Dr. Dara O'Rourke is a professor in the Dept. of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management at UC Berkeley, and formerly a professor at MIT. He studies the environmental, social, and health impacts of global supply chains.
GoodGuide helps you find safe, healthy, and green products that are better for you and the planet.
The fight over food labels, health claims, and industry marketing is heating up.
Last week, the food industry voluntarily suspended the Smart Choices program after the FDA announced they would be looking into the program.
And today, Kellogg’s announced that they are discontinuing labeling cereals such as Cocoa Crispies and Rice Crispies as helping to “support your child’s immunity”, after the San Francisco city attorney sent a letter to the company asking them to back up these immunity claims.
With two young nephews, I’m very concerned about their exposures to chemicals in consumer products and food, since we don’t know how all the chemicals may add up or how they may interact. Based on what science we do have, it’s possible that multiple chemical exposures may lead to much higher risks.
With strong government support, scientists working in Europe continue to shed more light on these risks. Last week, Denmark’s Environmental Protection Agency released a stunning report by three researchers on the total exposure of two-year olds to selected endocrine disrupting chemicals in their environment.
The researchers tested 12 categories of consumer products to see whether a sample of endocrine disrupting chemicals leached out from the products during use. They also looked at likely exposures through the household dust, air, and food that children can ingest. They found some good news: due to European laws, a few chemicals were present at much lower levels. Yet there were plenty of bad news. For example, two-year olds are heavily over-exposed to parabens, found in oil-based creams, moisturising creams, lotions, and sunscreen.
The researchers say:
In summary, it can be concluded that not only is there a need to reduce exposure to anti-androgens and oestrogen-like substances from food products, indoor air and dust, but also to reduce exposure to the studied product groups, as these contribute to both indoor air and dust and to direct exposure.
The best way that we can reduce exposure is for the US government to make the ingredients in all consumer products transparent – better still, totally non-toxic. Until this happens, we can limit the exposure of our children by buying products free from parabens and phthalates. I’m going to tell my brother about this, since my nephews use a lot of lotion in the summer when they swim.
![Are Froot Loops a "Smart Choice"?](http://www.goodguide.com/text/image.png?width=550&text=Are Froot Loops a "Smart Choice"?&gotham_family=Book&underline=false&foreground=63B4CD&background=FFFFFF&font_size=18&format=png)
Smart Choices, an industry-supported initiative to certify foods for nutritional benefits, is under fire in the press and the halls of government.
At issue is the fact that products such as Froot Loops, Lucky Charms, Cocoa Crispies, Ritz Bitz Peanut Butter Chocolately Blast crackers, Mayonnaise, and Fudgesicles receive the Smart Choices “green check” of approval. Critics lament that while products such as Froot Loops do contain fiber, vitamins, and minerals, they also contain 12 grams of sugar per serving - which is 41% of the product by weight.
The media has had no problem finding critics of Smart Choices and the idea that the food industry can regulate themselves on nutrition issues. The New York Times quoted Walter Willett, the chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, decrying Smart Choices as really a set of “horrible choices.”. The Los Angeles times quoted Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor from NYU, as saying simply: “Froot Loops? Froot Loops! I rest my case.”
The Smart Choices label seems to have thrown fuel on a fire already burning around “front of package” claims, and broader debates about transparency in the food industry.
Just to be clear, the back and sides of food packages, which people rarely read, are where food companies are required to print ingredient lists, nutrition facts, and country of origin (for some products). The front of the package, which is what you actually see on the store shelf, is where companies are increasingly making health and sustainability claims that are much less regulated.
The government may now be stepping in to change this. The Attorney General of Connecticut initiated an investigation in late September into whether Smart Choices actually represents a form of consumer deception.
The Attorney General stated:
These so-called Smart Choices seem nutritionally suspect – and the label potentially misleading. The Smart Choices label adorns sugar-laden cereals appealing to children, but not many healthier breakfast choices. Our investigation asks what objective scientific standards, research or factual evidence justify labeling such products as ‘smart.’
We have serious concerns about the research and reasoning behind a program that promotes fat-saturated mayonnaise and sugar-studded cereals as nutritional smart choices. These concerns – potentially misleading and deceptive labeling of nutritional value – apply to other supposed Smart Choices label products marketed to adults as well as children.”
Following on Connecticut’s announcement, Rep. Rosa Delauro (D-Conn) asked the FDA to investigate Smart Choices, and the broader proliferation of claims, labels, and certifications of food products.
The Food and Drug Administration announced yesterday that they would investigate Smart Choices and other front-of-package claims, with the goal of developing regulatory guidelines for a uniform labeling system by the end of 2010. They hope to advance clearer standards and requirements to disclose “saturated fat, salt, added sugar, and calories,” on the front of a package if a company makes any health claim about the product.
