About 40 percent of US and UK consumers have increased their consumption of what they consider healthy foods;70 percent of consumers want to know and understand the ingredients list on food products;Consumers from several countries recorded double-digit responses for “real ingredients” as the factor most influencing their purchasing decisions for food and beverage products. The responses ranged from 12.6 percent in Spain to 17.4 percent in the UK, 18.3 percent in Australia, 21 percent in the US and 23 percent in China.Based on that type of data, it’s no surprise that the share of food and beverage products launched globally with some sort of “better for you” claim increased from 42 percent in 2012 to 49 percent in 2017. Further, global product launches with ethical claims – such as animal welfare, humane raising, environmentally responsible, ethical packaging – rose at a 44 percent compound annual growth rate from 2010 to 2016, Williams said.Williams was quick to point out that while some of these claims lack scientific backing or regulatory definitions, consumers still want them. “Perception is reality: if consumers think it, even if it’s wrong, that’s their perception, and you have to make products that appeal to them.”It found that 73 percent of consumers read the ingredients list and 66 percent read the nutritional panel. In addition, 94 percent said they would be loyal to product manufacturers that adopt “complete transparency,” while 99 percent said they would pay more for transparent products.
Bell and Evans said it broke ground on a 560,000-square-foot chicken-harvesting facility that will allow the Fredericksburg, Pa.-based processor to expand its organic product offerings as it also moves to a slower-growth chicken breed.
With the problems in animal agriculture today, veterinarians may be the most important advocate for the beef industry and food animal production. "My job is to work with retailers of the beef industry, and tell them what a good job we do as an industry, how hard we work, how safe our food is, and how much we care about our animals and neighbors," Thomson said to producers. "Based on what the retailer asks for, I go out into the country and say to producers, 'Here are some things our customers want us to do in the future.'"Sustainability has been the buzz word in the agriculture business for the last several years. Thomson sees animal welfare, environmental stewardship, and food safety and security as all important parts of sustainability. "The one thing people forget, is if it will cost more to be sustainable? Without profitability, there is no sustainability. Define what you want to be sustainable," he said.
Health officials have issued a warning about potentially tainted raw milk that was sold in four states. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is advising anyone who consumed Udder Milk products to seek medical attention. According to the CDC, people who drank raw milk from the company may have been infected with a rare germ called Brucella abortus RB51, which can cause an illness called brucellosis.Officials say a New Jersey woman became sick with an antibiotic-resistant strain of the bacteria after consuming Udder Milk earlier this year.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today provided local food service professionals the flexibility they need to serve wholesome, nutritious, and tasty meals in schools across the nation. The new School Meal Flexibility Rule, published today, makes targeted changes to standards for meals provided under USDA’s National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs, and asks customers to share their thoughts on those changes with the Department.The interim final rule published today gives schools the option to serve low-fat (1 percent) flavored milk. Currently, schools are permitted to serve low-fat and non-fat unflavored milk as well as non-fat flavored milk. The rule also would provide this milk flexibility to the Special Milk Program and Child and Adult Care Food Program operators serving children ages 6 and older. States will also be allowed to grant exemptions to schools experiencing hardship in obtaining whole grain-rich products acceptable to students during School Year (SY) 2018-2019.Schools and industry also need more time to reduce sodium levels in school meals, Perdue said. So instead of further restricting sodium levels for SY 2018-2019, schools that meet the current – “Target 1” – limit will be considered compliant with USDA’s sodium requirements. Perdue again lauded the efforts of school food professionals in serving healthful, appealing meals and underscored USDA’s commitment to helping them overcome remaining challenges they face in meeting the nutrition standards.
new technique developed by researchers at the University of British Columbia can identify unwanted animal products in ground beef within minutes, the school announced in a news release. Using a laser-equipped spectrometer and statistical analysis, food science students led by professor Xiaonan Lu determined with 99 percent accuracy if ground beef samples contained other animal parts, and could say with 80 percent accuracy which animal parts were used and in what concentration.The new method can do so in less than 5 minutes.
Low-income consumers in Canada are well educated on nutritious food choices but are unable to afford the best food for their families because of financial pressures, according to a new report. The results of the study conducted by researchers at the University of Toronto counter conventional opinions that low-income consumers make poor food choices because they don’t know what foods are healthy. The data indicate that money dictates the decisions made by these consumers rather than a lack of knowledge about which foods are healthier for their families. When asked what they would buy if they had more money, respondents cited more and better-quality fruits, vegetables and meat rather than processed foods, the report noted.
What would happen if U.S. farmers stopped producing animals for food and Americans went vegan? Noting some have called for a move toward veganism to address concerns about U.S. health, eating habits and climate change, researchers at USDA’s Agricultural Research Service and Virginia Tech set out to explore the nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from U.S. agriculture.They found that a complete shift away from food animal production would present major challenges to meeting America's nutritional needs. With no meat, milk, eggs, fish or cheese in the American diet, the U.S. population would not receive enough of several different essential dietary nutrients from the foods they eat, according to the study results. Eliminating food animals would increase deficiencies in calcium, vitamins A and B12 and some important fatty acids. Fatty acids help to reduce cardiovascular disease and improve cognitive function and vision in infants. Animal food products are the only available, non-supplemental sources of some fatty acids and vitamin B12.A plant-only diet also would require individuals to eat more food and more daily calories to meet their nutritional needs because the available foods from plants are not as nutrient dense as foods from animals, the researchers said.
Udder Milk’s product has been linked to one illness. A North Jersey woman tested positive for Brucella RB51 infection but has recovered. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department’s Public Health and Food Protection Program, with the New Jersey Department of Agriculture, are investigating to determine the suppliers.
I was stunned to hear a mother express guilt about being “unable to afford meat that doesn’t have antibiotics in it.”I wondered how many parents who are trying to provide the best for their children have the misconception that their kids are consuming large doses of antibiotics because they can’t afford meat labeled “antibiotic free.”One look at common questions being asked on Internet search engines tells us this misconception is distressingly common: “Are there antibiotics in my meat?” “Why is it bad to eat meat with antibiotics?”There is one undeniable fact that should bring comfort to parents trying to provide safe, healthy meals for their families on a budget: multiple safeguards are in place to ensure the meat we buy in the grocery store – regardless of the label – is safe.Before an antibiotic is ever approved for use in animals, it must go through a rigorous Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval process. The process begins with testing to determine how long an antibiotic remains in an animal’s body, which is called the withdrawal period. Withdrawal periods are required by law. Animals cannot be processed until the drug, in this case the antibiotic, has cleared from their bodies.Additional studies are conducted to assess the potential for the development of resistant bacteria and to examine whether public health could be affected by using the antibiotic in animals.On top of that, food companies and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) routinely test meat during processing to confirm there are no unsafe antibiotic residues. This is true for all meat. With or without an “antibiotic free” label.So, parents take heart. Whether the meat you buy is labeled “antibiotic free” or not, its safety is confirmed by extensive studies, mandatory withdrawal periods, and routine testing to ensure there are no unsafe antibiotic residues.