The “Arsenic Prevention and Protection from Lead Exposure in Juice Act of 2012″ (or APPLE Juice Act), introduced by Representatives Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT),  would require the FDA to set limits on arsenic and lead in juice within two years.

Although safety standards are in place to limit these chemicals in tap and bottled water, no current thresholds exist for fruit juices which are often consumed by children.

As reported by Food Safety News, the bill was introduced “in response to a Consumer Reports investigation that found levels of arsenic and lead that exceeded the federal standards for drinking water in 10 percent of apple and grape juice samples tested.”

Chronic exposure at even very low levels to these chemicals can impact brain development in children and lead to other serious health conditions.

“This bill will go a long way toward protecting the public, especially children, from exposure to these toxins,” said Ami Gadhia, Senior Policy Counsel for Consumers Union.

The Consumer Reports investigative piece on arsenic and lead in juice was published in January 2012.   Read the full article here. 

You may have heard a lot recently about Washington D.C. and its ‘regulations’ – probably not much of it good.

Politicians and others have been talking about doing away with federal regulations, and the Senate is set to consider several bills that will make it a lot tougher for these rules be put in place. But if these bills pass, it will become almost impossible to adopt common sense consumer protections, and your health and safety will be at risk.

Essentially, regulations are how federal agencies carry out their responsibilities as directed by Congress. For instance, Congress may pass a law directing the Food and Drug Administration to take steps to make our produce safer, but these laws usually only set out broad goals.

To reach those goals, regulations – or rules – have to be written. In this instance, FDA will spell out the specific steps food producers need to take to keep our produce free from bacteria that can make us sick. Before being adopted, these rules undergo public review and comment, so anyone can weigh in.

While not all regulations work to protect consumers, there are many important rules that help keep our food, toys, and cars safe, that oversee our financial products, and that help keep our air clean.  Without these types of rules, the marketplace could be a virtual free-for-all when it comes to your safety and getting a fair deal:

• The Consumer Product Safety Commission makes sure children’s toys are tested for lead and other safety concerns before they reach store shelves and kids’ hands.
• USDA regulations make sure food processors and meat producers keep their facilities clean, so bugs like Salmonella and E. coli in chicken or beef don’t make us sick, or worse.
• Health insurance companies have to give you understandable information free of double-speak, so you can make better choices about your health coverage.
• The EPA monitors drinking water for the presence of toxic chemicals and sets limits on air pollution from industrial and commercial sources.

And important new rules are on the table. Among them: making sure medical devices like pacemakers and replacement hips are traceable so if there’s a recall patients can be easily notified, and allowing you to take your mobile phone or device with you when changing wireless companies, so you can shop for a better deal.

But late last year the House of Representatives passed three bills that would create enormous hurdles for federal agencies issuing regulations. And the Senate is slated to take them up soon.

Consumers Union, the public policy and advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, opposes these bills because they would undermine standards that keep our air and water clean, our food, drugs, cars, and other products safe, and our marketplace fair. To subject these rules to second-guessing would not only be wasteful; it could be damaging or even deadly. We urge consumers to join us as we work against these bills:

• The Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 3010, S. 1606) would require an agency adopt the least-costly rule, unless it can show both a compelling need to protect public health and safety and benefits that justify the additional costs. While this may sound good in theory, in reality a rule could only require a toy manufacturer to warn against a particular hazard, instead of designing the safety problem out of the toy in the first place.
• The REINS Act, Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny, (H.R. 10/S. 299) would force Congress to vote on all new rules having an annual economic impact of $100 million or more. Agencies could implement only those rules approved by both houses of Congress and signed by the President within an implausibly tight deadline of 70 legislative days. Rules that are not approved by then would be automatically rejected. Not only does Congress already have the ability to determine what regulations should look like when it passes a law, it also has the power to undo a rule that both chambers find objectionable. This bill also places an unrealistic burden on Congress to consider and vote on the 50-100 major rules agencies typically finalize each year.
• The Regulatory Flexibility Act (H.R. 527, S. 1938) would require all regulations that might conceivably have even an indirect impact on small businesses to undergo additional and unnecessary analyses. Virtually any action an agency proposes – even guidance designed to help a business comply with a rule – could be subject to a lengthy regulatory process. This bill could make it difficult for federal agencies to protect the public and respond to new safety hazards.

