Results tagged “food safety” from iVillage - Supermarket Guru
Much of it is contaminated with mercury, according to findings of two new studies--one published in yesterday's issue of the Environmental Health science journal, and the other also disclosed Jan. 26 by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP).
"High fructose corn syrup samples were collected from three different manufacturers and analyzed...[and] were found to contain levels of mercury ranging from below a detection limit of 0.005 to 0.570 micrograms mercury per gram of high fructose corn syrup," wrote Renee Dufault et al, in the article, Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: measured concentrations in food product sugar. "Average daily consumption of high fructose corn syrup is about 50 grams per person. With respect to total mercury exposure, it may be necessary to account for this source of mercury in the diet of children and sensitive populations," they urged.
Mercury turned up in nine out of 20 samples of commercial HFCS collected by Dufault while she was an environmental health officer for FDA in 2005. She and co-authors published their findings now after FDA didn't press the issue.
The separate IATP study detected mercury in nearly one-third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products where HFCS is the first or second highest labeled ingredient. Examined for the Not so sweet: missing mercury and high fructose corn syrup report were beverages, salad dressings, barbecue sauce, yogurt and more. Mercury was most prevalent in dairy items, dressings and condiments, said IATP.
"Mercury is toxic in all its forms," said IATP's David Wallinga, M.D., and a co-author of both studies. "Given how much high fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered. We are calling for immediate changes by industry and the FDA to help stop this avoidable mercury contamination of the food supply."
A good place to improve would be in completing the phase-out of mercury cell technology, which is sometimes used to produce caustic soda to separate corn starch from the corn kernel. This process, says IATP, could contaminate the caustic soda and ultimately HFCS with mercury. Beyond that, we feel the more light we shine on any questionable aspects of HFCS, the smarter the food choices we all will make and the sooner federal food policies could address any possible risks of this substance.
Related Content:
According to the story, "Food companies and retailers have been recalling products with peanut butter in them because of suspicion of contamination amid a salmonella outbreak that has killed at least six people and sickened more than 470 others in 43 states. At least 90 people have been hospitalized.
The Food and Drug Administration days ago informed Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) that new product samples in unopened containers tested positive for salmonella. But yet the news continues and escalates, why? (more on that later!)
PCA is a peanut processing company and maker of peanut butter for bulk distribution to institutions, food service industries, and private label food companies, and they have announced an expanded recall of peanut butter produced in its Blakely, Georgia processing facility as well as the voluntary recall of peanut paste produced in the same plant because these products have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella.
The announcement and voluntary recall affects all peanut butter produced on or after August 8, 2008 and peanut paste produced on or after September 26, 2008 at the Georgia facility.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IT IS BELIEVED THAT THERE IS NOT ANY CONSUMER PACKAGES OF PEANUT BUTTER AFFECTED. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER TYPES OF PRODUCTS INCLUDING BAKED GOODS, SAUCES AND OTHER FOODS THAT DO CONTAIN PEANUT BUTTER AS AN INGREDIENT THAT MAY BE AFFECTED.
The peanut butter being recalled, so far, is sold by PCA in bulk packaging in containers ranging in size from five to 1,700 pounds. The peanut paste is sold in sizes ranging from 35 pound containers to tanker containers.
Eating food contaminated with Salmonella can result in abdominal cramping, diarrhea, and fever. Most people infected with Salmonella develop the symptoms 12 to 72 hours after infection. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days, and most people recover with treatment. However, in some persons, the diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be hospitalized. According to the CDC, this strain of salmonella cannot be killed through cooking.
I've already received over 1,000 emails from our readers who cannot understand why the government is taking so long to figure this problem out and be able to give us a definitive answer to the cause. The truth is that they are working, but frankly until the USDA and FDA get the proper funding and staff, and start working WITH food producers to understand how manufacturing processes really work, this delayed response and ambiguity will continue. Food safety problems will continue to plague us and threaten our health until the folks in Washington DC wake up to reality. Hopefully today, with the inauguration of President Obama, who has openly declared war on food safety regulations, we have taken a huge step forward.
