http://www.foodsafetynews.com/ Global Food Safety News & Information : Presented By Marler Clark LLP, PS en Copyright 2012 Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:31:57 -0800 Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:31:57 -0800 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/?v=4.32-en http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Subscribe with My Yahoo!Subscribe with NewsGatorSubscribe with My AOLSubscribe with BloglinesSubscribe with NetvibesSubscribe with GoogleSubscribe with PageflakesSubscribe with PlusmoSubscribe with The Free DictionarySubscribe with Bitty BrowserSubscribe with NewsAlloySubscribe with Live.comSubscribe with Excite MIXSubscribe with Attensa for OutlookSubscribe with WebwagSubscribe with Podcast ReadySubscribe with FlurrySubscribe with WikioSubscribe with Daily Rotation <div>Jimmy John's Gourmet Sandwich franchises like to be known for "freaky fast delivery," promising customers quick response.</div><div><br /></div><div>But the promise does not apply to the news media after foodborne illness outbreaks involving Jimmy John's. &nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Since the Feb. 15 report by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) about a five state outbreak of the rare O26 strain of E. coli associated with clover sprouts served by its sandwich restaurants, Jimmy John's has opted not to respond at all to media inquiries. &nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Jimmy John Liautaud, founder of Jimmy John's, has not responded to an invitation to respond to questions from Food Safety News. &nbsp; The invitation was sent to his private email address, which was provided by one of Jimmy John's former advertising and public relations agencies.</div><div><br /></div><div>After previous outbreaks involving Jimmy John's, the franchise restaurant chain also dodged the media. &nbsp; In January 2011, however, Liautaud <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/01/jimmy-johns-will-switch-to-clover-sprouts/">did respond to multiple outbreaks</a> involving alfalfa sprouts served by Jimmy John's restaurants with an announcement the chain was switching to clover sprouts.</div><div><br /></div><div>But since this new warning by CDC about the E. coli O26 outbreak involving clover sprouts from Jimmy John's, the chain has gone back to the silent strategy. &nbsp; One of its competitors, Erbert and Gerbert's Sandwich Shops, has for the time dropped sprouts from the menu.</div><div><br /></div><div>"The decision to pull the sprouts from our &nbsp;system-wide menu is being made to protect the health of our guests," said E&amp;G's Chief Executive Officer Eric Wolfe. "We value the well-being of our customers and felt removing all sprouts from our menu and sandwich line was the best way to eliminate the risk.</div><div><br /></div><div>Until they were pulled, E&amp;G's was serving alfalfa sprouts at its restaurants in Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado, George and Texas.</div><div><br /></div><div>CDC's initial case count for the outbreak totaled 12. &nbsp;Two have been hospitalized. &nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The sickened were in Iowa (5), Missouri (3), Kansas (2), Arkansas (1), and Wisconsin (1).</div><div><br /></div><div>All the victims, so far, have been female, ranging in age from 9 to 49 with a median age of 25. &nbsp;None have died.</div><div><br /></div><div>CDC identified a common lot of clover seeds used to grow the clover sprouts that were going on Jimmy John's sandwiches.</div><div><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/qQrhthM-hAo" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/qQrhthM-hAo/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/no-comment-from-jimmy-johns-about-outbreak/ Foodborne Illness Outbreaks Sun, 19 Feb 2012 01:59:03 -0800 dflynn@foodsafetynews.com (Dan Flynn) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/no-comment-from-jimmy-johns-about-outbreak/ <div>There are no words that cause raw milk advocates more heartburn than these: "The Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes."</div><div><br /></div><div>It was this section of&nbsp;the United States Constitution -&nbsp;the Interstate Commerce Clause - that as recently as this week tripped up an Amish dairy farmer who was legally milking cows in Pennsylvania, but selling illegally the District of Columbia and its Maryland suburbs.</div><div><br /></div><div>But issues surrounding the Interstate Commerce Clause have spilled over to affect more than just raw milk since the time the Constitution was ratified. The Clause also affects other foods, as well as food safety.</div><div><br /></div><div>Sick chickens, wheat, and pasteurized milk are among the food issues that have piled up around the Interstate Commerce Clause - also known as Article I, Section 8 - and have even made their way into Supreme Court cases in disputes over when it applies.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Maybe if the U.S. constitution had set up a special panel of experts on business and the economy, we'd have a uniform and consistent series of cases ruling on when the Commerce Clause applies and when it does not.</div><div><br /></div><div>But instead of these rulings being made by experts, people in robes who may or may not know how to balance their own checking accounts make them. &nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Because of this, our system produces decisions that often leave the reader of history with a case of whiplash from going back and forth.</div><div><br /></div><div>My favorite among the many decisions involving the Interstate Commerce Clause and food is, by far, the "sick chicken case" of 1935..</div><div><br /></div><div>It was that sick chicken that brought down the National Recovery Administration. &nbsp;The NRA required businesses to display "the Blue Eagle" to show that they were adhering to the organization's various codes.</div><div><br /></div><div>Four chicken guys from Brooklyn, however, did not go along with the NRA's clueless attempts at making the market go up.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The Schechter Poultry Corporation was a poultry wholesaler supplying chicken to New York City wholesalers.They were eventually charged with 60 counts of violating the NRA Live Chicken Code. They pled not guilty, but were convicted.</div><div><br /></div><div>On appeal, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Live Poultry Code was unconstitutional because it regulated intrastate commerce. &nbsp;The convictions were overturned.</div><div><br /></div><div>Instead of just cutting his losses from the inept NRA with its scheme for lowering retail chicken prices in New York City, then-predident Franklin Roosevelt subsequently went ballistic with plans to "pack" the court.</div><div><br /></div><div>So that was the "sick chicken" case, so named for the NRA violation that had some connection to poultry health.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Roosevelt administration then continued to attempt to impact prices through yet another law - the 1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act - which limited how much wheat individual farmers could plant.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Wheat grower Roscoe Filburn did not contest how much he could grow and sell into interstate commerce. He did, however, think that how much wheat he grew strictly for his own use was not subject to government jurisdiction.</div><div><br /></div><div>So, when he was found and fined for growing excess wheat, he contested it all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was just seven years after the sick chicken case. Filburn lost.</div><div><br /></div><div>The production quotas were found to comply with the Interstate Commerce Clause and the court went with the logic that if a farmer is allowed to grow his own chicken feed, demand for chicken feed will be down. &nbsp;So, growing your own could have a big impact on interstate commerce.</div><div><br /></div><div>Some historians say that in the time between these two cases, during which Roosevelt threatened to double the size of the court with more favorable appointments, the President had whipped the court into doing his will. Of course by 1942, the war was on and the government's power to dictate production had more urgency.</div><div><br /></div><div>The sick chicken and wheat cases are just the first two on a long list of interstate commerce cases involving food, and sometimes food safety.</div><div><br /></div><div>Baldwin, Hood, and Dean are among the names of three early cases involving milk and state laws to discriminate against out-of-state products.</div><div><br /></div><div>The result of the Baldwin case was basically that if a state is going to isolate some part of its economy, it better have a pretty good reason for doing so. Regulating food prices is not part of a state's role.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>In Dean, Milwaukee dairies challenged the City of Madison's law prohibiting the sale of milk produced more than five miles from the center of the city.</div><div><br /></div><div>Indeed, it was our old friend the Interstate Commerce Clause that was relied upon in the 1941 case of Edwards v. California. &nbsp;In Edwards, a state law preventing poor people from other sates from entering California was ruled unconstitutional.</div><div><br /></div><div>All that human talent was part of interstate commerce, and was found to fall under the power of Congress to regulate.</div><div><br /></div><div>Some, including many raw milk advocates from the comments I read, believe that the Commerce Clause has been used far too broadly to regulate societal functions that the founding fathers never would have considered to be "interstate commerce."</div><div><br /></div><div>A case not involving food or food safety, but regulation of school grounds, was found to be too much of a stretch even for Congress.</div><div><br /></div><div>But I think its clear that when it comes to food and food safety, the Commerce Clause clearly gives Congress the power. &nbsp;And it is the Congress that should get any credit or blame.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/CKQ68BkofH8" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/CKQ68BkofH8/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/letter-from-the-editor-commerce-clause/ Food Policy & Law Government Agencies Sun, 19 Feb 2012 01:59:02 -0800 dflynn@foodsafetynews.com (Dan Flynn) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/letter-from-the-editor-commerce-clause/ <div>There are no words that cause raw milk advocates more heartburn than these: "The Congress shall have Power...To regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes."</div><div><br /></div><div>It was this section of&nbsp;the United States Constitution -&nbsp;the Interstate Commerce Clause - that as recently as this week tripped up an Amish dairy farmer who was legally milking cows in Pennsylvania, but selling illegally the District of Columbia and its Maryland suburbs.</div><div><br /></div><div>But issues surrounding the Interstate Commerce Clause have spilled over to affect more than just raw milk since the time the Constitution was ratified. The Clause also affects other foods, as well as food safety.</div><div><br /></div><div>Sick chickens, wheat, and pasteurized milk are among the food issues that have piled up around the Interstate Commerce Clause - also known as Article I, Section 8 - and have even made their way into Supreme Court cases in disputes over when it applies.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Maybe if the U.S. constitution had set up a special panel of experts on business and the economy, we'd have a uniform and consistent series of cases ruling on when the Commerce Clause applies and when it does not.</div><div><br /></div><div>But instead of these rulings being made by experts, people in robes who may or may not know how to balance their own checking accounts make them. &nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Because of this, our system produces decisions that often leave the reader of history with a case of whiplash from going back and forth.</div><div><br /></div><div>My favorite among the many decisions involving the Interstate Commerce Clause and food is, by far, the "sick chicken case" of 1935..</div><div><br /></div><div>It was that sick chicken that brought down the National Recovery Administration. &nbsp;The NRA required businesses to display "the Blue Eagle" to show that they were adhering to the organization's various codes.</div><div><br /></div><div>Four chicken guys from Brooklyn, however, did not go along with the NRA's clueless attempts at making the market go up.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The Schechter Poultry Corporation was a poultry wholesaler supplying chicken to New York City wholesalers.They were eventually charged with 60 counts of violating the NRA Live Chicken Code. They pled not guilty, but were convicted.</div><div><br /></div><div>On appeal, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the Live Poultry Code was unconstitutional because it regulated intrastate commerce. &nbsp;The convictions were overturned.</div><div><br /></div><div>Instead of just cutting his losses from the inept NRA with its scheme for lowering retail chicken prices in New York City, then-predident Franklin Roosevelt subsequently went ballistic with plans to "pack" the court.</div><div><br /></div><div>So that was the "sick chicken" case, so named for the NRA violation that had some connection to poultry health.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Roosevelt administration then continued to attempt to impact prices through yet another law - the 1938 Agricultural Adjustment Act - which limited how much wheat individual farmers could plant.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Wheat grower Roscoe Filburn did not contest how much he could grow and sell into interstate commerce. He did, however, think that how much wheat he grew strictly for his own use was not subject to government jurisdiction.</div><div><br /></div><div>So, when he was found and fined for growing excess wheat, he contested it all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was just seven years after the sick chicken case. Filburn lost.</div><div><br /></div><div>The production quotas were found to comply with the Interstate Commerce Clause and the court went with the logic that if a farmer is allowed to grow his own chicken feed, demand for chicken feed will be down. &nbsp;So, growing your own could have a big impact on interstate commerce.</div><div><br /></div><div>Some historians say that in the time between these two cases, during which Roosevelt threatened to double the size of the court with more favorable appointments, the President had whipped the court into doing his will. Of course by 1942, the war was on and the government's power to dictate production had more urgency.</div><div><br /></div><div>The sick chicken and wheat cases are just the first two on a long list of interstate commerce cases involving food, and sometimes food safety.</div><div><br /></div><div>Baldwin, Hood, and Dean are among the names of three early cases involving milk and state laws to discriminate against out-of-state products.</div><div><br /></div><div>The result of the Baldwin case was basically that if a state is going to isolate some part of its economy, it better have a pretty good reason for doing so. Regulating food prices is not part of a state's role.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>In Dean, Milwaukee dairies challenged the City of Madison's law prohibiting the sale of milk produced more than five miles from the center of the city.</div><div><br /></div><div>Indeed, it was our old friend the Interstate Commerce Clause that was relied upon in the 1941 case of Edwards v. California. &nbsp;In Edwards, a state law preventing poor people from other sates from entering California was ruled unconstitutional.</div><div><br /></div><div>All that human talent was part of interstate commerce, and was found to fall under the power of Congress to regulate.</div><div><br /></div><div>Some, including many raw milk advocates from the comments I read, believe that the Commerce Clause has been used far too broadly to regulate societal functions that the founding fathers never would have considered to be "interstate commerce."</div><div><br /></div><div>A case not involving food or food safety, but regulation of school grounds, was found to be too much of a stretch even for Congress.</div><div><br /></div><div>But I think its clear that when it comes to food and food safety, the Commerce Clause clearly gives Congress the power. &nbsp;And it is the Congress that should get any credit or blame.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/CKQ68BkofH8" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/CKQ68BkofH8/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/letter-from-the-editor-commerce-clause/ Food Policy & Law Government Agencies Sun, 19 Feb 2012 01:59:02 -0800 dflynn@foodsafetynews.com (Dan Flynn) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/letter-from-the-editor-commerce-clause/ Does the CDC like Tacos more than Sandwiches?&nbsp; Or, is it hopefully something else?<br /><br />First, lets be clear, confidential patient information should never be disclosed absent the patient agreeing to it. And, second, a report should not be issued if there is no outbreak linked to a product and/or manufacturer.&nbsp; However, once an outbreak is tied to a particular product or manufacturer, the public has a right to know what or who is poisoning them, yes, even if the risk has passed for the moment.&nbsp; Consumers need to be able to make market decisions based upon safety records of the suppliers of food to them and their families.<br /><br />I know, I have been harping on this transparency thing over the last few weeks after the CDC, once again, failed to name the "Mexican-style fast food restaurant chain, Restaurant Chain A" for the second time in two, and arguably three, <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/baildon-hartford/index.html">Salmonella outbreaks</a> that were eventually tied to Taco Bell.<br />&nbsp;<br />Then, the CDC announced this outbreak yesterday, an apparently ongoing outbreak: "This investigation is ongoing, but preliminary results of the epidemiologic and traceback investigations indicate eating raw clover sprouts at Jimmy John's restaurants is the likely cause of this outbreak." <br /><br />"<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2012/O26-02-12/index.html">Investigation Announcement</a>:<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2012/O26-02-12/index.html"> Multistate Outbreak of Shiga Toxin-producing Escherichia coli O26 Infections Linked to Raw Clover Sprouts at Jimmy John's Restaurants</a>:"<br /><br /><i>The CDC reported a total of 12 persons infected with the outbreak strain of STEC O26 reported from 5 states. The number of ill persons identified in each state is as follows: Iowa (5), Missouri (3), Kansas (2), Arkansas (1), and Wisconsin (1)</i>.<br />&nbsp;<br />A few weeks earlier the CDC announced this outbreak: "This particular outbreak appears to be over"), as a final report "<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/restaurant-enteriditis/011912/index.html">Investigation Announcement</a>: Multistate Outbreak of Salmonella Enteritidis Infections Linked to Restaurant Chain A:"<br /><br /><i>As of January 19, 2012, a total of 68 individuals infected with the outbreak strain of Salmonella Enteritidis have been reported from 10 states. The number of ill persons identified in each state with the outbreak strain was as follows: Texas (43), Oklahoma (16), Kansas (2), Iowa (1), Michigan (1), Missouri (1), Nebraska (1), New Mexico (1), Ohio (1), and Tennessee (1).</i> <br /><br />On the face of the above two descriptions, the only clear reason to out Jimmy John's and not Taco Bell is that the "Restaurant A" outbreak report was completed and the Jimmy John's report might still be added to.&nbsp; However, I think you could well argue the opposite.&nbsp; During an ongoing investigation you do not want to introduce bias and telegraph to potential victims where they may or may not have eaten or what they may or may not have eaten.&nbsp; So, perhaps there are other reasons?<br /><br />According to the CDC in the Jimmy's John's sprout outbreak, of the 11 ill persons with information available, 10 (91%) reported eating at a Jimmy John's sandwich restaurant in the 7 days preceding illness.&nbsp; Eight (80%) reported eating a sandwich containing sprouts, and nine (90%) reported eating a sandwich containing lettuce (interesting that they called out sprouts and not lettuce).<br /><br />The "Restaurant A" - Taco Bell outbreak was less definite on a percentage basis.&nbsp; According to the CDC, among 52 ill persons for whom information was available, 60% reported eating at "Restaurant Chain A" in the week before illness onset.