I read with intrigue your recent article about Halloween chocolate and candy. While the information about input costs for chocolate manufacturers and cocoa pricing isn’t inaccurate, the author of the story missed the larger point related to consumer demographics, attitudes, and behaviors.

The 2023 Halloween season accounted for $6.4 billion in confectionery retail sales, and this year we are projecting that number to climb by three to five percent. This is a significant share of the $48 billion that the confectionery industry generates annually – of that amount, more than half of sales are from chocolate. Said another way, chocolate and candy reign supreme at Halloween.

It’s true, consumers are making room in their budgets for their favorite chocolate and candy, despite increased food costs. According to our recent survey, 94% of all Americans are planning to take part in enjoying, sharing, or gifting chocolate and candy during Halloween. And our research also uncovered a deeper level to this broad-based engagement during the Halloween season by consumers of all age demographics that was unfortunately missed in your article:

• 90% of Boomers say they are stocked up and ready to hand out chocolate and candy.
• 99% of Gen Xers say that chocolate and candy are #1 in terms of what they’ll hand out to trick-or-treaters.
• Millennials are sharing the joy of the season with their children and will be running through the neighborhood with their own trick-or-treaters – more than any other generation.
• Gen Z is more likely than any other generation to get a head start on enjoying Halloween chocolate and candy before October 31.

Just because different age demographics have different tastes and approaches to Halloween doesn’t mean that chocolate is going out of style. Chocolate and candy are timeless; they play an important and central role in the Halloween season; and they are a part of the fabric of our culture. So, with a younger demographic being more drawn to gummy and chewy candy, let’s consider it a win for moms and dads who have their eye on the chocolate.

The post LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Chocolate and Candy Reign Supreme at Halloween appeared first on NCA.

First, chocolate and cocoa are safe to eat and can be enjoyed as treats as they have been for centuries. Food safety and product quality remain our highest priorities and we remain dedicated to being transparent and socially responsible.

For more context:

• The GWU study concludes that “…if contaminated products as a whole are consumed in small amounts and infrequently by most, these contaminants may not be a public health concern…”
• Chocolate and cocoa products fit this description, according to the FDA.
• FDA has been quoted saying: “While the presence of cadmium and lead in chocolate has been the subject of considerable media attention, experts from around the world have found that chocolate is a minor source of exposure to these contaminants internationally.”

Moreover, consumers understand that chocolate and candy are occasional treats and not center-of-the-plate foods. According to the CDC’s National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES), people in the U.S. enjoy chocolate and candy 2-3 times per week, averaging just 40 calories and about one teaspoon of added sugar per day.

Recent media coverage and studies on this topic – including the latest from GWU – reference a labeling law in California called Prop 65. Prop 65 is not the same as a scientific food safety analysis. 

In 2018, the chocolate and cocoa industry agreed to a Consent Judgment in California. The Superior Court of the State of California, San Francisco County granted a motion to enter the Consent Judgment on February 14, 2018, which remains in effect. The Consent Judgment established concentration levels for both lead and cadmium that supersede thestate’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment MADLs for cocoa and chocolate products.

If you’re interested in taking a deeper dive on this topic, I invite you to review the study, full report, and the joint statement we issued in partnership with As You Sow, which was released in August 2022. Then and now, NCA and its member companies are committed to transparency, safety, and quality in our products.

The post What The Media Missed When Covering The GWU Chocolate Study appeared first on NCA.

Whether you’re a born-and-raised Hoosier or a first-time visitor, everyone can agree: Indianapolis is a city on the rise.

Indy is making a name for itself by successfully hosting many of the country’s largest and most anticipated major events, including the NBA All-Star Game, the Indy 500, the College Football Playoff National Championship and many more. From May 14–16 at the Indiana Convention Center, Sweets & Snacks Expo will join the ranks of these world-class events.

After 25 successful years in Chicago, Sweets & Snacks Expo is setting up shop in Indianapolis because it is the right city to meet the growing demands of the show and the community. With the show officially calling Indy home, the city will welcome the 16,000 people who make and sell your favorite candy and snacks. And with more than 975 exhibitors and 250,000 square feet of sweet, salty and sour products, it’s easy to see how Indy will become the center of the sweets and snacks universe in May.

