Latest news with #CenterforScienceinthePublicInterest
Boston Globe
6 days ago
- Health
- Boston Globe
The FDA is targeting orange juice. Here's why, and what the science says.
Orange juice contains nutrients including calcium and Vitamin C. But some nutritionists argue that's not enough to make up for the unnecessary calories and natural sugars. 'Juices are a dilemma,' said Peter Lurie, the executive director of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, which advocates for a healthy and safe food supply. Get Winter Soup Club A six-week series featuring soup recipes and cozy vibes, plus side dishes and toppings, to get us all through the winter. Enter Email Sign Up The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends instead eating real fruit, which contains more fiber than juice. The association advises against giving fruit juice to infants except to manage constipation. It also advises limiting how much juice parents should give older children, such as no more than 4 ounces per day for kids 1 to 3 years old. Advertisement 'If you're going to have a small amount of juice, it's not going to be anything that anybody's going to worry about,' said Marion Nestle, a retired professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University who called fruit juices 'delicious.' 'When you worry about juice is when it's in large amounts,' she added. Advertisement Even though leading orange juice brands do not contain added sugars, high levels of natural sugars can still be harmful, some experts said. 'Orange juice is sugar water,' said Barry Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina. 'Every juice is essentially sugar water.' Once touted as part of a balanced breakfast, Americans are souring on orange juice. Consumers have gravitated toward other beverage options seen as healthier. Prices have risen. Production has stalled. And this has become a problem for Florida's orange producers. The sugar content of the fruit grown in the state has been steadily dropping due to a bacterial disease afflicting the crop, exacerbated after Hurricane Irma struck in 2017. In 2022, Florida trade groups representing the state's citrus growers and citrus juice industry petitioned the FDA to lower the minimum fruit sugar levels for pasteurized orange juice. The FDA sets a minimum standard for the sugar content in order to call a drink 'pasteurized orange juice,' the kind commonly sold at grocery stores without added sugars. If manufacturers fall below that threshold, they are essentially no longer allowed to call their products 'pasteurized orange juice." Florida orange industry groups said lowering that threshold would protect their business and reduce orange imports from other countries while going unnoticed by consumers. Sugar per serving would lower from 18 grams to 17 grams, according to nutritional label samples provided to the FDA by the industry. Other nutrients would be largely unaffected to the change. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary both pledged to examine this proposal during congressional hearings when pressed by Sen. Ashley Moody (R-Florida). Advertisement Some nutrition experts said if Kennedy wanted to advance his 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda, which included pledges to improve the diets of children, he should champion more sweeping regulations broadly targeting sugars and sodium. 'If one is serious about sugar in the American diet, we need an across the board approach,' Lurie said.
NBC News
27-07-2025
- Health
- NBC News
A Texas candy company switched to natural dyes — but it wasn't easy
Natural dyes, which are derived from plants, produce, spices and minerals, have not been scrutinized as closely by researchers for their health impact or the potential for contamination, experts say. They are also not subject to the same stringent testing requirements as synthetic dyes. That has raised concerns among some food experts and consumer advocates about the unintended consequences of this shift — and whether it will actually make food safer and healthier. 'The important thing to remember with all colors, whether natural or synthetic, is that they are nothing more than marketing tools for food companies, to make foods look a certain way,' said Thomas Galligan, a toxicologist who works for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group. 'At the end of the day, they aren't strictly necessary. And so it's important to weigh the risk against the benefit.' Eric Atkinson says he never thought synthetic dyes were unsafe. But when he read the ingredient lists for his company's candies, which his family has been making since the Great Depression, they always struck him as out of place. About 12 years ago, the company finally decided to make the leap. 