Results tagged “USDA” from iVillage - Supermarket Guru
According to the report, many factors contributed to the increase in food commodity prices including increased global demand for biofuels, feedstocks and adverse weather conditions in 2006 and 2007 in some major grain and oil seed producing areas; the declining value of the U.S. dollar; rising energy prices; increasing agricultural costs of production; growing foreign exchange holdings by major food importing countries; and policies adopted recently by some exporting and importing countries to mitigate their own food price inflation.
Joseph Glauber, USDA chief economist, said the impact of the economic crisis on food consumption would depress agriculture commodity prices temporarily, but he warned that prices would remain well above average for the eight years since 2000.
Mr Glauber went on to tell the Financial Times that the outlook was "for a return to higher prices" as some of the pressures that drove last year's increases and relatively strong growth in emerging markets "will return to play a major role" this year or in early 2010. "This is going to be again a tough year [for poor countries]," he said.
Christopher Delgado, a policy adviser in agriculture at the World Bank, warns' that the food crisis in not going to gone away and in fact, is coming back. Although their was a drop in food prices, corn prices were at least 40 per cent above the 2003-06 average, and rice prices 100 per cent higher.
So read those labels!
The original standards for beef were created in 1916 and provided a framework for quality standards based on the age of the animal, the marbling [amount of fat interspersed with the lean meat throughout the cut] and its firmness, color, and texture. Since that time, grade specifications have been constantly changed and improved, with the most recent change made in 1997. And with this summer's higher-than-ever prices, it might be the time to look carefully at just which grade of beef is best for you.
There are eight grades of beef, but for the average consumer the choices in the supermarket are just three: Prime, Choice and Select. According to the USDA, the breakdown of what we consume is approximately 53% of Choice, 35% of Select and 3% of Prime beef with the other cuts making up the difference.
The standards are complex - but a rule of thumb to follow is that the younger the beef with a "slightly abundant" degree of marbling is graded as Prime; and the most expensive at retail. The older the beef - with the least amount of marbling is the least expensive.
Choosing which grade is right for you does not have to be complicated, but you need to develop your own decision-making matrix.
- How are you cooking the beef? If it's on the BBQ, you may want to buy a more marbled piece to be the juiciest.
- How much does it cost? Look at the prices carefully and think about the recipe usage (obviously, the taste of the meat when just grilling a steak is different than when making a glazed or marinated pot roast). You may be able to use a less expensive grade without much flavor difference.
- Check out that nutritional panel! While marbling does make meat taste better - it also means the fat content is higher.
- Ask the butcher! Whether you are buying your meat in an Albertson's, Whole Foods or Costco - most stores have on-staff butchers who do have extensive training and can make recommendations based on your recipe, budget and nutritional desires. Do not hesitate to ask questions - or ask for special cuts.
Get more information and tips on Today Show on iVillage!
More from Phil Lempert:
It’s not about the science; it’s about the information!
In January, the FDA announced that food from healthy clones of cattle, swine and goat is as safe to eat as food from non-cloned animals. This finding, according to the FDA, was derived from years of detailed study, and came as no surprise to researchers who have been successfully cloning livestock since 1996. But even with some government reassurance, many consumers are still concerned about the safety of food that comes from cloned animals.
Let’s turn the clock back to 1996, when the religious, ethical, and scientific debate on cloning began as the world was introduced to Dolly, the first cloned animal. And although the idea of cloning for some is disturbing in regard to the balance of nature, the most important (at least in OUR opinion) issue at hand is whether or not food from cloned animals should be sold. That's right, the issue is whether cloned meat is safe for human consumption. Can you just imagine going into a supermarket or fast foodery near you and being asked to choose between a burger that is "natural, cloned or transgenic"?
It's about business and profits, as some farmers and some research studies are pushing to embrace this technology and are doing all they can to say that the products made from cloned animals are safe for human consumption. Companies such as Cyagra, a Pennsylvania biotechnology company, says it has cloned more than 100 cattle for farmers and ranchers and is now anxiously awaiting the day the FDA states it will allow the sale of food products coming from cloned livestock.
OK, OK, before we all decide to go download Soylent Green in order to get a primer on the subject (just joking!), we must get the answer to the simple question: do we need to clone animals for food? Some believe the birth of "supercows" could bring such benefits to consumers as less fatty meat and more nutritious milk. But the truth is always in the action and not the hype. Let's not forget that hog farmers did an exceptional job of producing hogs that were less fatty and more nutritious by changing the feed; not cloning the perfect hog. As a result pork got a brand new image, and soon became the "other white meat". And, oh yeah, sales did go up.
