Food Safety News

USDA Grants Help Small Producers Grow

info@foodsafetynews.com (News Desk) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:59:07 -0800

While small food producers in some states want to eliminate government involvement, such as licensing and inspection, in the food they sell, others are seeking the government's help to expand their ventures, add new products and increase the availability of local food.

Last week the U.S. Department of Agriculture gave 298 dairies, creameries, produce growers, wineries, distilleries, cideries, ranchers and other independent local food producers in 44 states a total of $40.2 million in business development assistance through the federal government's competitive Value-Added Producer Grant program.

"These projects will provide financial returns and help create jobs for agricultural producers, businesses and families across the country," USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleeen Merrigan said in announcing the awards.

"This funding will promote small business expansion and entrepreneurship opportunities by providing local businesses with access capital, technical assistance and new markets for products and services."

In agriculture, the term "value-added" means changing a basic commodity to enhance its value and expand its market, such as making cider from apples.

Funds from the Value-Added Producer Grant may be used for feasibility studies or business plans, working capital for marketing value-added agricultural products and for farm-based renewable energy projects.

Some of those receiving the grants:

-- Living Water Farms in Illinois is a three-year-old family company that produces hydroponic greens to supply fresh produce year-round to specialty markets in the Midwest. Located in Strawn, two hours south of Chicago's Loop, three generations of the Kilgus family are part of a group called Stewards of the Land which was organized to market produce from small farms.

- Agriberry, near Mechanicsville, VA, the dream of Anne and Chuck Geyer whose vision is to establish a consumer-supported summer berry farm and become an agricultural training facility for first-time workers. Agriberry has expanded to more than 35 acres of red raspberries and other fruit. They hire a number of local workers each growing season.

- Green Mountain Organic Creamery in North Ferrisburgh, VT markets certified organic, bottled pasteurized milk, butter, ice cream and other dairy products. Owners Cheryl and John DeVos founded the dairy to provide local, organic dairy products to the community and throughout the Northeast. Green Mountain was recognized as the Vermont Dairy of the Year in 2011.

Go here for the full list of grant awards.

The grants are part of USDA's Rural Development programs, which include a portfolio of more than $155 billion in loans and loan guarantees to improve the economic stability of rural communities, businesses, residents, farmers and ranchers.

New Mexico's Big Matanza Set for Feb. 25 in Belen

info@foodsafetynews.com (News Desk) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:59:06 -0800

The biggest Matanza in the world is back on track, set for February 25 in Belen, NM.

Sponsored by the Valencia County Hispano Chamber of Commerce, the 12th Annual Matanza was originally scheduled for January 28, but the 2012 community pig roast was briefly canceled entirely over regulatory concerns.

Talks between USDA's Alfred Almanza, administrator of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, and the Hispano Chamber turned the cancelation into a mere one month delay.

Thousands of people attend the Belen Matanza, which raises money for college scholarships for Valencia County students, and pays for coats and uniforms for Belen and Los Lunas school students.

Except for the "Viva La Matanza" slogans on this year's printed materials, much more probably won't be said about the Hispano chamber's day-after-Christmas decision to cancel the event.

At that time, sponsors thought USDA would "red tag," or shut down, the traditional event where pigs are slaughtered and roasted on-site. Led by Almanza, FSIS basically promised to leave the event itself alone.

"USDA had no intention of shutting down the Matanza," Almanza said. He blamed "miscommunication" for sponsors thinking only USDA-certified pork could be served at the event.

The event's sponsors do have a food safety plan, which includes involvement by New Mexico state public health officials and training sessions in food handling.

Big Spinach Recall with No Public Notice

mrothschild@foodsafetynews.com (Mary Rothschild) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:59:03 -0800

On New Year's Eve 2011, a Texas company recalled 228,360 lbs. -- 114 tons -- of spinach because it tested positive for E. coli O157:H7.

That Class I recall -- which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration defines as "a situation in which there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death" -- was revealed this week as an item in the FDA enforcement report for February 8.

Credit microbiologist and blogger Phyllis Entis for spotting what she calls a stealth recall, and explaining its significance on her eFoodAlert website.

"I realize that not all recalls are created equal, and that not all recalls require public notification. But I cannot understand the rationale behind NOT publicizing a Class I Hazard recall of a ready-to-eat item of produce that may be contaminated with a potentially lethal pathogen," Entis wrote. "Would anyone care to explain this to me?"

The potentially contaminated spinach from Tiro Tres Farms of Eagle Pass, TX was distributed in Colorado, Kentucky, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, and in Canada in Ontario and Quebec.

FDA and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency did not publish public notices of this recall in December or January - and still have not -- and the FDA enforcement report did not say whether there were any illnesses linked to the recalled spinach.

According to the enforcement report, Tiro Tres Farms notified its own customers of the recall by letter on Dec. 31, 2011, but the FDA report does not indicate if any of the spinach was sold by retailers.

The recall was of Robert's S 1 cut leaf "Curly" spinach packed in 30 lb. totes with no specific type of labeling, except for a small sticker label identifying the "pup" container that identified the harvest date and the field in Uvalde, TX. Harvest dates were Nov. 21, 22, 23, 25, 28 and 29, 2011, one month before the recall letter was sent.

With Dairy Law Enacted, Vermont Turns to GMO Labeling

dflynn@foodsafetynews.com (Dan Flynn) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:59:02 -0800

In updating its dairy law last session, the Vermont Legislature allowed personal consumption of unpasteurized (raw) milk purchased from another consumer to continue to be a legal transaction in the state. That was about as wild it usually gets in the Vermont Legislature.

This year could be a bit different, however.

In overhauling the law that governs the state's 1,000 cow, sheep and goat dairy farms, which produce more than 2.5 billion pounds, or 293 million gallons, of milk each year, Vermont took careful steps.

Anyone who purchases raw milk is limited to sharing it only among household members or "non-paying" guests.

The rest of the new Vermont law requires licensing and inspection of dairy farms with legal language focusing the state's Secretary of Agriculture on investigating milk handler's premises, records and personnel. If refused access, Vermont can stop milk shipments.

Unlike neighboring New Hampshire, the Vermont Legislature remains solidly "blue" with Democrats control both chambers. The Senate is controlled 22-8 by the Democrats, as is the House by 96-46. Eight "non democrats" caucus with the Democrats in the House.

One bill that could shake things up in the current session is House Bill 722, a 16-page measure requiring labeling of foods containing genetically modified ingredients.