For more information on Salmonella bacteria, please visit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Website at http://www.cdc.gov.
Related Content:
- More from Phil Lempert on Food Safety
- Get more info from TODAY on iVillage
Consumers are increasingly troubled about food safety, according to a new national food safety and labeling poll conducted by Consumer Reports National Research Center. The poll talked to 1,001 consumers over the age of 18 in October 2008. Almost half (48%) of those interviewed say their confidence in the safety of the nation's food supply has diminished.
Some of the biggest concerns about our food supply relate to health and the environment. Ocean pollution is top-of-mind for many, with wild fish consumption triggering unease about possible health problems in more than four in 10 polled. Fish farms advertising their product as organic come under scrutiny as well. 57% of consumers are concerned about the ocean pollution caused by "organic" fish farms; 90% of consumers want organic fish farms to recover all waste produced in the farming process.
Meanwhile, the majority of consumers voiced disagreement to a recent recommendation from the National Organic Standards Board that would allow fish to be fed non-organic fishmeal. 93% of those polled agree that fish labeled as organic should be produced from 100% organic feed.
When it comes to biotechnology, food labels still ignite discussion. By and large, consumers (58%) are concerned about eating cloned or genetically engineered products. There is no requirement to label genetically engineered animal products in the U.S., but a clear majority (95%) of consumers would like that to change. Consumers would like labels on cloned animal products too.
More label debate surrounds the topics of growth hormones, irradiation and country of origin. 93% of consumers want dairies that produce milk and milk products without artificial growth hormones to be allowed to label their products accordingly. Similarly, 9 in 10 Americans want irradiated products to be correspondingly labeled. A majority (95%) wants processed or packaged foods - currently exempt from labeling - to be labeled by their country of origin (COOL). Although 73% of consumers polled regard the food supply in the U.S. as safe, 81% are concerned with the safety of imports. The FDA comes under fire for their infrequent inspections of foreign facilities at a rate of about once every five to 10 years. Two-thirds of consumers them want the agency to inspect domestic and foreign food-processing facilities at least once a month.
Finally, if consumers expect more from the government in monitoring the food supply, they would also appreciate more disclosure. 8 in 10 consumers agree that the FDA should let the public know the location of retailers who sold potentially harmful food, like fish, produce and processed food, and more than 80% of them want the government to be able to require a recall.
Overall, consumers want the government to do more. In addition, they want to know more about their food, how it's been inspected and where it comes from. Ultimately, the poll revealed that consumers want improved safety, they're willing to pay more for safe products, and they're open to looking to retailers for guidance.
Retailers, says the Consumer Reports National Research Center, can help consumers by posting recall information in the stores, and by supporting efforts to increase food safety standards either alone or through their trade associations.
Related Content:
- More from Phil Lempert on Food Safety
- Get more info from TODAY on iVillage
Forget “irradiation”…let's just fool people and call it electronic pasteurization! Last Friday, the Food and Drug Administration approved use of irradiation on still more foods. This time they approved the process for spinach and iceberg lettuce. Irradiation has been used for over 50 years on spices and in the past decades has spread to use on meats, poultry, and some shellfish. Irradiated foods must be labeled as such and carry the “radura” symbol. This logo is a green leaf-like abstract centered in a white circle.
Irradiated foods have not become mainstream. Many food industry experts believe that consumers are confused by the term “irradiation” and their questioning the safety of the process is an error in judgment.
Although in Friday’s announcement, the FDA did state that irradiating spinach and iceberg lettuce produces furan, a cancer-causing chemical – but did add that the level of the substance isn’t high enough to cause worry.
With all the food safety issues making the headlines, and the neverending stream of product recalls, you would think that most consumers would actually embrace a technology that could in fact prevent many food-borne illnesses and even deaths. Or, that’s what many trade associations and food companies are hoping for, which is why there is a renewed effort to have the term changed to electronic pasteurization, which may sound better to some – but I don’t think that’s the answer. And based on quotes coming from some produce trade groups and brands, neither do they.