The FDA commissioner also indicated that they are looking at European “traffic light” labeling systems - which provide simple green, yellow, and red dots on products - as a potential model for the US front-of-label system.
In the meantime, GoodGuide will continue to work to make the information on what’s actually inside food products, rather than what’s on the label, more transparent and useful to consumers.
Oh, and just for full disclosure: Froot Loops gets a 4.2 out of 10 for its health score on GoodGuide.
UPDATE - 10/23/09
Very surprising news - only two days after the FDA announced they would be investigating Smart Choices and working on new regulations on front-of-package labeling, the Smart Choices program is effectively suspending their operations.
As the New York Times reported:
The Smart Choices program sent a letter on Friday to Dr. Hamburg and Mr. Blumenthal saying it would stop recruiting companies to take part in the program and stop promoting the program to consumers.
PepsiCo also announced that they would be cutting ties with the program. And Kelloggs, the maker of Froot Loops, said they would begin to phase out packaging bearing the Smart Choices label.
Clearly, all of the public criticisms of the program, which had motivated government inquiries, are now seen by the industry has more trouble than the benefits they hoped to gain from Smart Choices.
I think this shows that industry really does need an independent body or the government itself to set the rules of disclosure. The media, academics, advocates, and even average shoppers are increasingly cynical about industry “self-regulation.”
Finding safe, healthy, and sustainable seafood may have just gotten a lot easier.
The Monterey Bay Aquarium released a new report today on the State of Seafood, along with what they call “The Super Green List” of seafood that is both healthy and sustainably harvested.
This list responds to a concern of many consumers over the last few years. While it was possible to find out which species of fish were most over-fished from one set of websites and lists, it required looking to other websites and lists to find out which fish were likely to contain the most mercury, PCBs, and other contaminants.
For many years, I carried around several of these lists crammed into my wallet. And then I scrambled to read through them while the waiter wasn’t looking!
Monterey Bay Aquarium has brought these issues together into a single list (and into the cellphone age!). The Super Green list includes seafood that meets the following three criteria: Low levels of contaminants (below 216 parts per billion mercury and 11 parts per billion PCBs); the daily minimum of omega-3s (at least 250 milligrams per day); and, fish classified as a Seafood Watch “Best Choice” (green) for sustainability.
I have to admit, I was a little surprised by some of the fish on the list.
The Best of the Best:
Other Healthy “Best Choices”:
GoodGuide currently only rates frozen fish (like fish sticks, etc.). But let us know if you would like us to move into rating fresh seafoods in the future.
Endocrine disrupting chemicals, which can interfere with the hormone system, potentially harming people’s ability to have kids, and children’s healthy development, have been in the news a lot lately. These chemicals have been identified in a wide range of personal care products. What’s not as well known, is that foods may also be an important pathway of exposure to endocrine disruptors.
Not surprisingly, Europe is ahead of the United States in testing foods for endocrine disruptors. Since 2004, a network of European scientists, called CASCADE, has published over one hundred papers that assess whether foods contain endocrine disruptors. They have discovered that there’s real reason for concern.
As the CASCADE scientists point out, because endocrine disruptors are more likely to build up in animal fat, and because most people high on the food chain, they are likely to be exposed to foods with higher levels of endocrine disruptors.
GoodGuide users are concerned about the environmental and health impacts of chemicals used in consumer products. Unfortunately, many chemicals on the market have not been tested thoroughly for their safety. This is largely due to the antiquated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which makes it nearly impossible for regulators to step in, even when chemicals are shown to be risky.
Last week, Lisa Jackson, the new Administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency, gave a surprising speech. Previously, experts had thought that the Obama Administration wasn’t prioritizing chemicals reform. At the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Ms. Jackson noted that children’s bodies contain higher levels of chemicals that may harm their development. She lamented,
Not only has TSCA fallen behind the industry it’s supposed to regulate – it’s been proven an inadequate tool for providing the protection against chemical risks that the public rightfully expects.
Ms. Jackson called for six new principles to drive the EPA’s overhaul of US chemical regulation. One that’s particularly relevant to GoodGuide is greater transparency:
Manufacturers must develop and submit the hazard, use, and exposure data demonstrating that new and existing chemicals are safe.
The EPA now intends to develop new tools to require manufacturers to disclose this information if they don’t do so voluntarily. While we’re excited about the new policy, we believe that companies shouldn’t wait for EPA or Congress to require this. They should immediately start disclosing, candidly, what their products contain if they want consumers to trust in them.
To see a more detailed blog critique, visit here.
The European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) signaled this week that they will be more strictly regulating product claims.
The agency reviewed more than 500 claims regarding the nutritional value or healthiness of food products - such as assertions of “Low Fat,” “High Fiber,” and “Probiotic” - and approved only one third of the claims reviewed. Not to belabor the math here, but this means that two thirds of product health claims were either false or not scientifically backed.