<br />&nbsp;<br />Although 60% is less that 91% (genius right?), the CDC still found that ill persons (62%) were significantly more likely than well persons (17%) to report eating at "Restaurant Chain A" in the week before illness. The CDC also found that no specific food item or ingredient was found to be associated with illness due to common ingredients being used together in many menu items. However, among ill persons eating at "Restaurant Chain A," 90% reported eating lettuce, 94% reported eating ground beef, 77% reported eating cheese, and 35% reported eating tomatoes (so, not a ground beef outbreak?).<br /><br />Again, on the face of it, having a 91% assurance that most of the people recalled eating at Jimmy John's and only 60% recalled eating at Taco Bell - I mean "Restaurant Chain A"-- seems like a good rationale to keep the name of the restaurant from the public.&nbsp; But is it?&nbsp; Is 60% the cutoff for the CDC to just not name names?&nbsp; Should the CDC have announced the outbreak or even named "Restaurant Chain A" at all?<br /><br />Or, perhaps it is because in the Jimmy John's outbreak the CDC (or FDA) identified a single seed lot versus no common supplier for "Restaurant Chain A."&nbsp; Honestly, that might cut in favor of naming the seed supplier in the Jimmy John's outbreak and not naming Jimmy John's, and not naming the suppliers in the "Restaurant Chain A" outbreak, but naming "Restaurant Chain A" as Taco Bell.<br /><br />Damn, this all gives me a headache.<br /><br />I did find this CDC statement in the "Restaurant Chain A" - Taco Bell outbreak:<br /><br /><i>Restaurant Chain A, as well as their food suppliers and distributors, were very cooperative in providing extensive information to public health officials as various leads were explored</i>.<br /><br />Maybe, Jimmy John's did not play nice?&nbsp; Or was it because this is Jimmy John's fifth problem with sprouts.&nbsp; <a href="http://www.marlerblog.com/legal-cases/taco-bell---aka-mexican-style-fast-food-restaurant-chain-restaurant-chain-a-to-be-sued-by-oklahoma-c/">But, then wait, how many times has "Restaurant Chain A" - Taco Bell had issues?</a>&nbsp; Well, unless you read my blog, you would never really know, and that is the problem.<br /><br />Any other ideas?<br /><br /><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/cPwB-bON628" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/cPwB-bON628/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/publishers-platform-cdc---sandwiches-or-tacos/ Food Policy & Law Foodborne Illness Investigations Sun, 19 Feb 2012 01:59:01 -0800 bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/publishers-platform-cdc---sandwiches-or-tacos/ Does the CDC like Tacos more than Sandwiches?&nbsp; Or, is it hopefully something else?<br /><br />First, lets be clear, confidential patient information should never be disclosed absent the patient agreeing to it. And, second, a report should not be issued if there is no outbreak linked to a product and/or manufacturer.&nbsp; However, once an outbreak is tied to a particular product or manufacturer, the public has a right to know what or who is poisoning them, yes, even if the risk has passed for the moment.&nbsp; Consumers need to be able to make market decisions based upon safety records of the suppliers of food to them and their families.<br /><br />I know, I have been harping on this transparency thing over the last few weeks after the CDC, once again, failed to name the "Mexican-style fast food restaurant chain, Restaurant Chain A" for the second time in two, and arguably three, <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/baildon-hartford/index.html">Salmonella outbreaks</a> that were eventually tied to Taco Bell.<br />&nbsp;<br />Then, the CDC announced this outbreak yesterday, an apparently ongoing outbreak: "This investigation is ongoing, but preliminary results of the epidemiologic and traceback investigations indicate eating raw clover sprouts at Jimmy John's restaurants is the likely cause of this outbreak." <br /><br />"<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2012/O26-02-12/index.html">Investigation Announcement</a>:<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2012/O26-02-12/index.html"> Multistate Outbreak of Shiga Toxin-producing Escherichia coli O26 Infections Linked to Raw Clover Sprouts at Jimmy John's Restaurants</a>:"<br /><br /><i>The CDC reported a total of 12 persons infected with the outbreak strain of STEC O26 reported from 5 states. The number of ill persons identified in each state is as follows: Iowa (5), Missouri (3), Kansas (2), Arkansas (1), and Wisconsin (1)</i>.<br />&nbsp;<br />A few weeks earlier the CDC announced this outbreak: "This particular outbreak appears to be over"), as a final report "<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/restaurant-enteriditis/011912/index.html">Investigation Announcement</a>: Multistate Outbreak of Salmonella Enteritidis Infections Linked to Restaurant Chain A:"<br /><br /><i>As of January 19, 2012, a total of 68 individuals infected with the outbreak strain of Salmonella Enteritidis have been reported from 10 states. The number of ill persons identified in each state with the outbreak strain was as follows: Texas (43), Oklahoma (16), Kansas (2), Iowa (1), Michigan (1), Missouri (1), Nebraska (1), New Mexico (1), Ohio (1), and Tennessee (1).</i> <br /><br />On the face of the above two descriptions, the only clear reason to out Jimmy John's and not Taco Bell is that the "Restaurant A" outbreak report was completed and the Jimmy John's report might still be added to.&nbsp; However, I think you could well argue the opposite.&nbsp; During an ongoing investigation you do not want to introduce bias and telegraph to potential victims where they may or may not have eaten or what they may or may not have eaten.&nbsp; So, perhaps there are other reasons?<br /><br />According to the CDC in the Jimmy's John's sprout outbreak, of the 11 ill persons with information available, 10 (91%) reported eating at a Jimmy John's sandwich restaurant in the 7 days preceding illness.&nbsp; Eight (80%) reported eating a sandwich containing sprouts, and nine (90%) reported eating a sandwich containing lettuce (interesting that they called out sprouts and not lettuce).<br /><br />The "Restaurant A" - Taco Bell outbreak was less definite on a percentage basis.&nbsp; According to the CDC, among 52 ill persons for whom information was available, 60% reported eating at "Restaurant Chain A" in the week before illness onset.<br />&nbsp;<br />Although 60% is less that 91% (genius right?), the CDC still found that ill persons (62%) were significantly more likely than well persons (17%) to report eating at "Restaurant Chain A" in the week before illness. The CDC also found that no specific food item or ingredient was found to be associated with illness due to common ingredients being used together in many menu items. However, among ill persons eating at "Restaurant Chain A," 90% reported eating lettuce, 94% reported eating ground beef, 77% reported eating cheese, and 35% reported eating tomatoes (so, not a ground beef outbreak?).<br /><br />Again, on the face of it, having a 91% assurance that most of the people recalled eating at Jimmy John's and only 60% recalled eating at Taco Bell - I mean "Restaurant Chain A"-- seems like a good rationale to keep the name of the restaurant from the public.&nbsp; But is it?&nbsp; Is 60% the cutoff for the CDC to just not name names?&nbsp; Should the CDC have announced the outbreak or even named "Restaurant Chain A" at all?<br /><br />Or, perhaps it is because in the Jimmy John's outbreak the CDC (or FDA) identified a single seed lot versus no common supplier for "Restaurant Chain A."&nbsp; Honestly, that might cut in favor of naming the seed supplier in the Jimmy John's outbreak and not naming Jimmy John's, and not naming the suppliers in the "Restaurant Chain A" outbreak, but naming "Restaurant Chain A" as Taco Bell.<br /><br />Damn, this all gives me a headache.<br /><br />I did find this CDC statement in the "Restaurant Chain A" - Taco Bell outbreak:<br /><br /><i>Restaurant Chain A, as well as their food suppliers and distributors, were very cooperative in providing extensive information to public health officials as various leads were explored</i>.<br /><br />Maybe, Jimmy John's did not play nice?&nbsp; Or was it because this is Jimmy John's fifth problem with sprouts.&nbsp; <a href="http://www.marlerblog.com/legal-cases/taco-bell---aka-mexican-style-fast-food-restaurant-chain-restaurant-chain-a-to-be-sued-by-oklahoma-c/">But, then wait, how many times has "Restaurant Chain A" - Taco Bell had issues?</a>&nbsp; Well, unless you read my blog, you would never really know, and that is the problem.<br /><br />Any other ideas?<br /><br /><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/cPwB-bON628" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/cPwB-bON628/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/publishers-platform-cdc---sandwiches-or-tacos/ Food Policy & Law Foodborne Illness Investigations Sun, 19 Feb 2012 01:59:01 -0800 bmarler@marlerclark.com (Bill Marler) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/publishers-platform-cdc---sandwiches-or-tacos/ <div><i>"I have long believed that good food, good eating is all about risk. Whether we're talking about unpasteurized Stilton, raw oysters or working for organized crime 'associates,' food, for me, as always been an adventure." -- <b>Anthony Bourdain</b></i></div><div><br /></div><div>In 2006, 205 people in the U.S were sickened and 3 died in an E. coli O157:H7 outbreak linked to baby spinach grown in California. &nbsp;In the aftermath, both the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and California's Department of Health Services conducted extensive <a href="http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2007/ucm108873.htm">investigations</a> into the outbreak to determine how leafy green produce could become contaminated with a microorganism normally found in the stomach of animals.</div><div><br /></div><div>While investigators were able to successfully track the contaminated spinach to one specific field in California, and identify potential health risks such as the presence of cattle feces and wild pigs, the investigators had less success identifying the exact method by which E. coli contamination had occurred.</div><div><br /></div><div>In response, California, the largest producer of leafy green vegetables in the nation with roughly a 75 percent market share, created its own statewide <a href="http://www.caleafygreens.ca.gov/">Leafy Green Marketing Agreement.</a> Arizona, the second largest producer of leafy green vegetables with roughly a 15 percent market share, followed suite creating its own <a href="http://www.arizonaleafygreens.org/">statewide program</a> in September of 2007.</div><div><br /></div><div>Unfortunately, despite the widespread adoption of these voluntary programs at the state level, foodborne illnesses linked to leafy green vegetables continue to be a problem across the country. In 2010,<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/06/lettuce-recall-e-coli-pos_n_566956.html"> E. coli-tainted romaine lettuce</a> was recalled in 23 states after 19 people became seriously ill in Ohio, New York and Michigan.</div><div><br /></div><div>Just this last October, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) discovered <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/223125/20111001/listeria-outbreak-after-cantaloupe-bacteria-found-in-romaine-lettuce.htm">Listeria bacteria</a> during a random sample of romaine lettuce grown in California. &nbsp; And as recently at this past New Year's Eve, "a <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/major-spinach-recall-with-no-public-notice/">Texas company recalled</a> 228,360 lbs. -- 114 tons -- of spinach because it tested positive for E. coli O157:H7."</div><div><br /></div><div>In response to industry interest, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/09/usda-hearings-on-leafy-green-safety-begin/">published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking</a> (ANPR) on Oct. 4, 2007 to explore the idea of implementing a national marketing agreement focused on reducing microbial contamination in leafy green vegetables.</div><div><br /></div><div>AMS received more than 3,500 public comments on the ANPR. On June 10, 2009, the agency received a petition for rulemaking and a request for a public hearing on a proposed National Leafy Green Marketing Agreement (NLGMA). The <a href="http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/leafygreensagreement">proposed marketing agreement</a> was submitted to AMS "by a group of producers, handlers, and interested persons representing a cross-section of the national fresh and fresh-cut produce industry."</div><div><br /></div><div>This initial proposal was designed to operate in a similar manner to voluntary marketing agreements previously implemented in California and Arizona following the 2006 outbreak.</div><div><br /></div><div>While many in the leafy green industry praised the proposal as a huge leap forward for product safety, the proposal was also met with stiff resistance from many farmers, <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/10/leafy-greens-hearings-drawing-to-end/">especially small-scale producers</a>. The new rules also came under attack by <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/09/fda-must-set-salad-standards-group-says/">consumer food safety advocates </a>who were upset that the proposed rules would essentially allow the industry to police itself.</div><div><br /></div><div>After taking comments and holding public hearings on the issue, the AMS proposed a revised NLGMA in the spring of 2011. &nbsp;This report provides an overview of how marketing agreements function in general, provides a detailed examination of the latest proposed NLGMA rules, and examines whether criticism for the latest proposed rule is legally and/or factually justified.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div><b>Marketing Orders and Agreements</b>&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (codified at 7 U.S.C. Chapter 26A) provides authority for federal marketing orders administered by the USDA. &nbsp;Under the supervision of the AMS, marketing orders have currently been established for milk as well as numerous fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops. &nbsp;Not counting milk and the latest NLGMA proposal, there are <a href="http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/">currently 32 active marketing orders and agreements</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>Marketing orders and agreements provide legal tools for agricultural producers, aggregators, processors, manufacturers, and retailers to work together to mitigate financial turmoil in the supply chain. A new marketing order or agreement must be developed by industry representatives, and then proposed to the AMS. The agency will then hold a public hearing and take public comments prior to making a final decision on whether to proceed with a rulemaking.</div><div><br /></div><div>Prior to a proposed program being implemented, the regulation must be approved in a referendum by a two-thirds or larger majority of producers. Once a marketing order or agreement is approved, local committees appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture provide administration of the program.&nbsp;</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div>Marketing orders and agreements are binding on all "handlers" in the geographic area covered by the order. &nbsp; In general, a handler is anyone who receives the commodity from producers, and is responsible for grading, packing, transporting, or placing the farm products into commercial channels.</div><div><br /></div><div>Marketing orders are distinguished from marketing agreements, in that marketing agreements are binding only on handlers who are signatories of the agreement. Handlers must comply with the grade, size, quality, volume, and other requirements established under the specific program.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Proposed National Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement (NLGMA)</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Like all marketing agreements, the proposed NLGMA is intended to be a voluntary program so handlers can choose whether or not they wish to participate in it. &nbsp;Unlike other marketing agreements, the NLGMA has little to do with balancing financial interests in the supply chain, but is focused entirely on providing a legal structure for farmers and handlers to efficiently comply with a new system of national food safety requirements impacting all leafy green vegetables.</div><div><br /></div><div>While no specifics are given in the proposal, such food safety requirements would be based on the FDA's <a href="http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/ProduceandPlanProducts/ucm064574.htm">Good Agricultural Practices</a> (GAPs), <a href="http://www.fda.gov/food/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/currentgoodmanufacturingpracticescgmps/default.htm">Good Manufacturing Practices</a> (GMPs), and the USDA's <a href="http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/GAPGHPAuditVerificationProgram">Good Handling Practices</a> (GHPs).</div><div><br /></div><div>Under the current proposal, the marketing agreement would be governed by a 26-member Board of Directors appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Board would be responsible for making policy recommendations to the Secretary for final review and approval. Any major changes to the agreement, including the Board's recommended food safety requirements and exemptions, would be sent out for public comment prior to its adoption.</div><div><br /></div><div>Board members would be apportioned from eight administrative zones, with state's divided into groups based on geographic and climate differences. Each administrative zone would be assigned representation on the Board relative to the amount of leafy green vegetables produced within that zone. For example, administrative zone 1 -- which includes Hawaii and California -- would receive 4 representatives as California produces roughly 75 percent of all leafy green vegetables grown in the country.</div><div><br /></div><div>In addition, the Board would include 10 designated grower representatives, with two of the 10 grower positions designated for small farmers. No company would be allowed to have more than one representative on the board, even if its operations included multiple farms in different administrative zones.</div><div><br /></div><div>A Technical Review Committee (TRC) would assist the Board in developing guidelines and procedures. The TRC would consist of members who represent production, handling and food safety experts from each zone (including organic and small business interests), experts from the USDA's agencies, and other federal agencies such as the FDA and EPA. The TRC also would have the authority to work collaboratively with industry stakeholder groups, local and state authorities, and others interested parties whose expertise the TRC might require.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The <a href="http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/leafygreensagreement">proposed NLGMA</a> would cover a wide range of fresh leafy green vegetables and their varieties, including: arugula, cabbage, chard, cilantro, endive, escarole, kale, lettuce, parsley, radicchio, spinach, and "spring mix" -- an industry term that describes mixtures of baby lettuces, mustards, chards, spinach, and chicories that vary based on availabilities. These vegetables could be whole or fresh-cut, or in bulk or packaged form. Under the proposed NLGMA, the Board could recommend, subject to USDA approval, the addition or removal of any leafy green vegetable from this definition.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Handlers of fresh leafy green vegetables in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, also known as the production area, would be eligible to become signatories. Once becoming a signatory, participants would only handle leafy green vegetables from producers or other handlers that are also in compliance with the NLGMA.</div><div><br /></div><div>Signatories who handle product imported from outside the United States would be required to demonstrate that those products also meet the requirements of the NLGMA. Compliance by signatories with the terms of the agreement would be mandatory. A signatory would be obligated to participate for no less than one crop year in the program. After the initial year, participants would have the opportunity to withdraw or opt out of the program.</div><div><br /></div><div>While the program is voluntary for handlers of all sizes, any producer who sells to a handler that is a signatory to the NLGMA would be required to adhere to the marketing agreement. &nbsp;Small farmers participating in farmers markets, CSAs, or other direct sales to consumers may choose not to participate in the marketing agreements, provided they don't sell any of their leafy green vegetables to a signatory handler.