“This bill represents an important milestone,” said Thomas Gremillion, Director of Food Policy at Consumer Federation of America, “Cancers caused by alcohol kill tens of thousands of Americans each year. At the same time, survey after survey shows that fewer than half of adults are aware that alcohol increases cancer risk. One survey showed that 10% of adults think drinking wine decreases cancer risk. It does not. Drinking any type of alcohol—even small amounts—increases cancer risk.”

According to American Cancer Society researchers, alcohol use represents the 3rd and 4th leading cause of cancer for women and men, respectively. For some cancers, even light or moderate drinking significantly increases risk. For example, researchers estimate that consuming 1 standard drink per day is associated with a 4% increase in breast cancer risk, and drinking 2-4 drinks per day with a 23% increased risk.

“Alcohol’s cancer burden has fallen particularly hard on historically disadvantaged groups such as African-Americans and indigenous peoples,” said Gremillion, “and low awareness has contributed to that burden.”

Alaska Natives represent 17 percent of the state’s population, and are at significantly higher risk for alcohol harms, including cancer. A recent analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, shows that rates of alcohol-associated cancers among American Indians in Montana were more than 40% higher than among White Montanans. Epidemiological data show similarly increased risk for African Americans. According to one recent study, among those who drink in excess of dietary guidelines, African Americans are at a more than 100% increased risk of breast cancer, and nearly 300% increased risk of colorectal cancer, compared to their white counterparts. Researchers have also found that African Americans are less likely to be aware that alcohol causes cancer.

“The alcohol industry has sought to cast doubt on the scientific consensus that alcohol causes cancer for decades,” said Gremillion. “But the evidence has only gotten stronger and industry lobbyists are having to resort to more and more radical tactics.”

Last year, consumer advocates complained that U.S. trade officials were beholden to the alcohol lobby after they raised objections within the World Trade Organization to a national law in Ireland that will soon require cancer warnings on alcohol labels. At the beginning of this year, advocates cried foul again when the National Academies of Sciences announced that a special expert committee to study alcohol’s health effects would include several scientists who had previously accepted funding from the alcohol industry. Congress delegated authority to the National Academies following a report from the federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee that recommended revising drinking limits downward for men, in part due to cancer risk.

The World Health Organization first documented the link between alcohol and a variety of cancers in 1987. Researchers estimate that cancers associated with alcohol consumption affect nearly 90,000 Americans each year, and that alcohol consumption represents the third largest modifiable risk factor contributing to cancer cases in women (behind smoking and obesity) and the fourth largest in men (behind smoking, obesity, and UV radiation). In 2014, alcohol consumption was associated with an estimated 6.4% – 50,110 – of all cancer cases in women, and 4.8% – 37,410 – of all cancer cases in men, with the largest burden for female breast cancer (39,060 cases).

Despite these impacts, however, surveys from organizations such as the National Cancer Institute and American Institute for Cancer Research have found that fewer than half of U.S. adults know that alcohol increases cancer risk. This disconnect between alcohol’s contribution to cancer risk, and consumer awareness of that contribution, supports the need for a warning label, according to consumer groups.

“Consumers deserve accurate information about alcohol and its risks. At a time when alcohol-related harms are soaring to unprecedented heights and dragging down U.S. life expectancy, messaging to raise awareness of alcohol cancer risk provides an important counterbalance to Big Alcohol’s propaganda,” said Gremillion. “Laws like Rep. Gray’s will enable more informed drinking decisions, and ultimately save lives.”

The Consumer Federation of America is a national organization of more than 250 nonprofit consumer groups that was founded in 1968 to advance the consumer interest through research, advocacy, and education.

The post PROPOSED LAW TO REQUIRE WARNING THAT ALCOHOL CAUSES BREAST AND COLON CANCERS appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

This epistemological fragmentation makes for bad citizens, and in some cases, bad diets. Obesity may seem less threatening than the end of democracy, but given estimates that the annual cost of treating diet-related disease in the United States today now surpasses $1.1 trillion, we ignore the spread of dietary misinformation at our peril.

That’s why I was happy to learn this week about the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s warning letters to the American Beverage Association, the Canadian Sugar Institute, and a dozen of their paid “influencers.” Many of the influencers are registered dietitians, and they are not shy about touting that fact in their posts.

The ABA paid influencers to post videos on Instagram and Tiktok promoting aspartame’s safety. The posts challenged a decision earlier this year by a World Health Organization committee to categorize the sweetener as a possible carcinogen and instead said things like “a person weighing about 150 pounds will have to consume roughly 75 tabletop packets daily before it can potentially lead to adverse health outcomes.”

The Canadian Sugar Institute paid influencers to post videos on Instagram and Tiktok challenging claims that sugar is unhealthy. One dietitian advised parents to “let [kids] eat as much [candy] as they want” in order to foster a “healthy relationship with food.”

As a parent, I feel qualified to say that unlimited candy fosters no such relationship. But then again, who am I to claim a monopoly on the truth, especially as it relates to candy? Nutrition is complicated. Popular understanding of a healthy diet has rapidly evolved. We once thought trans-fat laden margarine was good for the heart. Indeed, this complexity is what makes the misinformation schemes detailed in the FTC’s letters so insidious. And it is what makes disclosing the nature of commercial speech so critical.