Hoosier hospitality was on full display when Sweets & Snacks Expo temporarily relocated to Indianapolis in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021. Everyone involved in the show, from attendees to show management, recognized that the city was a perfect fit and jumped at the unique opportunity to return. With support from Gov. Eric Holcomb, Mayor Joe Hogsett and other community leaders, we are all looking forward to a very bright future in Indy.

Sweets & Snacks Expo creates a vibrant, shared space to foster deeper connections among manufacturers, suppliers and retail partners. The show features education sessions led by the industry’s foremost experts and thought leaders. And of course, there are countless treats and snacks debuted at the show each year with the hottest flavor, packaging and product trends on full display. All of this combined enables Indianapolis and Sweets & Snacks Expo to have wide-reaching marketplace influence and deep cultural relevance.

At their core, candy and snack products and consumer interaction with these categories are all about connecting people and forming lasting memories from shared experiences — and the tourism business is no different. At the show, the entire industry is under one roof. There’s no better way to meet people in the industry. And while conversations and camaraderie will be built on the show floor, the show’s impact will reach beyond the Indiana Convention Center to all corners of central Indiana. With an estimated economic impact of more than $12 million, Sweets & Snacks is expected to be a boon to the region.

So just as record-breaking basketball champion Caitlin Clark is making Indy her new home, the legendary candy and snack categories are doing the same. Sweets & Snacks Expo in Indy is a slam dunk collaboration, and we can’t wait to put the pedal to the metal on this partnership.

The post Indianapolis Becomes the Center of the Sweets and Snacks Universe appeared first on NCA.

We support science-based evaluation of food additives by those with the necessary expertise – and we follow and will continue to follow regulatory guidance from the authorities in this space – but usurping FDA’s authority creates a state-by-state patchwork of inconsistent state requirements that increase food costs, create confusion around food safety, and erode consumer confidence in our food supply.

The editorial board is in agreement, encouraging Pennsylvania legislators to “keep pressure on the FDA to better serve not only Pennsylvanians but all Americans.”

Read more from the PennLive/Patriot-News Editorial Board, published on April 12, 2024:

Scientists at the FDA should determine what foods are safe, not local politicians

California has become the first state in the nation to take food safety into its own hands and ban some popular candies and drinks with additives its legislators consider unsafe. The legislature has passed The California Food Safety Act, banning foods and beverages that contain additives like Red Dye 3 that some scientific studies have connected to cancer and other diseases.

Some Pennsylvania legislators would like to do the same. We don’t think it’s a good idea.

State Reps. Natalie Mihalek, R-Allegheny and Washington counties, and Melissa Shusterman, D-Chester County, have introduced two bills to ban some additives and dyes in products sold in Pennsylvania. Many popular food candies, sodas, baked goods, cereals and even fruit cups contain the additives in question.”

The proposed Pennsylvania legislation would not be identical to California’s. Ours would eliminate six food dyes including red dyes No. 3 and 40, Yellow Dyes No. 5 and 6, along with Blue Dyes No. 1 and 2 that the legislators say are linked to cancer, hyperactivity and behavioral difficulties in children.

Shusterman’s bill would prohibit products that contain potassium bromate, brominated vegetable oil and BHA, all ingredients she believes are harmful to health.

On the surface, it may look like California and the Pennsylvania legislators are acting boldly to protect people, but they may be doing more harm than good. And such action could hurt Pennsylvania food manufacturing companies if each state is allowed to set its own safety standards.

Hershey, Auntie Anne’s, Martin’s, Heinz, Bassets, and other Pennsylvania companies could be faced with having to meet 50 different standards, set by politicians with only a Google understanding of medicine, science, and nutrition.

That’s why we have the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We’re a union of states with national institutions that set national standards for major issues like the safety of food and drugs. The FDA has trained scientists who do independent research subject to peer review and public scrutiny. The last thing we need are people without expertise deciding what foods and medicines Pennsylvanians should or shouldn’t have.