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Once adopted, all signatory handlers and their growers would be subject to an audit by the AMS Inspection Service. AMS Inspection Service would have the authority to accredit other entities and license their auditors to audit on its behalf, including National Organic Program (NOP) certified agents, FDA inspectors, and third-party auditing services accredited by FDA.</div><div><br /></div><div>This presents the potential to streamline the audit process facing many producers in today's market, thus improving operations and reducing costs. &nbsp;For example, the proposal would permit the program to evolve whereby an organic producer could include the NLGMA food safety standards as a component of the overall organic system plan and receive a single audit.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The proposed NLGMA "would provide the Board authority to establish marketing research and development projects, and or promotional activities, including paid advertising, to assist or promote the efficient adoption, implementation, and marketplace acceptance of the agreement and leafy green vegetables." A Research and Development Committee would assist the Board in carrying out these actions.</div><div><br /></div><div>The costs of these programs and the audit verification fees would be paid for through assessments of the signatory handlers. &nbsp;The price of these assessments would be recommended by the Board and must be approved by the USDA. &nbsp;These assessments would not be allowed to exceed $0.05 per 24-pound carton equivalent of leafy green vegetables. As assessments are based on the volume of a handler's transactions, large handlers would pay more assessments than small handlers participating in the program.</div><div><br /></div><div>The AMS believes the proposed NLGMA will have a number of important benefits for producers, handlers, and consumers. &nbsp;"A primary benefit of the proposed agreement is the reduced likelihood of food contamination outbreaks in leafy green vegetables... in the United States."</div><div><br /></div><div>This would not only benefit consumer health, but also the economic viability of the industry since it is estimated "that a food contamination outbreak could lead to a 10 percent long-term reduction in demand for leafy green vegetables." The 2006 E. coli outbreak alone was estimated to have cost leafy green producers $12 million dollars, and U.S. retailers as much as $63 million in lost profits.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Criticism of the Latest NLGMA Proposal</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Both proponents and opponents of the latest NLGMA agree that food safety is a priority that needs to be better addressed by regulation. &nbsp;There is also no question that the most recent NLGMA is a more well thought out and balanced version of the regulation that what was initially proposed in 2009.</div><div><br /></div><div>Yet, critics of the latest proposal -- including the <a href="http://sustainableagriculture.net/">National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition</a> (NSAC) and the <a href="http://www.nationalorganiccoalition.org/">National Organic Coalition</a> (NOC) -- contend that the AMS failed to adequately address at least four main concerns:</div><div><br /></div><div>- whether the AMS is the proper agency to handle food safety regulation governing leafy green vegetables</div><div><br /></div><div>- &nbsp;whether a marketing agreement is the proper regulatory tool to carry out national food safety regulations</div><div><br /></div><div>- whether Congress has already addressed this particular food safety issue with the Food Safety and Modernization Act passed in December of 2010</div><div><br /></div><div>- whether the NLGMA still unfairly burdens small to medium sized producers who wish to participate in the program</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Is AMS the Proper Agency to Oversee Leafy Greens?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>Three federal agencies are traditionally involved in U.S. food regulations. &nbsp;In general terms, the<a href="http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome"> USDA</a> is responsible for all issues involving meat, poultry, dairy and eggs. &nbsp;In contrast, the<a href="http://www.fda.gov/"> FDA</a> is responsible for all other food and food additives. &nbsp;Finally, the <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/">Federal Trade Commission</a> (FTC) is involved in the regulation of food advertising.</div><div><br /></div><div>The proposed NLGMA even recognizes the FDA's expertise in food safety regulations involving leafy green vegetables as the <a href="http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/">AMS</a> intends the Board's final food safety regulations to reflect the FDA's published GAPs and GMPs, in addition to the USDA's GHPs. &nbsp;It also makes clear that the AMS intends to follow any existing or new FDA regulations that would impact food safety regulation or audits carried out by the agency.</div><div><br /></div><div>In contrast, AMS has not traditionally been involved in food safety regulations or their enforcement, even within the USDA. Instead the AMS is involved mainly in assisting producers to market their products. This includes providing standardization, grading and new services for its five commodity programs -- dairy, fruit and vegetable, livestock and seed, poultry, and cotton and tobacco. &nbsp;It also includes overseeing the <a href="http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop">National Organic Program</a> (NOP) and facilitating both domestic and international marketing efforts for U.S. agriculture.</div><div>&nbsp; &nbsp;</div><div>Which is not to say that either USDA as a whole, or AMS in particular, lack expertise when it comes to developing or enforcing new production standards. &nbsp;After all, in addition to developing marketing orders and agreements, AMS is also responsible for helping to create international quality standards for agricultural products.</div><div><br /></div><div>Its role in overseeing NOP has also provided it the opportunity to implement a farm-based audit program designed to facilitate the needs of both small and large producers. In addition, the USDA as a whole has been heavily involved in the implementation of the <a href="http://www.fda.gov/food/foodsafety/hazardanalysiscriticalcontrolpointshaccp/default.htm">Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point system</a> (HACCP) currently utilized in meat, seafood, dairy, and juice production. This flexible system of scientifically based production standards -- designed to reduce microbial contamination during processing -- has been widely adopted by the food industry in <a href="http://www.efsa.europa.eu/">Europe</a> and much of the United States.</div><div><br /></div><div>Thus, while AMS may not be the foremost expert in food safety regulation involving leafy green vegetables, the agency certainly has both the scientific expertise and experienced personnel to carry forth all the provisions proposed under the NLGMA.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><b>Are Marketing Agreements the Proper Regulatory Tool for Food Safety Regulations?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>When considering whether it is appropriate to use a marketing agreement to address food safety, it is important to examine how Congress has historically created food safety legislation. &nbsp;Over the past hundred years, <a href="http://opencrs.com/document/RS22600/2010-09-22/">Congress has passed many acts</a> to improve food safety in this country, including the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Public Health Service Act, the Egg Products Inspection Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906, the Poultry Products Inspection Act of 1957, and most recently, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010.</div><div><br /></div><div>In almost all cases, these acts did not set forth specific food safety laws, but delegated the responsibility to the FDA or the USDA. This was not an ethical consideration, but a practical consideration as Congress has generally relied on agency expertise to formulate science based standards for the safety of the public. Proponents of using a marketing agreement to enact food safety regulation thus contend that it is simply another example of how an agency can use its scientific expertise to carry out the intent of Congress under the Agricultural Marketing Agreements Act of 1937.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Critics of the recently proposed NLGMA provide two separate reasons why a marketing agreement is the wrong regulatory tool for food safety: (1) it is unethical to make food safety a marketing issue, and (2) Congress never intended marketing agreements to address food safety issues as just another quality issue.</div><div><br /></div><div>The first question is challenging, as there is neither one set of ethical standards that society adheres to under all circumstances, nor one type of regulatory tool that Congress always uses to address food safety issues. &nbsp;However, in its <a href="http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/nsac-opposes-nlgma/">public comment</a> to proposed NLGMA, NSAC stated the problem as thus:</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div><i>"The members of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition have issued a statement containing 16 core principles about food safety. The very first of those principles states: Food safety is noncompetitive and transparent. Everyone who lifts a fork has a right to safe and healthy food, just as they have a right to choose foods based on the qualities most important to them. "Food safety" should not be a competitive marketing food-trait, lest the most vulnerable people end up with access to only the least safe food, or simply fewer choices. Every person has a right to expect the safest possible food, and a right to absolute transparency about its production processes, no matter what they can afford to pay for it. Completely open, public information about what makes a food 'safe' is not negotiable."&nbsp;</i></div><div><br /></div><div>While this argument is compelling, it does seem to suggest that the secret goal of the NLGMA is to create a more expensive, less microbial contaminated food, which will then be marketed to consumers as a superior product compared with those leafy green vegetables not produced under the program.</div><div><br /></div><div>Given that marketing agreements are generally only targeted toward producers and handlers, not consumers, this is more than a little incongruous. The proponents of the NLGMA stated at the public hearing that the promotion and advertising to be conducted under the program would be targeted at those within the leafy green vegetable industry, and not consumers.</div><div><br /></div><div>There is also nothing in the record that would suggest that the general public would be any more aware of the NLGMA than they are aware of other marketing orders and agreements regulating the sale of milk and other agricultural products. Moreover, even if consumers did believe there were tangible health benefits to eating NLGMA-certified leafy green produce, it would certainly not be any more of a competitive advantage than what is already enjoyed by organic and local food producers who often advertise that their product is healthier and safer than conventionally produced foods.</div><div>&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>Yet even if it is not unethical, there is still the question of whether Congress ever intended AMS to utilize marketing agreements to address food safety as just another quality issue.</div><div><br /></div><div>&nbsp;In its public comment to the proposed NLGMA, NSAC stated the problem as thus:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>"The House version of what became the 2008 Farm Bill (Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) authorized the implementation of specialty crop marketing agreements for food safety. &nbsp;Industry sought this amendment precisely because they believed, correctly, that current law did not provide for comprehensive food safety controls via marketing agreements.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>After heated debate, the Conference Committee rejected the House provision, precisely based on the argument that marketing agreements are not the right instrument to address food safety concerns and that the Agricultural Marketing Service is not a food safety agency.</i></div><div><br /></div><div><i>Put simply, the leafy green and other specialty crop industry associations lost in their legislative campaign to change the law to provide authority for food safety marketing agreements such as the pending NLGMA. &nbsp;In order to save face, the industry scrambled to get language added to the Conference Report indicating that some marketing orders already issued by USDA have included "quality related provisions intended to enhance the safety of commodities" and that therefore the proposed statutory change was unnecessary.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>This "cover your losses" report language flies in the face of the industry's arguments in pursuing the amendment to begin with, and is at any rate irrelevant to the current consideration of the NLGMA. &nbsp;The NLGMA is not a broad marketing agreement that happens to touch on a few quality-related provisions that have some effect on food safety. It is through and through a food safety agreement, period."</i></div><div><br /></div><div>While this legislative history may be 100 percent accurate, it does not change the wording of the Act, or the broad delegation Congress originally gave to USDA and AMS to create marketing agreements. &nbsp;In 1937, <a href="http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/overviews/marketingorders.html">Congress created the Act</a> to protect farmers from price fluctuations created by market disruptions that impacted interstate commerce.</div><div><br /></div><div>To accomplish this goal, Congress delegated to the Secretary of Agriculture several important duties, including the powers to: (1) "establish and maintain such orderly marketing conditions for agricultural commodities in interstate commerce as will establish, as the price to farmers, parity prices", and (2) protect producers and consumers from "unreasonable fluctuations in supplies and prices."</div><div><br /></div><div>Given the detrimental impact of food safety outbreaks on agricultural markets, it is a problem that clearly falls within scope of the Act, regardless of later Congressional hearings and discussions. &nbsp;There is also no language in the Act that would exempt food safety issues from the wide range of other qualities issues covered under the Act. Therefore, the AMS is well within its delegated duties to utilize marketing agreements to address purely food safety related issues. &nbsp;Not because they are a quality issue, but because they directly impact the price of leafy green vegetables in interstate commerce.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Did Congress Already Address This Issue in the FSMA?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>There is no question that the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010 (FSMA) was the most important food safety legislation passed by Congress in decades. &nbsp;The real question is whether Congress fully addressed the food safety issue the NLGMA intended to regulate, thus making the proposed NLGMA conflict with the governing law.</div><div><br /></div><div>In brief, the <a href="http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm247546.htm">FSMA</a> directs the FDA to: (1) develop preventative science based food safety standards for covered facilities, (2) conduct regular inspections of covered facilities to hold them accountable, and (3) require importers to perform supplier verification activities. It also provides FDA with mandatory recall authority and requires enhanced collaboration activities with other state and federal agencies involved in food safety.</div><div><br /></div><div>Looking at the plain language of both the NLGMA and FSMA, there is some clear overlap when it comes to regulating leafy green vegetable producers and handlers. Under the FSMA, FDA is directed to develop preventative science based food safety standards for these groups and conduct regular inspections. &nbsp;Under the NLGMA, the AMS will be developing preventative science based food safety standards and conducting annual audits. &nbsp;In a best-case scenario, the two sets of rules would be identical and no conflict of law would be created.</div><div><br /></div><div>Moreover, if the rules drafted under the NLGMA are more stringent than those drafted by FDA, then both systems could mutually exist and complement each other. &nbsp;After all, the NLGMA is a voluntary system so if its handlers and growers want to hold themselves to higher standards than the FDA then who is to complain.</div><div><br /></div><div>On the other hand, if any of the food safety standards promulgated under the NLGMA are lower than those produced by FDA, than the rules promulgated by FDA would clearly take precedence. &nbsp; This is for two reasons: (1) the FSMA was passed by Congress more than 70 years after the Agricultural Marketing Adjustment Act of 1937, and (2) FSMA is a more clear delegation of Congressional power when it comes to developing science based food safety standards.</div><div><br /></div><div>FDA also has mandatory recall authority if food produced under the NLGMA is not sufficient to meet FDA standards. Yet, such an outcome will only occur if the two agencies completely ignore each other's rule making processes, and this seems unlikely since the FSMA clearly directs agencies to work more closely on issues regarding food safety.</div><div>&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>In response, critics of the NLGMA point out that the FSMA also included the Tester Amendment which exempted qualified facilities--either a very small businesses or those making less than $500,000/yr.--from much of the new regulation. &nbsp;In its public comments, NSAC framed the issue as thus:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>"We have sought repeated unqualified assurances from USDA that all of the protections carefully built into the FSMA by Congress to protect the interests of small and mid-sized farms, diversified farming operations, direct market operations, and local food producers would be fully recognized and scrupulously respected under the NLGMA. No such unqualified assurances were forthcoming. In fact, to the contrary, we were told by the Administrator that the ultimate decisions on issues like this would rest with the Review Committee and that while it is assumed that FDA regulations and implementation process will be adopted by the NLGMA, there is a chance these particular issues would be among those that the NLGMA might amend through the process established in the proposed Agreement."</i></div><div><br /></div><div>The problem with this line of argument is that the NLGMA is a voluntary system, whereas the FSMA is a mandatory system. &nbsp;As such, the two systems of regulation are not really in conflict as no qualified facilities exempted under the FSMA have to participate in the NLGMA, and those facilities who choose to participate under the NLGMA essentially consent to be bound to USDA-AMS rulemaking.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>This will be an important consideration to many small to medium sized operations who will need to balance the economic benefits of participating in the NLGMA, with the increased financial costs associated with annual audits and bringing their operations into compliance.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>An Unfair Burden to Small- and Medium-Sized Operations?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>As the NLGMA does not contain any specific production standards to date, it is difficult to know with any certainty what its financial costs will be for producers and handlers involved in the program.</div><div><br /></div><div>In general terms, three financial costs are anticipated for those who wish to participate: (1) the initial costs of bringing one's operation into compliance with the program, (2) the cost of annual audits, and (3) the annual costs of maintaining compliance as the program evolves and changes. &nbsp;These additional costs could potentially be balanced out by increased market stability, and a greater ability for participants to sell product into both domestic and international markets.</div><div><br /></div><div>Based on cost estimates from a University of California report, AMS estimates "the total one-time modification costs at the farm level" to be "between $1.2- and $3.0 million, and an estimated average range of $14-$34 per acre for modification costs." On top of this initial cost would be annual compliance costs estimated at $2.7- to $4.4 million, or $30-50 per acre.