I'll have to get the link to the new (or just ruled on; I don't believe that they had strict standards imposed in the first place, but left it up to the states and farms to coordinate*) organic standards from her, but I know it was a very big deal for those with similiar allergies to hers.

Also, they do have to include every ingredient that is added to the food, but they do not have to include all of the chemicals that are contained in the packaging, which in this case would be the cardboard that the oats come packaged in. Some companies will knowingly put preservatives into the packaging instead of the product, and they can then call their product "all-natural". They have to prove that the amount absorbed by the food is less than a certain percentage, but it doesn't help her to not have that info when she has a reaction to very small amounts.

It's not that big of a deal for most of us who can tolerate these things, and with sulphites and such it actually helps us by keeping things fresh and preventing spoilage, but Americans are notoriously bad for having incorrect or misleading labelling.

*Edited to add: Beyond a few guidelines. I understand that "Organic" is somewhat standardized and controlled on a national level as well, but the standards are very general and leave a LOT of room for interrpretation. While researching farms, we called a few companies and I was pretty surprised to see what they considered organic and natural. They are within the law, but the laws were never all that strict to begin with, and testing standards remain lacking.

Originally Posted by JoyfulVegGirl:
Also, they do have to include every ingredient that is added to the food, but they do not have to include all of the chemicals that are contained in the packaging, which in this case would be the cardboard that the oats come packaged in. Some companies will knowingly put preservatives into the packaging instead of the product, and they can then call their product "all-natural". They have to prove that the amount absorbed by the food is less than a certain percentage, but it doesn't help her to not have that info when she has a reaction to very small amounts.

So you're saying that you think the ingredients of the PACKAGING should be included on the Nutrition Facts label?

Actually...the FDA does have the Food Contact Substance Notification Program in effect - this is basically at the premarket level, but so far other than the occasional paper cut, I've yet to be harmed by any food packaging.

If your sister has severe allergies to chemicals or whatever, then it's really up to her to monitor what she purchases and uses, IMO. (that all goes under the topic of personal responsibility)

Comes down, to my mind, what people expect of the government and how much the gov't should be involved. I don't know if you live in California, but if you do, you might be aware of Proposition 65, also known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986:

Originally Posted by :
Proposition 65 requires businesses to notify Californians about significant amounts of chemicals in the products they purchase, in their homes or workplaces, or that are released into the environment. By providing this information, Proposition 65 enables Californians to make informed decisions about protecting themselves from exposure to these chemicals. Proposition 65 also prohibits California businesses from knowingly discharging significant amounts of listed chemicals into sources of drinking water.

So we do have laws...are you saying there should be *more* laws (and more public money spent to enforce said laws?) The regulations are written for the general public - if someone has an allergy to certain chemicals (keeping in mind that "chemicals" are present in everything - artifical or natural) then THAT person needs to be more diligent in selecting what he or she buys and uses. The regulations and laws are written to protect the general public; but the governmental agencies aren't there to hold our hands and guide us - it's up to us, using our brains and freedom of choice, to decide what we want and don't want in our bodies. IMO.

Actually, I would just be happy if they tightened the standards for TESTING of the food. They already test it, and it would be no additional cost to them to set the standard a bit higher so that everyone could be reassured that they are getting what they think they're getting. If you put it in there, label it clearly so that we know. With each new incarnation of additive or preservative it seems the standard is set lower. I personally don't happen to care what they use for packaging, but if it is being absorbed by our food then we should be aware of that fact, if the food happens to fail the standard set in place for preservative and additive free food.

Originally Posted by :
If your sister has severe allergies to chemicals or whatever, then it's really up to her to monitor what she purchases and uses, IMO. (that all goes under the topic of personal responsibility)

Of course. And she does that. But there is the problem of her not knowing what she can and cannot use due to labels being misleading. Labels change all of the time because testing was not accurate in the first place. It happens with nutritional info, it happens with ingredient lists. Companies will also mislabel a product or call something a "flavoring" or other innocuous name when they think it will negatively impact their product sales to have full disclosure on their packaging. I don't think that's fair to the consumer, but they get away with it all the time.

And if something is being absorbed enough to impact those with allergies then you bet I want it on the label. She dropped down to 105 pounds because of inaccurate labels that caused her to get sick just when she was tolerating things a little better, and while she's in the minority it is a problem for people out there who are sensitive to certain chemicals or additives. If a company states that their product does not contain that additive and then knowlingly adds it to the packaging to be absorbed into the food in an attempt to mislead the consumer then they are at fault, not the consumer.

