According to local TV station KCBD and the news release:

An employee of the restaurant, who has not worked at the restaurant since September 8, has been diagnosed with the viral illness and may have passed the virus on to others.  The incident has been traced to the employee and not the restaurant. 

According to Lubbock officials, the city was working to secure vaccine to offer to anyone who patronized the restaurant during the potential exposure period.

The Hepatitis A virus travels in feces, and can spread from person to person, or can be contracted from food or water. In cases of contaminated food, it is usually the person preparing the food who contaminates it. Food handlers will probably not know they have the virus, since the virus is most likely to be passed on in the first two weeks of illness, before a person begins to show symptoms.

Symptoms of Hepatitis A usually appear around 28 days after infection, but can start as early as two weeks after catching the virus. Early symptoms of this hepatitis virus include:

— Muscle aches

— Headache

— Loss of appetite

— Abdominal discomfort

— Fever

— Weakness and fatigue

After a few days of experiencing these symptoms, 70 percent of patients develop jaundice, a yellowing of the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes. Jaundice also causes dark urine and light, clay-colored feces. Symptoms usually last less than two months, although they sometimes last up to six months, and jaundice can linger for up to eight months. Patients can also experience severely itchy skin for a few months after symptoms first appear.

It is important to note, however, that symptoms of the disease can vary in severity. For instance, some individuals, especially children, may not develop jaundice or any symptom at all, and may have an illness so mild that it can go unnoticed. However, even mildly ill persons can still be highly infectious. Persons with illness suggestive of hepatitis should consult a physician even if symptoms are mild.

Elbow wrote:

“The Wisconsin Division of Public Health and our department here in Green County are investigating a cluster of nine confirmed E. coli O157:H7 infections,” said RoAnn Warden, director of the Green County Health Department.

All of those sickened are from Green County, although Warden said they have been geographically spread out, with some in the outlying portions of the county. Some households have had multiple cases.

Sources have told The Cap Times that a 20-month-old girl from Green County died Sunday at UW Children’s Hospital in Madison after being admitted about a week earlier.

While Warden said she can’t talk about the case because of medical confidentiality laws, she said two patients have been diagnosed with hemolytic uremic syndrome, a serious complication stemming from E. coli infection that causes kidney disease.

Warden said the outbreak started in mid-August, and the last case occurred in early September, about a week ago. “We have not identified a common course of exposure,” she said.

Post-diarrheal hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) is a severe, life-threatening complication that occurs in about 10 percent of those infected with E. coli O157:H7 or other Shiga toxin producing E. coli. It is now recognized as the most common cause of acute kidney failure in infants and young children.  Adolescents and adults are also susceptible, as are the elderly, who often succumb to the disease.

The agency explains:

Unpasteurized milk has historically been linked to many serious diseases. In addition, several different kinds of bacteria that could be found in raw milk, such as Salmonella, E. coli and Listeria, have been linked to foodborne illness outbreaks. These bacteria can lead to very serious health conditions ranging from fever, vomiting and diarrhea to life-threatening kidney failure, miscarriage and death. Children, pregnant women, older adults and people with a weakened immune system are particularly at risk.

Accordingly, Health Canada noted that because of these dangers, their Food and Drug Regulations require that all milk available for sale in Canada be pasteurized. However, in Canada, raw milk cheese is allowed for sale because the manufacturing process for cheese helps to eliminate many pathogens that may be found in raw milk..

In the United States, the way raw dairy products are regulated varies significantly from state to state. While states have banned the sale of raw milk entirely, others allow retail stores or farmers’ markets to sell raw milk and or restrict sales to on-farm purchases.

According to CDC surveillance data and scientific literature on milk-related outbreaks from 2000-2007, raw dairy products caused 42 (75 percent) of 56 dairy-related outbreaks during this 8-year period, which is almost 5 times more outbreaks compared with pasteurized dairy products. In addition, from 2010-2011, there were 18 raw dairy outbreaks with 202 illnesses and 24 hospitalizations. During that same time frame, there was 1 pasteurized dairy outbreak with 23 illnesses and 2 hospitalizations.

For more information on the risks of unpasteurized milk visit:

Government of Canada’s Tip sheet on Raw Milk

Government of Canada’s Food Safety Portal

Partnership for Consumer Food Safety Education Be Food Safe Canada Campaign

 http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/

News21 sent samples of raw poultry to a microbiological laboratory for testing and analysis. The commercial tests detected the presence of Salmonella bacteria on raw chickens sold by a Virginia farmer at the market located outside the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) headquarters on Independence Avenue. In addition, tests showed that poultry sold by a Pennsylvania farmer at another nearby market was contaminated with Campylobacter. A USDA spokesperson said the department has suspended poultry sales by the vendor at its market as it conducts an investigation.

Importantly, News21 pointed out that both farmers, whose raw poultry tested positive for pathogens, are exempt from USDA inspections because they process fewer than 20,000 chickens a year. Accordingly, the USDA agency generally reviews exempt operations only if it receives a complaint.