</div><div><br /></div><div>Of course, these estimates do not include the costs for California and Arizona producers currently involved in state marketing agreements. The producers from these two states are estimated to have spent $6.1- $14.7 million to bring their operations into compliance with their current rules, and spend between $13- to $21.7 million in annual compliance costs.</div><div><br /></div><div>Annual handler assessments for the program would range between $5.7- to $28.6 million depending upon the whether the assessment was the program minimum of $0.01 per carton, or the program maximum of $0.05 per carton.</div><div><br /></div><div>Based on these estimates, a hundred acre leafy green vegetable operation in Arkansas would spend between $1,400 to $3,400 in one-time compliance costs and between $3-5000 annually to maintain compliance. &nbsp;Such costs are hardly insignificant for small to medium sized operations, especially for those who might otherwise be exempt from similar regulations under the Tester Amendment of the FSMA.</div><div><br /></div><div>The only silver lining is that the proposed NLGMA is a voluntary program for handlers to participate in. As such, producers should definitely discuss their financial operations with their handlers to determine whether the economic benefits of participating in the NLGMA would offset their estimated costs.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Will Leafy Greens Producers Support the Agreement?</b></div><div><br /></div><div>In drafting its proposed marketing agreement, the NLGMA has provided producers and handlers with one potential tool to help reduce foodborne contamination in their production systems.</div><div><br /></div><div>Whether it becomes law will ultimately depend upon what changes the agency makes after the latest round of public comments, and whether the proposed marketing agreement will be supported by a 2/3 majority of all leafy green vegetable producers in the nation. &nbsp;The effectiveness of such an agreement is also difficult to estimate, as the Board will need to be appointed and make its recommendation to the Secretary of Agriculture.</div><div><br /></div><div>This will lead to yet more rulemaking, and additional opportunities for public comment. &nbsp;As such, proponents and opponents of the NLGMA should not expect any final food safety production standards for at least another 18 to 24 months.</div><div><br /></div><div>--------------------------</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Judd Jensen is pursuing his LL.M. &nbsp;in Agricultural and Food Law at the University of of Arkansas. &nbsp;Prior to returning to law school, he worked in food safety and quality assurance for nearly a decade.&nbsp;</i></div><div><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/BXJLIq9a07s" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/BXJLIq9a07s/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/marketing-food-safety/ Opinion & Contributed Articles Sat, 18 Feb 2012 01:59:04 -0800 jmjensen25@gmail.com (Judd Jensen) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/marketing-food-safety/ <div>The international organic market just got a little bigger. &nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan announced Wednesday that the organic certifying programs in the United States and Europe Union are now considered equivalent. &nbsp;The new partnership between the two largest organic producers in the world means that products certified organic under one certification scheme can be sold as organic in the other without additional certification and paperwork.</div><div><br /></div><div>Prior to the partnership, producers and companies seeking to trade their organic products both domestically and abroad had to obtain two separate certifications, one from the U.S. and one from the EU. &nbsp;Each certification required its own fees, inspections, and paperwork. &nbsp;By declaring the organic standards equivalent, the partnership eliminates many significant barriers, especially for small and medium-sized organic producers.</div><div><br /></div><div>In a press release, Deputy Secretary Merrigan noted the new partnership "is a win for the American economy and President Obama's jobs strategy. &nbsp;This partnership will open new markets for American farmers and ranchers, create more opportunities for small businesses, and result in good jobs for Americans who package, ship, and market organic products."</div><div><br /></div><div>The partnership recognizes that while the certification standards are compatible, there are some differences that need to be addressed. &nbsp;As a general rule, all products that meet the terms of the partnership may be traded and labeled as certified organic produce, meat, cereal, or wine. &nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The major difference comes in the use of antibiotics. &nbsp;Under the agreement, U.S. apples and pears produced using antibiotics (to control fire blight) may not be exported to the EU, and EU meat and milk derived from animals treated with antibiotics may not be exported to the U.S..</div><div><br /></div><div>The terms of the partnership require the U.S. and EU to have regular discussions and to periodically review each other's programs to ensure that the partnership agreement is being met.</div><div><br /></div><div>The international trade implications of this partnership are huge. &nbsp;The combined value of the EU and U.S. organic sectors is valued at $50 billion each year, and growing. &nbsp;Officials at USDA estimate that U.S. organic exports to Europe will triple within three years.</div><div><br /></div><div>EU Commissioner Dacian Ciolos noted that the partnership "improves transparency on organic standards, and enhances consumers' confidence and recognition of our organic food and products. &nbsp;This partnership marks an important step, taking EU-U.S. agricultural trade relations to a new level of cooperation."</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/7sGBtJ-DOKo" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/7sGBtJ-DOKo/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/us-eu-organic-standards-declared-equivalent/ Food Policy & Law World Sat, 18 Feb 2012 01:59:02 -0800 allicondra@gmail.com (Alli Condra) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/us-eu-organic-standards-declared-equivalent/ <div>The international organic market just got a little bigger. &nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Agriculture Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan announced Wednesday that the organic certifying programs in the United States and Europe Union are now considered equivalent. &nbsp;The new partnership between the two largest organic producers in the world means that products certified organic under one certification scheme can be sold as organic in the other without additional certification and paperwork.</div><div><br /></div><div>Prior to the partnership, producers and companies seeking to trade their organic products both domestically and abroad had to obtain two separate certifications, one from the U.S. and one from the EU. &nbsp;Each certification required its own fees, inspections, and paperwork. &nbsp;By declaring the organic standards equivalent, the partnership eliminates many significant barriers, especially for small and medium-sized organic producers.</div><div><br /></div><div>In a press release, Deputy Secretary Merrigan noted the new partnership "is a win for the American economy and President Obama's jobs strategy. &nbsp;This partnership will open new markets for American farmers and ranchers, create more opportunities for small businesses, and result in good jobs for Americans who package, ship, and market organic products."</div><div><br /></div><div>The partnership recognizes that while the certification standards are compatible, there are some differences that need to be addressed. &nbsp;As a general rule, all products that meet the terms of the partnership may be traded and labeled as certified organic produce, meat, cereal, or wine. &nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The major difference comes in the use of antibiotics. &nbsp;Under the agreement, U.S. apples and pears produced using antibiotics (to control fire blight) may not be exported to the EU, and EU meat and milk derived from animals treated with antibiotics may not be exported to the U.S..</div><div><br /></div><div>The terms of the partnership require the U.S. and EU to have regular discussions and to periodically review each other's programs to ensure that the partnership agreement is being met.</div><div><br /></div><div>The international trade implications of this partnership are huge. &nbsp;The combined value of the EU and U.S. organic sectors is valued at $50 billion each year, and growing. &nbsp;Officials at USDA estimate that U.S. organic exports to Europe will triple within three years.</div><div><br /></div><div>EU Commissioner Dacian Ciolos noted that the partnership "improves transparency on organic standards, and enhances consumers' confidence and recognition of our organic food and products. &nbsp;This partnership marks an important step, taking EU-U.S. agricultural trade relations to a new level of cooperation."</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/7sGBtJ-DOKo" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/7sGBtJ-DOKo/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/us-eu-organic-standards-declared-equivalent/ Food Policy & Law World Sat, 18 Feb 2012 01:59:02 -0800 allicondra@gmail.com (Alli Condra) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/us-eu-organic-standards-declared-equivalent/ <div>Campylobacter may have struck yet another raw-milk dairy.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://claravaledairy.com/">Claravale Farm</a>, one of the two state-licensed commercial raw milk dairies in California, is being investigated for the possibility that some of its milk was contaminated with <a href="http://www.about-campylobacter.com/">Campylobacter,</a> an infectious disease that can cause serious gastric problems and in some cases can be life-threatening.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Raw milk is milk that hasn't been pasteurized to kill harmful bacteria that may be present in the milk. &nbsp;An <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/raw-milk-campylobacter-outbreak-expands/">ongoing Campylobacter outbreak</a> involving product from a Pennsylvania raw milk dairy has so far sickened at least 77.</div><div><br /></div><div>Claravale Dairy last week voluntarily stopped distributing to the <a href="http://claravaledairy.com/store_list.html">many stores</a> that sell its products, which include cream and raw cow and goat milk. Its distribution area ranges from the Bay Area all the way down to San Diego. However, as of Feb. 17, the dairy had not yet informed its customers, either through its website or its <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Claravale-Farms/292384197452709">Facebook page</a>, that it had stopped production.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The dairy, which is owned by husband and wife Ron Garthwaite and Collette Cassidy, did not respond to an e-mail and a phone call request for comment from <b>Food Safety News</b>.</div><div><br /></div><div>According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control Prevention, unpasteurized milk can become contaminated if the cow has an infection with Campylobacter in her udder or the milk is contaminated with manure.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Matt Conens, a spokesman for the state's Public Health Department, said the agency is working with local health departments on reported illnesses where raw milk was consumed prior to the onset of illness.&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>"More than one bacterial agent causing gastrointestinal illness is being investigated, including campylobacter," he said in an e-mail to <b>Food Safety News</b>. But because the investigation is ongoing, the department cannot provide information about the number of reported illnesses or their locations.</div><div><br /></div><div>Steve Lyle, spokesman for the state's Agriculture Department, said in a Feb. 16 e-mail to <b>Food Safety News</b> that the department is aware of the action taken by Claravale and that tests of the dairy's products are pending. The department is also taking samples from the dairy itself. Results are still several days away, Lyle said, and the department has not taken any regulatory action.</div><div><br /></div><div>According to information provided by Claravale on a "<a href="http://claravaledairy.com/faq.html"><b>fact sheet</b></a>"&nbsp;about raw milk, raw milk can be stored in refrigerators for up to two weeks. This means that customers may still&nbsp;have some of the dairy's raw milk in their refrigerators.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Claravale Farm, located in San Benito, Calif., has been producing raw milk since 1927.&nbsp;As of September 2011, it had a herd of 65 Jersey cows. It has recently added some goats to its operation. Its website touts its milk as being "entirely natural" and unprocessed. Until this investigation by the state, it has not had a problem with foodborne illnesses linked to its milk.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/CoKWe8V3ZgY" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/CoKWe8V3ZgY/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/campylobacter-investigation-at-cas-oldest-raw-milk-dairy/ Foodborne Illness Outbreaks Foodborne Illness Investigations Nutrition & Public Health Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:45:01 -0800 cooksonb@sos.net (Cookson Beecher) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/campylobacter-investigation-at-cas-oldest-raw-milk-dairy/ <div>Campylobacter may have struck yet another raw-milk dairy.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://claravaledairy.com/">Claravale Farm</a>, one of the two state-licensed commercial raw milk dairies in California, is being investigated for the possibility that some of its milk was contaminated with <a href="http://www.about-campylobacter.com/">Campylobacter,</a> an infectious disease that can cause serious gastric problems and in some cases can be life-threatening.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Raw milk is milk that hasn't been pasteurized to kill harmful bacteria that may be present in the milk. &nbsp;An <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/raw-milk-campylobacter-outbreak-expands/">ongoing Campylobacter outbreak</a> involving product from a Pennsylvania raw milk dairy has so far sickened at least 77.</div><div><br /></div><div>Claravale Dairy last week voluntarily stopped distributing to the <a href="http://claravaledairy.com/store_list.html">many stores</a> that sell its products, which include cream and raw cow and goat milk. Its distribution area ranges from the Bay Area all the way down to San Diego. However, as of Feb. 17, the dairy had not yet informed its customers, either through its website or its <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Claravale-Farms/292384197452709">Facebook page</a>, that it had stopped production.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The dairy, which is owned by husband and wife Ron Garthwaite and Collette Cassidy, did not respond to an e-mail and a phone call request for comment from <b>Food Safety News</b>.</div><div><br /></div><div>According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control Prevention, unpasteurized milk can become contaminated if the cow has an infection with Campylobacter in her udder or the milk is contaminated with manure.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Matt Conens, a spokesman for the state's Public Health Department, said the agency is working with local health departments on reported illnesses where raw milk was consumed prior to the onset of illness.&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>"More than one bacterial agent causing gastrointestinal illness is being investigated, including campylobacter," he said in an e-mail to <b>Food Safety News</b>. But because the investigation is ongoing, the department cannot provide information about the number of reported illnesses or their locations.</div><div><br /></div><div>Steve Lyle, spokesman for the state's Agriculture Department, said in a Feb. 16 e-mail to <b>Food Safety News</b> that the department is aware of the action taken by Claravale and that tests of the dairy's products are pending. The department is also taking samples from the dairy itself. Results are still several days away, Lyle said, and the department has not taken any regulatory action.</div><div><br /></div><div>According to information provided by Claravale on a "<a href="http://claravaledairy.com/faq.html"><b>fact sheet</b></a>"&nbsp;about raw milk, raw milk can be stored in refrigerators for up to two weeks. This means that customers may still&nbsp;have some of the dairy's raw milk in their refrigerators.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Claravale Farm, located in San Benito, Calif., has been producing raw milk since 1927.&nbsp;As of September 2011, it had a herd of 65 Jersey cows. It has recently added some goats to its operation. Its website touts its milk as being "entirely natural" and unprocessed. Until this investigation by the state, it has not had a problem with foodborne illnesses linked to its milk.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/CoKWe8V3ZgY" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/CoKWe8V3ZgY/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/campylobacter-investigation-at-cas-oldest-raw-milk-dairy/ Foodborne Illness Outbreaks Foodborne Illness Investigations Nutrition & Public Health Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:45:01 -0800 cooksonb@sos.net (Cookson Beecher) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/campylobacter-investigation-at-cas-oldest-raw-milk-dairy/ <div>Campylobacter may have struck yet another raw-milk dairy.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://claravaledairy.com/">Claravale Farm</a>, one of the two state-licensed commercial raw milk dairies in California, is being investigated for the possibility that some of its milk was contaminated with <a href="http://www.about-campylobacter.com/">Campylobacter,</a> an infectious disease that can cause serious gastric problems and in some cases can be life-threatening.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Raw milk is milk that hasn't been pasteurized to kill harmful bacteria that may be present in the milk. &nbsp;An <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/raw-milk-campylobacter-outbreak-expands/">ongoing Campylobacter outbreak</a> involving product from a Pennsylvania raw milk dairy has so far sickened at least 77.</div><div><br /></div><div>Claravale Dairy last week voluntarily stopped distributing to the <a href="http://claravaledairy.com/store_list.html">many stores</a> that sell its products, which include cream and raw cow and goat milk. Its distribution area ranges from the Bay Area all the way down to San Diego. However, as of Feb. 17, the dairy had not yet informed its customers, either through its website or its <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Claravale-Farms/292384197452709">Facebook page</a>, that it had stopped production.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The dairy, which is owned by husband and wife Ron Garthwaite and Collette Cassidy, did not respond to an e-mail and a phone call request for comment from <b>Food Safety News</b>.</div><div><br /></div><div>According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control Prevention, unpasteurized milk can become contaminated if the cow has an infection with Campylobacter in her udder or the milk is contaminated with manure.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Matt Conens, a spokesman for the state's Public Health Department, said the agency is working with local health departments on reported illnesses where raw milk was consumed prior to the onset of illness.&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>"More than one bacterial agent causing gastrointestinal illness is being investigated, including campylobacter," he said in an e-mail to <b>Food Safety News</b>. But because the investigation is ongoing, the department cannot provide information about the number of reported illnesses or their locations.</div><div><br /></div><div>Steve Lyle, spokesman for the state's Agriculture Department, said in a Feb. 16 e-mail to <b>Food Safety News</b> that the department is aware of the action taken by Claravale and that tests of the dairy's products are pending. The department is also taking samples from the dairy itself. Results are still several days away, Lyle said, and the department has not taken any regulatory action.