Food News: We Can Now Trust Food Labels, Maybe?
The newsletter that has abandoned meat for a plant-based future.
hi hi,
i am not a fan of animals being used for entertainment. i’m also not above the moo deng hype. if you aren’t as chronically online as myself, Moo Deng is a 2-month-old baby pygmy hippo born in the Khao Kheow Open Zoo and her emotive little face is everywhere this week (including my own instagram meme dump).
the world clearly needed this adorable viral interruption to our daily doom and gloom but, i kind of hope it’s short-lived. because humans ruin absolutely everything, Moo Deng’s internet fame has consequences for the hippo and other zoo animals. zoo caretakers have to protect her from visitors throwing things and being overtly disrespectful of the animals’ physical safety.
while i’m already on the vegan killjoy train, i might as well share that Moo Deng, means “‘bouncy pig’ in Thai, and is a common pork dish known for its chewiness.” perhaps Moo Deng can be a gateway conversation about speciesism and how strange it is that people can be so in love with one animal but not extend that love to other animals, like pigs, who end up on store shelves, menus, and tables every day?
-k
What I’ve Read
USDA Releases Updated Guideline to Strengthen Substantiation of Animal-Raising and Environment-Related Claims on Meat and Poultry Labels - The USDA regulates animal meat, poultry, and egg products outlined under various pieces of legislation, the FDA regulates all other food, drugs, and cosmetics that the USDA does not. Both agencies regulate certain voluntary food labeling marketing claims, meaning products that display these claims must meet specific requirements. Last month the USDA released a 32-page guideline on substantiating Animal Welfare Claims, Breed Claims, Diet Claims, Living or Raising Conditions Claims, Negative Antibiotic Use Claims, Negative Hormone Use Claims, Source and Traceability Claims, Organic Claims, and Environment-Related Claims. You may recognize some of these claims, like “Raised Without Antibiotics,” “Grass-Fed,” “Climate-Friendly,” “Raised using Regenerative Agriculture Practices,” and others. Companies that display these claims on their labeling must submit documentation to the USDA justifying how their products meet the regulations. Another important piece of the updated guidelines is that FSIS strongly recommends companies use third-party certifications to help substantiate some claims.
I am personally a fan of federally regulated marketing claims and tend to view third-party certifications as harm-reduction because they are a pay-to-play middle ground between no regulation and federal regulation. Food companies keep putting science-y, greenwashing, feel-good phrases on food labeling that sound like they mean something but are really just empty words they hope you’ll accept at face value while shopping. Regulating popular claims won’t remove all the sleaziness from our food packages, because regulation simply cannot keep up with all the creative labeling sweet nothings food companies keep churning out, but I don’t think it hurts for the government to try! This is especially true for these new guidelines that require substantiation for popular humanewashing labeling favored by the animal agriculture industry.
John Oliver on universal free meals at school: ‘We have the power to ensure no kid in this country is hungry’- John Oliver on Last Week Tonight presented an overview of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). It took me back to my fundamentals of food and nutrition policy course with Professor Eileen Kennedy who, um, really brought the stress of Capital Hill to the classroom but also taught me a lot about the NSLP. While this episode wasn’t as comprehensive or stressful as Kennedy’s class, John Oliver did a decent job describing how the NSLP benefits students and families—or harms them when funding is cut time and again—along with the program’s many challenges. I especially appreciated that Oliver focused on how quickly we funded universal school meals during the early years of the pandemic and, despite the program’s many positive impacts, how all but 8 states reverted to letting kids go hungry and families incur unnecessary lunch debt.
Can Lawmakers Really Tackle High Food Prices? - It seems like Kamala Harris plans to continue the Biden-Harris Administration’s attempts to curb corporate consolidation and lower costs of everyday goods, specifically the prices of groceries. While “shrinkflation” was one of Biden’s economy buzzwords, Harris’ platform is focused on bringing down costs by focusing on “price-gouging.” Harris has proposed the, “first-ever federal ban on corporate price gouging on food and groceries, which will build on the anti-price gouging statutes already in place in 37 states.” Along with Biden and Harris, other government leaders and legislators, like Elizabeth Warren, also continue to focus on antitrust efforts.
We should absolutely be mad about grocery prices, which increased 25% from 2019-2023, but direct your anger to the companies raking in record profits and keeping costs high, despite inflation coming down. Save some of that anger for Trump, whose administration focused on deregulation (he dissolved the USDA’s Grain, Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration and protections for contract farmers against animal meat companies), cutting aid to families, and helping out commodity farmers (more than any previous administration) and Big Ag.
How European Supermarkets Are Getting People to Eat Less Meat -The Netherlands has been consistently working toward shifting its food and agricultural systems to increase plant-based protein production and consumption and transition farmers from farming animals to plants. This initiative is called “protein splits” and seems to be working as intended. Dutch supermarkets are implementing various tactics, including introducing price parity of animal and plant proteins, placing animal-free meats next to animal meats, and selling hybrid products that cut animal proteins with plant-based ones. Can you believe we live in a world where private industry adjusts its strategy and works with government and scientific authorities to prioritize animal welfare, public health, and environmental concerns? I almost can’t.
