labeling laws question

I think it's going to take awhile for supermarkets to sell everything that didn't have to comply with the new labeling law. I don't know when we'll be able to count on it.

When you say that these products are not compliant, in what way ar ethey non-compliant?

This law (while a great first step) has loopholes that can be driven through.... in the Goodyear blimp, frankly.

So-- are you concerned that Kraft products are not being labeled for XContact? That is not covered under the law. Is it that they are not placing a plain language advisory statement ("This product contains milk, soy, wheat ingredients") below the ingredients list? This too isn't mandated by law.

All that is required is that if a company knowingly USES one of the major 8 in the formulation of a product, then in the ingredient list of the packaging for that product, the presence of that ingredient must be listed in plain English. So (theoretically) lecithin must be "lecithin, (egg)" if that is the case.

Of course, the big loophole is that if a hidden ingredient happens to be exempt, it can still hide. So starches, oils, and lecithin derived from allergens may be exempt from FALCPA labeling requirements. As it most certainly should not be-- there are many people who are sensitive enough that they need to have it disclosed.

The other problem, of course, is that even M+Ms would not (under FALCPA) need to be labeled as a PA risk in any way.

Is this why Kraft labeling is distressing to you right now? They have no intentions of ever tracking/labeling for shared lines or facilities, I can assure you. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/mad.gif[/img]

HTH.

For the labelling law, it's basically that if one of the top 8 allergens is actually in the product (not anything to do with "may contain" "shared lines" or "made in a facility", only if they mean for it to be in the product), they have to say that it's in there in plain english.

Like if they used to list "lechtin" they now have to specify "soy lechtin" or "milk lechtin". "Arachis oil" now has to state that it is derived from peanut. If the vegetable oil they use is actually soybean, they have to list that.

They are not required to include a seperate allergen statement either. Most companies just do the bold CONTAINS: statement for our convenience, but as long as the ingredient is listed somewhere on the package, they're in compliance.

Is Kraft not specifying where certain proteins or lechtins come from? If they aren't, they should be reported. But if they're just not using a CONTAINS: statement, there's nothing we can do about that. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/frown.gif[/img]

Gotcha! I'm not seeing the separate allergen statement below the list of ingredients, although I see things like milk or soy listed in the ingredients.

I should have known Kraft won't do any more than they HAVE to do...hate that they own so many brands. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/frown.gif[/img]

Quote:Originally posted by Corvallis Mom:
[b]
This law (while a great first step) has loopholes that can be driven through.... in the Goodyear blimp, frankly....

All that is required is that if a company knowingly USES one of the major 8 in the formulation of a product, then in the ingredient list of the packaging for that product, the presence of that ingredient must be listed in plain English. So (theoretically) lecithin must be "lecithin, (egg)" if that is the case.

Of course, the big loophole is that if a hidden ingredient happens to be exempt, it can still hide. So starches, oils, and lecithin derived from allergens may be exempt from FALCPA labeling requirements. As it most certainly should not be-- there are many people who are sensitive enough that they need to have it disclosed.

The other problem, of course, is that even M+Ms would not (under FALCPA) need to be labeled as a PA risk in any way.

Is this why Kraft labeling is distressing to you right now? They have no intentions of ever tracking/labeling for shared lines or facilities, I can assure you. [img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/mad.gif[/img]

HTH.

[/b]

Caravallis, Hi! I am very interested in researching further the loopholes that exist. Can you help me? I am preparing for a teleconference that will address labeling laws. Can you explain how starches, lechitin and oils are still exempt? Any info you can offer is greatly appreciated!

Susie T-R (Penna)

Please search under FALCPA on the boards for more specific information regarding what this law does and does not do.

ANY company may petition the FDA to "de-list" an ingredient which would otherwise be covered under FALCPA. Soy Lecithins have been delisted in some products as a result of this sort of action. The logic behind that is that the company feels that the ingredient does not pose any risk to allergic consumers. Therefore, it shouldn't be listed as "soy" on the label, since soy protein is (theoretically) not included. The same is true (again, theoretically, and it varies with the production method used) for oils, starches, and other non-protein components. The FDA has studied several such petitions and has rejected a few outright, however.

Another huge problem is that contamination is not addressed [i]at all[/i] by FALCPA. This is an area which the FDA is obligated to study under the legislation... probably because it isn't at all clear how to proceed. Many millions of FA people get by just fine without knowledge of ultra-trace contamination. The problem is for those with PA in particular (but shellfish as well) that those [i]who are most sensitive are also statistically most vulnerable to extreme, life-threatening reactions.[/i] SO how do you protect [i]them?[/i] Without restricting the lives of people who never even though about cross-contamination before now? For the most sensitive end of the spectrum, even "below the detection limit of the assay..." might not be enough protection.

