Food & Food Equipment News

FDA Extends Menu Labeling Compliance Date to 2018

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is extending the compliance date for menu labeling requirements from May 5, 2017 to May 7, 2018. This extension allows for further consideration of what opportunities there may be to reduce costs and enhance the flexibility of these requirements beyond those reflected in the interim final rule.

The FDA is inviting comments for 60 days on the implementation of the menu labeling requirements, such as approaches to reduce regulatory burden or increase flexibility related to (a) calorie disclosure signage for self-service foods, including buffets and grab-and-go foods; (b) methods for providing calorie disclosure information other than on the menu itself; and (c) criteria for distinguishing between menus and other information presented to the consumer.

The extension will be effective on May 4, 2017 when the Federal Register publishes the extension in advance of the May 5 compliance date. The 60-day comment period will begin on May 4, 2017.

Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with Docket No. FDA-2011-F-0172 for “Food Labeling; Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail Food Establishments; Extension of Compliance Date and Request for Comments.”

Unique Culinary Experience in Cancun

Grand Fiesta Americana Coral Beach Cancun offers unique culinary experiences in the Mexican Caribbean. Home to AAA Five Diamond restaurant, Le Basilic, Coral Beach’s culinary standard is one of the highest in Cancun.

The resort offers a Chef’s Table experience every Monday from 6 - 8 p.m. During this time, the resort's main kitchen is open to a maximum of eight guests to experience the exclusive Chef's Table to savor a unique menu, paired with fine Mexican wines. This distinctive event allows gourmands to get a first-hand view of the behind-the-scenes activities in one of the area's largest hotel kitchens, while sensing the rhythm of what goes into creating the award-winning cuisine for which the resort is renowned.

The current menu promises to be a popular palate pleaser, and includes:

• Starter: Strawberry Gazpacho - Brie Fondue
• First Course: Tuna "Tiradito" with crusted chia and dry chiles, rice crackers, mango and jicama
• Second Course: Tomato Bisque with roasted fresh Mozzarella and basil gelée
• Intermission: Sparkling Lychee
• Main Dish Options: Zucchini Cannelloni: goat cheese, sautéed mushrooms and piquillo pepper purée or Sea bass: glazed with maple syrup and lemongrass cauliflower purée, tortilla "smoke," root vegetables or Angus filet, crusted with blue cheese, stuffed with huitlacoche (corn mushroom), sweet potato purée, vegetables caramelized in agave syrup

• Dessert: Petit Fours and more

The Chef’s Table experience costs $150USD per couple, tax and service included.

American Farmers Appeal to U.S. Supreme Court to Seek Protection from Genetic Contamination, Invalidate Monsanto's Patents

New York-- A group of 73 American organic and conventional family farmers, seed businesses and public advocacy groups asked the U.S. Supreme Court today to hear their case against Monsanto Company challenging the chemical and biotech seed giant’s patents on genetically engineered seed. In Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA) et al v. Monsanto, the plaintiffs have been forced to sue preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should their fields ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically engineered seed, something Monsanto has done to others in the past.

In a June 10th ruling earlier this year, a three-judge panel at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that a group of organic and otherwise non-GMO farmer and seed company plaintiffs are not entitled to bring a lawsuit to protect themselves from Monsanto's transgenic seed patents "because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower's land).'"

"While the Court of Appeals correctly found that the farmers and seed sellers had standing to challenge Monsanto's invalid patents, it incorrectly found that statements made by Monsanto's lawyers during the lawsuit mooted the case," said Daniel Ravicher, Executive Director of the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) and lead counsel to the plaintiffs in OSGATA et al v. Monsanto. "As a result, we have asked the Supreme Court to take the case and reinstate the right of the plaintiffs to seek full protection from Monsanto's invalid transgenic seed patents."

The Petition filed today by lawyers for the family farmers may be found here.

The plaintiffs brought the pre-emptive case against Monsanto in March 2011 and specifically seek to defend themselves from nearly two dozen of Monsanto's most aggressively asserted patents on GMO seed. They were forced to act pre-emptively to protect themselves from Monsanto's abusive lawsuits, fearing that if GMO seed contaminates their property despite their efforts to prevent such contamination, Monsanto will sue them for patent infringement.

“We have been farming for almost forty years and we have never wanted anything to do with Monsanto,” said Jim Gerritsen, an organic seed farmer in Maine and President of lead Plaintiff OSGATA.  “We believe we have the right to farm and grow good food the way we choose. We don’t think it’s fair that Monsanto can trespass onto our farm, contaminate and ruin our crops and then sue us for infringing on their patent rights. We don’t want one penny from Monsanto. American farmers deserve their day in Court so we can prove to the world Monsanto’s genetically engineered patents are invalid and that farmers deserve protection from Monsanto’s abuse.”

