That is good news for the California Food Safety Act, which is on the State Senate’s third reading calendar. Assembly Bill 418, introduced in February by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, D-San Fernando Valley, seeks to ban harmful food additives already prohibited from use in the European Union.
The bad news is that the law bans certain substances as food ingredients and has to compete for Senate floor time with nearly 300 Assembly bills also looking for final passage.
It needs only a favorable Senate vote and the Governor’s sign-off to become law.
AB 418 has been amended on the Senate side, removing one substance from its banned food ingredient list. That substance is titanium dioxide, often added to foods to enhance white coloring or opacity.
To be added to food, titanium dioxide as an additive must achieve 99 percent purity. That still leaves room for small amounts of potential contaminants like lead, arsenic, or mercury. Chewing gum, candy, pastries, chocolates, coffee creamers, and cake decorations are among food items that may contain titanium.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration considers titanium dioxide safe, and apparently, so does the California Senate in that it’s been removed from the AB481’s list of banned substances.
Four ingredients remain on the banned list. They are Brominated vegetable oil, Potassium bromate, Propylparaben, and Red dye No. 3.
The first-time fine for anyone found violating the new law is $5,000, with each subsequent violation going to $10,000. California’s Attorney General and city and country attorneys are all empowered to bring charges under the statute.
By closing its marketplace to foods containing these substances, California will likely force many manufacturers to change recipes for foods distributed nationwide. This is not unlike the national change California is bringing about by closing its market to poultry and pork producers who do not meet its animal housing standards.
After Jan.1, 2027, under the bill, it will be illegal in California to manufacture, sell, deliver, distribute, hold, or offer for sale any food product for human consumption that contains any of the four products.
Two powerful consumer and environmental organizations, Consumer Reports and the Environmental Working Group have been helping move AB418 in Sacramento.
Senate summary of assembly bills
As of Sept. 7, 2023
Third Reading File AB 418 — Gabriel et al. An act relating to food.
2023
May 15 — Read the third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 54. Noes 12.)
May 16 — In Senate. Read the first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. May 24 — Referred to Coms. On Health and E.Q.
May 26 — From committee chair, with author’s amendments: Amend and re-refer to committee. Read a second time, amend, and re-referred to Com. on Health.
Jun. 29 — From committee: Amend, pass as amended, and re-refer to Com. on E.Q. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (June 28).
Jul. 3 — Read the second time and amend. Re-referred to Com. on E.Q. Jul. 12—From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes5. Noes 1.)
(July 12) — Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
Aug. 14 — From committee: Be ordered to second reading according to Senate Rule 28.8.
Aug. 15 — Read the second time. Ordered the third reading.
Sep. 1 — Read the third time and amend. Ordered to second reading. Sep. 5—Read a second time. Ordered the third reading.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News,click here)
]]>The Texas Restaurant Association said the more streamlined regulations offer cost savings and new opportunities to enhance the customer experience.
The Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) introduction to the new laws says the goal is to prevent foodborne illness in Texas.
“This endeavor requires the help of all public health regions, state and federal agencies, local and city health departments, private industry, and the public,” the state’s introduction says. Through teamwork and diligent effort, we can accomplish our mission:
“To protect public health through the efficient operation of a comprehensive retail food protection program focusing on education, training, and oversight, which will ultimately reduce the potential for foodborne illness in Texas.”
“Food safety is serious business in Texas,” it adds.
Here is an overview of each bill:
SB 577 —Local Food Regulations and the Local Food Regulation Registry
SB 577 provides clarity to food establishments and licensing authorities regarding the enforceability of health regulations.
Municipalities and public health districts impact:
Local public health entity impact:
Local public health entities (including municipalities, counties, and public health districts) and DSHS impact:
DSHS implementation activities:
Local public health entities had to comply with the new legislation beginning Sept. 1.
SB 812 —Food Allergen Awareness
SB 812, the “Sergio Lopez Food Allergy Awareness Act,” includes requirements for food service employees and managers to be more aware of food allergies and to know how to mitigate and respond to potential allergic reactions.
Food Service Establishment Impact
Certified Food Manager and Food Handler Course Impact
Local public health entity impact:
“As the second-largest private-sector employer in Texas, foodservice operators rely on our legislators to make our business environment as strong as possible,” Emily Williams Knight, president and CEO of the Texas Restaurant Association, said. “The Texas foodservice industry is resilient, but the past few years have created enormous challenges for our industry in particular. By working with our state’s officials to make government more efficient, and to plan for future growth, we continue to find enormous success helping restaurants overcome their challenges and thrive.”
This summer, Texas restaurants have experienced a decline of dine-in customers because of the extreme heat. According to OpenTable, Texas’ seated diner traffic has decreased 3 percent to 5 percent compared to Summer 2022. At the same time, food and labor costs are both up more than 20 percent compared to pre-pandemic levels. For these reasons, regulatory relief, cost savings and new tools to enhance the customer experience come at a great time for Texas restaurants.
Among the dozens of new laws that will impact restaurants, major themes include:
“After the difficulties restaurants have faced since the COVID-19 pandemic, we started the legislative session with a strong agenda that incorporated feedback from operators across the state,” Kelsey Erickson Streufert, chief public affairs officer of the Texas Restaurant Association, said. “We were determined to deliver immediate relief and long-term security for the entire foodservice industry — from single-unit restaurants to chains, franchisees, employees and customers. Many of these plans take effect with the new laws, creating new opportunities for restaurants and the millions of Texans who depend on them.”
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>Oregon’s State Inspection Program meets the same regulatory safeguards that USDA requires. Before the Oregon State Inspection Program was officially sanctioned by USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), all meat for wholesale distribution had to come from federal inspection sources.
Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek said the $9 million appropriation will fund state meat inspections for the next two years. “This funding adds critical capacity for local certified meat processing to aid businesses and farm owners across Oregon,” Kotek said. “I look forward to seeing this allocation’s positive impact on Oregon’s local economy.”
The agreements are part of USDA’s commitment to supporting local and regional food systems and more resilient supply chains.
Under the cooperative agreements, the state inspection program must develop, administer, and enforce requirements “at least equal to” those implemented under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA).
USDA’s Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety Sandra Eskin said, “This program benefits small meat and poultry processors in building their local and state marketplaces.”
USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) reached cooperative agreements with Oregon and Arkansas in 2022, under which their state inspection programs may inspect meat products produced for shipment within the state. Oregon was the 28th state to obtain FSIS approval, and Arkansas was the 29th.
FSIS has signed state inspection agreements with Arkansas Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
Lauren Henderson, acting director of Oregon’s agriculture department, says a state meat inspection program has been on her “bucket list” since the 1980s.
Oregon’s Inspection program covers the slaughter and processing of:
The slaughter and processing of poultry and rabbits are not covered at this time.
Except for custom-exempt slaughtering, the Federal Meat Inspection Act requires all amenable species, such as cattle, swine, sheep, and goats, to be slaughtered under continuous FSIS inspection.
The processing of meat and poultry products for wholesale sales is also often subject to continuous USDA inspection.
Under the new State Meat Inspection Program, businesses that operate and sell within Oregon can now sell state-inspected meat products in Oregon just like federal plants. For example, small businesses can now provide customers with inspected meat products and not rely on federally inspected plants to process the meat.
Most food processing establishments that slaughter, process, or sell meat products must have some ODA Food Safety license. Licensing does not change under the State Meat Inspection Program. Additional licensing is not required if a license already covers operations.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>Th e Office of Investigation, Enforcement, and Audit (OIEA) conducts detention actions for Meat, Poultry and Egg products. During the third quarter, OIEA detentions totaled 106,520 pounds, much lower than the previous two quarters when detentions hit 281, 143, and 250,246 pounds. So far for the fiscal year, there have been 330 detentions for 637,909 pounds.
The pressure was off a bit due to slightly reduced activity during the federal fiscal third quarter that ended the third quarter. Still, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service remained busy with enforcement actions, including those where it pursued either civil or criminal actions.
The Office of Field Operations (OFO) is the largest FSIS unit. It issued two “prohibited activity notices” during the third period, bringing the total to seven for the year.
FSIS “prohibited activity notices” may include any of the following:
When FSIS determines that an establishment or firm has not taken responsibility to remove or control adulterated, misbranded, or unsafe products in commerce or to advise its consignees of a product subject to recall, it may issue prohibited activity notices to the establishment or firm.
“Prohibited Activity Notices” during the third quarter were issued to Abie’s Place, Abie, NE; La Autentica Foods (two notices), Hialeah, FL; Old Town European Market, Springfield, MO; Prime Food USA, Edison, NJ; Walgreen Co. Store 7718, Fayetteville, AR; and Walmart, Baden, PA.
Through 10 district offices, OFO carries out FSIS’ food safety mission in processing and slaughter facilities across the country. OFO is also responsible for managing all certification work including export verification.
FSIS also took a variety of administrative actions against 34 businesses it regulates. And among FSIS’s “large establishments,” only seven faced administrative action and six of those involved inhumane treatment during slaughter.
On May 24, 2023, an administrative hearing found King of Basturma LLC and its owner Abbas Sachem, both of Westland, MI, as being unfit to receive federal meat inspection services. The reason is the owner’s felony and fraud convictions. He did not appeal and the decision became final.
In a civil injunction action, Ashif Saeed entered into a Consent Decree from the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York to resolve violations of the meat and poultry acts. The owner of a Jamaica, NY business, Saeed agreed to not misbrand products or offer misbranded products for sale. The decree includes enforcement provisions.
A Consent Decree was also agreed to in the District Court for the Southern District of New York involving the owners of N and M Wholesale Supply in New York, NY. It resolves alleged violations of the Meat and Poultry Acts. It requires the owners to get training and keep proper records. And its meat and poultry products must pass proper inspections.
Finally, a 2020 case that opted out of a jury trial appears to have settled with plea bargains that came together during the quarter. There remains an October sentencing hearing for Rhode Island Beef, but not owners Michael and Joel Quattrucci as individuals.
