FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION'S FOOD LABELING REGULATION: ITS EFFECT ON SMALL BUSINESS

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1978

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPECIAL SMALL BUSINESS PROBLEMS

OF THE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2361, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marty Russo (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RUSSO

Mr. Russo. This morning, the subcommittee concludes its hearings on the effect of FDA's labeling regulation on small independent bakeries. Our concern for the small baker must be stressed over and over again. Why? In the 1930's this Nation had over 10,000 independent bakeries. In 1964 less than 5,000 were in business. Today, that number is less than 1,000. In northern California and also in Los Angeles, only one independent baker remains in each market. In huge Hudson County, Ñ.J., there are only three small bakers left. Just a few years ago, there were over 25. It is not difficult to see the handwriting on the wall.

Small bakers have complained to us that, as written, the effect of 21 CFR 101.4, the FDA full disclosure labeling regulation, will be to put several more nails in the small bakers' coffin. This subcommittee agrees with that conclusion. Some exemptions are needed, and that is why we are here today. FDA officials have told us that they have received enormous consumer pressure on this regulation. As a result, I asked them for a list of all consumer groups who had contacted them and or attended various meetings on this matter. I then sent a letter to all the groups, with the exception of the two headquartered in California. Any consumer representatives who are not here today have until March 20 to file comments on this issue. Since they were all notified last month, I will assume if no comments are received, they have no problem with the exemptions being sought. I might add that Mr. Robert Pyle, the executive director of the Independent Bakers Association, called all the invited groups and offered to answer questions on the petitions. It is my understanding that he had several long discussions.

(175)

The president of IBA, Mr. William G. Botty, told us last July concerning the regulation:

None of us in the baking industry can argue with the intent of this order, to disclose fully and completely the ingredients of our products *** the economic implications are disturbing and damaging, particularly for the independent baker *

Documentation was given to us which showed that just to switch over originally would cost each small baker in the neighborhood of $45,000 that's a lot of bakery goods.

From what I have seen and heard, the bakers are very reasonable people. They are not, I repeat, not, objecting to the main goalstelling people what they are consuming. Their problem is the best way to do it.

What are they seeking?

One, an exemption from order of predominance below 2 percent of total weight. This exemption would reduce the number of labels for a 1-pound loaf of enriched white bread from 34 to 2 or 3.

Two, an exemption for natural catastrophes, mechanical irregularities, and new product innovation. Without this, a small baker caught in a flood, snowstorm, et cetera, would have to close operation and lose his shelf space. Small bakers have been responsible for all recent major innovations in the baking of bread. No longer will there by any innovation under the regulation as written.

Three, an exemption to permit parenthetic listing of nutritive sweeteners and enrichment factors.

The first witness today is Representative Charles Whalen from Ohio.

TESTIMONY OF HON. CHARLES W. WHALEN, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Mr. WHALEN. Mr. Chairman, I commend you and your subcommittee for these series of hearings emphasizing consumer concern.

I wish to discuss the critical issue of food labeling, especially in relation to the Food and Drug Administration (21 CFR 101.4) requiring that ingredients of all bakery products be listed on the label by full chemical name.

For several months, my staff and I have been researching the need for more complete disclosure and labeling of ingredients in food products. Today, I wish to share with you some of our findings.

To help us acquire this information, several newspapers around the country ran articles describing my activities in the area of food labeling. As a result, we have received a substantial number of letters from concerned citizens, clearly indicating the need for more specific ingredient disclosure.

One of the most helpful papers was the Chicago Tribune. Thus, as might be expected, many letters came from the chairman's own district.

At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that I am sympathetic to the problems of the baking industry.

I understand that changing markets and weather conditions, as well as other variables, cause bakers to make adjustments from time to time in their formulations.

Consequently, I understand the industry's desire not to be required to list minor-less than 2 percent-ingredients in strict order of predominance, since that order may change frequently.

It is my belief that a food label should identify all of the product's ingredients. As I will explain in just a moment, this is extremely important to persons with allergies, medical or religious dietary restrictions, or to those who simply are interested in knowing what they are consuming.

Nevertheless, if a given substance constitutes less than 2 percent of a given item, it seems to me that the exact amount is not needed on the label.

Even without order of predominance below 2 percent, it will be a great step forward if we can assure that consumers will be given exact information about the ingredients of the bakery products they eat-including colorings, flavorings, and preservatives.

In relating my observations concerning the labeling of certain types of ingredients, I wish first to discuss the ingredient listing of fats and oils. At the July 13 hearing of this subcommittee, the president of the Independent Bakers Association, Mr. William G. Botty, wondered if the consumer benefitted by the FDA requirement that the general terms, "vegetable oil," or "shortening," may be used only if followed by the names of the specific oils or fats used.

