Foodstuffs banned in the US

[markk]

I had posted about a juice I bought at my local supermarket with additives that I subsequently looked up and found suspect - and then I re-read my own post and realized that the Wikipedia article on one of the additives actually says that it is banned in the US !!

I'm reposting the info below under this new heading, with the question: how is this possible? How can a very major supermarket chain be selling an imported product with an ingedient that's banned in this country ???

It's the E122 (Azorubine; Carmoisine) mentioned below.

From my original post:

I bought some imported Sour Cherry juice at my local supermarket - the brand on the juice is BBB and it's imported from Bulgaria, and two of the ingredients are E150d, which is "Sulphite ammonia caramel", and E122, "Azorubine; Carmoisine".

I looked them up (on Wikipedia) and found the descriptions horrifying (at least the word 'sulphite' in the first one anyway), and everything about the second one, including the line that it's banned in the US:

------------------

E150d

Sulphite ammonia caramel

These colourings, which range from dark brown to black, are made by controlled heat treatment of sugar beet or sugar cane (with or without the presence of alkalis or acids) but as it is possible to use sugar from maize starch which may come from a Genetically Modified crop. The caramel group of colours are the most widely used group of colours, comprising some 98% of all colours used.

Between them they can be found in beer, brown bread, buns, chocolate, biscuits, brandy, chocolate flavoured flour based confectionery, coatings, decorations, fillings and toppings, crisps, dessert mixes, doughnuts, fish and shellfish spreads, frozen desserts, glucose tablets, gravy browning, ice cream, jams, milk desserts, pancakes, pickles, sauces and dressings, soft drinks particularly cola drinks, stouts, sweets, vinegar, whisky and wines.

Not recommended for consumption by children.

-------------------

E122,

Azorubine; Carmoisine

A synthetic red azo dye used in foods which must be heat treated after fermentation. Also found in blancmange, marzipan, Swiss roll, jams and preserves, sweets, brown sauce, flavoured yogurts, packet soups, jellies, breadcrumbs and cheesecake mixes.

It appears to cause allergic and/or intolerance reactions, particularly amongst those with an aspirin intolerance. Other reactions can include a rash similar to nettle rash and water retention.

Not recommended for consumption by children.

The Hyperactive Childrens Support Group belive that a link exists between this additive and hyperactive behavioural disorders in children.

Whilst being a commonly used colour in the UK, its use is banned in Japan, Norway, Sweden and the United States.

Edited January 2, 2007 by markk (log)

[markk]

I wrote to the major supermarket chain in question, and asked how they could be selling a juice with additives banned in the USA.

This was the reply I just got:

"Our Quality Assurance Division has contacted the company that is supplying this product to our stores and the ingredients in the product are being reviewed by our staff.

"Providing our customers with wholesome foods is a high priority for staff at ShopRite. We want to assure you that our buyers and Quality Assurance staff continually monitor the products we offer for our customers to ensure they comply with Federal Regulations."

The first statement's just incredible to me; they're looking into the ingredients in a product months after they've been selling it in their stores?

And the second statement's just an untruth. If they monitored what they sell, the product with the banned ingredients wouldn't have made it to their shelves! And nothing about an ingredient banned for sale in the US says "wholseome" in my book.

Oh, well.

[gfron1]

At great risk I'll put myself out there as a specialty food store owner. We're small with over 1,200 items and we do try to catch any banned or questionable foods. We used to carry the juice you mentioned, and caught it when our distributor sent out a notice. There are so many notices that go out and I'm sure we miss some/many (I could have easily missed the Vegemite ban if wasn't for EGullet). We really do need customers to point things out to us that passes our radar. If I were a big corporation, I'd send out some lawyer created (CYA) letter like they did to you - I just apologize and pull it if I find it to be true. I wouldn't assume that your store was out to pull a fast one. More than likely its just trying to keep up on things, and that one was missed...or another way to pose it, how many items have they caught that you don't know about?