In the case, the plaintiffs are asking the courts to declare that if organic farmers are ever contaminated by Monsanto's genetically engineered seed, they need not fear also being accused of patent infringement. One reason justifying this result is that Monsanto's patents on genetically engineered seed are invalid because they don't meet the “usefulness” requirement of patent law, according to Ravicher. Evidence cited in the plaintiffs' court filings proves that genetically engineered seed has negative economic and health effects, while the promised benefits of genetically engineered seed-– increased production and decreased herbicide use-– are false.

With the rapid adoption of Monsanto’s genetically engineered seed technology, America’s farmers have been faced with a rampant rise in superweeds, with more than 49 percent of U.S. farmers reporting glyphosate-resistant weeds on their farm in 2012, up from 34 percent that farmers reported in 2011. In addition, scientists are reporting the growing failures of Monsanto’s genetically engineered insecticide-corn, with reports from scientists in the Midwestern corn belt states detailing the rise of super insects becoming resistant to the genetically engineered Bt toxin, leaving farmers vulnerable to the voracious corn rootworm, the number one threat to corn farmers.

“For the past twenty years, Monsanto has used its political and financial power to foist a deeply flawed technology on America’s farmers, consistently underestimating the real risks of genetic engineering while putting America’s farmers, the environment and the public in harm’s way simply in the name of profit,” said Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now!, a grassroots movement of more than 650,000 farmers and citizens. 

More information about PUBPAT's suit against Monsanto's seed patents can be found at PUBPAT > Monsanto Seed Patents.

Seafood Industry Celebrates Keeping Frozen Fish Duty-Free

The seafood industry has cause to celebrate after dodging a tariff hike that could have caused prices for frozen fish to skyrocket.

A recent government ruling confirms that Miami-based Sea Delight LLC can continue to import frozen tuna fillets duty-free. While the ruling is specific to certain frozen tuna fillets, experts believe that other seafood importers will benefit from the decision along with, less directly, importers of meat, vegetables and fruit.

According to the July 29, 2013, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ruling, Sea Delight's treatment of frozen tuna with "tasteless smoke"--a filtered wood smoke process that retards oxidation to maintain the fish's natural color while frozen-- does not yield "prepared or preserved fish" under the U.S. tariff. Had CBP ruled otherwise, the duty rate on tuna would have jumped from zero to a whopping 12.5 percent, likely putting many frozen fish importers out of business. Rates on other fish would have jumped 4-6 percent.

Attorney Deborah Stern, whose firm, Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, PA, represents Sea Delight, says the ruling is a big win for food importers.

"Based on this ruling, it's fair to conclude that frozen fish treated to maintain a fresh, appealing look are unlikely to face a tariff rate hike as a result of this type of tasteless smoke treatment or similar treatments such as those employing carbon monoxide," Stern says. "It is also likely that other seafood, meats, fruits and vegetables will avoid CBP scrutiny for similar processes." However, there are some limitations. "The ruling does not, for example, guarantee duty-free treatment to ground tuna, which is not considered to be fillet and so is subject to import duty depending upon packaging," Stern says. "Seafood and other food importers should therefore check with customs counsel to determine if the ruling affects their specific products."

Food importers have been turning to Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg for assistance with customs and global trade matters since 1977. Together with its related consulting company, Sandler & Travis Trade Advisory Services, ST&R is the largest dedicated international trade and customs service provider in the world, with over 600 customs and trade professionals across the globe.

Pasta Leader Barilla Introduces New Gluten Free Pasta Line

The gluten-free industry is expected to reach $8 billion in 2013 as more people begin to adopt a gluten-free lifestyle. Pasta is one of the foods that is missed most amongst people who are living gluten-free, and yet the options for enjoying a gluten-free pasta meal fall short, with limited brands and varieties available on store shelves. Now, Barilla, the world's leader in pasta production, is stepping in.

For more than 135 years, Barilla has been committed to making authentic, high-quality pasta for everyone to enjoy. The goal in producing the new Gluten Free pasta line is to offer convenient, versatile and tasty solutions for anyone living a gluten-free lifestyle, ensuring it is readily available at the local grocery store and easy to find.

