Search

Background: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has begun a public process to redefine how companies are allowed to use the term "healthy" on food packages. Although the definition is formulated based on the latest consensus in nutrition and epidemiological research, it is also important to understand how consumers define and understand the term if it is to be behaviorally relevant. This research is an exploratory study designed to provide a descriptive account of consumers' perceptions of and beliefs about the meaning of "healthy" food., Methods: A nationwide U.S. sample of 1,290 food consumers was surveyed in December 2018. Respondents answered 15 questions designed to gauge perceptions of healthy food and to elicit preference for policies surrounding healthy food definitions. Responses are weighted to demographically match the population. Categorical variables have a sampling error of ±2.7%. Exploratory factor analysis is used to determine latent dimensions of health perceptions related to food type., Results: Consumers were about evenly split on whether a food can be deemed healthy based solely on the foods' nutritional content (52.1% believing as such) or whether there were other factors that affect whether a food is healthy (47.9% believing as such). Consumers were also about evenly split on whether an individual food can be considered healthy (believed by 47.9%) or whether this healthiness is instead a characteristic of one's overall diet (believed by 52.1%). Ratings of individual food products revealed that "healthy" perceptions are comprised of at least three underlying latent dimensions related to animal origin, preservation, and freshness/processing. Focusing on individual macronutrients, perceived healthiness was generally decreasing in a food's fat, sodium, and carbohydrate content and increasing in protein content. About 40% of consumers thought a healthy label implied they should increase consumption of the type of food bearing the label and about 15% thought the label meant they could eat all they wanted., Conclusions: Results suggest consumer's perceptions of "healthy," which is primarily based on fat content, partially aligns with the FDA definition but also suggest consumers perceive the word as a broader and more nuanced concept that defies easy, uniform definition. Results highlight areas where nutrition education may be needed and suggest disclosures may need to accompany health claims so that consumers know what, precisely, is being communicated., Competing Interests: The author has no competing interest beyond receiving financial support from the funder (the Corn Refiners Association) of this study.

The United States government, until recently, did not require the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). On July 29, 2016, President Barack Obama signed into law the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (NBFDS). This law directs the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to create regulations that require manufacturers to disclose certain bioengineered products on food labels. On December 20, 2018, the USDA released the final regulations for the NBFDS, which requires food manufactures, importers, and certain retailers to ensure bioengineered foods are appropriately disclosed. The final regulations include provisions that will leave the majority of GMO derived foods unlabeled. The final regulations also restrict approximately 100 million Americans from accessing GMO information by allowing QR codes to replace clear and transparent labeling, an issue that will be discussed in further detail later in this Note. This Note explores why you, as a consumer, may want to know whether your food contains GM products, and furthermore, why you as a consumer have a moral and legal right to know., (Copyright by Cleveland State University.)

Since game meat is more valuable and expensive than meat from domesticated animal species it is a potential target for adulteration. Analytical methods must allow the identification and quantification of meat species to be applicable for the detection of fraudulent labelling. We developed a real-time PCR assay for the authentication of sika deer (Cervus nippon) and products thereof. The primer/probe system amplifies a 71 bp fragment of the kappa-casein precursor gene. Since the target sequence contained only one sika deer-specific base, we introduced a deliberate base mismatch in the forward primer. The real-time PCR assay did not show cross-reactivity with 19 animal and 49 plant species tested. Low cross-reactivity was observed with red deer, fallow deer, reindeer and moose. However, with a ΔCt value of ≥11.79 between sika deer and the cross-reacting species, cross-reactivity will not affect the accuracy of the method. LOD and LOQ, determined by analysing serial dilutions of a DNA extract containing 1% (w/w) sika deer DNA in pig DNA, were 0.3% and 0.5%, respectively. The accuracy was evaluated by analysing DNA mixtures and DNA isolates from meat extract mixtures and meat mixtures. In general, recoveries were in the range from 70 to 130%.

