other educational materials, and public service announcements. "Spokescharacters" like Ronald McDonald or Tony the Tiger are allowed, as is the sale�by students�of low-nutrition foods in fundraisers. It even omits the most common form of in-school marketing: the sale of the food itself. Although some of the CFBAI-participating companies have pledged to address school food sales through an agreement with the Clinton Foundation and American Heart Association, the majority of companies have not.

In a letter to Elaine Kolish, the initiative's director, CSPI also expressed concern that the guidelines only cover elementary schools (K-6). At the very least, the guidelines should cover middle schools, where the average 6th grader is 11 years old. Nor do the guidelines apply during after-school activities.

"These principles are a sham, written more to protect the commercial needs of food marketers than the health of children," said CSPI nutrition policy director Margo G. Wootan. "It's bad enough that junk food is still available for kids to buy in schools. But who wants their son or daughter to be enlisted in an unpaid, drone army actually selling junk food?"

Pizza Hut's Book It! Program is an example of an in-school marketing program that is allowed under the principles outlined in the industry fact sheet, since the Pizza Hut logo is small compared to other text on the materials. Logo aside, it is the prospect of free Pizza Hut pizza that really captures children's attention. (Yum! Brands [Pizza Hut's parent company], Chuck E. Cheese's, Topps Candy, and a number of other major marketers to children have not joined the self-regulatory program.)

"Schools should teach the joys of reading," said Wootan. "Programs like Pizza Hut's turn reading into a commercial proposition that, unfortunately, ends up promoting obesity and disease in children." Experts warn against using food as a reward, which can instill in children lifetime habits of rewarding or comforting themselves with unhealthy food behaviors.

CSPI says that without a substantial expansion of the marketing principles the food industry's self-regulatory system won't adequately protect kids' health.

"With a new Administration, a re-animated Federal Trade Commission, and more city and state governments interested in aggressively tackling the problem of childhood obesity, we're likely to see reforms that far surpass what the industry is willing to do voluntarily," Wootan said.

The legislation introduced today, sponsored by Representatives Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Todd Platt (R-PA), would require the U.S. Department of Education, along with the Division of Adolescent and School Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to assess the nutritional quality of foods available in schools and the forms of food marketing in schools. The legislation is supported by a broad coalition of national and state health groups, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, and the Trust for America's Health.

Makers of Quorn, the Chicken-Flavored Fungus, Sued for Not Disclosing Dangerous Reactions

2009-09-17

Vat-Grown Mold Tastes Like Chicken but Makes Some Violently Ill

WASHINGTON�An Arizona woman has filed a class action lawsuit accusing Quorn Foods of not disclosing on labels the fact that some people have serious allergic reactions to the main ingredient in its Quorn line of meat substitutes. That ingredient happens to be a fungus�mold, actually�discovered in the 1960s in a British dirt sample. The company grows the fungus in vats and processes it into a fibrous, proteinaceous paste. But more than a thousand people have reported to the Center for Science in the Public Interest that they have suffered adverse reactions, including nausea, violent vomiting, uncontrollable diarrhea, and even life-threatening anaphylactic reactions after eating the patties, cutlets, tenders and other products made with Quorn's fungus.

Photo Credit: Stacey Greene
"I was vomiting so hard," said Kathy Cardinale, who ate these Quorn patties.

The nonprofit food safety and nutrition watchdog group is serving as co-counsel in the case. Connecticut State Marshals are serving the company, whose U.S. headquarters are in that state, with the suit today. The case is filed in Superior Court in the Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk.

Kathy Cardinale, a 43-year-old advertising executive, ate Quorn's Chik'n Patties on three separate occasions in 2008. Each time, within two hours of eating the product, Cardinale became violently ill. Thinking she had had a stomach virus, Cardinale didn't realize that she was reacting to the Quorn until the third time she ate one of the patties, after which she vomited seven or eight times within two hours.

"I felt like the soles of my feet were going to come out of my mouth, I was vomiting so hard," said Cardinale. "Once I began to research Quorn online I realized I wasn't alone and that other people had similar stories. It was unbelievable to me that the company knew this was going on and wasn't warning consumers about these problems."

Photo Credit: Stacey Greene
Clockwise from upper left: Quorn's shape-shifting fungus takes the form of "chik'n", "turk'y", or unspecified "grounds."

Quorn Foods, which is British-owned, markets its signature organism as being related to mushrooms, truffles, and morels, since all of those are fungi. While that's true, it's as misleading as claiming that humans are related to jellyfish since they're both animals, according to CSPI. Quorn's fungus is named Fusarium venenatum�"venenatum" is Latin for "venomous."

As early as 1977, a study found that some people have adverse reactions to Fusarium venenatum. That unpublished study conducted by Quorn's developer found that 10 percent of 200 test subjects who ate the fungus experienced nausea, vomiting, or other gastrointestinal symptoms, compared with five percent in a control group. The company claims the rate of illness is trivial, though a 2005 telephone survey of consumers in Britain�where the products have been marketed longer and more widely than in the United States�commissioned by CSPI found that almost five percent of Quorn eaters experienced adverse reactions. That was a higher percentage of people than that of those who reported allergies to shellfish, milk, peanuts or other common food allergens. Since 2002, more than 1,400 British and American consumers have filed adverse reaction reports on a website maintained by CSPI, quorncomplaints.org.

"It's almost unheard of for a company to market something as healthy when it actually makes a significant percentage of its customers sick within minutes or hours," said CSPI litigation director Steve Gardner. "It is the company's legal obligation to warn consumers about these serious adverse reactions, and getting the company to meet that obligation is the purpose of this lawsuit."

"Quorn Foods should either find a fungus that doesn't make people sick, or place prominent warning labels about the vomiting, diarrhea, breathing difficulties, and other symptoms Quorn causes in some consumers," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson.

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not disagree that Quorn products cause sometimes-severe allergic reactions, the agency still considers the Quorn ingredient to be "generally recognized as safe."

"At a time when the public and doctors are deeply concerned about the rise in food allergies, it is deeply distressing that the FDA knowingly permitted a powerful new allergen into the food supply," said Jacobson. "We call on the FDA to revisit its policy."

CSPI's litigation department has, since its founding in 2004, sued a number of leading national food companies and has secured agreements improving food labeling, marketing, or product formulation with Anheuser Busch, Frito-Lay, Kellogg, KFC, Kraft, Sara Lee and other companies. CSPI's litigation activities helped spur the removal of artificial trans fat from restaurant food and helped return millions of dollars to consumers from makers of the dietary supplement Airborne.

Daniel Blinn of the Connecticut firm Consumer Law Group is serving as co-counsel in the case alongside CSPI's litigation unit.

Domino's Fat-on-Carb-on-Carb Food Porn: BreadBowl Pastas

2009-08-27

WASHINGTON�Most people wouldn't consider eating an entire medium hand-tossed cheese pizza from Domino's in one sitting. And these days, most folks are carb-concious enough not to order pizza as a side order to pasta, or vice-versa. So why is Domino's trying to turn back the nutritional clock with its 1,300- to 1,500-calorie BreadBowl Pastas�white-flour penne, sauce, cheese, and other toppings entombed in Frisbee-sized white-bread crusts? Domino's BreadBowl Pastas are the most recent Food Porn exposed in Nutrition Action Healthletter, the popular publication of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

"White-flour pasta with cream-cheese sauce can be a nutritional nightmare on its own," said CSPI senior nutritionist Jayne Hurley. "The last thing it needs is an 800-calorie white-bread pizza-crust bowl."

Savvy eaters will remember that more than a decade ago CSPI famously called fettuccine Alfredo a "heart attack on a plate." Domino's executives seem to have forgotten since the infamous cream sauce tops three out of the five BreadBowl Pastas�the Chicken Alfredo, the Chicken Carbonara and even the innocently named Pasta Primavera. There is also an Italian Sausage Marinara (with Provolone cheese) and Three Cheese Mac-N-Cheese. The items range from 1,340 to 1,480 calories and more than a day's worth of saturated fat (22 to 28 grams) and sodium (1,820 to 2,840 milligrams).

"Topping a pizza crust with an order of macaroni and cheese is probably the most discouraging mac-and-cheese innovation since The Cheesecake Factory decided to ball it up and toss it in the deep-fryer," Hurley said. "What's next, wrapping it in a giant blueberry pancake?"

Nutrition Action Healthletter spotlights a Food Porn in each issue alongside a Right Stuff, recommendation. Past Food Porns include Starbucks' Salted Caramel Hot Chocolate, Cold Stone Creamery's Oh Fudge! shake, and Hardee's Thickburger. Introductory subscriptions to Nutrition Action are $10 per year.

Cookie Dough is Last Straw for Congress

2009-07-30

Food Safety Reform Legislation Passes House, Heads to Senate

WASHINGTON�After years of outbreaks of foodborne illness connected to everything from peanuts to peppers to pet food, and most recently, cookie dough, legislation to reform the nation's food safety system has passed the House of Representatives and is headed to the Senate. The nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest hailed the House passage of the Food Safety Enhancement Act as an urgently needed step to help restore Americans' confidence in the food supply.

Under the current system, food manufacturing facilities might be visited by an inspector from the Food and Drug Administration only once every five or 10 years. The bill that passed the House today increases food inspections dramatically: every six to 12 months for high risk facilities; every 18 months to three years for low-risk facilities; and every five years for warehouses. The bill requires companies to identify hazards particular to the foods they produce, and to implement written food safety plans to control those hazards. The bill also gives the FDA authority to issue mandatory recalls of contaminated foods and provides for tougher penalties for negligent processors.

"Consumers want safe foods, and we are tired of having to ask whether the healthy foods we're buying for our families are contaminated with deadly bacteria," said CSPI food safety director Caroline Smith DeWaal. "FDA has been operating under the same law for 70 years and can do little more than respond to outbreaks after the fact. This bill gives the FDA more authority and real enforcement teeth to help prevent more outbreaks, illnesses, and deaths."

The bill is widely supported by a diverse coalition of consumer and health groups and is expected to come before the Senate in the fall.

Unsafe Sodium Levels at Denny's Prompt Class Action Lawsuit

2009-07-23

Denny's Meals, With Several Days' Worth of Salt, Promote Heart Disease, Stroke, Risk of Early Death

WASHINGTON�Most Denny's meals are dangerously high in sodium, putting the restaurant chain's customers at greater risk of high blood pressure, heart attack and stroke, according to a class action lawsuit filed today by a New Jersey man with the support of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

The lawsuit was filed in Superior Court of New Jersey in Middlesex County, and seeks to compel Denny's to disclose on menus the amount of sodium in each of its meals and to place a notice on its menus warning about high sodium levels. CSPI is working with the New Jersey firms of Galex Wolf, LLC and Williams Cuker Berezofsky.

Most Americans should consume no more than 1,500 milligrams of sodium per day, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But at Denny's, the great majority of its meals contain more, and in some cases, several times more. Some meals at Denny's provide more than 4,000 or 5,000 mg of sodium�more than most adults should consume in three days. Diets high in sodium are a major cause of high blood pressure, which in turn is a major cause of heart disease and stroke, the first- and third-leading causes of death in the United States.

Photo Credit: Jeff Cronin
A Spicy Buffalo Chicken Melt with regular fries would have 4,120 mg of sodium; with seasoned fries instead (shown) it has 4,880 mg. Start off this meal with clam chowder and it would have 6,700 mg of sodium.

"Denny's is slowly sickening its customers," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "For those Americans who should be most careful about limiting their sodium, such as people middle-aged and older, African-Americans, or people with existing high blood pressure, it's dangerous to eat at Denny's. Denny's customers deserve to be warned about the considerable health risk posed by many of these meals."

The plaintiff, Nick DeBenedetto, is a 48-year-old resident of Tinton Falls, NJ, who has eaten for many years at Denny's restaurants in East Brunswick and Brick, NJ. DeBenedetto takes a prescription medication to control his high blood pressure and at home does not cook with salt or use the salt shaker. Some of his favorite Denny's items, such as Moons Over My Hammy or the Super Bird turkey sandwich, contain far more than 1,500 mg of sodium�even without soup, salad, fried onion rings, or other side dishes.

"I was astonished�I mean, literally floored�to find that these simple sandwiches have more salt than someone in my condition should have in a whole day," DeBenedetto said. "It's as if Denny's is stacking the deck against people like me. I never would have selected those items had I known."

Moons Over My Hammy, a ham, egg, and cheese sandwich, has 2,580 mg of sodium by itself�more than even a healthy young person should consume in a day. It's served with hash browns (adding 650 mg of sodium) or grits (an additional 840 mg).

The Super Bird sandwich, served with regular French fries, has 2,610 mg of sodium�more than twice what someone with high blood pressure should consume in a day.

Denny's Meat Lover's Scramble, which has two eggs with chopped bacon, diced ham, crumbled sausage, Cheddar cheese, plus two bacon strips, two sausage links, hash browns, and two pancakes has 5,690 mg sodium, or 379 percent of the advised daily limit.

A full meal at Denny's consisting of a bowl of clam chowder, a Spicy Buffalo Chicken Melt, and a side of seasoned fries contains an alarmingly high 6,700 mg of sodium. It's a big meal, to be sure, with about 1,700 calories. But that's more sodium than what 70 percent of Americans should consume in four and a half days.

Even many of the smaller meals advertised for children and seniors have inappropriately high sodium levels.

Many health experts consider high dietary sodium levels to be one of the nation's top health threats. Dr. Stephen Havas, adjunct professor of preventive medicine at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine, says that reducing the sodium content of packaged and restaurant foods by half would save at least 150,000 lives per year.

For some people, particularly Denny's elderly patrons, getting several days' worth of sodium in a single meal might be enough to trigger congestive heart failure.

"As a physician, I have grave concerns about the sodium levels at Denny's, and grave concerns about an elderly person or someone with hypertension eating even one such meal," Havas said. "The body can have a hard time getting rid of that much salt, potentially leading to fluid retention and accumulation in the lungs. Consuming that much sodium can have severe consequences."

Denny's describes itself as the largest full-service family restaurant in the United States, with more than 1,500 restaurants and annual sales of $2.4 billion.

"By concealing an important material fact about its products�namely, that that these foods have disease-promoting levels of sodium�Denny's is failing its responsibility to its customers and is in violation of the laws of New Jersey and several other states," said CSPI litigation director Steve Gardner.

Denny's and CSPI had been in private negotiations over sodium, but those talks ended earlier this year. Shortly thereafter, the chain made small sodium reductions in a handful of items, like cheese sauce, shrimp skewers and kids' meals, but the chain did not make the kind of broad sodium reductions or menu disclosures urged by CSPI.

The lawsuit filed today against Denny's is CSPI's first sodium-related lawsuit against a food company. Separately, CSPI has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to regulate salt as a food additive and to restrict sodium levels in various categories of food.

Obama Administration Takes Welcome Actions on Food Safety

2009-07-07

Working Group Advances E. Coli, Salmonella Protections

WASHINGTON�The food safety working group created by President Barack Obama has directed the various government agencies involved in food safety to place new emphasis on preventing contamination�a move that the Center for Science in the Public Interest says bodes well for the reform legislation moving through Congress. And, says CSPI, it's an important sign that the current administration sees a more active role for government in ensuring the safety of food than previous ones.

For starters, the FDA announced that a long-awaited rule governing the safety of shell eggs has finally hatched.

"This is a good beginning for the Obama Administration when it comes to food safety," says CSPI food safety director Caroline Smith DeWaal. "But it faces many tests of how quickly the administration can fix a weakened federal food safety structure and reverse course on policies wrongly decided under the Bush Administration. Congress must pass the Food Safety Enhancement Act to give the FDA the statutory foundation needed as well as increased financial resources to restore Americans' confidence in the safety of our food supply."

The working group proposed a series of specific activities to reduce the risk of Salmonella and deadly E. coli in the food supply. The recommendations cover FDA- and USDA-regulated foods including eggs, chicken, turkey, beef, leafy greens, melons, and tomatoes. The working group was chaired by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack.

Under the proposal, the two agencies will provide guidance to increase traceability in the food supply in advance of legislation requiring it. The working group also proposed steps to increase the effectiveness of outbreak surveillance among federal, state and local agencies in addition to using web-based social media to notify consumers of food safety problems.

In a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg last week, CSPI urged the agency to reinstate a zero-tolerance policy for the lethal Listeria monocytogenes bacteria, which can grow in refrigerated soft cheeses, smoked seafood, and lunch meats; to require the shellfish industry to treat all Gulf Coast oysters harvested during warmer months to kill the deadly Vibrio vulnificus bacteria; and to strengthen its advice to vulnerable consumers on eating fish with high levels of methylmercury.

CSPI had long urged the FDA to finalize the egg rule announced today. That rule will require on-farm controls and expanded microbial testing to eliminate Salmonella Enteriditis in shell eggs. A version of that rule languished for years since CSPI first petitioned the FDA in 1998 to issue such a regulation.

In June, the Food Safety Enhancement Act cleared a key hurdle in the House of Representatives when it was voted unanimously out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The bill, spearheaded by Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Chairman Emeritus John Dingell (D-MI), requires food processors to identify potential hazards and develop written action plans to prevent contamination. It also requires the FDA to conduct more frequent inspections of food processors and importers, and gives the agency the authority to issue mandatory recalls of contaminated food.

"For far too long, FDA has not had the staff, funding, or even the legal authority to get the job done," said DeWaal. "Things have gotten so bad that even the food industry is clamoring for reform, which is not surprising as consumer confidence in the food industry has fallen to less than 20 percent. But most important, American consumers face a never-ending stream of food- safety failures that result in having to avoid tainted fruits, vegetables, peanut butter, even cookie dough. The time for modernizing our federal food safety system is long overdue."

Governors Urged to Block Sale of Untreated Gulf Coast Oysters

2009-07-02

Deadly Vibrio Bacteria Common in Summer Months

WASHINGTON�The nation's governors are being called upon to ban the sale of untreated oysters from the Gulf Coast since they are often contaminated with the deadly Vibrio vulnificus bacteria. For people with liver or kidney disease, AIDS, cancer, diabetes or other conditions that can compromise the immune system, Vibrio vulnificus kills half the people it infects. It has been causing about 15 deaths a year for many years.

In 2003, California banned the sale of untreated Gulf Coast oysters harvested in summer months and saw the number of vibrio-related deaths plummet from about 6 per year to zero in the five years since. Many safety-conscious retailers, such as Legal Sea Foods and Costco, only sell Gulf Coast oysters that have been processed with cold pasteurization, hydrostatic pressure, or another technology that can kill Vibrio vulnificus without affecting taste. Those and similar processes cost merely pennies per oyster.

"Letting untreated Gulf Coast oysters reach consumers this summer will needlessly sentence several of them to death," said CSPI staff attorney Sarah Klein. "Unfortunately the Food and Drug Administration has abdicated its responsibility to ensure shellfish safety and instead lets the industry police itself with minimal oversight. That's proven to be a deadly mistake."

For the past eight years the FDA has relied on the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference to monitor food safety in shellfish. That group includes representatives of the FDA and other government agencies, but also includes representatives of the shellfish industry. It does not require that processors kill Vibrio vulnificus during the dangerous summer months. Under the ISSC framework, more than 125 people have died agonizing deaths from contaminated oysters and another 125 people suffered serious illnesses. Despite the failure of the ISSC to control Vibrio, FDA is poised to grant a three-year extension while the industry tries other techniques�such as changing refrigeration temperatures�rather than making effective changes.

