Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday October 05 2017, @01:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the depends-on-what-you-are-cooking-up dept.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Tuesday released a warning letter to Nashoba Brook Bakery, reprimanding the West Concord, Massachusetts-based baker and wholesaler about the ingredients it lists in its granola.

One, in particular.

"Your Nashoba Granola label lists ingredient 'Love,'" the agency wrote in the Sept. 22 letter. "'Love' is not a common or usual name of an ingredient, and is considered to be intervening material because it is not part of the common or usual name of the ingredient."

Nashoba Chief Executive Officer John Gates said the FDA's take on love as an ingredient "just felt so George Orwell."

Ars Technica additionally reports that was not all that the FDA found:

During a recent bakery inspection, FDA agents discovered: dirt and filth caked onto ceiling vents and sprinklers directly above ready-to-eat foods; parts of the floor and ceiling that were missing for some reason; equipment, including bowls and cooling racks, that wasn't cleaned or maintained; and counters, shelves, and food production surfaces that were coated with an unknown residue.

Insects also proved worrisome. At one point, an FDA inspector noticed a one-inch-long, unidentified crawling insect directly underneath a batch of pastries. Last, the FDA reported that employees weren't following proper hygiene practices. One baker repeatedly dipped a blue bracelet into raw dough while mixing it.

For your reading pleasure, here is the warning letter.

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by requerdanos on Thursday October 05 2017, @05:00PM

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 05 2017, @05:00PM (#577521) Journal

    There seems to be some confusion resulting from a Bloomberg false & clickbait headline:


    TFHeadline: FDA: Love is Not an Ingredient


    TFURLSlug: fda-declares-there-s-no-love-in-granola-warns-bakery-company


    Bloomberg TFA Headline: FDA Warns Bakery Company ‘Love’ Is Not an Ingredient in Granola

    Based on false premise:

    DannyB: So why can't bakery pastries be made with Love?

    Mixture (Beatles True; not an ingredient False):

    AC: The Beatles told us that love is all you need, and now we learn it isn't even an ingredient

    What is alleged here is that the FDA said that love is not an ingredient. That is completely false.

    The FDA did not deny, nor even question or challenge the idea that Love was an ingredient in the granola. They merely point out that if Love is a physical ingredient, included in the food, then it is being listed in the ingredients in a confusing or misleading way.

    Specifically, "'Love' is not a common or usual name of an ingredient" according to the Combined Federal Regulations that govern what can be listed among ingredients, and how.

    This is not a statement about the contents of granola, but rather the content of a specific law describing how you can list ingredients. Editorial comments can't go in the list of approved nouns; thus even if the product is 99.999% intangible but wholesome love, the tiny area of the label listing physical ingredients isn't the place to list it, and the entire rest of the label would be a great place to put it, by federal law. As a Bakery, Nashoba Brook's knowledge area is what to put in granola, and as a federal agency, the FDA are the ones with the knowledge area of Federal law.

    I interpolate from the letter--which was mostly about how nasty the bakery and its practices seemed to be to the inspectors--that should the bakery choose to specify how the love was applied to the ingredients in any area of the label other than nutrition facts, then there is no prohibition listed. Unlike "Whole Grain" or "Fat Free," there are no specific Federal guidelines for describing how you include Love in your product. There just *is* a guideline on specifically what can go in the ingredients area of nutrition facts, that being physical items described in a particular way.

    In short: It was the *way* that they listed the Love that caused the problem, not a blind denial that a product could contain Love.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=1, Informative=4, Overrated=2, Total=7
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5