Press Release from Senator Lois Wolk on California Olive Oil Standards Law

 Legislation, Olive Oil Standards  Comments Off
Oct 152011
 

Congratulations to Senator Lois Wolk, California Senate District 5. Her bill, SB 818, regarding extra virgin olive oil standards in California passed and was signed into law last week. The law lays the groundwork to protect consumers and provide a fair marketplace for growers and producers.

Here is the press release from Senator Wolk’s office.

“SACRAMENTO—Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed legislation into law today that takes the first step in leveling the playing field between the fast-growing California olive oil industry and imported brands that dominate the market with largely low-quality products mislabeled as “extra virgin” olive oil.

“I applaud the Governor’s decision to sign Senate Bill 818,” said Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis), the bill’s author, and chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Olive Oil Production and Emerging Products. “This law is a necessary first step if we want to protect consumers, who are demanding more and more of this healthy product, and provide California olive growers and olive oil producers a fair marketplace in which they can compete and thrive.”

Wolk’s SB 818 tightens standards for “extra virgin” olive oil, bringing California’s standards into conformity with recently updated USDA standards consistent with those commonly accepted abroad, including in major olive oil producing countries such as Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal, and Turkey. The bill had unanimous, bipartisan support throughout its passage through the State Legislature.

Recent studies show that “extra virgin” olive oil label is widely misused by imported olive oils.  In fact, a 2010 report by UC Davis found that analyzed olive oil sold at retail in three California regions found that 69 percent of the imported samples did not meet international and USDA standards for “extra virgin” olive oil.

“I thank Senator Wolk for authoring this legislation and for her efforts to call attention to this ongoing issue,” said Brady Whitlow, president of Corto Olive, a family-owned olive grower and olive oil producer based in the Lodi region. “Mislabeled olive oil is a very real issue which not only hurts California consumers but has the potential to devastate this state’s emerging olive oil industry and limit our ability to expand and create new jobs.”

“Now, using the clear standards set in place by this new law, California can now begin to pursue options for enforcement,” Wolk concluded.”

May the sun shine through your branches.

www.olivecrazy.com

Get Educated on New EU Claims Laws

 EFSA, Health & Beauty, Legislation, Seminars  Comments Off
Oct 122011
 

So after you took the time yesterday to read the loooong Olive Crazy article about the pending European Commission health claims and nutrition labelling legislation, and you decided that maybe you would rather not do business in Europe after all, don’t fret. There are plenty of organizations out there ready to take your money and guide you through the new laws.

I did a search for you and found two upcoming workshops. I don’t know any of these organizations so be careful.

EAS is giving a workshop on “surviving the EU claims regulation“. The workshop will be held in Brussels, Belgium on November 24th. According to the website, EAS international food policy experts will teach you how to successfully tackle the European Union’s (EU) Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation. Tackle is a good word and, after all, it is US football season.

Health Claims is holding a workshop on October 27th in Brussels. The title of the workshop is “Nutrition & Health Claims Europe – Designing Clinical Studies for Success“. For you folks who go to the website don’t forget to notice the chick with the too-tight jacket and exposed belly as she lovingly ogles a bottle of soy sauce. Maybe she will be teaching the workshop.

Another option is to check out law firms in your country that specialize in international business transactions. Good luck with your EU venture.

And don’t forget, Olive Crazy is high in polyphenols, and when read daily, will cure you of whatever’s ailing you.

May the sun shine through your branches.

www.olivecrazy.com

Olive Oil Health and Nutrition Claims: Doing Business in the European Union

 EFSA, Health & Beauty, Legislation, Research  Comments Off
Oct 112011
 

For the last few years the European Union (EU) has been researching food-related health and nutrition claims in preparation for a major claims and labelling legislation overhaul. The reasons are easy – regulations go back as far as 1978 in some cases, there are a lot of new foods EU consumers are able to purchase, and without updated legislation there is no way to begin to protect consumers. Here is a link to the Citizen’s Summary describing the European Commission’s reasoning.

I looked over the EU’s current list of authorized and rejected health and nutrition claims. Mostly vitamins and minerals are on the approved list, and some obviously absurd food product claims are on the rejected list. Times and products have indeed changed and even though the claims and labelling changes are burdensome, I think they are necessary. My Granny would have said, “it’s the devil you must live with.”

