datarank
datarank:

Proposed FDA Rule Changes Build on Consumer Discussion & May Portend Packaged Foods Market Changes
In an ongoing effort to combat obesity and promote public health the Obama administration is promoting proposed Food and Drug Administration changes to food labeling, the first significant changes since 1993.  The agency proposed the update on February 27th as the and among the proposed changes are:
Updated serving sizes to more accurately reflect actual consumption
Larger, bolded calorie count font
New daily values which are displayed first
A new category called “added sugar”
 To see how well these changes resonated with consumer concerns DataRank analyzed consumer conversations around nutrition labels on a sample of consumer-packaged goods to see which ingredients got the most attention.
Given the large concern around calories, serving size, and sugar, the proposed changes play into consumer’s go-to indicators of health.  One area of change which has generated little discussion is “recommended daily values”, or the average amount of any vitamin, chemical, or quantity a person should consume in a day, indicates consumers rely less on these pre-tabulated measures than the raw values provided on the label. The FDA’s proposed updates and more prominent position will likely serve to bring more consumer focus to the daily values while enhancing discussion on already important indicators. Overall, the food label update is hitting consumers’ concerns. Other concerns, such as genetically modified organism labeling, are still relatively far from the FDA’s rulemaking docket regardless of activist pressure.
The nutrition label update could herald changes in both consumer and producer behavior.  Consumers, already sensitive to caloric intake and the role of sugars in their diets, may shy away from products with added sugar or become even stricter calorie-counters as the information becomes more prominent. Companies could also feel the changes as consumer preferences adjust to new information and attention is drawn to parts of the label that previously received little more than a cursory glance. Advocates of the changes argue the more prominently displayed dietary information may have just this effect, driving changes in the packaged foods marketplace. Firms may indeed feel the pressure with some companies considering changes to serving side or accelerating formula changes while well-positioned products may use their formulas as hero claims to gather disaffected consumers.
To read more about the proposed food label changes and the reasoning behind them take a look at this article at Tufts Now in the link below.

http://now.tufts.edu/articles/no-more-half-cup-servings-ice-cream
*Chart shows ranked discussion of traits by volume
^FDA insignia represent categories with proposed rule changes

datarank:

Proposed FDA Rule Changes Build on Consumer Discussion & May Portend Packaged Foods Market Changes

In an ongoing effort to combat obesity and promote public health the Obama administration is promoting proposed Food and Drug Administration changes to food labeling, the first significant changes since 1993.  The agency proposed the update on February 27th as the and among the proposed changes are:

Updated serving sizes to more accurately reflect actual consumption

Larger, bolded calorie count font

New daily values which are displayed first

A new category called “added sugar”

 To see how well these changes resonated with consumer concerns DataRank analyzed consumer conversations around nutrition labels on a sample of consumer-packaged goods to see which ingredients got the most attention.

Given the large concern around calories, serving size, and sugar, the proposed changes play into consumer’s go-to indicators of health.  One area of change which has generated little discussion is “recommended daily values”, or the average amount of any vitamin, chemical, or quantity a person should consume in a day, indicates consumers rely less on these pre-tabulated measures than the raw values provided on the label. The FDA’s proposed updates and more prominent position will likely serve to bring more consumer focus to the daily values while enhancing discussion on already important indicators. Overall, the food label update is hitting consumers’ concerns. Other concerns, such as genetically modified organism labeling, are still relatively far from the FDA’s rulemaking docket regardless of activist pressure.

The nutrition label update could herald changes in both consumer and producer behavior.  Consumers, already sensitive to caloric intake and the role of sugars in their diets, may shy away from products with added sugar or become even stricter calorie-counters as the information becomes more prominent. Companies could also feel the changes as consumer preferences adjust to new information and attention is drawn to parts of the label that previously received little more than a cursory glance. Advocates of the changes argue the more prominently displayed dietary information may have just this effect, driving changes in the packaged foods marketplace. Firms may indeed feel the pressure with some companies considering changes to serving side or accelerating formula changes while well-positioned products may use their formulas as hero claims to gather disaffected consumers.

To read more about the proposed food label changes and the reasoning behind them take a look at this article at Tufts Now in the link below.

http://now.tufts.edu/articles/no-more-half-cup-servings-ice-cream

*Chart shows ranked discussion of traits by volume

^FDA insignia represent categories with proposed rule changes

feastongood

feastongood:

Backstage, Ryan Shadrick Wilson, General Counsel at Partnership for a Healthier America, discusses a public health crisis revolving around food and consumption. She shares what can be done to promote healthier eating habits in America along with some alarming statistics that are motivators to make change.

You can find her stage presentation on the subject here.

