The Raw Milk Debate: Economic Opportunity or Legal Liability

Despite claims of health benefits associated with raw milk consumption, raw milk is a well documented source of bacterial pathogens which can cause human illness, and in some instances, death (Oliver et al., 2009; Schmidt and Davidson, 2008). Consumers who choose to purchase and consume raw milk should understand that raw milk may contain dangerous bacterial pathogens. Consumers should also understand whether they are in a risk group, which increases their chances of adverse health impacts from exposure to bacterial pathogens.

The dangers posed to public health by bacterial pathogens associated with raw milk consumption are numerous. Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella Typhimurium, Escherichia coli O157:H7, and Campylobacter are just four of the pathogens of concern in raw milk. The bacterial pathogens posing a risk to consumer health have become more dangerous in the past two decades. During this same period, the percentage of our population at risk for foodborne illness has increased significantly. It is critically important to understand risks posed by raw milk consumption, why the pathogens have become so dangerous, who is at greatest risk for severe illness and death, and why we need public health policies that limit exposure and warn susceptible consumers about dangers posed by raw milk consumption.

Of all of the food commodity sectors in the U.S., no sector is more committed to public health than the dairy industry. The reason for the absolute commitment to public health stems from early in the 1900s when raw milk was a major source of human disease, including tuberculosis and scarlet fever (Potter et al., 1984). Numerous deaths were linked to raw milk consumption. The public health response to this crisis was the crafting in 1924 of the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), a comprehensive document which governs all aspects of production, processing, and marketing of milk and dairy products (U.S. FDA, 2007). Pasteurized milk is not a safe product simply due to the heat treatment which milk receives; milk safety is achieved because the PMO outlines a comprehensive system to assure milk safety.

The PMO is constantly updated, guided by scientific experts, farmers, and dairy industry personnel working through the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS) which works to “assure the safest possible milk supply for all the people” through enforcement of Grade A milk sanitation laws.  The PMO has made pasteurized milk one of the safest food products available to consumers, and this ordinance has had a profound positive impact on public health. The PMO is the accepted operating guideline for the handling and production of milk and dairy products in most states. Adherence to the PMO importantly protects the U.S. milk market by enhancing consumer confidence in dairy product safety and reducing liability costs of this economically significant sector of the U.S. agricultural economy.

Many states have recently passed legislation to expand the sale of unpasteurized milk, allowing farmers to sell larger quantities of unpasteurized milk and thereby enhance economic opportunities in these times of severe economic challenges for so many dairy farmers. However, should economic opportunity be met at the expense of public health?  Does pursuit of economic opportunity for some create the right to jeopardize the image of an entire industry that has built its reputation on the safety and wholesomeness of its products? Has this legislation created two standards for milk production in the U.S. and if so, what does this pose for the future of the U.S. dairy industry? There are important liability issues faced by individuals producing products causing harm to consumers, so the key question remains:  Has raw milk legislation created economic opportunity or legal liability for farmers engaged in the sale of unpasteurized milk?

Catherine Donnelly
Professor, Dept. of Nutrition and Food Science, University of Vermont
Co-director, Vermont Institute for Artisan Cheese

Food scientists: let a dietitian take you to lunch today

Who knows, by the end of the meal, you might have the best R&D plan to help Americans make better food choices. This thought struck me—a food scientist working in the nutrition world—while I cruised the expo floor at the American Dietetic Association’s (ADA) national convention a couple of weeks ago. Several hundred exhibitors were offering their latest food products to appeal to the 10,000 registered dietitians looking for healthier foods. It seems that food scientists could take a cue from them.

Registered dietitians are leading the way in making informed food purchasing decisions. Food processing experts need to understand that the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) is a driving force in the search for ‘healthier foods’ by registered dietitians, other health professionals, and the informed public. Dietitians are looking for foods made from whole grains, low-fat milk products, foods lower in sugar, salt, and fat, and foods incorporating more fruits and vegetables. Why?

The DGA gives science-based advice on food and physical activity choices for health, and serves as the source for all federal nutrition policy. The 2005 edition of the DGA is currently under review and will be updated in late 2010. The recommendations in the DGA are for the general public over 2 years of age. The DGA describes a healthy diet as one that emphasizes food choices that:

• highlight fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products;
• include lean meats, poultry, fish, beans, eggs, and nuts; and
• are low in saturated fats, trans fats, cholesterol, salt, and added sugars.