According to the News21 article:

The findings from both markets highlight seams in the federal government’s efforts to keep the country’s food supply safe through a maze of federal, state and local laws that can be confusing even for the people charged with enforcing them. They also illustrate the danger for consumers who think they can find refuge in markets selling food grown locally.

Despite the interest in food from local growers, scientists say small does not mean safe. “From a food safety point of view, there’s no inherent reason why large production is, on balance, more dangerous than a small family farm,” said Bill Keene, senior epidemiologist at the Oregon Public Health Division.

Benjamin Chapman, a food safety specialist at North Carolina State University, said in some cases small farms may be less safe. “We’re finding that there’s less pressure on a vendor at a [farmers’] market to implement risk reduction because the perception is that the product is safe already,” he said. “At a grocery store, growers have all these specifications they have to hit, but that’s absent in the farmers’ market.”

These findings come at a time when public health agencies report that they have failed to reduce the number of Salmonella infections in 15 years, even as other foodborne illnesses have dropped.

Although it is not necessarily against the law to sell raw chicken harboring Salmonella or Campylobacter, those pathogens can cause serious illness and even death. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an estimated 1.8 million people are sickened, 27,000 are hospitalized and 400 die each year from Salmonella and Campylobacter combined.

NEHA was originally created as a national professional society for environmental health practitioners with the intention of establishing a standard of excellence for the profession. That standard is today known as the Registered Environmental Health Specialist or Registered Sanitarian credential. Founded in 1937, NEHA currently boasts a membership of 4,500 diverse individuals nationwide who continuously strive to uphold the organization’s mission “to advance the environmental health and protection professional for the purpose of providing a healthful environment for all.”

One well-attended session was a panel discussion held on Saturday, June 18, about the recently enacted Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Timothy Weigner, Branch Director for Development and Integration at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), facilitated the presentations and provided a concise overview of the new law. 

Weigner opened the session by addressing the numerous reasons why the new food safety legislation is so crucial. For instance, he suggested that the growth of globalization, the significant amount of food being produced overseas, and the presence of new hazards and pathogens demonstrate not only that food production and distribution have undergone major changes in the past several decades, but that our food safety regime must be updated to encompass those changes. 

With 50 new rules contained in FSMA to be implemented by FDA, Weigner explained that this will require the creation of a new food safety system. According to Weigner, it will be a system that, among other things, imposes new import requirements, mandates broad prevention and accountability mechanisms, emphasizes the need for FDA to establish partnerships with other agencies, examines the farm to table continuum, and recognizes that everyone has a role to play. 

The FSMA has been touted by many as being the most groundbreaking food safety legislation in over half a century. In agreement, Weigner remarked that “it is a huge step from where we’ve been.” However, the question that has lingered in the minds of government authorities, health officials, and industry representatives is how to put the law into action. During the discussion, Weigner introduced 8 panelists, each with diverse backgrounds, experiences, and knowledge, who attempted to answer this question. There were certain common themes seen throughout the presentations: the formation of partnerships, the development of proper training programs, and sufficient sources of funding.

Partnerships

Specifically, in his introductory remarks, Weigner expressed the effectiveness of securing partnerships or creating “coalitions” between public health agencies at the local, state and federal levels, laboratories, and universities. Panelist Robert Blake, Branch Chief of Environmental Health Services at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), agreed with the importance of partnerships between FDA and other agencies in order to accomplish full implementation of FSMA, and he added that the CDC is prepared to forge that partnership. “The CDC recognizes that the FDA carries most of the burden of implementing the law, however CDC’s work in tracing a foodborne illness back to the source is a vital link,” he said. Blake explained that the CDC has embraced FSMA and plans to work with FDA as well as other public health agencies to enhance disease surveillance systems and study trends in foodborne illness outbreaks. 

Brian Collins, Director of Environmental Health for the City of Plano Health Department in Texas, agreed that partnerships are vital to the successful implementation of FSMA. Looking at FSMA from a local agency perspective, Collins speculated that FDA will likely need to form and maintain critical partnerships with state and local agencies. In doing so, Collins said that these partnerships would make it easier for FDA to call upon local health authorities to assist in the inspection of food production facilities. However, Collins mentioned that partnerships could also have the added benefit of providing state and local agencies with certain new opportunities for grants and certification. 

In further support of the creation of partnerships, William Dardick, statistician and psychometrician with FDA, stated, “No one can do the job themselves.” Instead, he believes that collaboration amongst agencies is the key to accomplishing the primary goal of FSMA, creating a safer food system. “As partners we can move forward,” he said. Partnerships, Dardick explained, allow agencies to rely on one another for help and guidance. 

Yet, panelist David McSwane, Professor and Interim Associate Dean within the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University, went even further to suggest that implementation of FSMA will require “responsibilities to now be shared, not only between agencies, but between sectors.” From his academic perspective, universities can serve as valuable partners in improving the nation’s food safety system by being a source of the underlying science used to formulate new programs and policies under FSMA. 

Training

Importantly, Dardick pointed out that the creation of partnerships overlaps significantly with another vital aspect of implementing FSMA, which is proper training. By investigating how health officials and food safety specialists in partner agencies do their job, developers of training programs will have the “blueprints,” as Dardick said, necessary to identify the gaps and to enhance current training programs. 