Reports indicate that scientists believe animal clones could be more disease resistant and may yield healthier food. The Pew Institute of Food and Biotechnology, an independent agency that helped the FDA review the issue; reports that their findings suggest that cloned animals are no different from their conventionally bred counterparts. Basically, "a copy is just a copy." Past research indicates that genes are altered in the cloning process and that there is a chance that this could result in toxins. But, according to the data that is out there, there are not any strong indications that cloning would have adverse effects on the food.
It was on Valentine’s Day in 2003 that the world-famous Dolly (the first cloned animal) was put to sleep by doctors after being diagnosed with progressive lung disease. She was only six years old. Before that, Dolly was diagnosed as having arthritis. It was not clear whether the condition was a result of the cloning process causing premature aging of her cells or if it was just a fluke. Anyone's mouth watering for some succulent "cloned" Frenched Lamb Chops?
Some benefits of cloning include making animals disease resistant, more suitable to the climate in which they are raised, more fertile and more tailored to suit the tastes of different markets. Just as farmers look for qualities like leanness, tenderness, color and cut when breeding animals through traditional, slower methods, cloning allows farmers to reproduce the most productive, healthiest, best tasting animals quickly, efficiently and reliably.
As far as we know, there are no animal products derived from cloned dairy and beef cattle available at supermarkets at the moment, as the FDA continues to recommend that these products stay out of the food supply while more research is conducted. After the FDA lifts the existing voluntary moratorium on selling these products, the USDA will work with industry professionals to plan an orderly market transition. According to reports, it could take as long as three to five years (post lifting of the voluntary moratorium) for products from cloned animals to be available at market.
Once at market, the FDA will not require any additional labeling to indicate that a product comes from a cloned animal, and that’s a mistake with long-term implications. Labeling will only be required when the nutritional content of an item is changed, or if a potential allergen is added. The FDA believes that clone labels could create confusion along consumers, as they would imply that there were nutritional or safety differences between products from clones and products from animals breed conventionally. We say that not labeling does just the opposite: eliminates confusion and gives people the right to choose between cloned and non-cloned foods.
What do you think? Should our supermarkets be selling cloned meats and other dairy products? Should labeling of cloned foods be mandatory? Send me an email at PLempert@SupermarketGuru.com and share your thoughts!
It is obvious that our lawmakers aren’t watching television, listening to the radio, reading newspapers or magazines…or reading SupermarketGuru.com.
After scathing reports on how under-funded the USDA and FDA are these days, we bet on the fact that the folks in Washington DC had finally woken up and heard the pleas from shoppers (as well as just about every food trade group) that implored them to increase the budgets to protect our food better. The FDA advisory panel report warned that the present situation at the FDA was so bad that American lives were at risk. The report noted that the FDA food inspections were actually 78% less based on volume of foods over the past 35 years.
This is a glaring and missed opportunity to raise consumer confidence in our food supply; however, it seems that message was lost on the politicos who must have already checked out for Christmas break.
The spending bill now in Congress is a mere $513 million for FDA’s food safety programs, up $56 million (that’s just 12%) from the 2007 budget.; it's important to note that about half the increase will be used up by annual cost increases and pay raises.
Your opinion?
When Kermit first uttered this now famous line, he didn’t even imagine the implications for supermarket shopping. But now, as more of us want to do our fair share to protect the planet and ease the impact of products’ global footprint by choosing wiser, we need a bit of help to really understand what these labels do (and don’t) mean.
USDA Certified Organic – organic foods seem to be everywhere, but did you know there are different designations?
100 percent organic - Organic standards require that the land used to grow organic crops go through a three-year "transition period" to make sure the crops are free of synthetic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. All organic agriculture prohibits the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, irradiation, sewage sludge, and growth hormones, and no genetically modified organisms can be contained in anything labeled organic.
Organic— is defined by the USDA as containing 95 percent organic ingredients.
Made with organic— may be used on the front of the product label that contains at least 70 percent organic ingredients. Note: products with less than 70 percent organic ingredients are only allowed to list the organic items in the ingredient panel.
