1. Home
  2. Author: Randy Spoon

All posts by: Randy Spoon

About Randy Spoon

Kim Kardashian Says She Puts Sea Moss In Her Smoothies. Should You?

02/04/2020  – But turns out, sea moss has been used as an ingredient for centuries in coastal countries such as Ireland, Spain, and Jamaica, where one popular soft drink contains the seaweed, plus condensed milk, vanilla, and nutmeg. It’s been harvested for its medicinal and nutritional properties in Ireland at least since the 1800s during the Irish Potato Famine, according to the International Food Additives Council. 

View the article on Refinery29

Determining the safety of microbial cultures for consumption by humans and animals


Published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

In July 2015, the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology published “Determining the safety of microbial cultures for consumption by humans and animals.” This paper, which was recently made open source, serves as a valuable asset to ingredient manufacturers operating within the microbial cultures space. In providing a comprehensive approach for determining the safety of microbial cultures that lack an established history of safe use for their intended new applications, this resource serves as a decision tree for the safety assessment of microbial strains to be used in food applications. Access and download the full paper below.

Abstract

Fermented foods and feeds have been consumed for millennia, and microorganisms isolated from traditional fermentations have been used as probiotics. There is interest in developing new microbial cultures for these uses, but to date safety evaluation procedures have only been discussed in general terms. We propose a comprehensive approach for determining the safety of microbial cultures that lack an established history of safe use for their intended new applications. Three scenarios are considered: (1) substantially increased exposure to a culture that has an established record of safety in a more limited application; (2) a new strain without a history of safe use that was isolated from a food or feed that has a history of safe use; and (3) a new strain isolated from a non-food or non-feed source. Our safety evaluation process is based on scientific procedures and is in the form of a decision tree composed of 13 questions. Our decision tree for determining the safety of microbial cultures for consumption by humans or animals is modeled on previous decision trees that are used worldwide to evaluate the safety of microbial enzymes for use in human food or animal feed.

Download

Determining the safety of microbial cultures for consumption by humans and animals


Published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology

In July 2015, the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology published “Determining the safety of microbial cultures for consumption by humans and animals.” This paper, which was recently made open source, serves as a valuable asset to ingredient manufacturers operating within the microbial cultures space. In providing a comprehensive approach for determining the safety of microbial cultures that lack an established history of safe use for their intended new applications, this resource serves as a decision tree for the safety assessment of microbial strains to be used in food applications. Access and download the full paper below.

Abstract

Fermented foods and feeds have been consumed for millennia, and microorganisms isolated from traditional fermentations have been used as probiotics. There is interest in developing new microbial cultures for these uses, but to date safety evaluation procedures have only been discussed in general terms. We propose a comprehensive approach for determining the safety of microbial cultures that lack an established history of safe use for their intended new applications. Three scenarios are considered: (1) substantially increased exposure to a culture that has an established record of safety in a more limited application; (2) a new strain without a history of safe use that was isolated from a food or feed that has a history of safe use; and (3) a new strain isolated from a non-food or non-feed source. Our safety evaluation process is based on scientific procedures and is in the form of a decision tree composed of 13 questions. Our decision tree for determining the safety of microbial cultures for consumption by humans or animals is modeled on previous decision trees that are used worldwide to evaluate the safety of microbial enzymes for use in human food or animal feed.

Download

IFAC Statement on Brexit

On June 23, 2016 the United Kingdom (UK) voted to leave the European Union (EU), a decision commonly referred to as “Brexit.” The UK was set to leave the EU on March 29, 2019; however, the withdrawal agreement received a series of rejections by the UK Parliament and Brexit has been delayed. The debate has been over whether to implement a “soft” Brexit, representing a close trading relationship and regulatory and legal alignment between the UK and the EU, or a “hard” Brexit, which would include no agreement over the future trade relationship and allow the UK to create independent trade deals with other countries.