We will continue to keep you informed as we work to fight against these damaging measures, and hope you will join us in the battle for fair and commonsense marketplace rules.

Thousands of people have logged complaints of unsafe products on this website launched last year by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Reporting any hazardous products alerts government officials of potential problems. A search function lets you see if other people have had similar complaints, or to look up a product before purchasing it. The website also gives companies a chance to respond to your complaint.

Don’t let dangerous products go unreported.  Go to www.saferproducts.gov and write about your experience.  By reporting safety problems, you’ll help the CPSC identify dangerous products on the market and help other consumers make safer purchases.

GE salmon grow twice as large as wild salmon in half the time

With the FDA poised to approve genetically engineered (GE) salmon, California legislators are taking preemptive action to protect consumers from being blindsided when it hits the market.

The FDA has indicated that if the new GE salmon is approved, they do not plan to require labeling. A bill currently making its way through the California state legislature would mandate any GE fish sold in the state to be labeled so consumers can make an informed choices about the food they eat.

A 2008 poll by Consumer Reports found that 95% of people believe food from genetically engineered animals should be labeled. A 2010 Reuters poll corroborated these results, finding 93% of Americans believe these products should be labeled. With genetically engineered animals on the brink of entering our food supply for the first time, clearly consumers want to be able to know what they’re buying.

There are several reasons that labeling GE fish is a good idea. This new breed may have lower nutritional value than wild salmon, and may also increase the potential for allergic reactions. “It is essential to label a genetically engineered animal so that any unexpected effects will be recognized and consumer health protected,” says Michael Hansen, senior scientist with Consumers Union.

Furthermore, genetically engineered fish could pose a serious threat to wild salmon populations. GE salmon, which grow twice as large as wild salmon in half the time, may outcompete the wild fish or introduce new diseases.

Food companies and the biotech industry know that many buyers would avoid GE salmon. Without a label, consumers have no choice.

A critical vote this week will determine weather a bill to require labeling of GE fish lives or dies.  Californians: send a message to your Assemblymember now.

For more info:

What’s the Big Deal about Genetically Engineered Salmon?  (related post)

Genetically Altered Salmon Must Be Labeled, California Assembly Bill Says (LA Times)

Cephalosporins are used to treat human illnesses such as pneumonia and several kinds of infections.  In food animals, such as cattle, swine, chicken and turkeys, these drugs are often used for disease prevention purposes.  This kind of widespread, consistent use leads bacteria to become resistant to the drugs, and that resistance can be passed along to humans.

The FDA states that the purpose of the new ban is to “preserve the effectiveness of cephalosporin drugs for treating disease in humans. Prohibiting these uses is intended to reduce the risk of cephalosporin resistance in certain bacterial pathogens.”

The FDA is not completely prohibiting using these drugs for animals, but they will no longer be administered for ‘extra-label’ (unapproved) uses, which includes preventative purposes.    For example, according to one expert on superbugs, “The vast majority of the almost 9 billion broiler chickens raised in the US each year get a shot of a cephalosporin into their shells, to “reduce mortality” of newly hatched chicks. Under this order, that is an extra-label use and will be disallowed.”

This is a step in the right direction but, as the Des Moines Register points out, restrictions on this one class of antibiotics is just the tip of the iceberg of a much larger problem:

“Cephalosporins account for a very small portion of total farm use of antibiotics. About 29 million pounds of antibiotics were sold for use in food-producing animals in 2010. About 54,000 pounds of those drugs were cephalosporins.”

The FDA’s new restrictions go into effect on April 5, 2012.