They were charged with defrauding customers by using an illegally obtained official mark of inspection, defrauding customers with claims that their beef was inspected and that it had passed, and falsely claiming it had met federal inspection requirements.
The owners were fined and placed on probation in exchange for plea agreements.
The probation term is 1 to 5 years, with fines of $10,000 each. The October hearing will be limited to Rhode Island Beef as a corporate entity.
Editor’s note: A previous reversion of this story carried the wrong byline. Editor Dan Flynn wrote this story.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>In an expanded position, he will fill the voids left at the FDA by the February departure of Frank Yiannas, who was the Deputy Commission for the then Food Policy Office, and the May retirement of Susan Mayne, who headed the Office of Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
A Yiannas-Mayne rift was reported in 2022 that was so serious that they’d even argue about how food outbreaks should be investigated. FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, who came on board in February 2022, had little choice but to work on a reorganization plan.
Jones is scheduled to begin at the FDA on Sept. 24.
Consumer Reports, which during the past year has worked in coalition with consumer groups, food industry representatives, and state and local regulators to urge FDA reforms, said it supports the Jones appointment.
The new Food and Drug Administration executive position will lead in setting and advancing priorities for the proposed unified Human Foods Program (HFP). Program areas would include food safety, chemical safety, and innovative food products, including those from new agricultural technologies, that are intended to bolster the resilience of the U.S. food supply.
A report issued by the Reagan Udall Foundation in 2022 concluded that the FDA’s culture, organizational structure, and governance model have undermined its effectiveness.
“Jim Jones is an excellent choice to lead the FDA’s critical food safety mission,” said Brian Ronholm, food policy director for Consumer Reports. “With his leadership experience and work on the Reagan-Udall Foundation report, he has extensive knowledge of what will be required to transform the culture at the FDA Human Foods Program into one that is transparent, accountable, and focused on prevention. We look forward to working with him to put in place a process that includes meaningful stakeholder engagement to help ensure the FDA can better protect the public.”
The American Frozen Food Institute (AFFI), The Consumer Brands Association and Western Growers are among the other organizations welcoming the Jones appointment.
Jones for more than 30 years has served in various EPA positions involving stakeholder community and private industry where he has managed teams and provided strategic planning and thought leadership around issues related to chemical safety and sustainability in the environment.
Jones has experience in lessening the impact that chemicals and pollution have on the U.S. food supply. He was a principal architect of EPA’s 2016 overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act, the first update of that statute in more than 40 years.
In 2022, Commissioner Califf ordered an external review of the agency’s Office of Food Safety following widespread criticism of its handling of the infant formula crisis. The report validated many concerns about the FDA raised by Consumer Reports and its diverse coalition of consumer groups, industry leaders, and local regulators.
“I’m delighted to welcome Jim to the FDA. His impressive career, extensive leadership experience, and passionate vision for the future of the Human Foods Program make him an ideal selection for this pivotal position,” said Califf.
“Our proposed reorganization is the most significant undertaking of its kind in recent history for our agency. I’m confident that under Jim’s leadership, we will build a more vital organization that will be integrated with other components of the FDA and focused on keeping the foods we regulate safe and nutritious while ensuring the agency remains on the cutting edge of the latest advancements in food science and nutrition. I’m looking forward to working with him when he joins us next month,” the FDA’s chief added.
At the EPA Jones was responsible for decision-making related to regulating pesticides and commercial chemicals. He also led several national sustainability programs, including the EPA’s Environmental Preferable Purchasing Program and the Presidential Green Chemistry Awards Challenge.
As Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods, Jones will report directly to the FDA Commissioner. He will exercise decision-making authority over all HFP entities when the reorganization is in effect, including related Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) activities. He will provide executive leadership over the entire program and resource allocation, risk-prioritization strategy, policy, and significant response activities involving human foods. The Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Administration and Office of Food Policy and Response will report to Jones until the proposed HFP reorganization is implemented.
“I am very excited about the opportunity to serve as the FDA’s first Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods. I had the pleasure of serving on the expert panel that provided operational recommendations for the FDA’s foods-related activities, and I now look forward to helping the agency realize its vision for the proposed Human Foods Program, including carrying out important nutrition initiatives to improve the health of our country,” said Jones. “As a former pesticide regulator, I deeply understand the unique needs of government programs involved in upholding the safety of the U.S. food supply and the important role that the agriculture community and state partners play in this paradigm. I am honored to serve the FDA and the country in this new capacity.”
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>But the battle royal over the EATS Act has both sides ready to hit the skin off the baseball and various body parts with little or no concern about the consequences.
Freedom Works is the nation’s largest grassroots advocacy organization dedicated to the issues of lower taxes, less government, personal liberty and the rule of law.
“If the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association thinks their recent slanderous personal attacks are working for them, they are dumber than I thought,” said Marty Irby, recently named Chief Operating Officer of Freedom Works. “They’ve only motivated me to work twice as hard to defeat the EATS Act and see the enactment of the OFF Act.”
The OFF Act seeks to prohibit so-called wasteful, anti-competitive, and deceptive behavior from checkoff boards that promote and research various agricultural products. The NCBA president said Irby “has turned FreedomWorks into a lobbying machine for the OFF Act and for ending our way of life.”
It was barely started when Todd Wilkinson, the South Dakota cattle producer who is the current president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, took on Irby.
As it turned out, the OFF Act was a kick-off for the main event, whether the EATS Act makes it into the 2023 Farm Bill, which will not make the Sept. 30 deadline. That’s when the existing Farm Bill expires. Whether Congress can adopt a new Farm Bill before the current Congress expires is now the question.
The EATS Act is said to pit “family farmers” against agribusiness, but it isn’t that simple. Major organizations like NCBA, the Pork Producers Council, the National Farm Bureau Federation, and others all have plenty of “family farmers” on their membership rolls.
After Proposition 12 was upheld by the conservative Supreme Court, mostly farm-state Republicans created the EATS Act to prevent California from imposing its animal housing requirements on other states. California’s Prop 12 closes the state’s marketplace to products that do not adhere to its standards.
Irby also serves as the elected secretary of the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM), which has lobbied non-corporate forces against the EATS Act. He’s attacked Republican Sen. Roger Marshall for introducing the EATS Act. “It is very rare for us to aim directly at a senator,” he said. “But we feel Marshall’s EATS Act is the most egregious of attacks against independent family farmers we’ve ever seen by a U.S. Senator.”
NCBA and Freedom Works are based in the Denver metro area, and any quick look would conclude that the two organizations have a lot in common. But Wilkinson outed Irby, a former congressional staffer, as an animal rights activist “infiltrating conservative organizations” who is no friend of animal agriculture.
At issue is the Ending Agriculture Trade Suppression Act or the EATS Act, which unlike almost all other trade bills, isn’t putting people to sleep.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>The only thing that might keep the EATS Act from blowing up the Farm Bill is that the 2023 Farm Bill does not yet exist, even in draft form though the current 5-year Farm Bill expires Sept. 30.
Farm state congressional delegations do not expect the 2023 Farm Bill to be passed by that Sept. 30 deadline; instead, the best hopes are for the $1.5 trillion bill to be passed and signed by the President by the end of 2023. The bill supports farmers and ranchers and provides nutritional assistance for low-income people.
In the meantime, a heated dispute about the EATS Act continues.
On Monday, 171 bipartisan members of Congress sent a letter to House Ag Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson, R-PA, and Ranking Member David Scott, D-GA., opposing the inclusion of the EATS Act in the upcoming Farm Bill. The letter was organized by Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania and Oregon Democrat Rep. Earl Blumenauer.
“We write today expressing our strong opposition to including H.R. 4417, the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act, or any similar legislation in the 2023 Farm Bill. Modeled after former Representative Steve King’s amendment, which was intensely controversial and ultimately excluded from the final 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills, the EATS Act could harm America’s small farmers, threaten numerous state laws, and infringe on the fundamental rights of states to establish laws and regulations within their borders,” the Congressional letter says.
“This is not a case of California imposing its standards on other states. Producers in any state can choose not to supply another state’s consumers or to segregate animals for different markets. Pork industry economists noted this in an amicus brief, writing, ‘Only those producers for which compliance with Proposition 12 is economically beneficial will choose to do so, while all others will continue to supply the vast majority of the North American pork market beyond California’s border and face little or no economic impact,’” it continued.
Animal activists oppose the EATS Act because they don’t want to lose ground. They won in 2018 and since by voters and affirmed earlier this year by the U.S. Supreme Court. The EATS Act came in response to the conservative Court’s 5-to-4 ruling that California may restrict access to its market on non-discriminatory terms.
The EATS Act opposition is warning congressional leaders to keep it would the Farm Bill, less it becomes a “Poison Pill.”
Sen. Roger Marshall, R-KS, and Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-IA, are sponsors of the EATS Act. Marshall has said radical animal rights activists want California to tell Kanas or Iowa farmers how to raise pigs. Next, Marshall says they will be “telling us we can’t grown GMO corn.”
But those animal activists point to at least one study claiming that the EATS Act could “overturn” troves of state laws, creating an oversight regulatory vacuum
The EATS Act negates state laws that impact other states’ agriculture operations.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>The Washington State Health Department reports that between February 27 and July 22, 2023, six Washington State residents (five from Pierce County and one from Thurston County) developed severe illness due to Listeria bacteria (listeriosis) infection.
All six people had conditions that made their immune systems less able to fight disease. Three of the individuals died. Genetic fingerprinting (whole genome sequencing) of the bacteria indicated that the same food was likely responsible for making all six people sick.
The restaurant discontinued the use of its two milkshake machines on August 8. The milkshake machines will be kept out of service until the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department determines they are free of Listeria contamination and no longer pose a danger to the public.
Because milkshakes and ice cream have caused listeria outbreaks, the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department collected milkshake samples from the restaurant on August 8, 2023. On August 18, 2023, all flavors of the milkshakes were found to be contaminated with the same strain of Listeria that caused the outbreak.
Two people infected with listeriosis reported consuming milkshakes from Frugals restaurant at 10727 Pacific Ave: S., Tacoma, WA, 98444, before becoming sick.
