On Thursday, Wrigley announced that it would be pulling its controversial new “Alert Energy” gum — each stick of which contains as much caffeine as half a cup of coffee — from the market out of “respect” for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the agency investigates the public health risks associated with pumping caffeine into everyday foods and drink. With energy products and other potentially harmful foods high in sugar, salt, and fat increasingly under public scrutiny, it’s worth asking: why can’t the FDA do more to crack down on these additives? And why does it take so long to get food makers to comply with regulations when they do?

Answering that requires a brief foray into the history of the American food safety regimen. 1958 was a seminal year for food oversight, seeing the passage of the Food Additives Amendment to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the creation of the Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) List. Under the Food Additives Amendment, “any substance intentionally added to food is a food additive and is subject to pre-market approval by FDA unless the use of the substance is generally recognized as safe (GRAS).” So if a substance is on the GRAS exemption list, then food makers can use it to their heart’s content without proving its safety, unless specifically prevented from doing so by an FDA regulation.

The GRAS list contains over 700 items, many which have been there since 1958 — and taking an item off the GRAS list once it’s on is difficult. GRAS items are specifically defined as substances that are “generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of [their] intended use.” Consequently, revoking a substance’s GRAS designation requires considerable expert consensus that an item is not safe for its intended use.

One might ask how salts, sugars, trans fats, and caffeine don’t fit that bill considering widespread evidence that those substances increase the risk of heart disease, stroke, obesity, hypertension, and diabetes, thereby harming public wellness and increasing U.S. health care costs. In fact, government watchdogs and medical groups such as the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the American Medical Association (AMA) have issued several calls for the FDA to crack down on those very ingredients.

Read more

Almost a third of managed U.S. honey bees died last winter, according to a new survey of commercial and home beekeepers. That’s more than triple the losses of 5 to 10 percent that used to be normal for beekeepers before 2005 — and double the 15 percent that beekeepers say is acceptable for their businesses to continue unharmed.

The finding marks a disturbing trend among honey bees: each winter since 2006, the Bee Informed Partnership has documented losses of 21.9 to 36 percent of U.S. hives. In some states, the die offs have been even more drastic — this year, beekeepers in Montana and South Dakota reported losses of 40 to 50 percent of their hives, and in Maryland, nearly 60 percent of managed bees didn’t make it through the winter.

For some, this year’s losses have been unprecedented, as one beekeeper told the New York Times:

They looked so healthy last spring,” said Bill Dahle, 50, who owns Big Sky Honey in Fairview, Mont. “We were so proud of them. Then, about the first of September, they started to fall on their face, to die like crazy. We’ve been doing this 30 years, and we’ve never experienced this kind of loss before.

The large-scale die offs — attributed in part to a phenomenon known as Colony Collapse Disorder — have gained widespread attention in the recent months. That’s partly because if the deaths continue, they could have a major impact on the nation’s food system.

The USDA estimates that one-third of all food and beverages consumed in the U.S. are dependent on pollination, with crops such as almonds and squash relying most heavily on bees to produce seeds. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that 71 percent of the world’s most widely-consumed crops are pollinated by bees — and these crops are worth at least $207 billion. But this year, bee losses caused farmers to come extremely close to a pollination crisis, leading to warnings about impending food insecurity.

In April, the European Union implemented a two-year ban on three neonicotinoids, a class of widely-used pesticides that’s been linked in laboratory studies to bee death. The pesticides, which are the most common poisonous chemicals in honey bee environments, attack the bees’ nervous systems, confusing them and impairing their ability to find and gather food. Despite the fact that at least 30 laboratory studies have linked neonicotinoids to bee die offs, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency recently released a report that linked Colony Collapse Disorder to a variety of factors and called for more research on neonicotinoids.

Unsurprisingly, the multibillion-dollar chemical industry has fought against a ban on neonicotinoids, rejecting the scientific evidence that the pesticides are contributing to bee deaths. In March, a group of beekeepers and major consumer and environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club, filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to protect honey bees and other pollinators from neonicotinoids. The EPA is planning on issuing a review of the pesticides and their effect on bees, but it won’t be completed until 2018.

