Tag: FDA dairy

Members of Congress Press FDA to Enforce Dairy Terms for Better Public Health

Posted on by Theresa Sweeney

NMPF helped members of Congress elevate the urgency for the Food and Drug Administration to finally enforce dairy product standards of identity through pointed questions asked when the agency appeared before Congress last month to present its fiscal year 2025 budget request.

Rep. Nick Langworthy, R-NY, raised the issue with FDA Commissioner Robert Califf when he appeared April 11 before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee.

Langworthy emphasized the significant research that has linked numerous health issues in children to the consumption of plant-based dairy imitators in place of real milk. He also pointed to the confusion that exists in the marketplace regarding the nutritional content of these imitation products, which NMPF and numerous public health organizations have conveyed to FDA.

Califf agreed with Langworthy on the importance of consumer understanding of the nutritional differences between dairy products and plant-based imitators. However, he suggested that court rulings have hamstrung the agency’s ability to require the proper use of terms on a product label.

That, however, wasn’t the end of the conversation.

Rep. John Moolenaar, R-MI, picked up where Langworthy left off when Califf appeared April 18 before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture. Moolenaar followed up on Califf’s remarks the week prior, pointing out that court rulings do not prevent FDA from requiring plant-based dairy imitators to use disclaimers such as ‘substitute’ or ‘alternative,’ as NMPF had previously recommended in its 2019 Citizen Petition. Califf once again agreed with the need to ensure consumers are aware of the nutritional differences between products. However, in response to a follow up question from Moolenaar, he did not commit to using disclaimers in the interest of public health.

NMPF is grateful for the continued support from members of Congress in both parties who for years have urged FDA to simply do its job and enforce the law. The agency’s continued inaction underscores the importance of congressional passage of the bipartisan, bicameral DAIRY PRIDE Act that would solve this problem.

FDA Guidance an Opportunity to Get Labeling Right

Posted on by Theresa Sweeney

As a promised summer deadline for U.S. Food & Drug Administration guidance on the labeling of plant-based alternatives approaches, dairy farmers and the entire industry are readying for a milestone in the decades-long effort we’ve led to ensuring integrity in marketplace labeling of dairy products. The news could be good for consumers, or it could be insufficient for their needs – the agency has been very tight-lipped in our conversations with them.

But after more than four decades of advocacy on this issue, we at NMPF aren’t getting too worked up about any gossip, whether or not it’s favorable to consumer and dairy interests. Why are we so serene in the midst of the Washington rumor mill? With apologies to an old political truism, “It’s the facts, stupid.” The facts are on our side, and regardless of plant-based marketing whims or FDA’s thus-far history of ambivalence on this issue, facts matter. That’s why we know that, regardless of the details any guidance may contain, we won’t accept anything less than full labeling transparency as we continue to focus on this issue. The problem of nutritional confusion is too significant for consumers and medical professionals to ignore, and labeling integrity is too near and dear to our hearts to accept anything other than a fairer, more transparent marketplace for all.

So, as we wait on FDA, a few things to keep in mind:

  • FDA’s own leadership has shown it understands and accepts our core point – that the current Wild West approach to labeling doesn’t work for consumers or a fair marketplace. Current Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf, as well as predecessors Dr. Stephen Hahn and Dr. Scott Gottlieb, have all acknowledged the problem of nutritional confusion, as explained by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other organizations. Ignoring the problem isn’t an option when it’s been repeatedly acknowledged as a problem.
  • True, robust enforcement of standards of identity is possible – FDA itself has already demonstrated that, no matter what a plant-based advocate may argue. The examples aren’t as numerous as they would be absent FDA’s practiced ambivalence on the matter, but as recently as 2011 FDA has stood up against mislabeling of plant-based products with dairy terms. The rules themselves have never been the problem – bureaucratic inertia has. FDA has a golden opportunity to boost its own credibility by standing up for transparent and non-misleading labeling.
  • An agency’s statement of guidance policy can’t replace a regulation, under the Administrative Procedure Act. Any FDA guidance that’s dissonant with its own standards – and those aren’t changing – isn’t worth the pixels it’s downloaded with. Wiser heads should know that, and for the sake of FDA’s own credibility, they need to prevail.
  • The reasons above are only a few of the litany of reasons labeling integrity is essential. Consumer surveys show rampant confusion over the nutritional content of dairy products versus plant-based imitators; the United States is a global outlier in its lax approach to how dairy terms in labeling; and the proper use of dairy terms has deep support among lawmakers in Congress – as it has for generations, as evidenced by the Butter Act, the only Congressionally written standard of identity.
  • And finally, one more time, to quote former Commissioner Gottlieb: “An almond doesn’t lactate.”

For those reasons and others, we’re anxiously awaiting the guidance document. With decades of experience and advocacy under our belts, we’re ready for this. FDA has a chance to start afresh and reaffirm its mission to protect consumers – not a bad option for a currently embattled agency. And if, for whatever specious reasons, the guidance isn’t the reaffirmation it needs to be? Then we redouble our efforts, with strengthened resolve and an awareness that facts don’t change, and consumer needs don’t go away.

Our energy on this topic is boundless, and we never shy from the chance to do what’s right. We hope FDA feels the same as we do – for the sake of consumers, it needs to. And with that, we’re looking forward to what the agency has to say.

NMPF Applauds Sen. Baldwin for Pressure on FDA Dairy Labeling Enforcement

Posted on by Theresa Sweeney

NMPF was pleased to support Senator Tammy Baldwin’s (D-WI) efforts to bring attention to the need for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforcement of dairy standards of identity at the confirmation hearing of Dr. Robert Califf to become the next commissioner of FDA.

