FDA energized to reexamine caffeine added to products

By Teresa Green, Linda Golodner Food Safety & Nutrition Fellow

The biggest buzz in the food community in the last few weeks has been around FDA’s announcement to take a closer look at caffeine added in food products.  This recent trend has led to caffeine showing up in products ranging from gum, to marshmallows, to maple syrup, to cracker jacks.

Given the increasing popularity of energy drinks, it should come as no surprise that companies are trying to tap into that market.  However, because there have been some deaths linked to energy drink consumption, and because many of the foods that have added caffeine are particularly attractive to children and teens, FDA has decided to look into these products.

After the announcement by FDA, Wrigley’s, which had been developing a caffeinated gum, has decided to withdraw the product “out of respect” for FDA.  This demonstrates the power of targeted action by the agency.  In a time of constrained resources, it is understandable that FDA has to prioritize.  This announcement by FDA clearly illustrates that one “warning shot” can send a message to the industry to change their behavior.  We hope the agency will continue taking similar action on food fraud and labeling issues, problems we consider important parts of FDA’s mission.

Not thrilled: President’s budget based on dangerous cuts to USDA program

By Teresa Green, Linda Golodner Food Safety & Nutrition Fellow

The President’s budget, released earlier this week, has garnered a lot of media attention. There have been criticisms and questions from all sides. As a member of a coalition of labor and food safety advocates, my main concern was the inclusion of savings from the implementation of a new model of poultry inspection.

We’ve been talking about this program for a long time, advocating against it and trying to raise public concern. The concerns that we have enumerated before still stand; we are gravely troubled by the fact that the program could potentially increase the rates of certain foodborne illnesses and would put workers at a higher risk for musculoskeletal injuries. These injuries are caused by repetitive motion and the rule would allow plants to process up to 175 birds per minute; that’s three birds per second!

Clearly USDA disagrees with our assessment of the program—hence the inclusion of the program’s projected savings in the budget. They insist that these changes will improve rates of foodborne illness and will have no impact on workers. Given the number of unanswered questions that remain, we feel moving forward with this program would be irresponsible. What advocates are suggesting isn’t radical; study the impact of changes, to both food and worker safety, before making them. And if those studies show the changes would be harmful, don’t make them just to save a few bucks.

 

The Food Safety Modernization Act and the struggle to give FDA additional power

By Teresa Green, Linda Golodner Food Safety & Nutrition Fellow

On January 4, 2011 President Obama signed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) into law.  The culmination of years of work by advocates, victims of foodborne illness and their families, and the regulated food industry, FSMA was seen as a game changer.  It gave FDA new power to regulate food safety.  Most importantly, once fully implemented, FSMA was designed to transform FDA from an agency whose primary mission is response to foodborne illness to one working proactively to prevent these outbreaks from occurring at all.

An essential part of establishing this new paradigm is a series of proposed rules, four of which were scheduled to be released in January 2012.  As January passed, followed by February, then spring, summer, and fall, the clamoring from advocates and the industry for the release of the rules grew louder and louder.  Finally, in January 2013, a year later, two of the four rules were released. These two rules address produce safety and preventive controls in processed food.

Earlier this week FDA released an additional set of documents that can help to explain some of the reasons for the long delay.  These documents show that the two rules were held up at OMB (the agency that must review all agency rulemaking), where extensive changes were made to their content.  Most notably, OMB removed requirements for environmental and end-product pathogen testing as well as a proposed supplier approval verification program.

While what remains is still an improvement over the existing system, it is far weaker than what FDA had initially proposed.  There are likely many reasons why these changes were made, but these considerations will matter very little to the parents of a child whose foodborne illness could have been prevented by one of the nixed measures.

 

Public health thwarted

By Teresa Green, Linda Golodner Food Safety & Nutrition Fellow

In our staff meeting this morning I announced that I was planning to write a blog to celebrate tomorrow’s implementation of New York City’s limits on the sale of sugary beverages over 16 ounces. Since Mayor Bloomberg announced the measure, NCL has been behind it, and our Executive Director Sally Greenberg, actually traveled to New York City to testify in support of the measure. I planned to write about the impact that sodas have on our health, and the way that sugary beverages have contributed to obesity. I planned to applaud the Major for his forward thinking when it comes to public health matters; we feel strongly that any measure which helps us consumer fewer sweetened beverages is a good one.