First: in order to have the irradiation of our foods widely accepted it must be proven to be 100% safe and proven that it does not change the taste, texture or nutrient value of our foods.
Second: we need to give the FDA back the financial resources that it needs to conduct inspections and create and monitor systems that insure traceability and transparency.
Friday’s announcement was not a positive move forward. It was a band-aid that is too small, trying to cover up a wound that that no one seems to know how to heal.
Unless you are one of the few people who doesn’t look forward to the summer tomato crop all year, the events over the past week have you as upset as I am.
I love tomatoes. All kinds of tomatoes. I struggle through eating tasteless tomatoes most of the year with the promise that come summer that great flavor will return. But maybe not this year?
Many fast food restaurants have signs posted that their signature burgers, including Big Macs and Whoppers are still available, but without the tomatoes. No tomato on a Whopper? That, my friends, is sacrilegious.
Federal food safety officials have reported that at least 167 people in 17 states appear to have been affected by salmonella poisoning is related to the consumption of raw tomatoes. Over the weekend the agency warned consumers to avoid certain raw red plum, red Roma and red round tomatoes and products containing them. Cherry tomatoes, grape tomatoes and those sold with the vine still attached are not associated with the outbreak. As of late yesterday, Florida's latest tomato crop has been cleared and reported as safe to eat.
But what is the most upsetting (and we’ve said it many times before) is that the time that it takes for the government to release food safety information makes the entire process a joke. This investigation started in mid-April. Almost two months ago. Are we really to believe that these contaminated fresh tomatoes are still on supermarket shelves? All that is accomplished by this outdated process is to further denigrate our confidence in our food supply. In 2008 we can find out information about celebrity drug problems or who’s having whose baby in nano-seconds – but when it comes to the safety of our foods it takes months…usually well after the foods have been consumed.
This is unacceptable.
And by the way, just for the record. I am eating fresh tomatoes – and they taste delicious.
For more information on this recall visit the Centers for Disease Control’s webpage.
Can you believe it? Last week, the Bush administration urged a federal appeals court to stop Creekstone Farms, a Kansas meatpacker, and other companies from testing all of their animals for BSE. You probably are asking yourself why the federal government continues to fight attempts by independent meatpackers to test their products for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), better known as Mad Cow Disease. Certainly I do.
My obsession with Mad Cow began that day when I was one of the guests on Oprah, when Howard Lyman (the cattle rancher turned vegan) exposed the practices that could lead to a Mad Cow outbreak and shocked Oprah into saying she would never eat another cheeseburger again. Today, more than ten year later, less than one percent of all slaughtered cows are tested for BSE under current US guidelines.
The White House opposition to the Creekstone plan is based on the administration's belief that such independent tests not performed by federal agencies could result in "false positives" that could needlessly alarm consumers. Larger meatpackers also have objected to Creekstone's plans, saying that it could create unfair pressure on them to test all their animals for BSE, which could result in higher costs and, ultimately, higher consumer prices.
But what goes unsaid in the back and forth discussion is what we as the consumer want: a 100% safe food supply. No one wants to take a chance of biting into a burger and winding up in the hospital with BSE – or even eColi or any other harmful bacteria. Late yesterday yet another ground beef recall was announced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service; this time it is 22,481 pounds of ground beef because the product might contain pieces of plastic. (For more information on this recall, visit the USDA Recall site )
Increased testing for BSE is a good thing, it gives both the industry and consumers more information – and will increase the amount of trust we have in our food supply. In the most recent SupermarketGuru.com Consumer Panel survey, twenty-seven percent of our panel said that our “food supply is not safe”.
The good news for consumers is that so far, at least, the courts seem to be siding with Creekstone; the company already has won this case in the lower courts, and, not a surprise, the Bush administration is trying to get that ruling reversed.
What do you think?