The bill, known as the Vermont Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act, was called an "initiative against Monsanto and other biotechnology corporations" by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA),

"Perhaps most monumental is the fact that the legislation would prohibit GMO food manufacturers from using promotional labels like "natural," "naturally made," "naturally grown," "all natural," or any words of similar import, the OCA said.

"This bill proposes to provide that food is misbranded if it is entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering and it is not labeled as genetically engineered," according to the bill's statement of purpose.

GMO ingredients are found in an estimated 80 percent of packaged foods in the U.S. And 92 percent of soy crops, 86 percent of corn crops and 90 percent of canola crops are genetically modified.

At least two similar labeling laws were introduced in Vermont last session, and neither of those got anywhere. HB 123 was limited to salmon or salmon products, requiring that any salmon raised through genetic engineering must "be conspicuously identified."

The salmon bill was assigned to the House Fish, Wildlife, and Water Resources Committee, and went no further.

The other bill was the three-page HB 367, assigned to the House Agriculture Committee. It called for "a conspicuous label on the package" of genetically engineered food or food products offered for sale in Vermont. It also died in committee.

In addition to being longer, HB 722 is more complicated than last year's bill. To make the law more understandable, the bill includes legal definitions for such terms as enzyme, in vitro nucleic acid techniques and cell fusion, all from the language of genetic engineering.

Bill Would Set Arsenic, Lead Limits in Juice

hbottemiller@foodsafetynews.com (Helena Bottemiller) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:59:01 -0800

U.S. Representatives Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) introduced a bill Wednesday that would require the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to set safety standards for arsenic and lead in juices.

The "Arsenic Prevention and Protection from Lead Exposure in Juice Act of 2012" or "APPLE Juice Act of 2012" is in response to a Consumer Reports investigation that found levels of arsenic and lead that exceeded the federal standards for drinking water in 10 percent of apple and grape juice samples tested in New Jersey, New York and Connecticut.

As the lawmakers note, both arsenic and lead are known to affect brain development in children. Both toxins are pervasive in the environment -- both naturally occurring and the result of pesticide use, emissions and other industrial and agricultural chemicals. In both cases, the federal government has set a safety threshold for drinking water but not for juice.

The APPLE Juice Act would require that FDA establish standards for fruit juices within two years.

"The unacceptable levels of arsenic and lead in juices currently sitting on shelves at the supermarket present a danger for our children and their health," said Pallone. "Setting basic standards for arsenic and lead in products whose consumers are primarily children is not only the right thing to do, it will help give parents the peace of mind that the juices their children drink daily are safe."

DeLauro, who often takes a lead on food safety issues in the House, said she was proud to join Pallone in introducing the bill.

"We must ensure that the juices our children drink are safe, particularly when 70 percent of the apple juice we consume comes from China," said DeLauro. "It is our job, and the FDA's job, to ensure the health and safety of the American people. This legislation will help to make that happen."

As the lawmakers noted in their announcement, though pediatricians often recommend that children limit their daily juice intake, 35 percent of children under five drink more juice than recommended.

"This bill will go a long way in protecting the public, especially children, from being exposed to these toxins. We're grateful for this effort to ensure the public's health and safety are protected," said Ami Gadhia, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy division of Consumer Reports.

The bill comes just a few months after there was heightened public awareness about arsenic in the fall. Popular TV personality Dr. Mehmet Oz reported that some top-selling brands of apple juice were laced with high levels of inorganic arsenic. As Food Safety News reported then, most news reports were skeptical about the public health risk, especially after the FDA called the claim irresponsible.

Consumers, nonetheless, were concerned.

A few months after the Dr. Oz story aired, Consumer Reports released testing results that seemed to back up the claim that a small percentage of apple juice might have higher levels of inorganic arsenic than previously thought.

Consumer Reports tested 88 samples of apple juice and grape juice purchased in three states and found that 10 percent had total arsenic levels exceeding the federal standards of 10 parts per billion (ppb) for arsenic in drinking water, and that most of the arsenic "was the type called inorganic, which is a human carcinogen." The tests also found that 25 percent of the juice tested had lead levels higher than the 5 ppb limit for bottled water.

The FDA says its "level of concern" for heavy metals in juices is anything above 23 ppb. The agency maintains that there is no threat to public health but testing has been stepped up.

"With respect to arsenic in apple juice, we're looking hard at whether we need a different, more stringent number to guide our action in regard to arsenic in juice," said Michael Taylor, Deputy Commissioner for Foods at FDA, in a recent interview with Food Safety News. "We need to be vigilant on these issues and I think we're making the right efforts to do that."

Bill Would Set Arsenic, Lead Limits in Juice

hbottemiller@foodsafetynews.com (Helena Bottemiller) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:59:01 -0800

Bill Would Set Arsenic, Lead Limits in Juice

hbottemiller@foodsafetynews.com (Helena Bottemiller) — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:59:01 -0800

Home Kitchen Cooks Upset Over Texas Cottage-Food Rules

dflynn@foodsafetynews.com (Dan Flynn) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:59:07 -0800

Last year the Texas Legislature approved a bill to allow the sale of food made in uninspected and unlicensed home kitchens, but some now say the state's rules implementing the new law are unnecessarily burdensome and subvert the measure's intent.

Rules for Senate Bill (SB) 81, which went into effect last Sept. 1, were not made public until Dec. 1 at a meeting of the Texas State Health Services Council.

At issue are labeling requirements for food items prepared by home kitchen retailers. The rules call for the burgeoning cottage food industry in Texas to list the ingredients on the label for each product they sell. Home bakers think that requirement is ridiculous.

Rep. Lois Kolkhorst, chair of the Texas House Committee on Public Health, says the rules are "are a shining example of overreach." Her staff is telling Texas media that major food retailers have been at work influencing the rule-makers in the Texas Department of Health.

And the cottage food industry is saying it is being subjected to requirements stricter than commercial bakeries and restaurants have to follow. Kelly Masters, spokeswoman for the home kitchen bakers, asks how often Starbucks has to list the ingredients on labels for its bakery items.

As signed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry last June, SB 81 does include some labeling requirements. Specifically, the law says labels on retail goods produced in a home kitchen must include the name and address of the food producer and state that the products were made in an uninspected and unlicensed home kitchen.

However, other details were left up to the rule-making process.