Background: Health claims (HC) are those statements on food labels that state, suggest, or imply that a relationship exists between a food category, a food product, or one of its constituents, and health of consumer. The European legislation on the use of HC aims to encourage responsible consumption by people. The aim of this study is to assess the adherence of HC to EU norms in foodstuffs sold in the large-scale retail distribution in Florence., Methods: Two independent researchers have separately selected and assessed the foodstuffs with HC sold in at least two of four supermarkets identified randomly in Florence. Each selected product was assessed by a checklist with seven macro-criteria, extrapolated from the 'Specific Conditions' and 'Restrictions of Use' provided by EU regulations, rating the adherence of the chosen foods to the legislation., Results: Seventy-seven products were assessed. Only a limited number of products show full compliance to all the criteria. Specifically, noncompliance related to Criterion 3 ("the amount of the food and pattern of consumption required to obtain the claimed beneficial effect are reported") is the most significant: the absence of indications about the maximum amount to be consumed or the modality of consumption could represent a risk of overconsumption and, consequently, a risk for health., Conclusion: According to the results, we hypothesize a lack of knowledge of the EU norms on the part of the manufacturer. A great deal of work is still to be done to assess and manage these products in the right way, as well as to communicate the right messages to the consumers.

Intentional mislabelling of seafood is a widespread problem, particularly with high-value species like tuna. In this study we examine tuna mislabelling, deliberate species substitution, types of substitution and its impact on prices. The survey covered the commercial chain, from Merca-Barna to fishmongers and restaurants in the Spanish Autonomous Community of Catalonia. To understand the geographic extent of the problem we also sampled Merca-Madrid, Europe's biggest fish market, and Merca-Málaga for its proximity to the bluefin tuna migratory route and trap fishery. Monthly surveys were carried out over one year. The results showed a high deficiency in labelling: 75% of points of sale and 83% of restaurants did not specify the species, and in those cases the name of the species had to be asked. A total of 375 samples were analysed genetically, the largest dataset gathered in Europe so far. The identified species were Thunnus albacares, Thunnus thynnus and Thunnus obesus. Species substitution began at suppliers, with 40% of observed cases, increasing to 58% at fishmongers and 62% at restaurants. The substitution was mainly on bluefin tuna (T. thynnus), 73% of cases. At restaurants, only during the bluefin fishing season, we observed a decrease of Bluefin tuna substitution and an increase of reverse substitution revealing some illegal fishing. The effect of species substitution on species prices was relevant: T. obesus increased its price by around €12 kg-1 when it was sold as bluefin. In view of the deficiency of labelling, the abuse of generic names and the lack of the bluefin catch document, we conclude that the Spanish regulations are ineffective, highlighting the need for policy execution, and the urgent need for information campaigns to Spanish consumers., Competing Interests: The study was funded by the Balfegó Group under a programme of scientific cooperation with the Blanes Centre for Advanced Study (CEAB – CSIC). This does not alter our adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the nutritional quality of food products marketed at children, with and without nutrient claims, using two different approaches., Methods: Analyses were performed based on a data set with food composition and labelling data from every packaged food marketed at children sold in a major Brazilian supermarket (n=535). Foods were classified as 'healthier' and 'less healthy' according to the UK/Ofcom nutrient profile model and to the NOVA classification based on the level of food processing. Pearson's χ 2 test was used to compare proportions between models. Agreement was assessed using Cohen's κ-statistic (P<0.05)., Results: The NOVA model was stricter than the UK/Ofcom model, classifying more products as 'less healthy' (91.4%) compared with the nutrient profile-based model (75.0%; P<0.001). Agreement between models was 79.4% (k=0.30), because 72.9% (n=390) of products were categorised as 'less healthy' by both models, and 6.5% (n=35) as 'healthier'. Half of the food products marketed at children from the database (270; 50.5%) bore nutrient claims. From these products with nutrient claims, 95.9% (92.8-98.0) were classified as 'less healthy' by the NOVA model, whereas this percentage was 74.1% (68.4-79.2) according to the UK/Ofcom model (P<0.05)., Conclusions: The high number of foods with low nutritional quality being marketed at children via product packaging and nutrient claims should be of concern to policy makers wanting to improve children's diets and to tackle childhood obesity. The implementation of nutritional quality criteria to ensure that foods targeted at children should be eligible to bear nutrient claims on their labels could avoid a situation where claims mask the overall nutritional status of a food.