The European Commission is now in the draft phase of a final ‘European Union Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation’. The draft of authorized and banned claims should be ready by the end of the year. The draft will combine two directives into a single piece of legislation. The two directives are: Labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs and nutrition labelling for foodstuffs.

Now we come to the part that involves olive products and olive oil health claims (Article 13). The organization that evaluated the research into olive and olive oil claims is the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). In April 2011 they published their decisions.

The first is the Opinion of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) on the scientific substantiation of health claims on the food, olive oil as the claims relate to maintenance of normal blood LDL-cholesterol concentrations, maintenance of normal (fasting) blood concentrations of triglycerides, maintenance of normal blood HDL cholesterol concentrations and maintenance of normal blood glucose concentrations. Here are the claims and the decisions:

Maintenance of normal blood LDL-cholesterol concentrations

The claimed effects are “health of the cardiovascular system, general population” and “improves blood lipid profile”. The target population is assumed to be the general population. In the context of the proposed wording and clarifications provided by Member States, the Panel assumes that the claimed effects refer to the maintenance of normal LDL-cholesterol concentrations. The Panel considers that maintenance of normal blood LDL-cholesterol concentrations is a beneficial physiological effect.

In weighing the evidence, the Panel took into account that the evidence provided did not establish that olive oil consumption had an effect on blood LDL cholesterol concentrations beyond what could be expected from the fatty acid composition of olive oil, and that the only study which assessed the effects of olive oil while controlling for its fatty acid composition did not find any significant changes in LDL cholesterol concentrations when comparing olive oils with high, moderate and low polyphenol content.

On the basis of the data presented, the Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of olive oil and maintenance of normal blood LDL cholesterol concentrations beyond what could be expected from the fatty acid composition of olive oil.

A claim on the replacement of mixtures of SFAs with cis-MUFAs and/or cis-PUFAs in foods or diets and maintenance of normal blood LDL-cholesterol concentrations has been assessed with a favourable outcome. A claim on linoleic acid and maintenance of normal blood cholesterol concentrations has also already been assessed with a favourable outcome.

Maintenance of normal (fasting) blood concentrations of triglycerides

The claimed effects are “health of the cardiovascular system, general population” and “improves blood lipid profile”. The target population is assumed to be the general population. In the context of the proposed wording and clarifications provided by Member States, the Panel assumes that the claimed effects refer to the maintenance of normal (fasting) blood concentrations of triglycerides. The Panel considers that maintenance of normal (fasting) blood concentrations of triglycerides may be a beneficial physiological effect.

When carbohydrates are replaced with fats, fasting triglyceride levels are reduced, but there is no difference between the effects of different fatty acid classes. In clinical trials, no differences have been observed between olive oil, rapeseed oil, corn oil and sunflower oil with respect to their effects on blood concentrations of triglycerides.

On the basis of the data presented, the Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of olive oil and maintenance of normal (fasting) blood concentrations of triglycerides.

Maintenance of normal blood HDL-cholesterol concentrations

The claimed effects are “health of the cardiovascular system, general population” and “improves blood lipid profile”. The target population is assumed to be the general population. In the context of the proposed wording and clarifications provided by Member States, the Panel assumes that the claimed effects refer to the maintenance of normal HDL-cholesterol concentrations. The Panel considers that maintenance of normal HDL-cholesterol concentrations (without increasing LDL-cholesterol concentrations) is a beneficial physiological effect.

In weighing the evidence, the Panel took into account that based on its fatty acid composition olive oil is not expected to have an effect on HDL cholesterol concentrations, that a linear dose-response effect of olive oil polyphenols on HDL-cholesterol concentrations was observed in one study only, and that no evidence on a plausible mechanism by which olive oil polyphenols could exert an effect on HDL cholesterol concentrations has been provided.

On the basis of the data presented, the Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of olive oil and maintenance of normal HDL-cholesterol concentrations.

Maintenance of normal blood glucose concentrations

The claimed effect is “permet de réguler le glucoses dans le sang”. The target population is assumed to be the general population. The Panel assumes that the claimed effect refers to the maintenance of normal blood glucose concentrations. The Panel considers that long-term maintenance of normal blood glucose concentrations is a beneficial physiological effect.

