The Hugh Hewitt Show

Listen 24/7 Live: Mon - Fri   6 - 9 PM Eastern
Call the Show 800-520-1234
Collapse Ad Expand Ad
My Discount Health
My Discount Health
My Discount Health Advertisement
My Discount Health Advertisement

The FDA’s Notice on Food Packaging

Thursday, October 22, 2009  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

The notice served on the food industry by the Food and Drug Administration is here. My column yesterday on this potentially enormous new regulatory scheme is here. The FDA is targeting “Front of Package” (“FOP”) labeling, and it is not hiding its regulatory club:

It is important to note that nutrition-related FOP and shelf labeling, while currently voluntary, is subject to the provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that prohibit false or misleading claims and restrict nutrient content claims to those defined in FDA regulations. Therefore, FOP and shelf labeling that is used in a manner that is false or misleading misbrands the products it accompanies. Similarly, a food that bears FOP or shelf labeling with a nutrient content claim that does not comply with the regulatory criteria for the claim as defined in Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 101.13 and Subpart D of Part 101 is misbranded. We will consider enforcement actions against clear violations of these established labeling requirements.

FDA is also developing a proposed regulation that would define the nutritional criteria that would have to be met by manufacturers making broad FOP or shelf label claims concerning the nutritional quality of a food, whether the claim is made in text or in symbols. FDA’s intent is to provide standardized, science-based criteria on which FOP nutrition labeling must be based.

We also intend to continue to improve our understanding of how consumers view and use such labels. Research suggests that the proliferation of divergent FOP approaches is likely to be confusing to consumers and ultimately counter-productive. We want to work with the food industry – retailers and manufacturers alike – as well as nutrition and design experts and the Institute of Medicine, to develop an optimal, common approach to nutrition-related FOP and shelf labeling that all Americans can trust and use to build better diets and improve their health.

The recent experience with FOP labeling in the United Kingdom demonstrates the potential of voluntary initiatives to provide consumers helpful FOP labeling. In that instance, the government set certain criteria for the use of such labeling, and retailers took the initiative to implement FOP labeling in their stores. The agency wants to explore the potential of that approach. If voluntary action by the food industry does not result in a common, credible approach to FOP and shelf labeling, we will consider using our regulatory tools toward that end. This effort will include research to assess through consumer studies the likely effects of FOP symbols on information search behavior related to the Nutrition Facts label, which in turn can affect consumer understanding of the full nutrition profile of a product. The foundation of that approach should be a common set of mandatory nutritional criteria that consumers can rely on when they view FOP labels, even if no one symbol is ultimately selected as superior.

Ah yes, Great Britain’s approach.

Comments on this guidance are to be sent to Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and to be marked as concerning the “Guidance for Industry Letter Regarding Point of Purchase Food Labeling.”

Every manufacturer of food should file comments, and each should begin with the objection that the FDA is greatly exceeding the regulatory role intended for it by Congress and potentially opening the floodgates to a new tidal wave of plaintiffs’ lawsuits and market hobbling, government-dictated packaging. FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg simply asserted the agency’s authority to undertake this new and powerful expansion of its regulatory role, but that assertion is at best controversial. If Congress wants the FDA to control FOP labeling, it should say so clearly in response to an explicit FDA request for the authority preceded by a presentation of the “science” referred to in this notice.


AdvertisementAdvertise With Us

Senator Lamar Alexander on the White House War On Fox and Anita Dunn’s Mickey Maoism

Thursday, October 22, 2009  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

I interviewed Tennessee’s Senator Lamar Alexnader yesterday, and the transcript is here. One excerpt:

HH: Let’s talk specifically about the Fox News anger over there [at the White House]. Anita Dunn, you know, she’s the communications director. She made this speech that referenced Mao and Mother Theresa. Glenn Beck has played it. He’s making a big deal about it. It’s a legitimate news story. Are we supposed to not report on, Senator Alexander, interesting aspects and political philosophies of senior White House aides?

LA: Well, you’re supposed to do that, and of course, the Nixon…you know, Republicans don’t like a lot that’s in the New York Times. And sometimes, they don’t like what’s in other newspapers. And sometimes, they complain about it. And in the Nixon administration, they started out just complaining, and they ended up with an enemies list. And it destroyed the presidency. So you’ve got to step back from that, put it into perspective, and focus on the…particularly with the presidency. I mean, the presidency itself should restrict itself to the most important issues. And calling people out who disagree with you doesn’t sound presidential to me.

“The ‘Smart Choices’ The Government Wants To Make For You.”

Wednesday, October 21, 2009  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

My new column is up on the FDA’s new program to control every food package in America.

Did I mention that it will empower trial lawyers?

Richard Dawkins and the Transparency of Insecurity (Bumped)

Tuesday, October 20, 2009  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

I taped an interview with Richard Dawkins Monday, which will air in the third hour of Tuesday’s show. As I note at the outset of our conversation, I took a course in natural selection theory as an undergrad from Stephen Jay Gould more than 30 years ago, and the key text was Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene, which I thought then and continue to believe is a fascinating book that deserves a close read from anyone interested in the theory of how organisms survive and thrive in the world.

The angry atheist Dawkins is far less interesting to me than the biologist Dawkins, and his unwillingness to debate folks like Dinesh D’Souza is an indictment of his confidence in his atheism –a projection really of the anti-intellectualism he attributes to his critics. Dawkins’ latest, The Greatest Show on Earth –the Evidence for Evolution is very interesting on many levels, but also full of unusual editorial choices, a sort of extended filibuster mixed with the sort of invective that is never very persuasive and almost always the mark of intellectual insecurity.

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

I look forward to your reactions to the conversation, and will open a thread at the Hughniverse to collect them. The books I reference in the interview are: David Berlinski’s The Devil’s Delusion,

The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions

Francis Collins’ The Language of God,

The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

and Mark D. Roberts’ Can We Trust The Gospels?

Can We Trust the Gospels?: Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

In our exchanges, Dawkins evades direct questions a few times, and seems unable to grasp even the most obvious of objections which is that the analogies he employs to explainhis methods and to attack his critics ought also to be applicable to challenge his own arguments. When I did so, he exclaimed that I sounded like a lawyer, which of course I am, and which I admit does leave me bound up by the conventions of proof that go along with the study of law.

The transcript of our conversation will be posted here after the show airs.

Page 1097 of 3408 1 1,094 1,095 1,096 1,097 1,098 1,099 1,100 3,408
Hugh talks with author Philip F. Anschutz about Out Where the West Begins
Invite Hugh to Speak
Back to Top