In layman’s terms, a dietary supplement is basically anything taken “intended to supplement the diet.” (This includes a vast array of products.)  The problem is that dietary supplements are not regulated under the same regulations as ordinary food and drug products.  The FDA regulates only “quality control and good manufacturing processes, but does not ensure standardization of the active ingredients or efficacy.”

Many people assume that these supplements are safe and effective for treating specific situations because they are natural and have been used as traditional medicinal purposes. However, the FDA does not require manufacturers of dietary supplements to prove safety or efficacy and most supplements have not been carefully studied. Further, lack of regulation and government monitoring also means that supplements are not monitored to ensure that they contain the ingredients or amount of active ingredient the manufacturer claims they contain.

Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), the dietary supplement manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that a dietary supplement is safe before it is marketed.” The DSHEA places dietary supplements in a special category under the general umbrella of “foods,” not drugs, and requires that every supplement be labeled a “dietary supplement.”

In some instances, dietary supplements may be linked to death. For example, in 2002, Douglas Page wrote on an article outlining the surge of the increasing heat stroke deaths among football players. Although supplements may not be the direct cause of death, Julian Bailes, M.D. and chair of neurosurgery at West Virginia University, states that heatstroke fatalities may, in part, be attributable or aggravated by the use of dietary supplements.

This post is not meant to bash supplements. In fact, I am a big fan of taking supplements because they can be used effectively to lose weight, gain energy, or improve health. However, like anything, is it crucial to understand the power of these supplements and to use them in moderation.  Education in the dangers of “over the counter” supplements and their misuse and potential side effects will curb certain individuals from unwanted effects, life threatening dehydration, and heatstroke.

As a consumer, especially of new products, it is crucial that you read the label and start with a small dose, especially if you are not used to taking similar products or have prior health problems. Dietary supplements can be great tools for improving one’s health and appearance as long as they are taken with care and caution

Source: Food Safety News

The adoption of more modified atmosphere and leak-proof packaging by retailers, as well lobbying for the use of antimicrobial washes could help cut in UK chicken, an international summit concluded.

The conference, hosted this week by the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA), also declared that a renewed emphasis on biosecurity measures by producers in the UK would also reduce the prevalence of the food bug.

Some 90 experts from 14 countries – including the United States, New Zealand, Canada and a host of European nations – joined industry players, representatives from major supermarket chains and regulators from the UK to hear that Campylobacter is the most common bacterial cause of food poisoning, causing an estimated 300,000 cases of illness every year in England and Wales alone.

A recent European Union baseline survey found that 75 per cent of UK broilers were contaminated with the bacteria. Andrew Wadge, FSA chief scientist, said tackling campylobacter in UK chicken was a key food safety priority for the FSA over the next five years. Current levels of the bacteria were “too high”, he added.

“We wanted to hear measures other countries have used to cut Campylobacter levels and see how we could make them work in the UK,” Gael O’Neill, head of agency’s foodborne diseases strategy branch, told FoodProductionDaily.

Food packaging

In the wide-ranging two-day summit, experts discussed the role enhanced packaging could play in tackling the bug – with leak-proof packing and modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) tabled as having a role.

“The possibility of decontaminating the external packaging of poultry packs was discussed,” said O’Neill. “The effectiveness of MAP solutions with high oxygen content that inhibit the growth of Campylobacter was also examined.”

Such measures would almost certainly have cost implications and their adoption would need the backing of the UK’s powerful retailers - which have conducted a fierce price war in meat sales over the last few years. It also follows on from a recent FSA report urging supermarkets to overhaul their poultry purchasing policies in a bid to combat the problem of campylobacter by increasing the prices paid to suppliers.

Retailers will be one group who will look at the idea in more detail at a meeting of the joint government working group due to be held over the next few weeks, added O’Neill.

Biosecurity and antibacterial washes

Scandinavian countries such as Sweden, Denmark and Iceland, explained that their success in slashing rates of the bacteria was built on strict implementation of insecurity measures – with good hygiene practice by producers on farms being key.

Delegates from New Zealand highlighted how the use of chlorine-based antimicrobial washes in slaughterhouses had also cut Campylobacter contamination. Many of these treatments are currently not permitted in the EU but O’Neill said the summit had agreed that lobbying at a European level to change this should begin.

