FDA Proposes Removing Standard of Identity for French Dressing

The US FDA announced that it was proposing to remove the Standard of Identity for French Dressing. The Standard of Identity, as we know, provides a standardized definition for a food item, in this case, French Dressing, so that when a consumer buys it from the store, they sort of know what they are buying.

"This proposed rule, if finalized, would revoke the standard of identity for French dressing. This action, in part, responds to a citizen petition submitted by the Association for Dressings and Sauces (ADS) (petition). We tentatively conclude that the standard of identity for French dressing no longer promotes honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers and revoking the standard could provide greater flexibility in the product’s manufacture, consistent with comparable, nonstandardized foods available in the marketplace.

"So what is French Dressing?
According to the online dictionary, French Dressing is:

n.
1. A salad dressing of oil, vinegar, and seasonings.
2. A commercially prepared creamy salad dressing that is usually pale orange to reddish-orange in color and often sweet.
From the US  Code of Federal Regulations, the Standard of Identity for French Dressing (entire listing below) states that it contains acidifying agents, vinegar and/or lemon juice, and has not less than 35 percent by weight of vegetable oil. Optional ingredients include egg and tomato juice.

The FDA proposal to remove this standard reasons:

"The petition states that there has been a proliferation of nonstandardized pourable dressings for salads with respect to flavors (Italian, Ranch, cheese, fruit, peppercorn, varied vinegars, and other flavoring concepts) and composition (including a wide range of reduced fat, “light,” and fat-free dressings) (petition at page 3). The French dressing standard of identity, according to the petition, no longer serves as a benchmark for other dressings because of the wide variation in composition to meet consumer interests (id.). Instead, the petition claims that the standard of identity has become marginalized and restricts innovation (id.). Therefore, the petition states that the French dressing standard of identity no longer promotes honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers (id.).

One key factor in the standard is the required level of oil.  With the demand for lower fat varieties, this standard limits that.  

When the standard of identity was established in 1950, French dressing was one of three types of dressings we identified (15 FR 5227). We generally characterized the dressings as containing a fat ingredient, an acidifying ingredient, and seasoning ingredients. The French dressing standard allowed for certain flexibility in manufacturers’ choice of oil, acidifying ingredients, and seasoning ingredients. Tomatoes or tomato-derived ingredients were among the seasoning ingredients permitted, but not required. Amendments to the standard since 1950 have permitted the use of additional ingredients, such as any safe and suitable color additives that impart the color traditionally expected (39 FR 39543 at 39554-39555).
Most, if not all, products currently sold under the name “French dressing” contain tomatoes or tomato-derived ingredients and have a characteristic red or reddish-orange color. They also tend to have a sweet taste. Consumers appear to expect these characteristics when purchasing products represented as French dressing. Thus, it appears that, since the establishment of the standard of identity, French dressing has become a narrower category of products than prescribed by the standard. These products maintain the above characteristics without a standard of identity specifically requiring them.

Additionally, French dressing products are manufactured and sold in lower-fat varieties that contain less than the minimum amount of vegetable oil (35% by weight) required by 21 CFR 169.115(a). We are unaware of any evidence that consumers are deceived or misled by the reduction in vegetable oil when these varieties are sold under names including terms such as “fat free” or “low-fat.” By contrast, these varieties appear to accommodate consumer preferences and dietary restrictions. Therefore, after considering the petition and related information, we tentatively conclude that the standard of identity for French dressing no longer promotes honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers consistent with section 401 of the FD&C Act. "

Should we care?  This is such a non-specific standard to begin with, brand specific variations may not make much difference to the consumer.  But FDA is "interested in any information, including data and studies, on consumer expectations regarding French dressing and whether the specifications in § 169.115 are necessary to ensure that French dressing meets these expectations."

 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 169
[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-1807]

RIN 0910-AI16
French Dressing; Proposed Revocation of a Standard of Identity
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.

Should We Care About Food Product Standards of Identity?

A news release from FDA discussed the need to review and modernize the 'standards of identity' for food products, specifically in this case, dairy products.  With all of the FSMA regulations in addition to responsibility for drugs, food product 'standards of identity' just don't seem to be that much of a priority.  But should they be?

The standard of identity are used "in an effort to promote honesty and fair dealing for the benefit of consumers, the FDA is authorized to establish by regulation, a common or usual name, a reasonable definition and standard of identity, a reasonable standard of quality, and reasonable standards of fill of the container for any food"  (NDSU Law).  So it says what a product is so that when you buy it, you know what it is.  If you buy grape jelly, you are getting what is considered grape jelly.

One of the big issues has been related to milk.  From the FDA release, one of the primary issues is "plant-based foods that are being positioned in the marketplace as substitutes for standardized dairy products. Many of these plant-based foods use traditional dairy terms (e.g., milk, yogurt, cheese) in the name of the product. For instance, we’ve seen a proliferation of products made from soy, almond or rice calling themselves milk. However, these alternative products are not the food that has been standardized under the name “milk” and which has been known to the American public as “milk” long before the 1938 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) was established. In addition, some of these products can vary widely in their nutritional content – for instance in relation to inherent protein or in added vitamin content – when compared to traditional milk."

Basically, soy milk or rice milk is not really milk.  Milk is collected lactation from animals.  Soy beans don't have mammary glands. It's not milk, it is expressed bean juice.  So is this an issue?  Well, it can be because some people don't understand that milk and bean juice don't have the same nutritional parameters.  Just being white doesn't make it milk.    FDA used a few cases to demonstrate this issue, in one "case reports show that feeding rice-based beverages to young children resulted in a disease called kwashiorkor, a form of severe protein malnutrition. There has also been a case report of a toddler being diagnosed with rickets, a disease caused by vitamin D deficiency, after parents used a soy-based alternative to cow’s milk".

I like standards of identity. I like the structure that it creates within the marketplace.   Marketing people don't because they can blur the lines and make something seem to be what it's not.  If people took time to understand, that would be one thing.  But some out there do not.

For the most part, many of the standards in place have been there for decades.  This is not to say they should remain constant, but certainly there should be on ongoing review process to say what a given food is, and what it is not.

Take bacon as an example.  Bacon should be from an animal.  I am fine with turkey bacon, but eggplant bacon....no. 

FDA News Release
https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm614851.htm
Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on the process FDA is undertaking for reviewing and modernizing the agency’s standards of identity for dairy products
For Immediate Release
July 26, 2018