Decline and fall of food labels

This USDA ERS report on consumer use of food nutrition label confirms something we instinctively know is true. We don't read nutrition labels - ever. At least I don't. Here is the quick and dirty summary, from the report "The Decline in Consumer Use of Food Nutrition Labels, 1995–2006":

Packaged and processed foods sold in the United States began carrying standardized nutrition labels in 1994 when the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) took effect. In addition to a standardized Nutrition Facts panel, the NLEA standardized serving sizes and placed limits on the content and format of health and nutrition claims on the front of packages. The major goal of the new labeling requirement was to increase access to nutrition information and improve consumers’ ability to make healthful food choices.


What Did the Study Find?
The study reveals that from 1995-96 to 2005-06, consumer use of nutrition labels when making food purchases declined. Consumer use decreased for most label components: it declined approximately 3 percentage points for the Nutrition Facts panel, 11 percentage points for the ingredient list, and 10 percentage points for the panel’s information about calories, fat, cholesterol, and sodium. Only the use of information about fiber and sugars did not decline over the 10-year period. Use of fi ber information increased by 2 percentage points, while that for sugars held steady.

The change in use of the Nutrition Facts panel varied by population groups over the 10-year period. The decrease in use was greatest for individuals 20-29 years old, those with no education beyond high school, and those who spoke primarily Spanish, a group that increased from 2 to 6 percent of the population over the 10-year period. Younger adults and new residents in the country were least likely to have benefi ted from the public awareness campaigns conducted just after the new labels were introduced, suggesting that decline in use by those cohorts could be due, in part, to a relative lack of knowledge or awareness. The decline in use observed among the rest of the population suggests some depreciation in the value of the information conveyed since the initial awareness campaigns occurred.
The 2-percentage point increase in use of information about dietary fiber was led by an increase among individuals over age 30. This increase in use may be the result of the increasing popularity of low-carb diets, interest in identifying whole grain foods, or an aging population that is more aware of dietary fiber's health benefits.

TK: I guess fresh produce is not missing out by commonly not having nutrition fact labels displayed in the produce department. The question is: how can the government get people to care? Bingo or lotto numbers hidden somewhere on the label - some kind of sudoku puzzle, perhaps? And now we want to put on carbon footprint labels - another piece of information consumers won't care about?

DeLauro - FDA hopelessly out of touch

Just slid across the inbox, from Rep. Rosa DeLauro:

New Haven, CT – Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (CT-3), chairwoman of the Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration Appropriations Subcommittee, issued the following statement amid reports that jalapenos, which have been connected to the recent Salmonella outbreak that sickened 1,400 people, have been a source of repeated problems. In fact peppers and chilies were the top Mexican crop rejected by border inspectors for the last year.

These recent revelations regarding the salmonella investigation will be raised during a food safety oversight hearing to be held by the Agriculture –FDA Appropriations Subcommittee when Congress returns in September. The hearing will also analyze the critical components that are necessary for an effective food safety system.

“Through the course of this salmonella outbreak and subsequent investigation, we continue to witness the systemic problems within the FDA that causes the agency to ignore crucial evidence that could have minimized or prevented this particular outbreak. We have seen the same issues arise in previous food-borne illness outbreaks, and it demonstrates that the FDA lacks the agility to anticipate and adeptly respond to incidents, and it fails to follow-through when presented with critical findings.

“Based on this recent information involving pepper shipments from Mexico being rejected at the border, the agency's leadership appears to lack accountability and is hopelessly out-of-touch. Despite the pepper shipments being repeatedly sent back because of filth and disease and dried peppers being included in a 2006 list of high-risk foods deserving greater attention, the FDA just last week indicated that peppers are not typically problematic. Since the start of 2008, ten percent of the 88 shipments turned away were contaminated with salmonella and eight percent of the 158 intercepted shipments had salmonella. Instead of acting on this information, the FDA chose to ignore it.

“This outbreak reinforces why we must urgently reform our food safety system to include traceback procedures, cooperative arrangements between public health officials, and mandatory recall authority, with the ultimate goal of creating a single food safety agency.”

Logged on and linked in

Fresh Talk readers who are members of the Fresh Produce Industry Discussion Group have been signing up strong numbers for the companion networking group in the "linkedin.com" site. Linkedin offers a greater opportunity viewing complete profiles and finding common professional links.

If you haven't had the chance to join the discussion group, I encourage you to do so. We have more than 150 members now and the site is quite active with new posts and files of interest. For example, Big Apple today posted court documents related to bribery allegations involving processed tomato purchases that have been in the news.