Anyway, I'll see if I can pull up a few older links for you.

[url="http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/Forum13/HTML/000073.html"]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/Forum13/HTML/000073.html[/url]

The FDA's position statement; (this may be an older draft. I'll update if I find something more current.)
[url="http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/alrgn.html"]http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/alrgn.html[/url]

Here is the link to the rebuttal/commments offered by the public on this above draft.

[url="http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/alrgcom.html"]http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/alrgcom.html[/url]

Finally, the final draft, published by the FDA only this March.

[url="http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/alrgn2.html"]http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/alrgn2.html[/url]

These are [i]not[/i] light reading, admittedly, but they highlight many aspects of the law and its future implications (as well as where manufacturers are looking for wiggle room).

Hope it helps!
[img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]

[This message has been edited by Corvallis Mom (edited July 24, 2006).]

This thread doesn't really apply to me since I'm in Canada, but

soy lecithin has been delisted because it has been deemed NOT to pose a risk to the soy allergic!?!?!?!?!?

They obviously didn't ask my allergist. And they obviously didn't comb through the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology! It seems like they are behind on their research. Grrrr.

Lisa, my understanding of this particular issue is that an individual company can [i]petition[/i] to have ANY ingredient unlisted in this fashion.

I mention oils and lecithin because these are the ones which have resulted in petitions (or seem likely to).

I have noticed that some companies are listing soy lecithin's source and some are not... but it isn't clear to me if this is because of outdated packaging materials, permission from the FDA, or something else.

Thanks for the clarification. I've just heard that some experts still don't take peoples' reactions to refined oil seriously and I thought that if the FDA has decided to exempt lecithin and oil from labelling laws that this would be more of the same . . . hopefully they haven't made these exceptions!

for more info on the oil controversy (in rel'n to soy allergy) see [url="http://allergyadvisor.com/hidden2.htm"]http://allergyadvisor.com/hidden2.htm[/url]

(Reproduced from
Steinman HA. Hidden allergens in foods.
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 1996;98(2):241-250)

"Although soybean oil was initially thought to be safe for soy-sensitive individuals,42 it is now evident that soy protein may occur in soybean oil.43 Thus the allergenicity of soybean oil would depend on its purity, which in turn depends on the extraction process. Recent evidence has demonstrated that although oxidized soybean oil may not show allergenicity, proteins in soybeans are capable of interacting with oxidized lipid to form products that are allergenic to soybean-sensitive patients.44 Indeed, Hiyama et al.45 report a case of urticaria associated with paren-teral nutrition with an intravenous 10% lipid emulsion containing a soybean oil base. Such reactions, however, appear to be uncommon, and there are very few reports of this nature in the literature."

I find this very interesting----this implies that it is possible to react to byproducts of the protein that remain even when the protein is removed? I wonder if this could have implications for the whole reaction to the "smell" of peanut butter controversy. (although this is about soy allergy, the same arguments would apply to PA)

This is very interesting as a chemist.... but probably is more of a curiousity than anything else. The authors claim that the allergenicity is coming from some kind of chemical reaction after the product is made. I find it hard to beleive that any allergen-derived product can EVER be declared free of an allergen. So the simpler explanation in my own opinion is that it is residual allergenic protein (perhaps below what can be detected) to which the individual is especially sensitive.

As a scientist? There is NO WAY to totally remove ALL protein from a food. NONE.

You can remove 99.999999% of it, sure, but there is probably [i]some[/i] protein.

When I first got on this soapbox, the "experts" maintained that it was "impossible" to react to hot-processed pn oil or soy lecithin either one. This was contrary to DH's experience (SA) and to our basic worldview as chemists. It irked us, in other words.
Sooooo.... I called up FAAN and sent them a couple of pesky e-mails demanding to know the science behind it and letting them know (with my credentials in hand) that I wasn't going to settle for anything less than a quantitative answer.

Which is about 5-10 ppm for pn oil, according to Dr. Taylor's communicatins with me. This is "zero" peanut protein, evidently. But it is plenty for someone with a triggering dose of 10 micrograms if they get so much as a tablespoon of that oil.

My point? Just because it is at or below the detection limit of the test used does NOT mean the protein is not present. There are no reliable stats anywhere for threshold doses for different food allergens in ANY population, much less the entire allergic population (which would by necessity include the most sensitive individuals).

[img]http://uumor.pair.com/nutalle2/peanutallergy/smile.gif[/img]

[This message has been edited by Corvallis Mom (edited July 25, 2006).]