Barilla® Gluten Free Pasta is produced in a facility in Italy that is dedicated to gluten-free and is made with a combination of non-GMO corn and rice. There are four varieties in the Gluten Free Pasta line-- Spaghetti, Penne, Rotini and Elbows-- which will be sold in 12 ounce boxes for $2.39. All four varieties will become available in select retail stores beginning in September 2013, with full national availability in early 2014.

Gluten Free is a strategic addition to the Barilla pasta portfolio and to the pasta category overall. Many consumers who are making the choice to purchase gluten-free products avoid pasta due to negative taste perceptions, high prices and limited availability. Barilla anticipates the new Gluten Free line will bring these consumers back to the pasta they love and trust.

About the Barilla Group
Barilla, originally established in 1877 as a bread and pasta shop in Parma, Italy, ranks as one of today's top Italian food groups. Barilla leads in the global pasta business, the pasta sauces business in continental Europe, the bakery products business in Italy and the crispbread business in Scandinavia.

Barilla owns 41 production sites (13 in Italy and 28 outside Italy) and exports to more than 100 countries. Every year, about 2,500,000 tons of food products under the brands of Barilla, Mulino Bianco, Voiello, Pavesi, Academia Barilla, Wasa, Harrys (France and Russia), Golden Toast (Germany), Misko (Greece), Filiz (Turkey), Yemina and Vesta (Mexico), are featured on dining tables all over the world.

Barilla has become one of the world's most esteemed food companies and is recognized worldwide as a symbol of Italian know-how by respecting its longstanding traditional principles and values, considering employees a fundamental asset and developing leading-edge production systems.

For more information, please visit: www.barillagroup.com

National Campaign Calls on Chobani to Live Up to Ads and Stop Using Milk From Cows Fed GMOs

Chobani is the United States' top Greek yogurt brand and it prides itself on adding no GMO ingredients to its yogurt. However, it is likely that the company is relying on milk from cows eating a diet full of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

GMO Inside, a national, non-GMO coalition led by Green America, is calling on Chobani to cease marketing its products as "real" and "natural" until the company switches to verified non-GMO milk sources.

"Demand for non-GMO foods is growing every day, but for even the most careful consumer it can be very difficult to know which products are affected by GMOs," said GMO Inside Campaign Director Elizabeth O'Connell, "Chobani has an opportunity to be a leader amongst meat and dairy companies by listening to its customers and ensuring its cows are given non-GMO food."

GMO Inside is asking Chobani consumers to sign a petition to Chobani requesting the company use milk from cows who have not been fed GMOs (www.GMOInside.org/TakeAction). 

GMO Inside is insisting that Chobani can't just pretend that its customers are insulated from the reality of GMOs.  Cows living on industrial farms eat GMO feed two to three times a day, every day. This silage may consist of GMO corn, soy, alfalfa, cotton seed, and/or sugar beets, plus synthetic vitamins that are often times also derived from GMO crops. In fact, 98 percent of genetically modified soy and 49 percent of genetically modified corn goes to feeding livestock and poultry.

Animals, like humans, are deeply impacted by the quality of their diets. While the dairy industry has claimed that genetically modified particles are broken down in the digestive tracts of the animals that eat them, these GM particles have shown up in the organs and milk of animals fed GMOs, the same milk and meat that humans then eat.

Greek yogurt, popular today for its high protein content, is likely made with milk from cows fed GMOs, unless otherwise specified. It's impossible for consumers to know which meat and dairy products are derived from GMO-fed livestock, unless the product has gone through the Non-GMO Project's certification for non-GMO feed, recently approved by the USDA as a credible label. Even more than regular yogurt, Greek yogurt requires a large amount of GMO milk since it is strained more than regular yogurt. (It takes roughly four ounces of milk to make one ounce of Greek yogurt.) 

Thermo Fisher Scientific Develops Method to Detect Carbendazim in Orange Juice

Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., the world leader in serving science, today announced that scientists at its global Food Safety Response Center, located in Dreieich, Germany, have developed and internally validated a new method for detecting residue levels of the fungicide carbendazim in oranges and orange juice.

The new carbendazim method was developed in response to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announcement in January that it would test shipments of imported orange juice for the fungicide. Thermo Fisher’s method can reliably detect carbendazim in orange juice to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.

Speaking at the Food Safety Response Center in Dreieich, Alan Malus, Thermo Fisher Executive Vice President and President of the Analytical Technologies Group said, “Our team of scientists worked around the clock to develop a method to rapidly and reliably test orange juice for traces of carbendazim, and we are pleased to provide the industry with an improved method that automates the sample preparation and improves lab productivity.”

