USDA Discontinues SuperTracker
As reported by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) on February 1, USDA’s SuperTracker will be discontinued beginning on June 30, 2018. SuperTracker was first launched in 2011 and served as one of the first free tools available to the public for diet tracking. Since that time, the private sector has launched similar tools and apps with the same purpose. As a result, USDA states that “It is time for us to discontinue SuperTracker so that we can invest in more modern and efficient ways to help Americans find a healthy eating style that is right for them.”
Richmond to Revisit Beverage Tax
On February 2, a local news source reported that the Richmond (Virginia) Progressive Alliance (RPA) plans to leverage its majority on the City Council to put a penny-per-ounce sweetened beverage tax back in front of voters on the upcoming June ballot. The city previously failed to pass two tax proposals – one in 2012 and one in 2016. Unlike the failed measures, the new tax proposal is predicted to be aimed at beverage distributors, with hopes that it will not lead to higher prices for consumers. The proposed tax will apply to soda, sports drinks, energy drinks and sweetened iced teas that contain at least 2 calories per fluid ounce. In addition to beverages, the tax would apply to stand-alone sweeteners that add calories such as sucrose, fructose, and glucose.
GOP Chairman Questions US Funding for IARC
On February 6, The Hill published an article reporting on a hearing during which the chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), questioned whether the United States should contribute funding to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Smith’s question was prompted by IARC’s conclusions on the pesticide glyphosate, which the representative called “unsubstantiated” and “not backed by reliable data.” He further explained, “The selective use of data and the lack of public disclosure raise questions about why IARC should receive any government funding in the future.” While the Science Committee’s vice chairman, Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) sided with Smith, Democrats pushed back at the GOP’s description of IARC. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Oregon) stated, “It is important that we review the methods and tactics that industry has used to influence this [Trump] administration and attack independent scientific organizations like the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer.”
California’s Prop 65 to Require Declaration of Specific Carcinogens & Reproductive Toxicants
According to a February 26 article in Beverage Daily, recent changes to California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, commonly known as Proposition 65, will be effective on August 30, 2018. Enacted in 1986, Proposition 65 serves to inform consumers of products that contain potential carcinogens. This list of possible toxicants is updated once a year, and is now 800 chemicals long. In the past, products have been required to have a Prop 65 warning label, but the changes will now require beverage companies to identify specific chemical names in addition to a warning symbol.
The article notes that furfuyl alcohol, which is created naturally as a result of the process of heating sugar to create caramel color, must have a warning regardless of how much is in a product, even if trace amounts are used in caramel, coffee, soda, and maple-flavored drinks.
As Packaging Digest further explains, the most significant change is a revision of the warning language to define “clear and reasonable” that requires the identification of at least one carcinogen and at least one reproductive toxicant and refer consumers to a Lead Agency Website for additional information. The new regulations present the possibility of manufacturers to face liability even when a warning is provided because there is, arguably, a lot of potential for error.
“Diet” Soda Advertising Lawsuit Dismissed
In an article published in Reuters, on February 26 a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit claiming that advertising the word “diet” misleads people into thinking that soft drink assists in weight loss, and that it actually causes weight gain. The plaintiff argued that non-nutritive sweeteners such as aspartame “interfere with the ability to metabolize calories, and raise the risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes.” U.S. District Judge William Alsup wrote that the plaintiff “has overstated the actual science” and further noted that supermarkets don’t display diet soda in the health food section, and said reasonable consumers would understand that calorie savings lead to weight loss only as part of a healthy diet and exercise regimen.
House Passes Legislation to Scale-back Menu Labeling Regulations
CNN reported that on February 6, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act (H.R. 772) aimed to allow for flexibility for businesses in providing calorie count information to consumers. The legislation is in response to the Obama-era calorie information rule under the Affordable Care Act, which food establishments that have 20 or more locations must comply with by May 7, 2018. However, there are certain food products sold from glass-front vending machines that may not have calorie labeling until July 26, 2018.
