Labeling of foods is an important right for the public to know what’s in our food. Some labels, such as “USDA Organic,” are verified and have strict meaning on the marketplace, while other labels, such as “natural” do not. “Organic” certification ensures that the product meet the USDA standards under the National Organic Program, which generally indicates that synthetic fertilizers, irradiation, and genetic engineering may not be used. In addition, no use of antibiotics is legally allowed in organic livestock production. The government does not regulate the use of the word “natural” on products, except for poultry and other meats. A label of natural does not indicate anything about the raising, feeding or care of the animals. The lack of regulation makes it difficult for consumers to determine if this is the case, and there are multiple lawsuits underway challenging companies’ use of the term natural. In addition, there is consumer confusion about labels on eggs, meat, and dairy, such as “grass fed,” “cage free,” “pastured-based,” and “free range.” USDA, and others, attempt to create clear definitions, but there are few regulations. Labeling food produced with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a big battle currently underway and there are many attempts to mandate labeling, at the federal and state level. In California, Proposition 37 attempted to label GMOs but didn’t pass. For more info see our coverage here, here and here. In addition, Country of Origin Labeling for meat is currently being challenged at the World Trade Organization. For more on labels, you can visit Greenerchoices or the Good Guide, two independent label review sites.

Recent Articles About Labeling

Our Chemical Cocktail Evaluated in New Report

By on April 17, 2012

When it comes to the chemicals used in food packaging, there is much we still don’t know. After a recent U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) decision last month to not put further restrictions on bisphenol-A (BPA), a new report today in the Washington Post takes a closer look at studies that reveal that such endocrine-distrupting chemicals are not only ubiquitous, they might also be harmful at much lower doses than previously thought.  Read more

Fishing for Labels

By on February 6, 2012

The California Assembly did not pass the Consumer Right To Know Act, AB 88, introduced by Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) and put to a vote earlier this year. This is too bad. It would have meant that food is “misbranded” if it is a genetically engineered fish or fish product, but its labeling does not conspicuously identify it as such. The timing of this measure is significant, as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is reviewing the first-ever proposed commercialization of salmon genetically engineered (GE) to mature more quickly. Read more

Did a Government Study Just Prove that BPA is Safe?

By on September 27, 2011

Though it has dropped from the headlines recently, the bisphenol A discussion continues to rage. California is one Jerry Brown signature away from a partial ban of the chemical, which is used in everything from canned goods to PVC plastic to cash register receipts. There is ample evidence that BPA, an endocrine disruptor, has been linked to various ills, including diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. Some scientists are even raising questions about the damage it’s doing to our oceans.

And, despite FDA footdragging on the issue, the government is worried. The National Institutes of Health recently initiated a $30 million research program (though not without some controversy) to examine the growing risks and make a final call on BPA’s safety.

Now, a new study by U.S. government scientists purports to debunk the entire BPA threat. It claims that BPA poses no risk whatsoever and goes so far as to conclude that every previous study that found otherwise was fundamentally flawed. Read more

BPA Exposure Worse Than Previously Estimated

By on June 9, 2011

According to a new study, exposure to the gender-bending chemical Bisphenol-A (BPA) is worse than previously estimated. The study, which appeared Monday in Environmental Health Perspectives, is the first to recreate the chronic daily intake of BPA in humans, which leaches into our food–our primary channel for exposure–via its packaging. Researchers showed this by feeding a steady BPA-spiked diet to mice, whereas previous studies have only used a single exposure. Read more

What Dow Chemical Doesn’t Want You to Know About Your Water (VIDEO)

By on June 7, 2011

Earlier this year, I was contacted by a PR firm working for Dow Chemical to contribute a 60-second video for The Future We Create virtual conference on water sustainability the company launches today. As a vocal advocate for strict regulation of toxic chemicals—especially for food and farming—I was surprised the company would approach me. Dow is the country’s largest chemical maker, and profits handsomely from developing some of the world’s most polluting products, many of which are widely used in industrial and consumer goods as well as agriculture.

In the video I submitted, which you can watch below, I stress that one of the greatest threats to clean water is chemical contaminants—and that Dow Chemical has a long history of water pollution. The PR representative e-mailed to say “unfortunately we can’t use your video,” but that she would be happy to include me, still, if I would consider re-recording it. When we discussed what that would mean she said, no “fingerpointing;” they wanted a “positive, inclusive discussion.” Read more

FDA: Variable Amounts of BPA on Your Plate

By on May 26, 2011

Many Americans, including a high number living in low-income communities, have come to rely on canned tomato sauces, soups, and vegetables to expedite their meal preparations. Yet a new study from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reveals that the canned food items on your dinner plate are over 90 percent likely to be tainted with Bisphenol-A (BPA), a primary chemical used in the lining of cans. (For more information on BPA, check out Civil Eats’ previous reporting here, here, here, and here.)

These findings are notable because they underline the fact that BPA levels in cans are variable depending on the type of food, or even within batches of the same food item. This is the FDA’s largest study to date across a wide spectrum of commonly consumed canned food items, including soups, chilis, pasta and pork and beans–foods often consumed by children, who have a heightened risk of exposure due to their body size. Read more

California Will Vote on BPA Ban Today

By on May 23, 2011

The California State Assembly today will vote on a bill to protect our most vulnerable residents–babies and toddlers–from Bisphenol-A (BPA), a harmful chemical in their food and drink containers. (Civil Eats has reported on BPA here, here, and here.)

Assembly Bill 1319, the Toxin-Free Infants and Toddlers Act, would ban the use of BPA in baby bottles, sippy cups, infant formula, and baby food. The bill, authored by Assembly Member Betsy Butler (D-Marina Del Ray), which was passed by both the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee and the Health Committee, is headed for a vote by the full Assembly today. Read more

FDA on BPA: Our Hands are Tied

By on January 15, 2010

The FDA finally released its BPA report. The good news is that the FDA now admits that BPA—the endocrine-disrupting, heart disease-causing ingredient in plastic food packaging and can linings—isn’t entirely safe (contradicting the agency’s statement from 2008 that it was), particularly for infants and children. The bad news? There’s not much the agency can do about it. Here are the immediate, limited steps the FDA feels it can take “to reduce human exposure to BPA in the food supply”: Read more