The food industry is global, and most food and beverage companies import and export products to and from the EU. The same is true for food additive and food ingredient companies. While the general consensus within the food industry is that the UK will have to follow EU regulations regarding food additives, there is concern that the UK will not be able to inform the regulations the same way they did pre-Brexit. The UK would have the option to develop its own new regulations, which would help support the UK government’s autonomy; however, this could produce additional barriers for innovation and market entry. In the case of food additive manufacturers wanting to produce new additives or develop new uses for existing additives, they would likely need to apply for authorization both in the EU and the UK.

The International Food Additives Council (IFAC) is closely monitoring Brexit developments, the outcome of which may have widespread impacts on its member companies that operate and/or conduct trade in the UK and the EU. As a global association representing manufacturers and end-users of food additives, IFAC is particularly concerned about the potential implications of the various scenarios (e.g., deal, no deal, delayed exit) on the food industry. IFAC encourages that all parties align on the clear need for – and shared benefits of – limited trade disruptions between the EU and UK, and rules that support the continued growth and success of their respective markets. In addition, as IFAC strongly supports global harmonization of food additive standards and specifications to help cultivate a more responsible food environment and promote global trade, IFAC is hopeful that food regulations in the UK will not deviate far from the EU.

Below are several resources for companies concerned about Brexit’s impact on the food and beverage industry:

  • The UK government has developed an online tool for preparing your business or organization for the UK leaving the EU.
  • The European Commission has also issued a list of guidance notes and links which address issues of concern to the food industry, including trade, health and food safety, chemicals regulations, competition, and trademarks.
  • For advice from the UK government on food label changes in a no deal Brexit, click here.
  • The EU has published Guidance on labeling requirements titled “Notice to Stakeholders – Withdrawal of the United Kingdome and EU Food Law and EU Rules on Quality Schemes”
  • For information on trading and labeling organic food in a no deal Brexit, click here.
  • For rules around Bioengineered (BE) organisms (or “GMOs”) in a no deal Brexit, click here.
  • The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) of the UK has published guidance for data protection if there is no Brexit deal. The ICO has also provided a checklist highlighting six steps to take to prepare for data protection compliance if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

Dietary Exposures to Common Emulsifiers and Their Impact on the Gut Microbiota: Is There a Cause for Concern?

Scientific Review Supports Safety of Emulsifiers in Relation to the Human Microbiome

In 2007, the National Institutes of Health’s Human Microbiome Project dramatically increased interest in the human gut microbiota, also called the microbiome. Consumers, health professionals and scientists want to know more about the relationship between the microbiome and our health, including how foods and beverages may have an influence on the function and makeup of the microbiome. A review, “Dietary Exposures to Common Emulsifiers and Their Impact on the Gut Microbiota: Is There a Cause for Concern?,”1 published in the journal Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, provided an update on the science related to how select food ingredients known as emulsifiers, affect the microbiome. The study’s authors found that this category of food ingredients does not pose any negative effect on the microbiome. 

What is the microbiome?

The microbiome is the collection of trillions of microorganisms, mainly found in the gastrointestinal tract. Developedat birth, the microbiome rapidly develops over the first three years and continues to change and adapt throughout our lives, changing in response to various factors including diet. While over 1000 species of microorganismshave been identified in the microbiome, there are about 160 within the gut of any one individual. The microbiome plays a key role in human digestion and metabolism by contributing enzymes not produced by the body to help break down polysaccharides and polyphenols, and synthesize vitamins. 

Diet and the Microbiome

Research shows that the gut microbiome changes in response to diet, both in the short- and long-term.  But what do these changes mean? Overall, studies indicate that the composition and function of the microbiome is modified by diet. However, everyone responds differently to various dietary components and that includes our microbiomes. Therefore, in order to properly assess the effects of individual ingredients or components of a diet on the microbiome, it is critical that the diets of subjects participating in such studies are carefully controlled, and subjects’ usual, or baseline, diets are well documented and understood.  

What are emulsifiers?