Oregon Tilth – you may have seen in addition to the USDA seal, another one for Oregon Tilth Certified Organic (OTCO). This seal is an internationally recognized symbol of organic integrity which some organic producers feel has even stricter standers than the federal rules. OTCO provides a system that combines strict production standards, on-site inspections, and legally binding contracts to protect the producers and buyers of organic products, to ensure that the agreed upon conventions of organic agricultural systems are being practiced not only by the growers or producers, but also by all the people who handle and process organic food, feed and fiber on its journey to the consumer.
You may have noticed that many products are now touting the fact that they are “local”.
Local – while there is no legal definition for what is and isn’t “local”, the general consensus seems to be that these foods are grown or processed within approximately 200 miles of your location – typically, somewhere you can drive to and from in one day.
One of the most overused, and confusing terms that first appeared on foods back in the 1940s is “all natural”
Natural/ All Natural - the phrase "all natural" can mean just about anything; it actually has no nutritional meaning whatsoever and isn't truly regulated by the FDA. Natural in most cases means unprocessed food that has undergone no or minimal processing and contains no additives such as preservatives or artificial coloring.
Labels, labels and more labels:
Cage-Free or Free-Range – is not a health claim — this just means that the chickens are not locked in cages, and are "free" to roam. "Free-range" means the chickens are allowed to roam outdoors. Read the label carefully and look for more detail; sometimes "cage-free" eggs come from hens packed side by side in massive sheds with access to the outdoors.
Grass Fed - The Department of Agriculture has announced standards that would for the first time allow meat to be labeled as grass fed only if it came from animals that ate nothing but grass after being 
weaned. But the trade association representing many raisers of grass-fed livestock, which has long sought regulation of labeling, criticized the standards, because they do not restrict the use of antibiotics and hormones and do not require grass-fed animals to live on pastures year round. The rules, which take effect November 15, 2007 would require animals to eat nothing but grass and stored grasses like hay, and to have access to pasture during the growing season, which is defined as the time from last frost to first frost. In some places that could mean from as late as May to as early as October. The new standards require growers to have their farm and records inspected by the Agriculture Department before they could use a “U.S.D.A. Process Verified” seal. Meat could also be labeled as grass-fed, but without the seal, if the growers submit documents showing their animals were raised according to the standards.
Fair Trade - Fair trade is an organized social movement and market-based model of international trade which promotes the payment of a fair price as well as social and environmental standards in areas related to the production of a wide variety of goods. The movement focuses in particular on exports from developing countries to developed countries, most notably handicrafts, coffee, cocoa, tea, bananas, honey, cotton, wine, fresh fruit etc. Fair trade's strategic intent is to deliberately work with marginalized producers and workers in order to help them move from a position of vulnerability to security and economic self-sufficiency.
Food allergies are on the rise, with almost ten million people now suffering from some reaction!
As of January 2006, all food products must clearly say on the package if they contain any of the foods that are responsible for most allergies: milk, tree nuts, peanuts, soy, wheat, egg, crustacean shellfish or fish. And with more than 170 foods already identified as allergens, it's critical to read not only the front of the label carefully, but also each of the ingredients. One troubling designation is when you see the words “may contain” which is an unregulated label which is little more than a safety net for what's called unintentional "cross-contamination" of a food product. That is, a chocolate bar may not be made with peanuts, but it may have been contaminated with a trace amount of peanut because it was produced on the same manufacturing line as a peanut candy bar.
Gluten Free - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is recommending that voluntary standards be established for the first time that would govern how gluten-free products are sold and labeled. The first draft of the FDA proposal suggests that "companies may label foods ‘gluten-free’ if they don't contain wheat, barley, rye or their hybrids, or if they contain fewer than 20 parts per million gluten." Currently, some companies use the label to describe products that are naturally gluten-free, such as fruits or meat — which fuels the deepening nutrition confusion taking place in our grocer’s aisles. Under the FDA's proposal, that would be misbranding. There is also confusion about cross-contamination, the gluten contained in oats, and also that modified food starch often contains gluten. A food with a "gluten-free" label may not be gluten free at all. Such products may contain trace amounts of the wheat protein — enough to trigger a reaction in some people.
Dairy Free - "Free" labels, such as "peanut free" and "gluten free," aren't regulated by the FDA. "Dairy free" can be particularly tricky. On the front, a product may say "dairy free," but on the back, casein/milk may be listed under ingredients. Examples of food advertised as "dairy free" that may contain milk: coffee whiteners, whipped toppings, imitation cheeses and some soft-serve ice creams.
And one of our favorite supermarket secrets is in the produce department!