Earlier this month, Wrigley became the latest company to launch a line of caffeinated gum with its new “Alert Energy” product, which contains about half as much caffeine as a cup of coffee in each stick. But now, in the wake of the Food and Drug Administration’s concern about the product’s potential effect on children, the company is pulling Alert Energy from the shelves.

The FDA recently met with Wrigley to express its concerns over the new gum’s safety for children. Although there are other types of caffeinated gum on the market, they’re all sold by companies that solely specialize in energy products — so, even though Wrigley promised it wouldn’t be targeting its new gum toward kids, the FDA worried it might not be as clear to parents and children that Alert Energy does contain an additive. The federal agency, concerned about the growing trend of marketing caffeinated products to children, announced that it will launch an investigation into the effects that added caffeine has on children.

While FDA officials have acknowledged that enforcing an age restriction for caffeine is unlikely, they point out that carding Americans for coffee is an entirely different issue than regulating the amount of caffeine that may be added to products that kids typically enjoy. “For me, the more fundamental questions are whether it is appropriate to use foods that may be inherently attractive and accessible to children as the vehicles to deliver the stimulant caffeine,” Michael Taylor, the FDA’s deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine, explained.

Talyor applauded Wrigley’s decision to stop producing and marketing its Alert Energy gum. “The company’s action demonstrates real leadership and commitment to the public health,” he said, noting that the FDA’s role in regulating caffeinated products remains unresolved while the agency pursues its current investigation. “We hope others in the food industry will exercise similar restraint.”

Energy drinks are another highly-caffeinated product receiving increased scrutiny in recent months. After emergency room visits related to energy drinks more than doubled over the past five years, health advocates started calling on the FDA to strengthen its regulatory oversight over this sector of the beverage industry — which often gets around FDA guidelines by classifying energy drinks as “dietary supplements” rather than “drinks.”

Despite lauding new, “healthier” choices such as egg whites and wraps, major fast food chains’ menus haven’t improved much over the past decade in terms of nutritional value, according to a new study.

The study, recently published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, looked at the menus of eight fast food chains between 1997 and 2010. Researchers judged menus by using the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Healthy Eating Index, a 100-point scale that determines the nutritional value of American diets based on the variety of foods eaten; the intake of each major food group; and the intake of fat, cholesterol and sodium. The study found fast food menus only increased their nutritional value by three points in the last 14 years — from 45 to 48 points. The score is lower than the general American food supply’s score of 60 points and far below the 80-plus points that the USDA recommends for a “good” diet.

And the scores of the menus from the eight restaurants studied — McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Arby’s, Jack in the Box and Dairy Queen — actually worsened over time in the sodium category. That result is especially alarming, given that overuse of salt in the food and restaurant industry now contributes to an estimated 100,000 American deaths per year.

The study provides empirical evidence for a growing trend among fast food restaurants: marketing “healthy” options with little added nutrition in order to make the restaurants as a whole seem healthier. In April, McDonald’s introduced the Egg White Delight McMuffin, an item which contains 34 percent of an adult’s daily sodium intake and only 50 fewer calories than the original McMuffin. The restaurant chain also made its green-wrapped (and therefore healthier-looking) chicken McWraps, which contain up to 590 calories and 44 percent of a person’s recommended daily fat intake, a permanent menu item. And in March, Buger King rolled out a turkey burger that weighs in at 530 calories and contains more sodium than a Whopper.

The study’s findings have serious implications for Americans’ diets. As the report notes, one in four American adults eat fast food at least twice a week — which contributes to the fact that the quick, convenient food choice currently accounts for 15 percent of Americans’ total energy intake. The findings also echo results from a recent study that found the kids’ menus in popular chain restaurants fall short of USDA nutrition recommendations a staggering 97 percent of the time.