The new legislation would allow businesses to provide just the calories per serving, without disclosing total calories for share-able menu items containing multiple servings. It would also allow certain businesses, such as carry-out restaurants, to post calorie information solely on the internet instead of in-person. Further, a 90 day grace period would be allowed for food businesses to correct any violations. Thus, the strong bipartisan House vote of 266-157 in favor of the bill represents a successful step in the current Administration’s de-regulatory political pathway. The bill now rests on the Senate.
Trump Budget Ensures Funding for Food Safety Programs, But Lacks Specifics for FDA
Although the fiscal year (FY) 2019 budget sets out to cut domestic programs by almost $700 billion over 10 years, federal food safety has escaped cuts and will even see small gains. According to a February 14 Food Safety News article, $9.4 billion will go to the Department of Health and Human Services, $1.4 billion of which will go to food safety efforts at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). While the budget does take $3.5 billion away from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the cuts will not impact food safety. The budget document says FDA’s food safety portfolio will include implementing mandatory standards for imported foods, rapidly detecting and responding to foodborne illness outbreaks, and helping consumers make healthy choices with the most up-to-date science. The document states, “Having issued all seven foundational rules to establish a risk-based food safety system, FDA’s implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act continues by ensuring stakeholders across the public, and private sectors are positioned to comply with these rules” and notes that in 2019 FDA will “build on these regulations and guide the modernization of our food safety system.”
However, as reported in a February 16 Food Chemical News article (subscription required), the FY 2019 budget does not include FDA’s additional budget justification document. Historically, the Administration has provided this detailed document to FDA, which allows the Agency to more precisely explain where new funds would go and how much funding each Center would receive. The article notes that it is unclear when the document will be released.
Canadian Press Uncovers Global Review Discouraging Soda Tax
A February 12 article in Canada’s The Globe and Mail notes that although rising obesity rates and the idea of a new source of government revenue are logical reasons why Canada needs a soda tax, international data stands to argue this logic. The article highlights a review commissioned by New Zealand’s Ministry of Health to examine the global effectiveness of taxing food and drink to improve public health. The review conducted by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER), which can be viewed here, evaluated nearly 50 academic studies published over the past five years. However, as the article notes, the review was “promptly buried” after its completion in 2017 and was released only recently by the government recently after a local think tank made an official Information Act request.
The report states claims from tax advocates that soda taxes will inevitably lead to substantial reductions in demand are based on “flawed” estimates of price elasticity. In other words, tax proponents have been making unrealistic assumptions about the impact such taxes can have on human decision-making and dietary habits. NZIER summarizes “We have yet to see any clear evidence that imposing a sugar tax would meet a comprehensive cost-benefit test” and that they do not serve they’re intended purpose of improving public health.
Media Focus on Study Attributing Weight Loss to Diet Quality, Not Quantity
On February 20, The New York Times reported on a study published that day in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found that people who reduced intake of added sugar, refined grains and highly processed foods, without worrying about counting calories or limiting portion sizes, lost significant amounts of weight over the course of a year. The researchers of the study wanted to not only compare how overweight and obese people would fare on low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets, but also wanted to test whether some people are predisposed for one diet over the other depending on their genetics. As noted in a consumer insight update below, a growing number of companies have capitalized on this idea and are offering personalized nutrition advice based on their ability to metabolize carbohydrates.
The researchers found that after one year of focusing on food quality, not number of calories, both groups of participants (one low-carb group and one low-fat group) lost 11-13 pounds. After DNA samples were analyzed for a group of genetic variants that influence fat and carbohydrate metabolism, the subjects’ genotypes did not appear to influence their responses to the diets. The lead researcher, Dr. Christopher Gardner, explained his results stating “it is not that calories don’t matter. After all, both groups ultimately ended up consuming fewer calories on average by the end of the study, even though they were not conscious of it. The point is that they did this by focusing on nutritious whole foods that satisfied their hunger.”
Although this study does not specifically address sweeteners, its focus on diet quality is still relevant to the role that LCS can play in reducing total caloric and carbohydrate intake without sacrificing the enjoyment consumers look for. As Dr. Gardner states, “I think one place we go wrong is telling people to figure out how many calories they eat and then telling them to cut back on 500 calories, which makes them miserable.”