Given the recent questions around diet and the microbiome, specifically around emulsifiers, Vo et al.1conducted a literature search to review the existing scientific evidence on how emulsifiers impact the microbiome.  The ingredients in this review include:

  • Carboxymethyl cellulose
  • Polysorbate 80
  • Gum Arabic
  • Carrageenan
  • Arabinogalactan

These emulsifiers are often used in foods for the purposes of achieving preferred flavors or to improve texture, stability and shelf life. Without emulsifiers, packaged foods such as salad dressings, chocolate bars and ice cream would not exist. The ubiquity of these ingredients in the food supply has drawn increased questioning related to health-outcomes that are often associated with dietary patterns, including type 1 and type 2 diabetes, metabolic disease and irritable bowel disease (IBD). Changes in the microbiome, regarding structure and function have been observed in populations with metabolic syndrome, which includes disease states such as obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. 

So what does the science tell us?

In short, there is limited evidence indicating adverse effects of emulsifiers on the microbiome. This is due to a number of issues including: 

  • There are inconsistencies in the methodologies used to analyze the microbiome between studies. The differing techniques used from study to study affect the bacteria that are identified and at what abundance.  Thus, there are inconsistent findings and interpretations that follow. 
  • Anatomical and physiological differences in the gastrointestinal tract of rodents and humans makes it difficult to extrapolate findings in rodents to humans. 
  • Test diets provided to laboratory animals can be controlled in animal studies while the human diet cannot be adequately controlled.
  • There is no alignment on what type of changes in the microbiome qualify as being adverse. 

The researchers of this review suggest that an established and agreed upon range of different microorganisms within the microbiome would help to provide a reference for future studies in the interpretation and clinical relevance of changes observed in response to various dietary components and ingredients.  Given this, the researchers state that they have found that consumption of foods with emulsifiers do not pose any safety concerns and that their history of safe use is not brought into question by the existing scientific literature. 

International Food Additives Council Releases New Guide for Industry Compliance with FDA Food Safety Modernization Act

The International Food Additives Council (IFAC) is pleased to release the anticipated revision of the IFAC Quality Systems, Food Safety and Good Manufacturing Practices Guide for Food Additives and GRAS Substances. The IFAC “GMP Guide” represents voluntary guidance, developed by IFAC members, and is intended to help suppliers and users of food additives and GRAS substances comply with the U.S. FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), specifically Title 21, Part 117 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

The original IFAC GMP Guide was developed to address FSMA, which was enacted in 2011 under the Obama Administration and shifted the focus of food safety practices in the United States from reacting to food safety incidents after they occurred to proactively preventing them from happening. FSMA applies to all foods sold in the U.S., including processed and ready-to-eat foods, produce, food additives and GRAS substances, and animal food/feed. While FSMA signaled a paradigm shift in food safety management practices, its requirements for appropriate Quality Systems, Preventive Controls and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) remain consistent with Current Good Manufacturing Practice (CGMP) requirements followed by industry that existed prior to FSMA under 21 CFR Part 110.  As a result of FSMA, FDA updated 21 CFR Part 110 and promulgated 21 CFR Part 117. To incorporate these new and updated regulations, IFAC revised its GMP Guide to incorporate both FSMA and 21 CFR Part 117 CGMP principles.

Recognizing that not all food manufacturing processes and facilities are alike or possess the same risk profiles, IFAC developed the GMP Guide to assist its industry partners in understanding and applying the Quality Systems, food safety principles, GMPs, and Quality Assurance Principles in accordance with FSMA, as well as preceding CGMP requirements. IFAC believes that this Guide fills a critical gap, providing a resource focused on the manufacture and use of food additives while taking into consideration the types of processes and facilities that are often very different than those used in the production of finished foods. The comprehensive 44-page guide, complete with a glossary of definitions explained by industry, has been aligned with 21 CFR Part 117, and thereby presents a mechanism for companies to apply current federal food safety requirements. The Guide translates these requirements to address areas that may be unique to food additives, and is meant to be easily applied and customized based on the manufacturing facility’s distinct attributes.

