In the news…..

More from Whole Foods Market

Genetically Engineered Foods
Our goal at Whole Foods Market is to provide informed consumer choice with regard to genetically engineered ingredients (also known as GMOs or Genetically Modified Organisms). Clearly labeled products enable shoppers who want to avoid foods made with GMOs to do so. Accordingly, we have set a deadline that, by 2018, all products in our U.S. and Canadian stores must be labeled to indicate whether they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Whole Foods Market is the first national grocery chain to set a deadline for full GMO transparency.
Whole Foods Market has been collaborating with many of its supplier partners for several years to source products without GMO ingredients. In 2009, the company began putting its 365 Everyday Value™ line through Non-GMO Project™ verification and encouraged its grocery supplier partners to do the same. Whole Foods Market currently sells 3,300 Non-GMO Project verified products from 250 brands, more than any other retailer in North America. It will now expand this effort, working with suppliers in all categories as they transition to ingredients from non-GMO sources, or clearly label products containing GMOs by the five-year deadline. Whole Foods Market will make announcements about progress and key milestones along the way.
More on the Non-Project

The Non-GMO Project is a collaboration of manufacturers, retailers, processors, distributors, farmers, seed breeders and consumers who have developed North America’s first independent third-party Non-GMO Product Verification Program. This program ensures that food production follows rigorous best practices for GMO avoidance, and the seal allows consumers to make informed food buying choices.
The Product Verification Program uses a process that combines on-site facility audits, document-based review and product testing to verify compliance with the standard at every level of the supply chain, from manufacturing facilities to ingredient suppliers. For a product to be verified and bear the seal, it must undergo a process through which any ingredient at high risk for GMO contamination—soy or corn, for example—has been proven to meet the standard through avoidance practices and testing.
GMOs & Certified Organic Products

By law, organic products must be created only with non-GMO ingredients. Buying organic products throughout our stores is a reliable way for customers to choose non-GMO foods. Accordingly, we encourage manufacturers and producers to label organic products as not grown from genetically engineered seed.We also encourage other manufacturers and producers to create products without GMO ingredients or processes and to have them verified and labeled as such. As a pioneer in the U.S. organic food movement for the past 32 years, Whole Foods Market now offers thousands of organic products, the largest variety in the country.
We offer a wide variety of choices for our customers who prefer to avoid GMOs:
• Go organic! The USDA National Organic Standards do not allow genetically engineered seed and ingredients in the growth and production of organic foods.
• Buy 365 Everyday Value® food products. This line is formulated to avoid genetically engineered ingredients and hundreds of products are verified by the Non-GMO Project.
Look for the Non-GMO Project Verified seal, which indicates the product has passed a third-party verification program indicating that a product has been produced according to best practices and procedures to avoid the intentional use of GMO ingredients.

In the News…..

Whole Foods dedicated to product-labeling effort
The natural-foods grocer has rolled out a series of standards regarding animal welfare, seafood sustainability and genetically modified ingredients — to name a few — that is unprecedented in scope for a major food retailer.

By Brian Gaar
Austin American-Statesman

Whole Foods Market believes consumers have the right to know how their food is produced. Here, store employee Ian Purdue scans non-GMO products for ordering at the store in downtown Austin, Texas.

AUSTIN, Texas — Over the past few years, Whole Foods Market has gotten much stricter about where its products come from.

The natural-foods grocer has rolled out a series of standards regarding animal welfare, seafood sustainability and genetically modified ingredients — to name a few — that is unprecedented in scope for a major food retailer.

Whole Foods officials say they’re staying true to their core values, while also reacting to changing times and concerns from their customers.

“I would represent these latest efforts as a further step in a direction we’ve been pursuing for 32 years,” said co-CEO Walter Robb. “Which is to provide some sort of clarity, some sort of definition, some sort of leadership in the marketplace.”

And while it’s impossible to predict the future, given Whole Foods’ prominence, it could influence the larger grocery industry as well.

While most national supermarket chains have their own sets of standards, Whole Foods’ appear to be the most stringent in the industry, analysts say.

“They’ve definitely taken it to a whole different level,” said Brian Yarbrough, an analyst for Edward Jones.

Since 2010, Whole Foods has unveiled the following standards:

• A color-coded rating program that measures the environmental impact of its wild-caught seafood. A green rating indicates the species is caught in environmentally friendly ways. The worst, a red rating, means the species is overfished. Red-rated species were eventually phased out by Whole Foods.

• An animal-welfare rating system for meats and other livestock products. The five-step rating system starts at step 1 (animals aren’t kept in cages, crates or crowded) to the highest tier, where animals spend their entire lives on the same farm.