To be clear, the influencers targeted by the FTC included disclosures. That seems to be how the FTC identified them. But the disclosures were not “adequate.” Under the new guidelines that FTC released in June of this year, disclosures must be “clear and conspicuous.” The influencers that received letters failed to meet that standard. For example, they used cryptic hashtags like “Paid partnership with @cndnsugarnutr.” As the FTC pointed out, most consumers do not know that “cndnsugarnutr” means the Canadian Sugar Institute. And even if they did, they might overlook the small text description that appears underneath a video, which itself does not include any disclosure.

Under the FTC’s standards, a disclosure must be “difficult to miss (i.e., easily noticeable) and easily understandable by ordinary consumers.” According to the enforcement letters, the influencers should have included disclosures in the videos themselves, both visually and audibly: “Consumers should be able to notice the disclosure easily, and not have to look for it.”

In other words, posts like the ones targeted in the letters should look like what they are: commercials. Of course, most of us don’t want to watch commercials, and so trade groups and their flunkies will stay busy finding new ways to transmit their sales pitches. Already, marketers are touting the “limitless opportunities for promotion” that virtual reality platforms have to offer, to take just one example.

As the shared reality that we once took for granted slips further away, epistemological guideposts of sorts will become even more important. The notion that advertising should not masquerade as impartial information, and certainly not as impartial dietary advice, is one such very important guidepost. In that sense, this week’s warning letters from FTC can be seen as not just cracking down on a few egregious purveyors of deceptive advertising, but more broadly defending the integrity of public discourse.

The post The Truth Behind Your Feed: FTC Targets Deceptive Food Marketing Online appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA Urges Greater Transparency in FDA Food Recall Process appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA Urges Congress to Close Synthetic Cannabis Loophole appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

I have always enjoyed putting together the National Food Policy Conference each year because it gives me an excuse to learn about issues outside the focus of my advocacy work, and to collaborate with a brilliant group of leaders that serve on the conference’s advisory committee. But as the political landscape has become more divided, and debate over public policy—including food policy—seems increasingly untethered to any consensus about the facts on the ground, I’ve come to view the National Food Policy Conference as critical to advancing CFA’s mission.

That mission, since the organization was established in 1968, has been to advance the consumer interest through research, advocacy and education. And CFA’s success in pursuing its mission—and the success of the consumer movement more broadly—has always depended on getting to the truth and identifying data-driven, empirically-justifiable policy reforms that expand the pie for everyone, rather than for just a particularly vocal or well-endowed minority.

But getting to the truth requires considering people and positions that we do not agree with. And that can be difficult. In fact, many people find it easier to caricature those they disagree with than to look for common ground, or to acknowledge nuance. This is a tendency that social media has exploited, and it has become a fundamental obstacle to progress today.

The National Food Policy Conference provides an antidote. This conference is unique in the broad range of perspectives that it presents on food policy issues, and by having such a diverse mix of industry, consumer advocates, regulators, and academics, the conference fosters meaningful dialogue and provides a platform for collaboration. It gives attendees a chance to hear from the other side, and to influence the other side, in an atmosphere that above all prizes open and honest exchanges of opinion, on and off stage.

After years of pandemic restrictions, many of us have fallen out of the habit of attending large gatherings. As an introvert, I understand the appeal of staying home. But I have also been pleasantly surprised by the exuberant energy at recent events I have attended, including last year’s National Food Policy Conference.

Unlike last year, this year’s National Food Policy Conference will not have a virtual attendance option. The decision to eliminate the virtual option reflects practical considerations, and also our intention to focus on the experience of in-person attendees. Toward that end, we have included interactive activities in the day’s program, along with increased opportunities for networking. I hope you will consider attending this year’s conference. You can check out the program and register by clicking here. Hope to see you soon!

The post The National Food Policy Conference: An Opportunity to Connect and Find Common Ground appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post State and Local Public Policy Options for Raising Awareness of Alcohol Cancer Risk appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

Recently, the United States joined Mexico and the Dominican Republic in challenging Ireland’s regulation of alcoholic beverage labeling in the World Trade Organization. The new Irish law would require alcoholic beverage labels to disclose calories, the amount in grams of alcohol per serving and per container, and various health warning statements including, most importantly: “There is a direct link between alcohol and fatal cancers.”

For United States trade officials, these labeling rules are an “unlawful trade barrier.” For consumer and public health advocates, they are a template for how to design labels to prevent inadvertent overconsumption and raise awareness of alcohol’s role as the third most important modifiable risk factor for cancer deaths in the U.S.

How did we get here? Trade agreements were once mostly focused on lowering tariffs, or duties, on imports. For decades now, however, “free trade” has come to mean trade that is free from regulatory barriers to imports and foreign investors. No country’s democratic process is immune to the resulting pressure. In the United States, consumers lost the right to country-of-origin labeling (COOL) on beef and pork products after Mexico and Canada challenged the rules in the World Trade Organization. The countries argued that keeping track of what meat came from what animals would be so expensive that the giant meatpacking companies would simply stop buying pigs and cows from across the border. Therefore, the law was an unlawful trade barrier. The WTO’s Appellate Body agreed. After it authorized sanctions, Congress quietly repealed the law.