SB 81 was a little more complicated than most cottage-food bills introduced and in some cases approved around the country. The Texas measure also set out to put fresh produce wholesalers under state regulation for the first time. When Gov. Perry signed the bill, the harvest, packaging, washing and shipping of all raw produce was put under a state inspection regime.

Texas lawmakers were moved by reports of recent contamination and outbreaks involving produce such as tomatoes, spinach, and peppers, which previously had been viewed as too low-risk to merit state attention.

While SB 81 does not require a license to grow produce in Texas, it did require the Texas Department of Health to adopt rules for safe handling of fruits and vegetables.

State health officials are also required under the new law to provide "best practices" education programs to the food businesses they regulate. It also addresses regulation of farmers' markets in larger Texas counties that have local health departments, and prevents officials from mandating "temperature control requirements."

All of that churned up a lengthy rule-writing assignment for an agency that currently regulates 11,000 licensed food producers. Agency officials anticipate that only a few existing licensed food establishments will switch over to becoming unlicensed cottage-food operations.

The new law includes definitions for "baked goods" and "cottage-food production operation." It prohibits local health departments from regulating them, but requires both state and local health departments to keep records of any complaints they get about cottage foods.

Rule-makers produced 12 pages of requirements for the new law in a document roughly four times longer than the bill itself. The new rules state, in part:

"A cottage food production operation allows an individual to operate out of the individual's home, who produces a baked good, a canned jam or jelly, or a dried herb or herb mix for sale at the person's home; has an annual gross income of $50,000 or less from the sale of the described foods; and sells the foods produced only directly to consumers."

Labels must state the food was "made in home kitchen, food is not inspected by the Department of State Health Services or a local health department" in at least the equivalent of 11-point font and in a color that provides a clear contrast to the background.

The rules also require that "ingredients shall include components of the ingredients" and also dictate the ink and typeface requirements. Internet sales are prohibited and no health claims can be made in advertising.

Home kitchens would be required to list on labels all ingredients in descending order, including all food coloring and preservatives and follow the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines for allergen labeling.

A 30-day comment period on the new rules ends February 26.

Oklahoma Woman Circulates Cottage-Food Petition

info@foodsafetynews.com (News Desk) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:59:06 -0800

Oklahomans who want a cottage-food law adopted in their state are going the direct democracy route with an on-line petition that has attracted almost 2,000 signers and continues to grow.

A little more than one week ago, Tina Curtis put up the petition asking for support for getting Oklahoma's elected officials to come out for a measure that would allow the use of unlicensed, uninspected home kitchens for making baked goods with annual sales of less than $50,000 a year.

Curtis says she loves to bake and currently does so in her home kitchen. But because she cannot sell want she bakes at home, the woman donates what she produces to Oklahoma foster children.

Although Oklahoma's legislative session lasts until the last Friday in May, lawmakers say the late start means it is doubtful there will be a Sooner State cottage food law this year.

They are, however, advising Curtis to keep collecting petition signatures.

War on Foodborne Illness: Why Restaurants Need to Join the Fight

dennis@resprofsp.com (Dennis Keith) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:59:05 -0800

Headlines about another restaurant involved in an outbreak are almost a daily occurrence now. Some major restaurant chains have had at least one outbreak. It begs the question, why? In my experience working with the restaurant industry on food safety, I come across a lot of resistance from operators who are naïve about their chances of contributing to an outbreak. They simply don't think it will ever happen to them.

Many people took notice of the impact of foodborne illness when headlines reported on the Jack in the Box outbreak of 1993. That outbreak resulted in 750 children poisoned with 4 dying. In this case, E. coli went undetected and slipped past all controls to find its way into the hands and stomachs of the victims. In author Jeff Benedict's book "Poisoned," the Jack in the Box executives claimed they had no idea they were serving food that could kill kids. Some of the same causes for that outbreak are still happening today. Unfortunately, it seems that some restaurant organizations need to have a food safety crisis with real measurable casualties before they clean up their act and put real sustained controls in place.

One possible reason for an increase in foodborne illness outbreaks is that some people think the USDA, FDA and health departments offer enough regulation and provide adequate protection against foodborne illness. However, this is a false sense of security. The USDA is getting ready to cut 259 jobs. It's unlikely that this will be beneficial in protecting our food supply. With budgets diminishing and health departments consolidating their services, health departments are developing new ways to reduce their regulatory oversight of the food service industry. The city of Chicago and the Maricopa County Health Department have already put new plans in place to allow responsible operators to police themselves. If this trend continues, public health officials will only have time to track down these emerging threats rather than trying to prevent them.

To further complicate the problem, food manufacturers are hiring third-party auditors to prove their food is safe, only to have that practice backfire with the recent cantaloupe and peanut outbreaks. In those cases, the auditors received harsh criticism for not identifying problems, and they gave exceptional scores to the manufacturers that hired them. Third-party auditors are useful tools only when they identify all the food safety deficiencies.

Without more oversight of food safety practices, we'll continue to see headlines such as these:

68 Sickened at 'Mexican-style' Restaurants in 10 States

112 people sick from sprouts contaminated with Salmonella (linked to alfalfa sprouts served at Jimmy John's restaurants)

146 people infected with norovirus may have become sick after eating at Bob Chinn's Crab House

So, with many restaurants failing to understand that there is a war on foodborne illness happening, who is left to fight? For decades it has been left to local health departments. But we cannot solely rely on the public health sector to set policy and management practices for the restaurant industry. The time has come for the industry as a whole to step up and join the fight. Restaurant owners and operators should hold each other to a higher standard by educating themselves about foodborne illness and striving to serve safe food to the public.

Many in the industry are already taking responsibility. There are plenty of food-safety-conscious owners and operators who are implementing policies and best practices for preventing foodborne illness and promoting food safety in their organizations. This can be expensive, but there really is no comparison to the cost of paying damages from an outbreak. Jeff Benedict reported that it cost Jack in the Box $98 million in damages. Their insurance barely paid it all. How many restaurant organizations out there have a $100 million insurance policy? For many restaurants, having an outbreak spells bankruptcy. Jack in the Box learned its lesson the hard way. As a result, the company hired food safety expert David Theno and revamped its entire food safety program.

Restaurant owners and managers need to understand that they are potentially handling contaminated product every day. This means it's essential to control all factors that can lead to foodborne illness.

------------------------

Dennis Keith is founder and CEO of the consulting company Respro Food Safety Professionals.