The new method for detecting carbendazim uses Thermo Scientific Turboflow technology to automate sample preparation, enabling laboratories to analyze more samples per day. Prior methods rely on manual sample preparation, which is time-consuming and not as repeatable as the new, automated method.

Carbendazim is a chemical fungicide that is used to treat crops worldwide, including in Canada, Japan, Europe and Brazil, to control the growth of fungus and mold. It is not registered for use on U.S. citrus crops. The Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011 requires that importers verify the safety of food from their suppliers and gives the FDA authority to block the importation of foods of questionable safety from facilities or countries.

Laboratories interested in obtaining a copy of the new, validated method can download a copy at www.thermoscientific.com/fsnews.

FDA Cracks Down on Carbendazim in Oranges, Ignores Other Foods, Expert Says

The FDA announced this week that it is implementing a “test and hold” policy for all imported shipments of orange juice to determine if they contain carbendazim (a fungicide, also called “MBC”). Under the law, a food cannot contain a pesticide residue unless the residue has an established tolerance level for that specific food. The Environmental Protection Agency has not established a tolerance level for carbendazim residues in orange juice.

The sudden crackdown on orange juice in particular highlights the questionable way that FDA and the EPA regulate pesticides in foods, said Benjamin England, former FDA Regulatory Counsel and founder of FDAImports.com. Carbendazim is now at the forefront of FDA’s attention because EPA has not established a legal limit in oranges (or orange juice). FDA will therefore reject for importation orange juice with more than “trace” amounts of MBC, greater than 1.0 parts per billion.

At the same time, England said, MBC is permissible in apples, apricots and bananas. Should the FDA stop all of those fruits too? The concentration of another pesticide (thiophanate methyl or TPM) that is related to (and degrades down to) MBC is permitted in apples and bananas at 2.0 parts per million and in apricots at a whopping 15 ppm. So how does FDA test for the presence of TPM? By testing for MBC, the same pesticide that is causing all the imported OJ containers to stop at U.S. ports of entry.

Not Just Apples and Oranges

FDA will not be stopping apples, bananas and apricots due to the presence of thousands more times (in concentration) of the same pesticide chemical simply because EPA has established those high tolerances, England said. Of course, if FDA were worried about the safety of MBC, it would also have to stop grape juice (with an EPA tolerance of 5.0 ppm) and cherry juice (the heavy-hitter, with an EPA tolerance at a monstrous 20 ppm). Grape juice is used as the base juice for most fruit juices sold in the U.S.A.—and it has a tolerance for TPM, which is measured by testing for carbendazim, the original “culprit.”

“Expect FDA to use these recent pesticide results in OJ as an excuse to stop, delay and test for MBC [carbendazim] in many other fresh and finished fruit and vegetable products”, England said. “While FDA is busy locking up the American orange juice supply, U.S. consumers will have to turn to other juices for their kids, like apple and grape juices. Apparently the fact that MBC is permitted at much (much) higher concentrations in those other juice products is lost on FDA.” The net result of FDA’s actions in this case will be to greatly increase the cost of orange juice, burden the American public with a gratuitous pesticide scare and unnecessarily bottleneck imports of orange juice and juice concentrates into the United States.

Importer Impact: What to Expect?

England cited other ways that the orange juice crisis would impact imports and manufacturers bringing in product to the United States:

• Expect FDA to become “concerned” about other imported fruits, vegetables, juices, juice concentrates, etc. FDA will hold the entry and test it for carbendazim and other pesticides for residues that are obviously not unsafe.
• If FDA detects a pesticide residue for which there is no tolerance in a food or finds a residue that exceeds a tolerance, the agency will refuse the entry.
• If FDA finds an “illegal” pesticide residue or a residue that exceeds a tolerance the product is going on one of FDA’s automatic detention lists (import alerts).

For more information, go to www.fdaimports.com, call (410) 740-3403 or contact Jon Barnes at [email protected].

Step Away From the Reindeer, Santa, You're Under FDA Arrest!

Santa Claus should be at the top of the U.S. Food And Drug Administration’s “naughty list” according to Benjamin England, a 17-year veteran of the FDA and Founder of FDAImports.com. According to England, Santa Claus has broken almost every rule in the book and violated numerous food, drug, facility registration and import laws, regulations and standards over the years as he has illegally imported millions of dollars worth of merchandise to children in the United States, albeit as gifts. Since all imports coming into the United States must comply with U.S. Customs regulations, Santa’s activities every Dec. 24 are cause for both alert and action, especially as the number of gift-hungry American children grows each year. 

