You fresh, unadulterated milk needs to be labeled "imitation".

[IU-Curmudgeon]

Gov’t to creamery: Your milk is entirely too natural to not be labeled “imitation”

My reaction to this story.

Sometimes government’s dishonesty, incompetence, wastefulness, and misguided nannyism combine to make a perfectly ridiculous story. Today’s comes to us from Florida, where the Ocheesee Creamery is being forced to dump gallons upon gallons of good, natural skim milk because the state is requiring the business to label its good, natural skim milk “imitation” because they haven’t added anything to it.

Paul and Mary Lou Wesselhoeft have been fighting this in federal court with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs, which had formerly allowed them to sell their skim milk while calling it skim milk. No one seemed confused by this except the state government, which changed its requirements.

The Institute for Justice is helping the Wesselhoefts take on the state, arguing they should not be prohibited from telling the truth about their product.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

TIL, why they need to put the Vitamin A back in.

Whole milk naturally contains vitamin A, which your body uses to promote vision and support your immune system. Since it's dissolved within the milk fats, vitamin A is lost when fat is removed to produce low-fat or skim milk. Skim milk must be enriched with enough vitamin A to replace the amount lost, according to U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations. One cup of skim milk has 83 calories and barely a trace of fat, and it provides 500 international units, or IU, of vitamin A, reports the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

 

[Noodle]

TIL, why they need to put the Vitamin A back in.

Correct. Skim milk is considered to be a nutrient content claim (i.e., reduced fat), and FDA regulations require that when any food is modified to make such a nutrient content claim (reduced fat) it must not be nutritionally inferior to the non-modified form. Nutritional inferiority means means any reduction of an essential nutrient present in the unmodified food--in the case of skim milk, that means vitamin A must be added to skim milk so that it is not nutritionally inferior to whole milk with respect to the amount of vitamin A. So, per federal regulations, they do not need to add vitamin A, but they cannot call it "skim milk" unless they do.

 

[Standard Issue]

Correct. Skim milk is considered to be a nutrient content claim (i.e., reduced fat), and FDA regulations require that when any food is modified to make such a nutrient content claim (reduced fat) it must not be nutritionally inferior to the non-modified form. Nutritional inferiority means means any reduction of an essential nutrient present in the unmodified food--in the case of skim milk, that means vitamin A must be added to skim milk so that it is not nutritionally inferior to whole milk with respect to the amount of vitamin A. So, per federal regulations, they do not need to add vitamin A, but they cannot call it "skim milk" unless they do.

So the government has it backwards. They should require every other producer to re-label their skim milk as Vitamin A Enhanced.

That is if they want to be consistent with their goofiness.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Correct. Skim milk is considered to be a nutrient content claim (i.e., reduced fat), and FDA regulations require that when any food is modified to make such a nutrient content claim (reduced fat) it must not be nutritionally inferior to the non-modified form. Nutritional inferiority means means any reduction of an essential nutrient present in the unmodified food--in the case of skim milk, that means vitamin A must be added to skim milk so that it is not nutritionally inferior to whole milk with respect to the amount of vitamin A. So, per federal regulations, they do not need to add vitamin A, but they cannot call it "skim milk" unless they do.

You know what's strange? I would never concern myself with the vitamin A content in my milk. Vitamin D and calcium, sure, but it's really, really easy to get plenty of vitamin A from vegetables.

Anyway, what I wanted to point out is that this lady is, in fact, producing "skim milk," by definition. It simply can't be marketed as skim milk. I'm sure with a little effort, we could put together a long list of food products that can't be marketed as what they actually are if they are lacking in certain areas that have been codified under the assumption that consumers expect them. The most obvious one I can think of is HFCS and other types of processed sugars that can't be sold as "sugar," even though that's what they are.

Note that I'm not saying the FDA is wrong to have such regulations. Consumer expectations need to be taken into account when restricting how foods are marketed.

 

[Noodle]

You know what's strange? I would never concern myself with the vitamin A content in my milk. Vitamin D and calcium, sure, but it's really, really easy to get plenty of vitamin A from vegetables.

