Almost 100% Pure Meat

Well it's about time.  The government is finally putting its foot down and proposing that food companies be required to label meat products appropriately.  That is, any meat having added ingredients--like chicken broth, teriaki sauce, salt or water--should say exactly what it contains.  As you might expect, the proposed plan has meat industry execs fuming.

Most consumers are unaware of these practices and assume that all meat is just that--all meat.  But according to the USDA, about one-third of poultry, 15% of beef and 90% of pork may have added ingredients, which comes out to about 40% of all raw, whole cuts of meat.  The rule will not apply to ground beef, which will be allowed (and does) have added ingredients.

As it stands now, meat is only labeled as "enhanced" or that it contains "added solutions," which the government rightly believes might be misleading, or not understandable, to the average consumer.  Some of the labeling is also likely not visible.  If the rules are finalized, the label would now have to be part of the product title. An example of the new labels would be "chicken breast--40% added solution of water and teriyaki sauce," according to USDA.

A National Chicken Council spokesperson says that the industry is now split as some chicken contains added ingredients, while others don't.  For those that do add ingredients to poultry, the level of additives is generally 15-18% of the piece of meat.

Red meat producers initially objected to the proposed rules.  The American Meat Institute called it "wasteful" and "unnecessary" and said it would cause prices to go up for consumers.  But consumer groups have been lobbying for years to have the truth in labeling rule enacted, as they say some additives are unhealthy.

I'm sure that some of the additives used to 'beef' up meats is harmless, but why shouldn't the buying public know exactly what they are purchasing?  If you are going to buy food, don't you want to know exactly what's in it?  I do.  Let me make the decision as to what I want to put in my body.  Further, if I'm paying for a food item by the pound, why do I want to pay more for added water?  Duh!

I like this rule, and I hope it passes.  I pointed out the same in my book, The Six Keys to Optimal Health, regarding the "cage free" label, and I haven't been shy about my thoughts on the use of the term "natural" used on other food items.  Yes, buyer beware, but also make food companies disclose everything on a label including whether something is genetically modified.  I do not belong to the camp that wants to do away with these foods entirely, as I beleive they serve a purpose, but it should be our choice as to whether we want to buy them or not.

Fowl Use of 'Natural' Label

Natural or natural-like, which would you prefer?  More importantly, how should manufacturers be allowed to label their products if they are, say, pretty-much natural?  That is the question currently facing the chicken industry and U.S. government as chicken producers duke it out over use of the word "natural" in food labeling.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a policy of allowing the term "natural" to be applied to any product not flavored artificially or preserved with chemicals.  OK, so far so good...but wait...it doesn't have restrictions on chicken injected with water, salt or chicken broth, a common practice for many of the biggest chicken producers in the country.

Big chicken manufacturers like Tyson Foods and Pilgrim's Pride use such techniques to make the chicken juicier or more flavorful.  But other chicken producers like Perdue, the nation's third largest poultry producer after the aforementioned two, are crying fowl.  They believe the use of the term natural should not be applied if any ingredients are added, period.

"Our labels say natural or all natural only if there is nothing added," Perdue spokesman Luis Luna said. "Under no circumstances is it acceptable to label poultry that has been enhanced with water or broth or solutions as natural, or all natural."

Perdue has joined a group called the Truthful Labeling Coalition, which has hired a lobbyist and launched an advertising campaign.

Part of the issue for consumers is that some people have illnesses that are sensitive to salt, and therefore neglecting to label salt-injected poultry could be problematic.  Further, proponents for stricter regulations on food labeling feel that transparency is best to allow consumers to make best choices for them.

Representatives for the big-two chicken producers parry.  Gary Rhodes, spokesman for Pilgrim's Pride, said the company simply wants to offer its customers a choice.

"We offer both 100 percent natural enhanced and non-enhanced fresh chicken," Rhodes said. "It really depends on what the customer wants. It's all about choice."

Hmm....and now the government is getting involved (they actually do something useful?...sheesh, I was starting to get worried).  California Sen. Barbara Boxer has called a press conference for the USDA to "immediately prevent sodium injected chicken from using the 'natural' label and require all poultry producers to identify added ingredients in print large enough to ensure that consumers can make informed choices."

I have got to side with Sen. Boxer and the truth in labeling crowd.  It has been apparent to me for years that companies are simply jumping on the wellness bandwagon because it sells products (check out my great podcast on the subject).  Whether or not they actually sell healthy products seems incidental.  Tag it with "natural"--big market there; we'll sell a bundle.

I think it's important for consumers to keep their own eyes open.  Don't trust manufacturers to give you all the information you require.  For instance, bottled water companies have no restrictions preventing them from attaching pictures of mountain springs to their product even if the water comes from a basement tap.  And many companies use the term "natural" very loosely.  Sorry, but it's the consumer's responsibility to be on top of what's in a product because...it's your health.

Saying that, I do think regulations should be tighter on food labeling.  I have no problem with companies selling crap in the guise of food.  Just be straight in what your ingredients are so we can all know what kind of crap we are buying.  If that means restricting the use of the term natural, similarly to what they've done with the term "organic," then it seems fine by me.

Other than that, buyer beware.

Don't You Just Hate When Mom is Wrong?

Just another blow to conventional wisdom: A review of 30 published studies confirms it even further - vitamin C does nothing to fight the common cold. I know, I know, that's not what Mom said. Take plenty of vitamin C along with chicken soup and you'll beat that cold in no time. Also, don't go out with your hair wet or without a jacket, you might catch cold. Didn't mom tell you that one, too?

Well, I hate to be the one to discredit Mom, but researchers at the University of Helsinki, Finland looked at people who took high-doses of vitamin C and found it did very little to reduce their risk of catching a cold (so small as to be clinically useless). Furthermore, it did nothing to reduce the duration of a cold or its symptoms.

That doesn't mean vitamin C is useless, though. As I point out in my upcoming book - The Six Keys to Optimal Health - this nutrient is absolutely essential to achieving and maintaining great health. Vitamin C is a natural antioxidant, so it fights oxidizing free radicals, which can lead to aging and the development of many degenerative diseases, like cancer. It's also an important player in the formation of collagen, so...that means healthy skin and healthy blood vessels and healthy joints and healthy ligaments and on and on and on. I think that vitamin C is so important that I believe, to have truly optimal health, you need to supplement with 1,000 mg per day.

But don't feel badly for mom. She's right about the chicken soup thing. I guess one out of two ain't bad, now, is it?