'We were so close to being all natural or all simple ingredients that we just went ahead and went there,' he said. He knew how critical it was to get the color right for the Chick-O-Stick, the company's most recognizable product. All the packaging for the candy mimics the color of the product, which Atkinson describes as 'amber.' 'They say in the industry that taste is king, but color is queen,' he said. 'The queen is very important.' Working with food scientists for dye manufacturers, the company's quality control team started testing mixtures of natural dyes to replicate the Chick-O-Stick's signature hue. After years of testing, they came up with a combination of dyes derived from turmeric and vegetable juice — first trying beets before settling on radishes. But they later discovered that the color faded under LED light. This year, they switched again to annatto, a popular natural colorant made from the seeds of the achiote tree. Another surprise was the funky smell that came from some of the natural colors. Atkinson recalls one particularly pungent dye made from red cabbages that smelled like rotting garbage, though the odor quickly dissipated when the candy reached the cooking step, where it's heated to over 300 degrees. That wasn't the end of the challenges. Unlike synthetic dyes, which are easily produced in U.S. labs, the ingredients that form natural dyes are frequently imported. That introduces a host of complexities, including logistics, costs and product safety issues. In March 2021, a container ship got stuck in the Suez Canal, making headlines worldwide. It also created a new headache for Atkinson: The ship was carrying the radishes used to create the Chick-O-Stick color at the time, sending the company scrambling for alternatives. Even without such obstacles, it can be tough to find enough raw materials for natural dyes. It takes a considerable amount of seasonally grown produce — whether it's radishes, red cabbages, blueberries or golden beets — to make dyes from fruits and vegetables. Carmine, a vibrant red colorant, is made from cactus-dwelling insects in Central and South America; 70,000 of those insects are required to create just over 2 pounds of dye. Sourcing challenges often mean higher prices: One major dye manufacturer recently estimated that natural dyes cost about 10 times as much as the synthetic versions. And then it can be a matter of convincing consumers. Though the color and appearance of the Chick-O-Stick had remained the same, not everyone was happy about the new formulation of a classic candy. 'We had a lot of pushback when we went to the natural colors,' said Atkinson. 'Most of the feedback that we got was, 'Quit changing our Chick-O-Stick.'' Still, sales stayed steady, Atkinson said.
LeMonde
23-07-2025
- Health
- LeMonde
Trump urges Coca-Cola to use cane sugar, sparking backlash from Midwestern corn producers
Would you rather have corn syrup or cane sugar? That question has been on Americans' minds since Coca-Cola confirmed on Tuesday, July 22, that it would now produce a portion of its sweetened beverage using cane sugar in the US market. Donald Trump, a well-known fan of Diet Coke – which substitutes regular sugar with aspartame – spilled the beans on July 16, praising the shift by the Atlanta-based company. "I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so. I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola," the president said in a message posted on his Truth Social platform. "This will be a very good move by them – You'll see. It's just better!" High-fructose corn syrup has come under fire from Trump and his health secretary, Robert Kennedy Jr., who has made the fight against junk food his top priority. "MAHA wins," Kennedy posted on X on July 19, referencing the acronym MAHA – modeled after Trump's MAGA ("Make America Great Again") – which stands for "Make America Healthy Again." But is that really true? Kennedy declared in April: "Sugar is poison." No one disputes this in a country plagued by endemic obesity, and all experts agree that it's necessary to reduce sugar consumption. "What makes soda unhealthy is that it's liquid sugar, providing empty calories with no nutritional benefits. Swapping one type of sugar for another does nothing to make soda healthier," Eva Greenthal, a researcher at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, told CNN.