Ireland’s alcohol labeling law could meet a similar fate, but not if CFA can help it. Last year, CFA asked EU regulators to approve the law despite objections from industry and major alcohol exporters like Italy. More recently, CFA and its allies wrote to Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo to ask U.S. officials not to interfere in the implementation of sound public health policies abroad, policies that should have been adopted in the United States a long time ago.

Indeed, in 2003, CFA and its allies petitioned federal regulators to require basic information on alcohol labels such as the amount of alcohol in fluid ounces per suggested serving, the number of calories, and ingredients. To this day, labeling requirements remain unchanged, although last spring, in response to a lawsuit filed by CFA and other petitioners, the Treasury Department agreed to issue proposed rules requiring standardized alcohol content, calorie, and allergen disclosures. CFA has yet to receive a response to another petition seeking to update the health warning statement on alcoholic beverages for the first time since 1988.

As with Ireland’s proposed law, a new health warning statement on alcohol in the U.S. should alert consumers to the fact that alcohol causes cancer. More than any other element of Ireland’s law, this cancer warning requirement most bothers the industry, but it is sorely needed. Researchers with the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) estimate that alcohol may account for as many as 7,300 breast cancer deaths annually—some 15% of all such deaths. Yet just 24.6% of women surveyed in the U.S. think that “drinking alcoholic beverages increases a woman’s chances of getting breast cancer.”

Such a gap between the harms associated with a product, and the awareness of those harms, provides fertile ground for educational policies to improve public health. Ireland is poised to take advantage. Let’s hope U.S. trade officials get out of the way!

The post For the Good of Consumers, Ireland’s Alcohol Health Labeling Law Should Be Respected appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA Asks EU Regulators to Greenlight Ireland Alcohol Labeling Law, Despite Industry Objections appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The closure of Abbot Laboratories’ Sturgis, Michigan plant, following the company’s Feb. 17 voluntary recall, represents the proximate cause of the infant formula shortage. Abbott controls 48% of the U.S. baby formula market, and Sturgis is the company’s main production facility. FDA was right to take the action it eventually did, but it should have acted much sooner.

Abbott issued its recall following reports that four infants who had consumed formula from the Sturgis plant were infected with Cronobacter sakazakii, with two of the infants eventually dying. Samples from a routine FDA inspection of the Sturgis plant in September of 2019 had turned up Cronobacter, and there were other grounds for suspecting food safety problems at the plant, but FDA did not return to inspect again until September 2021, two years later! That same month, the first of the four Cronobacter cases was reported. Following the infant deaths, and a whistleblower report alleging that the company had concealed other positive Cronobacter test results, FDA visited the Sturgis plant again on January 31st of this year, took samples that once again were positive for Cronobacter, and persuaded the company to issue a recall and shut down production.

Abbott has tweeted that “there is no conclusive evidence to link Abbott’s formulas to these infant illnesses,” but the facts present a damning case against Abbott. According to the Department of Justice’s Complaint against the company, Abbott detected Cronobacter in finished product made on two different processing lines, in August of 2019 and June of 2020, as well as in multiple environmental samples. The FDA’s most recent inspection documented “310 water events including water leaks, moisture and condensation in dry powdered infant formula production areas.” And the whistleblower’s report, shared with FDA in October of 2021, alleges that the company falsified product safety records, released untested product, failed to fix labeling equipment that hampered traceback, and hid information from FDA auditors.

Why didn’t FDA act sooner to protect consumers?  In particular, after discovering Cronobacter in the Sturgis facility in September 2021, and receiving the first illness reports from Abbott formula fed infants in that same month, why did FDA take four months to revisit the plant? Why did FDA take two months to interview a whistleblower with credible information related to an ongoing foodborne illness outbreak? And why did FDA take two years to conduct a follow-up inspection in Sturgis—after finding Cronobacter in multiple samples from the plant—when your run-of-the-mill pepperoni processor gets a visit from a USDA government inspector every day?

FDA’s reluctance to take action against Abbott points to the need for fundamental reform that makes food safety a priority. What’s to be done?

Most importantly, Congress should pass legislation to create a single, independent food safety agency. The Safe Food Act, long supported by CFA, would bring coherence to our fragmented food regulatory system, which assigns food safety responsibilities to 15 different federal agencies and creates absurdities like disparate inspection frequencies between formula plants and pepperoni plants.

More immediately, Chronobacter infection should be added to the list of conditions that state and local health departments report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. Currently, Minnesota is the only state in the nation that requires reporting of Cronobacter infections. That means that many illnesses are going underreported, with public health officials having fewer cases to go on when attempting to determine the root cause of an illness cluster, and less accountability for companies whose lax food safety practices cause babies to get sick.

Finally, at FDA, Commissioner Califf should restore the Deputy Food Commissioner that was eliminated during the Trump Administration. Doing so would unify FDA’s food program under one leader, with accountability to the commissioner and authority over the various food-related components of FDA.

As shortages of infant formula persist, the search for quick fixes to the crisis will only intensify. Unfortunately, ensuring a steady, safe supply of this vital commodity cannot occur in a vacuum. To avoid the next infant formula crisis, fix the food safety system.