Better Homes and Gardens Features Alternative Sweeteners
A special issue of Better Homes and Gardens is on stands until May entitled “Cut the Sugar”. The issue includes a guide to sugar substitutes in an effort to answer the question, “Are sugar substitutes OK?” Low-calorie sweeteners are featured and include descriptions for sugar alcohols and what the magazine calls “noncaloric sweeteners” and “artificial noncaloric sweeteners.”
While side-effects of some sweeteners are questioned, the article doesn’t make any recommendations for consumers to avoid any sweeteners or include false information. In addition, popularity and regulatory approvals of sweeteners are also referenced. As this coverage is fairly neutral and in some cases positive, CCC staff is reviewing potential opportunities to leverage the coverage in CCC content if appropriate. In addition, staff will continue to monitor for additional media pickup and consumer response to the issue.
Study Reveals Consumer Type Most Likely to Read Nutrition Label
Given the recent regulations and guidance documents accompanying the rollout of nutrition facts label (NFL) reform, it’s also important to revisit how and what type of consumer considers such labels. A new study released in the February Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (PDF attached) surveyed 2,000 young adults aged 25-36 primarily in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area and found that only about one-third of young adults report frequent use of NFLs. Of these young adults, women and people with high education and income were more likely to read NFLs as well as people who regularly prepare food, who are physically active or are classified as overweight. Of those who read labels, the top nutrients of concern were found to be sugars, calories and serving size.
The study does not address what the remaining two thirds of young adults who don’t read nutrition facts labels are concerned about, or if they are concerned about nutrition information at all. Further, an article published on February 27 questions why consumers who do read NFLs often base decisions on a single attribute, and suggests this may be due to a combination of mistrust of the labels themselves as well as consumer confusion. According to a 2017 report by USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS), much of the problem can be attributed to the lack of consistency caused by symbols for which there is not a national standard and information that consumers find confusing or too complex. For example, the NFL is governed by USDA, whereas others such as the industry-funded Facts Up Front initiative are not. FDA is attempting to address this issue, and, as reported by Politico on February 5, is allocating $3 million to be used for a public health campaign to help consumers understand the new Nutrition Facts labels.
Today’s widespread accessibility of nutrition information on packages and online provide ample opportunities for manufacturers to provide transparency about their products and for consumers to evaluate foods. However, consumers making diet choices often lack of a comprehensive food science and nutrition education. CCC staff will continue to pursue opportunities to impart not only transparency, but also enhance consumer understanding.
Singapore Looks to Sugar Substitutes to Combat Diabetes
As reported by a Singapore news source, Singaporeans consume an average of 12 teaspoons of sugar a day. According to a 2015 report by the International Diabetes Federation, Singapore has the second-highest proportion of diabetics among developing nations. Given this issue, the country’s Health Promotion Board (HPB) is hoping alternative sweeteners can help curb sugar intake by 25% by 2020. Specifically, they are encouraging manufacturers to partially replace the cane sugar in foods with other natural alternatives allulose and isomaltulose, because they are “less sweet and have a lower glycemic index (GI)…preventing blood sugar spikes.” the article touts. Other sugar substitutes are promoted as well, including sucralose, stevia, aspartame, and sorbitol.
However, the article notes that in addition to overcoming barriers such as after-taste and textural differences associated with alternative sweeteners, affordability is a major factor. Stewart Tan, who works at the Nanyang Polytechnic’s School of Chemical and Life Sciences, notes that per kg, allulose costs between $6 and 9$, and isomaltulose cost up to $28, while the same 1 kg amount of sugar costs about $1. Thus, further investments must be made to make these ingredients commercially available for consumers.
Of interest to the Council, Singapore can be requested as a potential location for a future USDA Emerging Markets Program (EMP) symposium, which occurs during summer/fall each year with the objective of helping U.S. organizations promote industry exports in countries that have potential to be viable commercial markets. If you have any feedback or comments surrounding this opportunity, please notify staff by Friday, March 23.
Nordic Countries Publish Joint Protocol for Monitoring Child Marketing Tactics
As reported in a February 23 article published on Food Navigator, representatives and experts from Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway, in addition to participants from the World Health Organization, have released a joint protocol for marketing of foods and beverages high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) towards children and young people. Page 19 of the protocol further defines HFSS noting that, “In the WHOEuropean nutrient profile model, HFSS foods and beverages are categorized according to the content of total fat, total sugars, added sugar, non-sugarsweeteners, energy, saturated fat, industrially produced trans-fatty acids and salt.”
