Food Safety
-
Industry Disavows Smart Choices Campaign
-
FDA Hits Back Against Stupid Food Labeling
-
The House Food Safety Bill in Brief
Tests Reveal Poison in Nearly All Campbell's Soup
Published November 04, 2009 @ 01:16PM PT
The food processing world is reeling right now one day after a shocking new series of tests released by Consumer Reports revealed that many leading brands of canned foods contain Bisphenol A (BPA)—a toxic chemical linked to health risks including reproductive abnormalities, neurological effects, heightened risk of breast and prostate cancers, diabetes, heart disease and other serious health problems.
BPA is used in the lining of cans and the toxin leaches from the lining into the food. According to Consumer Reports just a couple of servings of canned food can exceed scientific limits on daily exposure for children.
The federal government is currently studying the dangers of BPA and advocates are calling on the FDA to ban the use of BPA in food and beverage packaging by the end of the year. Companies in other industries, including Wal-Mart, Target, Nalgene, and Babies R Us have already made commitments to stop using BPA.
The food industry, however, is fighting hard to stop any government regulation. They say it is too logistically complicated to move away from BPA-lined cans. And it is true that right now there isn’t a good way to produce cans without BPA. But alternative packaging does exist. You may have heard of glass, to take just one example. Or, given how much mind-blowing chemical science goes into the production of most packaged foods, with a shift in research spending the manufacturers could probably devise a technological solution.
In Response to "The Omnivore's Delusion" Part 2
Published August 28, 2009 @ 02:45PM PT
(This is the second in a two-part response to "The Omnivore's Delusion" article written by Blake Hurst, a self-admitted "industrial" farmer from Missouri, a few weeks back for The Journal of American Enterprise Institute. The first part of my response can be found here.)
To continue my critique of Hurt's article, I'd like to now discuss the way he characterizes the acute need for the continuation of industrial animal agriculture. I purposely chose not to deal with this topic in my first post as I knew it would require its own space and time.
Part of the problem with agriculture today, as Nicholas Kristof points out in his recent New York Times Op-Ed, is that the profession has largely lost its soul over the past several decades as industrial farming practices have taken hold. This is not to say that there aren't any family farming operations in this country--in fact, there are many--but the way that we view the production of food has changed dramatically. There is no place where this is more true than in animal agriculture.
It's quite clear from Hurst's article that he is no animal rights activist. In his view, animals are commodities that are to be raised in a manner that maximizes the financial return for farmers with very little (legitimate) concern paid to the environmental and food safety costs incurred by this kind of production.
This is part of the lost soul of American agriculture. Where once farmers treated animals well in order to ensure a long, healthy and productive life, now many farmers choose to treat their animals as badly as possible while still turning a profit. We have lost respect for the key role animals have played (and always will play) in the history of our agricultural progression.
Senate Cuts Animal ID Funding By Half
Published August 05, 2009 @ 02:05PM PT
Woohoo! I get to say nice things about the Senate!
I'm pleased to report that my usual causticity can be suspended for the duration of this post to applaud the Senate's unanimous consent vote to cut funding for the National Animal ID System. Go, Senate!
Jill Richardson at LaVidaLocavore has reposted the press release by R-CALF USA, the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America, and I think that the most salient point in the entire debate is encapsulated in this paragraph of their statement, here:
3) No food safety benefits. NAIS will not prevent food borne illnesses from e. coli or salmonella, because the contamination occurs at the slaughterhouse, while NAIS tracking ends at the time of slaughter. Thus, NAIS will neither prevent the contamination nor increase the government's ability to track contaminated meat back to its source. In addition, NAIS will hurt efforts to develop safer, decentralized local food systems. ...
If the program fails in its main, stated goal, if it is in fact structured such that failure is inevitable, what are we spending all this money for? As a liberal, progressive, believer in the possibility of government to do good, I have a deep and abiding interest in money given to the government not being wasted. When it's wasted, it creates an instant opportunity cost against something good and useful being done with that money.
Of the money that remains in the program, the Senate directives limit its use to rule-making activities, and on that front, I have a suggestion: lay the groundwork to institute premise ID, instead of animal ID.
I was talking a couple months ago with Margaret Krome, my former internship supervisor and policy program director at the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, about how NAIS implementation has gone in Wisconsin. She said that at this point, they've just done premise registration, which sidesteps many of the concerns raised directly by Amish communities and does actually provide a public health benefit.
Krome explained that when there were animal disease outbreaks, the premise registry let public health officials target their notification efforts to the right people. This registration simply lets officials know that there are livestock on the property and what type. That's actually useful to know should there be an outbreak of hoof and mouth disease, scabies, or what have you. It also isn't burdensome to farmers, needing to be neither expensive nor time-consuming. See? Useful.