NH May Drop Licensing in Name of Food Freedom

dflynn@foodsafetynews.com (Dan Flynn) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:59:03 -0800

As early as next week, the New Hampshire House of Representatives will likely be deciding whether the "Live Free or Die" state should allow unlicensed "homestead" food and on-farm sales of raw milk.

The quick action has left state regulators scrambling to get ahead of lawmakers who seem bent on removing government oversight of the sale of homemade food.

The proposals are the latest tracks added to New Hampshire's burgeoning "food freedom" philosophy, which is encapsulated in Bill (HB) 1650. One tenet of the food freedom movement is that food produced in New Hampshire for in-state consumption should be free of federal regulation.

The measure sailed out of the House Environment and Agriculture Committee on a 13-0 vote, earning a place on the House Consent Calendar that could bring it up for floor debate as early as February 15.

HB 1402, eliminating license requirements for so-called homestead food and allowing on-farm sales of raw milk products, may get to the floor almost as quickly.

New Hampshire currently allows the sale of non-potentially hazardous foods from licensed home kitchens, a practice being depicted by the bill's sponsors as "overregulation."

In a top-to-bottom rewrite, HB 1402 now calls for exempting home-based operations with annual sales of $10,000 or less and excluding potentially hazardous food from license requirements.

Potentially hazardous foods, including acidified and low-acid canned foods, are those requiring temperate controls because they are "capable of supporting the rapid growth of pathogenic or toxigenic microorganisms" such as Clostridium botulinum (botulism).

Home and roadside sales and transactions at farmers' markets are all permitted under the new HB 1402 language.

Raw milk dairies producing 20 or fewer gallons a day could also sell their products without licenses. In addition to raw milk, the dairies could sell cheese aged at least 60 days, yogurt, cream, butter or kefir without a milk producer-distributor license.

Both raw milk and homestead food would be required to meet they labeling requirements outlined in HB 1402, saying they are products exempt from New Hampshire licensing and public health inspection.

With 400 members, the New Hampshire House is the largest state legislative body in the U.S. Republicans, with 295-to-105 majority, currently control it.

The food freedom debate that is scheduled for the floor of the NH House next week will allow lawmakers to vent about whether federal officials and their contractors should be jailed if they attempt to regulate food produced only for in-state consumption.

New Hampshire lawmakers, like others, cite the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reserves power to the state, as underpinnings for the proposed law.

Many constitutional experts, however, say federal law and regulations are always in a superior position to state actions, making such food freedom laws meaningless. Lawyers for the Utah Legislature have said if a similar law in that state is approved, it likely will be ruled unconstitutional.

FSIS Delays 'Big Six' E. Coli Policy 90 Days

hbottemiller@foodsafetynews.com (Helena Bottemiller) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:59:01 -0800

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's new, groundbreaking non-O157 E. coli policy, which classifies six new strains as adulterants and requires testing, will become effective 90 days later than originally planned, the Food Safety and Inspection Service announced Wednesday.

The delay, which did not surprise industry insiders, will push back the routine sampling of the six additional STEC serogroups, O26, O45, O103, O111, O121 and O145, to June 4, from the original deadline of March 5.

FSIS said the purpose of the extension is to "provide additional time for establishments to validate their test methods and detect these pathogens prior to entering the stream of commerce."

The agency is planning to initially sample raw beef manufacturing trimmings and other raw ground beef product components produced domestically and imported, and test the samples for the serogroups.

If these products test positive for non-O157 STECs, they will be prevented from entering commerce -- in the same way that E. coli O157: H7 has been treated since 1994.

"Consumers deserve a modernized food safety system that focuses on prevention and protects them and their families from emerging threats," said Dr. Elisabeth Hagen, Under Secretary for Food Safety at USDA, in a statement to Food Safety News. "As non-O157 STEC bacteria have emerged and evolved, so too must our regulatory policies to protect the public health and ensure the safety of our food supply. CDC and other Federal agencies reported that the incidence rate of confirmed cases of non-O157 STEC illnesses exceeded the incidence of O157:H7 cases for the first time. These bacteria cause severe illnesses and can cause illnesses in small concentrations, so we are acting responsibly to ensure they are not in the food Americans serve their families."

"This policy represents a major advancement for public health," said FSIS in the announcement Wednesday.

The American Meat Institute, the group representing companies that process the vast majority of American beef, disagrees. While AMI lauded the delay in implementation as a "good first step," the group also again criticized the new policy.

"As we have maintained since the initial announcement by FSIS, this new policy is not supported by science and likely will not benefit public health," said James Hodges, executive vice president at AMI, in a statement.

"Even with a 90 day delay, imposing this new regulatory program in June puts the cart before the horse and will needlessly cost tens of millions of federal and industry dollars - costs that likely will be borne by taxpayers and consumers," added Hodges. "In short, the policy is not likely to yield a significant public health benefit and given that research should precede and dictate the policy, the process that FSIS has followed in this matter is no way to develop good public policy."

While most in the industry agree that more time is needed to calibrate testing programs, not everyone is opposed to the new policy.

Costco, for example, has been testing for non-O157 STECs in ground beef since August 2010. The company's director of food safety, Craig Wilson, believes FSIS is doing the right thing and told Food Safety News that the testing does not make beef at Costco more expensive than elsewhere, in part because the company processes 1.4 million pounds of ground beef and hot dogs per day and can easily spread testing costs.

"I'm really surprised at AMI's comments," said Wilson, adding that he agreed the delay would help meat companies to improve their testing systems. "I'm fully supportive of what USDA's doing here."

"I happen to agree with a lot of folks when they say that the interventions will knock out all the STECs. Here's where we differ: I want to prove it," he said. "It truly is a public health issue."

Consumer groups aren't alarmed about the delay either, as long as the policy moves forward.

"While we are disappointed that FSIS has decided to delay the implementation of the enforcement of the new non-0157 STEC policy, we understand that the testing methodology needs to be valid for such enforcement to take place," said Tony Corbo, a lobbyist for Food & Water Watch. "We sincerely hope that this will be the last delay in the implementation of this important consumer protection."

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the six additional strains of E. coli being targeted cause approximately 113,000 illnesses and 300 hospitalizations annually in the United States.