The protocol stresses the need to continuously review and adjust the protocol as necessary given that marketing methods are continually evolving, particularly with the increasing importance of social media and online platforms. Though it does not make any legally-binding recommendations, the WHO has praised it as a tool that will “help advocate policies and close loopholes.”
As a reminder, CCC submitted comments in 2017 on Canada’s public consultations on the issue of restricting marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to children. Staff will continue to monitor the Nordic countries’ actions on this issue, and provide updates and any opportunities to comment.
Chile to Implement Final Regulations on Advertising Packaged Foods and Beverages
A February 14 World Trade Organization notification announced that as of June 11, 2018, all media advertising including television, radio, print press, and internet must bear the text “Prefer foods with fewer stop signs” followed by the phrase “Ministry of Health, Governance of Chile” in addition to one or more black octagonal stop sign labels if foods or beverages exceed content limits for energy, sodium, total sugars, or saturated fats. The content limits can be found in the WTO notification, or Decree Nº 13 of 2015. The complete specifications of the logo and message can be found here.
As this is a final regulation, there is no comment opportunity. However, it is reported that the Association of Food and Beverages of Chile (AB Chile) has expressed reservations regarding technical and nutritional aspects of the regulation, noting that “The exceptions considered in the regulation, the limits established for the critical nutrients (salt, sugar, saturated fat and energy), the measurement criterion by 100 grams or 100 milliliters (ml) and the fact that only processed and packaged foods use the black stop signs, makes it impossible to rely exclusively on the “stop signs” to choose the most suitable product.”
CCC staff will continue to monitor developments in Chile and other countries in Latin America of interest to members.
CCC Attends CCFA US Public Meeting
CCC staff attended the February 13 US Public Meeting to prepare for the upcoming 50th Session of the Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA50), which takes place March 26-30 in Xiamen, China (more information here). The purpose of the meeting was to review the provisional CCFA50 agenda and corresponding draft US positions on CCFA agenda items, take public questions, and offer comments.
As advised, CCC staff and members will attend CCFA50. Draft US and CCC positions have been circulated to members and staff is requesting active engagement by members in providing feedback.
CCC Submits Letter to WHO on Allulose
On February 27, CCC submitted a letter to the World Health Organization (WHO) on behalf of the Council’s Allulose Working Group. The purpose of the letter was to communicate the differences between allulose and other monosaccharides and encourage the WHO to recognize these differences in relevant WHO recommendations and guidance documents. If you would like to receive a copy of this letter please contact a CCC Staff member.
CCC Submits Letter to Correct Saccharin MSDS on ScienceLab.com
On February 27, CCC submitted a letter to ScienceLab.com on behalf of the Council’s Saccharin Working Group. The letter served to notify ScienceLab.com of inaccuracies included in the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) posted under the name “Sodium saccharin dehydrate” on its website. The letter requested that the inaccurate MSDS be replaced with an updated MSDS from a member company.
General Program
Working Groups
Belgian Consumer Group Says “No Added Sugar” Claims are Illegally Used on Alternatively-Sweetened Products
Test Achats, a Belgian consumer group, carried out a survey on food products in Belgian supermarkets and found that many products carrying the claim “no added sugar” such as spread, chocolate bars, and cookies, contain alternative sweeteners. According to the February 6 article published by Food Navigator, Test Achats noted this is “pure and simply illegal” according to European law, which mandates that “a claim stating that sugars have not been added to a food, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product does not contain any added mono- or disaccharides or any other food used for its sweetening properties.”
Test Achats sent an official letter in December to five manufacturers whose products used sugar-free claims despite containing sweeteners. Dukan, Damhert Nutrition and Boerinneke use malitol to replace sugar, while Sweet-Switch uses stevia. Canderel blends aspartame and acesulfame-k. The three companies sourcing malitol immediately responded saying that their products’ packaging will be corrected, and Canderel eventually replied that it was “considering how [it] can adjust [its] labels”. However, Sweet-Switch contested Test Achats’ rebuke, prompting the consumer group to file an official complaint to the Belgian Federal Public Service for Health, Food Safety and the Environment.
