FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Marguerite Copel
(214) 721-1273
ALLERGY ALERT ON UNDECLARED DAIRY IN 11-OUNCE SINGLE SERVE SILK SOYMILK CHOCOLATE FLAVOR IN PLASTIC BOTTLES
Mount Crawford, Virginia (April 23, 2008) - WhiteWave Foods Company is voluntarily recalling 11-ounce plastic single serve bottles of Silk Soymilk Chocolate Flavor because it may contain undeclared milk protein. The individual bottles are printed with both a “use by” date of May 7, 2008 (printed as 05 07 08) and a Universal Product Code (UPC) of 2529360028. Consumers can find this information on the back of the individual bottle.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk protein run the risk of a health problem or illness if they consume this product. Some reactions have been reported.
This affected product was distributed nationwide and reached consumers through retail and foodservice outlets. WhiteWave’s sales team is working with distributors to actively recover any affected product remaining on store shelves.
HOW TO IDENTIFY THE RECALLED PRODUCT
This recall includes only 11-ounce single serve plastic bottles of Silk Soymilk Chocolate Flavor with both a “use by” date of May 7, 2008 (printed as 05 07 08) and a UPC code of 2529360028. Consumers should look for this information on the back of the bottle.
The Company apologizes for any inconvenience to its customers. Consumers who purchased the product may return it to the place of purchase for a full refund or exchange. Consumers with questions can contact the Company at 1-800-587-2259.
The Food and Drug Administration has been notified of this recall.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Common Chemical, Bisphenol A (BPA), in Plastic Bottles Threatens Public Health
Source:
Grist Magazine
When Bisphenol Is Said and Done
Key ingredient in clear plastics called unsafe, except by industry
A chemical widely used in the making of clear plastic products, including baby bottles, food storage containers, and even dental fillings, is the subject of debate between those who say it is safe, namely plastic-industry flacks, and those who say it's not, namely most everyone else. Many scientists have found evidence that bisphenol A, or BPA, is harmful, even in the small doses leached from plastic during heating or exposure to acidic foods or strong detergents, because it can mimic sex hormones. A new paper in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives surveys 115 studies on BPA and reports that 94 of them show harmful effects. In a wacky coincidence, researchers Frederick vom Saal and Claude Hughes found that all 11 industry-funded studies conclude BPA is nothing to worry about, while 90 percent of the 104 government- or university-funded studies conclude otherwise. California's legislature is considering a ban on BPA in children's products; if successful, it would be the first ban on the chemical in the world. straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Marla Cone, 13 Apr 2005 straight to the source: USA Today, Elizabeth Weise, 14 Apr 2005
______________________________________________
2nd Article
--------------
From:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-04-14-leaching-chemical_x.htm
Debate over a leaching chemical heats up By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY Is it possible that a chemical's effect is in the eye of the beholder?
That's the implication of a paper published this week in a prominent environmental health journal.
It concerns a debate over the safety of low doses of a chemical used to make hard, clear plastics such as those found in baby bottles, food-storage containers and the lining of soda cans.
When the plastic industry examines the health impact of a ubiquitous chemical called bisphenol A, everything's fine.
If the government or a university funds the study, there are big problems. Those are the conclusions drawn by Frederick vom Saal, a developmental biologist at the University of Missouri who reports his findings in Environmental Health Perspectives, published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Vom Saal and others seek revised risk assessments for the chemical in the light of a new research into its effects.
Bisphenol A mimics the sex hormone estradiol in the body, acting "like birth control pills," says vom Saal. The body is exquisitely sensitive to sex hormones, needing only tiny amounts to trigger major changes. That's why scientists are concerned about the impact of even the extremely low levels of bisphenol A found in people.
In mice and rats there is evidence that low doses of bisphenol A can cause structural damage to the brain, hyperactivity, abnormal sexual behavior, increased fat formation, early puberty and disrupted reproductive cycles.
Vom Saal looked at 115 published studies concerning low-doses of bisphenolA. Overall, 94 of them reported significant effects in rats and mice, while 21 did not.
Eleven of the studies were funded by chemical companies. None of those 11 found harmful effects of the chemical, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says is detected in 95% of all people tested.
But more than 90% of the studies conducted by independent scientists not associated with the chemical industry found adverse consequences, says vom Saal. He called the disparity between the industry and government or university conclusions "stunning."
Steven Hentges of the American Plastics Council counters that the article is not a research paper but a commentary < "an op-ed" piece rather than a scientific paper. The real issue is the weight of evidence, he says, not the number of studies.
"You can have 1,000 studies, but if they're all weak, adding up weak evidence doesn't necessarily give you strong evidence of anything," Hentges says. "Jumping to who sponsored it is a way to dodge the facts."
He says that, in the view of the plastic industry, vom Saal has presented nothing new to change the conclusion that there's no cause for concern. "Government bodies worldwide have reached the conclusion that bisphenol A is not a risk to humans at very low levels."
