President Donald Trump on May 23 unveiled a budget for fiscal year 2018 (FY18) that would reduce expenditures for food-safety programs at FDA, drawing criticism from consumer groups who doubted Congress would support the White House’s plan.

“It’s incredibly disappointing and irresponsible," said Cristina Stella, a staff attorney with the nonprofit Center for Food Safety, commenting in a brief phone interview on Trump’s budget for FDA. “Food safety … is a core responsibility of FDA, and defunding its food-safety efforts sends the exact wrong message to the agency about what its priorities should be, and it doesn’t reflect what Congress has prioritized in statutes like the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA)."

Trump’s budget includes US$1.3 billion for food safety across FDA programs—a reduction of $83 million from funding appropriated in the FY17 continuing resolution, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) disclosed in a summary of FDA’s budget.

“In FY 2018, FDA will continue its most critical public health and safety activities, including outbreak response, implementation of Food Safety Modernization Act regulations, and ensuring that foods are safe and properly labeled," HHS announced.

Added the agency: “FDA will make targeted reductions to the food safety program, including reducing staff levels through attrition. FDA will continue support for food-safety research, cosmetics safety, partnerships with academic institutes, and international capacity building at reduced levels."

Jim O’Hara, director of Health Promotion Policy with the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), described Trump’s budget as a “slap in the face of Americans." “I mean basic protections and safeguards for our health and safety are being cut left and right," he said in a phone interview.

At the level of funding provided in Trump’s budget, FDA can’t adequately provide food-safety protections, respond to outbreaks and offer industry technical assistance on compliance with new preventative controls under FSMA, indicated O’Hara, a former HHS official who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health.

What’s more, he noted the FY18 reduction to FDA’s food-safety budget is even greater than reflected in HHS’ budget tables. In recently funding the government for the remainder of FY17, Congress provided a $35 million increase for FDA’s food safety program, O’Hara said. HHS’ FY17 figures, however, only reflect funding under a continuing resolution that ended April 28, 2017.

“In essence, what they’re [Trump administration] also doing is taking away that new money that Congress just appropriated," O’Hara said.

Trump’s budget earmarks a total of $5.1 billion for FDA, an increase of $456 million or 10% above the funding provided by Congress in the FY17 continuing resolution. While the budget reflects an increase of $1.3 billion in user fees, it curtails FDA’s budget authority by $854 million, HHS disclosed.

“With the proposals in this budget, the burden on American taxpayers will be even lower—a little over 1 cent per American per day," HHS declared in its summary of FDA’s budget.

However, consumer groups proclaimed the increase in FDA user fees isn’t viable due to opposition from Congress, exacerbating the proposed cuts to FDA’s budget authority coming from taxpayer dollars. It’s up to Congress—and its appropriations committees—to review Trump’s budget and ultimately decide whether to adopt it in part or in full.

“We are especially concerned because Congress has made clear that these additional user fees will not be adopted," said Troy Zimmerman, president of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA (Alliance), a multi-stakeholder advocacy group, in a press release criticizing Trump’s budget. “Thus, the administration has not proposed a viable pathway for the agency to avoid a 31% cut in FDA’s BA [budget authority] appropriation."

O’Hara of CSPI echoed the Alliance’s observations: “When you look at the actual budget authority number, it’s even worse for FDA because there’s not going to be $1 billion in new user fees."

In presenting FDA’s budget to Congress’ appropriations committees, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., acknowledged decreases in the agency’s budget authority, but he said the reductions are “targeted to certain areas where better tools and policies will allow us to do more with less, while preserving core mission activities."

Consumer groups are nonetheless worried that Trump’s budget will force FDA to make hard decisions.

“We are concerned that should the FDA, as a consequence of this proposed budget shift, become significantly underfunded, the agency will have to choose among important public health priorities," said Kristin Stephenson, vice president of the Alliance. “Beyond the needed investment in FDA’s core functions, sufficient funding is necessary to spur innovation and provide critical oversight initiatives for drugs, biologics, and food."

The clean label movement is translating into changes across the entire industry, with global sales for clean label food and beverage products projected to soar to US$180 billion by 2020, according to Euromonitor. This sector is poised for continued growth due to ongoing development of a greater range of food and beverage products free from additives, allergens, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), dairy, meat and other ingredients that don’t sacrifice quality, texture or taste.