FSIS Delays 'Big Six' E. Coli Policy 90 Days

hbottemiller@foodsafetynews.com (Helena Bottemiller) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:59:01 -0800

FSIS Delays 'Big Six' E. Coli Policy 90 Days

hbottemiller@foodsafetynews.com (Helena Bottemiller) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:59:01 -0800

Illnesses Hit Washington Cheerleading Competition

mrothschild@foodsafetynews.com (Mary Rothschild) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:59:07 -0800

Washington state and local health officials are investigating an outbreak of intestinal illnesses that struck a number of people who attended a cheerleading competition in Everett last weekend.

More than 3,000 people attended, and more than 1,000 competed, in the cheerleading and dance/drill event hosted by the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association in Everett on Saturday, February 4, the Washington State Department of Health said in a news release.

Health officials said they do not know how many people were sickened, but said dozens began to suffer from vomiting and diarrhea on Sunday and Monday.

Cause and source of the illnesses have not yet been determined. State health officials say they are working with the Snohomish county Health District to investigate the outbreak, which includes sending a questionnaire to participants, as well as collecting samples for testing at the state Public Health Laboratories.

People who attended the event and have severe symptoms are advised to contact a health care provider.

Portland, ME Says 'Yes' to Raw Milk at Farmers' Markets

cooksonb@sos.net (Cookson Beecher) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:59:07 -0800

In a victory for raw-milk farmers, Maine's Portland City Council has given a unanimous thumbs-up to allow raw-milk sales at the city's farmers' markets.

The City Council also handed the dairy farmers another victory by voting 5 to 4 against an amendment that would have required them to post a placard informing consumers of the potential health risks linked to drinking raw milk.

Raw milk is milk that hasn't been pasteurized to kill potentially harmful bacteria such as E. coli, Salmonella and E. coli that can cause severe illness.

The proposed placard, as drawn up by the city's Department of Health and Human Services, warned that children, pregnant women, the elderly and those living with conditions that weaken the immune system are at the greatest risk of becoming ill from drinking raw milk. It also warned that raw milk outbreaks are responsible for nearly three times more hospitalizations than outbreaks involving any other food.

The issue came before the City Council after the city's newly hired food-service inspector visited the Portland farmers' markets last fall and told the raw-milk vendors that sales of unpasteurized milk were not allowed there. That came as a surprise to the vendors, because they had been selling raw milk at the markets for several years, with no previous indications from the city that they weren't supposed to.

It turned out that although state law permits raw milk from state-licensed dairies to be sold at retail stores throughout the state, and even though raw milk is sold at other farmers' markets in the state, the city of Portland had its own list of items that can't be sold at its farmers' markets. Raw milk was on that list, even though it can be sold in stores in the city.

During the City Council meeting, Mayor Michael Brennan, who cast one of the four votes in favor of requiring the placard, made no comments about why he had voted that way. But in an email to Food Safety News after the meeting, he said he voted in favor of the placard because he believes it's important to provide "the most information" possible to consumers about "any number of food products."

He also said his vote supported the recommendation of the council committee that had originally proposed the placard, as well as the recommendation of the city's Department of Health and Human Services, "because both had reviewed the issue more fully."

During the council meeting, Heather Donahue, co-owner of Balfour Farm and a raw-milk vendor at the city's Wednesday farmers' market, told council members that raw-milk farmers are required to inform customers that the milk hasn't been pasteurized by putting the words "not pasteurized" on the containers' labels.

She also pointed out that while in the past raw milk was a "significant" carrier of diseases, many improvements have been made since then. She said that to be certified as a raw-milk dairy in Maine, the dairy herd has to be tested at regular intervals and strict sanitation practices must be followed.

In an interview after the meeting, she told Food Safety News that she was relieved that raw-milk dairies won't have to display the placard about the potential health risks of raw milk.

"In general, the people who shop at farmers' markets know about raw milk and seek it out," she said. "They can get more information from us than they can from a store clerk."

She described the proposal to require the placard as "a wrinkle that needed to be ironed out."

Lauren Pignatello, co-owner of Swallowtail Farm and Creamery and also the manager of Portland's winter farmers' market, said that if consumers are being informed about the health risks of raw milk, they should also be informed about what he sees as the benefits of drinking raw milk.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says there are no health benefits from drinking raw milk that cannot be obtained from drinking pasteurized milk that is free of disease-causing bacteria.

Raw-milk producer Lee Straw told council members that state-licensed raw-milk dairies are held to the same standards as conventional dairies.

"Even though the feds will say otherwise, by holding us to the same ordinances as pasteurized milk, the state seems to feel we can put out a safe product," he said.

But Portland resident Charles Bragdon took the opposite tack, telling the council members that raw milk is "very dangerous to some members of our population" and that providing people with information about the health risks is "important, if not critical."

Council member Cheryl Leeman, who voted in favor of requiring the placard, held up a newspaper featuring an article about a recent outbreak of food poisoning cases linked to a raw-milk dairy in Pennsylvania.

On Feb. 7, Pennsylvania health officials said there were 43 confirmed cases of Campylobacter infections among people who drank raw milk sold by the Your Family Cow farm. Maryland public health officials confirmed that the outbreak strain of bacteria was detected in two unopened containers of unpasteurized milk from the Pennsylvania dairy.

"There is a health risk with raw milk," Leeman said, emphasizing the word "is."

At the same time, she acknowledged that there is "clearly a public demand for raw milk."

Looking at the issue from the perspective of a City Council member, Leeman said that because the issue is raw-milk sales on city property, the city should go along with its Health Department's recommendation requiring the placard.

"It's not an unreasonable request for those folks who want to sell raw milk on our property," she said, pointing out that with the placards, the city will have done its job of making sure the public is informed.

"Then, it will be up to the consumers to weigh the pros and cons," she said. "The final decision is really up to the consumers."

Council member Ed Suslovic had his own concerns, saying that if he were in a rush and grabbed a container of raw milk, it would be easy for him to miss the label saying that the milk hadn't been pasteurized.

"I'd like to see the placard," he said.

He even went so far as to say that he'd like to offer an amendment that would require informational placards at any point of sale for raw milk in the city, which would include retail stores as well as farmers' markets.

The amendment was not acted on.

When a council member asked why the the requirement for a placard was proposed in the first place, Douglas Gardner, director of the city's Health and Human Services Department, explained that it seemed appropriate to tie it in with the proposal that the city allow raw milk sales at its farmers' markets. That way consumers could have information about the basic risks associated with raw milk.

Through all of this, some council members struggled with the issue of fairness. If, for example, placards were to be required at the farmers markets but not at retail stores in the city, then the farmers' market vendors would be at a disadvantage.

