Editor's note: Aaron E. Carroll is a professor of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine and the director of its Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research. He blogs about health policy at The Incidental Economist and tweets at @aaronecarroll. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Recently, a study published in the British Journal of Nutrition said that organic fruits and vegetables are more nutritious.
A press release declared it the "largest study" of its kind. Because of its size and breadth, some people believe that it trumps previous research which showed organic food did not appear to be any safer or more nutritious than conventionally grown food.
Last August, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an ultimatum: Food manufacturers had one year to make sure any "gluten-free" products met FDA requirements.
That deadline is up. To use the "gluten-free" label, products must now have an undetectable level of gluten and cannot have any ingredient containing wheat, rye, barley, or any their derivatives.
If manufacturers continue to use the "gluten-free" label without bringing their food up to scratch, they will be subject to regulatory action from the FDA. (Some foods, such as pasta, may still be on shelves legally for a while if they were produced before the ruling.)