Over 6 billion tons of bisphenol A are used each year to make polycarbonate plastics, which have the useful property of not becoming brittle over time. First synthesized in 1957, the material didn't come into widespread use until the 1970s.
Chemical bonds that bisphenol A forms in plastic can unravel when heated, washed or exposed to acidic foods, causing the chemical to leach into foods. "There's good evidence to show cause for concern," says Patricia Hunt, whose research found abnormalities in developing egg cells in female mice when exposed to low levels of bisphenol A.
"We now know enough to know that we need to look at this stuff in great detail," she says.
Grist Magazine
When Bisphenol Is Said and Done
Key ingredient in clear plastics called unsafe, except by industry
A chemical widely used in the making of clear plastic products, including baby bottles, food storage containers, and even dental fillings, is the subject of debate between those who say it is safe, namely plastic-industry flacks, and those who say it's not, namely most everyone else. Many scientists have found evidence that bisphenol A, or BPA, is harmful, even in the small doses leached from plastic during heating or exposure to acidic foods or strong detergents, because it can mimic sex hormones. A new paper in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives surveys 115 studies on BPA and reports that 94 of them show harmful effects. In a wacky coincidence, researchers Frederick vom Saal and Claude Hughes found that all 11 industry-funded studies conclude BPA is nothing to worry about, while 90 percent of the 104 government- or university-funded studies conclude otherwise. California's legislature is considering a ban on BPA in children's products; if successful, it would be the first ban on the chemical in the world. straight to the source: Los Angeles Times, Marla Cone, 13 Apr 2005 straight to the source: USA Today, Elizabeth Weise, 14 Apr 2005
______________________________________________
2nd Article
--------------
From:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-04-14-leaching-chemical_x.htm
Debate over a leaching chemical heats up By Elizabeth Weise, USA TODAY Is it possible that a chemical's effect is in the eye of the beholder?
That's the implication of a paper published this week in a prominent environmental health journal.
It concerns a debate over the safety of low doses of a chemical used to make hard, clear plastics such as those found in baby bottles, food-storage containers and the lining of soda cans.
When the plastic industry examines the health impact of a ubiquitous chemical called bisphenol A, everything's fine.
If the government or a university funds the study, there are big problems. Those are the conclusions drawn by Frederick vom Saal, a developmental biologist at the University of Missouri who reports his findings in Environmental Health Perspectives, published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Vom Saal and others seek revised risk assessments for the chemical in the light of a new research into its effects.
Bisphenol A mimics the sex hormone estradiol in the body, acting "like birth control pills," says vom Saal. The body is exquisitely sensitive to sex hormones, needing only tiny amounts to trigger major changes. That's why scientists are concerned about the impact of even the extremely low levels of bisphenol A found in people.
In mice and rats there is evidence that low doses of bisphenol A can cause structural damage to the brain, hyperactivity, abnormal sexual behavior, increased fat formation, early puberty and disrupted reproductive cycles.
Vom Saal looked at 115 published studies concerning low-doses of bisphenolA. Overall, 94 of them reported significant effects in rats and mice, while 21 did not.
Eleven of the studies were funded by chemical companies. None of those 11 found harmful effects of the chemical, which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says is detected in 95% of all people tested.
But more than 90% of the studies conducted by independent scientists not associated with the chemical industry found adverse consequences, says vom Saal. He called the disparity between the industry and government or university conclusions "stunning."
Steven Hentges of the American Plastics Council counters that the article is not a research paper but a commentary < "an op-ed" piece rather than a scientific paper. The real issue is the weight of evidence, he says, not the number of studies.
"You can have 1,000 studies, but if they're all weak, adding up weak evidence doesn't necessarily give you strong evidence of anything," Hentges says. "Jumping to who sponsored it is a way to dodge the facts."
He says that, in the view of the plastic industry, vom Saal has presented nothing new to change the conclusion that there's no cause for concern. "Government bodies worldwide have reached the conclusion that bisphenol A is not a risk to humans at very low levels."
Over 6 billion tons of bisphenol A are used each year to make polycarbonate plastics, which have the useful property of not becoming brittle over time. First synthesized in 1957, the material didn't come into widespread use until the 1970s.
Chemical bonds that bisphenol A forms in plastic can unravel when heated, washed or exposed to acidic foods, causing the chemical to leach into foods. "There's good evidence to show cause for concern," says Patricia Hunt, whose research found abnormalities in developing egg cells in female mice when exposed to low levels of bisphenol A.
"We now know enough to know that we need to look at this stuff in great detail," she says.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act
*Article provided by Foodallergy.org*
House Passes Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act
On April 8, 2008, the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act of 2008 (FAAMA) was passed by the House of Representatives.