"The Gulf Coast oyster industry has privately acknowledged that it has the capacity to perform post-harvest processing on 100 percent of their oysters, but refuse to do so until demand for treated product is clear," wrote Klein to 49 governors and the mayor of the District of Columbia. "We urge you to require that only safe oysters be sold in your communities, an approach that will reduce medical costs and save lives."

CSPI says untreated oysters harvested from Gulf Coast waters from April to October should be subject to state bans and, meanwhile, consumers should avoid consuming such oysters.

CSPI Urges FDA to Seize Stockpiles of Bayer One A Day for Men

2009-06-29

New Evidence Undermines Bayer's Prostate Health Claims

WASHINGTON�For most men with prostate cancer, the dietary supplement selenium may promote more aggressive cases of the disease, according to a new study. Besides being bad news for men who have taken selenium in the hope of avoiding prostate cancer, the study comes at an inconvenient time for Bayer Healthcare, which was notified recently that it will be sued if it continues to claim that the selenium in its One A Day vitamins for men reduces risk of the disease or otherwise benefits the prostate.

Today, the Center for Science in the Public Interest filed a formal complaint with the Food and Drug Administration over the various prostate claims on One A Day's labeling. The claim that the selenium in One A Day Men's Health Formula reduces the risk of prostate cancer gives the product the status of an unapproved drug, and is therefore illegal. Even the more general claim Bayer uses to promote that and another men's supplement that selenium "supports prostate health" is deceptive and illegal since it is unsubstantiated by scientific evidence and implies that the product can reduce the risk of prostate cancer. No published studies have investigated whether selenium helps or hurts when it comes to the only other common prostate problem, benign prostatic hyperplasia, or enlarged prostate. CSPI says the FDA should seize existing stockpiles of the deceptively labeled products until the company corrects the labels.

Coincidentally, on June 19, the FDA authorized a very negatively worded "qualified health claim" which Bayer is unlikely to use, according to CSPI. It reads:

Two weak studies suggest that selenium intake may reduce the risk of prostate cancer. However, four stronger studies and three weak studies showed no reduction in risk. Based on these studies, FDA concludes that it is highly unlikely that selenium supplements reduce the risk of prostate cancer.

Even if Bayer wanted to use that new claim, it could not since it only applies to a certain form of selenium, selenomethionine. Bayer uses the selenate form of the mineral in One A Day pills.

To prevent consumers from being misled, CSPI said that FDA must halt not only the claim that selenium reduces the risk of cancer, but also the milder claim about supporting prostate health. CSPI says that "supports prostate health" is deceptive because there's no good evidence to support it.

On June 18, besides notifying Bayer of a potential lawsuit, CSPI filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission over Bayer's advertising. Some of the leading prostate cancer researchers in the country wrote the FTC in support of CSPI's complaint. Bayer has yet to respond to CSPI's demand letter, but news reports indicate that the company may already be retreating from claiming selenium reduces risk of prostate cancer, but has not promised to remove the more generally deceptive claims concerning "prostate health."

In the latest study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, researchers at the University of California at San Francisco looked at men with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer, and found more aggressive cases of cancer in men with high selenium blood levels and the V genotype for an antioxidant enzyme found in most cells. Seventy-five percent of men have the V genotype; only 25 percent of men have the AA genotype which seems to reduce their risk of aggressive prostate cancer. The findings "indicate caution against broad use of selenium supplementation for men with prostate cancer," the authors wrote.

Yet another study, this one published this month in the journal Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, found that men with higher blood selenium levels were more likely to have hypertension than men with lower blood selenium levels.

The most ambitious examination ever conducted to see if selenium prevents prostate cancer, the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT), was actually halted early when researchers discovered that besides not preventing prostate cancer, selenium supplements might have been causing diabetes in the men assigned to take it.

"Bayer must be stopped from promoting its selenium-containing products as a means of reducing prostate cancer risk and promoting prostate health," said CSPI senior nutritionist David Schardt. "Not only does selenium not prevent cancer, supplementation with selenium may be harmful."

Bayer is a repeat offender when it comes to misleading claims on labeling and advertising, according to CSPI. In 2007, it paid a $3.2 million fine as part of a consent decree reached with the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice over weight-loss claims made in connection with another One A Day product. Bayer is also running a $20-million corrective advertising campaign about its birth control pill Yaz at the behest of the FDA and a number of state attorneys general.

"By violating the terms of the FTC consent decree, Bayer could be held in contempt of court," said CSPI litigation director Steve Gardner. "The FTC should penalize Bayer substantially, and require corrective advertising. In addition, the FDA should coordinate with the FTC to stop all claims that fall within its jurisdiction."

In separate letters, today, the CSPI urged Major League Baseball and the Prostate Cancer Foundation to stop lending their names to a promotional campaign for Bayer One A Day. Bayer and MLB jointly contribute $10 to the foundation for every strikeout thrown by a major league pitcher. The amount of money that the charity stands to gain in a typical season, then, would be in the $350,000 ballpark, in all likelihood a small fraction of the profits that Bayer rakes in from the deceptive labeling and advertising.

President Urged to Form "Healthy Weights, Healthy Lives Commission"

2009-06-22

Physicians and Health Groups Ask for Bold Action to Reverse Obesity Epidemic

WASHINGTON�Some of the country's leading physicians, health organizations, and nutrition experts are asking President Barack Obama to create a Presidential Commission on Healthy Weights, Healthy Lives focused on combating obesity. In a letter to the President, the experts say that the broad and well-funded approach of the United Kingdom's anti-obesity strategy could serve as a model for a similar effort here.

The authors of the letter say that reducing obesity would be a powerful way of reducing health-care costs, and that a presidential commission would help stimulate and coordinate the activities of the Departments of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and other agencies involved in food and health policy.

"The increased rates of obesity will negate many of our nation's investments in health-care and could actually condemn youths to shorter life spans than their parents," the letter states. "Each year, obesity causes tens of thousands of premature deaths and tens of billions of dollars in avoidable medical costs. Obesity also leads to heart-wrenching psychosocial problems, such as difficulty making friends, stigmatization, and discrimination in employment."

Signatories to the letter include the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which organized the effort, the American Diabetes Association, American Public Health Association, National Consumers League, Partnership for Prevention, Shape Up America, Trust for America's Health, United Fresh Produce Association, and a number of state-level organizations. Individuals on the letter include Kelly Brownell of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, Christopher Gardner of the Stanford Prevention Research Center, Lewis Landsberg of the Northwestern University Comprehensive Center on Obesity, and Barry Popkin of the University of North Carolina School of Public Health.

"Both the President and the First Lady have been enthusiastic proponents of healthy eating, gardening, and improving school foods, and the Administration is sending so many of the right signals with regard to appointments," said CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson. "Their challenge is to harness the new national excitement about nutrition and translate that into government policies that actually promote health. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has inherited a lot of policies that promote obesity and that need reversing."

Obesity is a risk factor for heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, and certain types of cancer. Obesity leads to about $95 billion a year in medical expenditures, half of which are paid through Medicare and Medicaid. Those costs are fueled by obesity rates that have increased in both children 6 to 19 and adults by 50 percent in the last 20 years.

And Now Cookie Dough?

2009-06-19

Statement of CSPI Food Safety Attorney Sarah Klein

If there was anyone left in America who didn't realize we need to reform the food safety functions at the Food and Drug Administration, this latest recall of Nestle Toll House Cookie Dough provides a sobering wakeup call. For too long the agency has lacked the authority and the resources it needs to inspect food processing facilities, issue mandatory recalls, and punish violators. Once again the agency is forced to react after illnesses are already occurring, when the focus should be on preventing contamination in the first place. We urge the House to pass the Food Safety Enhancement Act now.

Everyone should take care to follow the FDA's guidance and dispose of any of the various prepackaged, refrigerated cookie dough products produced by Nestle until further notice.

Bayer Ads Misleading Men About Prostate Cancer, Says CSPI

2009-06-18

Watchdog Group Notifies Bayer of Intent to Sue and Files Complaint with the Federal Trade Commission

WASHINGTON�The Center for Science in the Public Interest has notified Bayer Healthcare that it will sue the company if it continues to claim that the selenium in its One A Day vitamins may reduce men's risk of prostate cancer, the health group announced today.

Advertisements and labels for One A Day Men's 50+ Advantage and One A Day Men's Health Formula multivitamins claim that "emerging research" suggests that selenium may reduce the risk of prostate cancer. "Did you know that there are more new cases of prostate cancer each year than any other cancer?" intones the narrator one such radio ad. "Now there is something you can do."

Photo Credit: Jeff Cronin
There is little evidence to prove the selenium in One A Day Men's Health Formula vitamins reduce the risk of prostate cancer.

But leading prostate cancer researchers say there is scant evidence to support such a claim and have joined CSPI in urging the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to put an immediate stop to the deceptive claims.

"Bayer is exploiting men's fear of prostate cancer just to sell more pills," said CSPI senior nutritionist David Schardt. "The largest prostate cancer prevention trial has found that selenium is no more effective than a placebo. Bayer is ripping people off when it suggests otherwise in these dishonest ads."

A seven-year, $118-million study funded by the National Institutes of Health found last year that selenium does not prevent prostate cancer in healthy men. The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) involving 35,000 U.S. and Canadian men was halted in October when researchers determined that selenium was not protecting the men from prostate cancer and may have been causing diabetes in some of them.

The only study to find that selenium might prevent prostate cancer in men was the Nutritional Prevention of Cancer (NPC) trial, which unexpectedly found in 1996 that selenium supplementation seemed to prevent prostate cancer in men with a history of skin cancer. However, two later analyses of the NPC results determined that only a small minority of men may have benefited from selenium supplementation and that selenium almost tripled the risk of developing diabetes. That led to a dramatic warning from the American College of Physicians that "long-term selenium supplementation should not be viewed as harmless and a possibly healthy way to prevent illness."

In an editorial accompanying publication of the SELECT study results in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Peter Gann of the University of Illinois at Chicago urged that "physicians should not recommend selenium or vitamin E�or any other antioxidant supplements�to their patients for preventing prostate cancer."

Yet, Bayer still touts selenium's promise in preventing unspecified prostate "issues" and in reducing prostate cancer risk.

"With these indefensible claims, Bayer is thumbing its nose at the Food and Drug Administration, the FTC, and any number of state consumer protection laws," said CSPI litigation director Steve Gardner. "A courtroom would be treacherous territory for Bayer, whose executives would be committing perjury just by reciting their ads under oath."

In recent years CSPI's litigation department has negotiated settlements or voluntary changes to marketing practices with Airborne, Anheuser-Busch, Frito-Lay, Kellogg, Pinnacle Foods, Quaker Oats, and others.

Besides announcing its intention to sue Bayer, CSPI also filed a complaint today with the FTC. That complaint states that because Bayer's ads have for so long reinforced the false notion that selenium prevents prostate cancer�and because selenium may actually increase the risk of diabetes�the company should be required to run a corrective advertising campaign. (Bayer is now running corrective advertising at the behest of the Food and Drug Administration and state Attorneys General about yet another one of its products, its birth control pill Yaz.)

CSPI says the prostate cancer claims for One A Day supplements for men violate a consent decree the company signed with the FTC in 2007. That year Bayer paid a $3.2 million fine related to weight-loss claims made on behalf of One A Day multivitamin WeightSmart, and agreed not to make unsubstantiated claims in the future.

Separately, some of the most prominent prostate cancer researchers in the United States wrote to the FTC in support of CSPI's complaint about Bayer's advertising. The SELECT trial "was the largest individually randomized cancer prevention trial ever conducted, and, given its high rates of adherence and its statistical power, it is unlikely to have missed detecting a benefit of even a very modest size," wrote the researchers. "Bayer Healthcare is doing a disservice to men by misleading them about a protective role for selenium in prostate cancer."

Signatories include Peter Gann and Maarten Bosland of the University of Illinois at Chicago, Ed Giovannucci of the Harvard Medical School, Alan Kristal of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, William Nelson of the Johns Hopkins Medical School, Tim Byers of the University of Colorado, Larry Kushi of Kaiser-Permanente in Oakland, Lawrence Kolonel of the University of Hawaii, and Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society.

Food Safety Reform Bill Advances in House

2009-06-17

New Muscle and Resources Will Help FDA Prevent Contaminated Food, Says CSPI

WASHINGTON�Historic legislation to reform food safety at the Food and Drug Administration moved a step closer to becoming a reality today as the Food Safety Enhancement Act was voted out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The bipartisan bill, spearheaded by Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Chairman Emeritus John Dingell (D-MI), has the support of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest and a broad coalition of consumer and public health groups.

The bill includes many measures that food safety experts have urged for years, including a requirement for food companies to identify the risks associated with their products and to institute preventive control measures. It also would require the FDA to conduct more frequent inspections of food processing facilities, and gives the agency the authority to order companies to recall contaminated food. Small new registration fees imposed on food processing facilities would help pay for the more frequent inspections.

"Americans are sick and tired of outbreaks of foodborne illnesses and recalls of tainted foods," said CSPI food safety director Caroline Smith DeWaal. "This long-overdue legislation refocuses FDA on preventing problems, rather than reacting to each new food crisis. Consumers have lost confidence in the safety of our food, and Congress can help restore it by passing this important bill without delay."

The bill comes in the wake of several years' worth of high-profile cases of contaminated FDA-regulated foods, including spinach, tomatoes, peppers, peanuts, pistachios, and even pet food. The Food Safety Enhancement Act is the culmination of at least 24 hearings in the House and the Senate in recent years, and decades of lobbying by food safety advocates.

"In addition to Chairman Waxman and Representative Dingell, Representatives Frank Pallone, Diana DeGette, and Bart Stupak all played critical and constructive roles in moving this legislation forward," said DeWaal. "They deserve thanks from all of us who enjoy eating safe, wholesome food."

Soda Taxes Can Help Fund Health Coverage and Prevention Programs, Say Experts

2009-06-17

Plus, Reducing Consumption Can Help Curb Rising Obesity Rates

WASHINGTON�Federal and state governments should levy excise taxes on soda and other sugary drinks both to raise revenues to pay for health coverage and prevention programs, and also to decrease consumption of products that promote obesity, the Center for Science in the Public Interest said today. The nutrition and food safety watchdog group launched a web-based Liquid Candy Tax Calculator to show policymakers, activists and media exactly how much money states and the federal government could raise in this way.

For instance, a new federal excise tax of one penny per 12-ounce soda could generate more than $1.5 billion dollars per year, according to the calculator. A steeper tax of one penny per ounce could raise roughly $16 billion a year�an amount that would make a serious down payment on a comprehensive health care reform bill. CSPI estimates that taxing soda at that amount would also reduce consumption by 13 percent overall and perhaps more among children, which would help slow the obesity and diabetes epidemics. The state of Massachusetts, which is weighing a sales tax of 8 percent on sugary drinks, could raise $105 million.

"Soda and non-carbonated soft drinks are basically liquid candy, providing nothing of positive benefit to the diet, just empty calories," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "It's cheaper than dirt, we consume too much of it, and it causes expensive health problems. The question is why has it gone untaxed for so long at the federal level?" Also today, leading health care and nutrition advocates are urging Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) to tax soft drinks to help fund health reform.

"While many factors contribute to weight gain, soft drinks are the only food or beverage shown to have a direct link to obesity, which in turn can lead to hypertension, strokes, heart attacks, diabetes, cancer, and arthritis, and other health and psychosocial problems," the advocates wrote in a letter to Baucus. "In addition, consumption of sugary beverages can cause tooth decay and dental erosion."

Besides CSPI, groups signing on to the letter include the American Public Health Association, the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, Consumers Union, Partnership for Prevention, Shape Up America!, and Trust for America's Health. Individuals signing include Kelly Brownell of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University and Walter Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health.

Separately, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has previously endorsed a tax on soft drinks to help pay for health-care reform.

In April, Brownell and former New York City Health Director Dr. Tom Frieden published a much-discussed paper in the New England Journal of Medicine making the case for a tax on sugared beverages. (Frieden is now director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.) The forward to the paper quoted Adam Smith, the father of free-market economics, thusly: "Sugar, rum, and tobacco are commodities which are nowhere necessaries of life, which are become objects of almost universal consumption, and which are therefore extremely proper subjects of taxation."

CSPI's calculator also displays the rates of overweight and obesity in the United States. and in each state, as well as the costs of medical care due to adult obesity. Of the $95 billion cost to treat obesity-related disease nationwide, about half is borne by Medicare and Medicaid.

Though a federal tax on soda would be new, more than a dozen states already have taxes on soda and other snack foods, including Arkansas, California, New York, and West Virginia.

In May, CSPI's Jacobson testified before the Senate Finance Committee urging a new federal tax on sugary drinks, as well as long-overdue increases in federal excise taxes on alcohol, to help pay for health coverage for all Americans. When the committee released a list of possible funding mechanisms for health care reform, it did include raising alcohol taxes and a new tax on sugary drinks.

USDA Urged to Reverse Bush-Era Gag Rule that Prevented Criticism of Soda

2009-06-12

Bush Administration Blocked States from Using Federal Funds to Discourage Soda Consumption

WASHINGTON�Bush-era rules at the U.S. Department of Agriculture prohibit states from using federal nutrition education funds for discouraging soda consumption, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest is urging Secretary Tom Vilsack to reverse them. The Bush Administration's policy was adopted shortly after the soft drink industry complained to state officials running campaigns that urged consumers to cut back on soft drinks, according to CSPI, and is out of sync with the federal government's Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

"Soft drinks are the only food or beverage directly linked to obesity," said CSPI legal affairs director Bruce Silverglade. "Yet under the Bush Administration, USDA gagged state health officials and blocked important nutrition education efforts. We hope the Obama Administration will quickly reverse course and instead actively support state campaigns aimed at reducing soda consumption and obesity"

The policy has its roots in a 2003 USDA memorandum prohibiting the use of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funds for disparaging or criticizing any food, issued after the state of Maine ran an ad campaign encouraging people to cut back on soda. In March 2009, the USDA restated the gag rule in a guidance document for state health officials.

In 2008, USDA told California officials the state could not use federal funds to run a "Soda-Free Summer" campaign. To obtain funding, California had to change the campaign motto to the milder "Rethink your Drink." Just last month USDA's western regional office objected to the state's "Be Sugar Savvy & Soda Free Summer Campaign." That campaign is not even funded with federal funds, but regional USDA officials believed it was "disparaging" to soft drinks and objected because they feared it might appear to be funded by the federal government. USDA blocked similar campaigns conducted by the state of Wyoming.

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, published jointly by USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services, advises people to "choose and prepare foods and beverages with little added sugars or caloric sweeteners," and USDA's Food Guide recommends that people who consume a reasonable amount of fat and calories to consume no more than 8 teaspoons of added sugars a day� which is less than the amount of sugar found in a typical 12 ounce can of soda.

"This is just a matter of permitting states to run nutrition education programs that are consistent with the federal government's own dietary advice, so this should really be a no-brainer," stated Ilene Ringel Heller, CSPI senior attorney.

