That’s a Wrap for IFT 2019! We want to thank you for visiting us at IFT this year. This year’s conference brought together thousands of like-minded innovators to learn, engage, and collaborate on the latest scientific advancements in the food industry. With the show ending, and things going back to business as usual, we wanted to share with you some of the highlights that stuck out to us!
While I think everyone would agree that Russian roulette is a risky endeavor, not everyone would concede that zip lining, rock climbing or skydiving are risky activities. The ambiguity of “risk” can be extended to the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) regulations, particularly the designation of “high-risk” foods and the mitigation of the intentional adulteration of foods.
The way we drink coffee and tea is changing. Retail sales of refrigerated and shelf-stable coffee and tea products are growing, and the rapid growth of cold brew coffee and tea consumption, in particular, raises the question of microbiological safety.
When was the last time you took a bite of your favorite food, and just stopped there? Can’t remember right? Well, a lot of times consumer acceptance of products is largely linked with the entire eating or drinking experience. One great way to correlate this experience with consumer liking is the use of temporal methods. Continue Reading
The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard – Part III: The Proof of the Pudding is in the EatingTodd E. Napolitano /
The following installment is Part III in my series exploring the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. This is the new GMO law in the United States, and the implications broad in reach, vast in the sheer number of products affected, and clear as mud when it comes to loopholes. The regulation seeks middle ground. In practice, it remains to be seen. Continue Reading
Note: This is the second installment in a three-part series. Part I can be found here; Part III will appear on April 25th.
The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard is now the law of the land. From a consumer’s perspective, there are now federal regulations requiring food products containing bioengineered/GMO ingredients to disclose this on their packaging. From an industry perspective, the potential implications, impact, and costs could be significant. Mandatory disclosure could play out in a number of ways. There are, however, numerous paths to exemption.
Note: This is the first in a three-part series. Part II will appear on April 12th. Part III will appear on April 25th.
The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has issued its final rule governing bioengineered food and food ingredients. The law outlines the businesses, products, and high-risk inputs covered under the regulations, as well as the criteria for exemption. Yes, there’s a new sheriff in town, and he’s all about disclosure.
Earlier this year, Q1 held their 6th Annual Food Labeling Conference in Arlington, Virginia, where over one hundred representatives of the food industry gathered to discuss evolving regulatory issues within the food world. In today’s fast track to launch environment and short product lifecycles, organizations are challenged by the slow movement of supporting regulations and are forced to make calculated risks to satisfy their ever-demanding consumers. There were many excellent discussions and presenters at this conference, but they all had a basic theme that can be summarized in five key takeaways: Continue Reading