Representatives of the National Confectioners Association (NCA) who met with PennLive’s Editorial Board made a convincing argument the matters involving public health should be left to experts. They argued the connection to red dye 3 and cancer is not conclusive and has never been proven in humans, only in animals. They also noted the FDA is in the process of reviewing its recommendations on the additives and may revise them.

They are urging legislators in Pennsylvania and other states to let the FDA do its work. We agree.

But California’s bold actions has brought much needed attention to the issue of food safety and several companies have already removed or are planning to remove the additives from their products.

And California’s actions may have focused a spotlight on serious flaws in how the FDA operates. Many believe the FDA needs a complete overhaul, which the NCA representatives say is well underway.

Many also are concerned the FDA is too secretive in its work and needs to be more transparent in how it comes up with its standards for food and drugs. In addition to its lab work, the FDA needs to develop a plan to strengthen public trust and confidence. And most of all, the FDA needs to do its work quicker, especially when it involves public health and safety.

If the FDA doesn’t get its house in order soon, it will see more states going the route California has taken. We urge Pennsylvania legislators not to act hastily, but to keep pressure on the FDA to better serve not only Pennsylvanians but all Americans.

The post PennLive/Patriot News Editorial Board Weighs In: Scientists at the FDA should determine what foods are safe, not local politicians appeared first on NCA.

As Dr. Coughlin and Dr. Llewellyn say: “The goal of all stakeholders involved in the U.S. food supply needs to be the safety of consumers and decisions made based on the weight of the scientific evidence.” We are in support of science-based evaluation of food additives – and we follow and will continue to follow regulatory guidance from the authorities in this space – but challenges to FDA’s authority create a state-by-state patchwork of inconsistent state requirements that increase food costs, create confusion around food safety, and erode consumer confidence in our food supply.

Read more in the IFT piece from Dr. James R. Coughlin and Dr. Craig Llewellyn:

The California Food Safety Act, signed into law in October 2023, states that four food additives—brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben, and Red Dye No. 3—will, starting January 1, 2027, no longer be allowed to be sold or produced in the state. The ripple effect reaches other states; bills mirroring California’s have emerged in Illinois, New York, and Washington. In addition, a bill focused on high fructose corn syrup was introduced in Indiana, while Illinois is requesting further research into the antioxidants butylated hydroxyanisole and butylated hydroxytoluene.

A pattern emerges from this legislative frenzy—a collective lack of awareness of the robust umbrella of U.S. regulations that ensure the safety and abundance of our food supply. Numerous reports have included reference to the potential banning of the food additives in other countries, insinuating that the U.S. lags in safeguarding consumers. These allegations, however, stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the science of toxicology, the linchpin of food additive safety, and the meticulous regulatory oversight by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

It’s crucial to grasp that the FDA does not outlaw additives solely based on identity or perceived hazards. Instead, it meticulously regulates their usage levels in alignment with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), employing the “reasonable certainty of no harm” standard. A core tenet of toxicology—that the effect is dependent on the amount of exposure and the actual use of an ingredient—underscores that any substance can be harmful in excessive amounts. In addition, the science must be brought to bear to address conclusions that additives shown to be toxic or carcinogenic in animal studies (at exposures vastly higher than human dietary intakes) do not necessarily represent relevant risks to humans that require banning any food additive. Unlike other countries that can use a precautionary principle approach, which can have provisions that can allow a requirement for absolute certainty for scientific questions, the FFDCA acknowledges the impossibility of ensuring complete harmlessness associated with the use of a substance in foods.

From a toxicological perspective, human safety concerns associated with three of the food additives, potassium bromate, propylparaben, and Red Dye No. 3, have been addressed by the FDA. For potassium bromate when used as an additive in baking, the FDA and industry worked together to reduce use levels that have been determined to contribute minimal exposures of dietary bromide.

For propylparaben, animal studies raised concerns about the potential for developmental and reproductive effects as well as endocrine-disrupting effects. In humans, it is readily metabolized and rapidly excreted in the urine. Without bioaccumulation, the uses of propylparaben in foods do not present a concern for human safety.