This important legislation was introduced in the House by Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) as H.R. 2063. It calls for a uniform guidance document to be created for schools so that any school in the country looking for help in managing food allergies will have a place to turn.
In addition to Rep. Lowey’s strong support, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) was instrumental in securing House passage of the bill and spoke eloquently on the House floor about his own granddaughter’s allergy to peanuts.
“This is a wonderful first step to ensuring that the 2.2 million school-age children with food allergy are safe at school,” says Anne Muñoz-Furlong, founder and CEO of the Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network. “We would like to thank Congress and, most of all, our members for all their help.”
Now that the bill has been passed by the House, it will be reviewed by the Senate HELP (Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) Committee, who will consider the bill within the coming months. Known as S. 1232 in the Senate, this bill was introduced by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) on April 26, 2007. If the HELP Committee approves the bill, then it will be presented to the full Senate, and with their agreement it would go to President Bush for final approval.
“We are looking forward to working with Sen. Dodd on the Senate bill and will continue to keep you posted,” says Muñoz-Furlong.
What Will FAAMA Do?
If passed, FAAMA will provide schools across the country with uniform guidance on how to create appropriate management and emergency plans for children with food allergies. The bill will direct the secretary of health and human services to develop a voluntary policy for schools to implement measures to prevent exposure to food allergens and to ensure a prompt response if a child suffers a potentially fatal anaphylactic reaction.
How You Can Help
Senator Dodd has sent a letter to all Senators encouraging them to co-sponsor S. 1232. We are asking you to contact your Senators (by email or phone) in follow up to Sen. Dodd's letter to encourage their support and co-sponsorship of S. 1232.
Congress will soon adjourn for its summer recess, so now is the time to take action to encourage Senate support for S. 1232. You can make a difference! Call or email your Senators today!
How to Contact Your Senators
To e-mail your Senators or find appropriate phone numbers, go to: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
If you call, please be sure to ask to speak to the staff person who handles health issues.
If you email, feel free to download and use this sample letter for guidance. (.doc ~25 KB).
Need More Information?
Please contact our Washington Representative Courtney Gray Haupt at courtney.grayhaupt@whaonline.org if you have any questions, or send an email to advocacy@foodallergymail.org.
To read the text of The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act, click here.
To see which Representatives have signed on as co-sponsors of HR.2063, click here.
To see which Senators have signed on as co-sponsors of S.1232, click here.
House Passes Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act
On April 8, 2008, the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act of 2008 (FAAMA) was passed by the House of Representatives.
This important legislation was introduced in the House by Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) as H.R. 2063. It calls for a uniform guidance document to be created for schools so that any school in the country looking for help in managing food allergies will have a place to turn.
In addition to Rep. Lowey’s strong support, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) was instrumental in securing House passage of the bill and spoke eloquently on the House floor about his own granddaughter’s allergy to peanuts.
“This is a wonderful first step to ensuring that the 2.2 million school-age children with food allergy are safe at school,” says Anne Muñoz-Furlong, founder and CEO of the Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network. “We would like to thank Congress and, most of all, our members for all their help.”
Now that the bill has been passed by the House, it will be reviewed by the Senate HELP (Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions) Committee, who will consider the bill within the coming months. Known as S. 1232 in the Senate, this bill was introduced by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) on April 26, 2007. If the HELP Committee approves the bill, then it will be presented to the full Senate, and with their agreement it would go to President Bush for final approval.
“We are looking forward to working with Sen. Dodd on the Senate bill and will continue to keep you posted,” says Muñoz-Furlong.
What Will FAAMA Do?
If passed, FAAMA will provide schools across the country with uniform guidance on how to create appropriate management and emergency plans for children with food allergies. The bill will direct the secretary of health and human services to develop a voluntary policy for schools to implement measures to prevent exposure to food allergens and to ensure a prompt response if a child suffers a potentially fatal anaphylactic reaction.
How You Can Help
Senator Dodd has sent a letter to all Senators encouraging them to co-sponsor S. 1232. We are asking you to contact your Senators (by email or phone) in follow up to Sen. Dodd's letter to encourage their support and co-sponsorship of S. 1232.
Congress will soon adjourn for its summer recess, so now is the time to take action to encourage Senate support for S. 1232. You can make a difference! Call or email your Senators today!
How to Contact Your Senators
To e-mail your Senators or find appropriate phone numbers, go to: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
If you call, please be sure to ask to speak to the staff person who handles health issues.
If you email, feel free to download and use this sample letter for guidance. (.doc ~25 KB).
Need More Information?
Please contact our Washington Representative Courtney Gray Haupt at courtney.grayhaupt@whaonline.org if you have any questions, or send an email to advocacy@foodallergymail.org.
To read the text of The Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Management Act, click here.
To see which Representatives have signed on as co-sponsors of HR.2063, click here.
To see which Senators have signed on as co-sponsors of S.1232, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)