Join us:

http://feastongood.com
http://facebook.com/feastongood
http://twitter.com/feastongood


'Meat Atlas' charts a changing world of meat eaters
If anything is going to put you off eating meat, a map made out of a raw bloody steak might just do the trick.
That is the cover of the Meat Atlas, a yearly publication by the Heinrich Boell Foundation - a German environmental NGO - and Friends of the Earth. The first English version for the international market was released on Thursday.
But the Meat Atlas is not necessarily meant to turn you veggie - although the cover title “facts and figures about the animals we eat” might appear blunt to the more squeamish.
The aim is to inform consumers about the dangers of increasingly industrialised meat production, says Barbara Unmuessig, the foundation’s president, herself a self-confessed enjoyer of the occasional organic steak.
"In the rich North we already have high meat consumption. Now the poor South is catching up," she said. "Catering for this growing demand means industrialised farming methods: animals are pumped full of growth hormones. This has terrible consequences on how animals are treated and on the health of consumers."
In the United States more than 75kg (165lbs) of meat is consumed per person each year. In Germany that figure is around 60kg. Huge amounts compared to per capita meat consumption rates of 38kg in China, and less than 20kg in Africa.
But whereas in the developed world meat consumption has stabilised - or in some countries such as Germany, is even falling - in other parts of the world, particularly in India and China, consumers are taking enthusiastically to a meat-heavy Western diet.
There are social consequences, according to the Meat Atlas: the more meat we eat, the more animals we have to feed.
As a result increasing amounts of agricultural land are being given over to grow animal feed, such as soya. Globally 70% of arable land is now being used to grow food for animals, rather than food for people, says the Heinrich Boell Foundation.
This is undermining the fight against starvation and poverty, says Barbara Unmuessig, as individual farmers are pushed off their land by huge competitive corporations. And industrialised methods have led to an overuse of damaging chemicals, she believes.
Guilt-inducing
But Germans are torn.
On the one hand, this is a country with a powerful meat industry which slaughters 700 million animals a year - as well as a strong tradition of eating meat: wandering round chomping on a sausage is a normal part of most street festivals, and dried pieces of salami, wrapped in plastic wrappers like chocolate bars, are popular snacks.
German consumers are also used to the cheap food which is a direct result of industrial farming methods. The average German household spends around 10% of its entire income on food today, one of the lowest figures in the world, compared to more than 30% three decades ago.
More….
(From BBC News)

Graphic

'Meat Atlas' charts a changing world of meat eaters

If anything is going to put you off eating meat, a map made out of a raw bloody steak might just do the trick.

That is the cover of the Meat Atlas, a yearly publication by the Heinrich Boell Foundation - a German environmental NGO - and Friends of the Earth. The first English version for the international market was released on Thursday.

But the Meat Atlas is not necessarily meant to turn you veggie - although the cover title “facts and figures about the animals we eat” might appear blunt to the more squeamish.

The aim is to inform consumers about the dangers of increasingly industrialised meat production, says Barbara Unmuessig, the foundation’s president, herself a self-confessed enjoyer of the occasional organic steak.

"In the rich North we already have high meat consumption. Now the poor South is catching up," she said. "Catering for this growing demand means industrialised farming methods: animals are pumped full of growth hormones. This has terrible consequences on how animals are treated and on the health of consumers."

In the United States more than 75kg (165lbs) of meat is consumed per person each year. In Germany that figure is around 60kg. Huge amounts compared to per capita meat consumption rates of 38kg in China, and less than 20kg in Africa.

But whereas in the developed world meat consumption has stabilised - or in some countries such as Germany, is even falling - in other parts of the world, particularly in India and China, consumers are taking enthusiastically to a meat-heavy Western diet.

There are social consequences, according to the Meat Atlas: the more meat we eat, the more animals we have to feed.

As a result increasing amounts of agricultural land are being given over to grow animal feed, such as soya. Globally 70% of arable land is now being used to grow food for animals, rather than food for people, says the Heinrich Boell Foundation.

This is undermining the fight against starvation and poverty, says Barbara Unmuessig, as individual farmers are pushed off their land by huge competitive corporations. And industrialised methods have led to an overuse of damaging chemicals, she believes.

Guilt-inducing

But Germans are torn.

On the one hand, this is a country with a powerful meat industry which slaughters 700 million animals a year - as well as a strong tradition of eating meat: wandering round chomping on a sausage is a normal part of most street festivals, and dried pieces of salami, wrapped in plastic wrappers like chocolate bars, are popular snacks.

German consumers are also used to the cheap food which is a direct result of industrial farming methods. The average German household spends around 10% of its entire income on food today, one of the lowest figures in the world, compared to more than 30% three decades ago.

More….