Also, anyone who has eaten recalled products should monitor themselves for symptoms during the coming weeks because it can take up to 70 days after exposure to Listeria for symptoms of listeriosis to develop.
The state Department of Health is working with Pierce and Thurston County local health jurisdictions to gather information from interviews with patients and their families to help identify any common exposures.
About Listeria infections
Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or smell spoiled but can still cause severe and sometimes life-threatening infections. Anyone who has eaten any recalled product and developed symptoms of Listeria infection should seek medical treatment and tell their doctors about possible Listeria exposure.
Symptoms of Listeria infection can include vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache, and neck stiffness. Specific laboratory tests are required to diagnose Listeria infections, which can mimic other illnesses.
Listeria bacteria are found in the environment and can spread from contaminated food to surfaces. Listeria can grow on foods kept in the refrigerator for several days. The bacteria are easily killed by heating food to a high temperature (165°F).
Although healthy, non-pregnant individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as fever, muscle aches, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria monocytogenes is especially harmful to some people:
Pregnant women, the elderly, young children, and cancer patients with weakened immune systems are particularly at risk of serious illnesses, life-threatening infections, and other complications. Although infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like symptoms, their infections can lead to premature delivery, infection of the newborn, or even stillbirth.
People who are not pregnant usually have a fever, muscle aches, and tiredness. They may also get a headache, stiff neck, confusion, loss of balance, or seizures.
Symptoms usually start within two weeks after eating food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes but may begin as early as the same day or as late as ten weeks after exposure.
Pregnant people usually have a fever, muscle aches, and tiredness.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>For the August recess, which actually does not end until Congress goes back to the national capitol in September, more verbal bombs have gone back and forth than usual.
Attorney generals for 16 states posted a letter to the U.S. Congressional leadership on Aug. 9, urging the passage of the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (“EATS”) Act. The EATS Act seeks to preserve states’ rights by limiting their ability to impose agricultural regulations on other states.
According to the states, the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States provides the federal government with the duty to regulate interstate commerce.
“Consistent with that duty, this bill prevents states from impeding Ag trade from other states within the U.S.,” the letter says. “States should have the power to command their destiny regarding agriculture production practices. And this bill preserves the State and Local government units’ right to regulate farming and ranching within their own state.”
California’s burdensome regulations will put small, medium, and possibly even large pork producers out of business, according to opponents. And, American consumers won’t be able to afford bacon for breakfast, the letter added.
“California’s radical-drafted requirements for farmers are hog wild,” the Attorneys Generals wrote. “Justice Kavanaugh recognized that California’s requirements might even worsen animal health and welfare. And because California buys about 13 percent of the nation’s pork, it is prohibitively expensive for farmers to separate California-approved pork from the rest.”
The EATS Act would overturn the Supreme Court’s May 11, 2023, ruling that, with a 5-to-4 vote, found states have the right to regulate products sold within their state. Known as Proposition 12, it is the measure California uses to impose its 2018 farm animal confinement standards on conditions for selling products in California.
“Solving the problems Prop 12 creates requires understanding what went so wrong. California’s unscientific approach to raising pork follows from the fact that Californians barely raise any pork themselves,” they charge.
The pork-producing states do not think California even knows what it is doing.
The attorneys general and governors who’ve gone on record supporting the EATS Act often mention their concerns about the “activists,” referring to animal activists raising the confinement issue.
And these activists also have been very busy during the August recess. They had a virtual press event Wednesday to roll out a new report by the Center for a Humane Economy and Animal Wellness Action showing that a diversified pig production sector already in place can meet the modest demand created by Prop 12 in California and Question 3 in Massachusetts for more humanely raised pork.
A State can always try to lead by example — passing laws to regulate agricultural production within its borders. But that is not what California did, instead it continued. “Californians voted to impose their radical agenda on out-of-state farmers and ranchers — and in doing so, raise food costs for Americans across the country. Their approach is an attack on States’ authority. As a result, many small- and medium-sized pork producers may go out of business. All in support of California’s out-of-touch activist agenda.”
The report also claims that In promoting the EATS Act, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and some of its legislative allies have falsely stated that California “doesn’t like bacon,” that the farm-animal ballot measures ban farrowing crates, and that the two ballot measures will require that farmers in Iowa and Kansas must change their production practices and conform to California’s rules.
The report reveals that the industry has been in transition for more than two decades since Florida banned the use of gestation crates in 2002 and has the existing capacity to supply gestation-crate-free pork in two states.
It claims that nearly 40 percent of breeding sows are already in group housing systems rather than gestation crates, and market analysis shows that California and Massachusetts together will require just 6 percent of total U.S. pork production to come from facilities that allow the sows an opportunity to lie down, stand up, and turn around.
It says those false claims are debunked in the new report released today, with the analysis conducted by two agricultural veterinarians steeped in animal agriculture and based in the Midwest.
“The National Pork Producers Council is spinning an enormous yarn,” said Dr. Jim Keen, D.V.M., Ph.D., director of veterinary science for the Center for a Humane Economy and the primary author of the new report.
Keen worked for two decades at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center in Clay Center, NE, and as a faculty member of the University of Nebraska College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences.
The new report, which can be viewed here, notes that EATS, or the Exposing Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act, would not only unwind two landslide state elections but would undo more than 1,000 other state laws according to an analysis from a team of legal analysts at Harvard University.
The report notes that the pork industry, as a matter of law, is already selling pork from the offspring of overcrowded, immobilized breeding sows in 48 states and 139 nations without any animal welfare restrictions or minimum space allotments.
“The trade association has exaggerated the market impact of ballot measures in California and Massachusetts by 300 percent,” he said. “A highly diversified pork industry has ample capacity right now to accommodate the market demand for Prop 12 and Question 3 without any meaningful changes to the current animal housing setups.”
The report notes that Prop 12 and Question 3 exempt all combined and canned pork products, which represent about 42 percent of pork sales in California and Massachusetts, meaning that nearly half of the pork sold in these two states need not come from farms providing some ample living space to the sows.
It also notes that nearly 40 percent of sows are already in group housing. Minor adjustments on these farms would allow producers to sell whole pork cuts to California and Massachusetts.
“The EATS Act has the perverse effect of nullifying U.S. elections and benefitting a foreign government that wants no humane standards in agriculture. China is building high-rise factory farms that bear no resemblance to the farming practices that my family has observed for 100 years in southwest Oklahoma.”
“Through its total control of Smithfield Foods, the Chinese Government already controls a quarter of U.S. pig production,” added Dr. Thomas Pool, senior veterinarian with Animal Wellness Action and a former Colonel and U.S. Army Veterinary Command commander.
Pool is an Oklahoma State University College of Veterinary Medicine graduate.
The report’s authors also conclude that any price increases in pork in California or Massachusetts would be contrived and based on false assumptions by pork industry leaders. The 40 percent of the industry relying on group housing is already competitive on inputs and pricing, with the remainder relying on gestation crates.
Keen and Pool note that the EATS Act can potentially drive thousands more pig farmers out of business by accelerating consolidation in American agriculture and turning many who stay in business into contract farmers answering to Chinese- and Brazilian-owned companies (Smithfield and JBS). These two companies already control 40 percent of the value of the U.S. pork industry (Smithfield 26 percent and JBS 14 percent).
The report also notes the deep reservoir of public opposition to using gestation crates and the thorough judicial repudiation of the claims that Prop 12 was an unconstitutional intrusion into interstate commerce.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>By their convictions and sentencing, Stewart Parnell, 69, and brother Michael Parnell, 64, respectfully still have 15 and 8 years before their prison release dates.
Their jury convictions and trial judge rulings were all upheld by the Appellate Court in 2018.
Nine deaths were associated with the outbreak.
Those nine had families that miss them to this day. Those families see Stewart Parnell as a despicable character whose reckless disregard for life caused the death of their loved ones.
But for now, about to start its fifth year, Stewart Parnell has played the last card he has left. It’s been called the “Great Writ” of habeas corpus. It is a fundamental right in the Constitution that protects against unlawful and indefinite imprisonment. In Latin, it means “show me the body.” Habeas corpus is supposed to safeguard individual freedom against arbitrary executive power.
Stewart Parnell’s Habeas corpus petition was filed on Sept. 6, 2019. After being denied on. Sept. 23, 2022, by the trial judge for the federal District Court, the 11th Circuit took up Parnell’s Habeas petition on appeal.
And the Appellate Court has issued Parnell a “certificate of appealability” on two issues. Those are jury prejudice and ineffective assistance of counsel. With deep experience in federal appeals, Savannah Attorney Amy Lee Copeland has recently filed a 68-page appellate brief for Stewart Parnell and followed it with a few hundred pages of appendix.
The Parnell appeal includes mounds of local, state, and national media stories to illustrate the climate from the outbreak through the trial. Copeland said about 8,000 were in the jury pool in the Court’s Albany Division at the time of the trial.
This is a lot to digest, but it all boils the case down.
“The nine deaths did not come into evidence at trial,” Attorney Copeland writes. “The government agreed not to introduce that evidence.” Two who knew about the deaths entered the jury and into juror deliberations.
It breaks down into whether those nine deaths couldn’t be put aside in a community with the peanut industry too damaged by the Salmonella outbreak blamed entirely on Stewart Parnell’s Peanut Corporation of America.
Criminal charges were not brought for four years after the outbreak, but .jury selection showed that 60 percent of the prospective jurors knew about the case.
In testimony two years ago, an Albany peanut broker said the Salmonella outbreak at PCA “devastated” the industry. “The sentiment in the local community was ‘under attack by the media,’ especially after reports of death resulting from the salmonella ‘hit the fan,’ ” according to the appellate brief.
Parnell’s trial attorneys did not seek a change of venue for the original jury trial. His defense team members all testified at an evidentiary hearing two years ago. They thought Albany would be the friendliest venue for the PCA trial, but they may have misread the public badly.
The 2014 jury trial was held in Albany, GA, where 60 percent of America’s peanuts are grown within a 150-mile radius. PCA’s peanut processing plant in Blakely, GA, was 65 miles away.