McSwane also highlighted that training will be a key element in achieving an integrated food safety system as laid out in FSMA. “Training provides the knowledge and skills required to implement FSMA,” he said. Due to the growing complexity of our food production and distribution system, it will not only be necessary for individuals to be trained with greater specialization, but it will also require new approaches to training that may cross traditional and even jurisdictional boundaries. In addition, McSwane predicts that training programs will now be crafted to provide a career-spanning curriculum that will include foundational courses as well as areas of specialization. Under FSMA, individuals will now be expected to make a commitment to progress and expansion of knowledge throughout their career. 

However, creating these training programs will be a challenge. As Dardick expressed, “it takes time to build a quality training course. The work is not going to happen overnight.” McSwane explained that it may be difficult to establish a network of instructors to administer the training courses. The main issue, though, as McSwane addressed, is whether agencies will have the resources to make training available and accessible. 

Funding

In his talk, attorney and panelist Bill Marler, focused on the funding of FSMA. A food safety advocate (and sponsor of Food Safety News), Marler worked with legislators to see FSMA signed by President Barack Obama in
January 2011. As Marler des
cribed, “FSMA was a rare piece of legislation that was bipartisan.” It was a moment in history where consumer advocacy groups and industry groups walked hand in hand, Marler stated. However, many fear that with agency-wide budget cuts anticipated for the 2012 fiscal year, FDA will not receive the requisite resources to sufficiently fund the provisions of FSMA. 

Marler recited the statistic that approximately 48 million people (1 in 6 Americans) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die each year from preventable foodborne diseases. He made a provocative analogy between the 3,000 foodborne illness related deaths that occur each year and the 3,000 lives lost on the September 11, 2001. “We’ve spent billions of dollars on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and on making airports safer, and yet we can’t seem to scrape together the $1.5 billion over 5 years necessary to fully implement FSMA,” argued Marler. He concluded his lecture by urging the NEHA AEC audience to petition their state senators to not cut funding for FDA so that FSMA may be implemented to its greatest potential.

According to FDA’s press release:

The information includes a summary of the most common Inspectional Observations of objectionable conditions or practices made during inspections and a searchable Inspections Database that includes the names and addresses of inspected facilities, inspection dates, type of FDA-regulated products involved, and final inspectional classification. By the end of 2011, FDA will also begin to disclose additional information about FDA evaluations of filers, expand disclosure of Untitled Letters, and in appropriate situations, support industry efforts during a food recall to inform consumers of products that are not subject to the recall.

Access to this information about FDA’s enforcement and compliance activities will provide the following to the public and regulated industry:

— More information about company practices that may jeopardize public health, as well as about companies that have had satisfactory FDA inspections

— Information about recall and enforcement activities that will help consumers make decisions about products

— Information about inspection results, which can be expected to create a greater incentive to bring practices into compliance with the law

— Information about food products that are not subject to a particular recall, which can help reduce consumer confusion

The Transparency Initiative was first launched in June 2009. These most recent actions by FDA represent some of the first of the original proposals to be implemented.

According to an article published May 10, by Marcia Wood, Public Affairs Specialist for ARS, the team of ARS scientists designed “an experimental, cutting-edge optical scanning system that would use two different kinds of lighting, a sophisticated camera and other pieces of equipment” in order to examine fresh produce for quality and safety before it even reaches the grocery store.

By experimenting with apples, the scientists found that the system would detect cuts and bruises on the surface of the fruit as well as trace amounts of fertilizer and soil particles. In describing the process, Wood wrote:

The team’s system harnesses the capabilities of a type of camera known as a high-speed multispectral/hyperspectral line-scanner. Positioned above a conveyor belt, the scanner captures images of each fast-moving item, such as an apple. Each apple is exposed simultaneously to ultra-violet light from a UV fluorescent lamp and near infra-red light from a halogen lamp. The near infra-red light that bounces off the apple can be captured by an instrument known as a spectrograph and analyzed for tell-tale patterns of defects, while the UV light beamed on the apple can disclose the whereabouts of contaminants.

The system combines information from both forms of illumination into a single image with contaminant and defect results. When linked to a sorting machine, the system can signal the sorter to separate the problem apples from others.

Moon S. Kim, a biophysicist working on the project, explained that he and his team have been refining this system for the past few years. Their preliminary research was published in 2008, and, in 2010, Kim, along with engineers Yud-Ren Chen, Kuanglin (Kevin) Chao, and Alan M. Lefcourt received a patent for the system.

Currently, the scanning technology is limited to a 180-degree view of the produce item’s surface; however, Kim and his colleagues are hopeful that they will further improve the process to provide a complete 360-degree view, allowing produce packers to perform a thorough inspection for quality and safety.

——————–

Image from the USDA Agricultural Research Service

Vibrio vulnificus, a naturally occurring bacterium found in marine waters with low salinity levels such as bays and estuaries, is commonly found in shellfish. Consuming raw or undercooked shellfish containing the bacteria could lead to an infection with symptoms including vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and even septicemia. Oysters and other mollusks can also be carriers of the hepatitis A virus, an acute infectious disease of the liver.