In an editorial accompanying the study, Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, called on fast food chains to reduce portion sizes for food and drinks, offer more fruit, vegetables and whole grains, and reduce their menu items’ sodium content. She also suggested requiring all restaurants — not just the large chain restaurants required under Obamacare — to post calorie counts on their menus so that consumers could distinguish for themselves which options were healthier.

The obesity epidemic has a particularly high toll on children of color: 39.3 percent of Mexican-American children are overweight, 10 percent higher than non-Latino white children, and diabetes rates are rising fastest among Hispanic children. Aggressive marketing plays its part. Between their favorite shows, children are much more likely to see a Spanish-speaking SpongeBob Squarepants or Shrek invite them to try Burger King and McDonald’s kids meals than if they were watching English-language shows.

According to a new study published in Journal of Health Communication, fast food companies are packing children’s TV programs with Spanish-language marketing. More than three-quarters of Spanish-language food ads used children’s favorite cartoon characters to market the unhealthiest foods. On English-language shows that number drops to just under half of the ads.

Forbes’ Rob Waters discusses the study, which found that fast food commercials dominated 158 hours of children’s programming:

The research, led by Dale Kunkel, a professor of communications at the University of Arizona, found that 84 percent of the food commercials aimed at Spanish-speaking kids promoted foods ranked in the worst of three food categories devised by federal health officials. Such foods are so high in fat and sugar, and so low in nutrients, that health experts say they should rarely be eaten. Less than 1 percent of the ads promoted fruits, vegetables, whole grains or other healthy foods, while 15 percent advertised moderately nutritious foods that should be eaten just a few times a week.

There is a strong case for why aggressive targeting matters to public health: Children spend the most amount of time in front of a TV (except for sleeping), and the food and beverage industries are powerful players in cultivating children’s tastes and brand preferences. While companies have promised to reform early-childhood marketing, they are only accountable to their self-regulated pledges. “Industry self-regulation is less effective on Spanish-language television channels,” notes the study’s authors.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of fast food marketing is the amount that preschoolers are targeted. Research from Yale’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity found that preschoolers generally saw more ads for McDonald’s, Burger King, and Subway than their older counterparts. Spanish-speaking preschoolers see 290 fast food ads per year, with McDonald’s responsible for a quarter of those commercials. At that age, and up to 6 years old, kids are generally unable to distinguish between programming and advertising.

Soda company marketing is another culprit. A University of Illinois at Chicago Helath Policy Center study found that low-income black and Latino youth were exposed to 80 percent and 49 percent more ads than white children, respectively. But in keeping with the industry’s attempts to head off reform by self-regulating, Coca-Cola announced Wednesday it would stop marketing to children under age 12. However, companies rarely keep to those promises.

Just two months after thousands of dead pigs floated down the Huangpu River, a new food safety scare has rocked China. Officials announced Thursday that police have taken down an extensive meat adulteration ring that has long been passing off un-inspected rat, fox, and mink carcasses as lamb.

While Europe’s horsemeat scandal earlier this year was physically harmless, China’s rat meat scam only hints at the dire public health threats posed by the nation’s underground meat market.

Chinese police arrested 63 people in the fake lamb scheme as part of a larger operation to combat an illegal industry of fake, diseased or adulterated meat. Since late January, police have seized 20,000 tons of unsafe meat and broken up 1,721 factories and shops manufacturing and trading in un-inspected meat usually pumped full of illegal preservatives and toxins. One person even died recently after eating illegally-produced lamb riddled with pesticides. Mass illnesses caused by contaminated meat in 2011 is also still fresh in Chinese memory.

Despite recent efforts to crack down on counterfeit meat, the black market has flourished in the absence of effective regulation:

China’s prime minister since March, Li Keqiang, has said that improving food safety was a priority — one of the main grievances of ordinary citizens that he has said his government would tackle. But similar vows by his predecessor, Wen Jiabao, ran up against inadequate resources, buck-passing and muddle among rival agencies, and protectionism by local officials, said Mao Shoulong, a professor of public policy at Renmin University in Beijing, in an interview.