Because dietitians apply the DGA in meeting the needs of consumers, they are demanding new whole grain, veggie, fruit, low sodium, and low-fat milk products. As a result, there were dozens of new types of crackers, chips, and snack foods being offered at the ADA convention. New whole-grain versions of veggie wraps and tortillas with pieces of dried veggies and combinations of beans and vegetables were available. Also highlighted were many types of low-fat and fat-free yogurts. Non-nutritive sweeteners and calorie-free beverages and other products also made an impression at the ADA show. Exhibitors looking to be ahead of the curve are creating new products to be ready to meet the increasing demand of dietitians and other health professionals for healthier food products.

Americans recognize that better health is based on making better food choices—and they are shopping for them. Tracking the evolution of the DGA has already resulted in packaging and labeling efforts to promote foods for their health qualities. Food technologists need to jump-start their efforts to create products that justify the enhanced promotion of products and that are truly ‘healthier’ choices. It will be exciting to see how food producers respond to the dietitians’ challenge over the next few years. Would you like to go to lunch?

Robert Post
Deputy Director, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion
U.S. Department of Agriculture
www.cnpp.usda.gov

CSPI’s 10 Riskiest Foods Really Aren’t: It’s time to stop misleading the public

With a fundamental interest in public advocacy, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) just reported on the top 10 riskiest foods regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The 10 ‘featured’ foods, many popular and healthy staples of the American diet, according to the report, accounted for nearly 40% of all foodborne illness outbreaks from 1990 to 2006. CSPI’s list in descending order: leafy greens, eggs, tuna, oysters, potatoes, cheese, ice cream, tomatoes, sprouts, and berries.

We at The Lempert Report and SupermarketGuru.com are convinced that consumers will change or rethink their eating habits based on the media frenzy now surrounding these foods. Which is unfortunate. This information has already and will cause great confusion to the general population. Looking back to the 2006 E. coli contaminated bagged spinach outbreaks, sales dropped by 5% and a staggering 25% percent the following year; and have never rebounded fully. We are betting this report will have a similar affect on the foods listed in the misleading CSPI report and it is irresponsible both to the consumer and to the food industry.

Remember, this report reviewed data dating back to 1990; over the past 20 years there has been much improvement in food safety science and manufacturing and clearly those improvements must be considered and applauded. Another problem: some data used focused on single outbreaks not primarily linked to the food in question—for example, most of the ice cream illnesses were due to homemade ice cream made with raw eggs; rather than ice cream sold in a supermarket. Caroline Smith DeWaal, the food safety director for CSPI commented that this was the cause for 75% of the ice cream illnesses reported. Clearly singling out ice cream as the culprit doesn’t seem fair, and causes unnecessary consumer confusion. The National Milk Producers Federation and the U.S. Potato Board feel the data is at the very least misleading. And we must agree.

Phil Lempert, Editor
The Lempert Report
SupermarketGuru.com

This was excerpted from Phil Lempert’s article “The 10 Riskiest Foods Really Aren’t.” View the complete article. View the video version.

View the CSPI report (pdf).

Get the discussion started:

1. The CSPI says the report was intended as a review of the food safety system, mainly targeted for scientists and regulators, not the general public. So why then did CSPI release it to the general consumer press?

2. Phil believes this report will cause undo concern among consumers and possibly led to a change in their eating habits. What do you think?

3. Do you think that the recently passed House bill—The Food Safety Enhancement Act— and the yet to be passed Senate bill—The FDA Food Safety Modernization Act—will make a significant difference in reducing foodborne illnesses and outbreaks?

Norman Borlaug: Turning Dreams into Bounties

In the mid-1980s, I was Senior Vice President and Chief R&D Officer Worldwide at General Foods Corp., a leader in processed foods innovations. Into this picture came Norman Borlaug, someone I did not know and who represented accomplishments in agriculture, an area I respected as vital in the chain of supplying food to large numbers of people. He was clearly a man of vision and determination. Borlaug “fathered” the Green Revolution through his many accomplishments in breeding new wheat varieties and in his ability to convince others to bring modern agricultural practices to “the farmers,” as he always explained.