Anyway, what I wanted to point out is that this lady is, in fact, producing "skim milk," by definition. It simply can't be marketed as skim milk. I'm sure with a little effort, we could put together a long list of food products that can't be marketed as what they actually are if they are lacking in certain areas that have been codified under the assumption that consumers expect them. The most obvious one I can think of is HFCS and other types of processed sugars that can't be sold as "sugar," even though that's what they are.

Note that I'm not saying the FDA is wrong to have such regulations. Consumer expectations need to be taken into account when restricting how foods are marketed.

What? HCFS is not a processed sugar--it's a sweetener made from corn starch that contains sugars in the technical sense (mostly fructose, along with a little less glucose, depending on the type). While it might be 99% sugars and water to a chemist, food labeling is directed to consumers not chemists. Ingredient listings are supposed to use the common and usual name for an ingredient--not the general class of chemical compounds to which the ingredient belongs (i.e., sugars).

Now, there are instances when a specific regulation dictates that a particular ingredient can be identified by a particular name, as in the case of sucrose derived from sugar cane or sugar beets--which can be identified as "sugar" in ingredient listings. But, without this specific regulation, it would have to labeled as "sucrose" in ingredient listings.

So you've got things backwards with respect to HFCS. Like most all food ingredients, it must be identified by its common and usual name (high fructose corn syrup). There are lots of other ingredients that belong to the general "sugars" that much be labeled in the same way. Say, lactose, another compound generally classified (chemically) as sugar. Lactose is labeled as lactose in ingredient listings since that's it common and usual name--not "sugar."

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What? HCFS is not a processed sugar--it's a sweetener made from corn starch that contains sugars in the technical sense (mostly fructose, along with a little less glucose, depending on the type). While it might be 99% sugars and water to a chemist, food labeling is directed to consumers not chemists. Ingredient listings are supposed to use the common and usual name for an ingredient--not the general class of chemical compounds to which the ingredient belongs (i.e., sugars).

Now, there are instances when a specific regulation dictates that a particular ingredient can be identified by a particular name, as in the case of sucrose derived from sugar cane or sugar beets--which can be identified as "sugar" in ingredient listings. But, without this specific regulation, it would have to labeled as "sucrose" in ingredient listings.

So you've got things backwards with respect to HFCS. Like most all food ingredients, it must be identified by its common and usual name (high fructose corn syrup). There are lots of other ingredients that belong to the general "sugars" that much be labeled in the same way. Say, lactose, another compound generally classified (chemically) as sugar. Lactose is labeled as lactose in ingredient listings since that's it common and usual name--not "sugar."

I don't think you understood the point of my post.

HFCS is a mixture of fructose and glucose. Without looking it up, I think the version used in most food is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. Granulated sugar is sucrose, which, when ingested (or, depending on the ingredients included, sometimes when used in a recipe), splits into 50/50 fructose/glucose. I don't think it's wrong that HFCS can't be called "sugar." I'm saying that it is, technically, sugar. Similarly, the lady in OP's link is, in fact, producing "skim milk," but I understand why she can't be allowed to market it as such.

 

[Noodle]

I give up. But stop and think that maybe the reason I supposedly misunderstood the point you were trying to make just might be that your posts mare no sense. HCFS is not "technically, sugar." I'll just leave it at that.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I give up. But stop and think that maybe the reason I supposedly misunderstood the point you were trying to make just might be that your posts mare no sense. HCFS is not "technically, sugar." I'll just leave it at that.

Yes, it is. Or, more accurately, it's a solution of different sugars in water.

I don't know what about my posts you think is nonsensical. I was pretty damn clear. For various reasons, the regulations we put on what you can call things in commerce don't always match up with what they technically are. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Noodle]

Yes, it is. Or, more accurately, it's a solution of different sugars in water.

I don't know what about my posts you think is nonsensical. I was pretty damn clear. For various reasons, the regulations we put on what you can call things in commerce don't always match up with what they technically are. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.

Exactly. It's a solution of sugars in water. It's not "sugar"--technIcally or otherwise. The whole point of labeling ingredients in food is to inform consumers. And labeling HFCS as sugar would not only be inaccurate, it would do nothing to inform consumers of what is in their food.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

One of those compounds used as sweetener though that isn't what we associate it with.

Propylene glycol is an anti-freeze ingredient most maybe familiar with, it is used as a sweetener in Fireball Whiskey.