The post First and Foremost, the Infant Formula Crisis is a Food Safety Crisis appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

Entitled, “One Year Later: How Have American Drinking Habits Changed During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” the presentation presented longitudinal data connected to a study published in October 2020. The earlier study found “statistically significant increases in alcohol consumption” among a nationally representative survey of nearly one thousand respondents, when comparing drinking levels between February and April of 2020 (i.e. before and after COVID-19 associated lockdowns). The more recent data gathered additional consumption data from the original group of respondents for the months of July and November of 2020. The results indicate that the spike in alcohol consumption during the first months of the pandemic has not only held, but continued to grow, with an average increase of 39% reported from February to November of 2020.

Of particular concern, the number of respondents reporting consumption in excess of recommended drinking guidelines increased significantly over the study period. The researchers estimate that an additional 9 million Americans are binge drinking at least once a month, as compared to before the pandemic, helping to gulp down an estimated one billion more standard drink equivalents per month. The vast majority of this consumption took place in the home, with far fewer respondents indicating that they were venturing out to bars and restaurants to drink, as compared to the pre-pandemic data.

Alcohol struggles have affected some groups more than others. Drinking among women increased more than among men; in fact, the data indicate that more women then men are now drinking in excess of recommended guidelines, a first. The data suggests a disparate impact on certain racial groups as well, with Black drinkers’ consumption increasing by 510% between February and November of 2020. Men with teenagers also reportedly nearly doubled their consumption during that time period. The data further show a significant increase in respondents who were reportedly “drinking to cope” or experiencing mental health problems, and sharp increases in drinking among those who were earlier classified into those categories.

“This data reinforces the case for commonsense policies to inform consumers about the dangers associated with alcohol,” said Thomas Gremillion, Director of Food Policy at Consumer Federation of America. “They also demonstrate the folly of short-sighted tax cuts like the Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Act, only 5% of which benefits actual craft brewers or distillers.”

Even before the pandemic, the research showed that alcohol’s toll on U.S. society was growing. Between 1999 and 2017, the number of death certificates mentioning alcohol more than doubled—from 35,914 in 1999 to 72,558 in 2017—some 2.6% of all deaths reported in the United States that year. And while people aged 45-74 had the highest rates of deaths related to alcohol, the biggest increases over time were among people age 25-34. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, excessive alcohol use costs the U.S. economy $249 billion per year, in the form of increased injuries, violence and poisonings; unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted disease; poor pregnancy outcomes; and chronic diseases including cardiomyopathy, cirrhosis of the liver, and several forms of cancer.

“Given the enormous cost to society, taxes on alcohol should be going up, not down,” said Gremillion. “And public health authorities should be doing more to alert consumers to the dangers of alcohol, including its outsized contribution to cancer, including breast cancer and colon cancer. In particular, Congress should revisit the 1987 law that set the health warning statement for alcohol and amend it to include a cancer warning.”

Alcohol consumption represents the third largest modifiable risk factor contributing to cancer cases in women (behind smoking and obesity) and the fourth largest in men (behind smoking, obesity, and UV radiation). The World Health Organization first documented the link between alcohol and a variety of cancers in 1987, and researchers estimate that cancers associated with alcohol consumption affect nearly 90,000 Americans each year. Even “light” and “moderate” drinking have been tied to various cancers, with the evidence particularly strong for breast cancer. Last summer, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recommended that the 2020 guidelines lower the limit of alcoholic drinks per day for men down to one, in part because of cancer risk.

Nevertheless, surveys from both the National Cancer Institute and American Institute for Cancer Research have found that fewer than half of U.S. adults know that alcohol increases cancer risk.

“We should not tolerate this gap between alcohol’s contribution to cancer risk, and consumer obliviousness to that contribution,” said Gremillion. “A cancer warning on alcoholic beverages is the most straightforward way to fulfill the consumers’ right to know this critical information, and it would likely help to curb some of the disturbing trends that we are seeing related to pandemic drinking.”

Contact: Thomas Gremillion, 202-939-1010

The post New Data on Pandemic Drinking Underscore Need for Labeling, Tax Reforms appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

For its part, USDA issued a statement announcing “a top-to-bottom review of the ‘Product of USA’ label.” Secretary Vilsack acknowledged “concern that the voluntary ‘Product of USA’ label may confuse consumers,” but stopped short of committing to any specific reform to the label standards, such as a requirement it only apply to meat from animals born, raised, and slaughtered in the U.S.

“The FTC’s rule will help to protect consumers against deceptive marketing tactics that attempt to portray goods largely produced outside the country as American origin,” said Thomas Gremillion, Director of Food Policy at Consumer Federation of America. “Unfortunately, consumers will still have to grapple with unscrupulous origin claims on beef and pork harvested from animals of foreign origin.”

Under current USDA rules, meat processed from a carcass shipped into the country from abroad may carry a “Product of USA” label. The same goes for meat from animals born and raised in Mexico or Canada, and transported into the U.S. for slaughter. This was not always the case. Prior to 2015, USDA required country-of-origin labeling for fresh beef and pork products, specifically labels indicating where the cow or pig was born, raised, and slaughtered. However, Congress repealed those requirements after Canada and Mexico successfully challenged the policy in the World Trade Organization.