Menu-Labeling Legislation Gains Support from Chain Restaurants

2009-06-10

National Restaurant Association Joins CSPI in Support of Legislation Requiring Calories on Menus, Menu Boards

WASHINGTON�Legislation that would require calories on chain restaurant menus and menu boards now has the support of the restaurant industry as well as health groups thanks to an agreement struck among senators who were previously supporting separate labeling bills. Besides requiring calories on menus, menu boards and drive-through displays, the new legislation would require chains with 20 or more outlets to provide additional nutrition information upon request.

That language is included among other prevention measures in the draft health reform legislation released last night by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), the lead sponsor of the Menu Education and Labeling (MEAL) Act that has been long supported by the Center for Science in the Public Interest and other health groups, brokered the agreement with Senators Tom Carper (D-DE) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), sponsors of a separate bill backed by industry.

"Calories on menus will allow Americans to exercise responsibility for what they eat and what they order for their children," said CSPI nutrition policy director Margo G. Wootan. "Whether you're concerned about managing your weight or about getting your money's worth at chain restaurants, calorie counts are critical pieces of information. We're delighted to be working with the restaurant industry on legislation that will ensure that calories be listed on their menus and menu boards"

If enacted, the compromise bill would cover all chains of 20 or more restaurants; small businesses would be exempt. Custom orders and temporary specials would be exempt from the calorie labeling requirement, as would items not listed on menus or menu boards, such as condiments. Like the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act that requires Nutrition Facts labeling on packaged foods, the legislation would require national uniformity.

Similar bills or regulations have been adopted in New York City, Philadelphia, Massachusetts, California and a number of major counties. This month bills in Oregon, Maine and Connecticut passed their state legislatures and are awaiting final action.

82 percent of those surveyed in New York City after its calorie-labeling rule went into effect said seeing calories on menus affected their choices. And Starbucks, Cosi and other restaurants have reformulated menu items to bring down the calories.

CSPI pointed out that companies are required to provide information on the fuel-efficiency of cars, care instructions for clothing, and energy and water consumption of certain home appliances.

"It seems more important that people be able to watch their calorie intake to avoid diabetes or heart disease than to know how to wash a blouse," said Wootan. "Putting calories on menu boards is a common-sense prevention measure that will help reduce Americans' risk of heart disease, diabetes and other expensive-to-treat chronic diseases made more prevalent by rising obesity rates."

American adults and children consume, on average, one third of their calories from eating out. Studies link eating out with obesity and higher caloric intakes. For example, children eat almost twice as many calories when they eat a meal at a restaurant compared to a meal at home. Meals at chain restaurants can be unexpectedly high in calories, with appetizers, entr�es and desserts sometimes providing an entire day's worth of calories on a single plate.

New Legislation Should Be Passed Quickly, Food Safety Advocates Urge

2009-06-03

Bill Gives FDA New Power and Resources to Prevent Contaminated Food

WASHINGTON�Food safety advocates, led by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, say that rapid passage of the Food Safety Enhancement Act is the best hope for making America's food safer. CSPI food safety director Caroline Smith DeWaal testified in support of the legislation today, on behalf of the consumer and public health groups that are members of the Safe Food Coalition.

The legislation responds to a series of nationwide outbreaks and recalls involving peanut butter, pet food, spinach, hot peppers, and other foods regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. These outbreaks have caused a serious drop in consumer confidence over the last few years, according to the testimony of the groups.

The Food Safety Enhancement Act includes many measures that food safety experts have urged for years, including a requirement for food companies to conduct hazard analysis programs and to institute preventive control measures. It also would require the FDA to conduct more-frequent inspections of food processing facilities. While today FDA inspects food factories only about once every ten years, the Food Safety Enhancement Act would require inspections for high-risk facilities every six to 18 months and all facilities, including warehouses, every four years.

The bill also would give the FDA something that most consumers probably think the agency already has: the authority to order companies to recall potentially contaminated food. And it provides the FDA with a much broader range of criminal and civil penalties to punish unscrupulous processors who knowingly allow tainted foods onto supermarket shelves.

"Fixing food safety at FDA is long overdue," DeWaal said. "The agency is trying to regulate food from all over the world with a 100-year-old toolbox. This bill gives both the food industry and the government new responsibilities for assuring that the food consumers eat won't make them ill."

The bill, however, does not accomplish some of the structural changes urged by CSPI and others, such as dividing the FDA into two separate agencies, one focused on food and another on medical products. CSPI hopes Congress and the Obama Administration will do that after the bill is passed.

The Safe Food Coalition is also asking Congress to strengthen the legislation in several ways, including:

a clearer mandate for testing and reporting of test results to FDA and stronger mandates for the agency to set performance standards;

a definition of "risk-based" inspection that covers the entire food supply; and

that meat and seafood regulated by FDA face the same regulatory oversight as those products regulated by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service.

The groups are also recommending stricter oversight of food additives, some of which are declared "generally recognized as safe" without FDA review even though they can cause life-threatening allergic reactions or heart disease. Similarly, consumer groups are urging legislators to limit the use of antibiotics in agriculture to control the growth of antibiotic-resistant pathogens in foods.

Xtreme Eating Awards 2009

2009-06-02

Chain Restaurants Engaged in Obesity-Promoting "Waist Race"

WASHINGTON�Xtreme appetizers, entr�es, and desserts at America's chain restaurants are making Americans fatter and sicker, and the trendy thing for chains to do is to make already bad foods even worse, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Bacon cheeseburgers come nestled inside quesadillas. Half racks of ribs are promoted as side orders to steak. Golf-ball-size blobs of macaroni and cheese are tossed in the deep-fryer and served with creamy marinara sauce and even more cheese.

Welcome to the Xtreme Eating Awards for 2009. Welcome back, actually. CSPI's first Xtreme Eating report shocked the nation in 2007 with nutritional train wrecks like Uno Chicago Grill's 2,000-calorie Pizza Skins. Since the restaurant industry is showing few signs of restraint or responsibility in the face of America's epidemic of obesity and diet-related disease, Nutrition Action will make these awards an annual affair.

The Cheesecake Factory's Fried Macaroni and Cheese. With 1,570 calories and 69 grams of saturated fat, you'd be better off eating an entire stick of butter.

"Would you like an entr�e with your entr�e?" is how CSPI senior nutritionist Jayne Hurley imagines the logic behind items like Olive Garden's Tour of Italy, where diners can pile Lasagna, Chicken Parmigiana, and Fettuccine Alfredo onto one very large dinner plate. "It's a race to the bottom, and there's no end in sight."

Keep in mind that most people should limit themselves to about 2,000 calories, 20 grams of saturated fat, and 1,500 mg of sodium per day. And the envelopes please�

Red Lobster Ultimate Fondue: This retro item is also making comebacks at Olive Garden, Uno Chicago Grill, and at a chain that sells nothing but fondues, The Melting Pot. Red Lobster's Ultimate version, "shrimp and crabmeat in a creamy lobster cheese sauce served in a warm crispy sourdough bowl," is crammed with 1,490 calories, 40 grams of saturated fat, and 3,580 mg of sodium. That's two days' worth of both artery-clogging fat and blood-pressure-spiking sodium.

Applebee's Quesadilla Burger: Here Applebee's inserts a bacon cheeseburger into a quesadilla. Two flour tortillas, two kinds of meat, two kinds of cheese, pico de gallo, lettuce, and a previously unknown condiment called Mexi-ranch sauce, plus fries, gives this monstrous marriage 1,820 calories, 46 grams of saturated fat, and 4,410 mg of sodium. Bonus heart-stopper: Applebee's actually invites customers to top the fries with chili and still more cheese.

Chili's Big Mouth Bites: This is four mini-bacon-cheeseburgers served on a plate with fries, onion strings, and jalapeno ranch dipping sauce. ("Mini" is relative: each one is like a Quarter Pounder.) Like the "sliders" available at other chains, Chili's Big Mouth Bites can be an appetizer or an entr�e (these numbers are for the latter). 2,350 calories, 38 grams of saturated fat, and 3,940 milligrams of sodium.

The Cheesecake Factory Chicken and Biscuits: Nutrition Action calls it "discomfort food." If you wouldn't eat an entire 8-piece bucket of KFC Original Recipe plus 5 biscuits, you shouldn't order this. But unless you live in a city with menu labeling, you wouldn't know that this dish has 2,500 calories. The rest of the winning�or rather, losing�appetizers, entr�es, and desserts are in the June issue of Nutrition Action.

According to CSPI, 2009 should be the year that Congress clues diners in by passing a menu labeling measure similar to the ones enacted in Nashville, New York City, Philadelphia, Portland, OR, California, Massachusetts, and several counties. Bills in Oregon and Connecticut have passed and are awaiting Governors' signatures. And two weeks ago, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) introduced the Menu Education and Labeling (MEAL) Act, which would require big restaurant chains to post calories on menu boards and list calories, saturated plus trans fat, carbohydrates, and sodium on printed menus. It would apply to the standardized items at restaurants with more than 20 outlets, and not to custom orders or daily specials.

"Ultimately, Americans bear personal responsibility for their dining choices," said CSPI nutrition policy director Margo G. Wootan. "But you can't exercise personal responsibility if you don't have nutrition information when you order. Who would expect 2,800 calories in a dessert?"

Menu labeling has proven popular and useful in the jurisdictions that have implemented it, according to CSPI. In a survey of New Yorkers, 82 percent of respondents said that seeing the numbers affected their choices. Though the industry tried to challenge New York's menu labeling law in court, it lost, and its prospects for challenging other laws may become dimmer still: One of the federal appellate judges that let the New York law stand is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee for a seat on the Supreme Court.

Lawmakers to Introduce Federal Menu-Labeling Bill

2009-05-14

MEAL Act Would Require Calorie Labeling on Chain-Restaurant Menus and Menu Boards

WASHINGTON�Eating out would be a whole lot easier for nutrition-conscious customers in chain restaurants, if legislation introduced today by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) becomes law. The Menu Education and Labeling (MEAL) Act would require fast-food and other chain restaurants to post calories on menu boards and food display tags and calories, saturated plus trans fat, carbohydrates, and sodium on printed menus.

The bill has the strong support of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which has led the national campaign for menu labeling, including measures passed in New York City, California, Massachusetts and other jurisdictions. The MEAL act would apply to chains with 20 or more outlets and would exclude small mom-and-pop restaurants and custom orders or temporary menu items at chain restaurants.

This Starbucks in New York City posts calories on its menu boards.

"Consumers play an impossible guessing game trying to make healthier choices in restaurants," said CSPI nutrition policy director Margo Wootan. "Who would guess that a large chocolate shake at McDonald's has more calories than two Big Macs or that a multigrain bagel at Dunkin' Donuts has 140 more calories than a jelly donut?"

Americans get a third of their calories from, and spend half of their food dollars on, meals outside the home. At table-service chains like Ruby Tuesday, Macaroni Grill, and Chili's, it's easy to find 1,000-calorie appetizers, 1,000-calorie entrees, and 1,000-calorie desserts. Not surprisingly, about two-thirds of American adults and a third of children and adolescents are overweight or obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"Access to nutrition information at restaurants is more important than ever, particularly given that a number of studies link eating out with higher caloric intake and obesity," DeLauro said. "With few restaurants providing easy-to-use and easy-to-find nutrition information, the MEAL Act represents an incremental step toward combating increasing obesity rates."

Restaurant industry lobbyists have tried to capitalize on the popularity of menu labeling by writing a competing bill called the LEAN Act. But far from promoting menu labeling, that bill would nullify the state and local measures already in effect and preempt others from being enacted in the future. Health groups oppose it.

Labeling on packaged food, which was implemented 15 years ago this month, gives consumers nutrition information for foods eaten at home. It's high time consumers have a few nutrition facts when eating out, Wootan said.

"Overweight, poor nutrition and diet-related diseases are public health threats of the first order � contributing to numerous chronic health conditions, including heart disease, cancer, diabetes and stroke," Harkin said. "But the issues aren't just medical � they also affect our economy. We spend almost $2 trillion annually on health care in the United States, 75 percent of which goes for treating and managing chronic diseases that are, in many cases, preventable. It is time to take preventative action and give consumers the tools they need to take better control of their diet and health."

In New York City, prior to the implementation of its menu labeling policy, only 4 percent of restaurant customers saw nutrition information at restaurants that provided it (generally on websites, tray liners, posters, or brochures).

After menu labeling, 90 percent of New Yorkers have read the nutrition information on menus in chain restaurants, and a remarkable 82 percent say menu labeling has affected what they order.

"Nutrition information on web sites, tray liners and other inconvenient places doesn't work," Wootan said. "If people are going to be able to use nutrition information, it has to be at the point of ordering, not on a poster back by the bathroom or after they've ordered the food."

FDA Cracks Down on Cheerios' Misleading Cholesterol Claims

2009-05-12

Move Applauded by CSPI

The Food and Drug Administration took long-overdue action by demanding that General Mills halt its grossly exaggerated and misleading health claims for Cheerios cereal. The company claims that Cheerios can reduce "bad" cholesterol levels by 4 percent in just 6 weeks and ward off heart disease and cancers of the colon and stomach. The claims are plastered on Cheerios packages, the General Mills web site, and are even announced on supermarket public address systems.

The FDA has approved a more general health claim that eating diets low in saturated fat and cholesterol, and high in fiber-containing fruit, vegetable, and grain products may reduce the risk of heart disease. But the claims for Cheerios portrayed the mentioned diseases not included in the FDA-authorized claim and failed to mention the importance of eating a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol.

"This is the strongest action taken by the FDA against misleading health claims for foods in almost a decade," said CSPI legal affairs director Bruce Silverglade. "I hope the FDA is signaling the entire food industry that the Bush era policy of lax enforcement has come to an end. The FDA should also stop misleading claims for so-called 'whole grain' products that are mostly made with white flour and foods claimed to be made with fruit when they only contain trivial amounts of juice."

"Heart Attack Entr�es and Side Orders of Stroke"

2009-05-11

Overly Salty Restaurant Meals Present Long-Term Health Risks for All, and Immediate Danger for Some

WASHINGTON�Unsafe levels of sodium chloride, or salt, in chain restaurant meals increase one's chance of developing hypertension, heart attacks, strokes, and kidney disease according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The nonprofit food safety and nutrition watchdog group today is exposing chain restaurant meals with dangerously high levels of sodium and is renewing its call on industry and government to lower sodium levels in foods.

Photo Credit: CSPI
Ahoy, matey! Red Lobster's Admiral's feast, with creamy lobster topped mashed potato, Caesar salad with dressing, just one of the complimentary Cheddar Bay Biscuits, and a lemonade: At 7,106 mg of sodium, it is one of the saltiest restaurant meals in America.

People with high blood pressure, African Americans, and people middle-aged and older�70 percent of the population�should consume no more than 1,500 milligrams (mg) of sodium daily, according to the government's dietary advice. Others should consume no more than 2,300 mg of sodium per day. Yet it is almost impossible to get restaurant meals with reasonably safe levels of sodium. A lifetime of eating much more than the recommended amounts of sodium presents an increased risk of disease in the long term. But for some, particularly the elderly, consuming 4,000 mg or more of sodium in a single meal can present an immediate risk of heart failure or other serious problems.

CSPI researchers examined 17 chains and found that 85 out of 102 meals had more than a day's worth of sodium, and some had more than four days' worth, including these:

Red Lobster Admirals' Feast with Caesar Salad, Creamy Lobster Topped Mashed Potato, Cheddar Bay Biscuit, and a Lemonade: 7,106 mg

Chili's Buffalo Chicken Fajitas (with tortillas and condiments) and a Dr Pepper: 6,916 mg

Chili's Honey-Chipotle Ribs with Mashed Potatoes with Gravy, Seasonal Vegetables, and a Dr Pepper: 6,440 mg

Olive Garden Tour of Italy (lasagna) with a Breadstick, Garden Fresh Salad with House Dressing, and a Coca-Cola: 6,176 mg

Olive Garden Chicken Parmigiana with a Breadstick, Garden Fresh Salad with House Dressing, and Raspberry Leonade: 5,735 mg

"Who knows how many Americans have been pushed prematurely into their graves thanks to sodium levels like those found in Olive Garden, Chili's, and Red Lobster?" asked CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "These chains are sabotaging the food supply. They should cut back and give consumers the freedom to decide for themselves how much salt they want."

"More than 70 percent of older Americans have hypertension and are especially vulnerable," said Dr. Mel Daly, a geriatrician who is Medical Director of the Subacute Unit at Greater Baltimore Medical Center and an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. "Many elderly eat frequently at these restaurants because of convenience and cost. But the high sodium levels in many of these meals can lead to a spike in blood pressure and even precipitate heart failure in some individuals."

Children eating at chain restaurants don't fare much better than their parents or grandparents. According to the Institute of Medicine, children aged 4-8 should consume no more than 1,200 mg of sodium per day. These meals that have one or two days' worth of sodium:

Red Lobster Chicken Fingers, Biscuit, Fries, Raspberry Lemonade: 2,430 mg

Chili's Country Fried Chicken Crispers with Rice and 1% milk: 2,385 mg

KFC Popcorn Chicken with Macaroni and Cheese, Teddy Grahams, and 2% milk: 2,005 mg

Jack in the Box Chicken Strips Grilled, Buffalo Sauce, Fries, and 1 % milk: 1,980 mg

Olive Garden Chicken Fingers, Fries, and Raspberry Lemonade: 1,835 mg

"Parents already have enough to worry about with the increasing incidence of obesity and diabetes among children. The restaurant industry should not add to these problems by raising kids' blood pressure as well," said Dr. Stephen Havas, an adjunct professor of preventive medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a former vice president for science, quality, and public health of the American Medical Association. He noted that a 2006 meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in children found that reducing children's salt intake lowered their blood pressure, and that if lower blood pressure were maintained into adulthood, it would reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease.

Since 1978, CSPI has been urging the Food and Drug Administration to press for lower salt levels in processed and restaurant foods. In 2005 the group sued the FDA and then petitioned the agency to regulate salt as a food additive, subject to reasonable limits in a given category of food. (Currently, the FDA considers salt to be "generally recognized as safe" and does not put any limits on its use.) Havas and other hypertension experts have estimated that reducing sodium levels in restaurant and packaged foods by half could prevent at least 150,000 premature deaths per year in the United States.

CSPI hopes that new leadership in the Obama administration will look to sodium reduction and other prevention measures as means of making health care reform affordable. Since the Bush administration did nothing to encourage sodium reduction, some city public health departments, particularly New York City's, have begun to press the food and restaurant industries to cut the sodium in their products. Requiring chain restaurants to disclose sodium on menus would help consumers regulate their salt intake and would likely nudge the industry to provide more low-sodium choices, according to CSPI.

"Americans spend north of $15 billion to treat high blood pressure, and many billions more on expensive heart procedures, yet the government spends peanuts improving Americans' diets," said Jacobson. "Getting the food and restaurant industry to use less salt would be one way the Obama Administration could help prevent chronic disease and make health coverage more affordable."

Tomorrow, before the Senate Finance Committee, Jacobson will testify that reducing sodium consumption by just 25 percent over the next 10 years could save the government $9 billion a year in direct medical costs.