Mint
24-06-2025
- Health
- Mint
Texas will put warning labels on some foods, but its additives list has inaccuracies
DALLAS (AP) — A new Texas law promoting the Trump administration's 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda requires first-ever warning labels on foods like chips and candies that contain dyes and additives not allowed in other countries. It could have far-reaching effects on the nation's food supply, but a review of the legislation shows it also misrepresents the status of some ingredients that would trigger the action. The law signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott on Sunday requires foods made with any of more than 40 dyes or additives to have labels starting in 2027 saying they contain ingredients 'not recommended for human consumption' in Australia, Canada, the European Union or the U.K. But a review shows that nearly a dozen of the targeted additives are either authorized in the cited regions — or already restricted in the U.S. The law, which will send the food industry scrambling to respond, is laudable in its intent, but could lead to incorrect citations and potential legal challenges, a consumer advocacy group said. 'I don't know how the list of chemicals was constructed,' said Thomas Galligan, a scientist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest. 'Warnings have to be accurate in order to be legal.' The law, approved with wide bipartisan support, is part of a flurry of similar legislation this year by GOP-led statehouses as lawmakers align themselves with U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda. Texas would be the first in the U.S. to use warning labels to target additives, rather than nutrients like sugar or saturated fat, to change American diets. It will force food companies to decide whether to reformulate products to avoid the labels, add the newly required language, pull certain products from Texas shelves or oppose the measure in court. It's unclear how the list of additives was created. Inquiries to the office of the bill's author, Republican state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, were not immediately returned. Regulators in Australia, Canada, the EU and the U.K. take a cautious approach to food additives: If a product's safety is uncertain, it can be banned or restricted until it is determined to be safe. By contrast, the U.S. generally allows products on the market unless there is clear risk of harm. Three additives targeted by Texas — partially hydrogenated oils, Red Dye No. 4 and Red Dye No. 3 — are not approved or have been banned in food by U.S. regulators. Several of the other listed ingredients are allowed in all four of those regions, noted Galligan and representatives from the Consumer Brands Association, a food industry trade group. Examples of those include: Blue Dye No. 1; Blue Dye No. 2; butylated hydroxyanisole, or BHA; butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT; diacetyl; interesterified soybean oil; lactylated fatty acid esters of glycerol and propylene glycol; and potassium aluminum sulfate. In addition, the legislation contains regulatory loopholes that could prevent certain ingredients from being labeled at all, said Melanie Benesh, an analyst with the Environmental Working Group, an activist organization that focuses on toxic chemicals. For example, the food additive azodicarbonamide, known as ADA and used as a bleaching agent in cereal flours, is included on the Texas list. But under the Federal Code of Regulations, it may safely be used in food under certain conditions. That federal regulation likely exempts ADA from the state labeling law, Benesh said. 'The law, as passed, may not end up having the impact that legislators intended,' Benesh said. Nutrition experts have long worried about the potential health effects of food additives, even as it remains unclear how much of a role processed foods have in driving chronic health disease. Research has shown that requiring food label warnings can help steer consumers toward healthier choices and prompt industry to remove concerning ingredients. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has proposed front-of-package labels that would flag levels of saturated fat, sugar and sodium. 'This represents a big win for Texas consumers and consumers overall,' said Brian Ronholm, director of food policy for Consumer Reports. 'It's a reflection of states not wanting to wait for the federal government to act.' The law also creates a state nutrition advisory committee, boosts physical education and nutrition curriculum requirements in public and charter schools, and requires nutrition courses for college students and medical professionals doing continuing education. Several states have been taking action to restrict dyes and additives in foods. In 2023, California became the first state to ban some chemicals and dyes used in candies, drinks and other foods because of health concerns. The state expanded on that last year by barring several additional dyes from food served in public schools. Other laws passed this year include one in Arkansas banning two particular additives from food sold or manufactured in the state and a West Virginia law includes a statewide ban on seven dyes. Lawmakers in several states have passed measures this year banning certain additives from food served or sold at public schools, according to an Associated Press analysis using the bill-tracking software Plural. That includes Texas, where the governor last month signed a bill banning foods with certain ingredients from being served in school lunches. 'It's a pretty dizzying time to be watching what's happening, because usually policies that are not very industry friendly are opposed, particularly in red states," said Christina Roberto, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Food and Nutrition Policy, 'With RFK and the MAHA movement, it's really turned things upside-down in some ways.' At the federal level, Kennedy and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary have pledged to remove artificial dyes from foods and have pressured industry to take voluntary action. Some large food manufacturers have complied. Health advocates have long called for the removal of artificial dyes from foods, citing mixed studies indicating they can cause neurobehavioral problems, including hyperactivity and attention issues, in some children. The FDA previously has said that the approved dyes are safe and that 'the totality of scientific evidence shows that most children have no adverse effects when consuming foods containing color additives.' Aleccia contributed to this report from Temecula, Calif. Associated Press writer David A. Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Mo.
