CSPI Sues Quorn, Whole Foods

Prepared Foods May 10, 2005 enewsletter

The U.S. Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is suing Quorn Foods and Whole Foods Market over what it calls a dangerous food additive.

The center, which wants a Texas court to require warning labels on Quorn packages and on Whole Foods' freezer cases, has been urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to more closely regulate Quorn and its retailers.

The center also wants its suit to be certified as a class-action case.

Quorn, sold in Britain since 1995, was introduced in the U.S. in 2002 as a healthy alternative to meat. Its packaging calls the main ingredient "mycoprotein," which the label describes as being related to mushrooms, morels and truffles.

However, the center says mycoprotein is made from a fungus and is more akin to mildew than mushrooms. It says companies grow this fungus in giant vats, harvest it and process it to resemble chicken or ground beef.

http://www.preparedfoods.com/CDA/Ar...,151117,00.html

The haploid form of mushrooms that grows underground, looks a lot like a mildew. Big deal.

A healthy alternative to meat, huh. I guess they are implying that meat is not healthy? Or am I just being paranoid?

Let me get this straight, CSPI is saying that Quorn should be labeled 'made from fungus' because it is not akin to mushrooms? Maybe someone should tell them mushrooms are fungi...

Something smells fishy here, and it ain't the Quorn. Anyone know who this CSPI group is anyway?

Yeah, they're the group that pressures fast food companies about fat. I think they got the entire foods industry to change from using saturated fats, like palm and coconut oil, to transfats...

Ironic (or hypocritical) thing is, CSPI probably pushed the stuff when it first came out. All that soy cheese must be getting to their heads.

Here is a link to the CSPI website.

And here is a link to what they have to say about Italian food (it boils down to: if you must go to an Italian restaurant, your best choice is to eat pasta with marina sauce and no meat so you can minimize the amount of fat you eat).

I don't have any interest in substituting a fungus for meat, but given the type of nutritional advice CSPI is giving out (read the article in the link about Italian food), I'm not inclined to get all upset about people eating a fungus just because CSPI says it is bad.

Here (off their website) is what they think everyone should be eating

CSPI is an example of a whole class of self-appointed organizations formed to promote the "public interest." Such organizations can do a great deal of good, but they are, in every case I've seen, organized oligarchically, meaning that a limited number of people, not the public, controls them and decides policy. In order to survive, such organizations must satisfy the biases of the founders and, let us not forget, the staff, which can come to exert a tremendous influence over organizational policy and which can be highly vested in prior decisions, particularly if those decisions might be blamed on their own poor work.

And since CSPI thoroughly committed itself to the low-fat gospel, years ago, and policy is controlled by individuals who are quite attached to this serious mistake, it continues to pretend that its positions are based on science. Which was only very loosely true in the beginning, and has become, simply, false, unless by "science" you mean a set of opinions that were reasonable hypotheses at one time but which can now be understood as not fitting the evidence.

Yes, in my opinion, CSPI, in spite of what were probably noble intentions at the beginning, has cost millions of lives by refusing to understand that science grows and changes as new evidence appears, that real science is humble and never too completely sure of itself. CSPI is partly responsible for subjecting the entire population of the U.S., and to some extent the world, to a massive uncontrolled experiment, based on some very, very shaky assumptions. Nasty stuff. And hard to admit, to be sure.

Just imagine it was like for the obstetricians when Semmelweiss pointed out that it was they who were responsible for the deaths of so many women in their charge, for failing to wash their hands between examinations at hospitals. It took years, and many lives were lost unnecessarily.

It should be realized that failing to admit a mistake can be a worse mistake than the original mistake. What an amazing thing it would be if CSPI did one of two things:

(1) Admitted that the low-fat concepts and all the resulting actions, such as the move to trans fats practically forced on the food industry by CSPI, were all huge mistakes, and CSPI started working to undo the problem it helped to create. I'd subscribe again to their newsletter, for sure!

(2) Actually began to participate in the debate over low-fat, instead of pretending that there is no controversy, and that the arguments against low-fat don't exist, don't deserve response. CSPI simply assumes that saturated fat is harmful, in spite of the lack of any solid evidence beyond very weak associations in some epidemiological studies, all of which have alternate explanations.

CSPI, in spite of the name, Center for Science in the Public Interest, is not actually for science, it does not fund true research; rather, it is a political action organization advancing its opinions. Not science.

Here's another article on Quorn. Apparently it is more popular in Europe as a "meat substitute" than soy, and has fewer adverse reactions. This one includes a tasting by the staff of "Wired".

Not to say I'm running right out and trying it, but I, too, am sceptical. It's so easy to collect "adverse reactions" from a bunch of people who tried a food. I would like to see studies.

http://www.wired.com/news/technolog...2,51842,00.html

Very thoughtful post, Abd, to which I completely agree!

Admitting a mistake, especially such a serious one as that committed by CSPI, takes quite a lot of objectivity (and analysing of the facts) and humility to admit...both qualities they seem to lack!

And as you mentioned, the goal of most organizations is not to serve the public good but to maintain their authority and their positions, and hence their influence over governing bodies and their funding.

It is, I think, crucial to realize that this is a structural problem. It is not essentially a personal problem.

I think that most people, when they become aware of a situation where an organization (private or public) has gone astray, think that the problem is the people. Get rid of the bad people, throw the bums out, and everything will be peachy. It's a foolish fantasy. The *system* is the problem, the ways in which we, by default, structure organizations. So "throw the bums out" either fails, in which case it is truly an exercise in frustration, or it succeeds, but only for a while, as the system regenerates what it always generates.

Lots of people have come to this point in understanding the situation. It's the reason that Winston Churchill said that "Democracy is the worst possible form of government -- except for all the others."

But Churchill's comment is actually profoundly cynical. And wrong. The essential error is that he assumes that democracy has actually been tried. Yes, he lived in a system that was *more* democratic than what had existed before. But compared to a true democracy .... True democracies do exist on a small scale all over the place, but we haven't learned to scale them. I think there is a way, see www.beyondpolitics.org

The classic organizational form used for nonprofit advocacy groups like CSPI is oligarchical. The founder(s) select a board, which then continues by electing successor trustees. And the organization actually functions through a paid staff. The paid staff has a very clear and significant vested interest. And the staff and board typically have a close relationship, not an arm's length one. I know, I've served on nonprofit boards, I've seen what happens.

The reasons why such forms go sour are complex, but I do think I see how. It is inevitable until and unless we use better forms. But most people either remain in cynicism and apathy or keep trying to push that boulder up the hill. Neither one of these is safe and neither one is wise.

How crazy...when i was vegetarian...that was the only meatless brand of products i bought...its fabulous...and it never had any wierd side affects or anything.....too bad....because its an awesome company..