Download this infographic to learn more about three key trends—allergen free, gluten free and dairy free—leading growth in the free-from sector.

For more information on the free-from food and beverage market, visit:

• Free-From Claims digital journal
• USDA to Publish Study on GMO-Labeling Standard
• Less is More: Sugar Reduction, Less Sodium & Low-FODMAPS in Food, Beverage

FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW AND DOWNLOAD TODAY!

The clean label movement is translating into changes across the entire industry, with global sales for clean label food and beverage products projected to soar to US$180 billion by 2020, according to Euromonitor. This sector is poised for continued growth due to ongoing development of a greater range of food and beverage products free from additives, allergens, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), dairy, meat and other ingredients that don’t sacrifice quality, texture or taste.

Download this infographic to learn more about three key trends—allergen free, gluten free and dairy free—leading growth in the free-from sector.

For more information on the free-from food and beverage market, visit:

Free-From Claims digital journal

USDA to Publish Study on GMO-Labeling Standard

Less is More: Sugar Reduction, Less Sodium & Low-FODMAPS in Food, Beverage

No longer relegated to consumers dealing with food allergies and sensitivities, products with free-from label claims have become big business as mainstream society increasingly seeks cleaner ingredients. A 2015 survey revealed approximately 90 percent of global consumers reported thinking about food ingredients, as well as the healthfulness of their diet. From gluten, dairy, grains and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to artificial colors, flavors and preservatives, limiting and omitting certain ingredients is becoming the new norm.

Table of Contents

• Viewpoint: Making a Case for Free From
  by Judie Bizzozero
• Free-From Claims: Moving From No to Yes
  by Judie Bizzozero
• On-Label Certification Claims Increase Consumer Appeal
  by Katie Das
• Free-From Bakery Offers More Than the Baseline
  by Melissa Kvidhal
• Case Study: Canyon Bakehouse
• Case Study: Natures Bakery

Takeaways for Your Business

• Global sales of clean label food and beverage products are projected to reach US$180 billion by 2020.
• Bakery is a trending category, with sales of gluten-free bread rising 66 percent from 2013 to 2015.
• Some of the most common certifications focus on organic, non-GMO, gluten-free and animal welfare.

USDA has until the Summer 2018 to adopt a standard governing the mandatory disclosure of bioengineered foods. But the law directs that USDA first identifies through a study “potential technological challenges that may impact whether consumers would have access to the bioengineering disclosure through electronic or digital disclosure methods."

In July 2016, then-President Barack Obama signed into law the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. The law requires labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods, but the standard that USDA must adopt is a flexible one—permitting a disclosure through a text, symbol, or electronic or digital link.

Some critics of the GE-labeling law have expressed concern that it could discriminate against low-income Americans who may not have access to technology like smartphones. Per the law, USDA’s study must examine, among other things, whether consumers’ access to the disclosure standard would be affected by the availability of wireless cellular or Internet networks.

Last year in a request for proposals, USDA disclosed it expected the selected vendor to meet the following expectations in designing and conducting the study:

• Meeting the requirements as stated in the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard;
• Providing an understanding of consumer and retailer needs with respect to using electronic or digital means to access bioengineered food disclosures, including underserved consumers and rural retailers;
• Including opportunities for public participation; and
• Informing the agency about the feasibility of solutions to challenges identified for retailer or consumer access for technical implementation and cost.

Peter Wood, a spokesman with USDA’s Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS), said via email the study is being conducted by Deloitte Consulting and is expected to be delivered by the statutory deadline of July 28, 2017.

Megan Doern, a spokesperson for Deloitte, said in an email she had no preliminary findings from the study to share. While she noted Deloitte doesn’t typically share client work, AMS’ Wood said the final study would be available to the public and published on the agency’s website.

Wood said a proposed rule will be published, and open for comment, possibly later in 2017.

According to a campaign in favor of GE labels—Just Label It—studies show more than 90% of consumers favor mandatory labeling of GE foods. But in reliance on the federal law, companies have plans to disclose the presence of bioengineered foods in various ways.

Last month, for example, Just Label It and Food Revolution Network urged Nestlé in a petition to disclose GE foods through on-package text. While Mars has pledged to use text in disclosing GE foods, Hershey’s has revealed it will use QR codes, which must be scanned with a smartphone, according to Just Label It.