A change of venue is not required if prospective jurors are merely exposed to facts of a case, but only if “inflammatory, prejudicial pretrial publicity “ pervades or saturates the community making a fair trial “virtually impossible.”
Parnell has established “a presumption of jury prejudice,” according to Copeland. “The Sixth Amendment secures criminal defendants the right to trial by an impartial jury,” she said.
And when the deaths were not allowed to be even mentioned at trial, Copeland says jurors were using terms like “fry them” and “hang” and “exact a pound of flesh” as they convicted Parnell on 67 of 68 counts against him.
Many of us remember from our Civil War history that President Lincoln suspended the Writ so certain Rebels could not escape the military’s jurisdiction. The Lincoln suspension ended after four years when the Civil War was over. Parnell’s Writ, however, will go on a bit longer.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>It’s a “twofer” because Marler Clark’s new comments were submitted under two dockets — the FSIS Salmonella in Certain Not-Ready-to-Eat Stuffed (NRTE) Chicken projects and the petition the Seattle law firm previously submitted calling for “Outbreak” Salmonella serotypes to be listed as adulterants. If a food is deemed adulterated it cannot be sold.
Salmonella is so frequently found in U.S. poultry that some food scientists say it is a biological hazard in consumers’ kitchens. FSIS denied Marler Clark’s 61-page petition to address all Outbreak strains. The petition was submitted on behalf of families damaged by Salmonella and several consumer organizations.
The new Marler Clark comments support FSIS’s proposal to regulate Salmonella at levels of 1 colony forming unit (CFU) in NRTE breaded stuffed chicken. It says, “we maintain that the Agency must adopt more robust measures to tackle the Salmonella problem effectively.”
“FSIS’s proposed determination on Salmonella in breaded stuffed chicken products was supported by various factors, one being the investigation of 14 Salmonella outbreaks and 200 illnesses linked to these products since 1998. But according to CDC, Salmonella bacteria cause a staggering 1.35 million illnesses, resulting in 26,500 hospitalizations and 420 deaths in the United States every year,” Marler Clark’s Aug. 14 letter says.
The new comments clarify that the law firm wants a response, not just a denial, to its previous petition. The petition was not an “all or nothing” request but presented 31 Salmonella serotypes that scientific fact or statutory law would justify adulterant status.
FSIS responded “in a serotype-specific” way for three serotypes, but the agenda was silent about the other 28. Marler Clark says denying its petition “was insufficient as a matter of law.”
FSIS said it could not “justify issuing the broad interpretive rule” that “would declare all Salmonella” as added substances in all products.
On behalf of its clients, Marler Clark may seek judicial review of the FSIS denial. Marler Clark’s latest comments say an agency that is “incomplete and evasive” isn’t given deference during the review.
Marler Clark says the agency “primarily” used “straw-man” arguments in denying their petition. “Nothing in the Petition asserted that ‘grave health and safety problems’ posed by Salmonella in raw poultry or meat could not be addressed unless thirty-one serotypes were declared adulterant,” the Seattle law firm said.
It points out that FSIS’s data finds five stereotypes are responsible for 60 percent of USDA-regulated products.
USDA recognizes the Salmonella strains are “injurious to health,” but Marler Clark claims the FSIS “offered a laundry list of reasons not to regulate.” “In the meantime, as the Agency hosts roundtables and ponders an ‘updated’ Salmonella strategy…necessary to reduce such illnesses,” the significant portion of the approximately 1.35 million cases of salmonella that occur each year.
The incidence of salmonellosis from poultry exceeds the CDC’s Healthy People 2030 objective of 11.5 cases per 100,000 population with no substantial deductions in two decades.
The Marler Clark comments conclude by saying “no reasonable interpretation” of FSIS regulations that do not require at least some Salmonella serotypes to be adulterants when present in specific quantities.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)
]]>After a long string of infections required America’s poultry business to depopulate their flocks by 58.7 million birds in 2022-23, there is a welcomed break in the outbreak.
Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) last struck a commercial flock in the U.S. on April 18, 2023.
Veterinary experts told the 2023 Chicken Marketing Summit that nobody has a crystal ball to forecast what will happen. While commercial poultry is getting a break in North America, the same cannot be said for the rest of the world.
According to the World Organization for Animal Health, Sweden, Poland, Germany and Denmark have all seen recurrences this summer of Avian flu outbreaks. Some countries, including the United States, are reporting that the virus has jumped from birds to mammals.
Only some reports in New York’s live bird markets have marred the U.S. record since last April.
Commercial poultry businesses in the United States continue to invest in biosecurity measures because they are best barriers for the perimeters. Personal protection equipment is also used. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Aug.9, 2023, updated its Avian flu work.
Commercial poultry is not in a high demand for vaccinations in the U.S, because of concern they might mask the the disease and slow identification.
Only one person in the U.S. has been confirmed as being infected by the bird flu, and that person fully recovered.
More than one year ago, CDC reported that a Colorado man tested positive for avian influenza A(H5) virus (H5 bird flu). The case occurred in a person who had direct exposure to poultry and was involved in culling (depopulating) poultry with presumptive H5N1 bird flu.
The CDC again reports that the current public health risk from Avian flu remains low.
The patient reported fatigue for a few days as his only symptom and has since recovered. The patient is being isolated and treated with the influenza antiviral drug.
The case did not change the human risk assessment for the general public, which CDC considers low. However, people with job-related or recreational exposures to infected birds are at higher risk of infection and should take appropriate precautions.
The CDC said detecting H5 bird flu may result from surface contamination of the nasal membrane. Still, it could not be determined, and the positive test result meets the criteria for an H5 case.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>People can be infected when they deliberately or accidentally eat a raw snail or slug containing the lungworm larvae or eat unwashed lettuce or other raw leafy vegetables that the slime of infected snails or slugs has contaminated.
Each of the 300+ PBS stations makes its own decision about when, where and if to air the film. It’s had good uptake in many markets, including Florida, Puerto Rico and various midwestern states. Programmers at other major stations have not yet aired the show because of the limitations of their schedules. The film’s distribution as an Accidental Host to PBS stations will continue through September 2025, and the content will undoubtedly hold up for at least that long, if not longer.
On the other hand, PBS Passport is an app available to anyone who supports their local PBS station at a basic level (usually $60/year). So whether or not their home station has already aired the show, a supporter can access the film at no additional charge through the PBS Passport streaming site.
Paznosian is an infectious disease specialist at UCLA and Food Safety News contributor. She is an expert in rat lungworm disease.
This public education approach comes after the best minds with the best science have concluded that Hawaii’s rat lungworm is not spreading beyond the state. In fact, Hawaii is the epicenter of rat lungworm disease which was first found in Asia.
According to Hawaii’s State Department of Health:
“Angiostrongyliasis, also known as neuroangiostrongyliasis or rat lungworm, is a disease that affects the brain and spinal cord. It is caused by a parasitic nematode (roundworm parasite) called Angiostrongylus cantonensis. The adult form of A. cantonensis is only found in rodents. However, infected rodents can pass larvae of the worm in their feces. Snails, slugs, and certain other animals (including freshwater shrimp, land crabs, and frogs) can become infected by ingesting this larvae; these are considered intermediate hosts. Humans can become infected with A. cantonensis if they eat (intentionally or otherwise) a raw or undercooked infected intermediate host, thereby ingesting the parasite.”
And the Hawaii Department of Health says this is what puts you at risk:
“You can get angiostrongyliasis by eating food contaminated by the larval stage of A. cantonensis worms. In Hawaii, these larval worms can be found in raw or undercooked snails or slugs. Sometimes people can become infected by eating raw produce that contains a small infected snail or slug, or part of one. It is not known for certain whether the slime left by infected snails and slugs are able to cause infection. Angiostrongyliasis is not spread person-to-person.”
With these results:
“This infection can cause a rare type of meningitis (eosinophilic meningitis).
The clinical presentation can vary. Symptoms can start with non-specific symptoms and evolve into more specific symptoms over the next following weeks. People may experience nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain a few hours to a few days after ingestion. Symptoms can then progress to headache and other neurologic symptoms. Non-specific symptoms include fever, light sensitivity, muscle pain, fatigue, and insomnia. More specific symptoms may include constant headache, neck stiffness and pain, tingling or burning of the skin, double vision, bowel or bladder difficulties, and seizures.
Children may experience more fever, irritability, somnolence, lethargy, gastrointestinal symptoms, muscle twitching, convulsions, and extremity weakness. In addition, individuals may experience a few days to weeks of no symptoms followed by neurologic symptoms.
Although it varies from individual to individual, the symptoms usually last between two to eight weeks. Symptoms have also been reported to last for longer periods of time.
Risk in Hawaii
According to the Hawaii Health Department: “The majority of cases of rat lungworm that are identified in Hawaii have occurred on the Big Island, but cases, and infected intermediate hosts (snails and slugs), have also been identified on all of the major neighbor islands. Since the risk for infection is present statewide, the recommendations for preventing infection should be followed no matter where in the state you are.
Prevention:
To prevent angiostrongyliasis, the Hawaii Department of Health says don’t eat raw or undercooked snails or slugs, and if you handle snails or slugs, be sure to wear gloves and wash your hands. Eating raw or undercooked freshwater shrimp, land crabs and frogs may also result in infection, although, there have not been any documented cases in Hawaii.
You should thoroughly inspect and rinse produce using potable water. Leaves of leafy greens should be washed one by one under running potable water. Boil snails, freshwater prawns, crabs, and frogs for at least 3–5 minutes. Only drink potable water and do not drink from garden hoses.
Eliminating snails, slugs, and rats founds near houses and gardens might also help reduce risk exposure to A. cantonensis. Eliminating snails, slugs, and rats can be achieved through pesticide baits, traps, rodent proofing your home and sanitation.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>The good news is that there are no new cases of Salmonella T beyond the five known illnesses involving children from the Twin Cities metro area. The bad news is the Minnesota Health Department’s Foodborne Disease Unit has not yet determined a source for the infections.