Even council member John Anton, who made the motion to remove the requirement for a placard, said he wasn't basing his motion on public health arguments but rather concerns about how it would affect those who sell at farmers' markets, compared with those whose milk is sold in stores.

"It feels unfair and arbitrary," he said.

But he also said that if the city wanted a citywide requirement for an informational placard, he might support it.

In an interview after the meeting, Health Department director Gardner told Food Safety News that during the meeting, he heard several council members express an interest in looking at a citywide requirement for informational placards that would apply to all points of sale -- in stores as well as at farmers' markets.

"There was an interest at looking at a broader approach," he said.

Warnings or Not?

Food-safety attorney Bill Marler, publisher of Food Safety News, said that a warning sign, such as the one on the placard proposed by Portland, MEs health department, should be on a bottle of raw milk as well as at the place of sale of raw milk.

He provided this example of such a sign: "WARNING: This product has not been pasteurized and may contain harmful bacteria (not limited to E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, Listeria and Salmonella). Pregnant women, infants, children, the elderly and persons with lowered resistance to disease (immune compromised) have the highest risk of harm, which includes diarrhea, vomiting, fever, dehydration, Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, reactive arthritis, irritable bowel syndrome, miscarriage, or death, from use of this product."

"Consumption of raw milk, especially for the young, the elderly and those with compromised immune systems, should be warned against," Marler said. "Just saying that the milk is not pasteurized is not enough."

Raw Milk in Maine

Amy Robbins, epidemiologist with Maine's Center for Disease Control of Prevention, said in an email to Food Safety News that in the past 5 years, no outbreaks related to raw (unpasteurized) milk products have been identified in Maine, although outbreaks related to raw (unpasteurized) milk products have occurred in other states.

The state does not allow raw milk or raw milk products to be sold in restaurants, schools, hospitals or nursing homes.

Maine, which has 32 dairy operations that are allowed to sell raw milk, and 65 licensed to sell cheese, is one of 11 states that allows the sale of raw milk at retail stores separate from the farm. Along with 7 other states, it has high standards for cleanliness of the milk, with a coliform standard of no more than 10 coliform bacteria per milliliter, which is equivalent to the national and some international standards for pasteurized milk.

Clues to Deadly EU 'Sproutbreak' in New Genome Study

info@foodsafetynews.com (News Desk) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:59:06 -0800

In one of the first uses of genome sequencing to trace the path of a foodborne illness outbreak, a team led by scientists from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and the Broad Institute looked at the E. coli O104:H4 epidemic that hit Europe last year.

Their study was published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

The group sequenced and compared samples from 7 people in France and 4 from Germany who were sickened in the outbreak, which killed more than 50 among the 4,000 confirmed infected. The source of the outbreak was traced to raw sprouts germinated from Egyptian fenugreek seeds.

In Germany, the contaminated sprouts came from an organic farm that supplied many restaurants and food service companies. In France, the sprouts were grown from seed sold by a garden retailer, and served at a community center event.

The researchers found that the E. coli O104 strains from both outbreaks appeared identical based on conventional molecular epidemiologic analysis. But using whole-genome sequencing and analysis, the researchers detected small but measurable differences among the isolates.

That led to two surprising findings: All the strains connected to the larger German outbreak were nearly identical, while the strains in France were more diverse; and the strains from German appeared to be a subset of the diversity seen in the French isolates.

Co-author William Hanage, associate professor of epidemiology at HSPH, said in a news release that the findings suggest a possible "bottleneck" in the outbreak, such as disinfection procedures that killed most but not all of the bugs, or maybe passage through a single infected individual.

Another hypothesis is that there was uneven distribution of diversity in the original shipment of contaminated seeds from Egypt.

"A genome contains the record of a strain's evolutionary history, so by looking at the differences between the genomes of multiple bacteria from an outbreak we can get really useful clues about what happened in the outbreak. In this way, tracking outbreaks is like detective work, and this approach will be a powerful tool in trying to understand future outbreaks," said lead author Yonatan Grad, a research fellow in the Center for Communicable Disease Dynamics, Department of Epidemiology at HSPH and infectious disease physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.

The news release noted that as costs for genomic sequencing decline, these tools, combined with traditional epidemiological techniques, can provide greater insight into the emergence and spread of infectious diseases and will help guide preventive public health measures.

Chicken Salad Sandwiches Another Egg-Related Recall

info@foodsafetynews.com (News Desk) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:59:05 -0800

Grand Strand Sandwich Company of Longs, SC is recalling some of its chicken salad sandwiches from convenience stores in the Southwest after its distributor recalled the chicken salad used to make them.

The recall is the latest in the string of recalls that began January 26 when Michael Foods revealed that some of its hard-cooked eggs could be contaminated with Listeria.

No illnesses have been associated with the hard-cooked eggs distributed by Michael Foods or any of the products made with the eggs.

In a news release Wednesday, Grand Strand wrote that its recall "came about when Bost Distributing, our chicken salad manufacturer, bought some of the hard-cooked eggs that were produced (and later recalled) by Michael Foods. Bost Distributing was unsure if the eggs from Michael Foods were used in our product, so just to be safe we are recalling (the sandwiches)."

The recalled sandwiches include:

- Grand Strand Sandwich 4.5 oz., UPC 067068101056, sell-by 02/24/12

- Grand Strand Sandwich 4.5 oz., UPC 067068101056, sell-by 02/29/12

- Country Harvest Chicken Salad 5 oz., UPC 067068171059, sell-by 02/23/12

- Lunchbox Chicken Salad 4.5 oz., UPC 067068121050, sell-by 02/24/12

For a list of many of the other egg products recalled see "Hard-Cooked Egg Recall Widens."

Another Recall of Salad With Hard-Cooked Eggs

omarler@foodsafetynews.com (Olivia Marler) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:59:05 -0800

In another recall related to hard-cooked eggs that may be contaminated with Listeria, Bost Distributing Company of Bear Creek, NC, doing business as Harold Food Company, is withdrawing approximately 1,200 pounds of chicken salad products.

The recall is one of many resulting from a recall by Minnesota-based Michael Foods, which produced the cooked eggs at its Wakefield, NE facility.

There have been no confirmed reports of illnesses associated with the eggs.

The recall is for 30-lb. boxes of Harold Food Co. Grand Strand Deluxe Chicken Salad with sell-by dates of 2/15/2012 and the establishment number P-20479.