</div><div><br /></div><div>According to information provided by Claravale on a "<a href="http://claravaledairy.com/faq.html"><b>fact sheet</b></a>"&nbsp;about raw milk, raw milk can be stored in refrigerators for up to two weeks. This means that customers may still&nbsp;have some of the dairy's raw milk in their refrigerators.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Claravale Farm, located in San Benito, Calif., has been producing raw milk since 1927.&nbsp;As of September 2011, it had a herd of 65 Jersey cows. It has recently added some goats to its operation. Its website touts its milk as being "entirely natural" and unprocessed. Until this investigation by the state, it has not had a problem with foodborne illnesses linked to its milk.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/CoKWe8V3ZgY" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/CoKWe8V3ZgY/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/campylobacter-investigation-at-cas-oldest-raw-milk-dairy/ Foodborne Illness Outbreaks Foodborne Illness Investigations Nutrition & Public Health Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:45:01 -0800 cooksonb@sos.net (Cookson Beecher) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/campylobacter-investigation-at-cas-oldest-raw-milk-dairy/ <div>Brown rice syrup used in many organic foods as a substitute for the often-chastised high fructose corn sugar is causing problems of its own with high arsenic levels.</div><div><br /></div><div>That means danger for those consuming such products as "organic" infant milk formula, cereal bars or high energy foods that contain the organic brown rice syrup (OBRS) as an ingredient, according to a Dartmouth College research team led by Brian Jackson.</div><div><br /></div><div>Jackson is director of Trace Metal Analysis at Dartmouth's Department of Earth Science. &nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The team's findings on arsenic in foods containing OBRS were <a href="http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1104619">published Thursday in Environmental Health Perspectives</a>, the online peer-reviewed open access journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Science.</div><div><br /></div><div>There is "an urgent need for regulatory limits" for arsenic in foods, the researchers say, as there are no current U.S. regulations that set such limits.</div><div><br /></div><div>After testing 17 infant formulas, 27 cereal bars and three different "energy shot" drinks, the team found levels significantly above the level established for public drinking water.</div><div><br /></div><div>In 2001, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - using recommendations from a series of independent panels - set the limit for public drinking water&nbsp;at 10 parts per billion (ppb). &nbsp;The earlier limit, in place since the 1940s, was 50 ppb.</div><div><br /></div><div>Dartmouth researchers found cereal bars with inorganic arsenic levels raining from 23 to 128 ppb. One of the "energy shot" drinks registered at 84 ppm, and the two others hit 171 ppb.&nbsp;The infant formula came in at 8.6 ppb for dairy-based, and 21.4 ppb for soy-based.</div><div><br /></div><div>While the cereal bars and "energy shots" returned much higher levels, Jackson is most concerned about the organic infant formulas because these are often a baby's sole source of nutrition.</div><div><br /></div><div>Rice plants take up arsenic through the soil because the dangerous substance behaves much like silica, which rice needs to grow. &nbsp;Brown rice tends to collect arsenic in higher levels, but amounts vary.</div><div><br /></div><div>The study's release brought out TV doctors on most major network news shows to warn the public once again that they should not mix up "organic" with "safe."&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Others on Jackson's team are Vivien F. Taylor, Margaret R. Karagas, Tracy Punshon and Kathryn L. Cottingham.</div><div><br /></div><div>Arsenic at levels higher than the EPA drinking water standard have also been found recently in juices popular with children.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/ZCEJJlTTnnk" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/ZCEJJlTTnnk/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/brown-rice-syrup-puts-arsenic-in-those-organics/ Nutrition & Public Health Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:59:10 -0800 dflynn@foodsafetynews.com (Dan Flynn) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/brown-rice-syrup-puts-arsenic-in-those-organics/ <div>An additional Campylobacter infection has brought the total number of illnesses to 77 in an outbreak linked to raw milk from Your Family Cow dairy in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The Pennsylvania Department of Health reported the additional illness Thursday, according to <a href="http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/fs/food-disease/news/feb1612newsscan.html">CIDRAP</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>The outbreak began at the end of January. Since that time, at least 9 people have been hospitalized.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The new breakdown of illnesses by state is as follows:</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Pennsylvania (67 illnesses), Maryland (5), West Virginia (3), New Jersey (2).</div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/URuJzGeWExM" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/URuJzGeWExM/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/raw-milk-campylobacter-outbreak-expands/ Foodborne Illness Outbreaks Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:59:09 -0800 info@foodsafetynews.com (News Desk) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/raw-milk-campylobacter-outbreak-expands/ <div>A Massachusetts-based company is recalling approximately 3,800 pounds of chili products because they may not have undergone federal inspection.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The Chili Station, located in Ludlow, MA, voluntarily recalled containers of its beef and turkey chili Thursday. No illnesses have been linked to the consumption of these products. 

</div><div><br /></div><div>The following products are subject to recall:</div><div><br /></div><div>- 5 gallon containers and 1-gallon bags of "The Chili Station" Beef Chili with Beans</div><div><br /></div><div>- 5 gallon containers and 1-gallon of "The Chili Station" Beef Chili with Beans and/or Turkey Chili</div><div>
Establishment numbers "EST. 6380" or "P-6380" may be printed on labels or packaging, inside the mark of inspection or ink-jetted on the case label.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The chili products were distributed and sold in Massachusetts. The problem was discovered during a routine Food Safety Assessment conducted by FSIS. 

Anyone with concerns surrounding the recall should contact Jeffrey Belkin, a company representative, at (413) 883-5096.

</div><div><br /></div><div>The recall notice is available <a href="http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&amp;_Events/Recall_010_2012_Release/index.asp">here</a>.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/yZmGBelx3J8" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/yZmGBelx3J8/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/ma-company-recalls-chili-for-lack-of-inspection/ Food Recalls Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:59:06 -0800 omarler@foodsafetynews.com (Olivia Marler) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/ma-company-recalls-chili-for-lack-of-inspection/ The Food and Drug Administration published <a href="http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/FruitsVegetablesJuices/ucm287783.htm">a new update</a> on Thursday to its ongoing testing of imported orange juice for the fungicide carbendazim, a compound restricted from agriculture in the United States.<br /><br />Since January 9, the FDA has tested samples from 104 shipments of orange juice and orange juice concentrate. Out of those, the agency found 24 shipments that contained at least 10 parts per billion (ppb) of carbendazim.<br /><br />Half of those 24 shipments came from Canada, while the other half came from Brazil. The FDA has added the food processors associated with those shipments to its Import Alert 99-08 list.<br /><br />Of the shipments testing negative for carbendazim, 57 have been released for sale. Those shipments came from: Canada (22 shipments), Mexico (18), Dominican Republic (3), Italy (2), Argentina (2), Costa Rica (2), Honduras (2), Trinidad &amp; Tobago (2), Brazil (1), Lebanon (1), Belize (1) and Turkey (1).<br /><br />The FDA began testing all orange juice imports for carbendazim in January after being alerted by Coca Cola -- owner of Minute Maid and Simply Orange -- that some juice from Brazil had tested positive for the fungicide. <br /><br />The Environmental Protection Agency considers carbendazim levels below 80 ppb safe for human consumption. In earlier tests of shipments, those containing the fungicide ranged in concentration from 13 to 36 ppb. The FDA will not allow sale of any shipments containing more than 10 ppb.<br /><br />On Thursday, the FDA also&nbsp;<a href="http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/FruitsVegetablesJuices/ucm292257.htm">rejected a request</a> by the Brazilian Citrus Exporters Association to have levels of carbendazim in orange juice concentrate assessed according to its "single strength" level -- the levels that would be found once the concentrate is mixed with the intended ratio of water. Brazilian orange growers recently began using carbendazim to combat a problem with "black spot," a mold that grows on trees.<br /><br />The FDA plans to continue testing orange juice imports for carbendazim and will publish updates every Thursday evening.<br /><br /><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/ZjRd_V0dmzU" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/ZjRd_V0dmzU/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/fda-updates-information-on-fungicides-in-oj/ Food Recalls Government Agencies Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:59:03 -0800 jandrews@foodsafetynews.com (James Andrews) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/fda-updates-information-on-fungicides-in-oj/ The Food and Drug Administration published <a href="http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/FruitsVegetablesJuices/ucm287783.htm">a new update</a> on Thursday to its ongoing testing of imported orange juice for the fungicide carbendazim, a compound restricted from agriculture in the United States.<br /><br />Since January 9, the FDA has tested samples from 104 shipments of orange juice and orange juice concentrate. Out of those, the agency found 24 shipments that contained at least 10 parts per billion (ppb) of carbendazim.<br /><br />Half of those 24 shipments came from Canada, while the other half came from Brazil. The FDA has added the food processors associated with those shipments to its Import Alert 99-08 list.<br /><br />Of the shipments testing negative for carbendazim, 57 have been released for sale. Those shipments came from: Canada (22 shipments), Mexico (18), Dominican Republic (3), Italy (2), Argentina (2), Costa Rica (2), Honduras (2), Trinidad &amp; Tobago (2), Brazil (1), Lebanon (1), Belize (1) and Turkey (1).<br /><br />The FDA began testing all orange juice imports for carbendazim in January after being alerted by Coca Cola -- owner of Minute Maid and Simply Orange -- that some juice from Brazil had tested positive for the fungicide. <br /><br />The Environmental Protection Agency considers carbendazim levels below 80 ppb safe for human consumption. In earlier tests of shipments, those containing the fungicide ranged in concentration from 13 to 36 ppb. The FDA will not allow sale of any shipments containing more than 10 ppb.<br /><br />On Thursday, the FDA also&nbsp;<a href="http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/FruitsVegetablesJuices/ucm292257.htm">rejected a request</a> by the Brazilian Citrus Exporters Association to have levels of carbendazim in orange juice concentrate assessed according to its "single strength" level -- the levels that would be found once the concentrate is mixed with the intended ratio of water. Brazilian orange growers recently began using carbendazim to combat a problem with "black spot," a mold that grows on trees.<br /><br />The FDA plans to continue testing orange juice imports for carbendazim and will publish updates every Thursday evening.<br /><br /><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/ZjRd_V0dmzU" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/ZjRd_V0dmzU/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/fda-updates-information-on-fungicides-in-oj/ Food Recalls Government Agencies Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:59:03 -0800 jandrews@foodsafetynews.com (James Andrews) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/fda-updates-information-on-fungicides-in-oj/ <div>In the wake of the devastating European E. coli outbreak linked to sprouts that killed at least 50 people and sickened more than 4,000, experts from the European Union and the United States are calling for new research on how to combat toxic strains of E. coli.</div><div><br /></div><div>In November of 2011, 4 months after the outbreak ended, an international group of public health officials, medical professionals, epidemiologists, microbiologists and environmental scientists met to determine what lessons can be drawn from this epidemic. The results of this summit were released Thursday in Eurosurveillance.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The group determined that more needs to be learned about shiga toxin-producing E. colis (STECs) such as E. coli O104:H4, the strain responsible for the European outbreak.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>One valuable tool for future studies is data from the outbreak itself. Many novelty treatments were used on patients with HUS, a life-threatening complication of an STEC infection that attacks the kidneys. Experts also suggest research into the affects of antibiotics on STEC patients, as well as ways to remove these toxins from the gastrointestinal tract after diagnosis.</div><div><br /></div><div>The group also recommended studies to improve the epidemiological process, including improved STEC detection in labs and systems for tracing food back to its source.</div><div><br /></div><div>Experts stressed the need to understand pathogenic E. coli - how to identify it and how to track it as it evolves in humans, animals and the environment.</div><div><br /></div><div>Finally, efforts must be made to prevent pathogens from getting into the food supply, the group noted. This can be achieved by pinpointing where in the production process food is at risk of contamination and eliminating product exposure to fecal matter in the environment. &nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The committee emphasized the importance of funding the research projects it recommended.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>"As it is an obligation of the scientific community to investigate these research questions it is also in the responsibility of national and international funding bodies to fund the respective research programmes" says the report.</div><div><br /></div><div>An important part of understanding the value of foodborne illness research will be knowing the cost of an outbreak to society, according to the panel.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>"Estimating the costs of this outbreak and of infectious intestinal disease in general...is pivotal to guide decision makers in rationally allocating financial resources for research and surveillance of infectious diseases."</div><div><br /></div><div>The full report is available <a href="http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=20091">here</a>.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/2Zvi3BU4olE" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/2Zvi3BU4olE/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/summit-european-outbreak-points-to-need-for-more-e-coli-research/ Science & Research Foodborne Illness Investigations Nutrition & Public Health World Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:59:02 -0800 ggoetz@foodsafetynews.com (Gretchen Goetz) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/summit-european-outbreak-points-to-need-for-more-e-coli-research/ <div>In the wake of the devastating European E. coli outbreak linked to sprouts that killed at least 50 people and sickened more than 4,000, experts from the European Union and the United States are calling for new research on how to combat toxic strains of E. coli.</div><div><br /></div><div>In November of 2011, 4 months after the outbreak ended, an international group of public health officials, medical professionals, epidemiologists, microbiologists and environmental scientists met to determine what lessons can be drawn from this epidemic. The results of this summit were released Thursday in Eurosurveillance.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The group determined that more needs to be learned about shiga toxin-producing E. colis (STECs) such as E. coli O104:H4, the strain responsible for the European outbreak.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>One valuable tool for future studies is data from the outbreak itself. Many novelty treatments were used on patients with HUS, a life-threatening complication of an STEC infection that attacks the kidneys. Experts also suggest research into the affects of antibiotics on STEC patients, as well as ways to remove these toxins from the gastrointestinal tract after diagnosis.</div><div><br /></div><div>The group also recommended studies to improve the epidemiological process, including improved STEC detection in labs and systems for tracing food back to its source.</div><div><br /></div><div>Experts stressed the need to understand pathogenic E. coli - how to identify it and how to track it as it evolves in humans, animals and the environment.</div><div><br /></div><div>Finally, efforts must be made to prevent pathogens from getting into the food supply, the group noted. This can be achieved by pinpointing where in the production process food is at risk of contamination and eliminating product exposure to fecal matter in the environment. &nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The committee emphasized the importance of funding the research projects it recommended.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>"As it is an obligation of the scientific community to investigate these research questions it is also in the responsibility of national and international funding bodies to fund the respective research programmes" says the report.</div><div><br /></div><div>An important part of understanding the value of foodborne illness research will be knowing the cost of an outbreak to society, according to the panel.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>"Estimating the costs of this outbreak and of infectious intestinal disease in general...is pivotal to guide decision makers in rationally allocating financial resources for research and surveillance of infectious diseases."</div><div><br /></div><div>The full report is available <a href="http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=20091">here</a>.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/2Zvi3BU4olE" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/2Zvi3BU4olE/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/summit-european-outbreak-points-to-need-for-more-e-coli-research/ Science & Research Foodborne Illness Investigations Nutrition & Public Health World Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:59:02 -0800 ggoetz@foodsafetynews.com (Gretchen Goetz) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/summit-european-outbreak-points-to-need-for-more-e-coli-research/ <div>In the wake of the devastating European E. coli outbreak linked to sprouts that killed at least 50 people and sickened more than 4,000, experts from the European Union and the United States are calling for new research on how to combat toxic strains of E. coli.</div><div><br /></div><div>In November of 2011, 4 months after the outbreak ended, an international group of public health officials, medical professionals, epidemiologists, microbiologists and environmental scientists met to determine what lessons can be drawn from this epidemic. The results of this summit were released Thursday in Eurosurveillance.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The group determined that more needs to be learned about shiga toxin-producing E. colis (STECs) such as E. coli O104:H4, the strain responsible for the European outbreak.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>One valuable tool for future studies is data from the outbreak itself. Many novelty treatments were used on patients with HUS, a life-threatening complication of an STEC infection that attacks the kidneys. Experts also suggest research into the affects of antibiotics on STEC patients, as well as ways to remove these toxins from the gastrointestinal tract after diagnosis.