Researchers with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists are studying ways to enhance the food safety of popular shellfish. Specifically, USDA molecular biologist David H. Kingsley, along with a team of researchers at Delaware State University in Dover, is trying to develop ways to decontaminate mollusks while not destroying their flavor, texture, color, and overall integrity.

The team has been experimenting with a commercial procedure known as high pressure processing, or HPP, a technique first developed by Blaise Pascal in the 17th century to inactivate certain microorganisms in food. Today, HPP is already in widespread use within the food industry; however, Kingsley explains that this ARS research project is the first to determine that the HPP method is also effective against some foodborne viruses.

According to a report by Marcia Wood, a member of the ARS news staff:

HPP equipment compresses water to create intense pressures as high as 90,000 pounds per square inch. Normal atmospheric pressure is about 15 pounds per square inch at sea level. In tests targeting hepatitis A virus, the cause of a contagious liver disease, the team showed that an HPP treatment of 60,000 pounds per square inch of pressure for five minutes inactivated 99.9 percent of the virus in oysters that had been exposed to the pathogen in laboratory tanks.

So far, Kingsley and his colleagues are happy with their success. Yet, the scientists have not perfected the HPP method since they have noticed that the taste of the seafood is sometimes altered as a result of the intense pressure. In the coming months, they will continue to investigate ways to make improvements without reducing the levels of decontamination achieved.

According to a recent report by The Daily Dose, the Jefferson University Hospital blog, while O’Malley was completing a fellowship in medical toxicology at the University of Colorado Medical Center before joining the hospital’s emergency department staff, “[he] was involved in a study that found lead leaching into food from glazed pottery that came from Mexico and was the cause of a pervasive lead poisoning problem among Denver’s Hispanic population.” 

It is not uncommon for ceramic items used for cooking or simply for decoration to contain lead. In fact, lead has been used in the glazing process for ceramic dishes, bowls, pitchers, plates and other utensils for centuries. Typically, after being fired in a kiln, a piece of ceramic will appear smooth and shiny due to the lead in the glaze. 

However, in order to ensure that the items are safe for use, it is necessary to heat the ceramic at very high temperatures for a long enough period of time. If this step is not done properly, the ceramic could contain levels of lead that pose a threat to human health.  

Based on his knowledge from the study that both Mexico and China are often major source of imports containing lead, O’Malley was curious to find out whether the ceramic items he observed in many Chinatown stores also contained lead.

With the help of Thomas Gilmore, a colleague and resident in Emergency Medicine at Jefferson Hospital, and a group of Jefferson medical students, O’Malley and his research team formulated a plan to randomly purchase a large quantity of the Chinese ceramics and subsequently test it for lead contamination. They gathered 87 items from 18 stores in Chinatown as well as 49 items imported from China in nearby neighborhoods. 

After washing and drying each ceramic item purchased for the study, the team then systematically tested the items for lead contamination using LeadCheck® colorimetric swabs, a screening tool commonly used to test for lead in paint. 

The results of the study were shocking. O’Malley and his fellow researchers found that 22 out of the 87 items purchased from stores within the Chinatown district, approximately 25 percent, returned positive results for lead. In comparison, 5 out of the 49 items purchased in stores in neighborhoods outside of Chinatown, or 10 percent, contained lead. 

O’Malley explained that the number of positive results was exceedingly high. “We were astounded to find so many of them positive for lead,” O’Malley said. However, he reported that the type of test performed was only an indication that the items contained some level of lead. It did not reveal the levels of lead. 

After learning the results of their study, O’Malley and Gilmore immediately contacted the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention. Alarmed by the findings, FDA officials decided that it was crucial to further investigate the problem. 

O’Malley performed additional tests on 25 of the ceramic pieces that tested positive for lead contamination to establish how high the levels, in fact, were and to what extent the lead could leach into food placed in the items to later be consumed. Researchers noted that three plates and two spoons were found to be leaching lead in quantities that significantly exceeded the levels permitted by FDA. Specifically, one of the ceramic plates tested leached lead at 145 parts per million, a rate far beyond the limit of 2 parts per million imposed by FDA.

In an interview with Nicholas Bakalar of The New York Times, O’Malley said, “What we’ve demonstrated is that there’s a problem in Philadelphia’s Chinatown. We’ve conclusively shown that. If it’s happening in Philadelphia, it’s happening in other Chinatowns in other cities,” he added. 

Unfortunately, O’Malley and his team expressed that ceramic items found in and around Philadelphia’s Chinatown “may represent an unrecognized source of lead exposure in a population that is not routinely screened for lead toxicity.” 

It is important to inform the public about this health risk since, as O’Malley stated, “Lead poisoning is especially harmful to young children because it affects their developing central nervous system and can cause serious problems like learning difficulties, developmental delays, brain damage or even death.” He added, “Perhaps not as devastating for adults, lead poisoning can still lead to significant health problems like kidney damage and anemia.”

