This site has some useful information about how sulfur is regulated quite differently for different foods, although the risks may be the same:

Sulfites are not allowed on red meat. Sodium bisulfite does such a good job of color fixing, that sulfited ground beef can be rotten and you can’t tell by looking at it. For this reason, the FDA has an absolute prohibition against sulfites in meat. However, the rule doesn’t apply to other ingredients that may be mixed into the meat. For instance, sausage may legally contain corn syrup, molasses, or wine.

SharkFish is another story. Sulfites are a preservative for fish. Theoretically, sulfited fish must carry a warning somewhere near the fish display, but I’ve never seen one.

The author goes on to describe how he has tried to find sulfur in various foods but often suspected the wrong thing, or had a hard time tracing the source(s) of his allergic reactions.

Interesting case example by Patagonia on how they generated support for fishing regulations:

Swordfish, like many of our large predatory fish, have experienced a decline in their numbers. In 1998, SeaWeb and the Natural Resources Defense Council launched the “Give Swordfish a Break” campaign with the support of 27 high-profile chefs who signed a pledge to not serve swordfish in their restaurants. It grew to include more than 700 chefs and other food-industry professionals, and was among the first attempts to harness market forces in the name of ocean ecology.

The end of the campaign came as a result of new rules issued by U.S. regulators who halted or limited commercial long-line fishing in three areas off the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts, where too many young, undersized swordfish were being caught and discarded.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many of those 27 chefs had actually served a regular diet of swordfish before they pledged to never serve it.

Patagonia also takes some credit for strengthening the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its recent reauthorization.

Senator Boxer has issued a statement about an odd change in US policy. Sorry I don’t have a link as this was sent to me directly:

The Department of Agriculture recently announced that it would remove the word “hunger� from reports on the nation’s food supply. Instead, it announced that it would use “low food security� or “very low food security� in its reports. I have written to Secretary of Agriculture Michael Johanns to express my displeasure over this change.

Officials at the Department of Agriculture report that the change in labels was not a plot to try to disguise or mask hunger in America. Instead, they claim that “hungerâ€? is too amorphous a phrase to describe, in their terms, ”a potential consequence of food insecurity that, because of prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy sensation.”

Although I have monitored the politics of food-aid and security for many years, I have to say it is not clear to me why a term like “hunger” suddenly would be seen as vague compared to “low food security”. Strange. Was someone offended to hear that people in America go “hungry”? Senator Boxer puts it this way:

I believe that most Americans are acutely aware of the meaning of “hunger,� especially when used in official reports meant to describe peoples’ access to the food supply.

Exactly, so perhaps that’s why they changed it? Now politicians can say “this report shows no one in America ever goes hungry“, even though the numbers might show 35 million people still experience “low food security” issues.

I’d write more, but you’ll have to excuse me as I’m experiencing a high bladder security issue…probably a result of my low food countermeasures.

It sounds like the process to detect a carcinogenic red dye called Sudan IV is non-trivial. Something to do with HPLC?

I mention this because in 2005 there was a Sudan dye scare in the UK, which apparently led directly to higher food prices:

Two recent incidents of turmeric contamination and 97 cases of sudan-contaminated palm oil for sale on the European food market prompted the Commission to call for tighter controls for both these foodstuffs.

Once details of the measures are cleared, the tighter rules mean that imports of both these foodstuffs must be accompanied by certificates to prove they are free of the carcinogenic sudan red food dye. Such certificates are currently required for all imports of chilli and chilli powder products into Europe.

[…]

Over 600 well known processed foods were pulled from the supermarket shelves after the UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) detected the illegal dye in a batch of worcester sauce made by St.Albans-based Premier Foods.

I suppose the recent incident in China should have the same effect, although it is not clear yet whether the Chinese are going to require red eggs to be more tightly controlled or just find someone to severely punish.

And while food prices might rise, I certainly would rather pay for food I can trust rather than some colorful piece of chemically altered substance that is approved for consumption by an agency that does not want to address the root of the problem (pun intended). In other words, my heartfelt congratulations to the Mayor of New York for the successful and complete ban of transfats even though the FDA seemed unable or unwilling to do so.

I understand the concern with a rise in food prices but sometimes I think people forget that the ban/control is for a known toxic substance that is almost undetectable to humans (i.e. tastes good). I’m happy to pay experts to ensure a better quality of life and prevent poison from entering my food, thank you.