The link between alcohol consumption and cancer is well established, but public awareness of the risk remains low. Mandated warning labels have been suggested as a way of ensuring "informed choice" about alcohol consumption. In this article we explore various ethical issues that may arise in connection with cancer warning labels on alcoholic beverages; in particular we highlight the potentially questionable autonomy of alcohol consumption decisions (either with or without labels) and consider the implications if the autonomy of drinking behavior is substantially compromised. Our discussion demonstrates the need for the various ethical issues to be considered and addressed in any decision to mandate cancer warning labels.

Food labelling has been overlooked in the emerging body of literature concerning the normative dimensions of food and drink policies. In this paper, I argue that arguments normally advanced in bioethics and medical ethics regarding the "right to know" and the "right not to know" can provide useful normative guidelines for critically assessing existing and proposed food labelling regimes. More specifically, I claim that food labelling ought to respect the legitimate interests and the autonomy of both consumers who seek knowledge about their food in order to make informed dietary choices and consumers who prefer to remain ignorant about the contents and effects of their food in order to avoid the emotional and psychological harm, or more simply the loss of enjoyment, which may result from receiving that information.

Many people believe that individuals have a right not to know their genetic disease risk. Here it is argued that, if this is correct, individuals also have a right not to know their diet-related disease risk. Reasons to remain ignorant are analogous in the case of risk related to diet and genetic susceptibilities. It follows that any policy to promote healthy diets (e.g. through "judgmental" food labels, such as traffic light labels, or, hypothetically, scary pictures similar to those found in cigarette packets) ought to protect the individual right not to know.

We expand upon the notion of the "credibility cycle" through a study of credibility engineering by the food industry. Research and development (R&D) as well as marketing contribute to the credibility of the food company Unilever and its claims. Innovation encompasses the development, marketing, and sales of products. These are directed towards three distinct audiences: scientific peers, regulators, and consumers. R&D uses scientific articles to create credit for itself amongst peers and regulators. These articles are used to support health claims on products. However, R&D, regulation, and marketing are not separate realms. A single strategy of credibility engineering connects health claims to a specific public through linking that public to a health issue and a food product.

Regulations have historically been able to shape public behavior in various ways. As poor dietary practices and obesity continue to pose major health and economic threats to society, attention will continue to be directed towards the ethical and legal responsibilities of fast food manufacturers as potential contributors to these problems. In light of these considerations, several opportunities emerge that may impact dietary behavior and obesity through regulation of the fast food industry. This article addresses the health consequences of fast food consumption, as well as the historical and legal contexts of fast food regulation in the United States.

Although cloning may eventually become an important technology for livestock production, four ethical issues must be addressed before the practice becomes widespread. First, researchers must establish that the procedure is not detrimental to the health or well-being of affected animals. Second, animal research institutions should evaluate the net social benefits to livestock producers by weighing the benefits to producers against the opportunity cost of research capacity lost to biomedical projects. Third, scientists should consider the indirect effects of cloning research on the larger ethical issues surrounding human cloning. Finally, the market structure for products of cloned animals should protect individual choice, and should recognize that many individuals find the prospect of cloning (or consuming cloned animals) repugnant. Analysis of these four issues is complicated by spurious arguments alleging that cloning will have a negative impact on environment and genetic diversity.

A 1995 survey of 1,257 scientists working in the field of recombinant DNA research indicates wide areas of agreement as well as some noteworthy divisions when it comes to such thorny questions as patenting, germ-line research, food labeling, and biodiversity. In general, the scientists surveyed approve of patenting living organisms that result from rDNA research, but vary significantly on what should be patentable. They advocate human germ-line therapy, yet have reservations about using it for any but serious diseases. They oppose mandatory labeling of biologically engineered food products, but understand that the public has a right to know and advocate openness. Finally, they favor development of threats to biodiversity and maintain that publicly funded researchers should be legally obligated to consider the potential environmental effects of their research. Some clear differences arise between scientists working in industry and those in academia and between men and women.