For past OVIAFN coverage of food systems transition in the Netherlands see Vol 2, Issue 2 and Issue 4.
Cargill, Hormel latest to settle US workers' wage-fixing lawsuit - Another day another class action settlement against the animal meat industry for the standard (alleged) antitrust law violations and infringing on workers’ rights. In this particular settlement, Cargill will pay $29.75 million, National Beef Packing will pay $14.2 million, and Hormel Foods will pay $13.5 million. That’s a grand total of $57.45 million. For an industry that requires billions annually in government subsidies and loan forgiveness, it’s wild just how much money the animal meat industry has spent paying out settlements in the past few decades. It seems especially crazy because the reason these companies tend to give for choosing to settle is to avoid the expense of further litigation. But hey, I’m no economist or business mogul, so maybe this settlement strategy is cheaper than just conducting business in a way that doesn’t get you sued over and over again for the same old things. Plus if you settle, you never have to admit guilt!
Green group sues Tyson Foods for allegedly false climate claims - Environmental law nonprofit, Earthjustice, is representing the Environmental Working Group (EWG) in a lawsuit against Tyson Foods. Their stated goal is that the court forces Tyson, one of the largest animal meat companies in the world, to publish actionable plans to back up the company’s environmental labeling and stated emissions goals or pull back on related messaging.
The EWG’s complaint alleges, “Consumers increasingly want to purchase foods that do less harm to the environment, yet they cannot independently determine which foods qualify. Tyson knowingly capitalizes on these well-intentioned preferences by advertising in numerous outlets a pledge to achieve “net-zero” climate emissions by 2050 and marketing ‘climate-smart’ beef.”
Reporting does not mention how the new FSIS Guideline on Substantiating Animal-Raising and Environment-Related Labeling Claims may impact this suit. While I am glad to see Tyson held to public and legal accountability I want to note that EWG gives myself, and many scientists, the ick mainly because of a tendency to overstate the science behind health risk claims.
Italy’s Gruppo Tonazzo abandons meat for plant-based future - Gruppo Tonazzo, an Italian food manufacturer that started as a butcher shop 136 years ago, will stop making animal-based meat products by the end of 2024. I am not typically in the business of recycling a company’s PR story but this is a nice break from the continued news of vegan restaurants closing and reports of how the plant-based market has, supposedly, plateaued. It feels especially significant considering Italy’s recent history of banning cultivated meats (covered in Vol 2, Issue 6) as a fragile attempt to protect farmers and the country’s food heritage.
Action Item for my Fellow Americans
Petition: Urge the FDA to Disclose When Products Contain Animal Ingredients via Animal Legal Defense Fund
Quick Summary:
Not all animal-based ingredients are disclosed on food labels. This seems like a fairly basic level of transparency we should be entitled to, but as of now, we are not. Enter this petition!
Why I Think This Matters:
Ambiguous labeling is frustrating. Ambiguous labeling is especially frustrating for people with allergies, restrictions due to religious and/or ethical beliefs (hello from this Jewish vegan), health concerns, etc. What do you do when products contain ingredients that may or may not be of animal origin, that you’d like to or need to avoid, but you can’t tell from the label alone? I’ve stood in many a store aisle googling a product that lists an ingredient that may come from animal origin—like monoglycerides, vitamin A, or vitamin D3. Sometimes I find the information I need other times I don’t and just avoid purchasing or consuming the product, to stay on the safe side.
If I’m really interested in a product I will reach out to the brand or manufacturer but this is not always an effective strategy. Sometimes I don’t get a response, I get a very delayed response, or I get an unhelpful answer that is essentially “maybe.” The lack of clarity is usually due to a company using multiple manufacturers in different regions for the same product so they cannot give me a guarantee.
Unclear labeling is bad enough for potentially animal-derived ingredients but it’s even worse that there are definitively animal-derived additives or ingredients that don’t have to be disclosed. These are things like gelatin (miscellaneous animal bones, cartilage, and skin unless noted as fish), carmine (bugs), shellac (bugs), lactitol (cows), and others. Even though these names are considered “common” by the FDA, they are unlikely to be familiar to the average consumer.
I hope this petition leads to mandated disclosure because transparency is important and it would benefit so many different groups of people. It is unlikely that disclosures would be required to note what specific animal an ingredient comes from—which would be most beneficial for those with allergies or health concerns—but any amount of certainty is better than none. Beyond disclosure, I hope synthetic versions of these ingredients or plant-based alternatives become the norm in the future.
What do you think about the (lacking) transparency of food labels? Is any of this information new to you? Share your food labeling thoughts in the comments below!
Thank you for this information!