MARCH 2003
~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~
...INTOUCH... Volume 4/Number 3 March 7,
2003
Monthly Updates on Government Action Affecting Food
Labels
Brought to you by: The Food Consulting Company
Your source for food label help at
www.foodlabels.com
~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~
Greetings! The Food Consulting Company helps food
companies
avoid the embarrassment and expense of legal action
against
fraudulent and deceptive claims on food labels. Visit
our website
at
www.foodlabels.com and see "Label Compliance Review",
"Regulatory
Question Research", and "Expert Opinion and Regulatory
Interface" on the SERVICES page.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Uniform Compliance Dates Set for Food Labels
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is establishing
January 1, 2006, as the uniform compliance date for
food
labeling regulations that are issued between January
1, 2003,
and December 31, 2004. The uniform compliance date
for
food labeling regulations that were issued between
January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2002, is January 1,
2004.
Read notice:
http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/02-32978.htm
...INTOUCH... Comments:
FDA periodically sets uniform compliance dates for new
food
labeling requirements to minimize the economic impact
of
label changes. For example, if FDA issues a final
rule on trans
fat labeling, new Daily Values for food labels, or
other label
components before December 31, 2004, then the date
labels
must be in compliance with those rules is January 1,
2006.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FTC Asks Media Execs to Reject Deceptive Ads
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Recently, in remarks to the Cable Television
Advertising Bureau,
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Timothy J.
Muris
called on media executives to stop running ads that
contain
obviously deceptive weight loss product claims. To
aid executives,
the FTC is developing a list of scientifically
unfeasible claims that
appear repeatedly and fraudulently in deceptive weight
loss ads.
Muris reminded executives that "there is no
Constitutional right to
run false commercial advertising, just as there is no
Constitutional
right to make false statements about individuals in
your news stories."
Read speech:
http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/muris/030211rightthing.htm
Read press release:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/02/weightloss.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updates on USDA and FDA Regulations for Sodium and
"Healthy"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-- USDA has extended the effective date to January 1,
2006,
for individual meat and poultry products bearing the
claim "healthy''
to contain no more than 360 mg sodium, and for
meal-type products
bearing the claim "healthy'' to contain no more than
480 mg sodium.
Read USDA Interim Final Rule:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/02-025IF.htm
-- Separately, FDA has proposed to amend its
regulation for
sodium levels for foods labeled "healthy". Per the
proposed rule,
360 mg or less sodium per serving would be a new
criterion that an
individual food must meet to qualify to bear the term
"healthy", and
600 mg or less sodium per meal or main dish would
remain as a
criterion for meal and main dish products to bear the
term "healthy".
Read FDA Proposed Rule:
http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/03-4100.htm
For information about FDA's previous action on the
sodium and
"healthy" rule, see INTOUCH Archive
(http://www.foodlabels.com/newsletter.htm),
June 2002 issue.
...INTOUCH... Comments:
The USDA notice of extension was published in the
Federal
Register on January 6, 2003, prior to publication of
the
February 20, 2002, FDA proposed rule. It is possible
that
USDA will eventually propose a rule to match the
February 20th
FDA rule on sodium and "healthy." INTOUCH will keep
you
abreast of developments.
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
FYI: A February 24, 2003, U.S. Supreme Court ruling
struck
down New York kosher laws that the Court said entangle
the
state with religion and that inhibit religion by
defining "kosher"
as synonymous with the views of only Orthodox Judaism;
the
Court said the laws prohibited other branches of
Judaism from
using the kosher label in a way consistent with their
dietary
requirements. The ruling may affect similar laws in
other states.
Read news story:
http://money.cnn.com/2003/02/24/news/scotus.reut/index.htm
© Food Consulting Company, 2003. |