Waste water and agriculture

We can safely say that the quality of water is a huge factor in the safety of fresh fruits and vegetables. Given that reality, Doug Powell of the Food Safety Network links to this sobering news release about the use of sewage waste water in developing countries. From the news release from the International Water Management Institute:



Most Common in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, Wastewater Use is Critical to Farmers Incomes, Urban Food Security but Raises Health Concerns
Stockholm, Sweden (18 August 2008) — As developing countries confront the first global food crisis since the 1970s as well as unprecedented water scarcity, a new 53-city survey conducted by the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) indicates that most of those studied (80 percent) are using untreated or partially treated wastewater for agriculture. In over 70 percent of the cities studied, more than half of urban agricultural
land is irrigated with wastewater that is either raw or diluted in streams. The conclusions of the study, released today at 2008 World Water Week in Stockholm, are based on data gathered from a diverse sample of developing country cities, chosen on the basis of factors such as water scarcity and income levels. Local experts selected by an independent panel completed survey questionnaires, drawing on secondary data as well as interviews with local water management experts and detailed country studies. “Irrigating with wastewater isn’t a rare practice limited to a few of the poorest countries,” said IWMI researcher Liqa Raschid-Sally and lead author of a report on survey results. “It’s a widespread phenomenon, occurring on 20 million hectares across the developing world, especially in Asian countries, like China, India and Vietnam, but also around nearly every city of sub-Saharan Africa and in many Latin American cities as well.” Wastewater is most commonly used to produce vegetables and cereals (especially rice), according to this and other IWMI reports, raising concerns about health risks for consumers, particularly of vegetables that are consumed uncooked.


“The negative and positive implications of wastewater agriculture have only recently received attention,” noted Colin Chartres, director general of IWMI, which is supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). “This study offers the first comprehensive, cross-country analysis of the conditions that account for the practice and the difficult tradeoffs that arise from it.” Accra, Ghana’s capital city (with an urban population of nearly 2 million), illustrates those tradeoffs particularly well. An estimated 200,000 of the city’s inhabitants daily purchase vegetables produced on just 100 hectares of urban agricultural land irrigated with wastewater, says the IWMI report. “That gives you an idea,” remarked Raschid-Sally, “of the large potential of wastewater agriculture for both helping and hurting great numbers of urban consumers.”

Farmers too are aware that irrigating with wastewater may pose health risks both for themselves and the consumers of their produce, but they simply have little choice, since safe groundwater is seldom an accessible alternative, according to the IWMI report. Few developing countries reported having official guidelines for the use of wastewater in agriculture. And even if they do, monitoring and enforcement rarely happen and may not be realistic, especially where irrigation with polluted water occurs on a large scale. As a result, though the practice may be theoretically forbidden or controlled, it is in fact “unofficially tolerated.”

TK: It would appear most of the food-related impact of the waste water is confined to urban areas near where the produce is grown in developing countries. However, this report illustrates just how much work needs to be done to improve the quality of life for much of the world's population.

No snacks for you - dried fruits and nuts

This coverage from the McClatchy Newspapers speaks of the discontent by some dried fruit and nut marketers about not being included in fresh fruit and vegetable snack program in the farm bill. From the piece:

The bill includes record spending for the fruit, vegetable and nut industries that banded together as a specialty crop alliance. Notably, the new farm bill expanded an existing fresh fruit and vegetable snack program previously limited to 14 states.

Starting Oct. 1, selected schools in all 50 states will be able to partake in the fresh fruit and vegetable snack program. The new farm bill adds some $500 million for the purchases over the next five years.

"There was a general assumption that nuts and dried fruits would be included in this program; they are considered to be healthy," noted Rep. Jim Costa, D-Fresno.

But after Congress finished the farm bill, apparently, California lawmakers realized the bill and an accompanying 423-page report had been adjusted. In part, this so-called report language limited the reach of the fresh snack program.

"It is not the intent of the (bill's) managers to allow this program to provide other products, such as nuts, either on their own or co-mingled with other foods, such as in a trail mix," the bill report states.

Haley, whose clients include the nut-growing cooperative Diamond of California, said the provision was included "when no one was looking." Senate staffers are thought to have been primarily responsible, California Farm Bureau Federation national affairs director Jack King indicated Monday.

"It caught us all by surprise," King said.

Separately, the bill language itself was tweaked to omit dried fruits from the fresh fruit and vegetable snack provision. Until now, dried fruits like raisins, prunes and figs have been acceptable snack components. But under a strict interpretation of the bill, omission of a reference to dried fruits means they can no longer be purchased for the snack program.

Costa, a member of the House Agriculture Committee, said last week he hadn't heard anything about it, and Haley said other California lawmakers were likewise left in the dark. The Californians could fight back in September, when Congress returns; a spokeswoman for the Senate agriculture panel could not be reached Monday.

TK: It is not as if the dried fruit people came up empty in the farm bill. From the farm bill managers' statement, concerning the Department of Defense Fresh program:


The Senate amendment provides that, in lieu of purchases required under Sec. 10603, the Secretary purchase fruits, vegetables, and nuts for use in domestic food assistance programs using Section 32 funds. Purchase amounts are set at: $390 million for fiscal year 2008, $393 million for fiscal year 2009, $399 million for fiscal year 2010, $403 million for fiscal year 2011, and $406 million for fiscal year 2012 and each year thereafter. Items purchased may be in frozen, canned, dried, or fresh form.


TK: There should be no great surprise now among lawmakers and lobbyists about the intent of the farm bill relative to expansion of the fruit fruit and vegetable program. From the managers statement back in mid-May:


(53) Expansion of Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program

As the name of the program makes clear, it is the intent of the program to provide children with free fresh fruits and vegetables. It is not the intent of the Managers to allow this program to provide other products, such as nuts, either on their own or comingled with other foods, such as in a trail mix. The Managers support the inclusion of all fruits and vegetables in the federal nutrition programs where supported by science and will continue to work with the Department on promoting access to all fruits and vegetables.