USDA Proposes Parallel to FDA's Reportable Food Registry

The USDA proposed some new rules this week that would:

"...require official establishments to promptly notify the appropriate District Office that an adulterated or misbranded meat or poultry product has entered commerce; require official establishments to prepare and maintain current procedures for the recall of meat and poultry products produced and shipped by the establishment; and require official establishments to document each reassessment of the establishment's process control plans, that is, its Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point plans."

Sounds like the sort of common-sense stuff most people would assume is already required, right? I mean, you'd think that if "adulterated or misbranded meat" somehow made it onto the market, the company would be required to let regulators know. Alas, not the case.

Anyway, the proposed rules are based on recommendations from President Obama's Food Safety Working Group, and are largely similar to the FDA's Reportable Food Registry, the system that helped identify contamination early in the recent, high-profile case of hydrolyzed vegetable protein made by Basic Food Flavors.

This should go off without a hitch, but just in case, you can submit a comment in support of the proposed rule by visiting the rule's page on Regulations.Gov. There is a "Submit Comment" button at the top of the page.

Submit a Comment Now in Support of Nutrition Labeling for Meat and Poultry

A proposed USDA rule would require nutrition labels on a broad variety of retail meat and poultry products. Simply put, the rule would finally give consumers the information to choose meat and poultry in full knowledge of the calories, fat and so forth that these products contain. Go HERE now and submit a comment in support of this rule, because you can be sure that producers will be fighting this tooth and nail. Why? Because transparency about their products - even just about the number of calories and the amount of saturated fat - scares them. The comment period has been extended from its original deadline of 2/16, so submit your comment now!

............................

"SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is issuing this supplemental proposed rule that, if finalized, will amend the Federal meat and poultry products inspection regulations to require nutrition labeling of the major cuts of single-ingredient, raw meat and poultry products, unless an exemption applies."

Cargill Passes the Buck on E. coli Contaminated Patties

Cargill has admitted that it was responsible for making the E. coli O157:H7 contaminated ground beef patties that ultimately paralyzed a Minnesota woman back in 2007. That woman is purportedly suing Cargill for $100 million.

What's interesting about this is that Cargill is aknowledging that it's product was contaminated and directly responsible for the woman's illness, but it is claiming the liability should lie elsewhere. According to the processor, the contaminated beef came from suppliers who claimed it had already been tested. This, combined with Cargill's statement that its actions have been subject to and in adherence with rules dictated by the Federal Meat Inspection Act, add up to Cargill essentially passing the buck down the supply chain to those suppliers who ostensibly failed to identify the contamination.

Two different outcomes would both be in the public interest here, though we're not assured of either of them. If the victim successfully wins a settlement from Cargill, that might force the producer to re-test its meat and demand better from its suppliers. If the victim successfully wins a settlement from the suppliers, that would send the message to these suppliers that processors like Cargill won't protect them from the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, the most likely scenario is that Cargill will simultaneously deny responsibility and claim that it is impossible to identify exactly which supplier would be liable - essentially arguing that although this woman's illness is clearly somebody's fault, we can't say who, so she can't recover damages.

Good arguments for both stricter testing and inspection requirements, and for true traceability.

A report on this from industry friendly Meatingplace.com.

A Very Cool Site

The Food Environment Atlas, from the USDA.

This is a lot of fun to play around with, and lets you see a lot of interesting (and depressing) trends. It's rare that a government agency finds such a genuinely useful and interesting way of presenting the information it spends so much time and effort collecting.

The Tension Between Strengthened Food Regulation and the Interests of Small Farmers

As congress and state legislatures consider legislation to strengthen the food safety system in this country, an interesting tension has sprung up between two groups that would on first glance seem more likely to be allies than opponents. Food safety advocates have increasingly found themselves in disagreement over important questions with small farmers and proponents of the local food movement. Basically, the problem is that small-food types are worried that broadly increased regulation of food producers will disproportionately affect small producers, who operate on narrow margins and lack the legal teams and the resources to conform to complex regulatory requirements. Two good recent examples of this:

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), which promotes local, sustainable farming, last week came out with a detailed proposal of changes it would like to see in S. 510, the food safety bill currently pending in the senate. A good review of the NSAC concerns can be found here, courtesy of Food Safety News.