[prasantrin]

"Providing our customers with wholesome foods is a high priority for staff at ShopRite.  We want to assure you that our buyers and Quality Assurance staff continually monitor the products we offer for our customers to ensure they comply with Federal Regulations."

And the second statement's just an untruth.  If they monitored what they sell, the product with the banned ingredients wouldn't have made it to their shelves! 

That seems rather simplistic to me. It is completely possible to monitor what you sell, but still have a product with a banned ingredient on the shelf for a period of time. Just because it was on the shelf, doesn't mean they wouldn't have taken it off once the error was caught (which may have happened even without your help, eventually).

And nothing about an ingredient banned for sale in the US says "wholseome" in my book.

←

That an ingredient, food product, or even drug is banned in the US doesn't infer that it is unwholesome.

[markk]

Personally, I don't eat anything until I've read the label thoroughly and cleared it; that's why I bought these juices and took them home to look up the e-numbers before I drank them.

But there's always the chance that a banned additive might very well be harmful, and there's a great chance that sombody other than me might see a product containing it at Shop Rite or any other major supermarket chain, and assume that it was safe to eat, and then have a problem.

And I do think that the monitoring should be done before they decide to sell a product, especially, especially if they're going to make claims like they do.

I didn't get annoyed until they proceeded to tell me how much they cared for my well being after the deed was done.

[godito]

I'm too lazy to check, and it's not extremely likelu, but the wikipedia article might be wrong. After all, it's contents are user-generated.

Also

That an ingredient, food product, or even drug is banned in the US doesn't infer that it is unwholesome.

I soooo agree with this. Who's gonna tell me that Iberico ham was unwholesome in 2004?

[markk]

Who's gonna tell me that Iberico ham was unwholesome in 2004?

←

No, you're absolutely right about that. And I used to smuggle back Italian prosciutto when it wasn't legal here.

But Shop Rite's defense isn't that they looked-up the banned additive and decided that it was bs and that it's perfectly safe - it's that they didn't even catch that they were selling something that very well might have been dangerous and has been banned for sale. And I'm not saying that they're responsible for determining which ingredients are safe and which are not - but they are responsible not to sell things that are banned. It's not a judgement call for them.

[gfron1]

But again, I ordered the exact same juice in question (along with about 75 other products) in the same week when I ordered from 4 other companies (representing 350 products)...I'm not going to research each and every item, and then continue to monitor their legality going forward. Realize that I have to work really hard to get my banned Kinder Eggs (banned because of small toy parts being a choking hazard), because the FDA shuts them down before the enter the country. If the BBB juice made it in the country, then the FDA missed it. I can't imagine even considering monitoring the 10,000 SKUs the a big store would need to.

Again, I choose to believe that they do care enough about other human beings that once informed, and once confirmed, they would remove the product if they needed to. And again, the letter is some lawyer dictating babble...not a personal message to you as a person, so no need to take it for anything more than it is.

BTW, I don't think you've finished the story - did they remove it from the shelf or is it still being sold?

[deltadoc]

I'm wondering how the "banned ingredients" got imported into the US in the first place?

Probably they were looking for terrorists hiding in the food crates more than looking for what was in the bottles~

doc

[markk]

I'm wondering how the "banned ingredients" got imported into the US in the first place?

Probably they were looking for terrorists hiding in the food crates more than looking for what was in the bottles~ 

doc

←

Wow. I figured that the people who look for the terrorists in the crates were separate from the buyers for the supermarket chains. Thanks.

Well, I guess I care more than other people do about this, and I learned something from starting the thread and posing the situation.

[ghostrider]

I don't know why anyone trusts Wikipedia as a source for anything. It's touted as self-correcting, but of course you never know what stage a given entry will be in.

Less than 2 minutes of googling on a slow dialup connection led me to the information that imports of Azorubine are permitted by the FDA, as long as the substance is manufactured in FDA certified batches.

Given that fact, it sounds like ShopRite's cautious response was right and proper.

