Food labels serve one purpose, and one purpose only: To provide nutritional information to consumers. The process by which a food is produced is not relevant to its nutritional content or safety profile. Therefore, products made using animal cell culture techniques absolutely should not require special labeling.
While we may well try to diet our way out of the rising incidence of obesity, calorie labeling does not appear to be particularly effective. That's because the Cochrane Library, which, as an organization, invented meta-analysis, released one on the effect of calorie labels on what we eat. Guess what? They have no impact.
It is immoral and reckless to leave drugs within the reach of children. That five kids were poisoned makes grandpa, who had a medical marijuana prescription, an irresponsible pothead.
We are being confronted with very important questions about the anti-GMO movement and Mr. Ruskin, an anti-GMO activist who operates the website U.S. Right to Know. Are anti-GMOers also anti-vaxxers?2 If not, then why do they take money from anti-vaxxers?
Reputations are funny – they take years to build but seconds to destroy. Cargill, a company that provides all manner of agricultural products and services, ruined its reputation with farmers and science writers by announcing a partnership with the thoroughly wretched Non-GMO Project, an anti-biotech organization.
Would interpretive food labels help people make better food choices? In New Zealand, at least, they did help those who used them the most. But overall — not so much.
New research supports using so-called traffic light labeling, in addition to numeric labels, to help consumers make healthier food selections. When both types of labels were combined on food items, consumers' choices were based less on taste than they had been when only numeric labels were used.
Food fraud is outrageously common. In the UK, horse meat was sold as beef, and in China, rat meat was sold as lamb. Now, Malaysian researchers have detected buffalo meat in "beef" frankfurters.
"Use by" and "sell by" labels are not about food safety, although it's easy to be confused by them. In fact, they're only pointers about when a food's quality might not be at its peak.
How does one get busy college students to make healthy food choices? Is it enough to provide nutrition label information, and where should such information be placed? A new study provides some clues, but from a health awareness standpoint the results are somewhat disappointing.
A British researcher has floated the idea of adding exercise equivalents — for instance, how far to run to burn off the calories in a product — to labels on packaged foods. Supposedly, this it to give a value for average-aged and averaged-sized people, which would help everyone assess their individual need for exercise. However, we doubt it.
Thanks to a really idiotic Vermont law, food companies all over the U.S. are scrambling to make thoroughly useless changes to their labels, specifying whether any GM ingredients are in their products. Providing no scientific merit, the law seems to be designed simply to benefit Vermont. Guess who will pay the higher prices for this nonsense?