FDA Holds Hearing on Food Labels

"If you go down the candy aisle and you pick up any number of candy bars or other confectionery products, you are going to see a variety of these 'may contain'-type labels: 'may contain peanuts,' 'processed on shared equipment,' 'manufactured in a facility that processes peanuts or milk or whatever it is,'" said Anne Munoz Furlong, founder of The Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network in Fairfax, Va. "Nobody knows what it means. Some [labels] are completely ridiculous, and the result is that consumers are confused and are forced to have very limited food choices or take risks."

"We would like to see all of the food industry adopt one set of criteria for using these descriptions and a limited number of those descriptions," Furlong added. "There are about 30 different ways to say 'may contain' on the marketplace. That's way too many."

Furlong, quoted in the Washington Post, was set to testify on a public hearing concerning food labeling of allergens on September 16.

She's not alone. A story on ABCNews.com, by Joseph Brownstein, Samantha Honig and Kate Barrett, quoted several others who also want to see changes, with the best argument coming from one allergist.

"I think it's reasonable to be able to tell people whether or not something's in the food you're trying to sell them," said Dr. Michael Daines, a pediatric allergist and immunologist at the University of Arizona College of Medicine. ...

According to Daines, the current system of placing advisory labels on products just in case that happens allows "very risk-averse" companies to put a label on any food that has a chance of containing an allergen, thereby avoiding a lawsuit.

"If it says, 'does contain,' that means something," Daines told ABCNews.com. "If it says, 'may contain,' it's just pushing the liability onto the patient." ...

"It should very clearly state on the front of the package whether it contains the common food allergens," Daines said. "Anything that would state clearly whether it contains those or not would be a big step in the right direction."

Other people than me have made their own complaints recently that newspapers tell us what is going to happen, but often fail to cover what actually did happen.

Case in point. None of the major news outlets which provided lengthy stories ahead of the hearing bothered to revisit the issue and tell us what was said at the hearing.

Fortunately, I did find some coverage at WebMD.com.

Industry groups and FDA officials emphasized that advisory labels are not a replacement for "good manufacturing practices" that curb the risk of cross-contamination.

Alison Bodor, vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs for the National Confectioners Association, urged the FDA to establish allergen "thresholds," which attempt to gauge what levels of an allergen can safely be present in a food without causing an allergic reaction.

She cautioned that thorough cleaning or using separate equipment entirely is unrealistic for many manufacturers, and that despite the vagueness of some companies' warnings, people should heed them carefully.

Public advocates also testified about the problems allergy sufferers face daily trying to find safe food for themselves and their families.

Anne Carter of the Food Allergy Group of Northern Virginia said some group members are playing Russian roulette with food labels; teenagers and young adults are especially at risk when they start to make food decisions for themselves, she says.

FAAN member Lisa Punt shared a story about her now-teenaged son, who has a severe nut allergy. She recalled how she made sure to have plenty of candy corn at past Halloweens because it was one of the few foods her son could safely eat. But it soon became impossible to find candy corn without advisory warnings.

"Does candy corn really have walnuts, pecans, or cashews in it? Nobody knows," she said.

The FDA is accepting public comments on the issue through Jan. 14, 2009, to help develop its long-term strategy.

"Once we get all those comments in, that will be a major evaluation for the agency," said Barbara Schneeman, PhD, director of the Office of Nutrition, Labeling and Dietary Supplements at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

January isn't too far off, but time will be needed to digest the comments, create new legislation, get comments on that, get it through Congress, and set up a date for compliance if it ever gets signed into law. That's a long way away, if ever, and who knows what objections the industry will have that will water down provisions or kill the bill entirely. The current 2004 law went into effect on Jan. 1, 2006, and that took many years of effort to get passed. The effort was worth it because that labeling act required major improvements in labeling practice. The next bill would be another step forward. Let's hope we don't have too many years before we see it.