No references were provided from which conclusions could be drawn for the scientific substantiation of the claimed effect.

On the basis of the data presented, the Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of olive oil and maintenance of normal blood glucose concentrations.

The second is the Opinion of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) on the scientific substantiation of of health claims related to polyphenols in the olive as the claims relate to protection of LDL particles from oxidative damage, maintenance of normal blood HDL-cholesterol concentrations, maintenance of normal blood pressure, “anti-inflammatory properties”, “contributes to the upper respiratory tract health”, “can help to maintain a normal function of gastrointestinal tract”, and “contributes to body defences against external agents”. Here are the claims and the decisions:

Protection of LDL particles from oxidative damage

The claimed effects are “reduces oxidative stress”, “antioxidant properties”, “lipid metabolism”, “antioxidant activity, they protect body cells and LDL from oxidative damages”, and “antioxidant properties”. The target population is assumed to be the general population. In the context of the proposed wordings, the Panel assumes that the claimed effects refer to the protection of low density lipoproteins (LDL) particles from oxidative damage. The Panel considers that protection of LDL particles from oxidative damage may be a beneficial physiological effect.

In weighing the evidence, the Panel took into account that a well conducted and powered study, and two smaller-scale studies, showed a dose-dependent and significant effect of olive oil polyphenol consumption (for three weeks) on appropriate markers of LDL peroxidation (oxLDL), that these results were supported by one short-term and one acute study, and by supportive markers of LDL peroxidation (conjugated dienes, ex vivo resistance of LDL to oxidation) going in the same direction, and that evidence for a biologically plausible mechanism by which olive oil polyphenols could exert the claimed effect has been provided.

On the basis of the data presented, the Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the consumption of olive oil polyphenols (standardised by the content of hydroxytyrosol and its derivatives) and protection of LDL particles from oxidative damage.

The Panel considers that in order to bear the claim, 5 mg of hydroxytyrosol and its derivatives (e.g. oleuropein complex and tyrosol) in olive oil should be consumed daily. These amounts, if provided by moderate amounts of olive oil, can be easily consumed in the context of a balanced diet. The concentrations in some olive oils may be too low to allow the consumption of this amount of polyphenols in the context of a balanced diet. The target population is the general population.

Maintenance of normal blood HDL-cholesterol concentrations

The claimed effect is “lipid metabolism”. The target population is assumed to be the general population. In the context of the proposed wording, the Panel assumes that the claimed effect refers to the maintenance of normal blood HDL-cholesterol concentrations. The Panel considers that maintenance of normal blood HDL-cholesterol concentrations (without increasing LDL-cholesterol concentrations) is a beneficial physiological effect.

In weighing the evidence, the Panel took into account that the results from the studies provided are inconsistent, and that no evidence for a biologically plausible mechanism by which olive oil polyphenols could exert the claimed effect has been provided.

On the basis of the data presented, the Panel concludes that the evidence provided is insufficient to establish a cause and effect relationship between the consumption olive oil polyphenols (standardised by the content of hydroxytyrosol and its derivatives) and maintenance of normal blood HDL cholesterol concentrations.

Maintenance of normal blood pressure

The claimed effect is “contributes to the maintenance of a normal blood pressure”. The target population is assumed to be the general population. The Panel considers that maintenance of normal blood pressure is a beneficial physiological effect.

No human studies were provided from which conclusions could be drawn for the scientific substantiation of the claimed effect.

On the basis of the data presented, the Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of polyphenols in olive (olive fruit, olive mill waste waters or olive oil, Olea europaea L. extract and leaf) standardised by the content of hydroxytyrosol and its derivatives (e.g. oleuropein complex) and maintenance of normal blood pressure.

“Anti-inflammatory properties”

The claimed effect is “a potent source of olive biophenols with anti-inflammatory properties”. The target population is assumed to be the general population. In the context of the proposed wordings, the Panel considers that the claim refers to diseases such as osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis, in which a reduction of inflammation would be a therapeutic target for the treatment of the disease.

The Panel considers that the reduction of inflammation in the context of diseases such as osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis is a therapeutic target for the treatment of the disease, and does not comply with the criteria laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.