Norm was recipient of the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of has agricultural leadership, but it bothered him that he “had to pass through the window of Peace” because there was no award for agriculture. Typical of Norm, he did not let it rest there, so starting with the Nobel organization and everywhere else his travels took him, he tried to convince others to establish such an award to recognize the vital importance of agriculture to human civilization. But it wasn’t until the late 1980s that he found support in perhaps a most unexpected place—General Foods Corp. But even then his prize for agriculture was not to be because his potential sponsor was interested in a food prize that would recognize all of the links in the food chain from the farm to the table. Typical of Norm’s ability to accept new ideas, he immediately embraced the broader concept and in 1986 The General Foods World Food Prize was announced. He has said many times to me how happy he was to finally see his dream come true.

That was the good news, but there were many pieces that had to be put in place: an organization, a system of operation, and a selection of worthy and inspiring laureates. As Chair of the Council of Advisors, I could dedicate myself to the organization and system, since I was newly retired. Norm assumed the responsibility of finding great laureates as Chairman of the Selection Committee.

And all went well during the start-up years until 1990 when the realities of the business world struck! After a series of acquisitions and mergers by Philip Morris Cos., a new parent, Kraft General Foods, emerged and the new Kraft management decided to drop sponsorship and ordered the termination of the Prize.

Norman Borlaug was deeply saddened and felt abandoned by the move, as did I and the Council of Advisors, but he and I and the leadership of the Winrock Foundation, the Secretariat of the Prize, vowed that we would either convince Kraft not to drop the sponsorship or find another sponsor. That all had to be done in the midst of the 1990 award year.

Norm did not quit easily, nor did I, and we refused to see his dream perish in adolescence. We knocked on company doors, we contacted moneyed friends, we visited countless Chambers of Commerce, anyplace where we might find a new life. While we were greeted with sympathy and even some promises, no one stepped forward to adopt the Prize. While he was very discouraged and fearful that the Prize might die, Norm never gave up the search and he was an inspiration to me and his dream became my dream, too. We did manage to scrounge enough money to go forward with the 1990 award not knowing if there would be another.

Then in 1990, Norm and I went to Des Moines, Iowa, at the request of its Chamber of Commerce to plead our case. Norm presented his dream and I presented the organization’s history and accomplishments. We struck a resonate chord with a very generous individual, John Ruan, a wealthy Des Moines banker who had entertained thoughts of such a prize on his own and shared our dream. Ruan pledged to adopt the Prize and the rest is Iowa history. (To read a comprehensive article on the creation and history of The World Food Prize, please click here.)

While I continued as a member of the Council of Advisors, Norm was reunited with his ancestral history as a native of Iowa. For the past 19 years until Norm’s death at 95 this past September, he has lived his dream over and over again as an administrator of The World Food Prize and a member of its Council of Advisors.

He is one of only five people in the world to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Congressional Gold Medal, and the Nobel Peace Prize.

All his life, he retained his faith in agriculture and the wisdom of the farmer.  I am told that when on his deathbed he was advised of a new technology in agriculture, he said, “Take it to the farmers!”

A.S. Clausi
IFT President 1993-94
Council of Advisors – World Food Prize

Implications of Climate Change on Food Crops

In a recent study, Wolfram Schlenker and I set out to develop a better statistical model linking weather and U.S. crop yields for corn, soybeans, and cotton—the largest three crops in the U.S. in production value. Corn and soybeans are of particular interest because they are really important for global food prices and the U.S. contributes about 40% of the world’s production of these crops, and a much larger share of world exports for these crops. The goal was to find the causal links between observed climate and yields so that we might predict how yields will change as the climate changes.

The novelty of our work is that it carefully accounts for variation in temperatures over time and space. This contrasts with earlier studies that compare yields to average weather outcomes, like average temperature. The problem with averages is that they dilute nonlinearities—effects of the extremes—that are clearly important for crop growth and yield.

Findings
Our major new finding is that extreme heat is critical to yield outcomes. A key measure of extreme heat is given by how much temperatures exceed about 29°C (84°F) during the growing season. The threshold varies somewhat by crop—29°C (84°F) for corn, 30°C (86°F) for soybeans, and 32°C (90°F) for cotton. Below the threshold, warmer temperatures are more beneficial for yields; damages stemming from temperatures much above the threshold can be staggeringly large.

