Latest news with #foodstandards
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
FDA to end dozens of 'obsolete' rules for U.S. food items
July 16 (UPI) -- The federal government says its ending a whole slew of "obsolete" U.S. food standards that Trump administration officials say also include "unnecessary" ones. "I'm eliminating outdated food regulations that no longer serve the interests of American families," stated U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Wednesday. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced that it's revoking, or proposing to revoke, 52 federal standards for scores of food products in items such as canned fruit, vegetables, dairy, baked goods and macaroni products. It will also apply to areas of food safety, packaging, manufacturing and production practices and nutrition information, labeling and claims on American-made products. A proposal targets 23 types of product -- bakery, noodle and macaroni products, canned fruit juices, fish and shellfish along with flavoring and food dressings. Kennedy said his new U.S. food policy changes marked a "crucial step in my drive to cut through bureaucratic red tape, increase transparency and remove regulations that have outlived their purpose." In March he had ordered the FDA to revise its rule allowing food companies to "self-affirm" the safety of its own ingredients. FDA officials say Wednesday's unveiling is the first round of results in the ongoing review of its portfolio of over 250 "Standards on Identity," with a goal to "make sure they are useful, relevant and serve consumers." "Antiquated food standards are no longer serving to protect consumers. It is common sense to revoke them and move to a more judicious use of food standards and agency resources," said FDA Commissioner Marty Makary. The Food and Drug Administration now contends that additional consumer protections mixed with advances in food science, production and agricultural practices have made it "unnecessary" to keep many of the older "recipe standards." A direct rule, which came with a proposed companion in case of a legal challenge, ends federal guidance and standards on 11 types of canned fruits and vegetables the FDA claimed is "no longer sold in U.S. grocery stores." It included seven rules for artificially-sweetened fruits with saccharin or sodium saccharin. The other proposed revocation of standards looks at 18 dairy product types to included certain milk and cream items, frozen desserts, cheese and cheese-related products. "The removal of these standards is in alignment with broader efforts to ensure that HHS is directing resources to where they're most needed," which federal officials say is in "delivering better outcomes for the American people." For example, an FDA analysis concluded that "little to no market" existed for dairy products like Goat's milk ice cream, acidified milk and acidified sour cream. It also included a plethora of cheese lines: Caciocavallo siliciano, Low sodium cheddar, Low sodium colby, Cook cheese, koch kaese, Gammelost, High-moisture jack, Nuworld, Samsoe, Mellorine and Sap sago cheese. In 1939, the U.S. government created food standards for a multitude of consumer and public health-related reasons part of massive social changes that took place under the administration of then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Kennedy's FDA under HHS argued that "many" of the "outdated and unnecessary" federal standards predate later requirements on American consumer protections on public issues such as ingredient safety and labeling. "Because few products covered by these food standards are currently marketed, revoking these 13 food standards would affect few small businesses," according to government officials. The agency claimed that with these changes, small businesses as a result may see "benefits of additional flexibility in product development." Solve the daily Crossword
Telegraph
7 days ago
- Politics
- Telegraph
This is Starmer's most unforgivable Brexit betrayal to date
The truth is out. Keir Starmer has signed the UK up to be a rule taker from Brussels – and even worse, expects us to contribute to the EU budget. That is because, buried in the small print of this new agreement, Starmer's subterfuge has been laid bare. The financial contributions that the UK will now make are, as the Telegraph has discovered, the result of aligning UK food standards with EU standards and the carbon market rules that Britain will have to follow. Of course, as has now become the norm when dealing with Starmer and co, none of this was even mentioned when he came back to the Commons to trumpet his agreement. Neither have we had any chance to vote against this shabby betrayal. In one arrogant swish of his pen he has demeaned the UK by placing it in the worst situation possible – having to accept rules and financial contributions to the EU budget without any say in what the rules should be or how much we should pay. The EU has exacted revenge on the UK by spelling out that one of the great trading nations of the world will have no right to involve itself in deciding the rules or even being involved deciding the amount we will have to contribute. What is absurd is that this cave should have been unnecessary. The EU has for a long-time imported lamb and other meat products from New Zealand without being forced to suffer delayed checks at the border of its phyto-sanitary food. That is because as part of their deal with NZ they allow compliance checks to be carried out by local vets prior to their despatch. This could have been a model for a future relationship had the Prime Minister bothered to place even the slightest degree of pressure on his idolised friends in the EU. As if that wasn't bad enough, it calls into question our ability to strike trade deals with the rest of the world. After all, this makes it impossible to negotiate a third country agreement because we will not be able to change any of these regulations, instead having to defer to Brussels. This is a shameful and humiliating position for the UK to be in, and a slap in the face to the people of these islands. Ironically, handing back this power to the EU at a significant cost to UK taxpayers actually now favours the EU producers and hardly helps us. The EU exports €54 billion of agricultural products to the UK, whereas we export only €15 billion. When you look at the detail our exports are largely things that require no animal health paperwork, such as whisky. It is also worth noting that this deal will also be at the expense of our own food standards. The reality is that the UK had throughout our time in the EU had higher standards than the other member states, a situation which post-Brexit still continues. As Churchill once said, 'This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year…' For this is only the beginning of the betrayal. After all, Keir Starmer called for the British People to be forced to have another referendum because he disagreed with the original result. He is also surrounded by people who are for the most part in favour of re-joining. Together they will find further reasons to cave in, as they have done on extending access to our fishing waters. Remember, Starmer wouldn't have been able to agree a trade arrangement with the US if Brexit hadn't happened. Dynamic alignment will lose that hard-won victory. This is not what the British people voted for. They voted for the UK to make its own rules and take back control, not hand it back.