In addition, IFAC has updated its GMP Audit Guide, which reflects the IFAC GMP Guide and related FSMA principles. The Audit Guide may be used alone or in tandem with the GMP Guide to help firms prepare for FSMA inspections and facility audits. For companies seeking to gain additional safety certifications, the Audit Guide may also be used as an appropriate alternative to third party food safety standards which are often difficult to apply to food additive processes and facilities.

IFAC does not assert its Guides to be Federal Guidance Documents, nor does it claim that they bear legal or enforcement authority. Rather, the Guides represent what IFAC members* believe are best practices to comply with federal law and maximize safety. Therefore, in some cases IFAC provides recommendations which go beyond what is legally required by FSMA. IFAC’s recommendations are indicated by use of the word “should” throughout the Guide, whereas practices or activities required by U.S. law are indicated by “shall” or “must”. IFAC worked with its member companies and other industry stakeholders, representing a diverse range of expertise in the manufacture of food additives and GRAS substances, to ensure the Guide does not include false or misleading statements. The Guide can be found here.  

As a regulatory agency, FDA is responsible for regulating and enforcing the highest level of safety within the food supply. However, it is up to industry to comply with government requirements and meet consumer expectations for the highest level of safety and quality of the foods, beverages, and ingredients used and consumed every day. IFAC is proud to provide its GMP and Audit Guides and help industry fulfill its commitment to consumer expectations, thus reinforcing America’s trust in the food supply and assisting the broader food industry in consistently executing best practices.

*IFAC is a global association representing manufacturers of food ingredients, including food additives and GRAS substances. IFAC members include experienced personnel from food safety and quality teams of small, medium, and large companies that produce and use ingredients in foods, beverages, and dietary supplements.  Drawing on the expertise of its membership, IFAC strives for global harmonization of food ingredient standards and specifications.

IFAC Statement on U.S. Interagency Strategy to Reduce Food Waste

On April 9, 2019, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a new interagency strategy for reducing food waste, titled the Winning on Reducing Food Waste FY 2019-2020 Federal Interagency Strategy. This modernized approach to addressing food waste prioritizes six key action areas, from improving consumer education and food labeling, to the agencies working both collaboratively and independently to help reduce food loss and waste in the United States. The new interagency strategy comes after the three federal agencies signed a formal agreement in 2018, titled the Winning on Reducing Food Waste Initiative. One year later, the April 2019 announcement signifies a key step towards the U.S. government’s overall goal of reducing food waste and loss by 50 percent by 2030. The International Food Additives Council (IFAC) endorses the U.S. government’s interagency approach to reducing food waste and is committed to contributing in this endeavor.

The United States discards 30-40 percent of all available food and food comprises the largest type of waste in daily American trash. According to the EPA’s sustainable management guide, 2015 saw more than 39 million tons of food waste created and estimates food waste comprised 22 percent of all discarded municipal solid waste that same year. These numbers reflect the pressing need for streamlined regulations, simpler solutions and consistent communications to reduce food waste, enhance consumer understanding of food labels and food safety, and empower all stakeholders to take an active role in addressing this problem. 

IFAC acknowledges that the responsibility to minimize food waste does not rest solely with the one group – be it the food industry, regulators, policy makers or consumers. We all eat, and it is critical that we all work together as global citizens to reduce food waste and ensure an adequate food supply for the predicted worldwide population of 10 billion people in 2050. Therefore, IFAC is especially supportive of the Federal Interagency Strategy’s fifth priority area: “Collaborate with Private Industry to Reduce Food Loss and Waste Across the Supply Chain.” While the U.S. strategy is domestic in nature, the issue of food waste is not, and IFAC looks forward to leveraging its international membership and global reach to support this key initiative. In addition, as IFAC members range from producers to end-users of food ingredients, IFAC supports food waste reduction efforts at all levels of the supply chain.