</div><div><br /></div><div>The group also recommended studies to improve the epidemiological process, including improved STEC detection in labs and systems for tracing food back to its source.</div><div><br /></div><div>Experts stressed the need to understand pathogenic E. coli - how to identify it and how to track it as it evolves in humans, animals and the environment.</div><div><br /></div><div>Finally, efforts must be made to prevent pathogens from getting into the food supply, the group noted. This can be achieved by pinpointing where in the production process food is at risk of contamination and eliminating product exposure to fecal matter in the environment. &nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The committee emphasized the importance of funding the research projects it recommended.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>"As it is an obligation of the scientific community to investigate these research questions it is also in the responsibility of national and international funding bodies to fund the respective research programmes" says the report.</div><div><br /></div><div>An important part of understanding the value of foodborne illness research will be knowing the cost of an outbreak to society, according to the panel.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>"Estimating the costs of this outbreak and of infectious intestinal disease in general...is pivotal to guide decision makers in rationally allocating financial resources for research and surveillance of infectious diseases."</div><div><br /></div><div>The full report is available <a href="http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=20091">here</a>.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/2Zvi3BU4olE" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/2Zvi3BU4olE/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/summit-european-outbreak-points-to-need-for-more-e-coli-research/ Science & Research Foodborne Illness Investigations Nutrition & Public Health World Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:59:02 -0800 ggoetz@foodsafetynews.com (Gretchen Goetz) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/summit-european-outbreak-points-to-need-for-more-e-coli-research/ <div>In the wake of the devastating European E. coli outbreak linked to sprouts that killed at least 50 people and sickened more than 4,000, experts from the European Union and the United States are calling for new research on how to combat toxic strains of E. coli.</div><div><br /></div><div>In November of 2011, 4 months after the outbreak ended, an international group of public health officials, medical professionals, epidemiologists, microbiologists and environmental scientists met to determine what lessons can be drawn from this epidemic. The results of this summit were released Thursday in Eurosurveillance.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The group determined that more needs to be learned about shiga toxin-producing E. colis (STECs) such as E. coli O104:H4, the strain responsible for the European outbreak.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>One valuable tool for future studies is data from the outbreak itself. Many novelty treatments were used on patients with HUS, a life-threatening complication of an STEC infection that attacks the kidneys. Experts also suggest research into the affects of antibiotics on STEC patients, as well as ways to remove these toxins from the gastrointestinal tract after diagnosis.</div><div><br /></div><div>The group also recommended studies to improve the epidemiological process, including improved STEC detection in labs and systems for tracing food back to its source.</div><div><br /></div><div>Experts stressed the need to understand pathogenic E. coli - how to identify it and how to track it as it evolves in humans, animals and the environment.</div><div><br /></div><div>Finally, efforts must be made to prevent pathogens from getting into the food supply, the group noted. This can be achieved by pinpointing where in the production process food is at risk of contamination and eliminating product exposure to fecal matter in the environment. &nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The committee emphasized the importance of funding the research projects it recommended.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>"As it is an obligation of the scientific community to investigate these research questions it is also in the responsibility of national and international funding bodies to fund the respective research programmes" says the report.</div><div><br /></div><div>An important part of understanding the value of foodborne illness research will be knowing the cost of an outbreak to society, according to the panel.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>"Estimating the costs of this outbreak and of infectious intestinal disease in general...is pivotal to guide decision makers in rationally allocating financial resources for research and surveillance of infectious diseases."</div><div><br /></div><div>The full report is available <a href="http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=20091">here</a>.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/2Zvi3BU4olE" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/2Zvi3BU4olE/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/summit-european-outbreak-points-to-need-for-more-e-coli-research/ Science & Research Foodborne Illness Investigations Nutrition & Public Health World Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:59:02 -0800 ggoetz@foodsafetynews.com (Gretchen Goetz) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/summit-european-outbreak-points-to-need-for-more-e-coli-research/ The United States and China signed a five year agreement on food security, sustainable agriculture, and food safety at an agricultural symposium in Iowa Thursday. <br /><br />"We are the world's two largest agricultural producers and strong collaborators in agricultural research and education," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack at the event. "Our great trade relationship benefits the citizens of both of our nations."<br /><br />"This plan builds on the already strong relationship our nations enjoy around agricultural science, trade, and education," added Vilsack. "It looks to deepen our cooperation through technical exchange and to strengthen coordination in priority areas like animal and plant health and disease, food security, sustainable agriculture, genetic resources, agricultural markets and trade, and biotechnology and other emerging technologies."<br /><br />The agreement was largely focused food security and agricultural sustainability issues -- China has 1.3 billion people to feed, and is increasingly relying on imports -- but food safety was also a key part of the document, which USDA says will "guide the two countries' agricultural relationship for the next 5 years."<br /><br />Vilsack told the audience Thursday the China and the United States "have opportunities to collaborate and partner on food safety" through implementing best practices and advancing science-based laws and regulations.<br /><br />&nbsp;<br /><br /><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/e2HIwsSqGec" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/e2HIwsSqGec/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/us-and-china-sign-5-year-ag-agreement-on-food-safety-security/ Government Agencies World Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:59:01 -0800 hbottemiller@foodsafetynews.com (Helena Bottemiller) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/us-and-china-sign-5-year-ag-agreement-on-food-safety-security/ The United States and China signed a five year agreement on food security, sustainable agriculture, and food safety at an agricultural symposium in Iowa Thursday. <br /><br />"We are the world's two largest agricultural producers and strong collaborators in agricultural research and education," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack at the event. "Our great trade relationship benefits the citizens of both of our nations."<br /><br />"This plan builds on the already strong relationship our nations enjoy around agricultural science, trade, and education," added Vilsack. "It looks to deepen our cooperation through technical exchange and to strengthen coordination in priority areas like animal and plant health and disease, food security, sustainable agriculture, genetic resources, agricultural markets and trade, and biotechnology and other emerging technologies."<br /><br />The agreement was largely focused food security and agricultural sustainability issues -- China has 1.3 billion people to feed, and is increasingly relying on imports -- but food safety was also a key part of the document, which USDA says will "guide the two countries' agricultural relationship for the next 5 years."<br /><br />Vilsack told the audience Thursday the China and the United States "have opportunities to collaborate and partner on food safety" through implementing best practices and advancing science-based laws and regulations.<br /><br />&nbsp;<br /><br /><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/e2HIwsSqGec" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/e2HIwsSqGec/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/us-and-china-sign-5-year-ag-agreement-on-food-safety-security/ Government Agencies World Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:59:01 -0800 hbottemiller@foodsafetynews.com (Helena Bottemiller) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/us-and-china-sign-5-year-ag-agreement-on-food-safety-security/ <div>Food safety issues and worries about food safety rose to a high level last year among farmers. The owner of one of the original small organic farms in my county asked me what lessons could be learned from the E. coli O104:H4 outbreak in Europe, but then came E. coli O157:H7 on strawberries in Oregon, Listeria on cantaloupes in Colorado and the FDA rulemaking process for farm food safety.</div><div><br /></div><div>What exactly is a small farm?</div><div><br /></div><img alt="lettucefields-350.jpg" src="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/lettucefields-350.jpg" width="350" height="250" class="mt-image-right" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 20px 20px;" /><div>The last Census of Agriculture data is from 2007, although a new census will be made this year. In 2007, there were 2.2 million "farms." About 1.3 million of these had farmgate gross sales of less than $10,000. Only 57,000 of them had farmgate sales of $1 million or more (sales, not profit). (1)</div><div><br /></div><div>This is about the sales volume of a medium-large urban food co-op in the 1970s, 40 years ago, when a million was worth a million, you might say. All of agriculture in the U.S. had farm sales of around $300 billion, roughly equivalent to a single major multi-national oil company.</div><div><br /></div><div>Almost all the farmers I work with are part of the 57,000. But the 57,000 are as stratified as the whole farm population. About 10 percent of them (5,600) have farmgate gross sales of $5 million or more. Some of the farms I work with are among those 5,600. The USDA doesn't break down the 5,600 any further, but there are also a wide range of farm sizes within the category "$5 million or more."</div><div><br /></div><div>Some are truly 'superfarms' with significant share of production of an entire commodity. When I analyzed California leafy greens using the 2002 Census of Agriculture data, for example, 59 lettuce farms grew 69 percent of the state lettuce crop on 1,000 acres or more. In 2006, USA Today reported that a single spinach grower produced almost all of the spinach for Fresh Express, at that time the largest fresh-cut processor in the country.</div><div><br /></div><div>What is the definition of a "superfarm"? There are both organic and conventional vegetable operations in California that farm more than 20,000 acres -- almost 30 square miles. They could certainly qualify, but where the cutoff would be is not clear. Some are simply outstanding operations, including for food safety. Perhaps 10 percent of the farms with sales above $5 million, or about 500 farms, have very large roles in many produce categories.</div><div><br /></div><div>In 2011, the USDA's Economic Research Service published <a href="http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/VGS/2010/12Dec/VGS34201/VGS34201.pdf">"Financial Characteristics of Vegetable and Melon Farms"</a> by Mir Ali and Gary Lucier, which shows continuing concentration across all vegetable and melon types (2).</div><div><br /></div><div>The fact that the same individuals may control more than one farm "entity" complicates matters, but in general this means that farm statistics understate the degree of concentration and disparity between farm sizes.</div><div><br /></div><div>The term "farms" includes farms and ranches, both crops and animal production, including large CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations), as well as woodland and pasture farms.</div><div><br /></div><div>It's pretty easy to guess that the 1.3 million farms with less than $10,000 in sales should be in the "very small" farm category. But where this category ends is not clear.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Tester Amendment to the Food Safety Modernization Act, under which the FDA is writing new farm food safety regulations, establishes a kind of definition of small as less than $500,000 in (farmgate) sales and selling most production "locally" within a state, or within 275 miles if sales cross state lines. From my perspective, and looking at the O104:H4 outbreak in Germany, this sounds more regional than local, but regional is not a defined category.</div><div><br /></div><div>The FDA briefly describes the FSMA as follows:</div><div><br /></div><div>"FSMA is the most sweeping reform of FDA's food safety authority in more than 70 years, and a law of this scope and complexity often comes with direction from Congress for the federal agency responsible for implementing it to go through a process called rulemaking..."</div><div><br /></div><div>Under the new food safety law, FDA will be issuing <a href="http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FSMA/ucm277706.htm">a number of rules</a> including a preventive controls rule in food facilities, a foreign supplier verification rule, and a produce safety rule."</div><div><br /></div><div>For farmers, the question of how a "food facility" is defined -- because it can include on-farm basic operations -- and how rules for produce are developed, and where federal regulation stops and state regulation takes over, are all crucial questions, which are partly dependent on the size of the farm being "small" or not. Very different language is used by different parts of the industry for both "small" and "local."</div><div><br /></div><div>One could say that a small farm has average annual sales somewhere in the range of from $10,000 to about $500,000, but less than $1 million dollars, recognizing that a lot of jockeying is going on because of the legal implications of the categories for food safety. By this very inclusive definition, there are about 840,000 "small farms," if by "small" you include what might be more reasonably called "medium" or "medium-large" farms.</div><div><br /></div><div>There are no "average" farms except as an inappropriate statistical fiction.</div><div><br /></div><div>Crops are not evenly distributed geographically. For example, California grows about 1/2 of U.S.-produced fruits, vegetables and nut crops, and for produce like leafy greens, the Salinas valley and the desert production of the Imperial Valley and Arizona dominate U.S. production in very specialized sub-regions, which are often dominated in turn by the largest farms.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>It might make more sense to write leafy green regulations geared toward the largest farms in these areas rather than trying to impose a one-size-fits-all on smaller farmers growing a variety of crops in varying climates and geography. Many fruits and vegetables to be regulated as "produce" have similar concentrations, with large farms producing much of the crop in specific regions.</div><div><br /></div><div>Just using very broad statistical indicators, it should be obvious that U.S. agriculture is highly heterogeneous. At an ecological, geographical, geological, biological, social, and farm or farm-field level the heterogeneity is infinitely more complex.</div><div><br /></div><div>It does not seem like a rationally conceivable project to write national regulations for food safety on-farm, although it may be legally mandated.</div><div><br /></div><div>Not, that is, if by regulation one means detailed instructions for every farm and farm size and crop and diversity of production and integration of production between crops and animals and ecosystem interactions and farm benefits to the environment. Even looking just at what I look at (mostly) in food safety, the production of "specialty crops" (fresh vegetables, fruits, nuts and other raw products), U.S. farm complexity defeats centralized rule-making that could function.</div><div><br /></div><div>The knowledge needed, if anywhere, is in the fields.</div><div><br /></div><div>One could get far more impact for every regulatory buck spent if the initial goal were the regulation of the 6,000 largest farm operations. These truly approach what we think of as "industrial agriculture," with very large field sizes -- often in large monocultures, and often collectively dominating the overall production of a particular commodity.</div><div><br /></div><div>They have many characteristics in common and look like the place one could start implementing national regulations. One could make sure these 6,000 farms had good food safety procedures and then perhaps move on to the next 50,000 farms with sales over $1 million -- a tougher nut to crack but conceivable. If we had well-validated food safety procedures for the very largest farms, that is. Do we?</div><div><br /></div><div>Apparently not. Otherwise hundreds of millions of dollars of ongoing and new research projects -- federal, state, and private -- would not be going into fundamental and operational (or validational) research on farm food safety, in particular aimed at these kinds of farms. A several-year<a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/12/research-project-to-determine-how-to-make-salads-safe/"> study headed by the University of Maryland</a> will for the first time</div><div>have some access to the private data of the largest produce farms and processors, for example.</div><div><br /></div><div>There is a further problem in fitting on-farm food safety to the scale of farming. If one looks at some of the metrics and "'supermetrics" developed by groups like the California Leafy Green Marketing Board and private buyers, respectively, it looks to me like the very largest farms and superfarms have the best fit to the metrics and face the least economic damage from applying them.</div><div><br /></div><div>One of the metrics commonly used is to buffer production away from natural habitat. This can be a reasonable issue for a 1,000 acre field situated on a multi-thousand acre production farm. But it gets more expensive the smaller the field and the closer the natural habitat. At the limit of difficulty would be a small field, close to habitat, where the requirements for buffering (set on a national standard) leave no field left to farm.</div><div><br /></div><div>But my impression is that economic constraints start with even quite large farms.</div><div><br /></div><div>There is quite a lot of well-validated data, not on how to farm safely, but on how to farm unsafely in particular ways, on how to specifically screw up. Some of these are general principles that appear truly scale neutral. Some are commodity-specific and one hopes reflected in parts of the commodity-specific guidances by the FDA and others, and are mostly scale neutral.</div><div><br /></div><div>The human pathogens of major concern in food safety have their individual ecologies and preferences. Situations where each pathogen thrives can be looked for. These include Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (such as O157:H7), Listeria, Salmonella, Shigella and Campylobacter. There are also common pairings between a particular crop and a particular pathogen found to be of greatest concern for that crop. Salmonella on cantaloupes is a common pairing.</div><div><br /></div><div>So I could imagine several thousand pages of regulations being written for food safety on "small" and "very small" farms being replaced, instead, by one sentence: "Don't screw up."&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>For example: "Don't harvest strawberries, produced near ground level, next to wild animal droppings. And if rain or sprinkler irrigation could have splash-dispersed potential pathogens, expand the area where there is no harvest."