The "PLU" label is that annoying little numbered sticker that is now on every piece of produce you buy. That’s called a “produce look up” (PLU) number that is designed to help the cashier properly identify the item. But it also has a secret code: Organic adds a '9' in front of the four digit PLU code. Example: an organically grown standard yellow banana would be '94011' and genetically engineered foods add an '8' in front of the four digit PLU code. Example: a genetically engineered standard yellow banana would be '84011'.
Tuesday's announcement from Washington made me chuckle. The Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Richard A. Raymond said that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is going to try harder to protect us from E. coli contamination by expanding product testing and a quicker response time in recalling infected meat.
I’m not suggesting that Dr. Raymond’s statement isn’t an important step, or necessary; but in the wake of the second largest beef recall in our nation’s history its time for a bit more. According to FSIS there were 5 cases of E. coli recalls in 2005…so far in 2007 there have been 15.
So what’s their plan?
According to the agency, they have already increased testing by 75 percent since July of this year and their key initiatives that are targeted to federally inspected plants that produce raw beef are as follows:
-- Testing and analysis of trim.
-- Verifying control of E. coli O157:H7.
-- New checklist for verifying control.
-- Testing more domestic and imported ground beef components.
-- More rapid recalls.
-- Targeting routine testing.
-- Ensuring safety of imported beef products.
-- and…strengthen communications with public health partners, industry, and consumer representatives, as well as internally with inspection program personnel.
Not enough in my book. In fact, more rhetoric and the same old plan. So, no game.
One of the reasons that we are experiencing these huge recalls is that the factory farm system is broken. Years ago we had multiple suppliers of our foods, and while there were food safety issues, the amount of product that was tainted was just a fraction of today’s recalls. Perhaps there was a couple hundred pounds of product that became infected – but today it's tens of millions of pounds; and in today’s technology-driven communications cycle, there is no excuse for either the manufacturer or the government to not inform the public within minutes, not weeks. It’s amazing how quickly we can find out exactly which drive-thru Britney Spears is ordering a shake and fries at, and get it on the evening news.
Almost five years ago I did a report on TODAY that showed a new type of plastic packaging film for perishable foods that would actually change appearance if bacteria was in the package or if the temperature rose above the safe zone. For obvious reasons these technologies were not embraced by food companies; after all, what would they do with all those tainted packages?
What do you think the USDA and food companies need to do to insure the safety of our foods?
I would bet that before April 26th, most Americans had never even heard of the substance that would prompt some of the biggest food recalls in history.
You've already read that the deaths of thousands of pets have been traced to pet foods with wheat gluten and rice proteins imported from China, which were found to contain melamine and melamine-related compounds. And then we heard about the same substance being fed to hogs and chickens, and found in fish.
But do you know what melamine is?
Melamine is an organic-based chemical substance, which is often combined with formaldehyde to produce melamine resin, a durable plastic. Melamine resin is commonly used in food packaging and tableware, and due to the fact that resins can leech into foods because of heat or pressure, melamine has been detected in foods and beverages, albeit at very low levels.
The International Herald Tribune reported on May 8th that three Chinese chemical makers have said that animal feed producers often purchase cyanuric acid from their factories to use in livestock feed. The reason? Both melamine and cyanuric acid are used in feed to artificially raise the levels of protein. So when we read those nutrition labels, we now have to wonder about that number that follows the word “protein”.
FDA/USDA are assuring the public that there is very little threat of illness in humans. Dr. David Acheson of the FDA says that, "The reason for that is several-fold, and essentially it's based on what we know of the levels of melamine that are toxic and what we know of the dilution effect of the pet food."
The amount of pet food incorporated into the feed for the hogs and chickens has been estimated to be around 5% of their feed mixture (and of the 5%, less than 10% of the wheat gluten is melamine). By the time the adulterated pork or poultry reaches our mouths, the amount of melamine has been significantly diluted.
There is little doubt that the on-going investigation of the contamination of food products, whether intended for humans or animals, raises important questions as to the safety of our food supply. And the latest reaction from Washington DC?
A new food safety czar, Dr. David Acheson, with the title of “assistant commissioner for food protection” has been charged with guarding against hazards in the food supply. Not only does the job come with a rather unimpressive title, but it also comes with no authority to order a recall of food products.
By the way, the focus and scrutiny on melamine has prompted the food agency responsible for food safety in China to ban export and domestic sale of melamine and has announced the deployment of mobile food safety testing units that can detect problems in 30 minutes.