More from Phil Lempert
I have to admit that when it comes to milk I’m prejudiced. My grandfather was a dairy farmer in New Jersey and while I was growing up milk, butter and ice cream were among the staples of our daily diet.
When per capita milk consumption started its decline in the early 1970’s (mostly because boomers switched to that brown bubbly stuff instead), the dairy industry was caught unprepared. Then the dairy farmers and their marketers woke up and offered up lots that were new: packaging, products, flavors, hip advertising and even more "healthier" offerings. Milk met the trends head on with added nutrients and, of course, going organic.
These days there seems to be some rumblings in the dairy case; and before we know it, we may just be hearing lots of thunder and lightning that may send us running back to the milk case to read those labels.
Food safety issues keep me up at night, which is why I stand by the new dairy standards that were enacted in the State of California on January 1, 2008. These new regulations set a limit on the amount of coliforms that may be contained in milk (no more than 10 coliforms per milliliter), which in most cases means the milk will have to be pasteurized to meet the regulation. Coliforms are very common bacteria, most of which are not harmful, and producers of raw milk products contend that it is these coliforms in their milk which actually make it healthier by promoting a stronger immune system.
It is commonplace for raw milk producers to already be testing their products for E. coli, salmonella and other harmful pathogens, which is why the rumblings are starting. California health officials contend that raw milk producers should be able to meet the standards, which are critical to insure food safety. The producers disagree and contend that consumers should be able to have the freedom of choice.
I’m all for freedom of choice down the aisles – after all, the average supermarket today offers us almost 50,000 different products from which to choose; but if 2007 has taught us anything about the foods we eat, it would have to be our need for stricter food safety standards.
What’s your opinion? Should the raw milk producers be allowed to market their products as is?
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?
Michael Leavitt, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), is in China to hold talks with the government and sign agreements related to product safety. He told a press conference there that while the issue of unsafe and substandard products from China has been in the headlines in recent months, the US and Chinese governments have been working well in developing protocols that will improve product safety.
Right.
Leavitt’s truths came out when he actually said that it is up to US consumers to take greater responsibility for assuring that the products we purchase are safe. His exact quote: “Consumers can in fact do things that would ensure quality for themselves,” he said. “We encourage them to deal with retailers they trust, to ask those retailers what they're doing and what the process is they're following.”
Last time I checked it was pretty hard for a shopper to determine just where our foods and ingredients are being sourced. Of course, if Country of Origin Labeling actually came to fruition, you and I might have a fighting chance.
The question that we consumers need to ask is whether our federal government is more worried about maintaining trade relations with China than it is about protecting us. It is worrisome that Leavitt (or should I say Bush & Co.) actually thinks that consumers need to take on greater responsibility for product safety, but opposes such initiatives which would give us the information to do exactly that.
Leavitt’s statements and trip makes a mockery of those manufacturers, retailers and trade groups who are insisting for higher food safety standards and fixing the problems at the FDA. There is no doubt we consumers may have to protect ourselves, but the question is from whom and what?
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?
Late last Thursday, July 19th, the House Agriculture Committee approved an agreement on Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) for beef and pork. This agreement comes after months of headlines recounting food safety nightmares; so I had little doubt that this would happen. After all, these regulations, put forth by the Farm Bill in 2002, were supposed to take effect by 2004.
It’s been a battle of the lobbyists, and until now, COOL looked doomed. It’s sad that we’ve had to experience the illnesses (both human and pets) for food producers to wake up to the reality of what we consumers yearn for.
So, what can we expect to see on our meat labels in October 2008?
Packages of ground beef would have to list all the countries of the cattle that went into the product. For example, you may see something like “The beef in this package may come from cattle born in the U.S.A., Mexico, Canada or Argentina”. This agreement includes three categories of labeling, one that indicates product was born, raised and slaughtered in the United States; one that indicates that product was not exclusively born, raised and slaughtered in the U.S.; and one that includes products entirely from other countries. For ground meat, products can be labeled with a list of countries where product may have originated.