In an effort to raise awareness among people who may have been affected by lead in the ceramic cookware, O’Malley, along with his crew of Jefferson medical students are working with the Chinatown Health Clinic to conduct a mass screening of the community. In addition, they have alerted many shopkeepers of the possible health risks posed by those items. 

Theodore A. Christopher, MD, chair of Emergency Medicine at Jefferson, praised O’Malley’s work in conducting this study. “This is an important study that will heighten the awareness of lead contamination in many different sources,” he said. “It also confirms that medical professionals need to do a more in-depth job of assessing a patient’s social history and background, which may play a very important role in diagnosis of symptoms.”

The study was conducted by scientists at the University of Georgia in collaboration with scientists at Ohio State University and North Carolina State University. The authors point out in the introduction that:

[a]ccording to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the incidence of Salmonella (i.e., 16.2 cases per 100,000 population/year) was the least improved of all foodborne pathogens in terms of achieving national health objective targets for Healthy People 2010. Poultry remains an important vehicle of Salmonella transmission to humans, occurring mainly via contaminated meat.

That statistic, coupled with the fact that poultry is the fastest growing meat product within the U.S. organic market, prompted scientists to compare the incidence of Salmonella in organic and conventional farming operations. The authors noted that “in consumers’ minds, organic foods appear to be a safer alternative to conventional poultry.” In performing this study, they wanted to determine whether that perception had any scientific basis.

Samples for the study were collected from one poultry company in North Carolina that maintains both USDA-certified organic and conventional broiler farms. In total, the team collected 700 samples (300 organic and 400 conventional), including floor droppings, feed samples, and drinking water. After analyzing the samples, scientists found that:

[t]he overall prevalence of Salmonella across all farms, sample types, and age group was 4.3% (13/300) in organic broiler farms compared to 28.8% (115/400) in conventional broiler farms.

The study also revealed significant findings regarding anti-microbial resistant Salmonella. The authors reported:

The overall prevalence of individual and multidrug anti-microbial resistance was higher in Salmonella isolates from conventional broiler farms than in those from organic broiler farms. Multidrug resistance was more frequent in Salmonella isolates from conventional broiler farms (55.2%) compared with organic farms (41.6%).

Thirty-six percent of conventional and 25 percent of organic Salmonella samples were found to be resistant to streptomycin. No organic samples and 39.7 percent of conventional samples had multidrug resistance to six antimicrobial agents: ampicillin-streptomycin-amoxicillin/clavulanic acid-cephalothin-ceftiofur-cefoxitin.

The study’s authors concluded by stating the need for further study of the presence of Salmonella in multiple large-scale certified-organic farming operations; however, the study provides useful information for all consumers concerned about food safety.

Previously, CFIA published information on its website on prosecution bulletins only when a conviction was obtained against a company for violating food safety acts and regulations; however, information on its enforcement activities was not provided.

On Wednesday, Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz announced that the CFIA reports will now include information on food imports that have been refused entry into Canada; federally registered food establishments whose licenses have been suspended, cancelled or reinstated; and notices of violations with warning and penalties, including identifying repeat offenders of animal transport regulations.

Guy Gravelle, a senior media relations officer at CFIA, called the new policy part of an “ongoing transparency initiative.” 

Currently, CFIA is posting information on certain notices of violations with warning and penalties and identifying the company name of repeat offenders of animal transport regulations. However, this new increased public disclosure is only the first phase. 

Eventually, CFIA hopes to publish the names of all company violators and continue to expand the enforcement-related information provided to the public. For example, CFIA is considering publishing some details of inspection activities at food plants before the agency is forced to suspend or revoke the company’s license. 

In introducing this new policy, CFIA plans to make a concerted effort to work with the food industry in order to improve food safety. Just as the names of violators will be publicly released, those companies that come back into compliance will also be recognized. The agency stated that it will make note of the change and will publish the reinstatement date. 

This shift comes as a response by the Canadian government to the 2008 listeriosis outbreak traced back to deli meats produced by Maple Leaf Foods. The outbreak, which resulted 57 confirmed cases of listeriosis and 23 deaths, spurred the Canadian government to take action to improve food safety.

Gravelle explained that “there is a demonstrated public need for this type of disclosure.” Accordingly, Gravelle stated that the Canadian government is committed “to providing consumers with information on enforcement action being taken to protect the safety of their food supply, and the animal and plant resource base upon which safe food depends.”

“Making this information public is a fair, balanced and measured approach to protecting the safety of Canada’s food supply and the resources upon which it depends. And, ultimately, it promotes public confidence in the federal government’s enforcement actions,” added Gravelle.

So far, CFIA has posted enforcement activities that have occurred between April 1 and Dec. 31, 2010. Among the many violators listed on CFIA’s website are a shipment of milk powder from the United Arab Emirates that was prohibited from entering the country on Dec. 31, 2010; 20 notices of violation of animal transport regulations, carrying $52,000 in total penalties, by Nadeau Poultry Farm, topping a list of “repeat violators” between April and December 2010, and the cancellation of the CFIA license of goose processor Northern Goose in October 2010, citing “failure to adhere” to the federal Meat Inspection Regulations.