The vice president of the Quality Bakers of America, a cooperative, Dr. Simon S. Jackel, in reference to the requirement to declaring the origin of shortening, stated: "The consumer knows what this is. I do not think anyone would be misled by the word shortening."

After citing the example of soy bean oil used as shortening, he continued, "I do not know whether the consumer may have been better off just knowing it was shortening."

I strongly disagree with the implications inherent in these expressions. I believe many consumers want to know the specific oil or shortening used in a particular food product. More than a third of the letters I received were written by people allergic to corn, soybeans, or nuts. They were distressed to find the term "vegetable oil" continually listed on the label, as they had no way of knowing what type of oil was used.

Many avoided the product because of fears of becoming severely ill. I wish to quote from some of the letters I received.

Miss Irene Peterson of Homewood, Ill, wrote:

I read all labels carefully before I purchase anything and where they are not specific never buy the product. I am allergic to any nut product, i.e. peanut oil, coconut oil, palm oil, et cetera, as well as chocolate and some spices.

Not to do so would subject me to 3 days of a violent migraine headache, and believe me nothing is worth that. Since most manufactured products today contain oil of some kind, it seems to me that the consumer is entitled to know exactly what oil, so that he can protect himself. Did you know that a new lemonade mix which advertises "that flavor like real lemon" uses coconut oil? As does mushroom soup, white and wheat breads, most bakery frostings; I think I know them all by now. Even that lovely dark rye bread served in restaurants owes its dark, deceiving color to chocolate.

Mr. E. Frankly, of Galesburg, Ill., noted:

My granddaughter almost died before we found she was allergic to corn products. It is of the utmost importance that she avoid this ingredient in any food. We have sent many letters to food companies to ascertain whether the shortening or sweetener, etc. contained corn. This pertains to about everything: Cereals, canned goods, cookies, crackers. .

Not just those with allergy problems wish to see more specific labeling of fats and oils; there are many with other medical problems as well. Mrs. John Detloff of Park Ridge, Ill., observed:

I am on a low cholesterol diet, and my count just went up again. I had been "fooled" by the words "vegetable oil" on certain pretzel packages and sugar wafers and other products. Recently the pretzel and sugar cookie labels have been defining "vegetable oils" as partially hydrogenated vegetable shortening (soybean and/or cottonseed and/or palm oil). Palm oil and coconut oil are two oils that should not be consumed by people with high cholesterol. I am hoping now that I have found out about the pretzels and cookies having coconut and/or palm oil in them, my count will go down.

There are also those people who wish to avoid certain animal fats for religious or dietary reasons. Jews, Moslems, and vegetarians will not buy a product if they suspect the "shortening" might be lard. Therefore, it actually may be to the bakeries' advantage to specify on the label the type of shortening used.

Here is another example: Mrs. William W. Vanderkolk of Flossmar, Ill., wrote:

Our main problem is undoubtedly one you have had many letters aboutcholesterol. We simply do not take a chance on any product containing "vegetable oil" or "vegetable shortening." Specific labeling may turn off a few sales, but a great many more are being turned off because of being unspecific.

Second, Mr. Chairman, I wish to comment on the identification of the specific types of sugars used in food processing. Dr. Simon S. Jackel, vice president of the Quality Bakers of America Cooperative, Inc., told this panel:

Every individual type of sugar that is present now must be present on the new label. Is the consumer's best interest served? I do not know. The word "sugar” in many regards seems to have adequately served.

In response to Dr. Jackel's statement, I must note that there are many whose health and well-being depend on the proper labeling of sweeteners. I cite two examples.

A couple from Houston, Tex., wrote me about their daughter.

Tiffany, who is 31⁄2 years old, has several diagnosed food allergies, two of which are corn and cottonseed. Corn is the most difficult substance to avoid due to its ubiquitous nature. Corn can be included in an ingredients list in any number of ways: Not at all, or as corn syrup, corn sweetener, corn starch, dextrose, glucose, or modified food starch (just to list a few). Ingestion of an allergen can cause any or all of the following reactions: "Behavioral aberrations, sleeplessness, depression, persistent temper fits, nervousness. You can see that we must take great care to keep her away from her "problem foods."

Mr. and Mrs. J. Michael Young wrote:

** Consider what two or three consecutive sleepless nights due to your child's screaming fits would do to you (especially if you later determine that the fits are due to the ingestion of a substance you are striving to eliminate from your child's diet, only to be undone by false or incomplete labeling.

Rosemarie Crane Vita from Chicago, Ill., related:

My son has a severe allergy to corn and all of its by-products. He was hospitalized for eleven days because of excruciating abdominal pain, dizziness and mental confusion. I soon realized that corn and its by-products are in hundreds of products. This in itself would not be difficult to control if products would be specifically labeled as to all their ingredients. Instead, they have general terms such as "sweeteners, spices, and coloring added," leaving my son and millions of other Americans free to be continually ill.