It's not a matter of enforcing stricter laws, it's a matter of closing up loopholes in the current laws that are in place to protect us. Why shouldn't a company have the obligation to disclose what is in our food? Who else would that be left up to? We as consumers cannot monitor what we don't know about. I don't believe that people realize how many companies are getting away with misleading labelling.

It wouldn't necessarily be left up to the government to enforce if people knew about these issues. In fact, now that the organic issue is becoming more widely known there are consumer watch groups that are certifying farms and companies and forcing them to stand by a higher standard to be able to use their seals on their packaging. The truly organic farms can then reach out to the consumers and the consumers can feel safe knowing that they are buying what has been advertised. I fail to see how that is a BAD thing.

Also, for those with peanut and other severe allergies, we know that even having products manufactured in the same facilities can cause a severe reaction. A person with these allergies may take precautions to prevent it, but up until recently no one had any real way of knowing if there was cross-contamination, or if there were traces in the food they were eating. This caused some people to have some life-threatening close calls.

Consumers reacted, and now companies put that info clearly on their labels so that there can be no mistake. If you're allergic to peanuts and smart, you avoid those foods that carry that warning on the label. I happen to see that as a case of consumers becoming aware of a problem that companies didn't want to address and pushing the issue until there was change. It's that kind of thing I'd like to see here, with products that contain amounts high enough to cause reactions. If you know your food can make people sick and potentially cause death, label it.

Just keeps adding onto the cost of food so fewer and fewer can afford good organic products.

Now that I've veered this thread completely off-topic (apologies to the OP), I just want to mention that if it's not something that you feel strongly about then you can always purchase from one of the companies that aren't independantly certified. They're not too expensive. And it's cheaper to use less chemicals at times, so I think you'd be surprised at how it affects the cost. I used to work in a health food store, and most produce was pretty comparably priced. Stores will carry 2 and sometimes 3 brands of a certain type of organic produce, at the same cost. Check the stickers. The stuff from mexico is about the same as the stuff from southern california. Prices are mostly determined by availability due to weather and growing conditions, not certification.

Originally Posted by JoyfulVegGirl:
Also, for those with peanut and other severe allergies, we know that even having products manufactured in the same facilities can cause a severe reaction. A person with these allergies may take precautions to prevent it, but up until recently no one had any real way of knowing if there was cross-contamination, or if there were traces in the food they were eating. This caused some people to have some life-threatening close calls.

Consumers reacted, and now companies put that info clearly on their labels so that there can be no mistake. If you're allergic to peanuts and smart, you avoid those foods that carry that warning on the label. I happen to see that as a case of consumers becoming aware of a problem that companies didn't want to address and pushing the issue until there was change. It's that kind of thing I'd like to see here, with products that contain amounts high enough to cause reactions. If you know your food can make people sick and potentially cause death, label it.

Apparently Congress passed - and President Bush signed into law last year - the The Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act - to be enforced starting January 2006 - so that ought to cover most of your issues, IMO.

(incidentally, the text of the entire act can be seen at this FDA page.)

As far as companies/manufacturers not complying with the current FDA/USDA labeling standards - the best message to send is with your wallet - if you don't like a company, don't buy their products. ;)

Originally Posted by :
Based on feedback from members, scientific studies, and focus groups, FAAN has devised a list of recommended improvements to current ingredient statements. These suggestions include:

use of simple English on ingredient statements so that even a 7-year-old can understand how to read a label;

declaration of allergens, even when present in flavors, colors, or spices;

Now that is fantastic news, and something I hadn't seen before. It unfortunately doesn't cover MSG and other secondary but severe allergies, but it's a definite step in the right direction. And it makes my life a whole lot easier as well ;)

local?
 

WOW! Politics always start a verbal war! Whether it's Water Politics or Gun Politics or ANY Politics! :D Too bad people don't feel passionate enough about things like poverty and famine and AIDS! But I love political debates, its so fascinating! I am totally serious!

Originally Posted by MrsJim:
Dasani water (as well as Aquafina and other brands of purified drinking water) generally is bottled from LOCAL water sources - e.g. if you live in the UK, the water came from the UK; if you live in California, the water is from California, and so on. It's really not a big secret.

You might want to check out this Consumer Reports article titled "What's in That Bottle?" for more info, particularly this part

I didn't think its a secret, I just don't know where it comes from.

I also highly doubt the water is bottled here locally, cuz why would Pepsi owned Aquafina taste so good and Coke owned Dasani taste so bad! I guess if they bottled the Aquafina here it would probably taste good and if they bottled Dansani somewhere say, like Iowa City, it would probably taste bad! Cuz Iowa City water tastes like poopy-ca-ca! They get their water out of the Cedar River which our Waste Treatment Plant dumps our crap into and about a dozen other communites north of Iowa City!