Marion Nestle, who is a major proponent of an improved food safety regime, is also ordinarily an advocate for local and sustainable food movements. But her response to a bill pending in the Wyoming legislature reveals how these two allegiances don't always go hand in hand. The bill seeks to encourage and assist small, local food producers, but one way it does so is by exempting small producers from certain licensing requirements. Nestle isn't comfortable with this arrangement, which she believes would compromise food safety.

These aren't easy questions to answer. Advocates of good food, including Dr. Nestle, are certainly aware that we need to find some kind of reasonable compromise, and I think everyone is in the process of feeling out what that might be. Keep your eyes out, as S. 510 moves forward and (hopefully) goes into the reconciliation process with the house bill, for how all this plays out.

BPI To Post Pathogen Test Results Online

Beef Products Inc. Founder and Chairman Eldon Roth announced at the Nation Meat Association's annual conference in California last week that the company will be posting 100% of their E. coli O157:H7 and salmonella test results on their website from now on.  The move is part of BPI's efforts to repair its damaged public image following public and media concern over the company's use of ammonia as an antimicrobial "processing aid" in it's ground beef.

The uproar over so-called "ammoniated beef" is a story in itself. The technique, developed by Roth and proprietary to BPI, was originally given special status by the USDA that allowed it to bypass certain inspection requirements, and was considered a "processing aid," meaning that there was no requirment that meat processed with ammonia be labeled as such. This special treatment was based on research that has been called into question by consumer advocates, and that in any case specified higher concentrations of ammonia than ended up in use. News of contaminated BPI meat raised questions about the reliability of the ammonia process and about a lack of company accountability for the safety of the meat (much of which was sold to the school lunch program), and the company has struggled to regain the public trust.

The new policy represents an admirable move toward greater transparency for a major meat processor. It's too bad that this sort of policy only gets implemented as damage control - here's hoping other major producers will follow suit.

The story, courtesy of meatingplace.com.

"Pature" - And This Time They Mean It

In what is generally being regarded as a victory for small organic dairy farms and ranchers, the USDA has  issued new rules for organics that close a major loophole in the definition of "access to pasture." Under the old rules, industrial producers claimed that "access" did not necessarily mean cows had to  be out in the pasture, or eat anything that grows in the pasture, or even be aware of their supposed access to this pasture. Which means that we as consumers were paying a premium for dairy products from cows raised largely in the same manner as all the other CAFO cows out there. Not so starting in June 2010. Under the new rules, "organic dairy herds must be sent to pasture for the entire grazing season of at least 120 days and must get at least 30% of their food from pasture during that season." For the small producers who already do this, the transition will be easy. For big organic it should be a bit tougher, with the wonderful dual result of leveling the playing field for the little guys and giving the organic label even more well-defined value for the consumer.

More (with additional links) from Marion Nestle at Food Politics.

About Increasing Trade and Saving American Agriculture

I wrote a post  recently in which I complained that  USDA Secretary Vilsack's proposals for helping "American farmers" did a poor job of differentiating small farmers from big ag, and that some of the proposals seemed to be helping the small farmers while others (like the push for more exports) clearly favored the big guys. I wrote another post in which I talked about the danger of farm subsidies relative to honest pricing of goods.

An article over at Civil Eats goes into greater detail on these issues and discusses how they're interconnected. The author proposes not only that trade won't help America's small farmers, but that exporting the industrially produced and artificially cheap goods produced under our big ag, subsidy system is detrimental to foreign economies, limits the markets available to our goods, and even harms biodiversity worldwide.

Not an apolitical article, but raises interesting points, so worth reading.