Bob Kingston, president of the Agriculture Union, Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), which represents federal food inspectors and lab technicians, applauded the efforts made by CFIA to improve food safety, traceability, and accountability through the new disclosure policy, calling it “a step in the right direction.”

In addition, Christopher Kyte, head of the Food Processors of Canada, also acknowledged CFIA’s progress. “We have a big problem with no accountability of companies shipping into Canada and the products are seized and they’ll find another route and ship them back in. This way, we can keep our eyes open for people who don’t abide by the law,” Kyte remarked.

During his announcement, Ritz expressed, “Food safety is a top priority of the government of Canada and we are listening to Canadians.” He continued, “We know consumers want more information and we are delivering that transparency around what we are doing to protect Canadian families. This will give our inspectors another tool in the toolbox to shine the light of transparency on repeat offenders and companies that try and import unsafe food.”

In 2004, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) secretly filmed a video revealing horrific images of workers at a West Virginia slaughterhouse kicking, stomping, and slamming live chickens against walls and floors. The video brought about a massive investigation of the slaughterhouse, as well as several firings of workers who had engaged in the abuse.

A few years later, in 2008, The Humane Society published a similar undercover, investigative video documenting the abuse of “downer” cattle, or cattle that are too sick or injured to stand or walk, upon arriving at a California slaughterhouse. In what Temple Grandin, a professor of animal science at Colorado State University and an expert in slaughter practices, called “one of the worst animal-abuse videos I have ever viewed,” the video showed workers kicking the downed cattle, dragging them by chains, pushing them with forklifts, and delivering repeated electric shocks in an attempt to get them to stand up for inspection.

In addition to those videos, many others have surfaced in recent years as a result of hidden filming by animal rights advocates posing as employees on farms and in processing plants. In some circumstances, these images have provided the evidence necessary to close a plant, recall certain products, and to pursue criminal sanctions.

In what some say is a response to the bad publicity created by these videos, two states have introduced bills that make it a felony to photograph or record a farm without first obtaining written permission from the owner.

Senator Jim Norman (R) of Florida proposed the legislation, SB 1246, on Feb. 21, 2011. The bill provides that:

[a] person who photographs, video records, or otherwise produces images or pictorial records, digital or otherwise, at or of a farm or other property where legitimate agriculture operations are being conducted without the written consent of the owner, or an authorized representative of the owner, commits a felony of the first degree.

The bill goes on to define a farm as “any tract of land cultivated for the purpose of agricultural production, the raising and breeding of domestic animals, or the storage of a commodity.” No vote has been taken yet on the bill.

Although the bill aims to prevent people from posing as agricultural workers in order to capture farming operations with hidden cameras, some believe that the law, if passed as introduced, could also criminalize even the innocent, roadside photography of farms.

Yet, despite those beliefs, many farmers fully support passage of the bill in order to restore the damaged image of the American agricultural industry. Farmers maintain that it will allow them to do their job without worrying about the potential for widespread dissemination of propaganda-style videos and photographs that instill fear and distrust in consumers. They want to prevent the production of images that may display an unfair perspective of farming operations.

On the other hand, opponents of the bill are outraged, arguing that, if passed, it would be a major step in the wrong direction for transparency in the food system.

Today, the public has little to no idea what goes on behind the scenes at various farming operations. As Morris states in his report, “It used to be that most Americans had some connection to the farm. Now, only one in a thousand of us grow 85 percent of the food.” As such, critics of the bill argue that because of this disconnect, the public has a right to know how their food is being produced, handled, and processed. Videos and photographs are one way to provide that transparency and information to consumers. 

In an interview with the Florida Tribune, Jeff Kerr, general counsel for PETA, said “Mr. Norman should be filing bills to throw the doors of animal producers wide open to show the public where their food comes from rather than criminalizing those who would show animal cruelty.” Instead, Kerr and others believe that this is simply an attempt to perpetuate the image of the family farm, rather than what it has largely become today, an industrial system.

Also considering similar legislation is the state of Iowa. Introduced on March 2, 2011, the Iowa bill, House File 589, would amend the Iowa Code to make it illegal to:

act[] without the consent of the owner of an animal facility to willfully . . . [p]roduce a record which reproduces an image or sound occurring at the animal facility . . . [or] [p]ossess or distribute a record which produces an image or sound occurring at the animal facility.

Thursday, the Republican-controlled Iowa House passed the bill 66-27; it is uncertain how it will be received by the Senate.

Supporters of the Iowa measure maintain that by banning the recording of sounds and images in animal facilities, it will encourage people to report abuses through the proper channels so violations can be handled effectively. In addition, proponents are hopeful that it will also deter activists from publicizing images that may be misleading or inaccurate simply to promote an agenda. Many others disagree.

Kerr has called the bill “misguided,” saying they’re trying to criminalize someone being an eye witness to a crime. 

Bradley Miller, national director of the Humane Farming Association, added, “Clearly the industry feels that it has something to hide or it wouldn’t be going to these extreme and absurd lengths.”