The products were sent to a distributor in South Carolina for further distribution to retail establishments in North Carolina and South Carolina. The chicken salad products may have been repackaged as sandwiches under a brand other than Harold Food Co. and no longer bear the identifying information listed above.

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Bost Distributing Company's General Manager, Jeff Bennett, at 919-775-5931.

CDC: Too Much Sodium in Most U.S. Diets

info@foodsafetynews.com (News Desk) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:59:05 -0800

Nine in 10 U.S. adults consume much more sodium than they should, putting them at risk for heart disease and stroke, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's newest "Vital Signs" report.

Most of the sodium comes from 10 types of foods, which are responsible for more than 40 percent of people's sodium intake. Those are:

- breads and rolls

- luncheon meat such as deli ham or turkey

- pizza

- poultry

- soups

- cheeseburgers and other sandwiches

- cheese

- pasta dishes

- meat dishes such as meat loaf

- snack foods such as potato chips, pretzels and popcorn

Bread, if consumed several times a day, can add up to a lot of sodium even though each serving is not high in sodium, the CDC report notes.

According to the CDC, 65 percent of sodium comes from food sold in stores, while 25 percent of sodium comes from meals purchased in restaurants.

"Too much sodium raises blood pressure, which is a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke," said CDC director Dr. Thomas R. Frieden in announcing the new report. "These diseases kill more than 800,000 Americans each year and contribute an estimated $273 billion in health care costs."

The report notes that even before adding salt to season food at the table, the average person consumes about 3,300 milligrams of sodium per day, which is more than twice the recommended limit for about half of Americans and 6 of every 10 adults.

U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend limiting sodium intake to less than 2,300 milligrams per day. The recommendation is 1,500 milligrams per day for people aged 51 and older, and anyone with high blood pressure, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease, and African Americans.

The CDC says that reducing the sodium content of the 10 leading sodium sources by 25 percent would lower total dietary sodium by more than 10 percent and could play a role in preventing up to about 28,000 deaths per year.

Because sodium is prevalent in so many foods, especially processed foods with added sodium, the CDC recognizes that reducing daily sodium consumption is a challenge. The public health agency recommends eating a diet rich in fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables without sauce, and checking labels to choose products lowest in sodium.

The agency endorses recommendations for food manufacturers and restaurants to reduce the amount of sodium added to foods.

"We're encouraged that some food manufacturers are already taking steps to reduce sodium," said Dr. Frieden, singling out Kraft Foods for committing to an average 10 percent reduction of sodium in its products over a two year period, and dozens of companies have joined a national initiative to reduce sodium.

He also said Leprino Foods, the leading supplier of cheese for pizza, is working on providing customers and consumers with healthier options, adding "we are confident that more manufacturers will do the same."

To learn more about ways to reduce sodium, visit www.cdc.gov/salt.

For more information on heart disease and stroke, visit http://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/.

Reducing sodium is also a key component of the Million Hearts™ initiative to prevent a million heart attacks and strokes over the next five years. To learn how to reduce sodium using the DASH eating plan, visit http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/dash/.

Dramatic Drop in U.S. Trans Fat Levels

mrothschild@foodsafetynews.com (Mary Rothschild) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:59:03 -0800

Research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates blood levels of trans fatty acids in U.S. white adults dropped by 58 percent from 2000 to 2009 -- a decrease being hailed as huge public health progress.

The CDC study, published as a letter Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, looked at trans fat levels in people before and after the 2006 Food and Drug Administration mandate requiring trans fat amounts to be listed on Nutrition Facts food labels.

Even before that rule was imposed, the prospect of FDA action and heightened publicity about the risk of heart disease from trans fat spurred a switch to healthier oils. The CDC study sought to determine the effect of government regulation and those other moves.

Christopher Portier, director of CDC′s National Center for Environmental Health said all the efforts were effective "in reducing blood TFAs (trans fatty acids) and highlight that further reductions in the levels of trans fats must remain an important public health goal."

"Credit for the reductions in trans fat is shared by many parties," noted a news release from Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. CSPI has petitioned the FDA over trans fat, and also sued restaurants chains that were frying foods in partially hydrogenated oil. "New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, California, Montgomery County, MD, and other jurisdictions banned most artificial trans fat from restaurant food.

"The FDA helped greatly by requiring that trans fat be listed on Nutrition Facts labels. And oil processors, seed developers, and farmers worked hard to produce and market healthier oils for restaurants and food manufacturers to use," said Jacobson, adding that the dramatic drop in trans fat levels in people "represents enormous public health progress and is almost certainly preventing thousands of heart attacks and premature deaths each year."

CSPI says more must be done. In urging the FDA to ban partially hydrogenated oil -- a major source of trans fat -- it has highlighted the foods still loaded with trans fat. It observes that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which has jurisdiction over foods with meat or poultry such as pot pies, has not adopted the FDA's trans fat labeling rule.

Unlike other dietary fats, trans fats are not essential to human health and do not promote good health. High consumption of trans-fatty acids is linked to cardiovascular disease in part because TFAs increase LDL cholesterol ("bad" cholesterol), the CDC says. Changing to a diet low in TFAs may lower LDL cholesterol levels, thus decreasing the risk for cardiovascular disease.

To avoid trans fat in one's diet, the CDC recommends:

- Looking for the trans fat listing on the Nutrition Facts label. Comparing brands and choosing the one lowest in trans fat, preferably with no trans fat.

- Replacing margarine containing trans fat with unsaturated vegetable oil.

- If you use margarine, choose a soft margarine spread instead of stick margarine. Check your labels to be sure the soft margarine does contain less trans fat. If possible, find one that says zero grams of trans fat.

While the current study looked only at white adults, CDC researchers are also looking at blood TFAs in other adult race/ethnic groups, children and adolescents, Portier said. The trans fat research is a part of a larger National Biomonitoring program, which measures more than 450 environmental chemicals and nutritional indicators in people.

Citing Food Safety, Consumer Groups Petition FDA on GE Salmon

hbottemiller@foodsafetynews.com (Helena Bottemiller) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:59:02 -0800

Consumer groups formally petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Tuesday to switch gears and evaluate genetically engineered (GE) salmon as a food additive, not a veterinary drug, as the agency has been for several years.

Though the political fight over GE salmon has primarily focused on the potential environmental impact of the technology--a fight fueled by environmental groups and lawmakers with constituent salmon interests--the petition, brought by Consumers Union, Food & Water Watch and the Center for Food Safety is focused primarily on food safety concerns.

