Tag Archives: industry

Technologies revealed that streamline breast cancer treatment

Jersey Shore and Ocean Medical Center now offer accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) for breast cancer treatment using the CONTURA ® Multi-Lumen Balloon (MLB) Catheter. This unique method of radiation treatment delivery involves the placement of a deflated balloon in the lumpectomy cavity post-surgery through a small incision. The balloon is then filled with saline and temporarily left in place for up to 10 days during treatment. …

New study analyzes barriers to cancer research commercialization

According to the Association of University Technology Managers, academic institutions have been collectively generating more than $2 billion in commercialization income over the last several years. Despite this significant commercialization activity, studies have shown that academic institutions face challenges to commercializing their innovations. Identifying and adjusting for these challenges can further boost academic-based research commercialization, thus having significant benefits for universities and consumers. …

Foods toxins that can cause cervical, liver cancer

The research won the National Award in Food Science and Technology in the Science Professional in Foods category organized jointly by CONACYT (National Council of Science and Technology) and the Mexican Coca-Cola Industry. It explains that both types of cancer can be originated by the ingestion of food contaminated with aflatoxins produced by the fungi Aspergilus flavus and A. …

Government approves nutritional labels on alcoholic drinks

WASHINGTON – & Alcohol beverages could soon carry nutritional labels like those on food — but only if the producers want to put them there. The Treasury Department, which regulates alcohol, said this week that beer, wine and spirits companies can place labels on packages that include serving size, servings per container, calories, carbohydrates, protein and fat per serving. Such labels have never before been approved. The labels are voluntary, so it will be up to beverage companies to decide whether to use them on their products. The decision is a temporary, first step while the Alcohol and Tobacco Trade and Tax Bureau, or TTB, continues to consider final rules on alcohol labels. Rules proposed in 2007 would have made labels mandatory, but the agency never made the rules final. The labeling regulation issued May 28 comes after a decade of lobbying by hard liquor companies and consumer groups, with clearly different goals: the liquor companies want to advertise low calories and low carbohydrates in their products, while the consumer groups want alcoholic drinks to have the same transparency as packaged foods, which are required to be labeled. “This is actually bringing alcoholic beverages into the modern era,” says Guy Smith, an executive vice president at Diageo, the world's largest distiller and maker of such well-known brands as Johnnie Walker, Smirnoff, Jose Cuervo and Tanqueray. Diageo asked the bureau in 2003 to allow them to add that information to their products as low-carbohydrate diets were gaining in popularity. Almost 10 years later, Smith said he expects Diageo to gradually put the new labels on all of its products, which include a small number of beer and wine companies. “It's something consumers have come to expect,” Smith said. “In time, it's going to be, Why isn't it there?” Not all alcohol companies are expected to use labels, however. Among those who may take a pass: beer companies that don't want consumers counting calories and winemakers that don't want to ruin the sleek look of their bottles. The Wine Institute, which represents more than a thousand California wineries, said in a statement that it supports the ruling but “experience suggests that such information is not a key factor in consumer purchase decisions about wine.” Spokeswoman Gladys Horiuchi said the group knows of no wine companies that plan to use the new labels. The beer industry praised the agency for acknowledging that labels should take into account variations in the concentration of alcohol content in different products. The industry has opposed the idea of defining serving size by fluid ounces of pure alcohol — or as 12 ounces of beer, 5 ounces of wine or 1.5 ounces of 80-proof liquor — on the grounds that you may get more than 1.5 ounces of liquor in a cocktail depending on what else is in the drink and the accuracy of the bartender. The ruling would allow the labels to declare alcohol content as a percentage of alcohol by volume, the approach favored by the beer industry. “We applaud the TTB's conclusion that rules be based on how drinks are actually served and consumed,” said Joe McClain, president of the Beer Institute. McClain said the beer industry is also pleased that the ruling provides “substantial flexibility” in terms of the format and placement of the disclosure on packaging. It is unclear whether beer companies will actually use the labels, however. Consumer advocates criticized the regulation. “It doesn't reflect any concern about public health,” said Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “Including fat and carbohydrates on a label could imply that an alcoholic beverage is positively healthful, especially when the drink's alcohol content isn't prominently labeled.” Consumer advocates have also said that listing alcohol content should be mandatory. Jacobson and others support having calorie counts on labels, but they said the labels should not include nutrients that make the alcohol seem more like a food. Current labeling law is complicated. Wines containing 14 percent or more alcohol by volume must list alcohol content. Wines that are 7 to 14 percent alcohol by volume may list alcohol content or put “light” or “table” wine on the label. “Light” beers must list calorie and carbohydrate content only. Liquor must list alcohol content by volume and may also list proof, a measure of alcoholic strength. And wine, beer and liquor manufacturers don't have to list ingredients but must list substances people might be sensitive to, such as sulfites, certain food colorings and aspartame. Tom Hogue of the TTB said the aim of the ruling is to make sure alcohol labeling is more consistent. “The idea here is we are trying to make it easy for the industry to communicate this with consumers if they want to do so, and if their consumers want them to do it,” he said.source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/06/01/government-approves-nutritional-labels-on-alcoholic-drinks/

