What’s in a Label?

Ok, so we’re a bit slow on this one, but Ethicurean’s Dairy Queen (aka Bonnie) reported back in October that White Marble Farms, a pork producer which sounds quite wholesome (and claims to be, on the first page of this pdf), is actually an offshoot of industrial agriculture outfit Cargill, and distributed by food giant Sysco. Read the DQ’s redux here.

This from the AP: so far, no food producers are required to provide information on acrylamide, a chemical that occurs naturally in starchy foods when they are excessively heated and has been linked to cancer. A little poking around found several more stories on mislabeling, labeling, and a suspicious lack thereof. Read on…

Last month, the International Association for Food Production (IAFP) reported that irradiation does not impact the flavor or scent of treated foods. Considered by many in food safety as a leading measure for protecting the masses from illnesses such as E. coli, irradiation technology has been adopted by about 50 countries so far, in spite of consumer concerns. Here in the US, irradiated foods are required by law to be labeled as such and marked with a “radura” symbol, as long as they are being sold in stores. However, exempt from the labeling requirements are restaurants, schools, nursing homes, hospitals and the like. Read more at Food Production Daily. AND…

Yesterday, the Chicago Tribune published an article on “food fraud.” Apparently, back in 2002, a UK study found that bags of rice labeled as basmati did not always contain pure basmati rice–in fact, just short of 50 percent of DNA-tested samples were found to be diluted with other types of rice. And rice was not the only form of food to be misrepresented. Although DNA tests can determine one strain of rice from another, they may not be able to tell you if your food is organic or fair trade or (gulp) irradiated. Ok, just one more…

As reported last week, the FDA sneakily passed the sale of meat and dairy products from cloned animals over the holidays, although reps now claim we won’t see any meat from clones until next year at the earliest. But many consumers think that never would be too soon to start ingesting meat or dairy from cloned animals. According to a recent study published by the Pew Initiative, 64 per cent of consumers are “uncomfortable” with the idea of ingesting clones, and 46 per cent are “strongly uncomfortable” with the technology. Even so, the FDA has yet to announce any plans for labeling such meat and dairy so that consumers can tell the difference.

If you would like to know for sure what’s on your plate, might we suggest you visit our Eat Well Guide and find a local sustainable farm in your area.