Developed by Massachusetts-based AquaBounty Technologies, the engineered AquAdvantage Salmon are essentially Atlantic salmon with an inserted growth gene from a Chinook salmon and an antifreeze gene from an ocean pout. They grow twice as fast as typical Atlantic salmon and require approximately 10 percent less feed to achieve the same weight.

If cleared by FDA, the fish would be the first GE animal approved for human consumption.

"Atlantic salmon is a substance traditionally regarded as safe. [AquaBounty's] GE process significantly alters the salmon's composition, however, in a way that is reasonably expected to alter its nutritive value or concentration of constituents, and the new substance raises safety concerns," reads the petition. "Under the Agency's regulations and guidelines, such a substance must be treated as a food additive and the Agency must make a closer inquiry into the safety of its consumption, including, but not limited to, subjecting it to extensive pre-market testing."

The petition also asks that the agency not designate the GE salmon as generally recognized as safe (GRAS). As the petition notes, food additives are presumed to be unsafe, and therefore the company seeking approval for an additive "carries the burden to prove that a food additive is GRAS.

The groups blasted the data supplied by the company to FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine and said it "cannot be relied upon to show that AquAdvantage salmon is safe to consume."

"The data FDA has on GE salmon, which were supplied by Aquabounty, are incomplete, biased, and cannot be relied upon to show that the GE salmon is safe to consume," said Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter. "Aquabounty's own study showed that GE salmon may contain increased levels of IGF-1, a hormone that helps accelerate the growth of the transgenic fish and is linked to breast, colon, prostate, and lung cancer."

In the petition, consumer groups warn that the potential health risks of GE salmon are no "different from a number of food additives the FDA has banned in the past, including those that are cancer causing."

"FDA's choice to allow the first proposed transgenic animal for food to somehow only be review as a drug is contrary to law, science and common sense," said George Kimbrell, senior attorney for the Center for Food Safety. "Public health and transparency should be championed, not skirted, particularly when contemplating such an unprecedented approval."

Aquabounty did not respond to requests for comment on the petition.

The company maintains that the GE salmon are biologically and nutritionally identical to non-GE salmon and pose no threat to human health.

Citing Food Safety, Consumer Groups Petition FDA on GE Salmon

hbottemiller@foodsafetynews.com (Helena Bottemiller) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:59:02 -0800

World Consumers Doubtful About Food Safety, UL Study Finds

dflynn@foodsafetynews.com (Dan Flynn) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:59:01 -0800

When the 117-year old UL (Underwriters Laboratories) has something to say about global food safety, it's probably a good idea to listen up.

This time, UL is out with a survey of both consumer attitudes and the views of food manufacturers when it comes to food safety. It covers global perceptions from consumers and manufacturers in China, India, Germany and the United States.

Food is one of the subjects covered in the larger UL report titled "Navigating the Product Mindset." For the Food Industry section of the report, UL conducted 2,430 quantitative interviews with manufacturers and consumers in the four countries.

"Food manufacturers understand that product safety is imperative to the success of their business, but a significant opportunity remains to better demonstrate and communicate their commitment to boost consumer confidence," says Hank Lambert, general manager of UL's Global Food and Water Businesses. "This research demonstrates the importance of moving existing food safety management to the next level."

Among UL's findings regarding manufacturers are these:

- Only 2 percent of the food manufacturers think that their company is behind the curve regarding the safety of their products.

- Food safety has the largest impact on the ability of manufacturers' ability to compete in the world marketplace today.

- Manufacturers believe they are responsible for food safety, not government agencies, consumer groups, or retailers. They also think it is their job to communicate product safety information to consumers.

- Manufacturers agree consumers have become more empowered and command greater influence across the supply chain, causing them to most value consumer claims about their product.

- More than 50 percent of food manufacturers agree there is a direct relationship between the safety or quality of the product and the country of origin.

- Environmentally friendly products are viewed as profitable by 59 percent of manufacturers, with Chinese food manufacturers being the most optimistic about the profitability of such products and U.S. manufacturers having the largest concern about such products.

When asked to select only one "key factor," 41 percent of the responding manufacturers said product and food safety was their key concern. Other "key factors" mentioned include product innovation, reliability, sustainability, speed to market, design and environmentally friendly packaging.

And, 92 percent of the world food manufacturers agreed that product safety is becoming more important.

In its consumer findings, UL found:

- World consumers feel food safety is unchanged over the last two years or slightly improved. The exception is China, where consumers say both fresh and processed foods have worsened.

- Foodborne illnesses, chemical additives and poor sanitary conditions are consumers' primary safety concerns.

- Performance and safety are both important to food consumers, and 76 percent of world food consuemrs say they find it difficult to find product safety information.

- Half of all world consumers say they are aware of country of orgin and half believe country of origin will become more important in the next five years.

- A full 69 percent say it's more important to know the country of origin than to know the product's ingredients.

- Consumers have more confidence in the food safety of a product from a developed country than one in the Third World.

- Consumers think manufacturers can still do a better job.

When world consumers are evaluating a product, freshness and performance (which 42 percent cited) and safety (which 38 percent cited) were far more important than whether the product was organically grown or raised -- only 7 percent put organic food at the top of their list.

The survey also found consumers were most concerned about contracting foodborne illnesses when eating fresh foods, and being exposed to chemical additives when consuming processed food.

The UL study also found consumers are skeptical about how food manufacturers are doing, with a full 71 percent saying products are no better than five years ago. Consumers expressed the least satisfaction with processed foods.

UL is perhaps the world's best-known independent safety science company with 9,000 professionals employed in 96 countries. For more information about UL's Food Safety Services, visit www.ul.com/foodsafety.  

International Conference on Biotechnology and Food Science

info@foodsafetynews.com (Food Safety News) — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:28:07 -0800

The aim of the ICBFS conference series is to provide a forum for laying the foundations of a new principled approach to Biotechnology and Food Science. To this end, the meeting aims to attract participants with different backgrounds, to foster cross-pollination between different research fields, and to expose and discuss innovative theories, frameworks, methodologies, tools, and applications. The ICBFS 2012 is sponsored by Asia-Pacific Chemical, Biological & Environmental Engineering Society (APCBEES). Submitted conference papers will be reviewed by technical committees of the Conference.

The conference will take place from April 7-8, 2012 in Bangkok, Thailand.

The call for papers is available here.

For registration information, click here.