There are many ways the food industry can help prevent food waste. In addition to implementing changes to product packaging and labeling, companies can also consider product formulations and how individual ingredients may be used to protect products from spoiling. Many food additives not only help enhance the visual and textural appeal of products, but may also help extend the shelf life of foods and beverages ranging from fresh produce to more finished products such as soups and salad dressings. Safely preserving food and extending shelf life is a critical factor in reducing the likelihood that foods will be discarded.

IFAC strongly supports The Winning on Reducing Food Waste FY 2019-2020 Federal Interagency Strategy and looks forward to engaging with industry, government and consumers to help solve the total issue of food waste.

A ‘How to’ Guide to The Ingredient List

There has been quite a lot of discussion in the United States (U.S.) surrounding the new Nutrition Facts Label (NFL), especially given the January 1, 2020 deadline for large companies to update their products’ packaging. However, perhaps just as important as being able to read the nutrients provided by a food or beverage is understanding all of the ingredients inside.

The U.S. government requires disclosure of all ingredients contained in packaged foods and beverages via a highly-regulated ingredient list placed below the NFL. So, while some may complain that they “don’t know what is in their food,” when it comes to packaged foods and beverages, the problem is rarely that the ingredients aren’t listed. Rather, the issue lies in a lack of understanding of how to read and interpret the ingredient list.

Currently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains a database of over 3,000 different food ingredients, known as the “Substances Added to Food” inventory. That is a ton of ingredients to keep track of, even for the most savvy food connoisseur! These ingredients are added to improve the taste, texture, appearance of foods and beverages. Importantly, they can also improve safety, for example indirect additives that prevent food packaging components from leaching into the product, as well as enhance the nutritional value of products.

While we’ve previously tackled how best to assess a label for nutrients like calories, carbohydrates, fat and sodium, the ingredient list can also offer great insight into a product – if you know how to read it. Here are a few tips and tricks to help you interpret the next ingredient you find yourself curious about.

Starting from the Top

Food manufacturers must display every ingredient used in a product on the ingredients list. Ingredients are listed in descending order, starting with the most prevalent ingredient in the food, and ending with the least prevalent. For example, an ingredients list for popcorn might read “Corn, Vegetable Oil, Salt.” Corn is used in the greatest amount and therefore is listed first, followed by oil and then salt, which is used in the least amount. Another point to consider is that some ingredients may be grouped together, such as “natural flavors” and “artificial colors.”

Understanding Ingredients

When in doubt, look it up! While a long, Latin-derived word can look intimidating, taking a few seconds to research the ingredient will most likely simplify it. As noted by the FDA “Every food we eat – whether a just-picked strawberry or a homemade cookie – is made up of chemical compounds that determine flavor, color, texture and nutrient value.” So while the word ascorbic acid may look odd, it is simply the scientific term for vitamin C.

Putting Length into Context

The length of an ingredient list doesn’t necessarily determine the healthfulness of foods! The FDA requires that the ingredient list includes all sub-ingredients that are used to make a single ingredient. For example, baking powder would show up on an ingredient list as: baking powder (sodium bicarbonate, sodium aluminum sulfate, cornstarch). Imagine how long an ingredient list for a whole grain baked item would be! By law, nutrient-dense products with a combination of ingredients and flavors are obligated to include long, scientifically-accurate ingredient lists.

Fortified or Enriched

On grain products such as cereals, breads, or corn grits, you may find a collection of ingredients following the phrase “Vitamins & Minerals.” These ingredients are referred to in the nutrition world as “micronutrients” and include vitamins A, C, D and E, magnesium, zinc, niacin and calcium. Micronutrients have been added to foods since 1924, when the mineral iodine was added to salt to prevent goiter. Following the success of iodized salt, the FDA instituted several other fortification mandates meant to enhance the nutrition of foods and prevent widespread malnutrition. One of FDA’s most successful fortification requirements has been the addition of folic acid to grain and cereal products since 1998, which has been shown to protect against instances of birth defects to the brain, spine and spinal cord. This mandate led to a 25% reduction in neural tube defects between 1995 – 1996 and 1999 – 2000 (CDC).