</div><div><br /></div><div>This is a strategy of known defect reduction, or elimination, often used in sensory control of food quality. Defect reduction is an achievable process of improvement on any farm. It would seem to be more effectively approached through education and cooperative efforts, leaving farmers in control -- as they should be. They know their farms. It could have dramatic impact, over time, in reducing food safety hazards on-farm. This is a statistical reduction of harm, effective on average, and not a guarantee. There are fairly simple steps that farmers have control over that would increase food safety.</div><div><br /></div><div>On the farm, water quality, presence of excrement that can contact a crop, worker health, and crop "handling" -- preparation for sale off farm -- seem to be the main hazard points under control. Yet most regulations try and comprehensively detail every aspect of growing a crop. Growing crops up until harvest might be the least important factor in increasing overall food safety. The steps from harvest to the consumer are the places that seem to have the greatest impact on food safety. Those steps include handling, processing, commingling, storing, packaging, labeling (such as use-by dates, use-instructions), transportation (and consumer or retail behavior), which can have far more destructive effects. Except insofar as a grower is involved in all of these, they remain out of the grower's control.</div><div><br /></div><div>In 2007, we found that processor/handlers of whole produce, and fresh-cut products, were the known sources of many multistate produce outbreaks and recalls over the previous 20 years. &nbsp;We also found that fresh-cut produce, compared to whole produce, looked like the cause of more outbreaks than would be the case if on-farm contamination was all that mattered.</div><div><br /></div><div>For E. coli O157:H7 and many produce categories like leafy greens, we came up with the notion that the introduction of a new pathogen into a new kind of processing and food category without a kill step -- fresh-cut for both retail and food-service/wholesale --- combined with certain commercial realities to create the majority of the outbreaks and recalls in the U.S. (3). Consequently, the greatest impact on food safety would come from better and specific regulation of the fresh-cut industry, or self-regulation for that matter, rather than regulating "farms."</div><div><br /></div><div>One type of regulation that, from the record, could have great impact is simply to have use-by dates on bagged fresh-cut produce for consumers, or containerized fresh-cut for food service, be determined with food safety criteria, as well as by "freshness" and, in fact, to be under some regulation of any kind.</div><div><br /></div><div>The three outbreaks in 2011 mentioned at the beginning of this commentary show the limitations of this approach as the sole analysis -- it is only true as far as it goes.</div><div><br /></div><div>(1)&nbsp;<a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/Table%203%2C%202010%20Census%20of%20AG-1.pdf">2011 Census of Agriculture</a></div><div><br /></div><div>&nbsp;(2) <a href="http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/VGS/2010/12Dec/VGS34201/VGS34201.pdf">Financial Characteristics of Vegetable and Melon Farms</a>&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>(3) September 22, 2009&nbsp;<a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/Runstentestimony.pdf">testimony</a>&nbsp;of David Runsten, Director of Policy and Programs, Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Davis, California, at the USDA hearing on the proposed National Leafy Green Marketing Agreement, Monterey, California</div><div><br /></div><div>------------------------</div><div><br /></div><div><i><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: 18px; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); display: inline !important; float: none; ">Daniel B. Cohen is the owner of Maccabee Seed Co., an agricultural research-and-development and consulting company in Davis, CA.</span></i></div><div><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/eHs4X88_n98" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/eHs4X88_n98/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/farming-on-the-brink-a-perspective-on-2011/ Opinion & Contributed Articles Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:59:07 -0800 daniel.b.cohen@me.com (Daniel B. Cohen) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/farming-on-the-brink-a-perspective-on-2011/ <div>JAA Meat Products Corporation of Maywood, CA is recalling an undetermined amount of meat and poultry that may not have been federally inspected, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced Wednesday.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The problem was discovered during an investigation by FSIS. There have been no reports of illness associated with this recall.</div><div><br /></div><div>The recall is of:</div><div><br /></div><div>30-pound and 22-pound cases of the following products produced between Jan. 11 and Feb. 8, 2012:&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>- AA Scalded Beef Omasum Tripe</div><div>- AA Honeycomb Beef Tripe</div><div>- AA Scalded Beef Tripe Menudo De Vovino</div><div>- AA Beef Omasum Tripe&nbsp;</div><div>- AA Beef Tripe</div><div><br /></div><div>Various weights of the following products produced between March 5 and Feb. 8, 2012:&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>- Pork chops</div><div>- Beef short ribs</div><div>- Beef tongues</div><div>- Boneless beef shank</div><div>- Boneless beef ribeye lipon</div><div>- Boneless beef short plate</div><div>- Boneless beef strip loin</div><div>- Beef fat</div><div><br /></div><div>10-pound bags of the following products produced between April 7 and Feb. 8, 2012:&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>- Chicken feet</div><div>- Duck feet</div><div>- Pork uteri</div><div><br /></div><div>Also, FSIS says the pork uteri, chicken feet and duck feet may have been produced using sodium percarbonate, a food additive not approved for use in these specific products.&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Case labels or packaging may bear the establishment numbers EST. 21492, P-21492 or EST. 21492A in the USDA mark of inspection, or EST. 21492 simply ink-jetted on the case label. The products were sold in California.</div><div><br /></div><div>Images of the labels <a href="http://www.fsis.usda.gov/images_recalls/009_2012.pdf">can be seen here</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>For more information about this recall contact Johnny Wu, a company representative, at 1-626-376-2819.</div><div><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/8fE4-uXLL_Y" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/8fE4-uXLL_Y/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/recall-of-meat-poultry-not-federally-inspected/ Food Recalls Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:59:06 -0800 omarler@foodsafetynews.com (Olivia Marler) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/recall-of-meat-poultry-not-federally-inspected/ <div>The heartland states of Iowa and Indiana are entertaining changes to their raw milk laws, but with far differing approaches.</div><div><br /></div><div>In Iowa, which is bordered by Minnesota, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska and South Dakota, lawmakers are considering allowing on-farm sales to make the state's approach more consistent with its neighbors.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Indiana Assembly meanwhile is on the verge of adopting House Bill 1129, a measure that now includes language to make it clear that raw milk cannot be sold for human consumption.</div><div><br /></div><div>Indiana plans to have one of its interim study committees take up the raw milk issue in more detail next summer.</div><div><br /></div><div>Hoosier lawmakers recently heard testimony that raw milk is showing up at Indiana's many farmers' markets, even though the sale of unpasteurized milk is illegal.</div><div><br /></div><div>Gary Haynes, legal affairs director for the Indiana Board of Animal Health, says more consumers are interested in buying raw milk, and more farms want to sell it.</div><div><br /></div><div>It seems Indiana is officially perplexed about raw milk. &nbsp;The Senate earlier voted to make commercial sales of raw milk legal, but the sponsor pulled the bill at the request of the Indiana Farm Bureau.</div><div><br /></div><div>Major food groups, the pasteurized dairy industry, and major farm organizations have been among those who have popped up to oppose bills to make commercial raw milk sales legal. Bob Kraft, government affairs director for the Indiana Farmers Union, says his group is concerned about producers' liability.</div><div><br /></div><div>HB 1129 now includes an amendment requiring all raw milk sold in Indiana to carry a label saying it is not for human consumption. Until the interim committee comes up with recommendations, Indiana lawmakers will probably go no further.</div><div><br /></div><div>In Iowa, the bill allowing on-farm sales moved over its first hurdle when it got a green light from a three-member panel. &nbsp;The measure now rests with the Iowa Judiciary Committee.</div><div><br /></div><div>This measure, &nbsp;too, has picked up the opposition of a perennial legislative power in the form of the Iowa Dairy Foods Association. Its lobbyist, Mark Truesdell, called allowing raw milk sales an action that goes "180 degrees in the wrong direction."</div><div><br /></div><div>Francis Thicke, the Fairfield dairy farmer who ran unsuccessfully for Iowa Agriculture Secretary in 2010, has emerged as a raw milk advocate. &nbsp;He is telling lawmakers that a European studies indicate raw milk makes it less likely that children will suffer from asthma or hay fever.</div><div><br /></div><div>Those large population-based studies of rural farm factors did find a correlation between drinking farm milk and reduced childhood wheezing, but the researchers acknowledge they couldn't prove causation -- &nbsp;it is unclear if drinking raw milk or exposure to farm animals is what lessens the likelihood of allergic reactions. The European researchers also say raw milk should not be considered a treatment for asthma, given the risk of pathogens and serious infections.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/YZc2ZUKgtms" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/YZc2ZUKgtms/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/indiana-iowa-stir-raw-milk-debate/ Food Policy & Law Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:59:05 -0800 dflynn@foodsafetynews.com (Dan Flynn) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/indiana-iowa-stir-raw-milk-debate/ <div>The order of a federal judge has finally shut down Rainbow Acres Farm, the raw milk dairy located near Washington D.C. in Pennsylvania's Amish County.</div><div><br /></div><div>It ends a nasty confrontation between Dan and Rachel Allgyer, Amish dairy farmers with operations based in Pennsylvania where commercial sales of raw milk are legal, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which caught Rainbow making deliveries inside Maryland and the District of Columbia.</div><div><br /></div><div>A spokesman for FDA praised the judge's action, pointing to past warnings ignored by Rainbow Acres to cease interstate sales of raw milk. &nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>FDA's investigation began in 2009 when one of its Baltimore-based agents joined a club, via the Internet, that promised delivery of Rainbow Acres raw milk to a Maryland home.</div><div><br /></div><div>While some states allow raw milk sales, federal law prohibits it from interstate commerce. &nbsp; FDA's controversial investigation of Rainbow Acres included an undercover string operation and a pre-dawn raid.</div><div><br /></div><div>Since the controversy began, the Amish dairy farmer picked up many supporters in a campaign with national implications. The most prominent was Texas Congressman Ron Paul, the raw milk drinker who happens to be a candidate for the Republican Party nomination for President.</div><div><br /></div><div>Before FDA's case against Allgyers played out,&nbsp;Paul proposed a bill to make interstate sales of raw milk legal. Paul never said he was getting raw milk from the Amish dairy, but during the course of the dispute it came out that a Washington D.C.-based Grassfed On the Hill Buying Club was being supplied by Rainbow Acres.</div><div><br /></div><div>Deliveries to about 500 club members meant crossing the state and district lines that make up the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. &nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>The buying group's statement confirmed that Rainbow Acres is closing down in reaction to the order by federal Judge Lawrence F. Stengel of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, based in Philadelphia.</div><div><br /></div><div>"Dan and Rachel Allgyer have determined that they will discontinue service to our group and close down the farm," the buyer's club said in a statement. &nbsp;"Dan has served many of us for more than six years and he is very saddened to have to make this decision but the stress and strain that his family has been under for the past few years due to the case and no the decision leaves them with no choice."</div><div><br /></div><div>The twin violations of mislabeling the milk and use of interstate commerce to make sales were enough for Judge Stengel to sign the permanent injunction against the Lancaster-based dairy. &nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><div>Stengel, a former Lancaster Catholic High School teacher who was appointed &nbsp;to the federal court in 2004 by President George W. Bush, warned the Allgyers that if they resumed operations, the next time the court would impose fines equalling the FDA's investigative costs.</div><div><br /></div><div>After that, Rainbow Acres told customers it was out of business. Its supporters continue to point out its raw milk was never found to be contaminated.&nbsp;The same multistate area, however, is currently experiencing a Campylobacter outbreak associated with another Pennsylvania raw milk dairy farm.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/x9UV6aH-yDo" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/x9UV6aH-yDo/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/washington-dcs-raw-milk-supplier-shut-down/ Food Policy & Law Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:59:05 -0800 dflynn@foodsafetynews.com (Dan Flynn) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/washington-dcs-raw-milk-supplier-shut-down/ Public health groups reacted warily to President Obama's Fiscal Year 2013 budget request, which proposed discretionary cuts to both the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Centers for Disease Control, two critical parts of the food safety system. <br /><br />The FY 2013 request seeks $996 million for FSIS, which is about $8 million below the level the agency was given for by Congress FY 2012. The proposal would also reduce discretionary funding at CDC by $660 million to $11.2 billion. Though the plan would be a significant overall cut, the Health and Human Services budget document says foodborne illness surveillance and other food safety safety activities would see a $16.7 million boost over Fy 2012 under the plan.<br /><br />"This increase will enable CDC to move forward implementation of CDC's provisions of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), including enhancing and integrating surveillance systems, upgrading the PulseNet system, improving outbreak detection and response timeliness, improving timeliness in responding to state and local partners through the FoodCORE program, attributing illnesses to specific food commodity groups to aid in prevention efforts, monitoring food safety prevention measure effectiveness, and supporting the FSMA's Integrated Food Safety Centers of Excellence," according to the department. "These investments will help restore state and local capacity to monitor foodborne illness and respond to outbreaks."<br /><br />Some consumer advocates are concerned about the proposed cut to FSIS, especially in light of last year's cuts. FSIS argues that it will save around $12.9 million if the new proposed poultry inspection rule were implemented. <br /><br />"Under this proposed budget, FSIS will take a cut in appropriations for the second year in a row," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food &amp; Water Watch, a group that has been ardently opposed to the new poultry rule, known as HIMP, or HACCP Inspection Models Project. The rule would basically <a href="http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/2011-0012.pdf">move poultry inspectors down the line</a> so they are primarily focused on looking at fecal contamination instead of quality defects.&nbsp;<div><br />Food &amp; Water Watch questioned the administration's assumption that the project would save money, when the plan is in its early stages, "this controversial scheme to shift poultry inspection responsibilities to company employees is still in the proposed-rule stage and the public comment period is still open." <br /><br />"FSIS has never fully evaluated a pilot program testing this type of inspection program," said Hauter. "It is irresponsible for the administration to proceed with the implementation of this privatized inspection system until all the facts are collected about whether it can achieve the same level of consumer protection as traditional inspection."<br /><br />Food &amp; Water Watch recently presented USDA with an 8,000 person petition against "privatizing" poultry inspection. <br />&nbsp;<br />Carol Tucker-Foreman, the distinguished food policy fellow at the Consumer Federation of America, who formerly served as an assistant secretary at USDA, says she's concerned about the FSIS budget proposal as well.<br /><br />"I think the FSIS cut may well have an adverse impact on public health and food safety," said Foreman. "When they started on HIMP, FSIS insisted it was not designed to save money. &nbsp; I think they testified in federal court that that wasn't the goal.&nbsp; Now that is the stated goal. USDA has no outside independent study that backs up its claims for HIMP.&nbsp; GAO was extremely ctitical of the program before.&nbsp; FSIS says it has fixed the problems but there's nothing from GAO and OIG or any other independent body that backs that up.&nbsp; In addition,&nbsp; HIMP has always been a pilot conducted in a few choice plants, no one knows what the impact will be when it is expanded nationwide in a wide range of actual plant conditions."<br /><br />"Under HIMP, companies will increase line speeds," added Foreman. "We don't know if staff and inspectors can meet those speeds dayafter day without an increase in contamination. Plant employees and inspectors may not be able to keep up."<br /><br />FSIS argues that HIMP will make poultry safer and will save government resources -- resources that are now being spent in part to help poultry companies with quality control. <br /><br />"There's very few food safety defects, and a whole lot of food quality defects," said Phil Derfler, deputy administrator at FSIS last month. "Basically what we're saying is that our inspectors looking at quality are doing the work of the plant. In this budgetary environment, it just doesn't make sense for government employees to do that kind of work."<br /><br />"We believe that the proposed rule will have a number of significant effects... it's going to better align our employees with the work that they should be doing, they're going to be focused on food safety, they're not going to be doing the quality work for the plant," said Derfler. "The number of FSIS inspectors is going to go down. We're going to be eliminating, over a period of time, which we think we can handle with attrition, somewhere between 800 and 1,000 jobs." <br /><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/0IXN4Ti3xvo" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/0IXN4Ti3xvo/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/obamas-budget-request-concerns-some-consumer-advocates/ Food Politics Food Policy & Law Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:59:01 -0800 hbottemiller@foodsafetynews.com (Helena Bottemiller) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/obamas-budget-request-concerns-some-consumer-advocates/ Public health groups reacted warily to President Obama's Fiscal Year 2013 budget request, which proposed discretionary cuts to both the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Centers for Disease Control, two critical parts of the food safety system. <br /><br />The FY 2013 request seeks $996 million for FSIS, which is about $8 million below the level the agency was given for by Congress FY 2012. The proposal would also reduce discretionary funding at CDC by $660 million to $11.2 billion. Though the plan would be a significant overall cut, the Health and Human Services budget document says foodborne illness surveillance and other food safety safety activities would see a $16.7 million boost over Fy 2012 under the plan.