The strain, Salmonella typhimurium, tested resistant to several classes of common antibiotics, which can further complicate treatment. In August, meat giant Cargill recalled 36 million pounds of ground turkey which was contaminated with Salmonella heidelberg, another antibiotic resistant strain of the pathogen, which was responsible for at least 129 illnesses and one death.

These kinds of outbreaks, says Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), are exactly why the federal government must act to curb the overuse of antibiotics in farm animals.

“If an animal is sick, it should be treated. But the routine, regular dosing of antibiotics to healthy animals is absolutely contributing to the rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria. It would be like a mother sprinkling antibiotics on their son or daughter’s Cheerios every morning to prevent them from getting sick. It’s ridiculous. We must act now or we will continue to see more and more cases like this as we diminish the effectiveness of life-saving medications.”

Rep. Slaughter has introduced legislation, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, that would phase out the routine dosing of livestock with antibiotics in order to protect their effectiveness for treating human illnesses.

Consider the impact, says ABC News, if we all spent just $64 of our holiday gift budgets on products made here in the US: the creation of 200,000 new jobs. (Talk about a Christmas present?)

In fact, they’ve even compiled lists and maps to help you find the Made in America products in your own state.

As an added safety bonus, toys made in the U.S. have a better track record than many imports, as we note on the Consumer Reports guide to buying safe toys.

But be ever vigilant for patriotic packaging that might make you believe a product is made here when it’s not (like this one that comes with a “USA Quality Guarantee” – and is made in China!).  Look for a label that explicitly says “Made in the USA” – otherwise it probably isn’t.

The NRDC filed a petition with the FDA in 2008 requesting a ban on BPA in any packaging or container that comes into contact with food.  When the petition went unanswered, the organization filed a subsequent lawsuit in 2010 requesting a response.   The settlement this week requires a response from the agency by the end of March.

Dr. Sarah Janssen, senior scientist at the NRDC, said in the group’s press release:

“Every day, millions of American consumers are exposed to this dangerous chemical, commonly used in packaging for canned foods, beverages and even baby formula. The FDA has an obligation to protect us from toxic food additives. As thousands of studies have already shown, BPA is a dangerous chemical that has no place in the food chain. Its use in food and beverage containers needs to be banned.”

To date, eleven states have passed laws banning BPA from products such as baby bottles, sippy cups, and sports water bottles. Consumers Union supports NRDC’s efforts and a national ban on BPA in all food and beverage packaging.

No federal standards currently exist for levels of arsenic or lead in fruit juice, although they do for bottled and drinking water.  Consumer Reports labs conducted tests on 88 samples of apple and grape juice, and found that 10% of juices sampled had total arsenic levels that exceeded federal drinking-water standards of 10 parts per billion (ppb) and 25 percent of the samples had lead levels higher than the FDA’s bottled water limit of 5 ppb.

Studies show that continual exposure to arsenic and lead, even at low levels, can result in serious long-term health problems, particularly for the smaller, developing bodies of children.  Pediatricians currently recommend limiting the amount of juice that children drink to prevent tooth decay and weight gain, but the Consumer Reports findings present “all the more reason to stick with those nutrition-based limits,” according to the article.

So what’s a parent to do?  First of all, stick with these American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines:

• No juice for infants under 6 months
• Children up to six years old should consume no more than four to six ounces per day.
• Older children should drink no more than eight to 12 ounces a day.

Parents may also want to dilute juice with distilled or purified water.

The FDA recently stated that they’re considering setting guidelines for arsenic levels in juice.  Consumer Reports strongly encourages this, and recommends limits of 3ppb for arsenic and a 5 ppb limit for lead.

Take a minute to tell the FDA that you support setting limits on these toxins in juice immediately.

After reading the piece, one gentleman took it upon himself to alert us when he spotted a questionably-labeled package of fish at his local Trader Joe’s.    We decided to investigate, which resulted in this blog published on our sister website, the Consumerist.

Turns out there’s no such fish as ‘white ruffy’ – but some sneaky packaging might make you think there is!  Read the full story here.  And if you ever see ‘white roughy’ or ‘white ruffy’ on a menu, it’s time to call someone’s bluff.