One study in rats on Red Dye No. 3 induced male rat thyroid tumors at the highest dose tested. Additional research demonstrated that Red Dye No. 3 is not genotoxic and operated via a secondary mechanism of carcinogenesis that does not occur in humans. The findings observed in rats are not relevant to humans and do not impact the safe use of Red Dye No. 3.

The fourth food additive subject to the California legislation, brominated vegetable oil, was abandoned by major beverage brands over 10 years ago. Recent research conducted by FDA indicated that the approved use in beverages may contribute exposure to dietary bromide at levels that cannot currently be demonstrated to be safe, resulting in the FDA acting to remove the currently approved use.

The current haphazard state-by-state approach undermines the FDA’s jurisdiction and sound scientific evaluations and decisions, jeopardizing the interstate commerce that ensures a diverse and safe food market. The likely consequences? A dwindling array of choices for consumers and logistical nightmares for manufacturers.

This trajectory will likely not stop with the present additives on trial. If states have questions or concerns on the safety of food ingredients, they should consult with federal experts and work together to bring science to the forefront of dialogue on the safety of food ingredients. The goal of all stakeholders involved in the U.S. food supply needs to be the safety of consumers and decisions made based on the weight of the scientific evidence.

The post Toxicologists Weigh In: Serious Consequences for Food Additive Bans appeared first on NCA.

Indiana, Maryland, South Dakota, Washington, and West Virginia have rejected similar bills, because the proposals lack scientific basis. In the same vein, Kentucky legislators recently passed a resolution acknowledging that food safety decisions should be based in fact and driven by those with regulatory expertise.

Read more in my Food Dive opinion piece, published on March 25, 2024:

California and New York, among about a dozen other states, have pending proposals to ban several FDA-approved food additives. The glaring issue is that there is no scientific basis for these bans, and no one supporting the bans has the expertise required to make these very technical regulatory determinations.

Compounded by the significant media attention given to this topic, there is no accountability and little to no fact-checking within the legislation and the coverage that has accompanied it.

Support for the proposed bans is implausible. All color additives must be approved by FDA without exception, including Red Dye 3 and titanium dioxide. The FDA also continuously reviews colors and other food additives and proactively addresses consumer concerns. Both Red Dye 3 and titanium dioxide are currently under review and findings are expected to be announced later this year. In the case of Brominated Vegetable Oil, the FDA recently conducted its own studies and has initiated steps to remove BVO from the U.S. food supply. No authoritative body in the world has identified any safety concerns with the use of Red Dye 3 in food, including the FDA, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Although there are broader uses permitted in the U.S., the EU has determined that Red Dye 3 is safe in food.

The EUbanned titanium dioxide in food, but there are no actual safety concerns to justify the ban. FDA deemed titanium dioxide safe in 2021 and JECFA agreed with the findings in October 2023. Europe’s 2021 opinion was based on safety data not representative of the material approved for use as a food color. Since then, highly regarded food agencies from the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan have reviewed Europe’s data and confirmed that titanium dioxide is safe to use in food.

Titanium dioxide is argued to be banned in the U.S. because regulators in the European Union called it unsafe. But how much would a person have to eat to reach the genotoxicity levels used by EU food safety regulators? If you make estimates based on the assumption that titanium dioxide is used at the maximum level permitted by FDA (1% by weight of food), a person would have to eat:

• 318 pizza rolls per day, every day, for 3 years, or
• 246 mini powdered donuts per day, every day, for 3 years, or
• 4,080 pieces (more than 70 bags) of colorful chewy candy per day, every day, for 9 years.

These amounts are not representative of the way that people eat. Yet the rhetoric carelessly deployed in this debate would lead consumers to believe that the food additives in question are harmful and there is a systematic failure on behalf of the U.S. food safety system. 

The post Those who are proposing a ban on certain FDA-approved food additives are not scientists, toxicologists or regulatory experts. appeared first on NCA.

Read my Chicago Sun-Times letter to the editor, published on March 19, 2024 in response to a recent opinion piece on this topic:

Proposed legislation to ban five food additives in Illinois leads consumers to believe there’s a systematic failure of the U.S. food safety system. That’s not true, the head of the National Confectioners Association writes.