Another important finding is that the non-linear relationship between weather and yields across time in a fixed location is nearly an identical match to the non-linear relationship found when comparing weather distributions and yields across locations with different climates. This indicates farmers in southern areas have been unable to adapt to their warmer climates.

When we use the estimated relationship to predict yield outcomes under projected climate change scenarios, we find that between 2070 and 2099 nationwide average yields on corn, soybeans, and cotton are projected to fall 30–46% under the slowest Hadley III warming scenario and 63–82% under the fastest Hadley III warming scenario. Predicted declines are substantial even in the more immediate future (2020–2049).

Implications
What are the implications of these dramatic findings? Well, it’s hard to tell. The results should provide good motivation for seed companies and plant scientists to develop more heat tolerant plants. Some think CO₂ fertilization will offset a large portion of losses from climate change. But it also seems clear that farmers will want to change the kinds of crops they grow and possibly their planting dates. It’s also possible gains in cooler parts of the world will offset losses in the U.S. The extent to which new areas become arable will determine how crop prices will change. To me, the inescapable conclusion is that the magnitude of climate changes currently anticipated will cause the face of agriculture worldwide to change dramatically. And to some extent this is true regardless of whether or not we markedly reduce CO₂ emissions in the near future.

Wolfram Schlenker and Michael Roberts’ study entitled “Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change” is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). View abstract. View his blog post on the study.

Michael J. Roberts
Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics
North Carolina State University
Publisher of Greed, Green and Grains

Getting Real About Our Modern Food System

Voltaire once said that “common sense is not so common,” a statement that resonates as particularly true lately. In recent years, our modern food system has come under attack by people who may mean well, but they may lack the knowledge, experience, foresight, and/or historical perspective to understand its complexity and importance. Numerous popular press articles, books, movies, blogs, etc., use some truths, some imagination and seductively simplistic, sometimes even misleading, approaches to blame “industrial” agriculture and the “industrial” food system for many of the problems that afflict our society today—energy shortages, environmental degradation, climate change, obesity, diabetes, allergies, etc. My belief is that our modern food system is not perfect, but has served us well, and before we dispose of it, we better design the new one very carefully with creativity, innovation, knowledge, and the responsibility of making life better for present and future generations. As a scientist, I trust science and the progress and solutions it brings, but I also know that science alone will not solve all of our problems.

So, let me offer some common sense, and get real about our modern food system. Today’s food system uses the results of scientific research and sophisticated technologies such as genetic engineering, fast computers, advanced robots, global positioning systems, mechanical harvesting, food irradiation, aseptic processing, bio-based packaging, and countless other complex tools, together with methods such as pest management, nutrient management, soil management, sustainable agriculture, organic farming, niche farming, direct marketing, etc. All these science-based tools have transformed the U.S. food system into one of the most technologically advanced, sustainable, and productive in the world, and our citizens have become accustomed to the safest and least expensive food supply anywhere. And all that was achieved by using fewer resources, while minimizing environmental impact. The following few examples provide some context.

Example 1 – Productivity and Efficiency (from the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service data)
During the last half of the 20th century, agricultural productivity in the U.S. expanded at a phenomenal rate. For instance, the average yield of corn nearly quadrupled (from 39 to 153 bushels per acre), the productivity for meat production increased by a notable 88%, and the output of eggs and poultry increased by a remarkable 411%. Combined, all these improvements resulted in an astonishing 145% increase in overall productivity. Furthermore, our food processing, packaging, and distribution industries have made huge strides toward maximizing efficiency and minimizing food losses. Today in the U.S., virtually 100% of the food produced at the farm now finds its way to consumers’ tables. This is very different than much of the rest of the world, where as much as 50% or more of the food produced at the farm never gets to the people because it is lost to insects, microorganisms, humidity, or other factors.

