Received the following email from Kraft foods after I sent an email about my concerns about the mac & cheese product ingredients in the US vs Europe. Thought you would be interested in how they try sway me to their other products (which I have used and prefer) while still not addressing the concerns about the ingredients in the mainstream mac & cheese. Also, would like to mention that the more acceptable forms offered (ORGANIC Etc.) are ALWAYS more expensive. I believe all this email campaign did was help them to justify the cost differencial and to help them forecast their target market numbers.

Dear Valued Consumer,

We received your recent e-mail about our Kraft Macaroni & Cheese.

We completely understand that as a parent, nothing is more important than your family’s health and well-being. That is one reason Kraft Foods is so dedicated to making the safety and quality of our products our top priority.

So that is why we follow the guidelines of government agencies that are responsible for the safety of our food. In the United States, Kraft Foods only uses ingredients that have been recognized as safe for food use in accordance with U.S. Food & Drug Administration regulations. We will continue to use the current ingredients, which are recognized as safe.

Our products around the globe are different to reflect local preferences and tastes. Yet we use the same standards to select ingredients, always putting safety first.

We know some people prefer products made without artificial ingredients so we now offer more choices. For products with no artificial preservatives, flavors or colors, you might want to consider Kraft Organic Macaroni & Cheese in White Cheddar or some of the Macaroni & Cheese dinner options in our Back to Nature line. We hope you’ll give them – and some of our other Back to Nature products – a try.

Just so you know, our Macaroni & Cheese products are sold primarily in the United States and Canada. Although we have a variation of pasta and cheese products in Scotland/northern England and Australia, neither has made any changes to their recipe since 2006.

Thank you for sharing your concerns. Your views on our products are very important to us and we take them to heart.

Sincerely,

Kim McMiller

Associate Director, Consumer Relations

I am a regular reader of Fooducate.

I am writing to share with you my recently completed article:

“Signs of Change or Clash of Symbols: FDA Regulation of Nutrient Profile Labeling” (available for download now on the Social Science Research Network; forthcoming Vol. 19, No. 2 Health Matrix (2010)).

The article analyzes the new generation of front-of-package and store-shelf nutrition labels. It examines symbols of approval such as the Heart Check Mark and the Smart Choices Logo as well as more complex nutrition rating systems such as Guiding Stars and NuVal.

This new generation of nutrition symbols and ratings—which I refer to collectively as nutrient profile labeling—is a complex phenomenon that encompasses a variety of different types of label claims, and this has complicated the task of figuring out how to regulate it. In the article, I argue that the FDA’s existing regulatory framework governing nutrient content claims on food labels is well suited to address concerns about fraudulent and misleading claims raised by nutrient profile labeling.

Several types of nutrient profile labels fall squarely within existing regulatory categories. For example, many labels present simple quantitative statements, such as “200mg of sodium,” or they make explicit or implied descriptive claims that a product is high in fiber, low in fat, or a good source of calcium. Such label statements are already covered by existing regulations that require quantitative statements to be accurate and descriptive claims to conform to FDA definitions.

Some types of nutrient profile labels, however, don’t fit so neatly into existing regulatory categories. For example, they may present only a symbol of approval indicating that a food is, overall, of high nutritional value. I propose that existing regulations governing use of the term “healthy” on food labels be applied to such symbols. FDA regulations require that any food labeled “healthy” must contain requisite amounts of nutrients such as calcium, iron, and fiber while not exceeding limits for fat, cholesterol, and sodium. Under my proposal, symbols of approval indicating that a food is of overall high nutritional value would have to meet this standard. Symbols like the Smart Choices Logo, that recommend foods of low nutritional value on the basis that they are more nutritious than similar foods of even lower nutritional value, would no longer be permitted.

Other types of nutrient profile labels are more complex, rating the overall nutritional value of food, for example on a scale of zero to three, or one to one hundred. With regard to these labels, I propose that the FDA develop multiple definitions for overall nutritional value—a graduated scale of healthiness—that would provide a regulatory standard for ratings.

I address concerns raised by the food industry that more aggressive FDA regulation of food labels would violate the First Amendment’s protection of commercial speech. I also address concerns that allowing nutrient profile labels at all merely exacerbates what Michael Pollan and others have called “nutritionism” and facilitates the marketing of highly processed industrial foods that are bad for humans and the environment.

The paper may be downloaded at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1510283. I would also be happy to send a copy for your convenience.
————————-
Timothy D. Lytton is the Angela & Albert Farone Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School where he teaches Regulatory Law & Policy, Constitutional law, Administrative Law, and Torts. He can be reached at tlytt@albanylaw.edu.

Just came across your site and want to congratulate you. I especially like that you have no industry affiliations. You’re on a commendable mission. Happy New Year.

Just found your site. Great stuff. I will check in often. You might consider having a look at our web cooking show at web site associated with this post. Similar missions, different format…

Hi,

I am a home, garden and travel writer. I recently found a website that is using my content and my photos without my permission.

Your content is also being used on that website. If you haven’t given them permission to republish your articles in full, then you need to let Google Adsense know. The site is

ureader dot org

I have had success in getting these content scrapers blocked by reporting them to Google and reporting them to other companies/bloggers/writers whose content or names are being used without permission.

Best wishes,

Cameron
Defining Your Home, Garden and Travel

wonderful site. thanks for all the quality information.