As some opponents of the bills have also pointed out, in addition to capturing animal abuse and mistreatment, photographs and video recordings of farming operations have the potential to also expose unsanitary conditions that could lead to foodborne illness, unsafe employee working environments, pollution, and a wealth of other issues that may arise during food production. Banning those recordings will significantly limit the amount of information available to consumers to make educated decisions regarding their food choices.

In response to the two recent bills, Judy Dalglish, executive director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, commented that they are “just flat-out unconstitutional not to mention stupid.” Opponents of the bill are hoping that even if passed, the bills in Florida and Iowa may prove to be unconstitutional. Experts on media law have speculated that the laws would violate freedoms protected in the U.S. Constitution and would not withstand scrutiny.

Concentrating his career for nearly 20 years on issues related to farming, the environment, and design, Imhoff devoted the evening to a conversation about the Farm Bill, an extremely important piece of legislation that is passed every 5 to 7 years and affects many, yet is understood by few. 

The evening began with an introductory speech by Branden Born, assistant professor within the College of Built Environments at the UW. In his opening remarks, he told an eager audience that the current food system that exists in the U.S. is “far from perfect.” 

It is one that has created issues that, as Born put it, “span the micro to the macro.” It has contributed to a nationwide obesity epidemic, it has made food artificially cheap, it has created food deserts in low-income areas around the country, and it has caused significant environmental degradation to both land and water. Born urged that the question we must all ask ourselves is, “how has this happened?”

In his talk, Imhoff explained that many of the changes in our food system are largely the result of the policies that stem from the Farm Bill. Unfortunately, not many people fully comprehend the complexities of the measure and its widespread impact on the food system, both domestically and globally. Because of the mystery surrounding the legislation, Imhoff “wanted to build a literacy of awareness around the bill.”

Imhoff lives on a homestead in Northern California and he acknowledged that his main motivation in life is food production. It is what informs his opinion about food and farm policy, it spurs his enthusiasm for teaching others about the Farm Bill, and it drives his eagerness to participate in the ongoing debate. Although he does not describe himself as an expert, Imhoff does label himself as a “communications hitman and a translator.” Accordingly, he provided his listeners with a lesson in Farm Bill basics. 

Passed in 1933, the Agricultural Adjustment Act is considered to be the earliest incarnation of the Farm Bill. This omnibus legislation was passed during the Great Depression at a time when unemployment was at 25 percent, powerful dust storms were blowing away topsoil, and the country as a whole was facing extreme challenges. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew that the nation needed a “revolutionary effort to rescue agriculture.” He believed that it was necessary for the government to get involved in order to protect the farm economy. 

The aim of that legislation was fourfold, Imhoff described. Firstly, it attempted to control the acreage of crops in agricultural production and to control the prices of more than 100 crops. Secondly, the legislation set price floors in order to guarantee that farmers would receive certain prices for the crops they produced. Thirdly, it provided a system of credit and loans for farmers. Lastly, it addressed the issue of national hunger that had exploded due to the high rates of unemployment. In an attempt to meet the nation’s nutrition needs, the government purchased surplus food and distributed it to hungry citizens.

Although originally passed as Depression era legislation, the Farm Bill has persisted throughout the decades. In examining the history of the bill over the past several decades, Imhoff pointed out several additions such as the introduction of food stamps, the development of the “get big or get out” policies of the 1970s that persist to the present day, the creation of programs to aid farmers during the 1980s farm credit crisis, and the implementation of programs that reward farmers for environmental stewardship and energy conservation, to name a few.

Importantly, however, Imhoff reminded the audience that those changes and developments took many iterations to achieve. As such, it may take several more reauthorizations of the Farm Bill for advocates to see their reforms come to fruition. 

The reason for this, Imhoff explained, is that every few years when the Farm Bill is up for reauthorization, fierce negotiations take place between nutrition advocates who argue for greater hunger assistance and commodity producers fighting for commodity crop subsidies and price supports. Once those two major groups have received their funding, Imhoff contended that the other smaller interest groups would be left to “fight for the scraps.” This year, USDA as well as all government agencies and departments, are being asked to cut their budgets, making these negotiations even tougher. 

Yet, despite those realities, Imhoff told the audience he remains hopeful and believes there are encouraging possibilities for the next Farm Bill. Specifically, he pointed out that there has been an increased awareness not just of the food we put into our bodies, but where our food comes from, how it is produced, and the workers who are producing it. 

He added that Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has made pronouncements about adding 100,000 farmers to the U.S. food production system. Bolstered by these statements, Imhoff thought of this as a good sign that Vilsack was seeking to create new jobs in a time of economic hardship and lingering rates of high unemployment. 

Ultimately, Imhoff stressed that developing the Farm Bill is a “great privilege and responsibility.” It is one that requires the participation and debate of advocacy groups and citizens on all ends of the spectrum. That, Imhoff proffered, “is the gift of democracy.”

Prior to the passage of this federal law, private and State agencies were responsible for certifying organic practices. As a result, there was no uniform standard guaranteeing the consumer that “organic” meant the same thing from state to state, or even locally from certifier to certifier.