However, as I was working on my blog post, news began to filter in that a New York judge had issued an injunction barring the Mayor’s proposal from going into effect. My blog post of the morning was no longer the right one to post. While all of the positive things I had written about the soda ban were still true, the bigger issue now was that this common-sense ban has been delayed if not completely derailed. Judge Milton Tingling argues that the rules are “fraught with arbitrary and capricious consequences,” and I feel the same way about childhood obesity. How arbitrary for our children that they grow up in an era where the very fabric of society predisposes them towards poor health; in fact more than two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese, meaning most kids will likely end up that way as well unless we change something. Placing reasonable limits on the sale of sugary beverages by certain establishments certainly seemed like a great place to start. Mayor Bloomberg has said he will challenge the judge’s ruling, and we can only hope he will be successful.

Fishy labeling harming consumers’ health and pocketbooks

By Teresa Green, Linda Golodner Food Safety & Nutrition Fellow

A new study was recently released, reaffirming something those of us who work on food fraud have known for a while: adulteration and food fraud is rampant, especially in the most vulnerable products. This most recent study addresses fish products sold in the D.C. metropolitan area, NCL’s backyard. The study found that one-third of seafood sold in both restaurants and grocery stores is mislabeled as a different type of fish. For some types of fish, like snapper, as much as 87 percent of the fish sold nationwide may be mislabeled.

The motivation for mislabeling fish is the same as the motive for any food fraud: economic profit. Whenever a cheaper product can be sold in place of a more expensive one, this increases the potential profit margin for the producer. Unfortunately, economically motivated adulteration can hurt consumers. First and most obviously, customers are not getting what they paid for. Secondly, when products are adulterated, consumers are unaware of what they are consuming and thus cannot avoid ingredients that they do not want to consume. This is particularly harmful when these ingredients are allergens. Finally, one major concern revolves around food safety. If a producer is breaking the law by substituting products, it is certainly possible that they are cutting corners in other areas. In particular, they may not be following the most up-to-date food safety practices.

Unfortunately for consumers, identifying when a product has been adulterated is very difficult. Prices that seem too good to be true can be one indicator that a product isn’t what it claims to be. Beyond that, consumers who are concerned about this issue should let the FDA know that enforcement and testing should be a high priority.

Celebrating Let’s Move’s third birthday

By Teresa Green, Linda Golodner Food Safety & Nutrition Fellow and Michell K. McIntyre, Director of NCL’s Special Project on Wage Theft

This week, First Lady Michelle Obama is touring the country to celebrate the third anniversary of her Let’s Move initiative. The goals of Let’s Move are:

1. Creating a healthy start for children
2. Empowering parents and caregivers
3. Providing healthy food in schools
4. Improving access to healthy, affordable foods
5. Increasing physical activity

Through her various activities, Obama has increased national focus on alarming rates of childhood overweight and obesity; currently, one-third of children fall into this category. By putting the spotlight on increasing the health of school lunches and the importance of physical activity, Let’s Move has started important national conversations about the health of our children.

Additionally, the First Lady has worked with various restaurants and grocery store chains to develop healthier options, in the case of restaurants by decreasing the amount of salt and calories across their menus and by adding healthier default options to their children’s menu. By working with grocery stores committed to decreasing the number of food deserts by building new stores, Obama is also addressing the question of equitable access to healthy food.

While all of this work to ensure our children have a fair shot at a healthy future is beyond admirable, the companies the First Lady has chosen to work with to achieve these goals are not always so admirable. Specifically, both Walmart, the largest retailer in America, and Darden Restaurant Inc, the largest restaurant group in the U.S. and owner of the Olive Garden, Red Lobster, LongHorn Steakhouse and other restaurants, face widespread criticism about their treatment of workers, including numerous cases of wage and hour violations ranging from unpaid overtime to unpaid minimum wage to forcing employees to work off the clock – all forms of wage theft.

Despite revenues easily topping $113 billion, the average Walmart associate makes just $8.81 per hour and working full-time (which Walmart defines as 34 hours per week) would make just $15,576 per year. That means hundreds of thousands of people who work full-time at Walmart still live below the poverty line, forcing many to utilize state subsidized benefits. Three major studies – one in Georgia, one in California and one in Massachusetts – found that Walmart was the company whose employees were most reliant on government assistance. Making Change at Walmart estimates that Walmart employees cost taxpayers more than $1 billion nationwide.

Between July 2005 and June 2011, Walmart settled an estimated 70 state and federal class action wage and hour lawsuits and lost one jury trail, involving well over a million current and former employees and costing the company over $1 billion. The lawsuits covered wage and hour violations that occurred between the late 1990s and 2010, including unpaid wages and lack of legally required breaks. Walmart also faces gender discrimination class action lawsuits stemming from their policies and practices on promotion and pay.

