The Food Movement Minute is a top story news analysis for busy foodies. I chew up the top industry and consumer publications each day and spit out only the news that matters most in a quick and entertaining read. I have a very discerning palate.

Today’s topics: GMO Labeling, ‘Healthy’, Soda Industry, Foodborne Illness

———-

GMO Labeling

The Story
With labeling efforts on a state and national level stalled, there’s a new approach to GMO labeling that could reignite the issue and leaders on both sides of the argument seem to agree that it could work. Scannable bar codes that disclose GMO status could be the solution to providing the transparency consumers want in a way GMO advocates can live with.

The Details
Have we found the ‘golden’ ticket for GMO labeling? The push for national labeling in Congress is on indefinite hold, initiatives on the state level continue to be voted down, and even media coverage of the issue is slipping as reporters lose interest and move on to other issues. The one aspect of the GMO debate that remains top of mind for industry, consumers and media alike is a desire to know more about how food is made and where it comes from. This push for transparency is a fundamental theme in the Food Movement, spanning the issues of food safety and production, ethical sourcing and even what constitutes ‘natural’. The scannable barcode concept would allow anyone with a camera on their phone to access a complete document describing the product: from GMO origins to other transparency issues such as food-worker wages, land-use conversion, pesticide use and more. Both Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack (pro-GMO) and Gary Hirshberg, leader of the Just Label It campaign are in support of the idea. If these two guys can agree, I think we may just have something.

Why it Matters
Although debating of the merits and risks of GMO may deserve a cooling off period, solutions to provide transparency, what I’ve always believed is the real issue behind GMO anyway, remains front and center for many. The barcode idea not only answers the issue for those seeking information about GMO, but provides a new avenue for a seemingly infinite degree of information exchange between farmer, manufacture and consumer.

———-

‘Healthy’

The Story
Back in March, snack manufacturer KIND received a warning letter from the FDA telling them to stop using the term ‘healthy’ due to excessive fat levels. Although they are complying with the letter, KIND filed a citizen petition this week claiming that the agency’s definition is outdated and should be changed.

The Details
Give me nuts and avocados or give me death. FDA’s current guidelines require that products labeled as ‘healthy’ conform to a range of nutrient parameters including that they contain no more than 3 grams of total fat, no more than 1 gram saturated fat, and that fat make up no more than 15 percent of total calories. Ironically, this issue of fat content is an especially irritating one for producers of what most people would consider health foods. Case in point with KIND bars whose snacks exceed fat limits for the ‘healthy’ claim due to the inclusion of nuts, an ingredient that for many health experts is the epitome of a healthy snack. In practice, this means foods can meet the definition for ‘healthy’ regardless of their nutrient density, so a fat-free pudding or sugary cereal may be able to call itself ‘healthy’, while nutrient-rich foods such as nuts, avocados, olives and salmon cannot.

Why it Matters
Consumers rely on regulated claims to make informed decisions for themselves and their families, and as a part of that reliance, should be able to trust that the regulations in place reflect current understandings of what promotes health and avoids disease. When a term as ubiquitous as ‘healthy’ is so misaligned with current science, it not only creates confusion at the point of purchase, but should raise a red flag about the validity of the entire FDA health claims system.

————

Soda Industry

The Story
This has been a tough month for soda manufacturers (Coca-Cola in particular). Marion Nestle, anti-soda crusader sums up recent events.

The Details

  • Nov 6: The NY Times reported the University of Colorado was returning a million dollar grant from Coca-Cola for their participation in the Global Energy Balance Network (GEBN), a once-believed independent group that supported the position people can consume whatever they want (including soda) as long as they exercise (turns out Coke was funding and managing the group behind the scenes)
  • Nov 24: The AP published emails between U. Colorado scientists and the GEBN revealing Coke’s involvement in picking the group’s leaders, editing its mission statement and suggesting articles and videos for its website
  • Nov 24: Coca-Cola’s chief scientist immediately resigned
  • Dec 1: GEBN closes up shop once and for all as a result of loss of funding
  • Dec 1: The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology publishes an opinion piece arguing the world is eating too much sugar and changes in policy are needed to encourage reduced consumption of sugary drinks
  • Dec 2: Members of Mexico’s Nutritional Health Alliance held a press conference to complain that a Coca-Cola Christmas ad violated the human rights of the indigenous people of the Mixe community

Why it Matters
Although this issue is really about added sugar consumption, soda, as Nestle puts it is, “low-hanging fruit in public health terms”. A significant contributor of calories, yet providing nothing else of redeeming nutritional value, it is almost too easy to focus all attention from a media and policy perspective on soda. Have a glass of water. Cheers.

———-

Factoid of the Day
Keep eating it but…fresh produce like cilantro, cucumbers, cantaloupes, and peppers that are often eaten raw cause more foodborne illness that any other category of food, according to new statistics from the Center for Science in the Public Interest. So, give ‘em an extra wash next time, okay?

Image by Mike Mozart