• A rating system for household cleaning products, based on the environmental friendliness of ingredients. Red-rated products aren’t sold at Whole Foods. Products can’t receive an orange rating if they’ve been tested on animals or have artificial colors. The highest rating, green, is given to products with all natural ingredients and “no petroleum-derived ingredients.”

• And this year, the company announced that all products in its North American stores that contain genetically modified ingredients will be labeled as such by 2018.

Robb said the reasons for the new standards have been varied.

For instance, the meat standards came about partly because Whole Foods founder John Mackey was influenced by various books on animal welfare. Also, the label of “natural meat” was meaning less and less in the industry, Robb said.

As for seafood, the program was a reaction to concerns about overfishing and the environmental effects of certain fishing methods.

As for genetically modified ingredients, Whole Foods first endorsed labeling in 1992, Robb said. But it never got much traction until a new process for modifying alfalfa (which is used to feed livestock) popped up in the news. And a proposition in California to label genetically modified ingredients in products last year — while it ultimately failed — further brought it into the public consciousness.

“It’s up on the table now and people are talking about it,” Robb said. “It’s part of the national conversation.”

Yarbrough said the new standards are an evolution of the natural and organics industry that Whole Foods has built.

“Its just another way of building customer loyalty and building that faith in that, when they offer something they’re serious about this business,” he said. “And these are ways just for them to say, ‘Hey we’re really serious about it.’  ”

There is some evidence that isolated chains have followed suit in some areas, particularly in seafood sustainability, Yarbrough said.

And larger chains like Safeway and Kroger are now talking about animal welfare and seafood sustainability, he said.

Mary Mulry, who formerly headed natural foods for H-E-B and is now president of FoodWise, a consulting firm, said that consumer demand changes much more quickly than the industry.

“To walk back the food system is going to take a minimum of five years because of this process of change,” she said. “Awareness up until now has been minimal, and now everyone wants non-GMO. The food supply needs time to catch up to that.”

Gary Hirshberg, chairman of both Stonyfield Yogurt and the Just Label It campaign whose objective is mandated labeling of GMO foods in the U.S., also favored the move.

“From a sheer competitive point of view it’s a brilliant move because for so many retailers who are trying to compete with (Whole Foods) it says, ‘You’re going to have to do this, too, if you want to offer a parity proposition,’ ” Hirshberg said.

What does FDA regulate?

FDA regulates:
Foods
• safety of all food products 
(except for most meat and poultry products, which are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture)
• labeling
• bottled water
• food additives
• infant formulas
Dietary Supplements
Human Drugs
• product approvals
• OTC and prescription drug labeling
• drug manufacturing standards
Vaccines, Blood Products, and Other Biologics
• product and manufacturing establishment licensing
• safety of the nation’s blood supply
• research to establish product standards and develop improved testing methods
Medical Devices
• from simple items like tongue depressors, to complex technologies such as heart pacemakers
• premarket approval of new devices
• manufacturing and performance standards
• tracking reports of device malfunctioning and serious adverse reactions
Electronic Products
• products that give off radiation, such as microwave ovens and X-ray equipment
• radiation safety performance standards for microwave ovens, television receivers, diagnostic
• x-ray equipment, cabinet x-ray systems (such as baggage x-rays at airports), laser products,
• ultrasonic therapy equipment, mercury vapor lamps, and sunlamps
• accrediting and inspecting mammography facilities
Cosmetics
• safety
• labeling
Veterinary Products
• livestock feeds
• pet foods
• veterinary drugs and devices
• veterinary biologics not regulated by USDA are considered new animal drugs
Tobacco Products

Source: FDA Web Site

Compliance labeling requirements can present themselves to businesses in many forms. Most commonly these are from rigorous customer requirements or regulatory mandates. Regardless of the source, when faced with implementing a compliance labeling system, businesses need a complete solution that meets all of their needs.

Compliance in the news!