<br /><br />"This increase will enable CDC to move forward implementation of CDC's provisions of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), including enhancing and integrating surveillance systems, upgrading the PulseNet system, improving outbreak detection and response timeliness, improving timeliness in responding to state and local partners through the FoodCORE program, attributing illnesses to specific food commodity groups to aid in prevention efforts, monitoring food safety prevention measure effectiveness, and supporting the FSMA's Integrated Food Safety Centers of Excellence," according to the department. "These investments will help restore state and local capacity to monitor foodborne illness and respond to outbreaks."<br /><br />Some consumer advocates are concerned about the proposed cut to FSIS, especially in light of last year's cuts. FSIS argues that it will save around $12.9 million if the new proposed poultry inspection rule were implemented. <br /><br />"Under this proposed budget, FSIS will take a cut in appropriations for the second year in a row," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food &amp; Water Watch, a group that has been ardently opposed to the new poultry rule, known as HIMP, or HACCP Inspection Models Project. The rule would basically <a href="http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/2011-0012.pdf">move poultry inspectors down the line</a> so they are primarily focused on looking at fecal contamination instead of quality defects.&nbsp;<div><br />Food &amp; Water Watch questioned the administration's assumption that the project would save money, when the plan is in its early stages, "this controversial scheme to shift poultry inspection responsibilities to company employees is still in the proposed-rule stage and the public comment period is still open." <br /><br />"FSIS has never fully evaluated a pilot program testing this type of inspection program," said Hauter. "It is irresponsible for the administration to proceed with the implementation of this privatized inspection system until all the facts are collected about whether it can achieve the same level of consumer protection as traditional inspection."<br /><br />Food &amp; Water Watch recently presented USDA with an 8,000 person petition against "privatizing" poultry inspection. <br />&nbsp;<br />Carol Tucker-Foreman, the distinguished food policy fellow at the Consumer Federation of America, who formerly served as an assistant secretary at USDA, says she's concerned about the FSIS budget proposal as well.<br /><br />"I think the FSIS cut may well have an adverse impact on public health and food safety," said Foreman. "When they started on HIMP, FSIS insisted it was not designed to save money. &nbsp; I think they testified in federal court that that wasn't the goal.&nbsp; Now that is the stated goal. USDA has no outside independent study that backs up its claims for HIMP.&nbsp; GAO was extremely ctitical of the program before.&nbsp; FSIS says it has fixed the problems but there's nothing from GAO and OIG or any other independent body that backs that up.&nbsp; In addition,&nbsp; HIMP has always been a pilot conducted in a few choice plants, no one knows what the impact will be when it is expanded nationwide in a wide range of actual plant conditions."<br /><br />"Under HIMP, companies will increase line speeds," added Foreman. "We don't know if staff and inspectors can meet those speeds dayafter day without an increase in contamination. Plant employees and inspectors may not be able to keep up."<br /><br />FSIS argues that HIMP will make poultry safer and will save government resources -- resources that are now being spent in part to help poultry companies with quality control. <br /><br />"There's very few food safety defects, and a whole lot of food quality defects," said Phil Derfler, deputy administrator at FSIS last month. "Basically what we're saying is that our inspectors looking at quality are doing the work of the plant. In this budgetary environment, it just doesn't make sense for government employees to do that kind of work."<br /><br />"We believe that the proposed rule will have a number of significant effects... it's going to better align our employees with the work that they should be doing, they're going to be focused on food safety, they're not going to be doing the quality work for the plant," said Derfler. "The number of FSIS inspectors is going to go down. We're going to be eliminating, over a period of time, which we think we can handle with attrition, somewhere between 800 and 1,000 jobs." <br /><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/0IXN4Ti3xvo" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/0IXN4Ti3xvo/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/obamas-budget-request-concerns-some-consumer-advocates/ Food Politics Food Policy & Law Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:59:01 -0800 hbottemiller@foodsafetynews.com (Helena Bottemiller) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/obamas-budget-request-concerns-some-consumer-advocates/ Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Ct), who serves as Ranking Member on the Labor, Health, and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, expressed disappointment Tuesday regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture's <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/new-e-coli/">announcement that there will be a 90 day delay in implementing their new non-O157 E. coli policy</a>.<br /> &nbsp;<br /> As her office noted in a release: "Congresswoman DeLauro has advocated for the USDA to issue a strong rule identifying the six most virulent strains of E. coli as adulterants to strengthen our food safety system by protecting consumers from these grave pathogens. In September, 2011, the USDA announced that it would expand testing for these six additional strains of E. coli bacteria."<br /><br />The delay pushes 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.<br /><br />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."<br /> &nbsp;<br /> "I am disappointed by this announcement, as these strains of E. coli are dangerous and place the safety of the public health at risk," said DeLauro. "I hope that the testing techniques are available soon, and I look forward to the implementation of this rule in June. We know these strains are dangerous and we should move quickly to protect American consumers."<br /><br /><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/AouX_uJY9Hg" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/AouX_uJY9Hg/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/delauro-dissapointed-by-non-o157-policy-delay/ Food Politics Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:59:07 -0800 info@foodsafetynews.com (News Desk) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/delauro-dissapointed-by-non-o157-policy-delay/ <div>When it comes to our nation's Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) policy, some people like to wrestle in the mud. &nbsp;I like to wrestle with the science. &nbsp;And the science does not support the need for a new USDA policy, now set to go into effect in June.</div><div>&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>At AMI, we regularly review microbiological testing trends, public health data and peer reviewed research to guide our work. &nbsp;The data do not indicate that non-O157 STEC in beef products pose an urgent or unique public health threat.</div><div><br /></div><div>USDA officials argue in favor of the policy, saying that the incidence rate of estimated cases of non-O157 STEC illnesses exceeded the incidence of O157:H7 cases for the first time, but this statistic misses an extremely significant point that most of those illnesses we're actually sourced from foods other than beef. &nbsp;According to available records, there was one E. coli O26 foodborne outbreak in 2010 that may have been related to ground beef. &nbsp;Three illnesses were associated with that outbreak. There have been no other outbreaks from non-O157 STEC in beef among the more than 14,000 total foodborne outbreaks that have been documented in the U.S. over the past decade.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>We must remain valiant and constantly be open to new ideas, but if I ever doubt the foundation of AMI's position, I simply look at the available public health data and I am again firm in my conviction. &nbsp;I can't find a scientific way to rationalize the path USDA is taking.</div><div><br /></div><div>Perhaps that's because research has shown that the interventions and process control systems that have so effectively reduced E. coli O157:H7 also work against the six other strains now in the spotlight.</div><div><br /></div><div>If for whatever reason you're skeptical of my words, consider these from some leading experts, including those who reviewed USDA's Draft Risk Profile:</div><div><br /></div><div>•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>"We note that the illnesses associated with these strains have not primarily been due to contamination on beef." &nbsp;-FSIS <i>Federal Register</i> Final Determination</div><div><br /></div><div>•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>[There is no] "Evidence that declaring six serotypes of non-O157 STEC adulterants would have any public health benefit. &nbsp;As it is, the evidence suggests that contamination with these serotypes is prevented or eliminated by exactly the same interventions that are currently in place to prevent or eliminate O157 STEC contamination. &nbsp;In the absence of additional interventions that would specifically affect non-O157 STEC, declaring them adulterants is not likely to have any public health benefit." -Peer Reviewer 1, FSIS Draft Risk Profile:</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>•<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>"We reviewed the estimates of foodborne illness, major pathogens and specified sources, papers. For the volume of data, severity of illness, our ability to measure change, and we concluded that the non-O157 E. coli, at this point in time, was not on par with the other pathogens as far as understanding and implementing interventions to reduce them." &nbsp; &nbsp;--Dr. Mark Hoekstra, CDC, CDC/FSIS/FDA Foodborne Illness Source Attribution Public Meeting, January 31, 2012.</div><div><br /></div><div>Given these legitimate questions from our government agencies about the public health risk posed by these STEC in ground beef and the potential benefits of the policy, how is proceeding with it justified?&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>The good news is that USDA recently took a major step to better understand these STEC-- an action AMI has been arguing for years is needed. The five year, $25 million grant USDA awarded to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln last month to study STEC in beef will provide some of the needed research regarding analyzing the risks of STEC in the beef supply and developing validated test methods. &nbsp;It's the kind of work that should have been the first step, however. &nbsp;Science should be the engine that drives the train -- not the caboose.</div><div><br /></div><div>Our goal is to ensure that every eating experience involving meat products is a safe one. &nbsp;To achieve that, we must confront the scientific facts, and when we do that, they tell us this policy is simply without a sound foundation. &nbsp;And that's a view that USDA's own experts and risk reviewers share because like me, they have truly wrestled with the science.</div><div><br /></div><div>---------------------------</div><div><br /></div><div><i>James H. Hodges is American Meat Institute Executive Vice President.</i></div><div>&nbsp;</div><div><br /></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/snYqEqSbfaU" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/snYqEqSbfaU/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/wrestling-with-the-science-of-stec/ Opinion & Contributed Articles Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:59:07 -0800 JHodges@meatami.com (James H. Hodges) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/wrestling-with-the-science-of-stec/ <div>This week Congress begins hearings on the 2012 farm bill, the massive piece of legislation that gets updated about every five years and undergirds America's entire food supply, but that few mortals can even understand. As nutrition professor Marion Nestle recently <a href="http://articles.boston.com/2012-02-01/food-dining/31008322_1_farm-bill-food-stamps-agriculture-committee/2">lamented</a>, "no one has any idea what the farm bill is about. It's too complicated for any mind to grasp."</div><div><br /></div><img alt="farmprograms.png" src="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/farmprograms.png" width="384" height="298" class="mt-image-right" style="float: right; margin: 0 0 20px 20px;" /><div>Nestle also called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) "the huge elephant in the farm bill" because its enormity trumps everything else. This entitlement program (the budget expands as more people enroll) provides modest monthly benefits for food purchases and represents a critical lifeline to many people in need.</div><div><br /></div><div>In recent years, public health and food policy experts have sounded the alarm about how farm bill programs supporting all the wrong crops (think corn and soy) contribute to America's epidemic of obesity and diet-related diseases. This is certainly true, along with a host of other economic drivers.</div><div><br /></div><div>But are we focusing too much on the commodity title and not enough on the nutrition title when it comes to how the farm bill truly subsidizes Big Food? After all, even if the commodity title was completely eliminated, <a href="http://www.choicesmagazine.org/magazine/article.php?article=138">most economists believe</a> it would have minimal impact on healthy food consumption.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>SNAP spending dwarfs all farm bill programs</i></div><div><br /></div><div>According to <a href="http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/November08/DataFeature/">federal data</a>, food assistance made up 68 percent of the farm bill budget in 2008 and SNAP accounts for almost that entire amount. (Other food assistance programs such as school meals are funded through other legislation.) In contrast, the next three largest farm bill programs were commodity support (12 percent), crop insurance (10 percent), and conservation (9 percent).</div><div><br /></div><div>Looking at the dollars and cents, the U.S. Department of Agriculture&nbsp;<a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/SNAP%20Monthly%20Data.html">reported</a>&nbsp;that in fiscal year 2011, taxpayers spent $71.8 billion on SNAP benefits, compared to $64.7 billion in 2010. The total number of enrolled participants was 44.7 million last year compared to 40.3 million in 2010. Obviously these increasing numbers reflect our struggling economy, and SNAP benefits are a crucial component of addressing hunger in the U.S. Sadly, estimates are that about 30 percent of Americans who qualify for SNAP aren't even enrolled.</div><div><br /></div><div>So how exactly was close to $72 billion of the taxpayers' money spent last year? Good question. Unfortunately, we have little clue. We have somewhat better information on &nbsp;commodity payments. See for example, the Environmental Working Group's handy <a href="http://farm.ewg.org/">Farm Subsidy Database.</a> (But EWG also warns of an increasing <a href="http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2010/05/obamas-usda-less-transparent-than-bushs/">lack of transparency</a> in farm bill commodity and insurance subsidies.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Other than broad categories of retailers (e.g., large versus small) we don't know where SNAP dollars go because USDA does not require retailers to report specific purchase data; rather, all the agency wants to know is the total amount to be reimbursed.</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Bill would require retailers to report SNAP receipts</i></div><div><br /></div><div>In December, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) <a href="http://wyden.senate.gov/issues/issue/?id=a8781a1a-baba-4ae5-934f-8435223ff557">introduced the FRESH Act</a> (Fresh Regional Eating for Schools and Health), which (in addition to other provisions) aims to "increase accountability" in the SNAP program by requiring corporations receiving more than $1 million a year "to provide taxpayers with an itemized receipt for their share" of the SNAP program.</div><div><br /></div><div>Sounds pretty reasonable, since any retailer large enough to rake in over a million bucks a year from SNAP is almost certain to have the technology necessary to send an electronic report to USDA on how that money was spent.</div><div><br /></div><div>Such information is a crucial factor in the debate over restricting benefits, which is once again heating up in states around the country, with <a href="http://www.sfltimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=9195&amp;Itemid=331">Florida being the most recent example</a>. (However, that measure <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/02/13/2639654/florida-house-panel-rejects-food.html">appears to be dead for now</a>.)</div><div><br /></div><div>In 2010, New York City applied to USDA for a waiver to conduct a 2-year pilot test to exclude unhealthy beverages such as soda from the <a href="http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/eligible.htm">SNAP-eligible food list</a>. (The feds <a href="http://www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/SNAP-Waiver-Request-Decision.pdf">denied the request,</a> citing complexity.) An unfortunate divide exists between public health experts targeting "sugar-sweetened beverages" as enemy number one and anti-hunger advocates, who vociferously oppose any SNAP restrictions.</div><div><br /></div><div>But conveniently left on the sidelines of this very public debate, and laughing all the way to the bank, has been the food and beverage industry. Of course, they made their voices heard loud and clear through their usual behind-the-scenes l<a href="http://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/us/politics/30food.html&amp;OQ=Q5fQ72Q3dQ32">obbying efforts</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>Senator Wyden's bill should spark a conversation that's long overdue: exactly how much does Big Soda and Big Food benefit from SNAP funding? Some of my colleagues are concerned that such data could backfire by giving more fodder to certain politicians who will use any excuse to cut benefits for the poor.</div><div><br /></div><div>Yes, the data is likely to show that SNAP participants' purchase habits parallel those of other Americans, who are also consuming too many empty calories. But that's not a valid reason to fear collecting the information. The "personal responsibility" argument - that individuals alone are responsible for how they eat regardless of their environment and shear lack of affordable healthy options - will continue with or without Uncle Sam picking up the tab.</div><div><br /></div><div>But how will we ever improve and strengthen SNAP if we cannot accurately evaluate it? How else will we truly integrate public health into our food assistance programs? Why should Walmart--probably the single largest beneficiary of SNAP--have access to information that the USDA doesn't?</div><div><br /></div><div>Now more than ever we need to ensure the nation's largest food assistance program is truly helping those in need, instead of just lining the pockets of Corporate America.</div><div><br /></div><div>------------------</div><div><br /></div><div><i>Michele Simon is a public health lawyer specializing in industry marketing and lobbying tactics. She is the author of "Appetite for Profit: How the Food Industry Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back" and president of Eat Drink Politics, a consulting firm.&nbsp;"SNAP: the other Corporate Subsidy in the Farm Bill?" first appeared on her website, <a href="http://www.appetiteforprofit.com/2012/02/14/snap-the-other-corporate-subsidy-in-the-farm-bill/">Appetite for Profit</a>, on Feb. 14, 2012.</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~4/tIYE0LwhCGs" height="1" width="1"/> http://feeds.lexblog.com/~r/foodsafetynews/mRcs/~3/tIYE0LwhCGs/ http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/snap-the-other-corporate-subsidy-in-the-farm-bill/ Opinion & Contributed Articles Wed, 15 Feb 2012 01:59:06 -0800 michele@informedeating.org (Michele Simon) http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/02/snap-the-other-corporate-subsidy-in-the-farm-bill/