Digging up the dirt on "clean" dietary labels: Public health considerations and opportunities for increased Federal oversight.

BACKGROUND: "Clean" dietary labels are often viewed by consumers as referencing products that are minimally processed, without additives, preservatives, artificial colors, or ingredients, but may also be interpreted as vegan, gluten-free, dairy-free, "real," or "natural." Although the "clean" diet trend continues to grow in popularity, there is a lack of consensus regarding the definition and use of this terminology with a corresponding lack of regulation for such labels in the United States. METHOD: This multidisciplinary scoping review examines the public health implications of the "clean" label trend and the legal and policy landscape for regulation. We report on findings from case law and legal research generated through the Westlaw database and from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforcement actions and website documents to discuss options for federal- and state-level intervention to mitigate harm. RESULTS: One feasible avenue for change is for the FDA to provide industry guidance, disseminate public statements to debunk myths, and enforce labeling statutes to police deceptive "clean" labeling claims. We also suggest consumer-protection litigation and state-level litigation via attorneys general as alternative actions to combat the abundant misinformation associated with "clean" diets and labels. DISCUSSION: Although the FDA has taken some enforcement actions, these efforts are insufficient given the proliferation of "clean" label products in the marketplace and the potential for adverse impacts on public health including increased risk for disordered eating. The current unregulated, undefined landscape for "clean" dietary labels thus requires urgent action by federal authorities and state attorneys general.

Ten years post-GAO assessment, FDA remains uninformed of potentially harmful GRAS substances in foods.

It has been approximately 10 years since the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published its report to Congress entitled, FDA Should Strengthen Its Oversight of Food Ingredients Determined to be Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS), which strongly criticized FDA noting that its "oversight process does not help ensure the safety of all new GRAS determinations." Congress requested GAO to undertake this audit as a result of concerns that GRAS substances added to foods did not require FDA approval. Since 2010, FDA has addressed only a few of the criticisms regarding its process for establishing a food substance as GRAS. However, several of the most important GAO recommendations remain unaddressed, and most critically, FDA has chosen to remain uninformed about food substances self-determined as GRAS by manufacturers. In its 2016 final rule Substances Generally Recognized as Safe, FDA did not take the opportunity to include a provision for creation of a master list of all GRAS chemicals used in food, nor did the FDA request the authority to do so from Congress. FDA cannot fulfill its statutory obligation for ensuring the chemical safety of the U.S. food supply if it does not know which substances, in which quantities, have been added to foods.

Democratizing ownership and participation in the 4th Industrial Revolution: challenges and opportunities in cellular agriculture.

The emergence of the "4th Industrial Revolution," i.e. the convergence of artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, advanced materials, and bioengineering technologies, could accelerate socioeconomic insecurities and anxieties or provide beneficial alternatives to the status quo. In the post-Covid-19 era, the entities that are best positioned to capitalize on these innovations are large firms, which use digital platforms and big data to orchestrate vast ecosystems of users and extract market share across industry sectors. Nonetheless, these technologies also have the potential to democratize ownership, broaden political-economic participation, and reduce environmental harms. We articulate the potential sociotechnical pathways in this high-stakes crossroads by analyzing cellular agriculture, an exemplary 4th Industrial Revolution technology that synergizes computer science, biopharma, tissue engineering, and food science to grow cultured meat, dairy, and egg products from cultured cells and/or genetically modified yeast. Our exploration of this space involved multi-sited ethnographic research in both (a) the cellular agriculture community and (b) alternative economic organizations devoted to open source licensing, member-owned cooperatives, social financing, and platform business models. Upon discussing how these latter approaches could potentially facilitate alternative sociotechnical pathways in cellular agriculture, we reflect upon the broader implications of this work with respect to the 4th Industrial Revolution and the enduring need for public policy reform.