The investigation continues. The families of two sick children reported consuming raw or unpasteurized milk, but information could not be obtained from the remaining families.
The fact that the original cases were identical through laboratory analysis indicates the infections came from the same source.
The cases include children aged three months to 10 years who became ill between the end of June and early July. One child was hospitalized.
“Even healthy animals can carry these germs and have them in their milk,” said Maria Bye, senior epidemiologist in the Zoonotic Diseases Unit at MDH. “Consuming unpasteurized milk is risky, no matter how clean the operation from which it is purchased.”
Food contaminated with Salmonella bacteria does not usually look, smell, or taste spoiled. Anyone can become sick with a Salmonella infection. According to the CDC, infants, children, seniors, and people with weakened immune systems are at higher risk of serious illness because their immune systems are fragile.
Anyone who has eaten recalled products and developed symptoms of Salmonella food poisoning should seek medical attention. Sick people should tell their doctors about the possible exposure to Salmonella bacteria because special tests are necessary to diagnose salmonellosis.
Unpasteurized milk, also known as raw milk, has not been heated to a temperature high enough to kill harmful germs from fecal contamination found in milk. These germs can include Campylobacter, E. coli, Cryptosporidium, and Salmonella. One child in this cluster of cases was infected with two types of pathogenic E. coli in addition to Salmonella, emphasizing the possibility of getting multiple infections from raw milk, according to public health officials.
Salmonella infection symptoms can mimic other illnesses, frequently leading to misdiagnosis.
Symptoms of Salmonella infection can include diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever usually within 12 to 72 hours after eating contaminated food. Otherwise, healthy adults are usually sick for four to seven days. In some cases, however, diarrhea may be so severe that patients require hospitalization.
Older adults, children, pregnant women, and people with weakened immune systems, such as cancer patients, are more likely to develop severe illness and serious, sometimes life-threatening conditions. Some people get infected without getting sick or showing any symptoms. However, they may still spread the infections to others.
The Minnesota health department is working to identify the source of the unpasteurized milk causing these Salmonella infections and prevent additional illnesses.
“If you have raw or unpasteurized milk in your refrigerator, please do not consume it,” Bye said, “If you have developed gastrointestinal illness after consuming unpasteurized milk, contact your health care provider.”
To help prevent more people from getting sick, MDH is asking anyone with information about gastrointestinal illnesses shortly after consuming unpasteurized milk at the end of June or the beginning of July to fill out a confidential online survey or email [email protected].
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>The order applies to “Raw Farm Cheddar” packaged in one-pound blocks with a code date marked on the plastic wrapper of BEST BY: 03/16/2024 and BATCH# 20230517-1. State testing showed Salmonella contamination.
Last week, Raw Farm LLC, formerly known as Organic Pastures, was subjected to a federal court order that, for at least the next 60 months, requires it to “abide by the decisions of the FDA” with specific requirements for audits and labeling that must be followed including hiring an independent “labeling expert.”
In March, the FDA went to court to reopen 2008 litigation because it claimed Raw Farm LLC violated the April 2010 Permanent Injunction, which imposed restrictions from distributing unapproved drugs, misbranded food, and raw milk and raw milk products for human consumption in interstate commerce.
This week, consumers are strongly urged to dispose of any of the recalled cheese remaining in their refrigerators, and retailers are to pull the product immediately from their shelves. The current order does not include other lots or products from Raw Farm LLC.
There is nothing about the recall on Raw Farm’s website, but it does say this: “Our Raw Cheddar has aged a minimum of 60 days and is truly traditional artisan raw cheddar. Made with Whole Raw Milk, each block is packed with bioavailable vitamins, minerals, enzymes, beneficial bacteria, naturally occurring CLA, and Omega-3 fatty acids. Raw Cheddar’s ease of digestibility gives those who experience discomfort with processed cheese products a delicious and natural option. No coloring was ever added. We believe in keeping our products TRULY raw, which involves never heating above 102° F. Many other so-called “raw” cheese are heated to temperatures just under the legal pasteurized temperature of 161° F, which denatures proteins and enzymes and kills beneficial bacteria that aid in the digestion of dairy.”
The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) found the Salmonella bacteria in a routine sample collected at the Raw Farm, LLC manufacturing and packaging facility. No illnesses have yet been reported.
Symptoms of Salmonella infection include fever, stomach cramps, and diarrhea that may be bloody. Some people may also have nausea, vomiting, or a headache.
Most people infected with Salmonella develop symptoms within 6 hours to 6 days after exposure. While most individuals recover in 4 to 7 days without medical intervention, some may develop complications that require hospitalization.
Children younger than 5, adults 65 and older, and people whose immune systems are weakened from certain medical conditions (such as diabetes, liver or kidney disease, and cancer) or whose treatments are at the highest risk for more severe illness.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>It all started in April 2022 when federal investigators checked out a meat and poultry warehouse on NYC’s Allen Street, only to discover what might’ve been the city’s best-fed rat population.
The rats consumed 43,000 pounds of meat and poultry inside the Ya Feng Trading warehouse.
Rodent droppings covered the meat containers with nesting materials, and a dead mouse was found inside a walk-in cooler. During the inspections, a rat ran up an investigator’s leg as the rodents scattered for a nearby cooler.
With the inspection, a federal lawsuit was filed with Manhattan prosecutors charging the warehouse with violating storage and inspection laws for meat and poultry products.
The civil case was settled Friday with a Consent Decree announced by Damian Williams, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. It was his office that brought the lawsuit over the rats.
Federal District Judge Valeri Caproni approved the Consent Decree.
Under the agreement, the Ya Feng company, owner Linmin Yang, and warehouse manager Kong Ping Ni accept being barred from any work or business involving meat and poultry.
The New York Times reported that as soon as the details case were made public, it “immediately entered the pantheon of New York City rat tales.”
Those include the 2020 case when a man fell through the sidewalk in the Bronx and into a pit “teaming with rats” or when rats emerge from apartment walls or up through toilets.
“Perhaps most famous was Pizza Rat, a large brown rat that went viral after a video emerged showing it dragging a large slice of pizza down the stairs to an L line station in Manhattan in 2015, the NYT reports.
Meat Rats were shut down with chicken, pork, and other meat products. Maybe it was a victory for the city’s first rat czar.
Yang did sign a statement in 2022, admitting to the Court that the warehouse did have a “serious rodent issue.”
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>Michael Parnell, the peanut broker involved with the now-defunct Peanut Corporation of America, has been on the move this summer.
Broker Michael Parnell, 64, and his brother Stewart Parnell, 69, were the top executives at PCA when in 2008-09, its peanut processing plant in Georgia was found to be the source of a multiple state Salmonella outbreak that sickened thousands and resulted in several deaths. PCA’s peanut butter and paste recall was among the largest in history, involving more than 3,000 products.
What’s currently occurring is that the Bureau of Prisons decided this would be a good time to move Michael Parnell down the I-95 S/I 85 S corridor from his previous incarceration at Fort Dix, NJ, to Butner, NC, outside Raleigh. In mid-July, however, BOP opted to park Michael Parnell in Philadelphia, just 50 miles from Fort Dix.
For Michael Parnell, the move came with at least a couple of advantages. He is assigned to low security, and the North Carolina prison includes BOP’s largest medical complex. It is known for its oncology and behavioral sciences; The Federal Medical Center serves inmates from all security levels with health issues.
At age 64, Parnell has raised health issues by suggesting he should be the subject of a “compassionate release.” Parnell will be among 958 low-security inmates at Butner. It houses a total of about 5,000 inmates.
That caused some confusion on the part of Parnell’s appellant attorney, Elliott M Harding of Charlottesville, VA, who was not sure where his client was. He sought the Court’s understanding and time extension.
Harding has filed transcripts from the District Court proceedings and its list of interested parties for the appeal.
In His Habeas Corpus petition, Stwart Parnell has already won appealability grounds and filed his appellate brief. And Stewart Parnell has not been moved from his place of incarceration in West Virginia.
The Parnell brothers were convicted by an Albany, GA, jury in 2014 for multiple felony counts associated with the multistate salmonella outbreak.
After jury conviction, they were sentenced to federal imprisonment — 28 years for Stewart and 20 years for Michael. Their convictions and sentences were upheld by the 11th Circuit in 2018.
Both federal inmates were eligible to file federal Herbs Corpus petition 2255 Motions in 2019. Hearings were held before the federal Magistrate judge for the Middle District of Georgia, but rulings went against the brothers at the District Court.
The 11th Circuit allowed Stewart Parnell to proceed with appealability on two issues: jury prejudice and ineffective assistance.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>It continues the 15-year-old jurisdiction of the Eastern District Court over the civil matter involving the concern over RAW FARM LLC, Organic Pasture’s new legal name.
Last March, the U.S. Department of Justice raised possible civil contempt allegations against RAW FARM, Mark McAfee, and Arron McAfee. An evidentiary hearing on that issue was set for Aug. 9, 2023, but has now been canceled by the Consent Decree.
It means that the Court’s jurisdiction continues over the Defendants, and an April 2010 Order remains in effect for all the directors, officers, agents, representatives, attorneys, and others involved.
The RAW FARM defendants, after 60 months, can petition the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for “relief from this Decree.” In the meantime, they must “abide by the decisions of the FDA.”
FDA gets the power of inspections without prior notice. The Decree spells out specific requirements for audits and labeling that must be followed. It includes hiring an independent “labeling expert.”
The Department of Justice reopened the 2008 litigation last March, claiming Organic Pastures, known now as RAW FARM LLC, was violating the April 2010 Permanent Injunction, which imposed restrictions from distributing in interstate commerce unapproved drugs, misbranded food, and raw milk and raw milk products for human consumption.
The production and sale of raw milk by Organic Pastures within California, where it is legal, was not impacted by the April 2010 order. It’s estimated that OP has 60,000 retail customers of raw milk in the Golden State.
In re-opening the case, DOJ said a raw cheese claiming it can cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent human disease, including heart disease, osteoporosis, and viral infections, violates the April 2010 order.