“Thanks to an unaccountable, unelected international tribunal, federal policymakers have abandoned mandatory origin labeling on beef and pork,” said Gremillion. “But the WTO’s decision offers no excuse for failing to protect consumers from deceptive practices, or for neglecting to put in place standards for producers that voluntarily choose to label their products as U.S. origin. Consumers strongly support origin rules; in a 2017 poll commissioned by CFA, eighty-nine percent (89%) of a representative sample of 1000 adult Americans favored, either strongly or somewhat, requiring food sellers to indicate on the package label the country of origin of fresh meat they sell. USDA has the authority – and indeed the duty – to protect consumers from deceptive and misleading claims, including ‘product of USA’ claims on meat from animals that are not born, raised, and slaughtered in the USA.”

Contact: Thomas Gremillion, 202-939-1010

The post FTC’s “Made in USA” Labeling Rule Paves the Way for Better Consumer Protections, Highlights Need for Action by USDA appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA Opposes Bill to Allow Alcohol Shipments by Mail appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

Drinking Vizzy is not good for your health. Like all alcoholic beverages, its consumption—even one drink per day—causes a statistically significant increase in breast cancer and other cancer risks. Like all alcoholic beverages, Vizzy is addictive, and it will likely reduce your sleep quality, even when consumed in moderate amounts. And if you drink a lot of Vizzy, like all alcoholic beverages, it will increase your chances of suffering from high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, liver disease, digestive problems, a weakened immune system, learning and memory problems, and depression and anxiety.

These harms likely outweigh the benefits that anyone without scurvy might reap from Vizzy’s vitamin C. Indeed, Vizzy’s alcohol content directly undermines its “antioxidant” benefit because alcohol reduces antioxidant levels in the body.

But should Molson Coors nevertheless be allowed to tout Vizzy’s “antioxidant vitamin C” ingredients? After all, the claim is true, at least as far as we know. Why can’t consumers handle the truth?

This was the question posed in response to our letter by Baylen Linnekin on the libertarian website Reason. He writes: “Notably, nowhere in their letter do CSPI and CFA claim the information Vizzy provides to consumers is false. Rather, with a flourish of Orwellian denialism, they claim the truthful information Vizzy provides consumers somehow serves to mislead those same consumers.” He concludes that “The FDA shouldn’t prohibit Vizzy, other hard seltzer makers, or any other food or beverage maker from sharing truthful information about its products with consumers.”

This position seems reasonable enough, but it doesn’t stand up too well to scrutiny. Academic researchers have cataloged a variety of ways in which literally truthful claims can be misleading. For example, a claim may tout a product attribute that all other such products share. This was the case with chicken labeled “antibiotic-free.” Companies used the claim to signify that their chicken did not contain any antibiotic residue. But by law, all chicken must be “antibiotic-free” in this sense, regardless of how the birds were raised. So the claim is misleading, because it implies that competing products contain antibiotic residues. The claim also invites confusion with actually meaningful claims, such as “raised without antibiotics.”

Vizzy’s claims are different—their addition of Vitamin C is fairly unique—but they are nonetheless misleading. To understand why, it may help to consider a recent decision by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, or TTB, which inexplicably regulates, rather than FDA, just about every alcoholic beverage other than “hard seltzers.”

In 2017, TTB denied a petition for labeling claims related to Bellion Vodka, which contains a proprietary ingredient dubbed “NTX.” Bellion sought to include labeling claims on its vodka such as “NTX® provides antioxidant and anti-inflammatory support” and “NTX® reduces the risk of alcohol-induced liver diseases, including fibrosis and cirrhosis.” Citing regulations under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, the regulators at TTB concluded that “the proposed labeling and advertising statements ‘create a misleading impression’ that consumption of alcohol beverages infused with NTX® will protect consumers from certain serious health risks associated with both moderate and heavy levels of alcohol consumption.” A federal court later upheld the agency’s decision.

Much of the deliberations around Bellion concerned the data that company had assembled in support of NTX’s efficacy. But let’s assume for the sake of argument that Bellion’s claims were literally true. This is not so much of a stretch. After all, lots of common substances, such as Vitamin D and zinc, have been shown to slow the progression of liver disease. Assuming they are true, should claims like Bellion’s be allowed?

Of course not. The relevant information is not that Vodka brand X is slightly better for your liver than Vodka brand Y. It is that all vodka is terrible for your liver. Bellion’s health claims obscure that fact, in the same way that other health claims on alcoholic beverages obscure the truth about alcohol’s overwhelmingly negative health effects. Claims like Bellion’s and Vizzy’s invite consumers to make irrational decisions, if they don’t confuse them outright.

If you don’t think that’s a problem for you, think again. Few people are as impervious to the influence of this type of messaging as they might believe. There’s a reason the alcohol industry spends over one billion dollars on advertising each year.

But there’s a cost for even those who know better. To the extent that big alcohol’s misleading health claims succeed, they will succeed in misleading our friends, family, community members, and people whose healthcare costs we must continue to subsidize.

Consumer protections are not a matter of absolutes. Many consumers may buy a certified organic alcoholic beverage with an unrealistic idea of the health consequences stemming from that claim. Nevertheless, the environmental and other benefits of organic farming arguably justify the use of such claims. By contrast, no redeeming benefits rationalize the confusion wrought by health claims like those on Vizzy—and on a fast growing number of other “hard seltzer” beverages to which FDA has turned a blind eye.