[markk]

Less than 2 minutes of googling on a slow dialup connection led me to the information that imports of Azorubine are permitted by the FDA, as long as the substance is manufactured in FDA certified batches.

No, your less than 2 minutes of slow googling took you to incorrect information.

From the FDA's website:

"The following color additives are not authorized for use in food products in the United States. (the bold and italics are theirs, btw)

• Amaranth (C.I. 16185, EEC No. E123, formerly certifiable as FD&C Red No. 2)

• Azorubine (C.I. 14720, EEC No. E122, formerly certifiable as Ext. D&C Red No. 10); also called Azo Rubine and Carmoisine.

• etc..."

The list of additives that are declared safe "only when the color additives are from batches that have been certified by the FDA" does not include Asorubine.

[markk]

In reply to some comments made earlier, I think that the buyers for stores that claim to be upscale and concerned should look at what's in the products they choose.

I mean, I go to the Fancy Foods Show every year, just like they presumably do. As people greet me from behind their tables and offer me tastes of exciting new items, I ask to read the ingredients first. If it's not for me, I don't want to taste it. But if the buyer for a store is merely choosing items from a list in the catalog, and isn't looking at the ingredients, and/or doesn't know what's banned in this country, well I don't think they should have that person in that job is all.

[prasantrin]

In reply to some comments made earlier, I think that the buyers for stores that claim to be upscale and concerned should look at what's in the products they choose.

←

I think it's less the responsibility of the buyers and stores who buy the products as it is the government agency that makes the rules. If it's the FDA that decides what should or shouldn't be consumed, then it's the FDA that should be enforcing the rules. As a consumer, I don't expect to buy foods which contain banned ingredients, because I assume the government has done its job of keeping them out of our foods.

[markk]

In reply to some comments made earlier, I think that the buyers for stores that claim to be upscale and concerned should look at what's in the products they choose.

←

I think it's less the responsibility of the buyers and stores who buy the products as it is the government agency that makes the rules. If it's the FDA that decides what should or shouldn't be consumed, then it's the FDA that should be enforcing the rules. As a consumer, I don't expect to buy foods which contain banned ingredients, because I assume the government has done its job of keeping them out of our foods.

←

I don't think that the FDA is responsible for enforcing the rules it makes, in the same way that your local Congressman doesn't issue you a ticket if you break the law.

But in the food chain, I would think that people all along it should assume that the have some responsiblity for what they sell, and that there should be more accountability, not less. Because what happens when everybody can say, "that's not my responsibility" is exactly what did happen: banned foostuffs wind up on my local store shelves.

If I'm buying food from you, I'm holding you accountable for not selling me something that's illegal, that's all I'm saying.

[gfron1]

In reply to some comments made earlier, I think that the buyers for stores that claim to be upscale and concerned should look at what's in the products they choose.

I mean, I go to the Fancy Foods Show every year, just like they presumably do.  As people greet me from behind their tables and offer me tastes of exciting new items, I ask to read the ingredients first.  If it's not for me, I don't want to taste it.  But if the buyer for a store is merely choosing items from a list in the catalog, and isn't looking at the ingredients, and/or doesn't know what's banned in this country, well I don't think they should have that person in that job is all.

←

But again, I am suggesting that this places an undue responsibility on a purchaser. You're suggesting that I compare every ingredient of the thousands of items that cross my shelves every year...not just at time of purchase, but also for any changes to their legality throughout the year. That is an impossible task for any size store.

I think you are doing the correct thing by being a responsible consumer and educating yourself to what you purchase. You then have the choice as to what enters your body or not.

And as for your comment about attending the FFS, I do, and I do read the labels of what I pursue, but I buy far more things that what I taste at the show. If that's all I purchased, my shelves would be very scant. That, in my opinion, does not suggest that I shouldn't be purchasing for my store. Purchasing is a much larger job than that - it is about relationships with manufacturers, distributors and customers. All of whom have important knowledge and needs to share with me. And again I would suggest that self-responsibility is the best and most logical response to this entire issue.