But I really don't think either is bottled in the state of Iowa, they probably come from other regionally larger communities like the Twin Cities in MN or Chicago or Omaha or somewhere.

So I really don't know and don't care, I think maybe Dasani taste's like crap because Coke tastes like crap and they don't know how to make anything taste good! Ha-Ha! Ha-Ha! I figured it out! :crazy:

Taste is a really personal thing though...I personally prefer Diet Coke over a Diet Pepsi any day... :lol:

i have not tried the fruit and salad at mac dolands . i usaully stay away from the fast food places. i go to ryans steakhouse and i stay on my low carbing there mosat of the time. i go to bob evans alot. i am tending to stay home and cook alot now and say my money to pay my credit cards off. sue

Originally Posted by aphil:
Taste is a really personal thing though...I personally prefer Diet Coke over a Diet Pepsi any day... :lol:

I'm with you! I think Diet Pepsi tastes like medicine. :dizzy: But one of my coworkers drinks 6 - 8 DP's each day, so go figure.

Originally Posted by Sun_Flower2:
I didn't think its a secret, I just don't know where it comes from.

I also highly doubt the water is bottled here locally, cuz why would Pepsi owned Aquafina taste so good and Coke owned Dasani taste so bad! I guess if they bottled the Aquafina here it would probably taste good and if they bottled Dansani somewhere say, like Iowa City, it would probably taste bad! Cuz Iowa City water tastes like poopy-ca-ca! They get their water out of the Cedar River which our Waste Treatment Plant dumps our crap into and about a dozen other communites north of Iowa City!

But I really don't think either is bottled in the state of Iowa, they probably come from other regionally larger communities like the Twin Cities in MN or Chicago or Omaha or somewhere.

So I really don't know and don't care, I think maybe Dasani taste's like crap because Coke tastes like crap and they don't know how to make anything taste good! Ha-Ha! Ha-Ha! I figured it out! :crazy:

Both Dasani and Aquafina are bottled at Pepsi's (Aquafina) and Coca-Cola's (Dasani) regional bottling plants.

If you live in Iowa, your Pepsi products most likely came from their plant in Greenwood Village, Colorado or Troy, Michigan.

The closest Coca-Cola bottling plants in your region are located in Mission, Kansas; Niles, IL; and St. Charles, Missouri (no Coke bottlers listed in Iowa City).

The Dasani and Aquafina websites state that the water comes from the 'local water supply' in the bottlers' area (the same source where the water for ALL their beverages comes from), which is filtered, purified, minerals added for taste and then bottled. It's not like they're keeping it a secret or anything.

(We're fortunate in my town to have a great water source; it comes from the Hetch Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite National Park. However, the pipes in our place are old and that affects the taste of our home tap water, so we opt for delivery).

I don't like the Fruit & Walnut salad being presented as a healthy snack option. Anything that has 310 calories and 32 grams of sugar isn't a decent snack. A cheeseburger has the exact same number of calories. For that matter you could have two of their low-fat vanilla cones for fewer calories than one Fruit & Walnut salad, and there is so little actual fruit in the blasted thing you're not getting much in the way of nutrients from there, methinks. Heck, if you really want the fruit serving, have a hamburger (260 calories) and a package of Apple Dippers without the caramel dipping sauce (35 calories), and you'll still have consumed fewer calories and less sugar .

The Fruit & Walnut salad is only a good option when compared to their specialty burgers & fried stuff. (Though I am compelled to note it is actually higher-calorie than even a 6-pc order of McNuggets.) It does not fare so well when stacked up against their other "healthy" options. A bacon ranch salad with grilled chicken is 260 calories, if you top that with the low-fat balsamic vinaigrette dressing they offer, you can get something resembling an actual meal for 10 fewer calories than that "healthy snack."

Not exactly on topic but I saw Super size me last night. WOW. Great film presented extremely well. One of the things that was mentioned was a company called natural ovens and their fantastic work with providing better school nutrition. I went to their website and they have a health article section. I have looked through about 8 or 10 and they are all really good.

HIGHLY, HIGHLY recommended for anyone with kids. Lots of great articles.

http://www.naturalovens.com/Better_H...p?PHPSESSID=77

BTW I went to the whataburger website. Place out in Texas. It says you can get a special request bun w/o oil. Makes their grilled chicken sandwhich about 8 grams of fat. Not too bad.