Example 2 – Environmental Stewardship of Modern vs. Traditional Production Practices (from Capper, Cady, and Bauman, Journal of Animal Science, published online Mar 13, 2009)
A common perception is that pasture-based, low-input dairy systems, characteristic of the 1940s, are more conducive to environmental stewardship than modern milk production systems. Recently, Cornell University scientists compared the environmental impact of modern U.S. dairy production with historical production practices as exemplified by the U.S. dairy system in 1944. They concluded that the modern dairy practices require considerably fewer resources—21% of animals, 23% of feedstuffs, 35% of the water, and only 10% of the land—to produce the same amount of milk. Similarly, modern dairy systems generate less waste outputs—24% of manure, 43% CH4, and 56% N2O—as compared to systems producing equivalent milk from historical dairying. Finally, the same authors showed that the carbon footprint of milk produced in 2007 was only 37% of the equivalent milk production in 1944.

Example 3 – Environmental Impact of Global Transportation of Food (from Weber and Matthews, Environmental Science & Technology, 2008)
Despite significant recent public concern and media attention to the environmental impact of food, few studies in the U.S. have systematically compared the life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with food production against long-distance distribution (a.k.a. “food-miles”). In a 2008 study, Weber and Matthews of Carnegie Mellon University found that although food is transported long distances (1,640 km for final delivery and 6,760 km for the total life-cycle supply chain), the GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase that contributes 83% of the total footprint. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%.

Today, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that more than one billion people live on less than one dollar a day, while nearly one billion people are hungry around the globe. In the very near future (40–50 years), our growing global population will require an estimated 100% more food than we produce today. It is clear that the challenge for world leaders and policy makers is huge, because we will not have twice as much land, water, energy, and other resources available. We can explore and debate many solutions, but we can only achieve this increase with wider use of new and existing technologies. The consequences of failing to use science-based tools and innovations will be disastrous.

Food producers and processors in industrialized and developing nations alike require science and technology to ensure a sustainable supply of safe, nutritious, and affordable food and satisfy a rapidly growing demand. Agriculture, regardless if it is traditional or modern, sustainable or organic, will need more science and technology, not less. And people’s food, be it fast or slow, local or global, whole, natural, fresh or processed, industrial or not, will require more food science and technology, not less.

But many of our public activists are turning away from scientific knowledge, while advocating untested, and at times, even naïve approaches. Many of our public officials in the federal or state governments are not supporting research investments in food and agriculture. There are a few notable exceptions, including Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who recommended the creation of “ a global land-grant college network to advance scientific research, invest in human capital through educational opportunities, and provide extension services to small farmers.”

The 21st century holds great promise for advancing our food system and the human condition, provided there is an appropriate blend of science, technology, public action, imagination, and knowledge.

John D. Floros, PhD
Professor & Head
Department of Food Science
Penn State University
University Park

Our Evolving View of Food

Food, as we all know, is so much more than a simple source of sustenance. And the process of delivering food to the consumer increasingly requires companies to be aware of issues of sustainability and social responsibility.

“Food is risk today; it is ethics today; it’s medicine; and it’s fuel,” said Sylvia Rowe, SR Strategy, Washington, D.C., speaking in a symposium (Session 013) on Sunday morning, June 7, titled, “The Convergence of Health and Wellness and the Environment: Drivers Behind Consumer Choice.”

Consumers are grappling with a variety of complex issues when they consider the big picture of sustainability, Rowe pointed out in her symposium presentation, which addressed both consumer perceptions and media coverage of the food industry. Today’s consumers are weighing the significance and convergence of several issues as they make food purchases. They’re taking into consideration whether a product is organic, whether the ingredients are locally sourced, and whether it delivers health and wellness benefits.

Consumer attention to issues of sustainability and ethics is heightened, of course, by the ongoing media scrutiny the food industry undergoes, said symposium presenter Richard Elder, Elder Communications, Nellysford, Va.

Watch for some new controversy to emerge in the wake of an upcoming movie release, said Elder. The new film, Food Inc., which is slated to premiere June 12 in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York City, will take aim at major food companies, claiming that their focus on profits overshadows their interest in benefiting the consumer, Elder said.

What is your view? Is the food industry facing more intense media scrutiny than ever before? What is the best way for food companies to respond?