Anyway, cheers again to the Senate for showing such good sense. It seems in short supply these days.(Photo credit: kimberlyfaye on Flickr.)
Organic Complications
Published August 03, 2009 @ 12:03PM PT
So, there was a very narrowly focused literature review put out by Britain's pro-GMO Food Standards Agency that was widely reported to claim that there weren't any health benefits from organic food.
It shouldn't be a surprise that the FSA's theory of pesticide is "don't worry, be happy", as Geoffrey Lean of the Telegraph notes, and indeed the report completely ignores the potential health benefits of lower pesticide exposure. As Lean says in closing;
... It reminds me of a minister who used to complain that there was a "myth" that pesticides were "toxic". What, I asked him, would be the use of one that wasn't? Answer came there none.
Worse, the review seems to have excluded studies indicating a greater nutrient density in organic foods. Other nutrient differences reported are probably a result of the fact that conventional agriculture destroys and degrades soil, in a number of ways, and food managed solely for high yields in dying soil doesn't appear to be as good for you as food grown in healthier soil.
Has it, however, been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are nutritional differences between conventional and organic foods over and above the products of our chemical warfare industry? Some evidence suggests that's the case, but as many have pointed out, the body of research to date is minimal. So if the claim that organics are more nutritious (as opposed to less contaminated) needs more support, the claim that they aren't is on even thinner ice.
Food Safety Liveblog
Published July 30, 2009 @ 12:19PM PT
Happening now at LaVidaLocavore.
You can watch at C-SPAN.
Update 3:20 ET: Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) was just complaining that the bill doesn't indemnify food producers from their economic losses in cases of facility quarantine. Was there ever a complaint that made more explicit the corporatists' slavish devotion to the sanctity of profits over public health?
A Big Food Safety Problem
Published July 30, 2009 @ 11:29AM PT
Sick cows are one of our biggest food safety problems:
... Acidosis is often associated with a shift from a foragebased diet to a high concentrate-based diet or excessive consumption of fermentable carbohydrates. Acidosis may occur in cattle on high-grain diets common with youth livestock projects, bull development programs, and cattle finishing programs. It can also occur in stocker calves when self-feeders and highstarch feeds such as corn are used.
Acidosis is the result of low rumen pH. The typical pH of the rumen on a forage-based diet is 6 to 7. As the amount of forage or roughage in the diet decreases and the amount of concentrate increases, the pH of the rumen falls between 5 and 6, depending on the forage to concentrate ratio of the diet. Low pH supports growth of lactic acid-producing bacteria. Lactic acid is very strong and reduces rumen pH even more. Acute (severe) acidosis occurs when ruminal pH drops below 5.2, while subacute (less severe) acidosis occurs at a ruminal pH of less than 5.6. Laminitis, liver abscesses, and polioencephalomalacia often accompany acidosis. ...
Cows with acidosis, who've been fed grain instead of forage, produce deadly E. coli that can survive our stomachs. Healthy cows with a nearly neutral rumen pH still have E. coli in their guts, but these varieties of the bacterium are easily handled by our bodies.
The food safety bill that may be resurrected this week, H.R. 2749, does not address this topic, even though it laudably expands federal food recall powers beyond the toothless "voluntary recall." It does impose regressive fees on the sort of small producers not generally responsible for large-scale food contamination.
Congressional leadership may also put it up for a vote under a closed rule, which means no amendments can be offered. Again, I point you to the Center for Rural Affairs analysis of the vote situation. I'd hope that the pressure Congress feels to do something doesn't lead, as it so often does, to doing something stupid.
Today is Food Safety Day!
Published July 29, 2009 @ 10:25AM PT
Ali Savino runs the food site www.GastroNomalies.com.
From Congressional Quarterly, the House is scheduled to vote today on this (no link, subscription required):
Food Safety — HR 2749, Food Safety Enhancement Act, is scheduled for House consideration today under suspension of the rules. The bill overhauls food safety regulations for farms and food processing facilities, requiring more frequent inspections at food facilities and giving the FDA authority to impose criminal and civil penalties. The measure generally exempts farms from registration requirements and fees, although the bill does establish new regulations for the farming practices for fresh produce. The FDA would have authority to impose mandatory quarantines on geographic areas which are concluded to be the source of contaminated food posing a serious threat to humans or animals. The House will take up a version of the bill that has been modified as a result of talks between leaders of the Energy and Commerce and Agriculture committees to address concerns of agricultural interests about the role of the FDA in regulating farm activities. The compromise bill was released this morning.