[markk]

In reply to some comments made earlier, I think that the buyers for stores that claim to be upscale and concerned should look at what's in the products they choose.

I mean, I go to the Fancy Foods Show every year, just like they presumably do.  As people greet me from behind their tables and offer me tastes of exciting new items, I ask to read the ingredients first.  If it's not for me, I don't want to taste it.  But if the buyer for a store is merely choosing items from a list in the catalog, and isn't looking at the ingredients, and/or doesn't know what's banned in this country, well I don't think they should have that person in that job is all.

←

But again, I am suggesting that this places an undue responsibility on a purchaser. You're suggesting that I compare every ingredient of the thousands of items that cross my shelves every year...not just at time of purchase, but also for any changes to their legality throughout the year. That is an impossible task for any size store.

I think you are doing the correct thing by being a responsible consumer and educating yourself to what you purchase. You then have the choice as to what enters your body or not.

And as for your comment about attending the FFS, I do, and I do read the labels of what I pursue, but I buy far more things that what I taste at the show. If that's all I purchased, my shelves would be very scant. That, in my opinion, does not suggest that I shouldn't be purchasing for my store. Purchasing is a much larger job than that - it is about relationships with manufacturers, distributors and customers. All of whom have important knowledge and needs to share with me. And again I would suggest that self-responsibility is the best and most logical response to this entire issue.

←

If you're a food 'buyer' for a store and you don't check the ingredients of everything you choose to sell, then I personally don't want to shop in your store - although many might. But if you're the buyer for a chain that says "Providing our customers with wholesome foods is a high priority for staff... We want to assure you that our buyers and Quality Assurance staff continually monitor the products we offer for our customers to ensure they comply with Federal Regulations." - and you don't check the ingredients of what you choose to carry - or you check them after you've been selling them and there's a problem - well, I think that's bad.

If you're just assuming that everything offered to you is safe and legal, I think that's not a good thing.

I'll give you an example of what happens when people assume.

A few years ago USA Today did a centerfold spread called "The Sandwiches That Define Our Cities" and for each major city they chose a sandwich, showed a picture, and told where to get the best one. For NYC they chose the Reuben sandwich, and said that the best Reuben in the city came from the Second Avenue Deli, where the described it as piled high with juicy corned beef and melted swiss cheese.

Oops. The Second Avenue Deli was strictly kosher, and didn't even have cheese, or any dairy, on the premises. So how did the writer claim that the best one in New York was there?

He may have been told that by somebody who made it up, and he assumed they were right? Or he assumed himself that since the Second Avenue Deli was a famous NY deli that it would have one, and it would be the best in the city?

When I read that, I actually called the Second Avenue Deli to see if things had changed, and they made it clear that they were still strictly kosher, and that the story had caused a lot of bad feelings.

So when it comes to foods, and health care, I don't think that people should assume. I think that they should check, out of a sense of responsibility. When a hospital worker is told that he has to check your id bracelet each and every time he gives you medicine, is he insulted? No, he understands the idea of safety first.

I'm just saying that when a food buyer "assumes" that something is safe, that's how banned products appear for sale. And as I say, if you're the buyer for a store that claims to take my welfare seriously, and you're carrying products without knowing or caring what's in them, no matter how many you carry, then shame on you.

[Carolyn Tillie]

If you're a food 'buyer' for a store and you don't check the ingredients of everything you choose to sell, then I personally don't want to shop in your store - although many might. 

Emphasis is mine. I think you are being entirely unrealistic in what a buyer's job is and what they have time to do. Yes, you are capable of reading every ingredient on every product you purchase, but a buyer is dealing with literally THOUSANDS of products - multiply that out by the ingredients and they would be reading about tens of thousands of ingredients. Now who can possibly have such an encyclopedic mind to know which products might be suspect. This is also assuming that in their 8-hour day, they are doing *nothing* other than reading ingredients.