Darden has also had their share of employment problems, ranging from wage and hour violations to racial and gender discrimination lawsuits and policies that result in below poverty level wages for employees. As a part of the restaurant industry, Darden is allowed to pay tipped workers the tipped minimum wage – a mere $2.13 an hour. Tipped workers rely on restaurant customers for the majority of their wages. Even at $7.25 an hour, workers only earn $15,080 a year, well below the income level needed to lift a family of three out of poverty ($19,090 – based on data from the Department of Health and Human Services). With more than half a billion in profits in 2010 alone, Darden can surely provide better wages and benefits to its workers.

According to ROC United’s Saru Jayaraman, whose book “Behind the Kitchen Door” highlights Darden’s practices, employees report they are forced to work through their breaks, off the clock, and overtime without proper compensation.

Last fall Darden ‘tested’ a program to move full-time workers to part-time in order to avoid paying health benefits under the ACA. When consumer backlash ensued and profits tanked for the last quarter, (CNBC article “Darden Profit Sinks as Restaurant Promos Fall Flat” and Washington Post article “How Not to Succeed in Business: Promise to Dodge Obamacare Mandates”) Darden abandoned this ‘test program’. Like Walmart, Darden faces gender discrimination lawsuits as well as racial discrimination lawsuits.

We admire the First Lady’s Let’s Move initiative, but she can and should also play a much bigger role in promoting both fair and equitable workplaces while touting healthier food and lifestyles.

Four Loko labels changing

By Teresa Green, Linda Golodner Food Safety & Nutrition Fellow

Several years ago, Four Loko, a caffeinated alcoholic beverage, gained notoriety for its role in the hospitalizations of several college students.  Amid enormous public scrutiny and rumors that the FDA was planning to ban the drink, the product was reformulated to remove the caffeine.  Despite this important change, concerns about the drink still remained.  At long last, these concerns will finally be addressed by a settlement finalized by FTC.  This settlement will do two important things to protect consumers.

1. Four Loko will be required to seek approval for an alcohol facts label.  This label will bear important information about alcohol content and number of servings per container, information consumers need in order to make informed decisions about consumption.
2. Four Loko will also be required to make the packaging resealable so that the product can be consumed over multiple sittings.

These changes will hopefully lead to a safer and healthier product.  Certainly the strong enforcement action the FTC has taken sends a message to all companies that they need to be honest with consumers and scrupulous about their labeling.

Good, bad, ugly of restaurant work featured at ‘Kitchen Ethical’ event

By Michell K. McIntyre, Director of NCL’s Special Project on Wage Theft

How would you like to work for a week and at the end of your pay period receive a voided check? Or have to choose between going to work with the flu or not being able to pay for groceries for your children? Or have to rely on the kindness of customers to cover 70 percent of your wages or know that management it taking a cut of your tips? For too many restaurant workers, that’s reality and is just the tip of the iceberg.

Earlier this month, NCL co-hosted Kitchen Ethical with Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC-United). Kitchen Ethical concentrated on the good, the bad and the ugly of the restaurant industry.  The event consisted of two panels: Success & the Ethical Employer – with two DC-based restaurant owners who believe and provide all their employees with paid sick days and employ ethical work practices; and Taking Off the Gloves – with restaurant workers sharing their stories of wage theft abuses, trying to survive on the federal tipped minimum wage of $2.13 an hour and the real consequences of the lack of paid sick days.

As someone who has never worked in the restaurant industry, it’s hard to imagine working and not receiving a paycheck. As consumers, we have some power to affect change in a way that fines and regulations are not. Restaurants need customers in order to be successful, and — if customers demand change — then owners will have to listen.

Did you know that if you leave your tip on your credit card, your server might not receive their tip? Last year, celebrity chef and restaurant owner Mario Batali and his business partners were successfully sued for $5.25 million for a tip skimming scheme, a wage theft abuse. Unfortunately, this is not a one-time occurrence but is something that probably happens in a large portion of restaurants in the nation. But if we tip in cash, we can help eliminate this form of wage theft.

The lack of paid sick days not only puts workers in jeopardy but it also puts all consumers at risk. With the current flu epidemic at near record highs, the lack of paid sick days becomes a public health issue as well as a food safety issue. Who knows how safe or germ-free your food is if either your server or chef is sick?

For about 22 years, since 1991, the federal tipped minimum wage has been stuck at an appalling $2.13 an hour. According to NCL’s survey, released on the same day as Kitchen Ethical, 87 percent of consumers agree that it is time to raise the tipped minimum wage. Tipped workers are supposed to make up the remainder of their wage with tips from their customers. According to ROC-United’s 2011 Behind the Kitchen Door study, the median wage for restaurant workers is $8.90 an hour and based on a 40 hour week comes to just under the poverty line for a family of three. Any way you slice it, it’s not enough to survive on.

