In response to the growing impact of food allergies on the nation’s health, the federal government is enacting the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004.
Effective on January 1, any food or dietary supplement that contains milk, eggs, fish, shellfish or crustaceans, tree nuts (almonds, pecans, walnuts, cashews, etc.), wheat, peanuts, soybeans, or proteins derived from any of the above, must disclose the presence of these ingredients on the product label. These “Contains” statements are to be prominently printed adjacent to the ingredients list. Failure to comply could result in civil sanctions, criminal penalties or both, as determined by the FDA.
The law is intended to assist people with common allergies and sensitivities in avoiding ingredients to which they may be sensitive, and reflects a recognition that allergy trigger foods are widespread in the nation’s food supply, especially in processed foods. Though the Act does not include a number of less-common but important trigger foods such as eggplant and other nightshades, there is little question that the new law will help many food-sensitive people make their way through the grocery aisles.
If the Food Allergen Labeling act reflects a solid consensus on the importance of food allergies, the contention over a California proposition to mandate mercury warning labels on canned tuna reflects the nation’s general ambivalence on addressing environmental health issues.
In June 2004, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed a lawsuit against the nation’s largest tuna canners, including the companies that own Chicken of the Sea, Starkist, and Bumble Bee, for failure to warn consumers about the potential for mercury contamination and its attendant health hazards. Mr. Lockyer cited violations of California’s Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, and called for mandatory labeling of all canned tuna sold in the state with a statement about the potential for mercury-related health problems.
Early in November, the US Tuna Foundation, a trade organization representing tuna canners, launched its defense, claiming that Lockyer’s suit is founded on weak science with little relevance to tuna. Further, the canners claimed that if enacted, warning labels would deter consumers from eating what is generally considered to be a very healthy food, and an excellent source of omega-3 fatty acids. The canners contend that recent federal guidelines on canned tuna consumption (no more than 6 ounces of albacore tuna or fresh tuna steaks), are adequate to protect the public from what they deem a minimal risk of mercury exposure.
The issue is not likely to be resolved any time soon, and we wonder if the efforts and funds of both sides in this struggle wouldn’t be better spent in pushing for stricter regulation on industrial discharge of mercury and other heavy metals into the world’s oceans.