As the EFSA reported:
Almost half of the evaluations with unfavourable outcomes were owing to a lack of information on the substance on which the claim is based, for example ‘probiotic’ bacteria and botanical substances. Without clear identification of the substance in question, the Panel could not verify that the scientific evidence provided to EFSA related to the same substance for which the health benefits are claimed.
Europe has rules that protect consumers from false claims, or claims based on misleading or difficult to understand information. EFSA is now working through a backlog of over 4000 product health claims.
This appears to be an important step forward in leveling the playing field on what firms can claim about their products, and likely in incentivizing firms to disclose more scientific data on their products and ingredients before they make health claims.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced this week that industrial greenhouse gas emitters in the US must begin collecting data on their carbon emissions starting in January 2010, with disclosure required in the first quarter of 2011.
As EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson announced :
For the first time, we begin collecting data from the largest facilities in this country, ones that account for approximately 85% of the total U.S. emissions. The American public, and industry itself, will finally gain critically important knowledge and with this information we can determine how best to reduce those emissions.”
This is a critical first step towards being able to manage - and then potentially trade - carbon emissions in the US. This is also critical step towards greater transparency into how different companies are performing on carbon issues.
More and more GoodGuide users are comparing products for not only the health impacts on them personally, but also for their broader environmental impacts such as global climate change. GoodGuide currently draws data from a number of sources on carbon reporting. But this data is currently only as good as firms’ voluntarily choose to make it.
Groups like the Carbon Disclosure Project and ClimateCounts have made great strides in motivating firms to disclose more and better information on their carbon emissions. But having the EPA step into this issue and set a level playing field for all firms, is a great step forward on transparency.
My wife and daughter used to love SIGG water bottles. They loved the colors and patterns, they loved the reusability, and most of all they loved that they were free of bisphenol-A.
Or so they thought.
Last night over dinner with a large group of family and friends, my wife exclaimed, “I am never buying another SIGG. The CEO lied to us. And then he made me pay postage on top of everything!!!”
In a single act of non-transparency, SIGG turned a loyal customer into an evangelist against the company. How could this have happened?
Over the last decade of conducting research on these issues, I have ended up mainly talking to a few other academics (and talking to myself on occasion;) about the sometimes arcane details of global supply chains.
However, since launching GoodGuide, we have realized we have created a platform of sorts for conversations with a wide range of stakeholders on these issues - and in particular - on debates about transparency in the marketplace.
We are now hearing directly from thousands of our users. In fact, we have been a bit overwhelmed by the richness of the feedback and input from our users. So we are now building better ways to receive ideas and to respond to them. The great news on this is that people really want to know more about the products they are using. We are learning a lot about the issues the public cares most about, what products they want us to rate next, and where our information is not clear enough.
We have also been having some very interesting conversations with academics, non-profit organizations, and leaders from industry. This has led to some new collaborations and partnerships to get better information out to the public. For instance, we just partnered with ClimateCounts.org to flow their information on the climate policies and practices of companies that produce the goods we consume.
We have also been having some interesting conversations with reporters. I was just interviewed for TechNation today, which should be aired on NPR stations around the US in the coming week. I also recently got to sit down with Daniel Goleman to talk about the science and rating systems behind GoodGuide. It is rare these days to ever get to talk in detail beyond soundbites in the media. So it was a real pleasure to dig into some of details of GoodGuide and broader movements for transparency in the marketplace. You can download our interview, called Ecological Awareness, and check out other great interviews between Daniel and Greg Norris and Michael Lerner.
What I think all of these conversations are showing is that we are at the beginning of a potentially very rich conversation between consumers, manufacturers, retailers, and other stakeholders in these supply chains. We would love to expand and facilitate this dialogue as we build GoodGuide. So please let us know how you think we can do a better job of supporting these conversations on transparency.
GoodGuide™ provides the world's largest and most reliable source of information on the health, environmental, and social impacts of products and companies. GoodGuide's mission is to help you find safe, healthy, and green products that are better for you and the planet. From our origins as a UC Berkeley research project, GoodGuide has developed into a totally independent "For-Benefit" company. We are committed to providing the information you need to make better decisions, and to ultimately shifting the balance of information and power in the marketplace.
Disclaimer: While GoodGuide strives for accuracy and completeness, the GoodGuide site, and all data on it, is intended solely for informational use. Do not use this site for medical purposes, and consult your physician if you have any condition or allergy or other medical issue relating to products and their ingredients.
©2009 GoodGuide, Inc. All rights reserved by GoodGuide and its licensors and data providers. All marks, brands, and names belong to the respective companies and manufacturers and are used solely to identify the companies and products.