So what can we do? If there is only one thing you remember when eating out, let it be that as customers, we can affect change in this vital industry that desperately needs it.  Workers’ health and well-being not to mention livelihood are put in danger when unethical business practices are allowed to flourish. Public health and food safety suffer when business owners cut corners and deny their workers paid sick days and worker survival is at a great risk when the government prohibits poverty level wages and wage theft abuses are permitted. We, as voters, need to encourage our representatives to pass worker friendly legislation. As consumers, we need to demand that places we patronize treat their workers with the respect and dignity. No worker should have to work while sick, be paid a poverty wage, or worry that their employer is cheating them out of their hard-earned money.

Check out video clips from Kitchen Ethical.

If I could write the President’s New Year’s resolutions …

By Teresa Green, Linda Golodner Food Safety & Nutrition Fellow

While it’s an exciting time to be a food safety and nutrition advocate, it is also a time of great frustration and many challenges.  It I could write the President’s New Year’s Resolutions related to food, here’s what I would put on that list.

1. Release the long-delayed FSMA rules: When the President signed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in 2011, it was a proud and exciting moment for all those who care about food safety.  Unfortunately, there has been quite a delay in the implementation of the law.  Most notably, four integral rules have been stalled for over a year at OMB.  It’s time to prevent further outbreaks of foodborne illness by giving FDA the tools to prevent rather than simply responding to foodborne illnesses.
2. Congress needs to pass a farm bill:  Theoretically, Congress passes a farm bill every five years. This bill governs not only farm policy for the nation, but also conservation and nutrition programs. Unfortunately, this year’s farm bill has become yet another victim of partisan bickering in Washington.  Come the new year, consumers will begin to feel the effects of this, as programs revert to older legislation. Dairy prices in particular are predicted to rise precipitously without a new farm bill.  Let’s pass a farm bill that will protect consumers.
3. Establish more coordinated efforts to ensure food safety: A recent report by USDA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) on the safety of shell eggs highlighted the fact that there is a need for increased coordination between the various agencies that work on food safety. One of the classic examples of this lack of coordination is a factory that makes pizza; it the pizza is a cheese pizza, then FDA has jurisdiction over its safety, whereas if it is a sausage or pepperoni pizza, USDA has jurisdiction.
4. Keep politics out of the development of regulations: OK, so this may be the most ambitious of my resolutions. However, I strongly believe in the idea that government regulations should be science-based and should protect the consumer. An example of politics getting too involved in policy came last year when Congress got involved in new USDA rules that would have placed reasonable limitations on the amount of potatoes that could be served in school lunches. We need to minimize the impact of shifting politics on important policies.

Possible Brazil Mad Cow episode troubling

By Teresa Green, Linda Golodner Food Safety & Nutrition Fellow

In a scary piece of news, it has come to light this past week that Brazil may have experienced a case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), a disease more commonly known as “mad cow” disease.  While the animal became ill and died in December of 2010, it was not until April of 2011 that the first testing was done, and not until last week that the final tests were complete.  This final set of testing, which was carried out at a laboratory in the UK, indicated the presence of the proteins that cause BSE.

There are several reasons why this announcement is troubling.  The first is the length of time that it took to confirm the presence of the disease.  Between the cow’s onset of symptoms in 2010 and the confirmation of its illness last week, almost two years passed.  During these two years, Brazil was not subject to the stringent safety checks that impact nations where there has been a confirmed case of BSE.

Additionally, this event has brought further attention to an important problem plaguing the meat safety system of this country, which is set up with several control points to ensure safe product.  First, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) does a thorough review to ensure that foreign nations have food safety systems that are “equivalent” to ours before those countries are ever allowed to send meat here.  Secondly, FSIS does routine audits of those foreign systems to ensure equivalency is being maintained.  Finally, FSIS does pathogen testing of meat entering the US to ensure that it is safe.  This system is designed to guarantee a safe supply of foreign meat for US consumers.

Unfortunately, as has been reported recently, the number of foreign inspections being carried out by FSIS has decreased dramatically over the last several years, from an average of 26.4 per year from 2001 to 2008 to an average of 9.8 between 2009 and 2012.

In a time of fiscal austerity and the race to save money, it can be tempting for federal agencies to cut expensive, time intensive programs like inspection.  However, as the ongoing rash of foodborne illness outbreaks illustrates, we cannot be too vigilant when it comes to our food supply.