While there has been significant attention given to the proposed food and color additive bans in Illinois and states across the country, the unfortunate reality is that those supporting these proposals are knowingly using inaccuracies and falsehoods to scare consumers and destroy the Food and Drug Administration, including the author of a recent Chicago Sun-Times opinion column. Here are the facts:

First, all color additives must be approved by the FDA without exception. It is currently reviewing red dye 3 and titanium dioxide with results expected in 2024. Earlier this month, the agency added potassium bromate and propylparaben to their science-based review process. In the case of brominated vegetable oil, FDA conducted its own studies and has initiated steps to remove BVO from the U.S. food supply. This is how our food safety system was designed to work, and it’s a real-time example of it working.

Second, no authoritative body in the world has identified any safety concerns with the use of red dye 3 in food, including FDA, the European Food Safety Authority, and JECFA (a United Nations/World Health Organization committee). Although there are broader uses permitted in the U.S., the European Union has determined that red Dye 3 is safe in certain products. 

Third, FDA deemed titanium dioxide safe in 2021 and JECFA agreed in October 2023. Highly regarded food agencies from the U.S., UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan have confirmed that titanium dioxide is safe to use in food.

We need to inject some common sense into the discussion. How much would a person have to eat to reach the genotoxicity levels used by EU food safety regulators? If you make estimates based on the assumption that titanium dioxide is used at the maximum level permitted by FDA (1% by weight of food), a person would have to eat: 318 pizza rolls per day, every day, for three years; or 246 mini powdered donuts per day, every day, for three years; or 4,080 pieces (more than 70 bags) of colorful chewy candy per day, every day, for nine years.

Yet the conversation around these additives would lead consumers to believe that they are harmful and there is a systematic failure on behalf of the U.S. food safety system. It’s disappointing that some in Illinois would choose to advance such egregious misinformation.

John Downs, President and CEO, National Confectioners Association

The post LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Stop Scaring Consumers About Food Additives appeared first on NCA.

Read my Chicago Sun-Times letter to the editor, which published on January 26, 2024, in response to a recent editorial on this topic:

A Jan. 24 editorial in the Sun-Times (“Keep red dye No. 3, other potentially harmful additives out of food to protect Illinoisans’ health”) expressed support for a legislative proposal that would ban food and color additives, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved. This is a complete overstep by legislators who are out of their depth when it comes to our nation’s science-based food safety system.

Illinoisans should rely on the scientific rigor of the FDA in terms of evaluating the safety of food ingredients and additives, not the state legislature. The proposed bill would replace a uniform national food safety system with a patchwork of inconsistent state requirements created by legislative fiat that will increase food costs, undermine consumer confidence and create confusion around food safety.

The FDA continuously reviews food additives and proactively addresses consumer concerns. In fact, a number of the ingredients and additives in the proposed ban are currently under FDA review or were recently reviewed. In the case of brominated vegetable oil (BVO), the FDA recently conducted its own studies and has initiated steps to remove BVO from the U.S. food supply. This is how our food safety system was designed to work, and it’s a real-time example of it working. The proposed bill would also ban an additional additive, titanium dioxide. This ignores recent findings that the color additive is safe, by the FDA in 2021 and a World Health Organization expert committee in October 2023.

The U.S. food system is the envy of the world, and the FDA is fulfilling its responsibility to ensure that it stays that way. Illinois legislators should leave these science-based decisions to the experts.

John Downs, president and CEO, National Confectioners Association

The post LETTER TO THE EDITOR: ‘Do or dye’ expertise on food additives should be left to the FDA appeared first on NCA.

Throughout the year, American consumers look forward to celebrating their favorite holidays and seasons with friends and family. Whether it’s exchanging heart-shaped chocolate boxes on Valentine’s Day or roasting s’mores around a summer bonfire, chocolate and candy play an important role in these special moments and seasonal celebrations.  

Halloween is often referred to as our industry’s Super Bowl. And now that the Halloween season is in full swing, consumers are excited to celebrate, with 93% saying they will share chocolate and candy with friends and family to commemorate the season. Whether their address is on Main Street or Pennsylvania Avenue, Americans are preparing their decorations, costumes and treats ahead of Halloween night.  