While artificial sweeteners offer alternatives, the current demand for clean-label solutions has opened the door to more natural options. Stevia, honey, coconut sugar, agave syrup, raw sugar, brown rice syrup, brazzien, oat and yacon are among the ingredients gaining traction in the quest to satisfy consumer desire for increasingly natural sweeteners that dont compromise on taste. Takeaways include: *2016 research found consumers check sugar content on a label more often than calories or total fat. *More than half the population prefers foods without added sugars, up 33% compared to a decade ago. *Nearly 200 times sweeter than sugar, stevia is a go-to low-glycemic sweetener, especially in blends.

Consumers have become slightly obsessed with the “less is more" philosophy. Within the food and beverage industry, we see a demand for smaller portions—consumers are willing to pay the same or more for 7.5-ounce cans instead of 12-ounce cans of carbonated soft drinks (CSDs). Shorter ingredient statements also are viewed as superior, as products boast slogans like “just 5 ingredients". Many brands are even listing their ingredients right on the front of the package. (Suja, Kind, Blueprint, Temple Turmeric, Pressery, and Juice Served Here are just a few brands that come to mind). In addition to fewer ingredients on the label, there are other ways that we’re seeing “less" manifested in food and beverages.

Sugar Reduction

The emphasis on sugar reduction exists for two main reasons: the first is the prevalence of ailments like heart disease and diabetes. These diseases have strong links to obesity, which is often caused by diets high in sugar. The bold step by FDA to change the Nutrition Facts panel also has brought sugar reduction to the limelight.

Health concerns and better educated consumers are propelling the demand for sugar reduction across food and beverage categories. In turn, food product developers are looking to new ingredient technologies that allow them to maintain taste and texture while maintaining as clean of an ingredient statement as possible. Sugar reduction will be one of the top marketing claims prominently feature on products in the coming year—whether it’s through increases in sugar reduction percentages, or total grams of sugar called out more frequently.

Less Sodium

High blood pressure, stroke and coronary heart disease are just a few of the ailments associated with a high-sodium diet. According to a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) survey, more than 90% of Americans are eating much more than the 2,300 mg target set by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Current dietary guidelines recommend 2,300 mg of sodium, and FDA acknowledges that the average sodium intake, 3,400 mg, is heavily impacted by the consumption of processed foods.

To make Americans healthier, the agency is currently asking for volunteers to reformulate with sodium reduction in mind. Since many food and beverage products take a year or two to make it to market, their goal is to make an impact in sodium reduction in the food and beverage industry at the end of 10 years. Because of this FDA initiative, which will bring more attention to sodium, I expect to see more consumers become impassioned about sodium reduction in the next three to five years.

Low-FODMAP

FODMAPs are not a specific ingredient, but rather a group of compounds consumers are looking to reduce in their diet. They have had a captive audience of those suffering from severe gastrointestinal diseases for the past decade; however, the brand FODMAPPED for you! that was launched at this year’s Expo West is helping this diet gain more mainstream attention with their soups and sauces. FODMAP is an acronym that stands for several types of carbohydrates and sugar alcohols - those that are fermentable, oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols. Since the gut houses 70% of the immune system, avoiding these compounds (which are linked to digestive disorders) can help relieve GI issues. Foods that are naturally low in FODMAPs include many fruits and vegetables such as kale, ginger, sweet potatoes, bananas and blueberries. Since consumers look to food as medicine, brands may benefit from calling out if their future products are low-FODMAP friendly.

The interesting dichotomy here is that while consumers want clean label products with fewer and simpler ingredients, they also are demanding more health benefits from their food and beverages than ever before. Consumers want shorter ingredient statements but also more protein, antioxidants, energy, vitamins, probiotics, fiber, etc. Analysts do not expect this demand for nutrient dense food to slow down any time soon. London-based TechNavio forecasts the global functional food and beverage market to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 7.8% through 2021.

I see this trend in the marketplace, as well as in the beverage development projects in our lab. Imbibe’s scientists are constantly working to deliver robust flavor, texture, mouthfeel and sweetness with cleaner and shorter ingredient statements.  I look forward to seeing (and tasting) how the industry at large continues to innovate and create solutions to deliver more with less. As always, I would love to hear your feedback and continue the conversation. I can be reached at [email protected].