FDA Defines Whole Grains

By Laura Moncur @ 5:00 pm — Filed under:

So many companies are jumping on the “Whole Grain” bandwagon that the FDA has drafted a guidance for what companies are allowed to call whole grain.

“The Food and Drug Administration has issued draft guidance on what the term ‘whole grain’ may include. The FDA document clarifies that the agency considers ‘whole grain’ to include cereal grains that consist of the intact, ground, cracked or flaked fruit of the grains whose principal components—the starchy endosperm, germ and bran—are present in the same relative proportions as they exist in the intact grain.”

I’m glad that the FDA is setting up guidelines to protect us from companies that are trying to profit off the obsession with whole grains instead of actually making products that are made with them. Now, if the label says “whole grain” it better mean something or they’ll have the FDA breathing down their neck.

Via: Consumer Health Digest, February 21, 2006


One Response to “FDA Defines Whole Grains”

  1. Eh... not so much Says:

    Your faith in the FDA is kind of sweet. Check out this review of Marion Nestle’s (no relation) essential book FOOD POLITICS: http://www.vegparadise.com/vegreading52.html

    Here’s part: “Nestle reveals how the dietary supplement companies, a small part of the food industry, have convinced the public and Congress that their products do not need to be regulated like foods and drugs. She focuses on the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994 that she says, “DSHEA gave the industry everything it wanted and then some; it deregulated dietary supplements and undermined the FDA’s regulatory authority over supplements and conventional foods as well.” Following the enactment of this law, consumers could never be certain that the information they were reading on labels is accurate.

    “Unlike drug companies that have to prove their products are safe, supplement manufacturers are not held to the same standards. DSHEA gave the responsibility of proving the products were unsafe to the FDA who would need to prove the danger before the products could be removed from the marketplace. The removal could only be accomplished after the FDA received approval from four levels of bureaucracy. The cumbersome process led to few removals.

    “Both supplement manufacturers and food companies achieved another victory in 1997 with the FDA Modification Act (FDAMA). Provisions in the law said that the FDA had to authorize nutrient-content and health claims for foods if those claims were supported by an authoritative statement currently in effect published by a U.S. government scientific body or the National Academy of Sciences. If the FDA did not respond in 120 days, the manufacturers’ claims would automatically prevail. During that four-month period the FDA would have to issue a regulation prohibiting the use of the product or file a lawsuit. “

Leave a Reply


Powered by WordPress
(c) 2004-2017 Starling Fitness / Michael and Laura Moncur