Finally, like everything else, consumer protections depend on context. The alcohol industry’s latest foray into health claims comes against a backdrop of disturbingly low levels of awareness regarding alcohol’s harms. In particular, less than half of adults in the U.S. recognize that alcohol increases cancer risk, even though alcohol consumption represents the third-largest modifiable risk factor contributing to cancer cases in the U.S. (behind only smoking and obesity). That needs to change, and it’s why CFA and other consumer advocates have asked regulators to update the health warning statement on alcoholic beverages to include a cancer warning.

Rather than bombard consumers with irrelevant information, product labeling should help consumers make informed choices. We may have a long way to go before Congress takes action to update the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1986. The alcohol industry vigorously opposes a cancer warning, and it has successfully enlisted the U.S. government’s help in efforts to stop cancer warning legislation abroad through abusive World Trade Organization challenges. Right now, however, FDA can take a step in the right direction now by simply enforcing existing law that protects consumers from misleading claims, even ones that are literally truthful.

The post When the Truth is Misleading appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

In particular, FDA found a genetic match to the outbreak strain in a sample of cattle feces taken alongside a road approximately 1.3 miles upslope from a produce farm with multiple fields tied to the outbreaks by the traceback investigations. The finding is not a “smoking gun,” but it strongly suggests that adjacent livestock operations are to blame for the fall outbreaks, which caused 40 reported illnesses in the U.S.

This is not the first time that FDA investigators have fingered adjacent livestock operations as a likely cause of foodborne illness related to leafy greens. In May of last year, the agency issued a report on leafy greens outbreaks that took place in November and December of 2019 and concluded that “adjacent  or  nearby  land  use  for  cattle  grazing” was “the most likely contributing factor associated with these three outbreaks.” In this most recent report, FDA “strongly encourage[s]” collaboration with stakeholders, including livestock owners. Unfortunately, the agency has little authority over those owners.

CFA has supported legislation to give federal investigators at FDA more tools to solve foodborne illness outbreaks, such as the “Expanded Food Safety Investigation Act,” which would give FDA the authority to conduct microbiological sampling on animal feeding operations near produce growers linked to outbreaks. More accountability would help to promote common-sense practices, such as vaccinating cattle against E.coli O157:H7, a measure that would help to protect meat and fresh produce consumers alike from foodborne illness.

The history of efforts to vaccinate cattle against E. coli O157 illustrate how perverse incentives and mismatched regulatory authorities have stymied progress on reducing foodborne illness. Since at least 2010, U.S. pharmaceutical companies have developed effective vaccines against E.coli O157:H7 in cattle. A 2012 analysis estimates the cost of the vaccine itself and administering it to be less than five dollars per cow. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that E.coli O157:H7 causes nearly 100,000 illnesses each year, and around 5–10% of patients develop a potentially life-threatening complication known as hemolytic uremic syndrome. Researchers have estimated the costs of the medical care and lost productivity associated with these illnesses at $600 million a year. That’s leaving aside the pain and suffering experienced by foodborne illness victims and their families, including many parents of small children. Fortunately, researchers have also found that a vaccination requirement at major cattle feedlots would reduce E.coli O157:H7 infections by 85%! Nevertheless, the industry has balked at the cost, and understandably so, the beneficiaries of their $5 per cow investment would be dispersed among other industries (such as leafy greens) and among consumers generally. From a purely profit driven perspective, the vaccine is not worth the cost to those who might buy it and use it.

Public policy needs to make cost-effective food safety interventions like E.coli O157:H7 vaccines in cattle good investments for the people who are in a position to use them. A good start would be extending food safety regulatory authority to cattle feedlots and other animal agriculture operations. In the meantime, efforts like FDA’s recent investigation report, which shine a light on the root causes of the country’s persistent foodborne illness problems, are a step in the right direction, but not likely to get us to the food safety regulatory system that consumers deserve.

The post New FDA Report Indicates Need for Collaboration from Animal Ag in Making Fresh Produce Safer appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

Washington D.C. — The Food and Drug Administration should bring enforcement proceedings against Molson Coors for illegally misleading consumers with its Vizzy Hard Seltzer advertising campaign, which highlights the alcoholic beverage’s vitamin C and antioxidant content, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest and Consumer Federation of America. The two consumer organizations say that, fortified or not, alcoholic drinks are poor ways to get nutrition, and that Molson Coors is in violation of FDA rules that prohibit misleading claims and strongly discourage food companies from fortifying snack foods, carbonated drinks, or alcoholic drinks with vitamins.

In a letter to Susan Mayne, Director of FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, CSPI and CFA point out that Molson Coors makes claims that Vizzy is made “with antioxidant vitamin C from acerola superfruit,” thereby implying that it’s more healthful than hard seltzers made without it. That claim is misleading. In fact, all alcoholic drinks provide empty calories, are associated with serious health conditions, and, when consumed in excess, actually inhibit the body’s ability to take up nutrients from food, according to the groups.

