7 ways the government should improve food labels
To prevent labels like “grass-fed” and “organic” from misleading you, Consumers Union recently sent a letter to the United States Department of Agriculture outlining how the agency should improve labeling standards. Since the letter was sent in early February, progress toward closing the loopholes for one major standard—country of origin labeling—has been made. The rest remain open issues to date.
Here are the 7 ways CU recommended the USDA should improve its standards:
1. The "Naturally raised" label should be withdrawn. The USDA’s recently finalized standard for “naturally raised” is very limited; it means only that an animal was raised without certain antibiotics, animal byproducts, and growth promotants. The voluntary standard will become effective upon Office of Management and Budget approval. CU believes only specific product claims should be allowed and they should not be couched under a vague and misleading term that does not address how the animals were raised, their main diet, treatment of animals, space requirements, and other concerns.
2. Close loopholes in Country of Origin Labeling (COOL). The USDA recently took action to help close some of the key loopholes CU has advocated for. In February 2009, the agency called upon industry to follow stricter standards for labeling meat and foods that are cured, smoked, broiled, grilled, or steamed. The new changes should make it easier for consumers to find out what countries some meat products and processed foods come from.
3. Close loopholes in "grass fed" standard. As of November 2007, the USDA standard for “grass fed” meat means that animals ate only grass. However, companies that were using this claim prior to November 2007 are not required to meet the new standards. CU believes this is misleading to consumers who cannot distinguish between standards for the very same claim in the marketplace.
4. Harmonize meat marketing claims across meat, poultry and dairy items. Not all USDA standards apply to all relevant products in the marketplace. For example, the "grass fed" standard only applies to meat from ruminant animals, and yet consumers are presented with the very same claim on poultry products, milk and eggs. The current standards for "naturally raised" would apply to meat products from livestock but not from poultry. CU strongly urges the USDA to develop labeling standards that apply to all meat and poultry products that could, would, or do use similar label claims, and to work with the FDA to harmonize the meaning of those label terms on eggs and dairy products.
5. Define "raised without antibiotics" label claim. While most consumers believe that the “raised without antibiotics” claim means no antibiotics or antimicrobial drugs were administered, there is in fact no standard for the term. The claim has been misused in the marketplace and the USDA has made several contradictory statements about its interpretation. CU strongly urges the USDA to create a transparent, consistent and meaningful standard for this term that means no antibiotics, no antimicrobial drugs, no ionophores, and no antibiotics injected into eggs ("raised" should include egg incubation).
6. Ensure consistency of "organic" label to scope of products covered. The term organic is not currently being used consistently on fish and personal care products. For example, while the National Organic Program has been developing standards for aquaculture for several years, it has continued to allow companies to market their products as "organic." Consumers Union believes this undermines the integrity of the organic label and urges the USDA to prohibit the "organic" label on seafood and fish until standards are established.
Further, personal care products have been added to the scope of the National Organic Program, but they do not meet the same uniform standards for food. Specifically, the non-organic portion of personal care products does not have to adhere to the materials review process or the National List. Ideally, the standards for the non-organic portion of personal care products should be the same as for food.
7. Maintain "treated with irradiation" labeling for meat from irradiated surface cuts. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is currently considering a petition from the American Meat Institute (AMI) calling for the use of low-penetration and low-dose electron beam irradiation to reduce levels of bacteria such as E. coli O157:h7 on of the surface of chilled beef carcasses as a “processing aid” rather than its current defined use as an "antimicrobial food additive." This shift in classification would permit this kind of irradiation to be used without being labeled. CU does not believe that this application of irradiation should be defined as a "processing aid" and that specific labeling should still be required.
Find out more about these and other labels in our Eco-labels Center.
|
|
|