NMPF has long partnered with Sen. Baldwin on the issue, with the Senate committee hearing on Dec. 14 serving as the latest opportunity to bring critical attention to the agency’s lack of enforcement.

After speaking to the importance of dairy standards of identity, Sen. Baldwin asked Dr. Califf whether and when the FDA will begin enforcing its own labeling standards. Dr. Califf responded that he would make the issue a priority should he be confirmed as FDA commissioner, stating there is “almost nothing more fundamental about safety than people understanding exactly what they’re ingesting, so I am committed to making this a priority if I am confirmed.”

NMPF president and CEO Jim Mulhern thanked Sen. Baldwin for pressing Dr. Califf for “urgent action” on the issue, explaining that the issue “needs to be a top-of-mind issue for Dr. Califf” as the “ground has shifted since his previous tenure in the Obama administration, both as dairy imitators proliferate and the abuse of lax labeling enforcement creates nutritional confusion for consumers.”

NMPF has been advocating for the enforcement of standards of identity and integrity in the marketplace for four decades. The recent, long overdue FDA attention to the issue – including a pledge to provide guidance on enforcement in the coming months – provides an opportunity to lead to key progress toward enforcement. NMPF will continue to work with Sen. Baldwin, other members of Congress, and administration officials on the issue, now with Dr. Califf’s positive comments in hand.

Yogurt Rule May Aid Consumer Win on Fake Milk – If FDA Follows Through

Posted on by Theresa Sweeney

It’s a shame to even have to say this, but it’s 2021, so just to be clear: Logic matters. Consistency matters. That’s why a new FDA rule that defines what is and isn’t yogurt has much broader, and potentially very positive, implications in one of the most contested consumer issues of the day – the proper labeling of milk and dairy products.

Background: FDA last month issued a final rule taking effect today that amends yogurt’s standard of identity – the legal definition of what a food is – by modernizing rules to fit changes in yogurt-making technology. It also revokes the previous individual standards of identity for low-fat yogurt and nonfat yogurt. Industry compliance is expected by Jan. 1, 2024.

The new rule is rooted in a response to a citizen’s petition from the National Yogurt Association filed in February 2000. The slow pace isn’t unusual, unfortunately, and undoubtedly there will be quibbles with some details of the 22-page document. There always are. But FDA’s decision is important: It defends principles that support transparent food labeling and protects consumers. And those principles matter well beyond yogurt, with the FDA promising a review of a much larger issue –  the labeling of plant-based milk alternatives – by next June.

The rule offers a robust defense of standards of identity, which ensure that consumers purchase products that meet their expectations.  As FDA writes, “Any food that purports to be or is represented as yogurt, must conform to the definition standard of identity for yogurt.” So, what’s in yogurt? “Cream, milk, partially skimmed milk, skim milk, and the reconstituted versions of these ingredients may be used alone or in combination as the basic dairy ingredients in yogurt manufacture,” the rule states. And how is yogurt made? “Yogurt is produced by culturing the basic dairy ingredients and any optional dairy ingredients with a characterizing lactic acid-producing bacterial culture.”

In other words: How a food is made, and where it comes from, matters.

The rule also reaffirms the role of nutrition quality in meeting consumer expectations. Discussion of the “nutritional or functional purposes” of ingredients permeates the document, and while the rule allows some flexibility on the need to fortify with Vitamin A in lower-fat yogurts, it restates the basic, crucial role that nutritional value plays in a product’s definition, as evidenced by FDA’s emphasis on the preservation of protein content and nutritional quality in the product’s formulation.

In other words: Whether a food has the nutritional value expected of that food, matters.

So, what could a rule about yogurt mean for the decades-old debate over plant-based imposters? The FDA doesn’t address that issue directly. But it’s clear that non-dairy products that call themselves yogurt don’t fit the identity standard, and a look at nutrition labels shows nothing resembling equivalence between real dairy yogurt and plant-based pretenders.

The basic principles are clear. That makes the implications strong.

If standards of identity matter as much as FDA says it does, then the phrase “the lacteal secretion, practically free from colostrum, obtained by the complete milking of one or more healthy cows” is critical – because that’s the standard of identity for milk, which FDA is pledged to enforce. And if nutritional integrity is as important to a food’s definition as the yogurt rule says it is, then beverages that are wildly deficient in protein and other nutrients compared to milk, shouldn’t call themselves “milk.”

That’s good news for consumers. But whether encouraging restatements of principles translate into action will depend on how important logic and consistency turn out to be.

If they are, all FDA has to do is 1. Follow its logic and 2. Be consistent (and of course, enforce. None of today’s proliferation of imposters would be a problem if only FDA enforced existing standards of identity and labeling regulations). With that, a path forward on fake milk becomes clear, one in which dairy-product integrity is protected and consumers aren’t led to believe that certain products may provide value that they don’t because of their labeling. Just like the National Yogurt Association – whose petition outlasted its own existence — we have a citizen’s petition too, filed in 2019. With the yogurt rule complete, our petition should be answerable in much less than 21 years.

FDA has shown its hand in a rule that will help consumers make informed decisions. Extending the logic and consistency of the new yogurt standard to labeling of products using terms like milk, cheese and butter – and then enforcing them — is long overdue.

The yogurt rule shows that reason can still win out, with standards of identity and nutritional value protected. That matters. A lot.