It seems that the key to the labeling agreement was: Meat from cattle born in Mexico or from Canadian-born pigs would have to include those countries on the label. The beef would be labeled as a product of the United States and Mexico. The pork would be called a product of the United States and Canada.
Better than what we have now, but not as clear as I for one would like; especially that this agreement reduces penalties and paperwork requirements in the law.
COOL labeling for seafood is already in effect, and the fruit and vegetable industry still has to work out an agreement to cover produce.
We consumers have an obligation to make sure that clear labeling is not only something we desire, but something we deserve. Send an email to CCOL@USDA.GOV to make our voice heard. The sooner the better – The House of Representatives is expected to vote on the Farm Bill before the end of July.
Copies of the bill considered by the Committee and the amendments that were adopted are available on the Committee's website at:
http://agriculture.house.gov/inside/2007FarmBill.html.
Capitalizing on the recent concerns about food products from China, a whole food nutritional supplement and emergency disaster kit company is adding "China-Free" labels to all its products and noting it in all its promotional literature.
Food for Health International is the first company to actively promote its "China-Free" ingredients and products. It has always used organic and natural ingredients in their vitamin and health shake products but President Frank Davis wants the world to know that none of these ingredients come from China. He is so adamant about this, he's ordered a "China Free" sticker for all its pet and human supplements and whole food shakes.
The company has taken this stance as a direct result of the recent headlines which have listed more than 100 brands of pet products and fruits and vegetables which have dangerous ingredients in them, including unhealthful chemicals which have caused illness and some deaths. Chinese-made tires were made by eliminating essential gum strips for tread integrity and toothpastes included chemicals more common to antifreeze than the harmless glycerin. Although the Chinese government has shut down thousands of food processors, the problem continues by its own admission.
Food for Health International, based in Orem, Utah, makes all its supplements and shakes from organically grown fruits and vegetables processed and packaged in an all-vegetarian formula without chemical additives. No herbicides, pesticides, or harmful chemicals are used in the production of any ingredients, the company literature states, and all its products are made in the U.S.A.
The company also makes emergency and disaster products that include emergency food supplies, survival kits for two people with food and water filtration system which can last for up to six days, and survivor cooking kits for hot meal preparation. The company's kits provide pollution and chemical free water that is particularly welcome during disaster relief in areas stricken with fires or floods.
The company's nutritional products for children, adults, and pets and whole food shakes are shown on their website, www.foodforhealthint.com. The company also offers a nutritional product for pre-stage and active stage diabetes.
In it's most vivid admission of food safety problems yet, the Chinese government announced last week that it closed 180 food manufacturers, mostly small, unlicensed food plants with fewer than 10 employees. Paraffin in bean vermicelli and carcinogenic malachite green in flour, candy, pickles, biscuits and melon seeds are typical of the unsafe elements found in China food production.
Nearly one in five (19.1%) of all products sold in China do not meet their own domestic quality standards. Bottled water, canned fruit and dried fish scored particularly low marks, according to China's quality-control watchdog, the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (GAQSIQ). The agency investigated 114 categories of products made by 6,300 companies and found nearly 2,000 cases of unsatisfactory products from December 2006 to May 2007.
Despite these glaring domestic statistics, China continues to export these products throughout Asia, Europe, and the United States. For example, Japan is the latest to recall Chinese-made toothpaste. Some five million tubes distributed to Japanese hotels were discovered to have diethylene glycol, a chemical used in antifreeze, substituted for the commonly accepted glycerin. A similar discovery was made in the U.S. this year.
Chinese-made tires, which cost the lives of two people driving in Pennsylvania in 2007, were made by "knowingly" eliminating the gum strips. U.S. importer Foreign Tire of New Jersey may face bankruptcy if forced to provide up to $50 million to replace tires. China tires comprise 10% of the market in the U.S. or some 450,000 tires sold each year, intended for pickups, sport utility vehicles and light trucks. Since 2001, the tires have been sold in the U.S. under brand names Telluride, Compass, YKS and Westlake.