Telegraph
7 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
Britain forced to pay EU under Starmer's Brexit reset
Britain will be made to pay into the European Union's budget as the price for Sir Keir Starmer's Brexit reset. New EU documents demand financial contributions to the bodies that manage food standards and carbon emission rules that Britain will have to follow. However, the documents state that Britain will be blocked from making any changes or amendments to the rules. The documents say: 'The United Kingdom should contribute financially to supporting the relevant costs associated with the Union's work in these policy areas.' The draft negotiating guidelines are the next step on the road for Sir Keir's Brexit reset after a political deal with the European Commission in May paved the way for a new trading relationship with the bloc. That agreement said Britain would follow EU rules on food standards and submit to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice to ease red tape on agricultural exports and boost trade. The terms and conditions of the deal still need to be agreed between the Government and the Commission before it can enter into force. But the new demands are believed to be red lines for the EU. Britain has said it is willing to 'dynamically align' with EU rules on food and animal safety and carbon emissions, meaning the Government would have to change its laws to mirror those in Brussels as they evolve over time. Despite becoming a ruletaker from Brussels, the Commission will insist that 'neither agreement should give the United Kingdom the right to participate in the Union's decision-making'. Instead, European officials will 'consult the United Kingdom at an early stage of policy-making' to inform the Government of upcoming changes to the rules. To secure the so-called 'Sanitary and Phytosanitary' (SPS) deal with Brussels, Britain will have to follow regulations on 'live animals and pesticides, the rules on organic production and labelling of organic products, as well as marketing standards applicable to certain sectors or products'. Any changes to EU rules would have to be mirrored in UK law within a set deadline, or the bloc can take legal action against the Government under the agreement. The same applies for a joint UK-EU emissions trading system, which will 'ensure the dynamic alignment of the United Kingdom with the relevant European Union rules to avoid risks of carbon leakage and competitive distortions'. Britain will have to align with Brussels on a number of sectors, including 'electricity generation, industrial heat generation (excluding the individual heating of houses), industry, domestic and international maritime transport and domestic and international aviation' to gain access to the EU's carbon market. These two deals will be overseen by the EU's Luxembourg-based Court of Justice, with its judges given the final say over any dispute that arises from the UK's alignment with the bloc's rulebook. Under the deal, Britain and Brussels would first attempt to settle any argument between themselves. But if they can't reach an agreement, the ECJ will be brought in to 'give a ruling which should be binding on the arbitral tribunal'. Britain will also have to start fresh repayments into the EU's budget for the first time since Brexit. 'The United Kingdom should bear appropriate costs for participation in the common Sanitary and Phytosanitary area and for the implementation of the agreement to link the United Kingdom and the Union's greenhouse emissions trading systems,' the EU's negotiating mandate says. The document says payments would cover things like 'financial contribution to inter alia the function of the relevant Union agencies, systems and databases to which the United Kingdom should gain appropriate access'. A report published by 'UK in a Changing Europe' this week found that the Government was already aligning with the EU at record speeds. 'Starmer remains a Remainer, and always will' Sir Iain Duncan Smith, former Tory leader, told the Telegraph that the report was 'spot on' and accused the Government of alignment by stealth. He said: 'We are becoming ruletakers and not rulemakers. I think it is demeaning and damaging to this Government. 'Demeaning because it makes us look like a tokenistic country on the margins of Europe and damaging because we should be going in the opposite direction. We should be looking at our own markets.' Tory MP Mark Francois, chairman of the European Research Group of Eurosceptics, said: 'Sir Keir Starmer's mission to rejoin the EU continues apace. Starmer remains a Remainer, and he always will. He added: 'This report shows that the process is speeding up - while Starmer's personal poll rating is in freefall. Labour have no mandate for this and they need to be reminded of it.' 'Labour is handcuffing the UK back with the EU bureaucracy and burdensome regulations. This will mean even lower growth and higher costs. We should be diverging, not aligning, ' said Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK.
News.com.au
30-06-2025
- Health
- News.com.au
Coles recalls two peanut butter products sold in the past two months over toxin contamination
Coles has issued a major product recall after two of its home-brand peanut butter products were found to be contaminated with a toxin. Coles Smooth Peanut Butter 1kg and Coles Crunchy Peanut Butter 1kg jars sold between the of May and June this year have been recalled nationally due to aflatoxin contamination. Aflatoxin is a biotoxin that can cause injury or illness if consumed. It comes from a family of toxins that is found on crops including corn and peanuts. Exposure to aflatoxins has been associated with an increased risk of liver cancer. Food Standards has warned consumers not to eat the product and to return it to their place of purchase. Customers should beware of any product with the best before date of 5 February 2027. Anyone concerned about their health should seek medical advice. Anyone who bought the peanut butter products can return the jars to any Coles supermarket for a full refund, online customers can contact Coles Online Customer Care. Coles apologised to customers 'for any inconvenience'.
Argaam
28-06-2025
- General
- Argaam
KSA approves rules for public utility facilities
Deputy Minister of Environment, Water and Agriculture for Agriculture, Hamad Al-Khamshi, approved the guidelines for establishments located at public utility markets for vegetables, fruits, meat, eggs, and fish. The guidelines shall be enforced as of the date of publication, and all relevant parties shall be notified for implementation. The guidelines supersede any previous conflicting regulations, according to Umm Al-Qura official newspaper. Under the guidelines, establishments are required to have air or plastic curtains on external entrance doors, as well as natural or artificial lighting (or both) at the premises. Artificial lighting should not alter the appearance of colors, and its intensity must suit the nature of operations. Light fixtures must be shatter-resistant or protected by covers in areas where they are directly exposed to food, equipment, utensils, or unsealed packaging materials.