“Chinese food production has become larger scale and more technological, but the problems emerging also involve using more sophisticated technology to beat regulators and cheat consumers,” he said. “The government’s efforts need to catch up with the scale and complexity of the problems.”

China’s court also issued new guidelines Friday advising tough sentencing and harsh punishment for anyone caught making or selling unsafe food. However, some critics have decried the government’s focus on punitive measures after contamination has already occurred, instead calling for greater inspection and enforcement of food safety standards.

Though the American food safety framework is currently much stronger than China’s, some lawmakers here are actually pushing to weaken food inspection and regulatory oversight over meat production. Unlike China, foodborne illness in the U.S. does not come from nameless criminals, but rather from powerful companies with huge shares of the market. These companies have actively pushed for weaker regulation even as outbreaks of foodborne illnesses are becoming more common. Republican legislators have complied, gutting food safety programs and the Food and Drug Administration.

Health and environmental advocates have fought for years for a federal labeling program for genetically engineered food. Now, for the first time, their battle has bipartisan support in Congress.

On Wednesday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) introduced the Genetically Engineered Food Right-To-Know Act, a bill whose nine cosponsors in the Senate include Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and whose 22 cosponsors in the House include Don Young (R-Alaska).

According to a press release from Boxer’s office, the bill has gained support from a range of organizations and companies, including the Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union and AllergyKids Foundation. The bill would “require the Food and Drug Administration to clearly label genetically engineered foods,” an objective that, as the press release notes, has the support of most Americans: polls have shown more than 90 percent of Americans think GE foods should be labelled. The press release also explains why the FDA needs to make this policy change:

The FDA requires the labeling of over 3,000 ingredients, additives and processes, but the agency has resisted labels for genetically modified foods. In a 1992 policy statement, the FDA allowed GE foods to be marketed without labeling, claiming that these foods were not “materially” different from other foods because the genetic differences could not be recognized by taste, smell or other senses.

Unfortunately, the FDA’s antiquated labeling policy has not kept pace with 21st century food technologies that allow for a wide array of genetic and molecular changes to food that can’t be detected by human senses. Common sense would indicate that GE corn that produces its own insecticide – or is engineered to survive being doused by herbicides – is materially different from traditional corn that does not. Even the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has recognized that these foods are materially different and novel for patent purposes.

The bill was introduced at a time when news and debate surrounding GE food is at a high. Last month, despite promises during his campaign that he’d require labeling of GE food, Barack Obama signed the so-called “Monsanto Protection Act” into law, giving the U.S. Department of Agriculture the power to override court orders to stop planting a GE crop. Around the same time that provision was passed, a group of major grocery retailers including Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s pledged they would not sell GE seafood if it were approved in the U.S. And last year, California’s Proposition 37, which would have mandated GMO labeling in the state, was narrowly defeated after biotechnology giants like Monsanto spent $44 million dollars in a campaign against the bill.

Though representatives from Monsanto and GE trade group Biotechnology Industry Organization said they haven’t yet read the full text of the GE Food Right-To-Know Act, they told the Huffington Post Wednesday that they oppose GE labeling in general, calling it “an agenda to vilify biotechnology.”

A new report from the Center for Science in Public Interest (CSPI) reveals exactly which meat products pose the biggest threats to Americans. After analyzing more than 33,000 cases of foodborne illness over 12 years, CSPI found that chicken and ground beef have caused more hospitalizations than any other meat, while chicken nuggets and sausage are the least likely to send you to the ER:

It’s no secret that the United States’ meat industry is rife with public health hazards. A recent report confirmed that more than half of the meat sold in the U.S. contains antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which can end up being passed to humans. Foodborne illnesses sicken an estimated 48 million Americans each year — and the cost of treating all of those food poisoning cases works out to be about $152 billion per year.

Nonetheless, government cuts to food safety programs continue to hamper the regulatory efforts of agencies like the USDA and the FDA. And in states across the country, “ag gag” laws suppress activists and journalists from bringing more information to light about the food industry’s unsafe practices.