The Court previously agreed with the DOJ that RAW FARM and the McAfee parties violated the Permanent Injunction Order issued on April 20, 2010. Before any new testimony was taken, the Defendants agreed to the Consent Decree.
The government also takes issue with RAW FARM’s claim that its raw milk labeled as “pet food” is safe for human consumption.
“Organic Pastures and its principals, Mark and Aaron McAfee, have thus continued their pattern of distributing their products in interstate commerce with unproven claims about the ‘wonders’ of raw milk and its associated products,” said the DOJ petititon.
In that March 2023 petition, the government wanted to hold RAW FARM/Organic Pastures and McAfee in contempt with contempt sanctions.
While the 2008 civil case was pending, Organic Pastures 15 years ago also faced similar charges in a criminal action involving similar conduct. The criminal matter concluded in settlement by plea agreement on Dec. 22, 2008, and was approved by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on Jan. 9, 2009.
Pursuant to the plea agreement, Organic Pastures pleaded guilty to two counts of misdemeanor introduction and delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of misbranded food. McAfee entered into a deferred prosecution agreement whereby he agreed to the filing of a two-count information charging him and Organic Pastures with the same violations.
In these agreements, both defendants admitted that: (1) on two separate occasions “one or more of defendant Organic Pastures’ agents or employees, with the knowledge and consent of Organic Pastures, caused [a] box of raw milk and dairy products, labeled as or otherwise represented to be ‘pet food,’ to be sent by defendant Organic Pastures” into interstate commerce, “knowing that the intended use of such foods and/or dietary supplements was for human consumption;” and (2) Organic Pastures’ raw milk and raw milk products “were foods and/or dietary supplements, and were misbranded when so introduced into or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, in that they were falsely and misleadingly labeled as, or otherwise represented.
In the April 2010 order, Organic Pastures and McAfee acknowledged violating federal food safety law by introducing and/or distributing raw milk into interstate commerce in 2007. They also conceded that they violated the “unapproved raw drugs” provision of the FDA.
They did oppose the order as inconsistent with the State of California’s regulation of the raw milk industry.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>The Court’s state’s rights philosophy upheld the animal housing requirements of Proposition 12 but left pork producers and the National Farm Bureau wondering what happened.
And it left rural America to come up with a “big government” solution, which they say is needed to preserve the rights of state and local governments.
But animal activists say the EATS Act could jeopardize more than a thousand public health, safety, and welfare laws, according to a new research report.
A new report analyzing the “Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act” (“EATS Act”) and its potential widespread consequences was released Wednesday by the Brooks McCormick Jr. Animal Law & Policy Program at Harvard Law School.
The 48-page report reveals that the likely negative impacts of the EATS Act could range far more widely than its sponsors envision – threatening states’ rights, consumer safety, and farmers’ livelihoods.
The report also raises several questions about the constitutionality of the EATS Act itself. This research builds upon Harvard’s 2018 report on the Protect Interstate Commerce Act by outlining the EATS Act’s legislative history and legal background, providing a section-by-section legal analysis of the bill, and identifying a range of regulatory areas the EATS Act could disrupt. The report additionally provides a 100-page state-by-state index listing of more than 1,000 state laws and regulations that potentially could be challenged and invalidated if the EATS Act becomes law.
The “Ending Agriculture Trade Suppression or EATS Act” is the so-called solution. Rural Republicans are signing on to the legislation. They think the EATS Act would overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling on Prop 12 and prevent California from imposing its will on farmers and ranchers outside the Golden State.
As the report details, if enacted either on its own or as part of the U.S. Farm Bill, the EATS Act could create a regulatory race to the bottom by substantially curtailing the ability of state and local governments to regulate the production and sale of agricultural products – potentially nullifying over a thousand state laws and likely many more.
Senator Roger Marshall and Rep. Ashley Hinson stated that they introduced the latest EATS Act (S.2019/H.R.4417) in direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 2023 decision in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross to uphold California’s farmed animal confinement law, Proposition 12.
“The language of the EATS Act leaves open significant questions, and each of these unresolved questions has the potential to disrupt entire industries and billions of dollars of investment,” says Kelley McGill, Regulatory Policy Fellow with the Brooks McCormick Jr. Animal Law & Policy Program, and author of the new report. “If enacted, the legislation would spawn substantial litigation through its citizen suit provision, likely subjecting state and local governments to countless costly lawsuits. It could be years before courts are able to provide a functional understanding of the EATS Act. Even for producers who initially might benefit from the EATS Act, this uncertainty and disruption could be extensive.”
The EATS Act stems from legislation initiated by former Iowa Rep. Steve King which unsuccessfully sought to counter state animal protection laws.
The report outlines several specific concerns with the EATS Act. One is that key terms such as “standard,” “condition,” and “preharvest production” are not defined anywhere in the bill – while other terms such as “agricultural products” are defined so broadly as to include vaccines, vitamins, and even narcotics potentially. The EATS Act’s Rule of Construction also attempts to freeze future legislative progress by preventing any further regulation of agricultural products where none currently exists. Lastly, the EATS Act tries to create a citizen suit provision that essentially would permit anyone to legally challenge any regulation of any agricultural product sold in interstate commerce. This private right of action also would invert longstanding burdens of proof by placing the onus on states to prove they likely would prevail at trial and suffer irreparable harm in order to prevent their laws from being enjoined.
For some agricultural products, the Harvard study claims the EATS Act threatens to create regulatory voids or regulatory ceilings where none existed before, leaving entire sections of industries unregulated. A number of laws the EATS Act could obstruct were drafted for the benefit of consumers, so without these protections, product quality, transparency, and safety may suffer.
“The EATS Act could tip the balance of states’ rights and circumvent decades of settled constitutional jurisprudence by federally overriding the expressed will of U.S. voters – shifting agricultural oversight away from states and localities toward federal administrative agencies and the federal judiciary,” said Chris Green, the Harvard program’s executive director who supervised and edited the report. “Our report seeks to bring an informed perspective to the conversation around such legislation and identify a range of very real unintended consequences that could result from the EATS Act’s passage or inclusion in the U.S. Farm Bill.”
The report also finds that while some agricultural producers may face less oversight because of the EATS Act, those same producers could suffer negative consequences from the federal legislation. A significant portion of the laws and regulations the EATS Act potentially could prohibit indeed were enacted to safeguard agricultural production itself. Such regulations related to importing and inspecting livestock and plants into states exist to protect producers from costly diseases and pests such as highly pathogenic avian influenza, African swine fever, and the emerald ash borer. The EATS Act’s potential invalidation of these regulations could jeopardize entire sectors of the agricultural economy and threaten the livelihoods of local producers. If the EATS Act were adopted, producers who already have made significant investments in updating infrastructure in response to state measures such as Prop 12 could also see those investments’ economic value plummet without receiving compensation for their losses.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>Parnell was the top executive at the now-defunct Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) when in 2008-09, its peanut processing plant in Georgia was found to be the source of a multiple state Salmonella outbreak that sickened thousands and resulted in several deaths. PCA’s peanut butter and paste recall was among the largest in history.
His attorney, Amy Lee Copeland of Savannah, is said to be the one you want if you ever find yourself in similar circumstances. Herself, a former assistant U.S. attorney, Copeland, Tuesday filed a 66-page Appellant brief on behalf of Stewart Parnell.
Copeland opened her brief with four pages of “interested parties” that remain involved in Parnell’s case.
After jury conviction, Parnell was sentenced to federal imprisonment for 28 years. His conviction and sentence were upheld by the 11th Circuit in 2018.
He was, however, able to file as a federal inmate a federal Herbs Corpus petition, known as a 2255 Motion, on Sept. 6, 2019. He got a hearing before the federal Magistrate judge for the Middle District of Georgia, but rulings went against Parnell at the District Court.
The local, state, and national reporting of the nine deaths related to the Salmonella outbreak and the damage done to the Georgia peanut industry are documented in Copeland’s brief and juror knowledge at the trial.
The 11th Circuit permits Parnell to proceed with appealability on two issues: jury prejudice and ineffective assistance.
A jury in 2014 convicted Parnell on 67 counts for conspiracy, introduction of adulterated and misbranded food into interstate commerce, instate shipments fraud, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice stemming from the Salmonella outbreak tied to PCA.
Parnell has been in federal prison since 2015, with a projected release date of July 26, 2038.
Copeland cites “community prejudice” as concerned by the 11th Circuit’s so-called Skilling doctrine.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>The State Senate Appropriations Committee takes up Assembly Bill (AB) 418 on Aug. 14, which bans five chemicals found in thousands of foods. It would prohibit the sale in California of foods containing certain substances regardless of where the are made.
The California Assembly passed AB 418, which is far down the field in the State Senate. The California Legislature remains in session for nearly the entire year.
If enacted, AB 418 will prohibit these five substances: red dye No. 3, brominated vegetable oil, titanium dioxide, propylparaben, and potassium bromate. Foods containing any of these ingredients could not be sold in California.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not touched on these issues for years. That was when red dye No. 3 was banned from cosmetic and other uses but remained common in foods.
If California takes action, it’s likely to increase the likelihood of future federal action.
Research has linked the five additives to cancer risks and various development problems. The European Union does not allow any of the five additives in food. The FDA reports that it makes periodic reviews.
More than 10,000 chemicals are allowed in food sold in the U.S.
Nearly 99 percent of those introduced since 2000 were approved by the food and chemical industry, not the Food and Drug Administration, the agency tasked with ensuring the food supply is safe.
Two national non-governmental organizations are backing AB 418: The Environmental Working Group and Consumer Reports.
Earlier in July, the Senate Environmental Quality Committee heard AB 418 before sending it to the Appropriations Committee on a 5-to-1 vote.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>We are talking about Jose Emilio Esteban, our new USDA Undersecretary for Food Safety.
This week’s International Association for Food Protection annual meeting and conference was the first opportunity for him to engage with the larger food safety community and for them to see Esteban up close and personal.
When he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate shortly before 2023 began, Esteban was already experienced in the leadership of the International Association for Food Protection (IAFP). He only had to withdraw because the President named him to the highest food safety office in the federal government.
