Supplier reducing sodium in product - still have old packaging film on hand
Is there any regulation on timeline allowed to overstate sodium levels on the nutrition label? Our supplier is reducing the sodium content to comply with the FDA voluntary sodium reduction targets but didn't communicate this to us and we have excess amounts of packaging film on hand that will far exceed their reduction timeline.
Any thoughts?
Is there any regulation on timeline allowed to overstate sodium levels on the nutrition label? Our supplier is reducing the sodium content to comply with the FDA voluntary sodium reduction targets but didn't communicate this to us and we have excess amounts of packaging film on hand that will far exceed their reduction timeline.
Any thoughts?
Intentional Misrepresentation ?
We just did research on this for a client and found nothing on overstating for sodium and they are continuing to use up their packaging.
Watch the (FDA) Space for retroactive announcements regarding plausible deniability ?
Very excited to see how our new restored Republic will reorganize or eliminate the entire FDA infrastructure along with all tentacles and the USDA too.
I expect a major upheaval with all GFSI schemes as well.
We are living in very exciting times.
Is there any regulation on timeline allowed to overstate sodium levels on the nutrition label? Our supplier is reducing the sodium content to comply with the FDA voluntary sodium reduction targets but didn't communicate this to us and we have excess amounts of packaging film on hand that will far exceed their reduction timeline.
Any thoughts?
While the USDA requires label approval, and you can get temporary approvals to run out existing stock even if a minor formulation change occurs, the FDA doesn't.
If sodium is originating from an ingredient under 2%, and you aren't making any claims on the package related to sodium content, there seems to be some flexibility:
At this point I would not even pay any regard to the FDA. How it is even running I have no idea as it is a part of the now bankrupt and defunct US Corporation.
I hope you are very upfront about this in your consulting. I don't think I want someone in charge of my regulations that wants to disregard the regulations, ya know? I don't ask vegetarians to prepare my steak.
If sodium is originating from an ingredient under 2%, and you aren't making any claims on the package related to sodium content, there seems to be some flexibility:
Can you point me very specifically to anything suggesting 'flexibility' ?
If sodium is originating from an ingredient under 2%, and you aren't making any claims on the package related to sodium content, there seems to be some flexibility:
Can you point me very specifically to anything suggesting 'flexibility' ?
https://www.fda.gov/...9-public-health
You're good for a few months, as long as you're creative with the reasoning for continuing to use it.
At this point I would not even pay any regard to the FDA. How it is even running I have no idea as it is a part of the now bankrupt and defunct US Corporation.
Very excited to see how our new restored Republic will reorganize or eliminate the entire FDA infrastructure along with all tentacles and the USDA too.
I expect a major upheaval with all GFSI schemes as well.
We are living in very exciting times.
It is interesting when a government body like the FDA accepts, acknowledges and even admits that their methods are so far behind for most food matrices that they find it acceptable to use other countries standards as they're probably tested more stringently. Sounds like the lazy/cheap way out imho. This happened at the 2022 AOAC Conference xD