March 2013

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States on Friday sought to address a long-running trade dispute by proposing stricter rules for labeling meat, but its proposal quickly drew criticism from the Canadian government, which said the plan falls short and vowed to continue fighting it.
The meat labeling rules at the center of the dispute aim to help consumers identify the country that produced the beef, pork, chicken and lamb sold in U.S. grocery stores.
The United States has until May 23 to redesign its country-of-origin rules to satisfy a World Trade Organization ruling. Canada and Mexico successfully argued the 2008 labeling law discriminated against their livestock and meat exports.
In a statement late on Friday, Canadian Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said his government was “extremely disappointed” with the U.S. proposal.
“We do not believe that the proposed changes will bring the United States into compliance with its WTO obligations,” Ritz said.
“The proposed changes will increase the discrimination against exports of cattle and hogs from Canada and increase damages to Canadian industry. Our government will consider all options, including retaliatory measures, should the U.S. not achieve compliance by May 23, 2013, as mandated by the WTO.”
Country of origin labels, referred to as COOL, became mandatory in March 2009 after years of debate. Some U.S. farm and consumer groups said the labels would help shoppers make informed decisions, but meat packers and large livestock groups termed the labels a costly paperwork headache.
The Obama administration said it would comply with the trade ruling by requiring labels on muscle cuts, such as steaks and pork chops, to spell out where the animal was born, raised and slaughtered. All the meat in a package would have to come from the same source.
The American Meat Institute objected to that solution. Patrick Boyle, head of the trade group, said the proposal would generate additional costs.
“Only the government could take a costly, cumbersome rule like mandatory country-of-origin labeling and make it worse even as it claims to ‘fix it,’” he said.
The administration estimated the cost of compliance at $33 million a year for the 7,181 processors and retailers who would apply the new, more detailed labels.
“These changes will improve the overall operation of the program and also bring the current mandatory COOL requirements into compliance with U.S. international trade obligations,” U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a statement.
Under the proposed rule, the mingling of muscle cuts from different sources in the same package would not be allowed. Commingling would be allowed for ground meats, however.
In a 41-page proposal, the government provided examples of how the new rule would work. Chicken breasts from birds grown and slaughtered in America would be labeled “Born, Raised and Slaughtered in the United States” instead of the current “Product of the U.S.”
Roasts from feeder cattle born in Canada but raised and slaughtered in America would be labeled “Born in Canada, Raised and Slaughtered in the United States” rather than “Product of the United States and Canada.”
The Agriculture Department said it would accept comment on the proposal until April 11.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Department of Agriculture is facing a backlash from small livestock producers and others over its move to tighten meat-labeling regulations, which would force them to separate animals based on where they were born, raised and slaughtered.
The step is being billed as a way to bring the U.S. into compliance with World Trade Organization agreements, but there are a growing number in the industry who argue it will alienate the country’s trading partners and force small American meat farms out of business.
“Only the government could take a costly, cumbersome rule like mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) and make it worse even as it claims to ‘fix it,’’ said American Meat Institute President J. Patrick Boyle.
Boyle believes the proposed rule will make the current requirements even more expensive, onerous and disruptive.
The Department of Agriculture recently proposed the new rule for labeling muscle cuts of meat. That means beef, veal, lamb, pork, goat and chicken — which are now labeled as simply a product of one country or more — will have to include additional details including where each animal was born, raised and slaughtered.
The new labeling regulations would force thousands of meat processors and retailers to change the way they label products. The USDA estimates the initial cost would range between $17 million and $48 million.
The USDA’s Agriculture Marketing Service began working on a rule change after the U.S. partially lost a WTO appeal in 2012. “The USDA expects that these changes will improve the overall operation of the program and also bring the current mandatory (country of origin labeling) requirements into compliance with the U.S. international trade obligations,” USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a statement.
The National Farmers Union praised the rule change as an “excellent response.”
“By requiring further clarity in labels and stronger record-keeping, the set of rules released are a win-win for farmers, ranchers and consumers,” NFU President Roger Johnson said.
But not everyone agrees, including officials on the northern side of the border with whom the U.S. does considerable business.
“The proposed changes will increase the discrimination against exports of cattle and hogs from Canada and increase damages to Canadian industry,” Canada’s Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said in a statement.
Many U.S. meat-packing plants, especially those near the U.S.-Canada border, have stopped accepting Canadian livestock or bought less due to the increased costs of segregating animals by domestic and foreign origin.
U.S. companies that have been big buyers of Canadian animals and would be the most affected by the rule change are Tyson Foods, Cargill Inc. and Smithfield Foods.
The United States has until May 23 to redesign its country-of-origin rules to satisfy the WTO ruling. The USDA is encouraging public feedback and has a section of their site dedicated to hearing what the public says. After the comment period for the proposed rule closes on April 11, the USDA will review all comments before proceeding with a final rule.
Both Canada and Mexico successfully argued the 2008 labeling law discriminated against their livestock and meat exports. The Obama administration said it would comply with the trade ruling.
In a statement late Friday, Canadian Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said his government was “extremely disappointed” with the U.S. proposal.
“We do not believe that the proposed changes will bring the United States into compliance with its WTO obligations,” Ritz said.
Country of origin labels, referred to as COOL, became mandatory in March 2009 after years of debate. Some U.S. farm and consumer groups said the labels would help shoppers make informed decisions, but meat packers and livestock groups termed the labels a costly paperwork headache.