A 2,000-Calorie Snack? No Fudgin' Way, Says Nutrition Action

2009-05-01

Cold Stone's Oh Fudge! is Food Porn

WASHINGTON�If the obesity epidemic needed a stimulus package, it would look much like the 24-fl.-oz. Oh Fudge! shake from Cold Stone Creamery, which sends a 1,920-calorie deposit of chocolate ice cream, milk, and fudge syrup into the bellies of those willing to pay $5.50 or more. To withdraw that from your daily calorie bank, you'd have to spend more than four hours on the step machine or nearly seven hours doing water aerobics. In other words, it's Food Porn. The gory details are published in the May issue of Nutrition Action Healthletter, published by the Washington-based watchdog group, the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

"If you really need an Oh Fudge! shake, find a Cold Stone Creamery that's ten miles away from you, walk there, and then drink it on your ten-mile walk back," said CSPI senior nutritionist Jayne Hurley. "Even if calories are of no concern to you, the large Oh Fudge! shake has 69 grams of saturated fat�the kind of fat that clogs arteries and causes heart attacks. It's like slurping up two pounds of T-bone steak and a buttered baked potato through a straw."

The smaller-sized Oh Fudge! shakes, with 1,250 or 1,660 calories, still dwarf the bigger burgers at most fast food chains (a Burger King Double Whopper with Cheese is a dainty 1,000 calories by comparison).

Nutrition Action Healthletter spotlights a Food Porn in each issue alongside a Right Stuff, or healthy, recommendation (which this month is Quaker's new whole-grain Oatmeal Pancake Mix). Nutrition Action's past Food Porns include Starbucks' Salted Caramel Hot Chocolate, Chili's Chocolate Chip Paradise Pie, Sara Lee Bites and DiGiorno's Ultimate Focaccia Pizza. Introductory subscriptions are $10 for ten issues.

Momentum Grows for Push to Expel Junk Food from Schools

2009-04-30

WASHINGTON�Foods sold in schools will get a long-overdue nutritional makeover if legislation introduced today by Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) gets wrapped into this year's updates to the child nutrition programs, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest. The group says that the pizza, sodas, so-called "energy drinks," chips, and candy abundantly available in schools are helping to fuel an epidemic of child obesity and diabetes.

Harkin, long a proponent of getting more fresh fruits and vegetables into schools, wants to update nutrition standards for the foods sold alongside school meals in the cafeteria, as well as foods sold in vending machines and school stores. Narrow nutrition standards were last set during the Carter Administration and only apply in the cafeteria during mealtimes. Harkin's bill would apply everywhere on campus during the whole school day.

"In all but a handful of cities and states, junk food is still out of control in schools," said CSPI nutrition policy director Margo G. Wootan. "The federal government spends billions on the school lunch program, but that investment is undercut by the sale of soda and other junk foods. Parents want to know the money they send their son or daughter to school with will be spent on healthy foods, not disease-promoting junk."

Current law only prohibits the sale of "foods of minimal nutritional value" in the cafeteria during meal times. But standards for those foods, crafted in 1979, were drafted with an eye toward ensuring that school foods had a modicum of certain nutrients, such as protein and calcium. As a consequence, school's can't sell calorie-free seltzer water, but pizza, doughnuts, and cheeseburgers can be sold without limits on calories, saturated or trans fat, or sodium. And because the nutrition standards only apply in the cafeteria, most vending machines can sell virtually anything. Two-thirds of states still rely on the outdated national standards.

"Poor diet and physical inactivity contribute to growing rates of chronic disease among children. One-third of American children born today will develop type II diabetes at some point and rates of obesity are skyrocketing," said Harkin. "Our legislation requires common-sense nutrition standards for the foods and beverages that are sold in school vending machines and similar outlets. Otherwise, junk food will continue to undermine the $11 billion that taxpayers pay for nutritious school meals."

Similar legislation was introduced in the House in March by Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and is cosponsored by 128 other House members. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has voiced support for healthy school food. And advocates for improving school food are confident that they have another ally at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue: As a senator, Barack Obama introduced his own bill to get junk food out of schools.

"It's a myth that schools have to rely on junk-food sales to balance their budgets. Happily, schools that switch out junk foods for healthier drinks and snacks don't usually lose revenue," said Wootan. "Given the ability of schools to make money selling healthy foods, the political shifts in Washington, and the childhood obesity epidemic, the time is ripe for strong national legislation supporting healthy food for healthy kids."

Federal Trade Commission Stops Kellogg from Claiming Frosted Mini-Wheats "Improve Kids' Attentiveness" in School

2009-04-20

Statement of CSPI Legal Affairs Director Bruce Silverglade

The astonishing claims made by Kellogg that its Frosted Mini-Wheats improved children's attentiveness by 20 percent were laughable on their face and never should have surfaced in an advertising campaign by a major food manufacturer.

The settlement announced today by the Federal Trade Commission is a strong sign the false advertising cop is back on the beat, and the agency will no longer tolerate misleading health claims. We hope this is the just the beginning of a coordinated new effort to rein in dishonest advertising and marketing by food companies. The FTC could require much stronger remedies, such as corrective advertising. In addition, Congress should expand the FTC's authority to level civil penalties.

Incidentally, if Kellogg sincerely wanted to improve children's attentiveness, it would phase out the use of Blue 1, Blue 2, Red 40, and any other synthetic food dyes that show up in some varieties of Mini-Wheats. Those dyes exacerbate some children's hyperactivity and behavioral problems, and have no place in foods aimed squarely at children.

Pistachio Recall Shows FDA Needs to Shift from Voluntary Guidance to Food Safety Mandates for the Nut Industry

2009-04-08

Statement of CSPI Food Safety Director Caroline Smith DeWaal

The latest recall of a popular nut�pistachios�is expanding to include all nuts processed by Setton Farms in 2008. This recall, coming on the heels of a peanut recall affecting over 2,000 products, is another blow to farmers, nut processors, and consumer confidence. It proves the Food and Drug Administration urgently needs to institute mandatory process controls for all tree nuts and peanuts. The FDA should immediately require processors to institute process controls that would ensure safe product.

Photo Credit: Jeff Cronin
Following a recall of more than 2,000 peanut-butter
products, Pistachios are the latest victim of salmonella contamination.

FDA is being proactive, initiating the recall and working with Setton Farms to get potentially harmful products off the market even before any illnesses have been reported. But the agency didn't act fast enough to prevent the eight other outbreaks from peanuts or mixed nuts since 2001.

The agency should not go company-by-company when it is clear that process controls are warranted for the nut industry overall. Other nut processors may be making the same mistakes that resulted in the Setton plant and the Peanut Corporation of America shipping millions of pounds of tainted nuts across the country.

FDA officials say they intend to issue "guidance" to the pistachio industry, but this is an inadequate response. Guidance is voluntary; regulations are law. We can't rely on industry honor systems to protect us. Without mandates and enforcement, Americans' protection from food safety illnesses and future scares is paper thin.

NCAA Could Survive Without Beer Ads, Data Shows

2009-04-03

Campaign for Alcohol-Free Sports TV Urges NCAA to Eliminate Beer Ads

WASHINGTON�Beer advertising during NCAA basketball games is big, but not so big that the league couldn't replace most of it with ads for products that don't contribute to alcohol problems on campus and elsewhere. Increasingly, that's the message being sent to NCAA officials by its own member schools, coaches, and athletic directors, as well as the Campaign for Alcohol-Free Sports TV.

In a letter to NCAA President Myles Brand, the campaign again urged the NCAA to eliminate beer advertising during the tournament to reduce harmful exposure to college students and younger people.

The NCAA claims its alcohol advertising policy is the most "conservative and restrictive of any televised sport." In reality, the league allows 60 seconds of beer ads per hour (which could be as many as four distinct ads), or 120 seconds total per game. That makes the concentration of beer-ad spending on NCAA games more than two-and-a-half times what it is during other television programming, according to CSPI. Current NCAA policy prohibits advertising for tobacco products, gambling and other alcoholic beverages, but makes an exception for beer.

According to data from TNS Media Intelligence for the 2008 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, the beer category, which includes the Anheuser-Busch and Miller brands, bought a combined $42.8 million�or about 7 percent�of $643 million in total revenue collected by CBS for the tournament. With an increase of 24 percent in total revenue since 2007, the tournament generates advertising rates second only to the Super Bowl. The profitable tournament has attracted some 300 advertisers in the past ten years promoting a wide-range of products, and aired an astonishing 140 ads during the final game of the 2008 tournament (ten were for beer). Ads for cars, movies, cell phones, electronics, financial services, food, razors, network television programs, and the U.S. military have all been major advertisers on NCAA games.

"With the tournament's popularity and ability to attract other advertisers, the NCAA can clearly make a handsome profit without beer ads," said George A. Hacker, director of CSPI's alcohol policies project. "There's absolutely no reason to allow beer advertisements when so many other advertisers are willing to place their message in front of the attentive, young audience the NCAA enjoys."

Increasing evidence shows a strong link between exposure to televised beer ads and heavier, more frequent adolescent drinking, especially during college sporting events.

CSPI's Campaign for Alcohol-Free Sports TV seeks to reduce youth exposure to beer advertising on televised college sports to limit harmful beer consumption. Since 2005, 372�more than one-third� NCAA-member colleges and 16 athletic conferences have signed the "College Commitment" pledge to eliminate beer advertisements from college sports telecasts.

And Now Pistachios? Take Action to Urge Your Representative in Congress to Improve the Safety of Our Food Supply

2009-03-31

Urge Your Representative in Congress to Cosponsor The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009. Go to http://www.cspinet.org/takeaction/index.html to take action!

Consumers Warned of Web-Based A�ai Scams

2009-03-23

Companies Use Fake Blogs, Fake Endorsements, Fishy Science, and Hard-to-Cancel Credit Card Transactions to Bilk Consumers

WASHINGTON�The Center for Science in the Public Interest is warning consumers not to enroll online in supposedly free trials of diet products made with the trendy Brazilian berry a�ai (pronounced a-sigh-EE). There's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a�ai pills will help shed pounds, flatten tummies, cleanse colons, enhance sexual desire, or perform any of the other commonly advertised functions. And thousands of consumers have had trouble stopping recurrent charges on their credit cards when they cancel their free trials.

Even web sites purporting to warn about a�ai-related scams are themselves perpetrating scams, according to CSPI.

"If Bernard Madoff were in the food business, he'd be offering 'free' trials of a�ai-based weight-loss products," said CSPI senior nutritionist David Schardt, who authored an expos� of the scam in the April issue of CSPI's Nutrition Action Healthletter. "Law enforcement has yet to catch up to these rogue operators. Until they do, consumers have to protect themselves."

Photo Credit: Jeff Cronin
Acai companies are scamming consumers with hard-to-cancel credit-card charges. There is also no scientific evidence supporting the supposed health benefits of these products.

CSPI says that if�despite the total lack of evidence that the product works�you still want to take advantage of a "free" trial of a�ai, use a prepaid credit card with a low credit limit or a virtual credit card that shields your real credit card number from unscrupulous online vendors. Visit the web site of the Better Business Bureau, which in January announced that it had received thousands of a�ai-related complaints.

Look for the BBB seal on e-commerce sites and click on the seal to confirm its legitimacy, CSPI advises.

A�ai began attracting attention in 2005 on the belief that its juice was especially high in antioxidants. In truth, a�ai juice has only middling levels of antioxidants�less than that of Concord grape, blueberry, and black cherry juices, but more than cranberry, orange, and apple juices. Even so, the extent to which antioxidants by themselves promote health is a matter of some debate. No credible evidence suggests antioxidants promote weight loss.

In early 2008, A�ai got a jolt of publicity when Dr. Mehmet Oz included a�ai among tomatoes, blueberries, broccoli, and other healthy foods in a segment on Oprah. A guest on Rachael Ray also discussed an a�ai beverage. Since then, ads on Google, Facebook, and major news media web sites have misleadingly steered consumers to sites with names like Oprah-best-acai.com , OprahsAmazingDiet.com, DrOzMiracle.com, rachaelray.drozdiet-acaiberry.com and dozens of others.

OprahsAmazingDiet.com links to a blog post by a woman who supposedly lost 57 pounds using Oprah-endorsed products, and displays authoritative-looking biographies of Oprah and Dr. Oz. It then links to an offer for AcaiBurn, sold by a company that lists an address in Cyprus as its headquarters. Other sites link to FWM Laboratories of Ft. Lauderdale and Hollywood, Fla., which has an F rating from the Better Business Bureau and scores of horror stories about it on Internet complaint forms. Oprah Winfrey, Mehmet Oz, and Rachael Ray have all publicly disassociated themselves from the a�ai sites that make unauthorized use their names.

"When I logged on to my Hotmail account, I saw an ad about how Oprah lost weight on this diet, and I enrolled in what I thought would be a free trial," said M Chanel Pinkett, a graduate student from Gaithersburg, Md. who signed up for a free trial at AcaiBerryDetox.com, a site run by FWM Laboratories. Pinkett's "free" trial actually cost $174.26. After posting a complaint on complaintsboard.com, which has thousands of a�ai-related complaints, she told her story to Washington's WJLA-TV.

"There are no magical berries from the Brazilian rainforest that cure obesity�only painfully real credit card charges and empty weight loss promises," said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal. "Aggressive Acai berry pitches on the Internet entice countless consumers into free trials promising weight loss, energy and detoxification. These claims are based on folklore, traditional remedies and outright fabrications�unproven by real scientific evidence. In reality, consumers lose more money than weight after free trials transition into inescapable charges. We will investigate these allegedly misleading or deceptive nutrition and health claims and take action under our consumer protection statutes�as we have done with other food products."

FWM Laboratories, Advanced Wellness Research, and other acai companies benefit from dozens of fake diet blogs that steer unsuspecting consumers to sites plugging free a�ai trials. The woman depicted on Tara's Diet Blog, Olivia's Weight Loss blog, Alicia's Diet Blog, Becky's Weight Loss blog, and at least 75 other blogs is a German model named Julia who has nothing to do with acai or any weight-loss product. The German photographer who made the original photos of her available on Istockphoto.com said the pill companies manipulated some of the "after" images to give the impression of weight loss. The fake blogs were first uncovered by a real blog, wafflesatnoon.com, written by an ad-industry insider.

"These diet 'bloggers' are just a mirage," Schardt said. "Their weight loss is courtesy of Photoshop, not a�ai." Other a�ai companies with F ratings from the BBB include Pure Acai Berry Pro (Advanced Wellness Research), AcaiBurn, Acai Berry Maxx (FX Supplements), and SFL Nutrition.

One of several online purchases of a�ai attempted by CSPI was blocked when the fraud department of the credit card's issuing bank called the group, flagging the charge as suspicious. The reason? The funds would have been routed to an overseas bank.

Of course there's good reason why some Internet supplement scammers might want to stay safely outside the U.S.: The company behind Enzyte, an herbal "male enhancement" pill advertised on late night television with grating "Smiling Bob" commercials, similarly charged consumers' credit cards after free trials ended. Company founder Steve Warshak is now serving a 25-year sentence in federal prison.

Congress to Tackle Junk Food in Schools

2009-03-05

Legislators, Health Groups Aim to Update Carter-Era Nutrition Standards

WASHINGTON�Buoyed by a President and Secretary of Agriculture who have voiced their support for healthier school foods, health groups say this is the year Congress should take action. Today, Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) is introducing a bill that would get junk foods out of schools once and for all. The bill is likely to be addressed when Congress reauthorizes the Child Nutrition Act, which expires this year.

Current federal law only prohibits the sale of narrowly defined "foods of minimal nutritional value" in the cafeteria during meal times. But the nutrition standards for those foods haven't been updated in 30 years, during which time obesity rates in children have tripled. The Child Nutrition Promotion and School Lunch Protection Act would have the U.S. Department of Agriculture update the nutrition standards for foods sold alongside school meals in cafeterias, vending machines, school stores, and elsewhere. Those standards would apply throughout the school day, and everywhere on campus�important reforms in an era where "multi-purpose rooms" are replacing cafeterias and vending machines line hallways.

While the typical school lunch is reasonably balanced, according to CSPI, children may replace it with, or add to it, sugary sports drinks, pizza, French fries, Snickers bars, Cheetos, or other nutritionally poor choices from a la carte, vending, and other sources.

"Despite pockets of progress in some states and school systems, most schools make junk food readily available to children," said CSPI nutrition policy director Margo G. Wootan. "But junk food in schools helps fuel an epidemic of obesity and diabetes in children. And, it undercuts the considerable federal investment we make in the healthy school lunch program."

"Current nutrition standards keep some junk food out of our schools but let other junk food in through the back door. Today, doughnuts are allowed but lollipops are not. Cookies are fine, but breath mints are banned. This doesn't make any sense," Woolsey said. "It undermines the federal nutrition standards for meals if students spend their money on unhealthy options. It also undermines the role of parents who give lunch money to their children expecting them to eat something wholesome and nutritious and their money is spent on unhealthy options instead. That's why I introduced this legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to get it signed into law."

USDA's definition of foods of minimal nutritional value hasn't changed since 1979. The Carter Administration's definition was focused on making sure foods sold in schools had five percent or more of the recommended daily intake levels of protein, vitamin C, calcium, and other nutrients. However, that definition included no maximum amounts for calories, saturated fat, or sodium�all of which children now consume too much of. As a result, innocuous products like seltzer water or breath mints are forbidden, while ice cream bars and doughnuts are perfectly acceptable.

"Look, you can see how officials 30 years ago might have been concerned about whether our children were getting enough riboflavin or niacin," Wootan said. "Today, we need to reorient food policies toward preventing obesity, diabetes, and other diet-related diseases that might result in this generation of children living shorter lives than their parents."

"Many of the foods being sold to our students on school grounds undermine federal investment in healthy school meals, nutrition education, and the lifelong lessons that parents teach their children about healthy eating habits," said National PTA President Jan Harp Domene. "Families and local leaders have successfully advocated to remove unhealthy alternatives from some schools, but it is time for national leadership on this issue."

Besides CSPI and the National PTA, the legislation is backed by a powerful coalition of medical, health, and children's advocacy groups including the American Dental Association, American Diabetes Association, American Dietetic Association, American Heart Association, Partnership for Prevention, Save the Children, and School Nutrition Association. The bill has 88 cosponsors.

When in the Senate, President Obama had his own bill to get junk food out of schools, and his proposed budget announced last week includes a $1-billion-a-year increase for child nutrition, which includes the school lunch and breakfast programs and WIC. That's on top of $100 million included in the economic stimulus package to upgrade equipment in school cafeterias, which in many cases means replacing fryolators with ovens, or better refrigeration to accommodate more fresh fruits and vegetables.

Some states and localities have acted on their own to improve school foods, and voluntary agreements, like one brokered in 2006 by former President Bill Clinton, have helped further. Still, the majority of drinks and snacks sold in schools are of poor nutritional quality and two-thirds of states have weak or no policies on school nutrition.

Maryland Bills Would Require Nutrition Info on Chain Restaurant Menus and Phasing Out Artificial Trans Fat

2009-03-03

ANNAPOLIS�Two pieces of legislation introduced in the Maryland General Assembly would make it much easier for the state's restaurant patrons to manage their weight and avoid heart disease.

The first, sponsored by Senator David Harrington (D-47) and Delegate Doyle Niemann (D-47) would require calorie counts on fast-food chains' menu boards, and expanded nutrition information on chain restaurants' printed menus. The second, introduced by Delegate James Hubbard (D-23A), would require all restaurants to phase out their use of partially hydrogenated oil�the source of artery-clogging artificial trans fat.