What can you do to protect yourself? When purchasing any food product, from seafood to produce, buy local from farmers markets or choose those labeled organic or from nationally-recognized U.S. brands. For goods like toothpaste or tires, read the labels to verify country of origin, particularly when making purchases at dollar and discount stores.
If you do – now’s the time that we need your voice as the Farm Bill is about to be renewed.
Maybe it's because of the almost daily headlines about food recalls, food safety issues or the latest food and health report that more of us are waking up and starting to care about how our food is grown, delivered and sold in our supermarkets. Or maybe it's being led by those 76 million baby boomers, who as they start to turn 65 in 2010 have decided it's time to start worrying a bit more about our world’s sustainability. But it really doesn’t make much difference as to “why”!
The Farm Bill, one of the most complicated (and some might argue outdated) pieces of legislature, has a huge effect on all of us – it's all about health, hunger, rural communities, the environment, food safety, labor practices, childhood obesity and immigration.
As we feverishly debate “local vs. organic” over a cup of fair trade coffee at our local Starbucks it's time for a reality check and time to take an active role to help our small farmers, clean up our air and water and use this legislation to spur a new generation’s eating habits and get our diabetes, cancers, heart disease and obesity under control.
Log on to Farm Bill 2007 Official Comments to learn about the proposal and budgets. Although the time for public comments is closed, if you want to urge your Congressional representatives to support farm and food polices toward an equitable and sustainable food system, go to healthyfarmbill.org.
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.
I’m not!
And while you could argue that it’s been a busy 12 months for the FDA – its going to get even busier. E. coli 0157, found in bagged spinach, infected more than 170 people over 25 states. Salmonella Tennessee, found in peanut butter, infected more than 400 people in 44 states. Last week it was reported that inspectors actually visited the peanut butter plant in 2005 to investigate food safety complaints; but the company refused to turn over the documentation that was requested. The inspectors left…and never followed up again. Pet food was recalled, and it was also just reported late last week that shipments of said contaminated pet food was actually fed to hogs that were destined to be slaughtered and put in our food supply (thankfully they weren’t). And the list goes on.
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that 76 million Americans get sick from foodborne illnesses each year – a startling number. According to a database analysis of federal records by The Associated Press, inspections dropped 47 percent between 2003 and 2006, with 12 percent fewer FDA employees in field offices concentrating on food issues. An increase in foreign food imports is also partially to blame; Mexican green onions were implicated in a Hepatitis A outbreak in 1998.
In early April we polled our SupermarketGuru.com consumer panel to find out just how safe we consumers really do feel our food supply is and who they really feel is ultimately responsible for making sure our foods are safe. Although zero consumers answered “100% safe” when asked, “How safe is our food supply?” only 15% answered “not safe.” And, 71% said “safe, but could be better” while 14% said, “very safe, we will always have a small amount of food safety problems”.
Even though many consumers seem to be taking matters of food safety seriously when it comes to their own practices, ultimately most shoppers feel that the responsibility is ultimately in someone else’s hands. When asked, “Who do you believe has the greatest responsibility to insure our food is as free from food safety problems as possible?” 47% answered “food manufacturers” and 37% answered FDA/USDA and other Governmental Agencies.
Only 10% answered, “consumers”. And it appears that very little blame is being placed on “supermarkets/retailers”, with only five percent placing the responsibility on stores.
So what’s creating all these food recalls of late? First and most important to understand is that we do have the safest food supply in the world. The chink in the armor, in my opinion, is that the 12 federal agencies that are responsible for food safety issues have two basic problems: severe budget cuts (mostly due to the War budget zapping just about every other Federal budget) and ... that we have 12 federal agencies. In 2001, as a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, the Senate Government Affairs Subcommittee recommended one single entity having the food safety responsibility – which, in my opinion, would certainly help matters.
In the meantime – for the most up-to-date food safety recall information you can call 888-INFO-FDA or log on at http://www.fda.gov/opacom/7alerts.html