24-06-2025
- Health
Texas will put warning labels on some foods, but its additives list has inaccuracies
DALLAS -- A new Texas law promoting the Trump administration's 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda requires first-ever warning labels on foods like chips and candies that contain dyes and additives not allowed in other countries. It could have far-reaching effects on the nation's food supply, but a review of the legislation shows it also misrepresents the status of some ingredients that would trigger the action. The law signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott on Sunday requires foods made with any of more than 40 dyes or additives to have labels starting in 2027 saying they contain ingredients 'not recommended for human consumption' in Australia, Canada, the European Union or the U.K. But a review shows that nearly a dozen of the targeted additives are either authorized in the cited regions — or already restricted in the U.S. The law, which will send the food industry scrambling to respond, is laudable in its intent, but could lead to incorrect citations and potential legal challenges, a consumer advocacy group said. 'I don't know how the list of chemicals was constructed,' said Thomas Galligan, a scientist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest. 'Warnings have to be accurate in order to be legal.' The law, approved with wide bipartisan support, is part of a flurry of similar legislation this year by GOP-led statehouses as lawmakers align themselves with U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda. Texas would be the first in the U.S. to use warning labels to target additives, rather than nutrients like sugar or saturated fat, to change American diets. It will force food companies to decide whether to reformulate products to avoid the labels, add the newly required language, pull certain products from Texas shelves or oppose the measure in court. It's unclear how the list of additives was created. Inquiries to the office of the bill's author, Republican state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, were not immediately returned. Regulators in Australia, Canada, the EU and the U.K. take a cautious approach to food additives: If a product's safety is uncertain, it can be banned or restricted until it is determined to be safe. By contrast, the U.S. generally allows products on the market unless there is clear risk of harm. Three additives targeted by Texas — partially hydrogenated oils, Red Dye No. 4 and Red Dye No. 3 — are not approved or have been banned in food by U.S. regulators. Several of the other listed ingredients are allowed in all four of those regions, noted Galligan and representatives from the Consumer Brands Association, a food industry trade group. Examples of those include: Blue Dye No. 1; Blue Dye No. 2; butylated hydroxyanisole, or BHA; butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT; diacetyl; interesterified soybean oil; lactylated fatty acid esters of glycerol and propylene glycol; and potassium aluminum sulfate. In addition, the legislation contains regulatory loopholes that could prevent certain ingredients from being labeled at all, said Melanie Benesh, an analyst with the Environmental Working Group, an activist organization that focuses on toxic chemicals. For example, the food additive azodicarbonamide, known as ADA and used as a bleaching agent in cereal flours, is included on the Texas list. But under the Federal Code of Regulations, it may safely be used in food under certain conditions. That federal regulation likely exempts ADA from the state labeling law, Benesh said. 'The law, as passed, may not end up having the impact that legislators intended,' Benesh said. Nutrition experts have long worried about the potential health effects of food additives, even as it remains unclear how much of a role processed foods have in driving chronic health disease. Research has shown that requiring food label warnings can help steer consumers toward healthier choices and prompt industry to remove concerning ingredients. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has proposed front-of-package labels that would flag levels of saturated fat, sugar and sodium. 'This represents a big win for Texas consumers and consumers overall,' said Brian Ronholm, director of food policy for Consumer Reports. 'It's a reflection of states not wanting to wait for the federal government to act.' The law also creates a state nutrition advisory committee, boosts physical education and nutrition curriculum requirements in public and charter schools, and requires nutrition courses for college students and medical professionals doing continuing education. Several states have been taking action to restrict dyes and additives in foods. In 2023, California became the first state to ban some chemicals and dyes used in candies, drinks and other foods because of health concerns. The state expanded on that last year by barring several additional dyes from food served in public schools. Other laws passed this year include one in Arkansas banning two particular additives from food sold or manufactured in the state and a West Virginia law includes a statewide ban on seven dyes. Lawmakers in several states have passed measures this year banning certain additives from food served or sold at public schools, according to an Associated Press analysis using the bill-tracking software Plural. That includes Texas, where the governor last month signed a bill banning foods with certain ingredients from being served in school lunches. 'It's a pretty dizzying time to be watching what's happening, because usually policies that are not very industry friendly are opposed, particularly in red states," said Christina Roberto, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Food and Nutrition Policy, 'With RFK and the MAHA movement, it's really turned things upside-down in some ways.' At the federal level, Kennedy and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary have pledged to remove artificial dyes from foods and have pressured industry to take voluntary action. Some large food manufacturers have complied. Health advocates have long called for the removal of artificial dyes from foods, citing mixed studies indicating they can cause neurobehavioral problems, including hyperactivity and attention issues, in some children. The FDA previously has said that the approved dyes are safe and that 'the totality of scientific evidence shows that most children have no adverse effects when consuming foods containing color additives.' ___