Vizzy Hard Seltzer’s 12-ounce cans contain 5 percent alcohol by volume and 100 calories. One advertisement makes note of the fact that Vizzy is the “first” hard seltzer to be made with vitamin C; another ad distinguishes it from its competitors by stating “Yeah, but we’ve got the antioxidant vitamin C.” They come in flavors like Blackberry Lime, Blueberry Pomegranate, Pineapple Mango, Strawberry Kiwi and so on. Vizzy’s label indicates that each can contains 18 milligrams of vitamin C, or 20 percent of the Recommended Daily Intake of the victim because if its last ingredient dried acerola cherry juice.

“You should get your vitamins from foods first, and a multivitamin or supplement as a distant second if you really need it,” said Eva Greenthal, CSPI Senior Science Policy Associate. “Alcoholic beverages are the absolute last place where you should go looking for or expect to find vitamins. The presence of vitamin C in hard seltzer is no reason to drink more than you would otherwise and doesn’t make this brand of hard seltzer less damaging to your health than any other.”

“Alcohol consumption, particularly heavy consumption, impairs the body’s metabolism of certain vitamins and nutrients,” said Thomas Gremillion, CFA Director of Food Policy. “Any advertising that suggests drinking an alcoholic beverage is a good way to get vitamins into the body is clearly misleading.”

FDA’s fortification policy is spelled out, in part, in a guidance document for the food industry which poses answers to frequently asked questions. For example, it states: “Is it appropriate to add vitamins and minerals to alcoholic beverages? No. Under our fortification policy, we do not consider it appropriate to add vitamins and minerals to alcoholic beverages.” CFA and CSPI are also urging the FDA to issue regulations, not mere guidance, that formally prohibit the use of nutrient content claims on alcoholic beverages, regardless of whether the nutrients come from fortification.

“Alcohol is never a good way to obtain nutrients. If these claims are not expressly prohibited, more manufacturers may attempt to market their alcoholic beverages as healthful sources of nutrients, misleading consumers about these drinks, which are not healthy,” CFA and CSPI wrote.

The post FDA Urged to Crack Down on Vizzy Hard Seltzer Claims appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA, CSPI Ask FDA to Enforce Rules Against Misleading Alcohol Ads appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA Asks for Pre-Market Safety Review, Accurate Labeling on Cell-Cultured Seafood Products appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA Opposes Craft Beverage Modernization and Tax Reform Act appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA Joins Consumer, Environmental Advocates in Asking EPA to Protect Consumers from Gene Editing Risks appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA Asks HHS Officials to Reconsider Radical Deregulation Proposal appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The higher incidence of reported foodborne illnesses in areas with higher poverty levels raises serious concerns, particularly since so many factors would seem to support opposite results. Poor consumers are less likely to have reliable access to healthcare and therefore are less likely to have a foodborne illness reported. The poor also have less access to “high-risk” foods—in particular fresh produce, which accounts for an estimated 17% of Salmonella illnesses, and nearly half of all reported foodborne illnesses each year. Moreover, they are less likely to eat “high-risk” foods like raw oysters and raw beef, and to dine out frequently.

Nevertheless, infection rates for common foodborne pathogens are much higher for the poor, in particular for children. Children under five years of age living in a high poverty census tract are 50% more likely to report a Salmonella infection.

The reasons behind the disparate impact remain unclear. Cultural practices, such as cooking a whole turkey overnight, may contribute to the higher foodborne illness rates among the poor. Some evidence suggests that retailers in poorer communities may contribute to the risk by, for example, failing to maintain adequate refrigeration. Perhaps most importantly, living in poverty itself is an important risk factor for foodborne illness, in part because of inadequate nutrition. Over 23 million U.S. consumers, about half of whom are “low-income,” live in a food desert. Research shows that poor nutrition makes individuals more vulnerable to foodborne illness.

CFA’s report provides five action steps to help protect the poor from foodborne illness:

1. Protect consumers from meat and poultry adulterated with virulent Salmonella. Through the use of vaccines, close monitoring, and data transparency, regulators could make significant progress in reducing the toll of salmonellosis caused by meat and poultry, which is currently subject to an antiquated regulatory regime.
2. Make fresh produce safer. To avoid future outbreaks, federal regulators should follow through on rules requiring sanitization of agricultural water, and consider incentives for cattle producers to vaccinate cattle against coli.
3. Slow the rise of superbugs. Widespread use of antibiotics creates antibiotic resistant bugs. While a comprehensive response from Congress is needed, a good start would be to create a system to collect data on how antibiotics are used on-farm, including information on quantities of antibiotics used and the specific indications for use.
4. Promote a culture of food safety in the workplace. Food workers are on the front lines of the fight to prevent foodborne illness. Yet workers that lack basic workplace safety protections, including paid sick leave, cannot be expected to contribute to the attitudes, values and beliefs that make a successful culture of food safety possible.
5. Create a single, independent food safety agency. 15 different federal agencies currently divvy up responsibility for ensuring the safety of the food supply. The Safe Food Act would consolidate federal food safety activities into one independent single food safety agency, with broad jurisdiction to address food safety hazards wherever they may emerge.

“Too often foodborne illness is characterized as a minor nuisance, and food safety a luxury that we can afford to cut back on,” said Thomas Gremillion, Director of Food Policy at CFA. “This report shows that investing in food safety isn’t just good for public health, it’s a matter of social justice.”