To become sworn in as Undersecretary of food safety is no small accomplishment. It took Esteban 10 months to be approved for the Presidential appointment, and then he had to wait another 10 months for his Senate confirmation. He says it is helpful to have patience in his skillset.
His long wait was likely easier than some of his predecessors experienced. He was not from out of town but already in the leadership of USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). And Esteban has been a resident of the Washington D.C. area for five years.
Before his confirmation as Undersecretary for Food Safety, Esteban worked since 2001 in several roles at the FSIS. Most recently, he was chief scientist at the FSIS from 2018 to 2022.
And before joining the USDA, Esteban was at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
During his first months as Undersecretary, Esteban made decisions about cell-cultured products, “Product of USA” labeling, and food safety labeling in general.
In his speaking engagements and private remarks at IAFP in Toronto, Esteban explained that three options are being considered when it comes to Salmonella in poultry.
Incoming flocks might be tested for Salmonella before entering a slaughter establishment, better process control monitoring and FSIS verification could be required, or an enforceable final product standard might be adopted.
Esteban trained as a veterinarian in Mexico. He holds an MBA, a master’s degree in Preventive Veterinary Medicine, and a Ph.D. in Epidemiology from the University of California-Davis.
Esteban said that public comments run until July 27 on whether not-ready-to-eat breaded stuffed chicken products that contain Salmonella at levels of one colony-forming unit per gram or higher are adulterated. Esteban said the comment period might be extended because there has been a request for more time.
A veterinarian himself, Esteban also must deal with the shortage of licensed DVMs that makes it difficult for USDA to recruit and hire additional veterinarians. He said exit interviews indicate that USDA is not losing DVMs over money but because they dislike the job requirements.
There has not been any “get to know you” time since Esteban assumed command of food safety at USDA. Deputy Undersecretary Sandra Eskin, FSIS Administrator Paul Kiecker, and all the others at the top of FSIS are all well known to Esteban, and they know him.
Under Esteban, there’s the possibility lining up that some food safety improvements could be in the makings. Esteban knows the power he now has and how short his time will likely be.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>They still remember, and each Aug.23, Maple Leaf Foods recognizes those sickened and those who died in Canada’s 2008 listeriosis outbreak.
Cold cuts from a Maple Leaf Foods plant in Toronto were the source of that deadly outbreak that was known for killing elderly Canadians across several provinces.
The deadliest food-borne disease outbreak in Canadian history resulted in a six- to eight-week product shortage when Maple Leaf shut down operations.
It is no surprise that the International Association for Food Protection, at its annual meeting being held in Toronto this week, would address the historic event. The session titled: “Foodborne Listeriosis in Canada, Are we there yet?” covered most of the bases. “Insights into Progress and Lessons Learned Since Our Infamous Deli-Meat Outbreak,” added if a subtitle was needed.
Heath Canada’s Marie Breton was the panel’s lead-off speaker, providing an in-depth look at her country’s past and future policies for controlling Listeria. She showed how two-thirds of Canada’s listeria policies that were in place by 2011 were in existence by 2008, the year when the listeriosis tragedy occurred.
Lynn McMullen from the University of Alberta at Edmonton said, “One size does not fit all” when considering Listeria and that researchers must consider both the transient and persistence of the pathogen’s strains.
In illustrating how difficult persistent Listeria can be, McMullens showed how Listeria remained in the cheese plant for some seven years. She pointed to the need for improved sanitation practices because of evidence that current procedures “are not enough.”
After the regulatory and research presentations, Randy Huffman from Maple Leaf Foods appeared to tell how the company became an adherent to a food safety culture in response to the deadly outbreak. He credits the company’s former chairman, who from the outset assured Canada their food safety system was among the world’s best. He also said Canada’s regulators were not to blame, just Maple Leaf Foods.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)
]]>
FSIS veterinarians are involved in every aspect of food safety and public health, including diagnosing and treating disease, managing surveillance programs, and inspecting animals, slaughterhouses, and food products.
The forecasts for the shortage of DMVs are expected to continue for the rest of the decade when there will still be an unmet need for 15,000 veterinarians.
This is expected to be used for both poultry and livestock. A non-veterinarian supervisor will supervise the inspection on both shifts of a single plant. An FSIS veterinarian with 26 years on the job said that without the daily presence and federal regulation enforcement, which will sometimes be available from a veterinarian, the food supply will be losing a necessary step for providing safe food for consumers.
A USDA Accredited Veterinarian has completed formal training from the National Veterinary Accreditation Program (NVAP) in the state(s) they are licensed to practice medicine in. Accreditation is state-specific and voluntary. Not all veterinarians are accredited.
This “solution” to the shortage of veterinarians in FSIS is sub-optimal, current FSIS veterinarians say; it does address the current reality of being unable to recruit and retain veterinarians in FSIS. It will reduce the overall number of available veterinary positions, but the reality is that those positions are not being filled anyway.
NAFV takes the position that both should happen, the move to create a District veterinarian position to cover more plants but also do the things necessary to attract new veterinarians into covering more plants.
With its inability to fill its veterinary openings, the FSIS policy change is no surprise. According to reports, FSIS is removing veterinarians from poultry plants under the New Poultry Inspection System. A new position known as the District Veterinary Medical Officer is being established for every four to seven plants.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>EWG earlier this year petitioned USDA to prohibit “Low-Carbon Beef” labels and require third-party verification for similar carbon claims. The EWG also wants USDA to require a numerical on-pack carbon disclosure when such claims are made.
However, it may not be simple or settled regarding climate claims, even when beef is involved.
Beef is not usually considered a carbon-friendly product compared to what? The University of California-Davis recently found that lab-grown meat could have a greater carbon impact than regular beef because of the pharmaceutical-like production methods that are likely used.
“We conducted a study, and it shows that there is a risk that cultured meat might be worse for the environment in some situations than animal agriculture,” according to UC Davis’s Edward Sprang.
The environmental group argues that misleading climate claims like “climate-friendly” on beef products or allowing climate claims without sufficient verification and an accompanying numerical carbon disclosure violates federal laws prohibiting false and misleading claims, said EWG in its petition.
“There is no single food choice less friendly for the climate than beef,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at EWG. “The only thing ‘brazen’ about Tyson’s beef is its claim that it can ever be climate-friendly.”
Per gram of protein, beef production produces approximately nine times more greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions than poultry, six-and-a-half times more than pork, and 25 times more than soybeans, according to EWG.
EWG policing climate-related speech has not yet raised concerns about USDA’s labels. USDA spends millions on its programs that it has taken to labeling “Climate Smart” and “Climate Solutions.”
Studies show no food choice results in more greenhouse gas emissions than beef. But many consumers viewing “climate-friendly” claims, like those made by Brazen Beef, an initiative of Tyson Foods, are likely to assume that purchasing beef bearing such a label will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The EWG says that, by any measure, beef is the wrong choice for the climate.
The EWG urges the USDA to prohibit “climate-friendly” and similar claims on beef products and to require a third-party verification and a numerical on-pack carbon disclosure for such claims to give consumers more information.
Brazen Beef claims to rely on “innovative, reliable farmers who raise crops using agricultural practices that can help reduce GHG emissions,” citing changes in tillage, the adoption of cover crops, and better nutrient management. It also says that ranchers must meet the Tyson Foods’ Climate-Smart Beef Program criteria, which includes an auditing process and data sharing that is “used in a model that estimates GHG emissions.”
Brazen Beef claims its GHG emissions are already down 10 percent. In support of this claim, Brazen Beef says that it has “built a model that backs it up.”
Yet neither Brazen Beef nor Tyson identifies the farmers or ranchers adopting these practices, names the specific practices that have been adopted, or produces data demonstrating that these practices have reduced the methane emissions produced by animals and their manure or the nitrous oxide emissions caused by fertilizing crops grown for animal feed.
“Consumers assume that such ‘climate-friendly’ and similar claims have been verified by an independent third party,” Faber said. “But the USDA relies on an honor system, taking ranchers and food companies at their word without any verification by the USDA or a qualified third party.”
The EWG also submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the agency asking for all internal communications, including emails, memos, and minutes of meetings between agency staff and representatives from beef producers like Brazen Beef and Tyson.
“No amount of greenwashing by companies can obscure that beef is always the worst food choice for the climate,” Faber said.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
]]>McGonigle-Martin has opposed unpasteurized, raw milk in one state action after another, but the trend is clear.
State legislative actions over the past decade have retail sales of raw milk legal in the West, on-farm sales permitted in the Midwest states from Canada through Texas, and an eastern assortment but with only Rhode Island, Washington D.C., and Louisiana making raw milk illegal.
A basic coalition has often been successful in beating raw milk back in legislative chambers, but bills to loosen raw milk regulation are often repeated in the next legislative session. That’s what happened in Iowa, where raw milk was kept more illegal than legal for years.
Iowa’s push-back in 2023 to allow up to ten animals for raw milk production is typical of how little openings are made for raw milk producers.
Most states make some opening for unpasteurized raw milk, be it on-farm sales or herd share agreements, and incremental additions to the sales of unpasteurized milk are easier than worrying about public health warnings.
Public health often joined by major medical groups and the mainstream major dairy industry usually have joined to oppose raw milk with its dangers for spreading dangerous bacteria including E. coli, Salmonella and listeria.
Eric Heinen, a public health officer for Iowa’s Black Hawk County, says he was discouraged but but not shocked by this year’s Iowa Legislature. He blames Iowa being in a different atmosphere for its flipping raw milk over to legal.
Heinen says he could have accepted making raw milk legal for adults, but not children who sometimes cannot survive the complications.
The new raw milk law took effect in Iowa July 1. It opens the door on direct sale of raw milk to consumers, but still not in retail stores.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News,click here)
]]>Tennessee-based Monogram Meat Snacks was accused of employing minors at its production plant in Chandler, MN. Labor Department investigators found two underage employees at Monogram’s Minnesota plant on March 28. Children are at risk for injury and pose a threat to food safety when cleaning equipment.