Consumer enthusiasm has steadily extended the Halloween season over time, with the nation’s chocolate and candy makers working with retailers to enhance the exciting buildup far before October 31. 

While Americans begin their celebrations earlier and earlier each year, confectionery manufacturers work year-round to make sure shelves are stocked with seasonal treats that make for a memorable Halloween for families. And it’s perhaps even more important now than ever before: confectionery items remain an affordable luxury despite persistent inflation and continued supply chain disruptions impacting kitchen table budgets from coast to coast.  

Chocolate and candy serve as holiday centerpieces and everyday treats, and confectionery manufacturing serves as a major economic driver in communities across the country. For an industry that generates $42 billion every year, the Halloween season is vital to our ability to support local economies, provide more than 58,000 confectionery manufacturing jobs and support an additional 635,000 jobs in transportation, agriculture, retail, and more. The “Power of Sweet” can be felt in all corners of the country, as our member companies operate in all 50 states.  

The real fun lies beyond the numbers however—it’s about how an occasional treat has the power to make life more special. Innovative confectionery products help people embrace the fun flavors and scary themes Halloween is known for, bringing nostalgic thoughts and feelings to those enjoying a little chocolate and candy treat and elevating an ordinary moment into a special occasion.  

The confectionery industry is providing more transparency, choice and portion guidance options for consumers who are looking to celebrate the big and small moments. If you are celebrating the Halloween season this year or are among the 60 percent of parents who sneak Halloween candy from their children, know that we as an industry are working hard to deliver innovative new products right alongside beloved Halloween classics.  

The seasons provide a reason to connect with your community and make cherished memories with your family and friends. As for us in the confectionery industry, we are proud of our role in providing an affordable luxury to consumers that helps to make celebrations and family traditions a little sweeter.  

The post The Halloween Season: An Iconic Celebration Made Complete by Chocolate and Candy appeared first on NCA.

Read the full op-ed below, or visit the OC Register website.

Newsom should think carefully about food additive ban

By FRANK YIANNAS 

ORGINALLY PUBLISHED September 24, 2023 on the Orange County Register

There aren’t many topics more important for a nation than its ability to provide its citizens access to safe, nutritious, and available food.  That’s why I appreciate the California legislature’s desire to protect its citizens by banning certain food additives they believe are unsafe, via passage of Assembly Bill 418, which now awaits the Governor’s review.  However, while this action is well-intended, if enacted, it does set a dangerous precedent on how food safety standards in our nation are best established.

I’ve dedicated my career to advancing food safety and protecting public health. I’ve done so at the height of federal service, in academic settings, and within the private sector. As the former Deputy Commissioner at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), I witnessed firsthand why the country needs a strong FDA – working in close collaboration with the States – to manage the scientific rigor needed to evaluate the safety of food involved in interstate commerce. It’s because of these experiences that I’m concerned that California lawmakers felt it was necessary to take this action on their own.

Without relying on a strong, science-driven federal food safety agency, our country is left with a state-by-state patchwork of different, emerging regulatory standards that would weaken our nation’s food system and food safety efforts. Our nation is better when each state can help feed the rest of the states with a uniform standard of safe, available food.

This isn’t a novel idea.  It was President Lincoln who saw the need to establish the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the entire nation (not just one state) and created a Bureau of Chemistry within it, which was the predecessor to the U.S. FDA.   The need for national, uniform food safety standards for foods involved in interstate commerce was true then – and it is still true today.

Some have said the food ingredient ban in California is necessary because the FDA isn’t moving fast enough. While I’m sympathetic to this argument, this doesn’t mean we should bypass their authority. In contrast, we should be working with them and congressional leaders to ensure they operate to a high standard and have the experts, processes, and technologies needed to adapt more quickly as science evolves and the food system changes.

And while many support accelerating the FDA review process, it doesn’t mean the current process isn’t working at all.  In fact, three of the five original ingredients targeted by the California ban are currently under review by FDA.  In the case of brominated vegetable oil (BVO), the FDA has already initiated steps to remove BVO from the U.S. food supply, thereby making the California action unnecessary.