“I feel bad for the guy,” said England in a recent interview. “Nobody wants to poo-poo on his gift-giving and good cheer but he needs to realize that the FDA’s going to come after him at some point.” England cited three primary ways that Santa Claus’ activities would likely be targeted by FDA and its new risk-based screening system, PREDICT.

• Undeclared food, drug and cosmetic imports. Many children request edible gifts for Christmas such as chocolate or candy- others request cosmetic products including make-up kits or lip-gloss.  By bringing these products into the United States and failing to have them undergo proper FDA screening and inspection, Santa is in fact out of compliance, no matter how big or small the quantity. “They call that smuggling, folks,” England was heard saying.
• Facility registration and inspection. It’s a known fact that at the North Pole Santa employs thousands of workers and operates a series of factories and warehouses- many of which produce food products, beverages, medical devices (such as kids sunglasses), and pet chews, or involve hazardous chemicals in production (such as with plastics). According to England, these facilities must be properly registered with the FDA as well as have a U.S. Agent with whom FDA can correspond regarding the safety of the products and inspection of these facilities. After a rigorous search of FDA’s data systems, it is apparent that at the current time none of Santa’s overseas manufacturing plants are registered with the FDA.
• Labels and packaging. With 2.2 billion children in the world receiving at least one gift per Christmas, one can imagine how many packages and labels accompany the gifts and what kinds of claims, ingredients and instructions must be present. Gifts received by 59 million American children (62,889,723 children – 5 percent naughty = 59,745,237) must all have compliant labels and packaging, says England, especially the claims and statements on products like candy, cosmetics or medical devices which minors might be receiving this Christmas. No one can be certain if all of the products that Santa delivers have labels and packaging that are compliant with current U.S. FDA regulations and the Food Safety Modernization Act. Recent cases include the popular “Live Forever Juice” product that guarantees its drinkers total immortality and violates countless FDA labeling requirements.

“Just because you’ve been doing something a long time without having any FDA detentions or refusals before doesn’t mean you’re doing it right,” said England in reference to Santa Claus’s past history of successful importing. “I know for a fact that there are no in-house attorneys working for Mr. Clause at the North Pole because lawyers hate the cold,” England stated. 

When asked how Santa could become compliant again and get back on the FDA’s “nice list” England explained that a partnership with a competent FDA consulting firm could do wonders, especially in regard to the facility registrations and labeling compliance. 

“His heart is in the right place,” offered England, “I just hope that he will take the compliance side of things more seriously before the FDA really cracks down on him.” England’s firm has extended an offer to help with Claus’s import compliance program before FDA puts Claus and his North Pole operation on FDA import alert, but has not received word back.

FDA Confirms Salmonella on Sunrise Commodities’ Turkish Pine Nuts

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning consumers not to eat Turkish pine nuts distributed by Sunrise Commodities, based in Englewood Cliffs, N.J., after FDA tests confirmed the presence of Salmonella on the product.

FDA is collaborating with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and State public health and agriculture officials to investigate a multistate outbreak of Salmonella Enteritidis infections. To date, the CDC reports there are at least 42 illnesses associated with the outbreak in Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

As part of FDA’s investigation, the Agency collected samples of Turkish pine nuts from a warehouse used by Sunrise Commodities. Additional testing is underway on FDA’s Salmonella positive samples of pine nuts to determine if the Salmonella detected matches the outbreak strain. FDA's State partners also collected samples of pine nuts distributed by Sunrise Commodities; some of those samples tested positive for Salmonella and matched the outbreak strain.  

Sunrise Commodities has voluntarily recalled four lots of the implicated product, totaling more than 21,000 pounds of pine nuts. Each lot was packed in 22-pound boxes and included the markings:

• Warehouse Lot 27963 with the identifying code “PO#: 50165”

• Warehouse Lot 29628 with the identifying code “PO#: 50558”

• Warehouse Lot 27713 with the identifying code “PO#: 49595”

• Warehouse Lot 27427 with the identifying code “PO#: 50032”

Sunrise Commodities distributed the Turkish pine nuts in bulk to various food vendors in Florida, New Jersey, New York and Canada. Sunrise Commodities issued a recall notification to its customers dated Nov. 3, alerting them of the test results and of the epidemiologic investigation and asking them to notify their subsequent customers of the recall.

Wegmans Food Markets, one of the companies that received Turkish pine nuts distributed by Sunrise Commodities, recalled the product from their stores on Oct. 26. As the investigation continues, additional recalls may take place.

If consumers have Turkish pine nuts or products containing Turkish pine nuts and are not sure if the pine nuts are part of Sunrise Commodities’ recall, then they should contact the store where the food item was purchased or throw the product away.