The House Health and Government Operations Committee will hold a hearing on both measures this afternoon. Both are strongly supported by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, which has helped New York City, the state of California, and other jurisdictions adopt similar menu labeling and trans fat requirements.

The menu labeling bill, HB 601, would require calories on menu boards used by fast-food chains, and calories, saturated plus trans fat, carbohydrates, and sodium on printed menus at sit-down chain restaurants with at least 15 outlets.

"Customers need calorie information at the point-of-ordering to make informed decisions," said Michelle Forman, government affairs manager at CSPI. "How else would one know that a plain bagel�without cream cheese�at Dunkin' Donuts has 120 more calories than a jelly-filled donut? Or that a large chocolate shake at McDonald's has more calories than three hamburgers?"

"This bill doesn't force anyone to do anything; it just makes sure that they know the price associated with what they do," Niemann said. "Just as no one would seriously think it wise to hide the dollar cost of a menu item, it is hard to imagine a reason to hide the nutritional price for the same item."

Americans eat out twice as often as in 1970 and obtain a third of their calories from restaurant meals. Studies also link dining out to higher caloric intakes and overall body weights. Children, for example, eat significantly more calories from a typical restaurant meal than one at home�770 versus 420 calories. Posting nutrition information on menus and menu boards will promote healthier eating and encourage restaurants to compete on the basis of nutrition, according to CSPI.

"Menu labeling will give Marylanders the information necessary to make smart choices," Harrington said. "Web sites, posters, and tray liners are just not working, so restaurants need to post nutrition information right on the menu where people can see and use it. It is just common sense."

Delegate Hubbard's legislation, HB 567, would phase out artificial trans fat in all Maryland restaurants by October 2010. The city of Baltimore and Montgomery County, Md.,have already passed curbs on artificial trans fat.

Artificial trans fat is increasingly hard to find in supermarket foods, where labeling requirements have encouraged most manufacturers to switch to healthier natural fats. Though most national chains have already gotten rid of it or are on the verge of doing so, many holdouts�especially among small and mid-size restaurants�remain. Trans fat is uniquely harmful because it raises one's LDL "bad" cholesterol that promotes heart disease and simultaneously lowers one's HDL "good" cholesterol that guards against it.

"Partially hydrogenated oil belongs in history books, not cook books," said CSPI deputy director for health promotion Julie Greenstein. "Getting rid of it is an inexpensive and easy way for state, or for that matter, federal legislators to prevent heart attacks and hold down medical costs. As we've seen in Montgomery County, no one misses it once it's gone."

"Artificial trans fat no longer has a place in our diet, and phasing it out is the next step towards better health for Marylanders," Hubbard said.

FDA Can't Protect Americans from Dangerous Dietary Supplements, GAO Says

2009-03-02

Beleaguered Agency Doesn't Know Who, or What, It's Regulating

WASHINGTON�Add dietary supplements to the growing list of products the beleaguered Food and Drug Administration is failing to regulate.

Today, the Government Accountability Office will report to Congress that the FDA does not have even the most basic information to protect the public from hazardous supplements.

It doesn't have an accurate inventory of the supplement ingredients on store shelves. It doesn't have a firm handle on the number and nature of serious adverse reactions to dietary supplements. In fact, the GAO found, the agency doesn't even have a list of the names and locations of herbal supplement manufacturers. And several substances banned overseas are readily available on the Internet and in retail stores all over the U.S. even though they are variously linked to kidney damage, liver damage, seizures, and death.

"When it comes to dietary supplements, it's like the Wild West, and the bad guys know they don't have to take the sheriff seriously," said CSPI legal affairs director Bruce Silverglade. "Even when confronted with people dying from a dangerous substance like ephedra, the FDA has limited authority to get the product off the market."

It took the FDA nearly 10 years to ban ephedra, also known as ma huang. Ephedra-containing dietary supplements, often marketed as weight-loss aids and performance enhancers, were linked to numerous deaths and thousands of adverse reactions, including irregular heartbeat and stroke. The herbal ingredients kava, lobelia, and supplements containing aristolochic acid are all banned in some countries, but FDA has taken no action short of issuing public warnings. Meanwhile, such products are available to consumers. St. John's wort, often marketed as an herbal anti-depressant, may interfere with birth control pills, a medicine used to treat HIV, and other prescription medications. While the FDA has issued alerts to that effect, it hasn't required warning labels on the products. As a result, some brands bear warnings while others do not.

Similarly, GAO pointed out that although such popular supplements as garlic, ginkgo biloba, ginseng, and Vitamin E may cause blood thinning and result in life-threatening complications during surgery, consumers are not warned of such risks. A CSPI market survey of warning labels on Vitamin E and other popular supplements found that such leading supplement manufacturers as GNC, Nature's Plus, and Rite Aid do not warn of the risks associated with Vitamin E.

"The supplement industry operates in a gray area where the loopholes loom larger than the law," Silverglade said. "Congress should close those loopholes by requiring that ingredients be reviewed for safety and effectiveness and that cautionary information appear on product labels."

Under current law, dietary supplements sold before 1994 are presumed safe, and manufacturers of new dietary ingredients only need to notify the FDA 75 days before marketing new products. The vast majority of the claims on the labels, like the substances themselves, do not require any FDA approval.

The GAO also found that the boundaries between dietary supplements and foods that contain herbal ingredients are not clear. The food industry often markets teas and other energy drinks as supplements to take advantage of weaker safety laws.

"This report highlights significant gaps in FDA's ability to ensure the safety of dietary supplements," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. "Because of limitations on FDA's authority and its lack of resources, consumers don't have the assurance they should that all supplements are safe."

CSPI has repeatedly urged the FDA to take enforcement action against supplements that contain ingredients the agency has told the industry are not recognized as safe for use in foods, including echinacea, ginkgo biloba, ginseng, chromium picolinate, guarana and gotu kola. Foods containing such ingredients include Arizona Rx Iced Teas, Snapple Awaken, and SoBe Lifewater Zingseng.

In addition, Mars continues to sell its Cocoa Via candy bars despite the fact FDA told the company that folate is not recognized as safe for use in candy. Fuze Black and Green Tea with Acai Berry also contains added folate in violation of FDA rules. Excess consumption of folate masks the presence of anemia in persons with a vitamin B12 deficiency.

The GAO pointed out the FDA lacks statutory authority to keep potentially hazardous supplement ingredients off the market and the resources to study adverse reaction reports or inspect manufacturing facilities. As with contaminated foods, the agency lacks mandatory recall authority.

In comments supplied to GAO, the FDA stated it generally agreed with the report's recommendations for improving regulation of the industry, which in 2007 had more than $23 billion in sales.

Maine to Consider Putting Calories on Chain Restaurant Menus and Menu Boards

2009-02-24

Today Maine House Speaker Hannah Pingree introduced a bill to require menu labeling at chain restaurants. Below is a statement by CSPI Nutrition Policy Director Margo G. Wootan.

I hope this year Maine will join New York City, Philadelphia, Portland, OR, and the state of California in passing menu labeling for chain restaurants. If McDonald's, Subway, and Applebee's can provide New Yorkers with nutrition information, shouldn't they do the same for Mainers?

People should be provided the nutritional price for what they're ordering as well as the financial price. Otherwise how can they know that a bagel with cream cheese has more calories than two jelly donuts at Dunkin' Donuts? Menu labeling is a popular, low-cost way to help make a dent in the obesity epidemic and save valuable health dollars in these tough economic times.

It now seems hard to believe that not long ago Nutrition Facts labels weren't required on food packages in the grocery store. Similarly, a few years from now, it will be hard to imagine that standardized nutrition information was absent from chain restaurant menus.

Michael Eisner's Second Act: Junk Food Magnate

2009-02-18

Topps Urged to Stop Using Young Girls to Market "Baby Bottle Pop"

WASHINGTON�The Topps candy company has signed a musical trio of twelve- and fourteen-year-old girls to sell Baby Bottle Pop�a powdered candy sold in a miniature baby bottle, eaten by dipping a candy nipple in a sugary powder and licking it off. The nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest is calling on the owner of Topps�former Disney CEO Michael Eisner�to scuttle that deal and join an industry-wide self regulatory group which monitors the way foods are marketed to children.

In late January, The New York Times reported that Topps signed a not-yet-widely-known music group called the Clique Girlz to appear on Baby Bottle Pop packaging and in commercials on Nickelodeon, the Cartoon Network, and Toon Disney. A previous Topps arrangement with the Jonas Brothers is credited with catapulting that group on to the Disney Channel, according to the paper.

In a letter to Eisner, CSPI said too much candy and other junk food puts young children at greater risk of obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay, and the company's behavior stands in stark contrast to his former employer. Under Eisner's successor, Robert Iger, Disney conducted a top-to-bottom review of its food marketing practices, instituting reforms at its theme parks and limiting the use of its licensed characters to foods that meet nutrition standards, winning praise from CSPI and other health advocates.

Eisner's Topps hires underage girl group to
market Baby Bottle Pop, above.
Photo credit: Jeff Cronin

"This is food porn," said CSPI CSPI nutrition policy director Margo G. Wootan. "I think I speak for millions of parents when I say: Mr. Eisner, please keep your candy nipples out of our children's mouths. It's gross for Topps to use young kids to peddle junk food to young kids."

The first three ingredients listed on a Baby Bottle Pop obtained by CSPI are sugar, dextrose, and corn syrup or, in other words, sugar, sugar, and sugar. After those ingredients come unspecified artificial flavors, citric acid, buffered lactic acid, and the artificial colors Blue 1, Yellow 5, Red 40, and Red 3. CSPI urged the Food and Drug Administration to ban those and several other synthetic food dyes because they promote hyperactivity and behavior problems in some children promote hyperactivity and behavior problems in some children.

CSPI also urged Eisner to enroll Topps in the Council of Better Business Bureau's Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative�an industry program that encourages voluntary standards for children's food advertising and manages pledges from 15 member companies, including Coca-Cola, General Mills, Kellogg, McDonald's, Nestle, Mars, and PepsiCo. Topps is one of the few major advertisers to children that is not a member of the initiative, along with Chuck E. Cheese, Subway, and YUM! Brands, the parent company of Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and KFC.

Topps is the North Korea of the food industry," said Wootan. "They've isolated themselves from the community of responsible food marketers. They're a rogue player that maintains the lowest standards of conduct."

Baby Bottle Pop containers are just small enough for Topps to avoid disclosing calories on Nutrition Facts labels, but if they were labeled, parents would learn that the product has 120 calories, all from sugar. The product CSPI obtained had 31 grams of candy inside, and cost $1.09, which means that Eisner and colleagues are basically selling sugar for about $15.95 a pound. Considering that sugar retails for as little as 65 cents per pound, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how Eisner might recoup the $385 million he and his business partners paid for the Topps company last year.

Topps also sells other candies, like Bazooka Gum, and trading cards, including the recently released Barack Obama Commemorative Series. A packet of six cost $1.99.

Since the Times article appeared, other published reports indicate that one of the Clique Girlz has left the group and that the Girlz' label is looking for a new member.

Absolut Mistake

2009-02-09

Statement of CSPI Alcohol Policies Project Director George Hacker on Absolut Vodka's Ads on CBS

What's next? Chivas Regal ads on Hannah Montana?

Sunday night, in a craven act of bad judgment and greed, alcoholic beverage conglomerate Pernod Ricard and CBS settled on a Grammys award broadcast featuring 16-year-old Miley Cyrus, 19-year-old Taylor Swift, the Jonas Brothers, and other young performers to air the first prime time ad for Absolut vodka.

Miley Cyrus and Taylor Swift perform Swift's song, "Fifteen," at the 2009 Grammy Awards on February 8.

We note with dismay the remarks of an Absolut spokesman that there will be "many more" such ads and the company "will continue to push the media landscape." Given the inauspicious debut of this campaign, we suspect the liquor industry wants to push this "landscape" to reach ever younger audiences on our public airwaves.

I hope this alarming lack of restraint demonstrated by Pernod Ricard�and also by CBS�invites new scrutiny of hard liquor advertising on the part of the Federal Trade Commission and Congress. Considering the magnitude of alcohol problems among young people, we need less advertising of all alcoholic beverages, not more.

Groups Urge the NBA to Ban Courtside Booze Ads

2009-02-09

Ads promote consumption, send harmful message to underage sports fans, says CSPI

WASHINGTON�The nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest and dozens of health, youth advocacy, and other organizations are urging the National Basketball Association to reverse its decision to allow courtside hard-liquor advertisements and other alcohol promotions on team web sites, retail locations, and inside arenas. To increase revenue, team owners recently voted to lift the ban of these ads, which would add to the deluge of beer ads that already air on NBA telecasts. For the first time, the ads would promote drinking liquor to thousands of underaged fans and link professional basketball to drinking liquor, according to CSPI.

In a letter to NBA Commissioner David J. Stern, CSPI and dozens of other groups, including the American Society of Addiction Medicine, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA), and the Society for Adolescent Medicine, urged the NBA to reconsider its decision and ban all alcohol advertising, including beer, during its telecasts. Allowing liquor advertising is a break with a long-standing ban and part of an ominous trend toward expanding the advertising of all alcoholic beverages during programs that attract young and underage viewers.

"The NBA congratulates itself on its youth-outreach and community programs, yet it is poised to increase its profits by exposing young fans to more ads for rum, whiskey, vokda, and of course, beer," said Tracy Downs, manager of CSPI's Campaign for Alcohol-Free Sports TV. "Granted, the league has some hefty salaries, but is that really a sufficient excuse to encourage young people to start drinking liquor earlier?"

With its Jr. NBA and Jr. WNBA programs, the NBA has a strong relationship with young fans through summer camps, tournaments, skill clinics, and other activities. Promoting alcohol consumption during telecasts also contradicts the NBA's public relations and community-building activities, specifically the NBA CARES program, which addresses social issues in the United States and worldwide.

Alcohol plays a significant role in the four leading causes of death among peoples ages 10 to 24, including motor-vehicle crashes, unintentional injuries, homicide, and suicide. Studies link teens' exposure to alcohol advertising with more frequent and heavier drinking. Alcohol use by young people may cause long-term harm to their developing brains.

CSPI's Campaign for Alcohol-Free Sports TV seeks to reduce youth exposure to alcohol advertising on televised college sports. Since 2005, 372�more than one-third�NCAA-member colleges and 16 college athletic conferences have signed the campaign's pledge to help eliminate alcohol advertisements from college sports telecasts.

Maryland Legislators Eye Prohibition on Behavior-Disrupting Food Dyes

2009-02-06

School Foods in Particular Should be Free of Controversial Colorings, Says CSPI

WASHINGTON�Maryland may become the first state in the country to protect children�and their families�from Red 40, Yellow 5, and other artificial food dyes that worsen hyperactivity and other behavior problems in some children. One bill introduced by Senator Norman Stone (D-Baltimore County) would require warning labels on foods that contain the dyes and then prohibit their use after 2012, and another bill would prohibit dyed foods in Maryland schools.

Two hearings on the measures are scheduled for Wednesday, February 11 in Annapolis. Bethesda resident David Schardt, CSPI's senior nutritionist, will testify in favor of the bills at the hearings.

Health experts have been concerned about the impact of food dyes on learning and behavior since the 1970s. In 2008, the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest called on the Food and Drug Administration to ban artificial food dyes in the wake of two British studies demonstrating the dyes promote increased hyperactivity and related behavior problems in children.

CSPI today announced its strong support for the legislation introduced by Senator Stone.

"Evidence linking Red 40, Yellow 5, and other synthetic food dyes to behavioral problems in children has been mounting for 30 years," said Schardt. "The Food and Drug Administration should have banned the dyes years ago and responsible manufacturers could have stopped using them voluntarily. But since they haven't, state legislatures have an opportunity and responsibility to protect children from these chemicals. I hope Senator Stone's legislation is adopted and inspires other state legislatures to similarly put the interest of children ahead of the convenience of junk-food companies."

In Europe, regulators and industry have made considerable progress toward eliminating artificial dyes from food products, though American versions of the very same products continue to get their colors from synthetic dyes. For instance, the syrup in a strawberry sundae from a McDonald's in the U.K. gets its red color from strawberries; in the U.S., the red color comes from synthetic Red 40.

In the U.S., synthetic food dyes are common in brightly colored foods popular with children, including candies, soft drinks, breakfast cereals, and snack foods. Sometimes the sunny synthetic colors are designed to simulate fruits or vegetables, as in the case of a "Guacamole Dip" produced by Kraft, which gets its green color not from avocados but from Yellow 5, Yellow 6, and Blue 1. The "artificially flavored blueberry bits" in Aunt Jemima Blueberry Waffles are blue thanks to Red 40 and Blue 2, not blueberries.

"These dyes may be cheaper than real food ingredients, but given the troubling evidence concerning their impact on our children, I do not see how we can continue to justify their use," said Schardt. "Parents and educators have a hard enough time addressing attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and behavioral conditions in children. The chemicals in the foods served to our children should not exacerbate these problems."

S.B. 101 would require the following warning label on any food products containing Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Orange B, Red 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, or Yellow 6: "Warning: The color additives in this food may cause hyperactivity and behavior problems in some children." After 2012, the sale of foods containing the dyes would be prohibited in the state of Maryland. S.B. 100 would prohibit the availability of foods with any of the eight dyes in schools or child care facilities, unless provided for a child by a parent.

CSPI collects adverse behavioral reports from parents who suspect that food dyes make matters worse.

Supermarkets Urged to Use Loyalty Card Info to Notify Consumers Who Purchased Recalled Products

2009-02-03

Chains Have Obligation to Help Contain Outbreak, Says CSPI

WASHINGTON�Besides helping consumers save a little money on their grocery purchases, retail loyalty card programs help supermarket and drugstore chains assemble gigantic databases on the shopping preferences of their customers. The nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest is urging retailers that collect this kind of information to use it to notify consumers when they purchased tainted peanut-butter products or other items subject to a food safety recall.

Costco, which requires a membership, and Wegmans Food Markets and Price Chopper, which run bonus card programs, have all used their data to notify consumers who purchased recalled items. In fact, Costco made over 1.5 million automated phone calls and mailed even more letters to customers in the current recall alone. But most chains, including CVS, Food Lion and Safeway, that collect purchasing data do not notify their customers.

"Supermarkets enjoy using purchasing data for marketing purposes," said CSPI staff attorney Sarah Klein. "We're calling on supermarkets to also use that information to protect their customers' health by alerting them to identify and return tainted foods. Several major chains are already doing that, and every other chain should do the same."

In a letter to retailers that use bonus cards, CSPI said that the companies have a responsibility to assist their customers in returning contaminated foods. The current outbreak due to Salmonella-tainted peanut-butter products, which have killed eight and sickened well over 500 people, makes a compelling case for a bonus-card recall notification system, the group says. Peanut butter is an inexpensive ingredient used in thousands of products, and peanut butter's long shelf life means many such products might linger on supermarket shelves and in kitchen cupboards for many weeks or months. The Food and Drug Administration's list of recalled peanut products has grown to nearly 900.

"Peanut butter is obviously popular with children, including very young children who are particularly at risk of serious complications or death if they contract a foodborne Salmonella infection,"said Klein. "It would be outrageous if some of the deaths in this latest outbreak could have been prevented had a supermarket just used the phone numbers and addresses in its database to notify its customers."

