A California Superior Court judge has overturned a ruling requiring tuna companies to brand their cans with mercury warning labels under the state's Prop 65 legislation. Prop 65 requires that products that may cause cancer or reproductive harm carry warning labels, but the judge decided that mercury in tuna doesn't qualify, despite tuna's popularity and the clear threat mercury poses to the development of fetuses, infants and children. Read why at the LA Times.
Related News
Continue Reading
States, not the FDA, are now the front lines of food safety
Evidence keeps mounting about the health risks of common food chemicals. At the same time, Americans are waking up to the fact that the federal government not only doesn’t vet the chemicals used in...
Natural and artificial flavor: What's the difference?
If you’ve studied ingredient labels and been mystified by “natural flavor” and “artificial flavor,” you’re not alone. These vague terms suggest a big gap in quality, but the reality is more complex...
6 real policies to help people eat real food
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. kicked off the “Eat Real Food” campaign last month, promising a series of food and nutrition policy changes to “Make America Healthy Again.”
So...
How to speed-read a nutrition label in three steps (or less)
Sometimes food labels are so complex it feels like you need a degree in food science to go grocery shopping – especially if you’re trying to eat less ultra-processed food, or UPF.
Typically made in...