“This is a complex issue and could take quite a long time as agreement from member states would be needed,” she said.

Wadge believed that people “should keep an open mind” that the EU could shift on the issue. The chief scientist cited the washing of chicken in lactic acid as a possible catalyst for change as it is “already a common component of food which has potential benefits for food safety”.

The conference concluded that here was no magic bullet solution to combat the prevalence of the bacteria in UK poultry but instead two or three steps that could be taken. While the UK has biosecurity measures in place, there was a need to make people think more closely about the issue, said the experts. Improving packaging, implementation of some already legal treatments such as steaming, as well as supply-chain improvements spurred by retailer-willingness to change their buying policies were also mooted.

Source: Dairy Reporter

A survey of UK supermarkets’ own-brand gluten-free, wheat-free and dairy-free foods has found more than half had higher salt levels than standard versions, raising concern for the intake levels of celiacs and others who avoid certain foods.

There is a major drive to decrease levels of salt in packaged and processed foods, as part of efforts to reduce salt consumption to no more than 6g per day (for adults). High salt intake levels have been linked to increase risk of high blood pressure and stroke, yet much of the salt people eat is ‘hidden’ in ready-made foods, and consumers may not notice or know it is there.

The Food Standards Agency has set salt reduction for a number of food categories for 2010 and 2012. However the findings from the new survey by Consensus Action on Salt and Health (CASH) indicate that free-from foods are being left out of salt reduction programmes.

This category of foods designed for people with coeliac disease (who are intolerance to the protein gluten), the lactose intolerant or those who, for other reasons, prefer to restrict consumption of gluten, wheat or dairy, is growing apace. According to Mintel the market saw sales growth of over 300 per cent between 2000 and 2006.

But while many of the adherents to free-from diets have health at the front of their minds, if they buy own-brand free-from goods they may inadvertently be compromising their cardiovascular health.

The Survey

The survey looked at 71 supermarket own-label products in free-from ranges, including breads, burgers, cakes, comminuted meat, fruit pies and pastry desserts, sweet biscuits, ready meals and sponge puddings. The salt content per portion and per 100g was compared to the salt content for the same retailer’s standard product.

Forty of the products (56.3 per cent) were seen to have higher salt levels than the standard products of comparison. Only 19 products (26.7 per cent) had lower salt levels.

The worst offenders were seen to be Sainsbury’s Free From Jaffa Cakes, which had 0.67g per 100g – more than six times the level in the level in standard Sainsbury’s own brand Jaffa Cakes.

Another high scorer was Asda’s Double Chocolate Muffins, where the free-from version had 1g of salt per 10g and the standard version 0.3g.

Application Note

Looking for a non-GMO ingredient?

Discover how meat processors can benefit from a cost-effective non-GMO alternative to soy isolate… Click here

“Interestingly, some of the free-from products we surveyed had lower levels of salt than their standard counterparts, which shows that there is no technical reason why free-from products have to have higher salt levels,” said Katharine Jenner, nutritionist and CASH campaign manager.

Coeliac Response

The charity Coeliac UK said: “These are very interesting results and we will be looking at the findings closely to compare them with the research we did in this area a few years ago.

“The free-from market has expanded significantly over recent years, which is great news for the increasing number of people with coeliac disease who have to maintain a strict life-long gluten-free diet.

“However, it is important that manufacturers do pay attention to all issues surrounding health including salt levels and if we identify areas of real concern we will discuss this with the manufacturers of gluten-free foods that supply the coeliac community.”

Brands vs Own Label

A spokesperson for CASH told FoodNavigator.com that the organization started out looking at branded free-from products, but it was hard to find a fair comparison as the same companies do not tend to offer both free-from and conventional versions.

“With the own-labels we could look at the free-from and the standard and make a clear comparison between them.”

Sainsbury’s said in a statement: “We take salt reduction very seriously, and are actively working on reducing the salt levels in our free-from range.

“As of January 2010 all Sainsbury’s ‘free-from’ products will meet the FSA’s 2010 or 2012 salt targets and will be nutritionally comparable to the equivalent products in our main ranges.”

The CASH spokesperson said the organisation may look at branded products in the future if Sainsbury’s does what it says it will for its free-from products.

“That would leave the branded products exposed to scrutiny.”