“Contributes to the upper respiratory tract health”

The claimed effect is “contributes to the upper respiratory tract health”. The target population is assumed to be the general population.

The claimed effect is not sufficiently defined and no clarification has been provided by Member States. The Panel notes that different health outcomes were mentioned in the information provided, and that it was not possible to establish which specific effect is the target for the claim.

The Panel concludes that the claimed effect is general and non-specific, and does not refer to any specific health claim as required by Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.

“Can help to maintain a normal function of gastrointestinal tract”

The claimed effect is “can help to maintain a normal function of gastrointestinal tract”. The target population is assumed to be the general population.

The claimed effect is not sufficiently defined and no clarification has been provided by Member States. The Panel notes that different health outcomes were mentioned in the information provided, and that it was not possible to establish which specific effect is the target for the claim.

The Panel concludes that the claimed effect is general and non-specific, and does not refer to any specific health claim as required by Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.

“Contributes to body defences against external agents”

The claimed effect is “contributes to body defences against external agents”. The target population is assumed to be the general population.

The claimed effect is not sufficiently defined and no clarification has been provided by Member States. The Panel notes that different health outcomes were mentioned in the information provided, and that it was not possible to establish which specific effect is the target for the claim.

The Panel concludes that the claimed effect is general and non-specific, and does not refer to any specific health claim as required by Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006.

May the sun shine through your branches

www.olivecrazy.com

More Olive Industry and FDA News: The Latest on the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010

 Legislation, USFDA  Comments Off
Jul 092011
 

The regulation of olive oil labelling and branding for food consumption isn’t all the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is involved in.

The FDA also regulates the cosmetics industry. An update to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, called the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 died with the end of the 111th Congress (2009-2010 term). BUT! Negotiations by several for-profit and non-profit groups to reintroduce the legislation, as is, and/or in an altered state, are ongoing with current Members of Congress (the 112th Congress). These groups apparently think the reintroduction of the Safe Cosmetics Act is impending.

How does this affect the olive industry? As you have seen in recent years, olive oil is more frequently used in soaps, lotions, and other cosmetics for use by adults and children. Olive oil as a non-food commodity is a growing market. How deep the market is – is another matter.

Currently, there is a FDA regulatory exemption for soap, provided the “soap” meets the FDA’s definitions. The definitions can be found in the FDA’s article entitled “Is It a Cosmetic, a Drug, or Both? (Or Is It Soap?)“. As far as exemptions go – that’s it.

It is very important for members of the olive industry to keep an eye not only on regulations pertaining to olive and olive oil as food or pharmaceuticals, but as non-foods as well.

May the sun shine through your branches.

www.olivecrazy.com

 

The California Olive Senator: Lois Wolk

 Legislation  Comments Off
Jun 272011
 

Yesterday I wrote about a piece of legislation in California that will affect the labelling of olive oil in California. Today I would like to introduce you to the author of the legislation.

Senator Lois Wolk, the author of Senate Bill 818, which deals with olive oil labelling in California, was appointed in February 2011 as Chair of the new Senate Subcommittee on Olive Oil Production and Emerging Products. This subcommittee is under the Senate Agriculture Committee and its initial focus is on California’s olive oil industry.

Senator Wolk was elected in November 2008 to represent the Fifth Senate District, which includes parts of San Joaquin, Solano, Yolo, and Sacramento Counties.

Senator Wolk chairs the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, which is tasked with restructuring the relationship between state and local governments and reforming the budget process. She is a member of the Senate Committees on Agriculture; Budget & Fiscal Review; Health; and Natural Resources and Water. She also serves on the Budget Subcommittee on Corrections and the Joint Legislative Audit and Joint Legislative Budget Committees.

Additionally, Senator Wolk is the Senate’s representative on the Delta Protection Commission, the state commission charged with protecting and maintaining the agricultural, wildlife habitat and recreational uses in the Delta.

There is lots more to know about Senator Wolk as you will find on her legislative website. As far as I can find, she is the only legislator in the U.S. who directly chairs any state legislative committee tasked with olive industry duties. I am sure as the U.S. olive industry grows and olive oil production increases there will be more.

May the sun shine through your branches.

www.olivecrazy.com

 Older Entries