Modernizing the Standards of Identity - Names Should Mean Something

Is soy milk really milk?  This is one of a number of food questions that are likely to come up in FDA's upcoming public meeting on the modernizing the Food Standards of Identity.

While to most, the food standards of identity are not an overly exciting topic, but they do serve a purpose in establishing what defines a specific product.  "These regulatory standards specify the characteristics of hundreds of different foods, everything from frozen cherry pie to milk, but critics say many of these definitions are in desperate need of an update, including a definition of milk that specifies that the beverage come from a lactating animal." 

In recent times, there have been a number of  new-to-us type of products entering the marketplace, and they take on familiar names, because it is just easy to assign a name that customers are familiar with.  But is that right?  Sure we know soy milk is not really milk, but do we make assumptions about aht product, perhaps it has the same nutritional value of milk.  What about the producers of regular milk, should they not have some protections against infringement on what they make?  

And perhaps for soy milk, consumer understand that it is different, but will that always be the case?  I am one for having a name mean something.  If it is not the same, then call it something different.  And if it has that name, then there should be certain expectations for what that item is.  

FORBES
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jennysplitter/2019/09/05/food-label-redux-fda-to-hold-public-meeting-on-food-standards-of-identity/#40e824187599
Got Food Label Confusion? FDA To Hold Public Meeting On Food Standards Of Identity
Jenny Splitter
Sep 5, 2019, 09:06amThe FDA has announced it will hold a public meeting on September 27 to get input from the public on the agency’s effort to modernize its “food standards of identity.” These regulatory standards specify the characteristics of hundreds of different foods, everything from frozen cherry pie to milk, but critics say many of these definitions are in desperate need of an update, including a definition of milk that specifies that the beverage come from a lactating animal.

Though the plant-based sector wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the meeting announcement, public comments on food identity standards have been posted since 2018, with many comments touching on whether a food term like milk should include its plant-based analogue. These sometimes contentious comments highlight the ongoing fight over regulatory definitions between animal agriculture and the plant-based sector that is now being fought at both the federal and state level.

Section 401 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act gives the FDA the authority to set food identity standards, regulations that define various foods by specifying their ingredients and composition. There are also food identity standards at the state level, and many other countries use this same system, too.

Though the agency has not set the agenda for the event, the public comment period has been open since announcement of the last public meeting in 2018. Public comments can also be made live at the event, which will be held in Rockville, Maryland, and can also be viewed by webcast.

The agency has not said it would address use of terms like milk and burger by plant-based foods (the announcement mentions only the agency’s interest in promoting healthy foods and desire to encourage innovation), but the door seems to be open again open for a new round of the ongoing battle between the dairy and beef industries on the one hand and the plant-based industry on the other, over which food producers get to use words like milk and burger.

The food identity standards effort is part of the agency’s larger modernization strategy announced in 2018 to update a wide variety of often confusing issues that arise in food labeling. The last public meeting on this topic was held in 2018, before Commissioner Scott Gottleib resigned in March. Norman Sharpless, a cancer scientist who was previously in charge of the National Institutes of Health, was appointed as acting commissioner that same month. He has since pledged to continue the agency’s nutrition label modernization efforts.

Months prior to Gottlieb’s departure, he famously remarked that the food industry standards specified that milk comes from a lactating animal “and an almond doesn’t lactate.” While the comment renewed debate between over who gets to use the term milk, no immediate further action was taken by the agency at that time.

Though data suggests consumers aren’t particularly confused about whether plant-based milks are somehow actually dairy, there have been incidents of consumer confusion over the nutritional differences between certain plant-based milks and dairy, which has in some cases lead to incidents of nutritional deficiencies in children. Since Gottlieb’s lactating almond comment, however, there has been no further effort by the agency to clarify the rules surrounding use of the word “milk” for plant-based drinks.

At the state level, there has been a legislative effort in several states to restrict use of the term “burger” only to beef burgers. These laws are being opposed in lawsuits from parties that include not only plant based advocates like the Good Food Institute but also the ACLU. GFI is also suing proactively in certain states in an effort to preempt similar legislative efforts.

It’s not just the plant-based food sector that’s clamoring for some regulatory guidance, however. Cultured meat, which is actually virtually identical in terms of ingredients and chemical makeup to conventional meat, would potentially be restricted from using the term burger as well under some of these new laws. And there are other regulatory uncertainties facing the cultured meat industry, which some experts say are preventing these new meat alternatives from reaching the market. All in all, food producers from all sides would welcome some new regulatory guidance.

Jenny Splitter