Have more questions about U.S. food labels? Learn more about the new Nutrition Facts Label here!

One man’s trash: Practical Innovation targets upcycled food waste to drive sustainable NPD

03/18/2019 – Food waste has been an industry concern for some time and there are a multitude of ingredients available that manufacturers can use to both extend shelf-life and fulfill consumer expectations for quality, safety and experience. The European Commission (EC) recently released a study investigating the relationship between date marking on food labels and food waste and according to the International Food Additives Council chief, Robert Rankin, ingredients are often the unsung hero.

View the article on Food Ingredients First

IFAC Statement Regarding the Study “High-Phosphate Diet Induces Exercise Intolerance and Impairs Fatty Acid Metabolism in Mice”

In January 2019, an article titled “High-Phosphate Diet Induces Exercise Intolerance and Impairs Fatty Acid Metabolism in Mice” was published in the journal Circulation. The authors suggest dietary phosphorus is over consumed and found a link between higher phosphate consumption to exercise intolerance and less time spent exercising on a treadmill using mice models. As these findings were based on observational studies in mice and the researchers’ opinion of what “excess” means, they should be interpreted cautiously. Studies linking mice models to human health outcomes have many limitations, and multiple factors contribute to a person’s desire and ability to exercise, many of which should not be attributed to a slightly higher phosphate intake and the duration spent exercising.

The study was conducted to determine the association between inorganic phosphate, a food additive, with physical activity in humans. The authors suggest phosphate is “used in excess” as a preservative and flavor enhancer in foods, citing between 40 and 70 percent of common selling grocery items as containing phosphate additives. The researchers go on to report up to 25 percent of American adults have three or four times higher intakes of the recommended daily allowance of phosphorus.

In order to determine the “direct effects” of dietary phosphate on exercise capacity and other biochemical markers, a treadmill exercise test was conducted on mice fed either a normal phosphate diet (n=15-18; 0.6% of diet) or a high phosphate diet (n=4-7; 2.0% of diet) for 12 weeks. The researchers found that a high phosphate diet appeared to decrease time spent on a treadmill as compared to the normal phosphate diet. However, there was no effect on body weight and there were no significant differences in the biochemical markers of mice fed either diet. The researchers also studied phosphate levels in human blood/serum, and found higher phosphate levels appeared to “decrease physical activity independently of renal [kidney] function and body mass index.” As it relates to oxidation in skeletal muscle during exercise, the researchers made a determination on muscle strength in the human study after only one single bout of muscle contraction; daily physical activity ability was not determined. The researchers conclude the high phosphate diet in mice induces disruption in skeletal muscle metabolism and the study results may have a broader public health implication to the general population.

IFAC has numerous concerns with this study. First, it should be noted that many authoritative scientific and regulatory bodies have not provided tolerable upper intake levels for dietary phosphorus due to inadequate scientific evidence. The outcome of a 2017 research review indicated “available data were not sufficient to establish a Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for phosphorus.” Therefore, in this study, the authors’ perception of “excess” intake should not be used to draw conclusions about excessive intake. IFAC believes another fault in the study includes a small sample size of mice which was only 4-7 mice in the high phosphate diet group and 15-18 mice in the normal phosphate diet group. The researchers attempt to correlate a higher phosphorus diet in only 4-7 mice with decreased time spent doing physical activity is not supported by strong evidence and, in this case, might simply be a matter of desire or interest of the mice participants. Regarding physical activity in humans, IFAC and the researchers can agree with findings from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that 80% of American adults do not meet the recommended “physical activity guidelines for aerobic and muscle strengthening.” However, IFAC believes multiple factors contribute to muscle strength, endurance, and overall exercise ability and no single dietary mineral can be attributed to physical stamina—especially if most people are not normally physically active and in the study “daily physical activity ability was not determined.”