California’s proposed ban has also gained a lot of attention over the assertion that “if it’s banned in the EU, it should be banned here.” But it’s just not that simple. There are differences in our food systems, and a host of other factors that come into play when making complex, science-based determinations.

As an example, there have been differences in the interpretation of the science between the European Commission and the United States and Canada on the use of titanium dioxide, a brightening pigment, in foods. While the Europeans have acted against its use, the U.S. FDA and Health Canada have both concluded – via separate and independent reviews – that the available studies do not demonstrate human safety concerns connected to its use as a color additive. Fortunately, the legislative sponsors of the California ban recently removed titanium dioxide from their proposal.

And there’s another interesting point.  Did you know there are food additives that are banned in the U.S., but not in Europe? Just rubber-stamping what another country does is not something the American people expect from their government.

The U.S. food system is interdependent, and these decisions are complex.  It’s time for the FDA to step up – and for the State of California, Congressional leaders, and consumers alike to demand that they do their job more quickly.

I appreciate the difficult position Gov. Newsom has been placed in and we should all wish him wisdom when making this decision.  In doing so, he’ll have to consider what’s good for his constituents, as well as the nation.  It’s critical to rely on experts at the federal level, in close collaboration with state officials, to maintain consistency, uniformity, and consumer confidence in our nation’s food safety system.

Frank Yiannas is a former Deputy Commissioner of Food Policy & Response at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The post Former FDA Deputy Commissioner Says California Should Think Carefully About Additive Ban  appeared first on NCA.

The 2023 State of Treating report reinforced what we know: During this economic uncertainty, consumers are looking for small ways to bring a little sweetness to their lives and the lives of those around them. As a transparent, trusted and affordable treat, chocolate and candy can fill this unique need.

The report is the definitive source for confectionery category performance data, offering a deep understanding of ever-evolving consumer attitudes and behaviors. The findings show that Americans love chocolate and candy more than ever.

Sales of chocolate and candy reached $42.6 billion in 2022 and are expected to exceed $54 billion by 2027. This means confectionery category dollar sales grew 11.1% over 2021 and 22.1% over 2019. Strong sales numbers and positive consumer data show that confectionery’s affordability sets it apart during a time of uncertainty, especially since consumers view chocolate and candy as a fun part of life (81%) and an affordable treat (74%).

We also know that Americans now celebrate the seasons for longer and in bigger ways. Consumers did not let inflation stop them from including chocolate and candy in their holiday celebrations. Valentine’s Day, Easter, Halloween and the winter holidays showed strong growth in chocolate and candy purchases last year, which was certainly fueled by the 78% of consumers who believe confectionery sharing and gifting are great traditions. 

The report also reiterated the direct correlation between enjoying chocolate and candy and emotional well-being. The data shows that 78% of consumers agree chocolate and candy help make them happy, and 79% agree positive emotions and physical health are interconnected. 

That said, Americans understand that chocolate and candy are treats. Most people say they enjoy chocolate and candy two to three times per week averaging about 40 calories of added sugar per day, and 9 in 10 consumers are interested in nutritional information for the treats they enjoy.  

At the same time, America’s chocolate and candy companies are dedicated to helping consumers make informed choices about how they treat. This goal is clearer now than ever, as America’s chocolate and candy companies recently delivered on their commitment to help consumers manage their sugar intake by providing more transparency, choice and portion guidance options. There is strong directional alignment throughout the confectionery industry.

Alongside the positive response to our industrywide efforts, we have seen increased consumer interest as they seek to engage with their favorite brands on social media. This extends into social causes, and we are committed to spreading the word about our sector’s dedication to responsible sourcing of ingredients, fair treatment of workers, and commitment to giving back to communities throughout the country.

Transparency, trust and affordability are of utmost importance as our consumers continue to find ways to incorporate their favorite treats into everyday moments and celebrations – and we are dedicated to ensuring that chocolate and candy remain America’s quintessential treat. 

The post Sales of Chocolate and Candy Reach New Highs, Poised for Future Growth appeared first on NCA.