K A S H R U T . C O M_©

January 9, 2025 from Emport LLC:

"The FDA has quietly streamlined the list of tree nuts considered major food allergens. Perhaps the biggest change: coconut is no longer considered a tree nut. This means coconut is no longer subject to mandatory allergen management protocols.

"The list of nuts removed from the list of tree nuts include: beech, butternut, chestnut, chinquapin, coconut, cola/kola, ginkgo, hickory, palm, pili, and shea.

"If your labeling currently has Contains statements including any of these nuts — they should be revised. The Contains statement is reserved only for major food allergens. It is still imperative that you list these nuts in the ingredient list, by their common or usual name.

"The current list of tree nuts which must still be handled as major food allergens — and included in any Contains statement — has been reduced to: Almond, Brazil Nut, Cashew, Filbert/Hazelnut, Macadamia Nut / Bush nut, Pecan, Pine Nut / Pinon Nut. Pistachio, Walnut (Black Walnut, California Walnut, English Walnut, Japanese Walnut/Heartnut, and Persian Walnut)

"Milk remains a major food allergen, but with an expanded definition. Previously only milk from cows required allergen protocols and labeling. Now, milk from domesticated cows, sheep, goats and other ruminants must all be labeled and managed as a major food allergen.

"Additionally, “animal-free” or “precision-fermented” casein and other products must also be labeled as milk.

"Similar to milk, egg remains a major food allergen. However, the definition of egg has expanded to include eggs from not just chickens, but chickens, ducks, geese, quail, and other fowl.

"As above, any protein derived from egg — including a prothttps://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-questions-and-answers-regarding-food-allergen-labeling-edition-5ein produced via fermentation — could trigger an allergic reaction and must be labeled and handled as an allergen.

FDA Guidance Information is here

January 15, 2025 from PBS:

"U.S. regulators on Wednesday banned the dye called Red 3 from the nation’s food supply, nearly 35 years after it was barred from cosmetics because of potential cancer risk.

"Food and Drug Administration officials granted a 2022 petition filed by two dozen food safety and health advocates, who urged the agency to revoke authorization for the substance that gives some candies, snack cakes and maraschino cherries a bright red hue.

"The agency said it was taking the action as a “matter of law” because some studies have found that the dye caused cancer in lab rats. Officials cited a statute known as the Delaney Clause, which requires FDA to ban any additive found to cause cancer in people or animals.

"The dye is known as erythrosine, FD&C Red No. 3 or Red 3. The ban removes it from the list of approved color additives in foods, dietary supplements and oral medicines, such as cough syrups. More than three decades ago, the FDA declined to authorize use of Red 3 in cosmetics and externally applied drugs because a study showed it caused cancer when eaten by rats.

"Food manufacturers will have until January 2027 to remove the dye from their products, while makers of ingested drugs have until January 2028 to do the same. Other countries still allow for certain uses of the dye, but imported foods must meet the new U.S. requirement.

"Red 3 is banned for food use in Europe, Australia and New Zealand except in certain kinds of cherries. The dye will be banned in California starting in January 2027, and lawmakers in Tennessee, Arkansas and Indiana have filed proposals to limit certain dyes, particularly from foods offered in public schools.

"Some food manufacturers have already reformulated products to remove Red 3. In its place they use beet juice; carmine, a dye made from insects; and pigments from foods such as purple sweet potato, radish and red cabbage, according to Sensient Food Colors, a St. Louis-based supplier of food colors and flavorings."

FDA notice is here

FDA Finalizes Action Levels for Lead in Processed, Packaged Food for Babies and Young Children

January 6, 2025 from Food Safety News:

"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a new final guidance for industry on the action levels for lead in processed food intended for babies and young children, reflecting the levels of lead at which the agency may consider the food to be adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDC). FDA will consider action levels when deciding whether to bring enforcement action in a particular case, and although industry is recommended to abide by action levels, guidance documents do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities.

"The final guidance covers packaged, processed foods that are marketed for babies and young children less than two years of age, including foods in jars, pouches, tubs, or boxes. These may include ready-to-eat (RTE) foods such as purees, as well as semi-prepared foods such as dry infant cereals. The action levels for processed foods described in the guidance are as follows:

• 10 parts per billion (ppb) for fruits, vegetables (excluding single-ingredient root vegetables), mixtures (including grain- and meat-based mixtures), yogurts, custards/puddings, and single-ingredient meats
• 20 ppb for single-ingredient root vegetables
• 20 ppb for dry infant cereals."

January 2, 2025 from Matzav.com:

"A U.S. appeals court ruled on Monday that the Orthodox Union is protected from a wage complaint lawsuit filed by a former mashgiach under the First Amendment’s ministerial exception.

"Yaakov Markel, a former inspector employed by the Orthodox Union to oversee grape production at two wineries, quit his position in 2018. He filed a lawsuit accusing the OU and his supervisor, Rabbi Nachum Rabinowitz, of withholding a promotion and overtime wages.

"The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the country’s largest, upheld a lower court ruling, which stated that a legal doctrine known as the ministerial exception, which bars lawsuits against religious organizations by workers with religious duties, applies to Markel’s case and therefore protects the OU from his claim.

"In the court’s majority opinion, judge Ryan Nelson wrote that “because only observant Orthodox Jews can serve as a mashgiach for the OU, and because they are necessary to carrying out OU’s religious mission of ensuring the wide availability of kosher food, a mashgiach is a minister for purposes of the ministerial exception.”

"'Failure to apply the ministerial exception to a mashgiach would denigrate the importance of keeping kosher to Orthodox Judaism,' he added.

"The Orthodox Union told JNS that it welcomes the ruling.

"Avrom Pollak, the president of Star-K, an Orthodox kosher certifier in Baltimore, told JNS that the court’s decision affirms the religious role of a mashgiach."

December 23, 2024 from IngredientsNetwork.com:

"Chile’s warning labelling and marketing rules for unhealthy foods led to “significant decreases” in purchases of food and drinks with high levels of sugar, salt and fat, according to a study published in the journal PLOS Medicine.

"The Chilean Law of Food Labelling and Advertising, implemented in three phases in 2016, 2018 and 2019, mandated front-of-pack warning labels on food and beverages, restricted food marketing to children, and banned the sales of products ‘high-in’ nutrients of concern – like sugar and saturated fats – in schools.

"Each phase brought increasingly strict nutrition thresholds, with a daytime marketing ban for unhealthy food ads on television, regardless of audience, coming into effect in phase 2 as well.

"In the study, the academics from Chile and the US compared data on purchases from 2,844 households from 1 July 2013 to 25 June 2019 to a ‘counterfactual scenario’ (hypothetical food purchases if the policies were not in place).

"After phase 2 they found purchases of foods high in nutrients of concern decreased: 36.8% in sugar; 23% in energy; 21.9% in sodium; and 15.7% in saturated fat. “The declines in ‘high in’ products purchased were partially offset by increased purchases from ‘not high-in’ products,” they wrote. “Still, the overall changes resulted in net declines in nutrients of concern purchase ranging from 8.3% to 20.2%.”

"The effects were “more pronounced” in phase 2. Also of note was the fact that in phase 1 the reductions seemed to be driven by a large immediate drop in the concerning nutrients – perhaps due to reformulation – whereas in the second phase there were “larger changes over time, possibly representing behavioural shifts”.

"Most would assume the responsibility for complying with front-of-pack labelling rules would be on manufacturers. But the study shows that supermarket supply chain power seems to work rather effectively."