<<Disclaimer: Verify this information before applying it to your situation.>>

>I went to Denny's the other day figuring I'd have one of their 100% beef
>burgers on a slice of my GF bread.  Just to be sure, I asked the waitress
>to check the 100% beef burger package ingredients.  She came back to tell
>me that the burgers were 100% beef BUT (according to the package) there
>were vague fillers to bind it all together.
>WHAT GIVES??? Am I naive to think that 100% REALLY means 100%???
>Do I need to check every 100% beef burger now???

Short answers yes and yes.

I recall some time ago reading about the US FDA list of GRAS ( the acronym
for generally recognized as safe ) which included what percent of certain
common contaminants could be found in a given product.

Apparently canned Artichoke hearts could conceivably contain nothing but
contaminants and still be labelled as 100% artichoke hearts.

Point being, labelling laws for foods are based on what someone has decided
you can call something so as to inform the /average/ consumer of what they
are likely to want to know. With ground meats, the consumer is presumed to
on /want/ to know what animal sources the meat part of the product comes
from, allowing things like HVP, water, blood, bone, etc... to be added up
to certain limits without label disclosure requirements.

We as a group of consumers have not sufficiently made known our need to
know more than what the average consumer wants to know.
Thus we end up with gluten coatings being proposed as allowable on fresh
produce, without the need for specific disclosure.

I think that particular one got killed as a result of a letter writing
campaign. But the US FDA still is lagging the rest of the world on
this, and it sure looks to me like now would be as good a time as any
to start a new letter writing campaign to get some changes to what
disclosures are required. Anyone up to it?

Mike <[log in to unmask]> in Wichita, KS USA