Of those sickened in the current Salmonella outbreak, 20 percent are under age five and 50 percent are younger than 16. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 76 million people are hospitalized each year due to foodborne illnesses and 5,000 die.

"It's not enough just to take the tainted products off the supermarket shelf," Klein said. "Wherever possible, supermarkets should reach out to their customers and help get contaminated food products out of their homes."

PA Gov. Urged to Ignore Findings of Trans Fat Panel

2009-02-02

Rendell, Assembly Urged to Phase Out Artificial Trans Fat

WASHINGTON�Health advocates are urging Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and the state's General Assembly to ignore a report from a task force on trans fat that recommended against a legislative phase-out of the harmful food ingredient. The Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest says the state should instead adopt legislation requiring restaurants to phase out artificial trans fat�the heart-attack-inducing fat that comes from partially hydrogenated oil.

Restaurants can easily replace artificial fat with heart-healthy soybean, canola, or other vegetable oils, or, in certain baked goods, with solid fats such as butter, palm oil, or lard, according to the group. Artificial trans fat has already been successfully phased out in New York City and similar measures have been enacted in the state of California, the cities of Boston and Philadelphia, and other jurisdictions. In those places and in supermarket aisles, foods that have been reformulated without partially hydrogenated oil almost always end up lower in saturated fat as well. In the rare event that saturated fat replaces trans fat gram for gram, that would still be an improvement, albeit a small one, according to CSPI.

"The report of this task force might have been credible were it written ten years ago, when the science on trans fat was less certain and the supplies of alternative oils less abundant," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "But it ignores the example of New York City, whose prohibition on using partially hydrogenated oils has proven so successful. Philadelphia restaurants have already emptied its deep fryers of partially hydrogenated oil, as required by that city's law."

Though most major restaurant chains have already eliminated artificial trans fat, many smaller chains and independent restaurants and bakeries still market foods with trans fat. A statewide phase-out would require those companies to make the switch also.

Besides several government representatives, the task force included one representative from the Tasty Baking Company, two representatives from the Pennsylvania Restaurant Association, three representatives from Sweet Street Desserts, Inc., and other representatives from Utz potato chips and the food service giant Aramark. Two of the members, including the chairman, work for the Penn State Center for Food Innovation, which describes itself as a "unique, cooperative research venture between food industry and academia," and which counts among its numerous "corporate members" Hershey Foods, the convenience store chain Sheetz, Cargill, Dairy Queen, Nestle, Sysco, and others.

"Though several government employees were on the panel, its recommendations almost certainly would have been supportive of public health had bakeries, restaurant lobbyists, and other food industry officials not been so overly represented," said Jacobson. "The line-up reads more like the attendees list for a trade show than an objective task force."

The task force said in its report that the materials to educate restaurants about a legislative ban could be costly. But it simultaneously relayed the offer of the Center for Food Innovation to provide educational materials to restaurants and the public about trans fat. "Such materials could be easily modified to educate the food industry if trans fat were banned, or the state simply could have adapted New York City's materials," wrote Jacobson in a letter to Governor Rendell.

Food Porn Alert: Chili's "Chocolate Chip Paradise Pie"

2009-01-27

1,600-Calorie Dessert Equivalent to One and a Half Racks of Chili's Original Baby Back Ribs

WASHINGTON�After a full restaurant meal, would you order a rack of baby back ribs for dessert? How about a rack and a half? That would be roughly equivalent to Chili's Chocolate Chip Paradise Pie�the latest Food Porn exposed in Nutrition Action Healthletter. That dessert provides 1,590 calories (about three-quarters of a day's worth), 37 grams of saturated fat (almost two days' worth), and surprisingly, for a dessert, 910 milligrams of sodium (more than half a day's worth). (The nutrition data have shifted very slightly since Nutrition Action went to press.)

Chocolate Chip Paradise Pie is a bar containing chocolate chips, walnuts and coconut, underneath vanilla ice cream, hot fudge and caramel toppings.

Chili's Chocolate Chip Paradise Pie
contains 1,590 calories, 37 grams of
saturated fat and 910 milligrams of sodium.

"It's quite easy to find appetizers and entr�es north of 1,000 calories at Chili's, so who knows what damage has already been done by the time dessert hits the table," said CSPI senior nutritionist Jayne Hurley. "But even if you split the Chocolate Chip Paradise Pie with someone else, it still would have more calories than the chain's cheesecake. This kind of food porn helps explain America's epidemic of obesity, heart disease and diabetes. It also makes a compelling case why calorie counts belong right on the menus, not just buried on corporate web sites."

Nutrition Action, published by the nonprofit nutrition watchdog group, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, spotlights a Food Porn on the back page of every issue. Other recent Food Porns include Starbucks' Salted Caramel Hot Chocolate, Sara Lee Cheesecake Bites, and DiGiorno's Ultimate Focaccia Pizza.

In its January/February issue CSPI gives its Right Stuff ranking to Eden Organic No Salt Added Beans�canned beans that come without added sodium (and whose cans come without the controversial chemical BPA).

Long Shelf Life May Mean Continuing Hazard from Peanut Products

2009-01-22

Statement of CSPI Food Safety Director Caroline Smith DeWaal

The tragic outbreak from peanut butter has already sickened hundreds of people and killed more people than the infamous 1993 Jack in the Box outbreak or the 2006 spinach outbreak. Given the long shelf life of these peanut products, this outbreak may sicken and kill many more if the Food and Drug Administration does not act to effectively remove contaminated products from stores and facilities that may have them. Yet, without mandates for recall and few inspectors, the agency's ability to protect the public is minimal.

This latest outbreak proves again that FDA is woefully inadequate to the task of protecting American consumers from unsafe food. It presently inspects low risk peanut butter plants rarely, or not at all, leaving the job to state inspection agencies. Although FDA is responsible for the safety of more than 80 percent of the food supply, the commissioner must divide his or her attention among drugs, medical devices, foods, and cosmetics. While additional funding could help, with food responsibilities divided between three centers within the FDA, there is no food safety expert in charge of both the policies and enforcement staff to implement needed changes. There is also no credible voice communicating to the public and the industry what can be done to prevent future outbreaks.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest calls on Congress to enact and President Obama to sign legislation to bring the food safety program at the Department of Health and Human Services into the 21st century. One bill sponsored by Representative Rosa DeLauro would create a new Food Safety Administration at HHS. That approach would bring the program elements together and put an expert in charge. Other bills being introduced in both the House and the Senate would create greater food safety authorities while keeping the same fragmented program in the FDA.

President Obama promised a "government that works." When it comes to food safety, fixing FDA's food safety program is an example of a "shovel ready" regulatory reform that could be done quickly and that would bring real benefits to American consumers.

Outgoing Bush Administration Issues Last-Minute Reg on Iffy Health Claims on Foods

2009-01-15

The nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest objected today to a "midnight" attempt by the outgoing Bush Administration to institutionalize a Food and Drug Administration practice permitting so-called "qualified health claims" on food labels. Such claims can be based on flimsy scientific evidence. The FDA first began permitting them on food labels in 2002. Prior to the Bush years, such claims were only allowed on dietary supplements. An example of these claims would be,"Very limited and preliminary scientific research suggests that eating one-half to one cup of tomatoes and/or tomato sauce a week may reduce the risk of prostate cancer. FDA requires that the claim be followed by the statement, "The FDA concludes that there is little scientific evidence supporting this claim."

Congress urged the FDA in last years appropriations bill to end the labeling policy for foods until a report from the Government Accountability Office on the issue was completed.

"Fortunately, the FDA action today is in the form of a 'Guidance' document that can, and should be immediately rescinded by the next FDA Commissioner," stated Bruce Silverglade. "FDA's own surveys show that consumers are misled by qualified health claims."

Coke Sued for Fraudulent Claims on Obesity Promoting "VitaminWater"

2009-01-15

vitamins + water + sugar + hype = soda - bubbles

WASHINGTON�The Coca-Cola Company has been served notice of a class action lawsuit filed over what the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) says are deceptive and unsubstantiated claims on its VitaminWater line of beverages. Coke markets VitaminWater as a healthful alternative to soda by labeling its several flavors with such health buzz words as "defense," "rescue," "energy," and "endurance." The company makes a wide range of dramatic claims, including that its drinks variously reduce the risk of chronic disease, reduce the risk of eye disease, promote healthy joints, and support optimal immune function.

In fact, according to CSPI nutritionists, the 33 grams of sugar in each bottle of VitaminWater do more to promote obesity, diabetes, and other health problems than the vitamins in the drinks do to perform the advertised benefits listed on the bottles.

CSPI's litigation department is serving as co-counsel in the suit, filed yesterday in United States District Court in the Northern District of California. The other law firms involved in the case are Reese Richman LLP and Whatley Drake & Kallas, LLC.

VitaminWater contains between zero and one percent juice despite product names such as "endurance peach mango" and "focus kiwi strawberry."

"When I bought VitaminWater, frankly I thought I was doing myself a favor health-wise," said the plaintiff, San Francisco, California, resident James Koh, who used to purchase and drink VitaminWater after working out at the gym. "I was attracted by the prospect of getting extra vitamins. But I had no idea that I was actually getting almost a Coke's worth of sugar and calories. There's no way I would have spent money on that, had I known."

VitaminWater's website, marketing copy, and labels claim that VitaminWater is healthy, claiming, for example, that "balance cran-grapefruit" has "bioactive components" that promote "healthy, pain-free functioning of joints, structural integrity of joints and bones" and that the nutrients in "power-c dragonfruit" "enable the body to exert physical power by contributing to the structural integrity of the musculoskeletal system."

While it is true that vitamins do play various roles in the human body, the statements on VitaminWater labels go far beyond even the loose, so-called "structure/function claims" allowed by the Food and Drug Administration and cross the line into outright fraud, according to CSPI.

Moreover, VitaminWater contains between zero and one percent juice, despite the full names of the drinks, which include "endurance peach mango" and "focus kiwi strawberry," and "xxx blueberry pomegranate acai," among others. A press release for the "xxx" drink claims its antioxidants makes the drinker "last longer" in some unspecified way; in any event, it has no blueberry, pomegranate, or acai juice, nor do the others have any cranberry, grapefruit, dragon fruit, peach, mango, kiwi, or strawberry juice.

According to documents filed in 2007 with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Coke acknowledged that "obesity and other health concerns may reduce demand for some of [its] products," and that "increasing public awareness" about health experts' concerns over sugar-sweetened beverage could affect the company's profitability. That year, Coke acquired VitaminWater's parent company, Glaceau. Also in 2007, CSPI sued Coke and its partner Nestl� over an artificially sweetened green-tea-based drink called Enviga. The companies claim Enviga burns more calories than it consumes, resulting in weight loss�a claim that CSPI says is not supported by the small number of studies on the drink's ingredients.

"Coke fears, probably correctly, that they'll sell less soda as Americans become increasingly concerned with obesity, diabetes, and other conditions linked to diets too high in sugar," said CSPI litigation director Steve Gardner. "VitaminWater is Coke's attempt to dress up soda in a physician's white coat. Underneath, it's still sugar water, albeit sugar water that costs about ten bucks a gallon." VitaminWater typically retails for about $1.49 for a 20-ounce bottle.

"My advice to consumers is to get your vitamins from real food," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "If you have reason to believe you have a shortcoming of one vitamin or another, perhaps take an inexpensive supplement. But don't seek out your vitamins in sugary soft drinks like Coke's VitaminWater."

Since 2005, CSPI's litigation project has, on its own or in cooperation with private law firms, negotiated settlements or voluntary changes to marketing practices with Anheuser-Busch, Airborne, Kellogg, Frito-Lay, Quaker Oats, Pinnacle Foods and others. Whatley, Drake & Kallas, LLC is a 35-lawyer firm with offices in Birmingham, New York City, and Boston which concentrates on complex class action and derivative litigation, including consumer, healthcare, insurance, employee benefits, antitrust, securities, and mass tort litigation. Reese Richman LLP handles commercial litigation with a focus on consumer, antitrust, and securities class actions.

Subway Urged to Set Nutrition Standards for Foods Marketed to Children

2009-01-14

Large Fast-Food Chain is Missing From Industry Self-Regulatory Program, Says CSPI and Other Groups

WASHINGTON�Though it has more healthy choices for children than other fast-food chains, Subway is conspicuously absent from the self-regulatory initiative that has collected commitments from 15 other food companies regarding which foods are marketed to kids and how. Today Subway was urged to join the Council of Better Business Bureau's Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI) by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and more than 30 other national and local health advocacy groups and experts.

"Self-regulation will only work and be an acceptable alternative to government regulation if all marketers participate," the groups wrote. "Pledging to market only healthier foods to children should be relatively easy for Subway given the number of healthy items and meals the company already makes and markets to children."

In a 2008 investigation of kids' menus conducted by CSPI, Subway had the healthiest choices for children. The 10,000-outlet chain is the only one that doesn't offer soda as the default choice in its kids' meals and about two-thirds of its possible kid combos did not exceed CSPI's 430-calorie threshold.

Founded in 2006, the CFBAI was designed to shift the mix of companies' youth-targeted food marketing toward healthier foods. To date the Initiative includes pledges from 15 of the largest food marketers in the country, including Coca-Cola, General Mills, Kellogg, Kraft, McDonald's, and most recently, Nestle, and Dannon. Other notable holdouts include Chuck E. Cheese's, Yum! Brands (KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut), and candy makers Perfetti Van Melle and Topps.

"Working through the CBBB framework would add credibility and transparency to Subway's efforts to support parents in feeding thir children healthfully," the groups wrote.

Concurrently, Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee also called on Subway to join the kids marketing Initiative. Other signatories to the CSPI letter include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National PTA, the Consumer Federation of America and the Prevention Institute.

Health Experts Urge President-elect Obama to Take Bold Action to Reverse Obesity Epidemic

2009-01-09

Hundreds of Thousands of Lives, Tens of Billions of Dollars at Stake, Experts Say

WASHINGTON�Bold action is needed to stem the obesity epidemic, or else today's children might be the first generation of Americans ever to lead shorter life spans than their parents. That's the urgent message delivered today to President-elect Barack Obama by 49 of the nation's most prominent health and medical organizations and 44 prominent physicians and nutrition experts. The obesity epidemic is harming Americans' health just as global warming is harming the planet, the experts write in a letter to the next President, and requires the coordinated effort of the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Transportation and other government officials.

"What is lacking is not well-conceived ideas for policies and programs, but a national commitment to wage a comprehensive campaign to prevent and reverse overweight and obesity, a war that should begin in the womb and infancy, extend to schools, then include workplaces, doctors' offices, and the general community," the letter states.

Organized by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, the groups pressing President-elect Obama to take vigorous action include the American Heart Association, American Public Health Association, Shape Up America!, The Obesity Society, Partnership for Prevention and Trust for America's Health. Individuals signing the letter include George L. Blackburn of Harvard Medical School, Carlos A. Camargo of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Kenneth H. Cooper of the Cooper Aerobics Center/Cooper Clinic in Dallas, Marion Nestle of New York University, and Walter Willett of the Harvard School of Public Health.

In a confirmation hearing yesterday before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, former Senator Tom Daschle, the Secretary-designate for HHS, spoke in support of several policies advocated by CSPI and other health advocates. "We aren't going to address obesity and prevention and wellness unless we make better school lunches, and unless we take the junk food out of schools, and unless we put physical exercise back into the school curriculum," Daschle said.

"The harms caused by obesity are well-known and considerable: hypertension, heart attacks, strokes, diabetes, cancer, arthritis and many others," the letter to President-elect Obama continued. "Together those maladies contribute each year to as many as several hundred thousand deaths and tens of billions of dollars in medical and other costs."

"The numerous possible approaches to reversing the obesity epidemic are well known, so they're not itemized in the letter," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson, a signatory to the letter. "What has been missing, particularly by officials in the Bush Administration, is the commitment to actually tackle the problem."

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, over the past three decades, rates of obesity have roughly doubled in adults and tripled in children, while almost two-thirds of American adults are overweight or obese. Obesity costs families, businesses and government about $117 billion each year in health care and related costs.

Nomination of Dr. Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General Supported by CSPI

2009-01-07

Statement of CSPI Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson

Quick�-can you name the Surgeon General?

Okay, that's a trick question. We've actually had an "acting" Surgeon General for more than a year. A good rule of thumb might be that if you don't know who the Surgeon General is, he or she is probably not doing a whole lot.

The fact is, it has been a long time since we've had a Surgeon General who had a major national impact, such as Dr. C. Everett Koop, who took on the tobacco industry. Certainly no one could accuse any Surgeon General in the last eight years of tackling tough health problems.

CSPI welcomes news of the nomination of Dr. Sanjay Gupta to be Surgeon General of the United States. Gupta, a neurosurgeon, happens to be a skilled medical communicator. But more than that, he has the brains and energy to be an integral part of the administration's health-policy brain trust. If confirmed, we hope Dr. Gupta will use his bully pulpit both to encourage Americans to make important lifestyle changes and to advocate policies aimed at preventing health problems.

Obviously, like other federal appointees, Dr. Gupta will need to make full disclosure of any financial ties he may have had with industry. Those relationships, should there be any, certainly warrant scrutiny during the confirmation process.

One matter that certainly should be at the top of his agenda is stemming the obesity epidemic, which may lead today's children to have shorter lives than their parents. Gupta would need to meld individual, corporate, and governmental actions�education, regulations, and laws at the local, state, and national levels�into one coordinated and effective campaign.

Labeling of Bug-Based Food Colorings Will Help Some Consumers

2009-01-05

Statement of CSPI Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson

After a decade-long gestation period, the Food and Drug Administration has finally ordered that food and cosmetics manufacturers that color their products with carmine and cochineal list them by name in ingredient lists. Until now, these colorings, extracted from the dried bodies of the tiny cochineal bug, have been hidden under the terms "artificial colors" or "color added." Naming those ingredients on labels will help people who suffered allergic reactions determine if the colors were the culprits.

That's useful progress. But, ideally, FDA should have exterminated these critter-based colorings altogether. The only way people can determine that they are sensitive to them is to suffer repeated reactions, including potentially life-threatening anaphylactic reactions. Also, the FDA should have required labels to disclose that carmine and cochineal are extracted from insects, which many consumers�including vegetarians, Jews, and Muslims�would be interested to know.

CSPI petitioned the FDA in 1998 to require labeling after a study by a University of Michigan allergy expert who discovered that carmine was the cause of an allergic reaction in one of his patients. Subsequently, CSPI received adverse-reaction reports from several dozen consumers. Yet carmine and cochineal extract remain in dozens of reddish-colored foods and beverages, including fruit drinks, ice creams, yogurts, and candies.

Govt. Science Panels Skewed Toward Industry, Says Report

2009-01-05

CSPI Urges Legislation to Restore Balance

WASHINGTON�The National Coal Council issues reports with titles such as "Coal: America's Energy Future" and "The Urgency of Sustainable Coal." And while its web site loads, Aaron Copeland's "Fanfare for the Common Man" streams triumphantly over the image of an American bald eagle. Coal boosterism from a K Street lobby shop? In fact, the National Coal Council is an official government science panel charged with advising the Secretary of Energy on the feasibility of clean coal technology. Not surprisingly, the panel has at least 15 members with financial ties to coal companies, whose fate depends on the technology's favorable review.