I think you are being unreasonable to expect the buyers to be able to do this job 100% of the time, as though there is nothing else in their job description. Sure some things are going to fall through the cracks -- as you have discovered. But to express such indignation is, in my opinion, just downright bizarre.

[markk]

I should point out that I was perfectly able to accept the original situation. I bought a product, had to take it home to look up the "e-numbers" to see if I wanted to consume them, and found one of them to be illegal. So I wrote to the store to tell them.

It's at the point that they wrote back "Providing our customers with wholesome foods is a high priority for staff at ShopRite. We want to assure you that our buyers and Quality Assurance staff continually monitor the products we offer for our customers to ensure they comply with Federal Regulations" that I lost it.

That's when I got annoyed at the word games. If providing me with wholseome foods is a high priority, and they've sold me something with a red dye food coloring that's banned in the US, then they've failed, no? And honestly, what's the good of monitoring the products to ensure that they comply with Federal regulations after they appear for sale on their shelves?

Edited January 8, 2007 by markk (log)

[Zach Holmes]

What did you expect them to say? "We don't give a crap about wholesome foods, but because you complained, we'll take it off the shelves." There's a reason they have lawyers and publicity people write this stuff out. they realize you are a disgruntled customer, and they want to assure you that they are doing their best, they WANT you to continue to shop at their store.

[markk]

What did you expect them to say?  "We don't give a crap about wholesome foods, but because you complained, we'll take it off the shelves."  There's a reason they have lawyers and publicity people write this stuff out.  they realize you are a disgruntled customer, and they want to assure you that they are doing their best, they WANT you to continue to shop at their store.

←

They could have said "thanks for pointing that out to us - we'll remove it right away", or they could have said "thanks for pointing that out to us - we'll remove it right away - we should have caught that sooner, our mistake, very sorry", or they could have said "thanks for pointing that out to us - we'll remove it right away and look into how it got on our shelves in the first place. Please accept our apologies for this. We do care, and this was a mistake." There are many things they could have said.

[Zach Holmes]

You have a point. Do you know if they promptly took it off the shelves or not?

[markk]

You have a point.  Do you know if they promptly took it off the shelves or not?

←

Honestly, I don't. I'm a perimeter shopper - I don't eat packaged or processed foods, so I usually only buy things that come from the refrigerated cases around the outside of the store, and there are many aisles, including the one with the juices, that I never go in. (I go in the natural and organic aisles, but it's surely not there anyway.) When I bought it, it was on a special display somewhere else in the store. If they had moved it to the juice aisle, I wouldn't know.

[Carolyn Tillie]

What did you expect them to say?  "We don't give a crap about wholesome foods, but because you complained, we'll take it off the shelves."  There's a reason they have lawyers and publicity people write this stuff out.  they realize you are a disgruntled customer, and they want to assure you that they are doing their best, they WANT you to continue to shop at their store.

←

They could have said "thanks for pointing that out to us - we'll remove it right away", or they could have said "thanks for pointing that out to us - we'll remove it right away - we should have caught that sooner, our mistake, very sorry", or they could have said "thanks for pointing that out to us - we'll remove it right away and look into how it got on our shelves in the first place. Please accept our apologies for this. We do care, and this was a mistake." There are many things they could have said.

←

I sort of disagree -- while they may very well appreciate what you have brought to their attention, having come from a PR/Marketing background I'm not sure I would admit to culpability of breaking Federal Laws in writing. Too much legal ramifications, which I am sure you can appreciate. Have no doubt that those who made the mistake were notified of the grievance, but it doesn't surprise me that they wouldn't acknowledge it to John-Q-Public. Sad, but true. Yes, for your peace of mind I can completely understand you wanting to be assured it won't happen again and they will take better care in the future, etc., but I can see their position of not being willing to admit they made such an error.

Edited January 9, 2007 by Carolyn Tillie (log)