(From BBC News)

FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban That Could Affect Several Of America’s Favorite Foods
The Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, announced a proposal on Thursday to ban trans fat, which can be found in hugely popular snacks such crackers, cookies, baked goods and microwave popcorn, in a sweeping move that would force food manufacturers to reformulate processed foods that currently use this artery-clogging artificial unsaturated fat.
The FDA determined that partially hydrogenated oils, or PHOs, the primary dietary source of artificial trans fat in processed foods, are unsafe for consumption, and opened a 60-day review period to collect data on the time food companies would need to alter their products before the ban takes effect. Trans fat intake boosts the amount of low-density lipoprotein, or “bad” cholesterol, raising the risk of heart disease due to the buildup of plaque inside the arteries. 
“While consumption of potentially harmful artificial trans fat has declined over the last two decades in the United States … further reduction in the amount of trans fat in the American diet could prevent an additional 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 deaths from heart disease each year,” FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said, in a statement.
Over the past decade the consumption of trans fat in the U.S. has significantly fallen, due to health concerns following the FDA’s proposal in 1999 requiring food manufacturers to clearly mention the amount of trans fat on food labels listing nutrition facts. However, the proposal came to force only in 2006, and according to the FDA, trans fat intake of people in the U.S. dropped from 4.6 grams a day in 2003 to about 1 gram a day in 2012.
Among the products the FDA singled out are cakes, frozen pies, snack foods, frozen pizza, vegetable shortenings and stick margarines, coffee creamers, refrigerated dough products, such as biscuits and cinnamon rolls, and ready-to-use frostings, meaning a ban would affect manufacturers across the board.
However, trans fat would not be completely eliminated from foods even after the ban, because it also occurs naturally in small amounts in meat, dairy products, and in fully hydrogenated oils, where it is produced during manufacturing.
The FDA urged consumers to check detailed nutrition facts on food labels even if they claim “0 grams trans fat,” because under current regulations, manufacturers are allowed to print such a claim if the food limits trans fat to 0.5 grams or less of trans fat per serving.
Washington, D.C.-based Grocery Manufacturers Association said, in response to the FDA’s proposal, that food processing companies in the U.S. have “voluntarily lowered” the amounts of trans fat in their food products by more than 73 percent.
(From International Business Times)
FDA Proposes Trans Fat Ban That Could Affect Several Of America’s Favorite Foods

The Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, announced a proposal on Thursday to ban trans fat, which can be found in hugely popular snacks such crackers, cookies, baked goods and microwave popcorn, in a sweeping move that would force food manufacturers to reformulate processed foods that currently use this artery-clogging artificial unsaturated fat.

The FDA determined that partially hydrogenated oils, or PHOs, the primary dietary source of artificial trans fat in processed foods, are unsafe for consumption, and opened a 60-day review period to collect data on the time food companies would need to alter their products before the ban takes effect. Trans fat intake boosts the amount of low-density lipoprotein, or “bad” cholesterol, raising the risk of heart disease due to the buildup of plaque inside the arteries. 

“While consumption of potentially harmful artificial trans fat has declined over the last two decades in the United States … further reduction in the amount of trans fat in the American diet could prevent an additional 20,000 heart attacks and 7,000 deaths from heart disease each year,” FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said, in a statement.

Over the past decade the consumption of trans fat in the U.S. has significantly fallen, due to health concerns following the FDA’s proposal in 1999 requiring food manufacturers to clearly mention the amount of trans fat on food labels listing nutrition facts. However, the proposal came to force only in 2006, and according to the FDA, trans fat intake of people in the U.S. dropped from 4.6 grams a day in 2003 to about 1 gram a day in 2012.

Among the products the FDA singled out are cakes, frozen pies, snack foods, frozen pizza, vegetable shortenings and stick margarines, coffee creamers, refrigerated dough products, such as biscuits and cinnamon rolls, and ready-to-use frostings, meaning a ban would affect manufacturers across the board.

However, trans fat would not be completely eliminated from foods even after the ban, because it also occurs naturally in small amounts in meat, dairy products, and in fully hydrogenated oils, where it is produced during manufacturing.

The FDA urged consumers to check detailed nutrition facts on food labels even if they claim “0 grams trans fat,” because under current regulations, manufacturers are allowed to print such a claim if the food limits trans fat to 0.5 grams or less of trans fat per serving.

Washington, D.C.-based Grocery Manufacturers Association said, in response to the FDA’s proposal, that food processing companies in the U.S. have “voluntarily lowered” the amounts of trans fat in their food products by more than 73 percent.

(From International Business Times)

nychealth

nychealth:

Last weekend, NYC Health in partnership with Fund for Public Health NY, displayed a Come See What’s Cookin’, KIDS! photo exhibition at farmers’ market locations in Brooklyn and Queens. The exhibition showcased photos taken by kids capturing what they had learned during the healthy eating and cooking program.

From July to October 2013, Come See What’s Cookin’, KIDS! held classes for kids at farmers’ markets in the Bronx, Corona and Jackson Heights in Queens, and in Bushwick, Brooklyn. These fun and interactive classes focused on healthy eating, food sources, and how food grows. Parents also joined by learning how to include kids in the kitchen, encourage new foods, and were given healthy meal and snack ideas.

Over the course of three weekends, program organizers asked kids to take a photo of whatever comes to mind and to explain their reason for taking the photo. The kids’ responses were recorded in the exhibition in the form of quotes alongside the photos, and include images of foods, teachers, and the markets.

The photos showed that kids were not only excited about trying new foods and attending classes, but also participating in the market as part of a larger community. The results are beautiful and inspiring!