According to an investigation released today by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, the National Coal Council is similar to other unbalanced science panels across the government that give industry inappropriate influence over federal regulatory policy.

Government advisory committees that deliver policy recommendations are supposed to be comprised of members that represent a wide range of stakeholders, including representatives of regulated industries, consumers, and community groups. Government advisory committees that advise agencies on scientific issues are supposed to be made up of scientists without financial ties to industry who can render independent, objective advice. Both types of committee are plagued with problems, according to CSPI.

One committee with a clear scientific mandate is the Wind Turbines Guidelines Advisory Committee at the Department of Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service. It exists in part to recommend "scientific tools and procedures" for assessing the risk of wind turbines to wildlife. Instead of being comprised of scientists without financial interests in the panel's work, the committee is stacked with stakeholder representatives from the energy industry.

Another example is the National Organic Standards Board at the Department of Agriculture, which determines what foods and substances can be called organic. Despite the scientific mandate of the board, the committee is mostly populated with representatives from stakeholder groups, including corporations. (A General Mills representative was designated as representing "scientists" until consumer groups complained.)

"Over the course of the Bush Administration, government science panels have become increasingly influenced by industry," said CSPI lead investigator Kristin Stade, who authored the report. "Though existing law requires balance, scientists without ties to industry are becoming endangered species on many of these important panels."

Perhaps in response to reports from the Government Accountability Office, which in 2004 and 2008 criticized agencies for naming industry representatives to science panels, the Department of Energy improperly reclassified industry representatives as special governmental employees (SGEs)�the classification normally used for scientists on the panels. On the Energy Department's Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee, several members with ties to the nuclear power industry (as well as the sole representative from an environmental group) were improperly reclassified as SGEs. Not surprisingly, the committee wound up supporting a controversial industry-favored nuclear fuel reprocessing program, according to the report.

Indeed, CSPI found a number of policy committees that suffered from a lack of balance though they should have been comprised of representatives from various stakeholder groups. A Sporting Conservation Council, for instance, is dominated by representatives from hunting and big game organizations. And at Agriculture, the Fruit and Vegetable Industry Advisory Committee and the Grain Inspection Advisory Committee are almost exclusively composed of members affiliated with those industries.

On science panels, agencies may grant waivers to panelists with conflicts of interest if "the need for the individual's services outweighs the potential for a conflict of interest," but CSPI found waivers are often not issued. That was especially the case for Interior and Energy department panels, where numerous conflicts of interest went undocumented but apparently were informally waived.

To restore the integrity of the federal advisory committee system, CSPI supports legislation that would correct many of the chronic problems regarding balance, conflict of interest screening and transparency. Similar legislation passed the House in 2008 but died in the Senate. That legislation needs to be strengthened, reintroduced and approved, the group says.

"The hundreds of federal agency advisory committees whose deliberations affect the health and safety of the American people face growing scrutiny by Congress, public interest organizations, and members of the public," according to the report. "The new administration should act immediately to address longstanding deficiencies in the advisory committee system."

In addition to legislation, CSPI says an executive order from incoming President Barack Obama could clarify and strengthen the existing Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Court Scolds Gerber for Marketing Candy as "Fruit Juice Snacks"

2009-01-02

Lawsuit Against Company to Move Forward

WASHINGTON�The Gerber Products Company, owned by Nestle�, has drawn harsh criticism from a U.S. Court of Appeals for using pictures of real fruit to market a gummi-bear-like candy formerly called "Fruit Juice Snacks." The Court said that consumers would likely be deceived because the package depicts images of oranges, cherries and strawberries, though the leading ingredients are corn syrup and sugar.

The case brought against Gerber by a private citizen was initially dismissed by a Federal District Court in California, but then reinstated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on December 22. Gerber argued that consumers could avoid being misled by turning the package around and reading the ingredient list. But the Court stated that consumers should not be "expected to look beyond misleading representations on the front of the box to discover the truth from the ingredient list in small print on the side of the box."

"The Court's decision is a warning to all companies that try to make junk food look healthy by depicting nutritious fruits, vegetables, and whole grains on the labels of sugary, high-calorie snacks," said Bruce Silverglade, CSPI director of legal affairs.

Gerber has since renamed the product "Juice Treats," but continues to sell it alongside its baby and toddler food instead of at the candy counter. With corn syrup and sugar as the major ingredients, the product contains far more refined sugar than fruit juice concentrate. CSPI will serve as lead counsel when proceedings resume.

State Attorneys General Negotiate End of Caffeinated "Sparks" Beer

2008-12-18

Statement of CSPI Director of Litigation Steve Gardner

It was a bad idea that never should have gotten as far as it did�adding caffeine to sweetened, high-alcohol-content malt beverages and marketing them to young people via word-of-mouth and infantile web sites. Marketing caffeinated beer demonstrated a disturbing lack of restraint on the part of major companies like MillerCoors, and it put millions of young Americans in harms way. That's why we sued the company in September.

Thankfully, the Youth Access to Alcohol Committee of the National Association of Attorneys General, led by Maine Attorney General Steve Rowe, launched an investigation into these ill-advised products many months ago. And with the announcement today that the AGs and the City Attorney of San Francisco have forged an agreement with MillerCoors to end the Sparks line of caffeinated alcohol, this investigation comes to a successful end. Now that Anheuser-Busch and MillerCoors have each agreed separately to discontinue caffeinated alcoholic drinks, this entire niche of products is all but shut down.

The historic agreement negotiated by the Attorneys General, which also includes curbs on MillerCoors' marketing to youth, means fewer instances of alcohol poisoning, fewer sexual assaults, and fewer young lives snuffed out in car crashes or acts of violence. The smaller companies still operating in this space would be well advised to follow suit.

FDA Issues Midnight Go-ahead for Potentially Harmful Stevia Sweetener

2008-12-18

Statement of CSPI Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson

Shame on the Food and Drug Administration for its midnight decision to accept industry's contention that rebaudioside A, a sweetener extracted from the herb Stevia, is "generally recognized as safe," or GRAS. That "general recognition" of safety certainly doesn't extend to the UCLA scientists who concluded that rebaudioside A is inadequately tested in terms of cancer and caused mutations in some laboratory tests. It is far too soon to allow this substance in the diet sodas and juice drinks consumed by millions of people. It looks like this is President Bush's parting gift to the soda industry.

If President-Elect Obama's transition team is making a list of last-minute Bush Administration regulatory actions that warrant reversal on January 20, this needs to be added to the list. The FDA has had a poor track record when it comes to allowing companies to market dubious ingredients, such as the stomach-churning fake-fat olestra and the anaphylaxis-causing Quorn mycoprotein. The FDA's refusal to regulate BPA, the apparent endocrine-disrupting substance in some plastics, is another example.

Congress and the Obama Administration should strengthen the law that allows companies to simply declare on their own that new additives are "generally recognized as safe" and just start marketing them, even without notifying the FDA and public. Those decisions are reviewed too casually by the all-too-passive FDA.

Stevia: What's the Rush?

2008-12-15

Statement of CSPI Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson

Cargill and Coca-Cola are sticking their thumbs in the Food and Drug Administration's eyes by rushing to market novel sweeteners based on the stevia plant. Cargill has been marketing its Truvia product as a table-top sweetener for several months, and, according to media reports this week, Coca-Cola will start marketing stevia-sweetened drinks. So far, the other main producer, Merisant, and user, PepsiCo, of a stevia-based product have held back. A small company, Wisdom Natural Brands, put SweetLeaf sweetener on the market several months ago.

Stevia and rebaudioside A may well turn out to be entirely safe. But until more tests have been conducted and analyzed, it is reckless for food companies to begin adding it willy-nilly to the food supply and equally reckless for the FDA to stand by mutely.

The FDA should immediately order those products off the market until all the safety testing has been done.

Though small amounts of stevia have been consumed in various dietary supplements over the years, apparently without incident, too few safety tests have been done to warrant more general use. For starters, as two UCLA toxicologists emphasized in a report to the Center for Science in the Public Interest last summer, the FDA normally requires food additives to be tested for two years on rats and mice. The extremely sweet chemical�rebaudioside A�in stevia has only been tested on rats. Also, several, though not all, tests indicate that rebaudioside A causes DNA damage and mutations. That raises the troubling prospect that it could cause cancer.

Remarkably, it is perfectly legal for companies to market whatever food ingredients they want without even informing, let alone getting approval from, the FDA. Wisdom Natural Brands has pointedly said that it did not notify the FDA before marketing Sweetleaf. Last May, both Cargill and Merisant notified the FDA that they considered their products to be "generally recognized as safe," but the FDA has not yet said whether it agrees.

Consumer Groups Call on Obama Administration to Take Action on Food Safety During First 100 Days

2008-12-12

IOM Recommendation to Move Meat and Poultry to FDA Questioned

WASHINGTON�The Institute of Medicine today stated that the Food and Drug Administration's food safety system remains ill-equipped to meet emerging challenges, and the legal authority underlying all government inspection programs should be updated to emphasize prevention of foodborne illness. The IOM further suggested there would be benefits to creating a new focused food safety entity within the Department of Health and Human Services rather than continuing at FDA. Consumer Federation of America and the Center for Science in the Public Interest endorsed that action and today are urging President-Elect Barack Obama to act quickly to advance it.

The groups are puzzled, though, that the IOM recommended moving well-functioning U.S. Department of Agriculture programs into the dysfunctional FDA. While consumer groups and numerous members of Congress have supported consolidating all food safety functions in a single independent agency, moving meat and poultry inspection to FDA would undermine the strengths of meat and poultry inspection and overwhelm the food safety apparatus in HHS.

It is also true that Congress has consistently refused to consider moving the Food Safety and Inspection Service's inspection programs to HHS. That recommendation from the IOM is dead on arrival on Capitol Hill, and it should be, according to CSPI and CFA.

Instead, the groups urged the Obama Administration to take immediate steps to re-invigorate the federal food safety effort, reduce the risk, and restore consumer confidence in the ability of the government to assure the safety of the food supply.

The groups said that the President, within the first 100 days in office, should:

Issue an executive order re-establishing the White House Food Safety Council to provide him an overall view of food safety needs, and direct the council to manage strategic coordination of all food safety efforts and create a long-term budget plan for food safety agencies.
Direct the Food Safety Council to work with Congress to establish a commission made up of government officials, industry and consumer leaders, and food safety experts to develop a proposal to bring together the various federal food safety efforts into a single agency charged with protecting the public from food-related illnesses.
Instruct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to combine under a single HHS official, program and budget responsibility for all HHS food safety activities. The official should be directly accountable to the Secretary and responsible for leading food safety activities at FDA, including setting preventive safety standards for all FDA-regulated foods and assuring FDA inspection activities are carried out effectively. The secretary should also direct this official to lead the effort to establish a Food Safety Administration within HHS, consisting of the food-related activities now undertaken by the FDA operating under a modernized food safety statute.

"These steps will go a long way toward putting our food safety regulatory system back on track," said Chris Waldrop, director of the Food Policy Institute at Consumer Federation of America. "This is an opportunity for the new administration to greatly improve the safety of America's food supply."

"The safety of America's food supply has suffered from malign neglect under the Bush Administration," said Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "Comprehensive food safety reform is the kind of change we need. The status quo, after all, is killing about 5,000 and sickening tens of million Americans a year."

"The President cannot alone fix the organizational problems that make Americans uncertain about the safety of our food but, by acting quickly to do what he can, he will help restore confidence that government is working to address the problems," added Carol Tucker-Foreman, distinguished fellow at CFA.

Next Ag Secretary Should Have Food Safety, Nutrition, and Environmental Focus, Groups Say

2008-12-11

USDA Concerned With More Than Maximizing Commodity Production, According to Consumer Coalition

WASHINGTON�Much of the media speculation on who the next Secretary of Agriculture will be focuses on candidates lacking experience with food safety, nutrition, or environmental issues�issues which are at the heart of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's mission. Consumer advocates and other public interest groups are today urging President-Elect Barack Obama to appoint an individual who appreciates the diversity of programs administered by the $95-billion-a-year department, as opposed to a candidate whose primary experience involves large-scale agricultural production.

"USDA's food assistance programs are vital to helping millions of Americans survive in this time of high unemployment and high food prices," the groups wrote. "Considering the contribution of the American diet to obesity, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, and other health problems, USDA must be more aggressive in promoting healthier diets."

The groups further pointed out that the Government Accountability Office had recently identified food safety as one of 13 "urgent issues" needing the attention of the next Administration. "USDA has a responsibility for assuring the safety of the nation's meat, poultry, and processed egg supply and the Secretary must lead the way in addressing this urgent issue," the groups wrote.

The groups, which included the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Consumers Union, Safe Tables Our Priority, Food & Water Watch, the Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention, the Government Accountability Project, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, also cited agriculture's contribution to global climate change and urged that the next Secretary pay attention to soil and water conservation issues.

"President Lincoln, who established the USDA, referred to it as the 'people's department,'" said Carol Tucker-Foreman, Distinguished Fellow at Consumer Federation of America's Food Policy Institute. "Unfortunately, USDA has lost its way. It is now dominated by a collection of special interests, far removed from the people it is supposed to serve. Given the pressing issues of hunger, food safety and the environment, we urge President-Elect Obama to honor Lincoln's vision and choose a leader who can restore the mantle of "people's department."

"The next agriculture secretary should be someone who wants to promote the consumption of safe and healthy diets�and diets that minimally harm the environment," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson, a signatory of the letter. "Regrettably, current USDA policies fall far short of that goal."

Naughty Brewers Sully Santa in Beer Promos

2008-12-09

St. Nick Used to Promote Beer, Despite Prohibition in Industry Code

WASHINGTON�MillerCoors and Anheuser-Busch have been very, very naughty this holiday season, according to the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. The watchdog group says that the companies deserve lumps of coal�if not subpoenas�in their stockings for using the iconic image of Santa Claus to promote binge drinking events in Atlanta, Boston, Washington, and other cities. Though the events are ostensibly charitable, they run afoul of the beer industry's voluntary advertising and marketing code, which has a very specific prohibition on the use of St. Nick's likeness: a Santa clause, if you will.

CSPI today filed a complaint with the Beer Institute, the Washington, D.C.-based lobbying group that monitors compliance with the voluntary code. The complaint was copied to representatives of the Federal Trade Commission, the companies involved, and the North Pole.

Coors Light is sponsoring "Running of the Santas" bar tours in several cities this month. Billed as the "world's naughtiest pub crawl," the events are promoted on Facebook and MySpace. Drinkers in the Atlantic City "Running of the Santas" are promised they will be "escorted by the wonderful girls from Hooters." Bud Light is sponsoring a "Santa Pub Crawl" this week in Atlanta, which it similarly promotes on MySpace.

"These tacky promotional events once again raise the question of whether the beer industry's voluntary marketing and advertising code is worth the paper it's printed on," said George A. Hacker, director of CSPI's alcohol policies project. "How realistic is it to let the beer industry's lobbyists write and enforce the rules if not even Santa is safe? Besides, everyone knows Santa prefers milk�skim, actually."

CSPI is asking the Beer Institute's Code Compliance Board to advise MillerCoors and Anheuser-Busch to withdraw from the Santa-related promotional events.

GAO Calls for Greater Coordination, Monitoring of Genetically Engineered Crops

2008-12-05

Statement of CSPI Biotechnology Director Gregory Jaffe
The Center for Science in the Public Interest supports all of the recommendations in today's Government Accountability Office report on genetically engineered crops. The federal government established a coordinated framework for the regulation of GE crops more than 20 years ago. Yet, as pointed out by GAO, the three regulatory agencies--USDA, FDA, and EPA--still do not adequately coordinate their regulation of the food safety or environmental consequences of these crops.

The incoming Obama Administration should implement all of the GAO recommendations, especially one requiring post-approval monitoring for unintended environmental and food safety consequences. The federal government's response to that recommendation by GAO is inadequate and short-sighted, as resources spent on post-market monitoring would protect consumers, the environment, and our trading partners.

The FDA should also meet its commitment to the public made several years ago to publish on the Internet the results of its early food safety assessments of experimental GE crops. Lack of resources and having other safety priorities is not an excuse. Uploading decision documents to the web should simply be normal operating procedure.

Industry Not Lowering Sodium in Processed Foods, Despite Public Health Concerns

2008-12-04

A Few Companies Actually Hike Salt Levels Dramatically in Some Products, Says CSPI

WASHINGTON�Health experts have been ringing alarm bells about the amount of sodium, or salt, in processed foods for years. But according to discouraging new data published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, most food companies aren't listening. The average sodium content of 528 packaged and restaurant foods stayed essentially the same between 2005 and 2008, increasing by under one percent. But considering the food industry's acknowledgment that sodium levels are too high, the lack of progress is disturbing, said CSPI. The medical community has long agreed that diets high in sodium are a major cause of strokes and heart attacks.

For some products, though, the spikes in sodium content are alarming: Hardee's French fries, for instance, contain three times as much sodium as they did in 2005. Wal-Mart's cream cheese nearly doubled in sodium. Jimmy Dean's Regular Premium Pork Sausage, salty enough in 2005 with 280 milligrams of sodium per serving, has 60 percent more in 2008. Some 109 products increased by 5 percent or more and 29 products increased by 30 percent or more. On the other hand, sodium in 114 products declined by 5 percent or more and 18 products declined by 30 percent or more. The rest remained about the same.

"The food industry is knowingly overusing a chemical that can cause crippling disease or early death," CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson said. "Despite 30 years of unkept promises from food companies, nothing has changed. The average sodium content remains dangerously high. The next Administration can't sit by incuriously as chain restaurants and food manufacturers recklessly turn Americans' brains and hearts into ticking time bombs."

Health officials see lower-sodium diets as a major public health goal, because current levels promote high blood pressure, which, in turn increases the risk of heart attacks and strokes. In 2004, the director of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institutes, and two colleagues estimated that cutting sodium in foods by 50 percent would save about 150,000 lives annually. The American Medical Association, American College of Cardiology, and many other health groups have urged that industry gradually achieve that 50-percent reduction over a ten-year period.

While some companies maintain that current levels are necessary for purposes of taste or preservation, CSPI found large brand-to-brand differences in numerous categories of foods. That indicates that some companies could easily lower sodium levels and still have perfectly marketable products. For instance: Arby's French fries have three times as much sodium as McDonald's fries. Bumblebee white albacore canned tuna has 70 percent more sodium than Crown Prince. And Kraft's Classic Caesar salad dressing has almost twice as much sodium as Annie's Natural version.

Products that have less sodium in 2008 than they did in 2005 include Contadina Roma Style Tomato Paste, Pepperidge Farm's Hot Dog and Hamburger Buns, and Hungry Man Boneless Fried Chicken Frozen Dinner.

The sodium in processed foods comes mostly from salt, but also from monosodium glutamate (MSG), baking soda, sodium nitrite, and a myriad of other additives. About 10 percent of the sodium that people consume occurs naturally in foods.

In 2005, CSPI petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to change the "generally recognized as safe" status that salt enjoys in order to limit the amounts in various categories of food. New York City, Los Angeles, Wisconsin, Boston, and others have all endorsed that measure. FDA held a hearing on CSPI's petition in September 2007, but has done nothing since.

"The sixth edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans was published in 2005, the base year of our survey," Jacobson said. "And for the sixth straight time the government urged that sodium consumption be cut. Apparently, most food manufacturers just aren't listening."