Mary Ellen Kuhn
Food Technology magazine
Managing Editor

Food Scientists and Chefs Offer Advice

At the end of Sunday’s IFT/RCA Culinology presentation— “Connecting Art & Soul to Science through Culinology”—moderator Dr. Lauren Shimek (IDEO) asked the three panelists to share their advice on how food scientists can get into and understand the culinary world, and vice versa. This is what the panelists had to say:

“Go eat. But don’t go to the fancy places. Go to dives … that’s where the fun stuff is happening. Go to enjoy and also go to be critical about what they did with the food.”
—Chef Andrew Hunter, Culinary Craft

“For the chefs they should spend time with ingredient suppliers. Push yourself into the science. Some flavor labs are very open to having people come in and visit. You may be uncomfortable but you are going to see a different perspective. Go into labs and watch what they are doing. You’ll get a better appreciation and better understanding of how they work.”
—Judy Lindsey, Product Dynamics

“Cook. Just experiment and try different flavor combinations. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. Also, explore cookbooks, and don’t necessarily follow the recipe. Experience is the greatest teaching tool there is, especially in culinary.”
—Dr. Samir Amin, Two Chefs On A Roll

Kelly Frederick
Food Technology magazine
Digital Media Editor

Food Science, Nutrition, and Skin: Lessons for the Food Producer and Consumer on Aging, Beauty, and Healthy Skin

Two of the first things people notice when they meet someone new are skin and hair. So before trying the latest diet fad, consider that fat and other essential nutrients may be the fountain of youth. During one of IFT’s Annual Meeting & Food Expo’s scientific session titled “Food Science, Nutrition, and Skin: Lessons for the Food Producer and Consumer on Aging, Beauty, and Healthy Skin,” three panelists explained why fat combats signs of aging and hair loss.

Essentially, fat nourishes the hair and skin in all living mammals. Antioxidants such as vitamins A, C, and E are also beneficial in the fight against aging and other skin problems. Without dietary fat, the body cannot absorb vitamins A, D, E, and K. Moreover, research studies have shown that lab animals deprived of essential fatty acids experienced dry, scaly, wrinkly skin and hair loss. Apparently, the Westernized diet—which is high in red meat, processed foods, and saturated fats—correlates to increased incidences of skin problems such as acne and inflammatory health problems such as type 2 diabetes.

While stressors such as fatigue and smoking also have adverse effects on skin and hair, the panelists concluded that the best route to clear skin, a full head of hair, and a clean bill of health is a low-glycemic load diet—which contains plenty of fruits, vegetables, fiber, fish, and unsaturated fats.

Truly, food is the only prescription we need

Toni Tarver
IFT

California’s Prop 65: Unduly frightening the public?

At this morning’s IFT Annual Meeting & Food Expo symposia “California Proposition 65: Foods are under siege!” Jeffrey Brian Margulies (Fulbright & Jaworski LLP) discussed the numerous areas of controversy surrounding the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (aka Prop 65) that has been in effect in California since it was passed in 1986. While created to protect the public by labeling products that contain known carcinogens and reproductive toxicants with a warning, Margulies brought up a good point that what Prop 65 is inevitably doing is actually “scaring the heck out of people.” It does seem like the warnings, which can be seen anywhere from gas stations to supermarkets, are misleading the public. Many times the carcinogenic chemical in the product, be it food or personal care items, is many times below “safe” levels, and yet it is given a giant warning label on the product or at the point of purchase. And if the warnings aren’t causing fear, they might actually be desensitizing the public, leading consumers to not pay attention to other, perhaps more necessary, warnings.

Another area of controversy concerning Prop 65 is that it doesn’t balance the risks and benefits of exposure. For example, Margulies shared a story about the nicotine patch. According to the way Prop 65 works, it should get a warning label. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration believed that the benefits of the nicotine patch—getting people to stop smoking—outweighed the need for a warning. In fact, the FDA stated that Prop 65 was very “single-minded” when it came to issues such as these, because it doesn’t take into account the entire picture. This is especially relevant when it comes to food, as some beneficial nutrients, food additives, and natural contaminants may trigger food warnings. As symposia speaker James Coughlin (Coughlin & Associates) said, Prop 65 is “nothing about the safety or health benefits of whole foods.”

What are your thoughts on Prop 65 and its impact on the food industry?

Kelly Frederick
Food Technology magazine
Digital Media Editor