Startups and Health Practitioners Provide Dietary Advice Based on Microbiome
On February 25, the Wall Street Journal published an article reporting that some startups are claiming to be able to help people diet by using the same technology used by researchers to sequence human gut bacteria. The article addresses the glucose response as the primary problem with a “one size fits all” approach to diet recommendations. Advances in genetic sequencing have led researchers to believe that bacteria in the microbiome affect the body’s postprandial glucose response (PPGR).
The article features DayTwo Inc.and Viome Inc., two startups who have capitalized on this trend by offering to help customers normalize their blood sugar by analyzing their glucose response after sequencing their microbiome based on a stool sample. Viome analyzes not only bacteria but also viruses and fungi in the gut. Both companies then send back individually tailored diets via an app. It is noted that Viome’s dietary advice is not based on peer-reviewed research, but the company is conducting a microbiome study on 2,000 people that should be completed later this year. Other companies, including uBiome Inc., the American Gut project and Biohm also offer sequencing of the microbiome, but they do not provide advice on which foods elevate peoples’ blood glucose.
In addition to startups, the medical and health community is becoming more believing of this trend. Whereas before many doctors were hesitant to base nutritional advice on the microbiome, many believe it’s possible to give some dietary advice based on microbiome analysis. Jack Gilbert of the University of Chicago’s Microbiome Center is quoted, “This is less about trying to identify the particular mechanisms of the microbes and more about identifying the potential correlated association between the microbial communities and how they positively associate with blood-glucose levels and response to different types of food.” The article also notes that the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, which only last year expressed reservations about microbiome-based diets, is beginning to evolve its position if advice is paired with input from a dietitian.
Several Food Labeling Claims Currently Put Companies at Risk of Class Action Lawsuit
According to an article published by Food Navigator on February 1, plaintiff’s attorneys closely monitor FDA warning letters, opinions from scientific bodies, organizations such as the World Health Organization, and consumer advocacy groups for litigation opportunities. Given the current landscape, manufacturers should be particularly careful when making the following claims:
Although it is noted that most cases that proceed through the courts hardly ever go to trial, companies must be prepared to incur more than $100,000 in legal fees and multi-million dollar settlements by the end of the case. It is suggested that companies periodically review longstanding claims to ensure they remain well-positioned to face contemporary standards being established by class action settlements.
Industry Uses Science Policy to Promote Transparency
A February 5 article in Reuters reported on Mars Inc.’s publication of its own Company policies on conducting and funding scientific studies. Entitled, “Mars, Incorporated Policy on Scientific Research and Engagement” (view here), the policy covers all types of scientific research activities, ranging from internal and external research, partnerships with academia, government, and non-governmental organizations, foundations and other businesses. Mars pledges it will not tie research funding to specific outcomes, among its commitments, and that it will disclose sponsorship and support studies that can be freely published regardless of results.
The article notes the strategic timing of Mars’ policy, as consumer distrust in large food corporations, criticism of bias in scientific research, and calls for complete transparency continue to mount. Peter Lurie, head of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and former FDA official, notes “Guidelines for publishing complete data and disclosing conflicts of interest are fairly standard practices for pharmaceutical research but less widespread for food.”
Washington Post Addresses Bad Nutrition Advice on Internet
In an article published February 6, The Washington Post discusses the use of science to combat the current swirl of bad nutrition advice being circulated throughout the internet. The article praises the efforts of the following “myth-busters” for creating a movement that reminds people not to believe everything they read:
The article highlights several warning signs for readers that indicate junk science, including:
CCC staff is monitoring for opportunities to encourage decisions and opinions based on sound-science. Content is currently being developed to educate consumers on different types of studies, and how to critique headline-breaking studies that are often mistaken as causation, or contain unreliable findings.
Do you have questions about low-calorie sweeteners? Want to learn more about maintaining a healthy lifestyle? You asked and we listened. Our resident Registered Dietitians answered the most popular questions about low-calorie sweeteners.