In contrast to the FDA's decades-long inactivity on salt, over the several years the British government has waged a major campaign to persuade companies to lower sodium levels and consumers to choose lower-sodium products. The government's goal is to lower sodium consumption by one-third over five years. Consumption is already down by 10 percent, which Graham MacGregor, Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine at St. George's University of London, estimates is saving 6,000 lives there annually.

Nestl� Agrees to Curb Children's Marketing

2008-12-02

Statement of CSPI Nutrition Policy Director Margo G. Wootan

We applaud Nestl� for setting nutrition standards for the products it advertises to children under 12. Switching from promoting Wonka candy to 100 percent juice and low-fat chocolate milk will be better for children and make it easier for parents to feed their children healthfully.

Nestl� had been one of the biggest food companies missing from the Council of Better Business Bureaus' Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. In June, over 30 health organizations wrote to Nestl�, urging it to change its marketing to children and join the initiative.

But for the initiative and self-regulation to work, more major food marketers need to stop marketing junk food to kids. A number of top marketers have refused to join the initiative and make a public pledge to improve their marketing, including Chuck E. Cheese's, Subway, Yum Brands (KFC, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut, sponsor of the Book It! Program for schools), Perfetti Van Melle (maker of Airheads candies), and Topps (maker of Baby Bottle Pop and other candies).

When the new Congress reconvenes in January, it should take a fresh look at whether this voluntary initiative is sufficient to protect children from obesity-promoting advertising.

Eating as if Your Life Depends on It

2008-12-01

Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson to speak at the 92nd Street Y in New York City

Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, will speak about eating healthfully as food costs continue to rise at the 92nd Street Y in New York City on Tuesday, December 9th.

Who: Michael F. Jacobson, Executive Director, Center for Science in the Public Interest

What: As part of the Y's "To Your Health" series, Dr. Jacobson's will discuss ways to eat healthfully to manage weight and avoid chronic diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure as food prices continue to rise. His talk, "Eating as if Your Life Depends on It," will demonstrate how eating healthy can be simple and inexpensive after navigating through food marketers' misleading claims. Dr. Jacobson will also update the audience on CSPI's advocacy efforts and answer questions.

When: Tuesday, December 9, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. Tickets can be ordered online and are $18 for the public or $8 for members of the Y's May Center.

Where: 92 St. Y, 1395 Lexington Ave., New York City

Why: With the implementation of calorie labeling on fast-food menus and the elimination of trans fat in all restaurants, New York City is ahead of the curve in terms of nutrition. Dr. Jacobson will provide additional tools to maintain a healthy life in these tough economic times.

Fish & Shellfish Top CSPI Outbreak List

2008-11-25

As Thanksgiving Approaches, Group Urges Obama Administration to Make Food Safety Top Priority

WASHINGTON�Outbreaks involving produce, including E. coli on spinach, and Salmonella on jalapeno peppers and fresh tomatoes grabbed headlines this year and last. But when you look at relative rates of outbreak-related illnesses caused by various foods, fish and shellfish turn out to cause more sicknesses per bite than any other category. Turkey is linked to three times as many illnesses as chicken�no doubt in part because many harried holiday cooks might not as be as familiar with how to safely thaw and cook a whole big bird, or to store the leftovers

"While many food safety disasters in the home can be avoided with careful handling, those coming to the table from farms and factories here and abroad have become far too frequent over the last few years," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety for the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. "Instead of relying on recalls and warnings, the Food and Drug Administration should focus on preventing these problems from ever reaching consumers."

According to the foodborne-illness data crunched by CSPI in its annual Outbreak Alert! report, a pound of fish and shellfish is 29 times more likely to cause illness than the safest food category, a pound of dairy foods. After dairy, produce is the second safest category of food, followed by pork.

Even when not adjusted for consumption, CSPI's Outbreak Alert! database has more seafood outbreaks, 1,140, than for any other category of food. Fin fish, such as tuna, grouper, mahi mahi, and salmon, were linked to 694 of those outbreaks; mollusks, including oysters, clams, and mussels were linked to 175 outbreaks; and the rest linked to shrimp, lobster, or foods such as crab cakes and tuna burgers. While Vibrio bacteria and noroviruses contributed to those, naturally occurring toxins such as scombrotoxin and ciguatoxin account for a plurality of seafood outbreaks.

"Our food safety system is based on antiquated laws, including ones that are more than a hundred years old," DeWaal said. "A hundred years ago we weren't importing millions of pounds of seafood from Asia, nor were we repacking Mexican tomatoes and shipping them to 50 states. Modernizing this system should be an urgent priority of the Obama administration, to reduce outbreaks and illnesses from food and restore consumer confidence."

Outbreak Alert! includes nearly 5,800 outbreaks that occurred between 1990 and 2006 for which both the food and the pathogen are identified. The data set has been published by CSPI for the last 10 years, and can be reviewed on CSPI's website. Because foodborne illness is dramatically underreported, because much foodborne illness does not occur in outbreaks, and because it is so difficult to prove which food caused an outbreak, CSPI's data represents just the tip of a very large iceberg: Each year, according to the CDC, foodborne illness sickens 76 million and kills 5,000 Americans.

CSPI reminds home cooks to allow plenty of time to thaw whole turkeys in the refrigerator�about 24 hours for every four to five pounds�and to not let germs on the turkey grow by thawing on the counter. Cook whole turkeys to 165 degrees F as measured by a meat thermometer inserted into the thickest part of the thigh and be sure to refrigerate leftovers within 2 hours after cooking to keep them safe.

Longer Tests on Lab Animals Urged for Potential Carcinogens

2008-11-17

WASHINGTON� Current government regulatory agencies typically require that industrial chemicals, including food additives and environmental pollutants, be administered to lab rodents beginning shortly after birth and ending after two years to test whether those substances might cause cancer in humans. But a new peer-reviewed paper published in Environmental Health Perspectives argues that those tests sometimes understate human risks and should start in utero and continue as long as three years, the approximate life spans of rats and mice. The longer, more sensitive tests would provide a more reliable picture of the risk that various chemicals pose to humans throughout their lifespan, the authors say. The authors charged that practically all rodent tests submitted to regulatory agencies are insufficiently sensitive.

"We must test animals to determine whether a substance causes cancer," said Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and co-author of the paper. "Given the prevalence of so many chemicals in our cupboards, our workplaces, and in the environment at large, government regulatory agencies must change the way they do business and require companies to conduct animal tests from before birth to near the end of their natural lifetimes. Needless to say, chemical manufacturers prefer tests that are less expensive and less likely to find problems," said Jacobson.

"Waiting for proof of human harm before acting to prevent risk is unethical and treats people like animals in an uncontrolled experiment," added co-author Devra Davis of Pittsburgh's Center for Environmental Oncology.

All known human carcinogens also cause cancer in animals. About a third of known human carcinogens were first uncovered in animal testing. The paper highlights rodent tests on several chemicals that did not appear to be carcinogenic after two years, but did so in longer studies.

For instance, two-year rat tests on the artificial sweetener aspartame did not detect any tumors, but two tests, one of which began in utero, that monitored rats until they died showed increased lymphomas, leukemias, and kidney and other tumors. Two-year rat tests of the metal cadmium, which is used in batteries and other products, did not find the substance to be a carcinogen, but a two-and-a-half-year study found lung tumors. Similarly, two-year testing in rats of the solvent toluene did not detect cancer. But significant numbers of cancers did appear in animals exposed to toluene for two years and then allowed to live an additional six months.

"Since exposure to many chemicals occurs before birth, tests on rodents should begin in utero, particularly for chemicals that may interfere with the endocrine and reproductive systems," Jacobson said. (The Food and Drug Administration normally requires such tests on potential food additives.)

The paper cited bisphenol A, or BPA, as an example of a chemical that should be tested on animals before and after birth. BPA is widely used in plastic bottles and in the lining of metal cans, and has been increasing in the diets of infants and children. Fetuses are particularly sensitive to chemicals like BPA, which is an endocrine disruptor. Several governments have recently acted to restrict its use.

The authors recommend that government agencies involved in testing, including the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Consumer Product Safety Commission, and National Toxicology Program compare the results of two-year and longer-term animal studies and then revise their "best practices."

James Huff, an animal carcinogenesis expert at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which publishes Environmental Health Perspectives, co-authored the paper.

CSPI's Director of Litigation Named Advocate of the Year

2008-11-13

WASHINGTON�The nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest is pleased to announce Stephen Gardner, director of its litigation project, was named Advocate of the Year by the National Association of Consumer Advocates (NACA). That organization presented the award at its annual meeting in Portland, Oregon on Oct. 25.

CSPI's litigation project, led by Gardner since its founding in 2004, has negotiated settlements or voluntary changes in marketing practices with Anheuser-Busch, Frito-Lay, Quaker Oats, Pinnacle Foods, and others. Gardner's negotiations with representatives of soda companies led to the industry's 2006 voluntary agreement with former President Clinton to remove most soda from schools. CSPI's litigation project also forged an agreement with Kellogg agreed to adopt nutrition standards for foods advertised to young children, and prompted KFC to accelerate its switch from artificial trans fat to healthier oils for deep-frying.

After earning a law degree from the University of Texas, Gardner served as director for several nonprofits, assistant attorney general in New York and Texas, a visiting assistant professor of law and later assistant dean of clinical education at Southern Methodist School of Law. Prior to joining CSPI, he practiced privately and for the National Consumer Law Center, the nation's leading advocates for low-income consumer justice. Gardner is the author and co-author of several law-related publications, such as "Lost in the Supermarket: Consumer Confusion and Marketing Mania" and "The Practice of Consumer Law."

How Should the Next Administration Address Genetically Engineered Food Animals?

2008-11-07

Audio and Transcript Now Available

WASHINGTON�The Center for American Progress and the Center for Science in the Public Interest held a moderated panel discussion on the commercialization of genetically engineered animals on Monday, November 10, 2008 at the National Press Club in Washington.

Who:

Rick Weiss, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress (moderator)
Scott J. Eilert, V.P. and Director, Meat Technology Department, Cargill
Michael Greger, Director, Public Health and Animal Agriculture, The Humane Society of the United States
Gregory Jaffe, Director, CSPI Biotechnology Project
John Phillips, Emeritus Professor, University of Guelph and Enviropig developer
Michael Taylor, Research Professor of Health Policy, George Washington University
Jamie Jonkers, Ph.D., Director, Regulatory Affairs, National Milk Producers Federation

What: Representatives of the biotechnology industry, the food industry, and consumer groups discussed what the next Administration, Congress, and consumers should know about the coming commercialization of genetically engineered animals.

When: 1:00-2:30 p.m. EST on Monday, November 10, 2008

Where: National Press Club, Holeman Lounge, 529 14th St., N.W., Washington, DC

Why: What are the potential risks and benefits of applying genetic engineering to animals, such as the so-called "Enviropig" or the fast-growing transgenic salmon? How should they be regulated�and by whom? How will American consumers and our international trading partners react to these high-tech animals and their entry into the food supply?

Philadelphia Passes Strongest Nutrition Labeling Requirements for Chain Restaurant Menus

2008-11-06

Statement of CSPI Nutrition Policy Director Margo G. Wootan

Philadelphia now joins New York City , several counties, and the state of California in passing a strong menu labeling requirement for chain restaurants. Beginning on Jan. 1, 2010, chain restaurants with more than 15 outlets will have to disclose calories on menu boards, and calories, saturated and trans fat, sodium and carbohydrates on printed menus. The measure passed today by the Philadelphia City Council is the strongest in the nation so far, and we hope it is used as a model for other jurisdictions.

There's no reason that consumers shouldn't see the nutritional price for what they're ordering as well as the financial price. While it's no magic bullet, menu labeling is an easy thing that cities, counties and states can do to help their citizens eat healthfully, manage their weight, and avoid diet-related disease. It's also a useful incentive to the restaurant industry to expand the number and variety of healthy choices on their menus.

We expect that the members of the incoming Congress and next Administration are taking note of the popularity of these low-cost menu labeling measures, which can help make a dent in the obesity epidemic and save valuable public health dollars. It now seems hard to believe that not long ago Nutrition Facts labels weren't required on food packages in the grocery store. Similarly, a few years from now, it will be hard to imagine that standardized nutrition information was absent from chain restaurant menus. Congratulations to the Philadelphia City Council, particularly councilmember Blondell Reynolds Brown, for helping to lead the charge.

Brits Get Treats, Americans Get Tricks From Food Companies, Says Nutrition Action Healthletter

2008-10-22

Pumpkin, Annatto, & Strawberry Color Foods There, Synthetic Petrochemicals Fill In Here

WASHINGTON�British consumers enjoy products made by General Mills, Kellogg, Kraft and McDonald's that are free of synthetic food dyes, but American customers lack such royal treatment, according to the October issue of Nutrition Action Healthletter. Despite evidence linking food dyes to hyperactivity and other behavior problems in children, companies continue to use the controversial dyes in American product lines while substituting natural colorings in the United Kingdom.

In the U.K., Fanta orange soda gets its bright color from pumpkin and carrot extract, but in the U.S. it comes from Red 40 and Yellow 6. Starburst Chews and Skittles, which are both Mars products, also contain synthetic food dyes in the U.S. but not in the U.K. Similarly, in the U.S., McDonald's strawberry sundaes are colored with Red 40 but�amazing as it might sound�real strawberries in the U.K.

"British candy has all the sugar of American candy, and it's certainly not health food," said Michael F. Jacobson, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, Nutrition Action's publisher. "But as Halloween approaches, it's a shame that American kids trick-or-treat for candy dyed with discredited chemicals while British families have many of the same foods, minus the dyes."

Americans consume five times as much food dye as they did 30 years ago, according to data from the Food and Drug Administration. But in the wake of two British studies that found food dyes (and possibly the preservative sodium benzoate) impair the behavior of many children, the British government pressured companies to switch to safer, natural colorings and the European Parliament approved a warning label for foods that still contain the dyes.

In June CSPI urged the FDA to ban Red 40, Yellow 5 and six other synthetic dyes. The group wants parents of children sensitive to the chemicals to file reports online at http://www.cspinet.org/fooddyes, which CSPI will then forward to the FDA.

GAO Says FDA Fails to Ensure Accuracy and Truthfulness of Food Labels

2008-10-10

FDA Urged to Develop Simple, Front-Label Nutrition Symbol

WASHINGTON�A new report from the Government Accountability Office gives federal food regulators failing marks when it comes to preventing false and misleading labeling.

The GAO report found that while the number of food firms and products has increased dramatically, the Food and Drug Administration's oversight and enforcement efforts "have not kept pace." The FDA is supposed to conduct label reviews when it inspects foreign food firms, but in 2007 only inspected 95 firms overseas (there are tens of thousands) and in only 11 countries (out of 150 that export food to the U.S.)

According to the report, the FDA has not done random sampling to test the accuracy of Nutrition Facts labels since the 1990s�and the agency has only conducted very limited non-random nutrition testing on products whose labels were suspected of being inaccurate. The most serious enforcement actions FDA can take�seizures, injunctions, and import refusals�are rare for labeling violations. The report further found that the FDA lacks a system for tracking the enforcement activities of its field offices.

"The findings of this latest GAO investigation that the FDA seems incapable of preventing companies from providing false or misleading information to consumers are very troubling," said representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), chairwoman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee in charge of the FDA's budget. "These findings by the GAO seem to point to another example of how FDA mismanagement is failing consumers. As Congress moves next year toward reforming FDA's food safety responsibilities, this is another area that warrants close examination and potentially a major overhaul."

"Americans rely on food labels for accurate nutrition information to improve their diets and reduce their risk of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes," said CSPI legal affairs director Bruce Silverglade. "These disturbing findings basically show that the FDA is looking the other way while consumers are being misled."

"It's astounding that FDA lacks reliable mechanisms to ensure that the Nutrition Facts label is accurate and that health-related claims are trustworthy," said CSPI senior staff attorney Ilene Ringel Heller. "FDA needs to reorganize its labeling division and be given a new mandate from Congress to modernize food labels. Millions of Americans are counting on label information to protect their health."

GAO called on the FDA to "better leverage" its resources and to develop "detailed information on how new [legal] authorities would help address the shortcomings identified in this report."

CSPI regularly files formal complaints with the FDA urging it to stop misleading labeling claims, but the labeling violations have often continued unabated. Recent deceptive claims include:

Kraft's Crystal Light Immunity Berry Pomegranate drink falsely claimed that its vitamins A, C, and E will "help maintain a healthy immune system." The FDA said it would consider placing the issue on its work plan for next year.
Mars Cocoa Via Brand Heart Healthy Snacks claimed that it "Promotes a healthy heart," and "reduce[s] bad cholesterol." The chocolate candy contains significant amounts of saturated fat, which can raise bad cholesterol. The company has ignored an FDA warning to halt the claim, and the agency has failed to follow-up its demands in court.
Land O Lakes has claimed that "Omega-3 All Natural Eggs" are a "good source of heart healthy nutrition," despite the fact that the eggs contain too much heart-unhealthy cholesterol to make health claims under FDA rules. The FDA has failed to act on a CSPI complaint urging the agency to stop the claim.
Nestle Crunch Ice Cream Bars have claimed "0g Trans Fat," but contain 11 grams of saturated fat, which also raises cholesterol levels. The FDA failed to act on a CSPI complaint over the issue.
Capri Sun beverages were labeled as "All Natural" even though they were made with high-fructose corn syrup (when contacted by CSPI, the company said it was modifying the label). The FDA has failed to formally define the term.
Gerber Graduates for Toddlers Fruit Juice Snacks depicted fruits on the label and suggested that the product is made from fruit. But the product's predominant ingredients are corn syrup and sugar. CSPI, but not the FDA, is challenging the claim in federal court.
Thomas' Hearty Grains Double Fiber Honey Wheat Muffins label has boasted that the product is "made with whole grain," but the predominant ingredient is white flour. The FDA issued a weak policy pronouncement on the issue, but has taken no enforcement action.

The GAO report also called on the FDA to collaborate with other federal agencies and stakeholders to "evaluate labeling approaches and options for developing a simplified, empirically valid system that conveys overall nutritional quality to mitigate labels that are misleading consumers." CSPI formally petitioned the FDA in 2006 to develop a universal front-of-label symbol that would communicate nutritional value and has advocated funding for an Institute of Medicine study to identify the best system of label symbols. The FDA held a public hearing on the issue in 2007, but has not taken any further action.

Yum! Brands Praised for Adding Calorie Counts to KFC, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell Menu Boards

2008-10-01

Statement of CSPI Executive Director Michael F. Jacobson

YUM! Brands' groundbreaking announcement that it will add calorie counts to menu boards at KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, and Long John Silver's is fabulous news for health-conscious consumers. Talk about thinking outside the bun!

YUM! is leaping ahead of all its competitors by providing the one piece of nutrition information that consumers most want, calories. We applaud this move and encourage McDonald's, Starbucks, Applebee's, and other major chains to follow this bold example.

YUM! has gone an important step further by voicing its support for legislation that would require restaurants to list calories on menus and menu boards. Of course, this is, in part, because several major cities and one state have passed laws that require differing forms of nutrition disclosures.

But it is also because YUM! recognizes that many of their customers value this information and that it's practical for chain restaurants to provide it.

I never thought I'd say this, but I salute Colonel Sanders!