The plant employs 400 and produces meat snacks, including refrigerated sausages. Monogram also runs the Monogram Foods Loves Kids Foundation, which claims to raise funds for children’s charities in the communities where it operates.
In other fallout over the $1.5 million fine imposed on Packer Sanitation Services Inc. (PSSI) earlier, JBS USA has confirmed that it has launched its own sanitation services at its pork plant in Marshalltown, IA.
PSSI has reported lay-offs totaling 125 at Marshalltown, according to Iowa officials. But the United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 1155, new hires by JBS, are quickly making up for the lost PSSI jobs.
JBS dropping PSSI, at this facility at least, means better jobs with better insurance, and starting pay at JBS is $21.50 per hour, up from the $19.75 that PSSI paid.
Earlier this year, PSSI paid fines of more than $1.5 million for employing child labor at 13 meat plants in eight states where it provided cleaning services to some of the top brands in the meat industry. Over 100 minors were found doing critical food safety jobs, many in overnight shifts.
Monogram produces beef jerky, corn dogs, frozen appetizers, sandwiches, and baked goods. The Memphis-based company has manufacturing and distribution facilities in Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Child labor has become a subset of human trafficking, which is investigated by Homeland Security and the Labor Department. Those investigations are focused partly on the 345,000 unaccompanied child migrants that have crossed the open southern border since 2021.
And JBS reports that as of June 30, it has dropped using contact services at 10 of its facilities and taken up the work with its own staff. JBS has joined with the UFCW union in a new structure for cleaning services.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
Editor’s Note: After the above article was posted, Monogram Foods asked Food Safety News to share these points with readers:
In light of the Sackett v. EPA ruling, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is asking the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to strike down EPA’s Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule.
“In Sackett v EPA, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that EPA had overstepped its authority,” said NCBA Chief Counsel Mary Thomas Hart. She said only a full rewrite of WOTUS would comply with the Sackett decision.
NCBA asks the federal court “to strike the rule from the books.”
In the Sackett case, EPA asked the Supreme Court to “defer to its understanding: of the Clean Water Act, ” but the court declined, finding EPA’s “interpretation is inconsistent with the text and structure of the CWA.”
The Denver-based NCBA argues that major portions of the existing WOTUS rule are directly invalidated by the high court decision. They argue that because EPA is left with “fundamental flaws,” the entire rule should be vacated.
In a 37-page memorandum filed June 28, NCBA says the Sackett decision establishes that the WOTUS rule on the books is now “unlawful.”
In its summary of its argument, the NCBA moton says: “Now that Sackett has disapproved of many aspects of the Rule, it should be completely vacated. Sackett conclusively rejects the inclusion of all interstate waters regardless of navigability as WOTUS; instead, Sackett makes clear to be WOTUS, a waterbody must be a “relatively permanent body of water” connected to “traditional interstate navigable waters.” Sackett also expressly rejects the Rule’s significant nexus test used to define whether tributaries, impoundments of tributaries, wetlands, and intrastate features are WOTUS. As Sackett explained, the CWA does not contain a significant nexus test and therefore the Agencies have no authority to impose it. Sackett also squarely rejects the Rule’s interpretation of “adjacency” to define whether wetlands are WOTUS. Wetlands that are neighboring or near but not abutting jurisdictional waters cannot be WOTUS because they are not indistinguishable from those waters. Further, the Rule’s relatively permanent test fails to provide the clarity Sackett requires, instead requiring landowners to determine whether their property contains jurisdictional features based on vague factors applied at the Agencies’ broad discretion. Indeed, Sackett makes clear that the Agencies’ vision of federal jurisdiction under the CWA that underlies their staggeringly broad definition of WOTUS in the Rule is predicated on a basic misconception: Congress intended to preserve traditional state authority over land and water use, and that limiting principle must be read into the jurisdictional reach of WOTUS under the CWA. For these reasons, the Rule should be vacated in its entirety.”
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)
\
Several non-governmental organizations who are not satisfied with that 5-year-old decision have opted to jump over FSIS, and even the Secretary of Agriculture by taking up their “downer” pigs concerns directly with the White House.
“The spread of pathogens such as Salmonella and Yersinia enterocolitica often occurs when pigs are held in waste-filled pens awaiting slaughter,” the letter to the White House said. “Because downed pigs are unable to rise, they are held for long periods in these filthy pens, often lying in fecal matter, making exposure to Salmonella and other harmful pathogens more likely. Studies show that many downed pigs are infected with H1N1 swine flu8 and commonly harbor antibiotic-resistant Campylobacter.”
In its policy decision in 2019, FSIS said work by such renowned experts as Colorado State Univeristy’s Temple Grandin supports giving pigs time to recover before their suitability for slaughter is determined. Handling pigs should avoid and control stress, FSIS said.
Pigs represent 75 percent of all livestock slaughtered in the United States, with an estimated 500,000 downed pigs arriving at meat processing plants annually.
In a letter to President Joe Biden, the activists are demanding the removal of downed. pigs from the food supply in the interest of food safety and protecting slaughterhouse employees.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that each year pork containing pathogens leads to about 525,000 infections, 2,900 hospitalizations, and 82 deaths in humans.
“The slaughter of downed pigs for human consumption constitutes a significant food safety risk,” the letter claims.
The USDA adopted regulations protecting non-ambulatory adult cattle in 2007 and then calves in 2016. In 2014, seven organizations petitioned the USDA to make a similar rule for downed pigs, which is the petition that was denied in 2019 because USDA found that downed pigs passing inspection pose no greater public health risk than ambulatory pigs.
‘Given the serious consumer and food safety concerns . . ., it is long past time for downed-pig regulations that mirror those for downed cattle and calves,” the letter concludes. “Accordingly, we respectfully request that your administration make our food system safer for everyone and implement such regulations.”
The letter says consumers have no way to determine whether the pork products they consume originate from downed pigs.
To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)
]]>Assembly Bill 418, which has already passed California’s lower house, is getting close to a vote in the Senate that will put it on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk to be signed into law.
Here’s what AB 418 does, according to the most recent staff analysis of the bill:
a) Brominated vegetable oil;
b) Potassium bromate;
c) Propylparaben;
d) Red dye 3; or,
e) Titanium dioxide.
3) Prohibits the provisions of this bill from impairing or impeding any other rights, causes of action, claims, or defenses available under any other law and specifies that the remedies provided by this bill are cumulative with any other remedies available under any other law.
Therefore, B 418 would end the use of brominated vegetable oil, potassium bromate, propylparaben, Red Dye No. 3, and titanium dioxide in food products sold in California.
The bill’s supporters say these chemicals are linked to serious health problems, such as a higher risk of cancer, nervous system damage, and hyperactivity.
The European Union has already banned the five substances from use in food, with a narrow exception of Red No. 3 in candied cherries. Given the size of California’s economy, AB 418 would set an important precedent for improving the safety of many processed foods.
2) Requires an entity that violates 1) above to be liable, in an action brought by the Attorney General, a city attorney, a county counsel, or a district attorney, for a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for a first violation, and up to $10,000 for each subsequent violation.
Sponsored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, D-Woodland Hills, AB 418 follows Europe’s lead and argues that protecting U.S. consumers is the right step, despite alarmist claims from opponents of the bill that it would end the sale of candy and other popular items in the state.
“Today’s strong vote is a major step forward in our effort to protect children and families in California from dangerous and toxic chemicals in our food supply,” said Gabriel, chair of the Assembly Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection.
He added, “It’s unacceptable that the U.S. is so far behind the rest of the world when it comes to banning these dangerous additives.”
“We don’t love our children any less than they do in Europe, and it’s not too much to ask food and beverage manufacturers to switch to the safer alternative ingredients that they already use in Europe and so many other nations around the globe,” said Gabriel.
More than 10,000 chemicals are allowed for use in food sold in the U.S. Nearly 99 percent of those introduced since 2000 were approved by the food and chemical industry, not the Food and Drug Administration, the agency tasked with ensuring our food supply is safe.
Two national non-governmental organizations are backing AB 418: The Environmental Working Group and Consumer Reports.
The state Senate Environmental Quality Committee will next hear and vote on the bill and after that, it should see a vote on the Senate floor.
“The last time the FDA assessed some of these chemicals was almost 50 years ago,” said Brian Ronholm, director of food policy at Consumer Reports. “A number of peer-reviewed studies have linked these food chemicals to serious health risks since that time, but the FDA is not required to reexamine them once they’re allowed on the market.”
“That’s why it’s so critical for states like California to take action. If this measure is enacted, it would likely prompt food manufacturers to stop putting these toxic chemicals in products sold in the rest of the country – meaning safer food for everyone,” he said.
Most chemicals added to food and food packaging to enhance flavor or appearance, or to preserve freshness, are likely safe to eat. But the five food chemicals covered by AB 418 have been linked to a number of serious health concerns. The European Union banned them in 2008, after a comprehensive re-evaluation of the safety of all food additives.
“What are these toxic chemicals doing in our food?” said Susan Little, EWG’s senior advocate for California government affairs.
“We know they are harmful and that children are likely being exposed much more than adults. It makes no sense that the same products food manufacturers sell in California are sold in the EU but without these toxic chemicals,” Little said.
“Our kids need to be protected, too,” she added. “These harmful additives have no place in California’s food supply.”
Children have lower tolerance levels than adults to chemical exposure, and their developing bodies make them especially vulnerable.
Consumers consistently rank food chemical concerns ahead of other food safety issues. But additives are not adequately regulated by the FDA, in large part because of the lack of financial support from Congress for food chemical review.
“For decades, the FDA has failed to keep us safe from toxic food chemicals,” said Scott Faber, EWG senior vice president for government affairs.
“The chemical companies keep exploiting a loophole that allows for food additives that have not been adequately reviewed for safety by the FDA. And the FDA consistently fails to reassess chemicals, even in light of new science. The food and confectioners industries know the review process at the FDA is broken,” he added.
“In the absence of federal leadership, it’s up to states like California to keep us safe from dangerous chemicals in candy, cookies, and other foods our families enjoy,” said Faber.
To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)
]]>