UPDATE:
An additional article, with more info on agricultural policy's trade implications as well as links to more in depth info for the curious. Courtesy of the The US Agricultural and Food Law and Policy Blog.

West Missouri Beef Recalls 14,000 Lbs

Food Safety News reports on the recall of "fresh boneless beef products" from West Missouri Beef. Does this mean you should avoid buying these products at the market today? Nope. The vast majority of the recall (like most meat recalls in our country) affects beef produced and sold back in the end  of 2009, some as early as October.

The delay on "voluntary recalls" is a serious problem with our food system. The pending Food Safety Modernization Act in the Senate would help address this problem for FDA regulated foods, but for USDA regulated meat and poultry, we're stuck with the current system for a while at least. Inspector's need the power to detain food that is likely adulterated, and the USDA needs the power to enforce involuntary (and immediate) recalls.

Because  the only people  the current system is saving are those who buy in bulk, freeze their beef,  and diligently compare the labels on that frozen beef against active recalls. And that's not many.

More on the Budget: Reducing Farm Subsidies

Even more coverage of the proposed budget and its food implications, in an article from the great blog over at Obama Foodorama. They provide a nice synopsis of some of the items not covered in our previous posts, including the planned reductions in farm subsidies.

Subsidies are enormously complicated, and I'm not in a position to say much about the specific proposed changes. What I will say is that while I understand that subsidies have historically been an important tool for supporting American farmers, they raise some questions that shouldn't be ignored. First, we need to ask whether the subsidy system as it exists is actually helping the American farmers who could most use that help: small family farms. Second, we need to consider the effect that subsidies can have on commodity prices. The reality is that subsidies artificially lower the price of goods like corn below natural market prices, and these artificially lower prices trickle down through the whole food system. Anything that has corn or corn products in it, or that has been fed corn, is artificially cheap in our supermarkets. This isn't to say we aren't paying for these items; we're just doing so in advance through our tax dollars, essentially all paying a deposit on these goods.

As someone who advocates as much free and informed choice as possible when it comes to food, I'm definitely wary of a system in which much of our food supply appears cheaper than it actually is, and in which we pay the difference on these products involuntarily out of our tax dollars.

Am I saying we should do away with subsidies? Like I said, I lack the expertise to confidently say anything of the sort. But I do think that subsidies can have some pretty anti-choice  implications, and that these merit consideration by voters and policy makers.

Food & Water Watch Criticizes Obama's Budget

In a previous post, we supported the new fee-based funding for FDA inspection programs included in the president's budget proposal. The folks over at Food & Water Watch are arguing today that other elements of the budget are less food-safety friendly. Specifically, the group criticizes what it sees as inadequate funding for USDA inspections. The whole story here.

The piece also takes issue with what it sees as support for further development of unsustainable fisheries. Without having read the budget, I can't comment on whether this is accurate. It raises an interesting topic, however: sustainability is the notable exception to my "if you understand what you're eating, then go for it" mentality. We all have the right to eat what we please, regardless of the damage we might do to our bodies or wallets; this doesn't extend to destroying our environment or depleting our food resources to the point of driving species into extinction.

Defining "Access to Pasture" for Organic Dairy

An article over at Grist.org the other day looked at an important but obscure USDA rule regarding the definition of "access to pasture" for purposes of organic milk. Basically the USDA is in the process of rewriting the rule in a pretty commonsense way. Under the new rule, organic milk will only come from cows that: "graze on pasture for the entire growing season, or for at least 120 days in areas of inclement weather, getting 30 percent of their food from pasture."

This would basically exclude the big, industrial-organic producers that currently provide their cows a hay-covered strip of dirt outside the vast barns where the animals spend practically all of their time, and call that "access to pasture."


In my mind this is pretty simple. Ask yourself what a reasonable person would think of when you say "access to pasture." Knowing what we eat starts with making sure that the language we (and the USDA) use to describe our food is straightforward.

If you want to lend your voice in support of the new rule, you can do so here.