Organic industry clout grows with consumer demand

The organic food industry is gaining clout on Capitol Hill, prompted by rising consumer demand and its entry into traditional farm states. But that isn't going over well with everyone in Congress. Tensions between conventional and organic agriculture boiled over this week during a late-night House Agriculture Committee debate on a sweeping farm bill that has for decades propped up traditional crops and largely ignored organics. When Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., a former organic farmer, offered an amendment to make it easier for organic companies to organize industrywide promotional campaigns, there was swift backlash from some farm-state Republicans, with one member saying he didn't want to see the industry get a free ride and another complaining about organics' “continued assault on agriculture.” “That's one of the things that has caught me and raises my concerns, is that industry's lack of respect for traditional agriculture,” said Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., referring to some organic companies' efforts to reduce the number of genetically modified crops in the marketplace. At the same time, Scott acknowledged that he and his wife buy organic foods. Growing consumer interest in organics has proved tough for some Republicans on the committee to ignore. Eight Republicans, most of them newer members of the committee, joined with all of the panel's Democrats in supporting the amendment, which was adopted 29-17. Rep. Vicky Hartzler, a Missouri Republican who owns a farm equipment business and a corn and soybean farm, said she supported the amendment not only because helping organics is good for agriculture but because many of her constituents eat organic foods. “Organics are a niche market in agriculture with a growing market share, so it makes sense for me to allow farmers to invest some of their own funds to promote their products,” she said. The amendment would allow the organic industry to organize and pay for a unified industry promotional campaign called a “checkoff” that is facilitated by the Agriculture Department but is no cost to the government. These promotional programs have traditionally been limited to individual commodities or crops, producing familiar campaigns like “Got Milk?” and “Beef: It's What's for Dinner.” The amendment would not set up such a program for organics, but it would allow USDA to approve an organic promotional campaign if the industry decided it wanted one. Laura Batcha of the Organic Trade Association says one reason the industry would approve a campaign is that many organic producers are concerned that consumers don't understand that products labeled “natural” aren't necessarily organic, which requires certification. The organic industry has exploded in the last decade, with $35 billion in sales and 10 percent growth just last year. There are more than 17,000 certified organic businesses in the country. Producers of organic crops and conventional crops have long been at odds, as organic products have grabbed market share - more than 4 percent of food and beverage sales in 2011 - and the industry has advertised organic foods as healthier than other foods. Organic products are required to be certified by the USDA and are grown without pesticides and genetically modified ingredients, mainstays of traditional agriculture. Government-managed promotional checkoff programs like the one that would be allowed under the amendment are required to be positive and not disparage other products, and some lawmakers seemed wary that such a campaign would be possible. “How do I present organic pork without disparaging non-organic pork?” asked House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., who opposed the amendment. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, took issue with part of the amendment that would allow the organic producers to opt out of other commodity campaigns, an option that isn't given to conventional producers. “Looks to me like they have a free ride on this thing,” Conaway said, in an at times angry exchange with Schrader. Despite the rancor, the chances that the amendment will become law are good, as the Senate Agriculture Committee added the same amendment to its version of the farm bill. Schrader told his colleagues that embracing organics is essential to appealing to consumers in a time when big farms are often demonized by popular culture. He said that many young people are coming back to farms because of nontraditional agriculture. “American agriculture is under siege,” he said. “Urban folks do not understand where their food and fiber comes from. ... The point here is to hopefully position American agriculture where we're not always trying to catch up to what the American consumer wants.”source : http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/17/organic-industry-clout-grows-with-consumer-demand/