“The burden of foodborne illness on our most vulnerable communities is alarming,” said Nick Roper, a CFA Administrative and Advocacy Associate. “Policymakers should take steps to better understand this problem and direct the resources necessary to eliminate this additional poverty penalty.”

Contact: Thomas Gremillion, 202-939-1010

The post New Report Highlights Disparate Impact of Foodborne Illness on Poor and Minority Communities appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post Report Examines Link Between Poverty and Foodborne Illness Risk appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The groups submitting the petition are Alcohol Justice, the American Institute for Cancer Research, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Public Health Association, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Consumer Federation of America, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the U.S. Alcohol Policy Alliance.

Currently, all alcoholic beverage labels must include a warning statement regarding motor vehicle operation and drinking while pregnant. The law requiring that statement, passed in 1988, directs TTB to consult with the Surgeon General and “promptly report” to Congress if “available scientific information” justifies a change in the statement. The petitioners contend that the time has come for TTB to fulfill that reporting duty.

They point to the Surgeon General’s 2016 report documenting the link between alcohol consumption and cancers of the breast, oral cavity, esophagus, larynx, pharynx, liver, and colorectum. “Even one drink per day may increase the risk of breast cancer,” according to the Surgeon General’s report. The Surgeon General’s conclusions are consistent with those of other public health authorities, such as the National Cancer Institute, which points out on its website that “there is a strong scientific consensus that alcohol drinking can cause several types of cancer.”

In light of this consensus, the groups are urging TTB to seek congressional authorization for the following amendment to the current warning statement:

 GOVERNMENT WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.

Such a warning would save lives, the groups say, in part because most consumers are unaware of the link between alcohol and cancer.

The World Health Organization first documented the link between alcohol and a variety of cancers in 1987. Researchers estimate that cancers associated with alcohol consumption affect nearly 90,000 Americans each year, and that alcohol consumption represents the third largest modifiable risk factor contributing to cancer cases in women (behind smoking and obesity) and the fourth largest in men (behind smoking, obesity, and UV radiation). In 2014, alcohol consumption was associated with an estimated 6.4% – 50,110 – of all cancer cases in women, and 4.8% – 37,410 – of all cancer cases in men, with the largest burden by far for female breast cancer (39,060 cases).

Despite theseimpacts, however, surveys from both the National Cancer Institute and American Institute for Cancer Research have found that fewer than half of U.S. adults know that alcohol increases cancer risk. This disconnect between alcohol’s contribution to cancer risk, and consumer awareness of that contribution, supports the need for a warning label, according to the petitioners.

Even “light” and “moderate” drinking have been tied to various cancers. Earlier this summer, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee recommended that the 2020 guidelines lower the limit of alcoholic drinks per day for men down to one, in part because of cancer risk.

“The government has the responsibility to give consumers the scientific information they need to make informed decisions about alcohol, just as it does with tobacco,” said Thomas Gremillion, Director of Food Policy at CFA. “Consumers have a right to know that alcohol causes cancer, so they can decide for themselves whether drinking is worth the risk.”

“The lack of public awareness of the strong link between alcohol and cancer is concerning,” said Dr. Peter Lurie, Executive Director at Center for Science in the Public Interest. “A warning label will help correct this information imbalance. We hope the TTB will take action in the interest of consumers.”

“The first step towards solving a problem is recognizing that it exists”, says Dr. Nigel Brockton, Vice President of Research at the American Institute for Cancer Research. “It is clear that alcohol causes cancer but our Awareness Survey shows that too many people are currently unaware of this link. A warning label would raise awareness and save lives.”

“Alcohol corporations are responsible for carcinogenic harm in their products and the public needs to know,” stated Bruce Lee Livingston, Executive Director / CEO of Alcohol Justice. “All alcoholic products should require cancer warning labels nationwide.”

“The science is crystal clear: alcohol use poses serious health risks – including cancer,” said Alicia Sparks, PhD, Vice Chair U.S. Alcohol Policy Alliance. “In order for the public to have full awareness of these risks, labeling on alcoholic products must provide complete, transparent, and honest information.”

“Breast cancer will affect one in eight women during their lifetime and is the second most common cancer among women in America,” said Dr. Sharima Rasanayagam, Science Director for Breast Cancer Prevention Partners. “The reality is most women don’t know about the strong evidence that drinking alcohol increases their risk for breast cancer, which is exactly why this petition to the TTB is so critically important. It’s time for the federal government to require warnings that alcohol can cause cancer, including breast cancer.”

Contact: Thomas Gremillion, 803-447-6639

The post Cancer Warning Needed on Alcohol appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The petition asks TTB to report to Congress, pursuant to the Alcoholic Beverage Labeling Act of 1988, to update the government health warning on alcoholic beverages so that it includes a cancer warning statement, such as:

WARNING: According to the Surgeon General, consumption of alcoholic beverages can cause cancer, including breast and colon cancers.

Although alcohol consumption represents the third largest contributor to cancer cases in women (behind smoking and obesity), surveys indicate that fewer than half of consumers are aware of the connection between alcohol and cancer.

The post Consumer, Public Health Groups Petition for Cancer Warning on Alcohol appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.

The post CFA Asks Trump Administration to Follow Expert Committee’s Recommendations on Alcohol in New Dietary Guidelines for Americans appeared first on Consumer Federation of America.