Meat&Poultry - August 2012 - 54

LABELING SOLUTIONS

Image courtesy of www.coborns.com

ranking for a product’s health rating. Guiding Stars and NuVal are examples. Proving how effective front-of-pack labels are is difficult because retail chains often do not share sales data, Maggi said. The American Heart Association has examined which consumers may notice its Heart-Check on the front of packaging, said Dennis Milne, director of business relations in Nutrition

and Obesity Strategies Development at the Dallas-based association. The AHA divided consumers into four categories: pro-actives, who are diligent in healthy eating and look at labels; struggling dieters, who may be 10 to 15 lbs. overweight but look at labels; the overweight who do not check labels; and the lucky, who are not concerned about nutrition, but they do not have to be because of their high

metabolism. The pro-actives and the struggling dieters are most likely to look for the Heart-Check, Milne said. Consumers do not enter retail stores with the strategy of looking for the Heart-Check, he said. If they see the symbol, however, it may be a “tipping point.” It may cause the consumer to choose the product with a Heart-Check over a similar product without one, Milne said.

Identifying GMOs
Legislators weigh in on GMO labeling
Debate over labeling bioengineered foods and food ingredients was revived in June when Debra Brown, California’s secretary of state, certified that enough valid signatures were gathered to place an initiative on the state’s Nov. 6 general election ballot. If passed it would require special labeling of bioengineered foods and food ingredients. Just days later, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates adopted a statement on bioengineered foods and food ingredients supporting pre-market testing of such foods but opposing special product labeling. The measure would require labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if they are made from plants and animals with genetic material changed in specified ways, according to Brown. It would prohibit labeling or advertising such foods as “natural.” It would exempt foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with bioengineered material; made from animals fed or injected with bioengineered material but not bioengineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of bioengineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages. Supporting the measure is the Committee for the Right to Know. “We’re thrilled that Californians will have the opportunity this November
We would like to hear from you – to comment on this story or to request reprints, contact us by email at meatpoultry@sosland.com.

to vote for the right to know what’s in our food,” said Stacy Malkan, a spokesperson for the committee. Opposing the measure is the Coalition Against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition. Spokesperson Kathy Fairbanks pointed to the AMA statement on bioengineered foods, saying, “The AMA’s rejection of mandatory labeling is consistent with the overwhelming majority of respected medical doctors, scientists and health experts that have concluded that foods made with the benefits of modern biotechnology are safe, and that labeling these foods is unnecessary.” ■

• Meat&Poultry • August 2012 • www.MeatPoultry.com

http://www.coborns.com http://www.MeatPoultry.com

Meat&Poultry - August 2012

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Meat&Poultry - August 2012