However, OFPA authorized the creation of the National Organic Program, a marketing program housed within the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, requiring USDA to develop national standards for organically produced agricultural products.

In addition, the statute mandated the implementation of a “National List” of materials which can and cannot be used in organic production, processing and handling in the United States.

Essentially, the list is a compilation of materials considered to be exceptions to the general rule within the organic industry that all organically grown and handled foods are produced with solely natural materials. Congress reasoned that this National List was necessary in order to account for the realities of organic production.

As such, certain synthetic materials are allowed to be incorporated into the production and handling of organic foods as long as the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), an expert advisory panel, and the Secretary of Agriculture find that the substance is not harmful to human health or the environment, is necessary to production because of unavailability of natural products, and is consistent with organic ideals. For example, the list includes synthetic materials like baking powder that are not available organically but important for commercial food production.

According to a report last week, The Cornucopia Institute, an organic industry watchdog, filed a complaint on Wednesday, Feb. 23, 2011, against Dean Foods alleging that a new product, Horizon Fat-Free Milk Plus DHA Omega-3, contains a synthetic nutritional oil that does not appear on the National List of approved synthetic substances for use in organic foods and constitutes what Mark Kastel, Co-director of The Cornucopia Institute, describes as “a willful and flagrant violation” of OFPA.

The product, just recently announced on Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2011 by Dean Foods, one of the leading food and beverage companies in the United States, under its Horizon Organic brand, is the latest addition to the company’s line of organic milk and bears the USDA organic seal.

In its announcement, the company boasted that the milk is fortified with docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), a long-chain omega-3 fatty acid that has been shown in a number of scientific studies to be important for supporting the brain, heart and eyes at every stage of life.

However, Horizon’s new milk product has proven to be problematic amongst organic food advocates because it contains a synthetic, laboratory-produced version of DHA derived from microalgae species.

Charlotte Vallaeys, a Farm and Food Policy Analyst with The Cornucopia Institute, explained, “The specific type of laboratory-produced DHA oil that Horizon adds to its milk has never been reviewed by the National Organic Standards Board or approved by the USDA.”

During the Bush Administration, synthetic DHA was allowed to be included in organic products. Specifically, in 1995, NOSB issued a final recommendation regarding the use of nutrient supplementation in organic foods. The Board’s recommendations permitted the use of what it classified as “accessory nutrients,” or those nutrients not categorized as vitamins or minerals but found to promote health.

The Board included within the category of “accessory nutrients” substances such as  inositol, choline, camitine, taurine, and omega-3 fatty acids, like DHA. At the time, NOSB reasoned that “[w]ithout this inclusion, we believe we may be limiting ourselves given future nutritional discoveries.”

Ultimately, the NOP crafted a final rule published on December 21, 2000 that did not incorporate the term “accessory nutrients.” Instead, the rule permitted the inclusion of synthetic nutrient vitamins and minerals, in accordance with applicable regulations established by FDA.

Later, although the language of the final rule did not explicitly state that substances like synthetic omega-3 fatty acids could be added to organic food, the NOSB interpreted the rule to permit the addition of synthetic DHA.

However, in April 2010, after repeated appeals from organic advocacy groups, officials from NOP requested that NOSB reevaluate its approval process for various substances used in organic foods. The agency admitted that it had wrongly interpreted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules regarding food fortification with synthetic materials within the Code of Federal Regulations.

Although further action to ban synthetic substances has not been taken yet by USDA’s NOP, Vallaeys stated that “According to the USDA ruling, companies should be in the process of phasing out the use of these unapproved additives in organic foods.” Instead, Dean Foods seems to be taking the very opposite approach.

Surprised by Dean Foods’ announcement of a new product containing DHA, Vallaeys  expressed, “The last thing we expected was to see a marketer actually introduce a new product with these unapproved synthetic substances.  With this move, Dean Foods seems to be stating that they do not care about organic integrity, and couldn’t care less about complying with the organic law,” she added.

Organic advocates are particularly concerned about the use of synthetic DHA because it is frequently made using hexane, a petrochemical solvent as well as a potential neurotoxin that can cause nerve damage by breathing air containing high concentrations of hexane or by ingesting the substance in large doses.

In addition, through a Freedom of Information Act request by The Cornucopia Institute, documents were obtained from FDA that seemed to provide evidence that the synthetic DHA oil, when added to infant formula, caused adverse reactions in infants including excessive gas, diarrhea, and vomiting.

Due to its potentially harmful effects to human health, Vallaeys concluded, “It is…absolutely baffling that Dean Foods would introduce a product with synthetic DHA and have the audacity to label it organic, and it’s even more disturbing that their certifier would allow this.” However, makers of DHA and other synthetically produced fatty acids disagree.

In a 2010 Washington Post report written after USDA released its ruling reversing its prior stance on the use of certain synthetic materials in organics, Cassie France-Kelly, spokeswoman for Martek Biosciences, a producer of plant-based laboratory fatty acids, told the Washington Post, “There is no organic alternative to these fatty acids and we firmly believe that DHA and ARA are important to health.”

Accordingly, in August 2010, Martek petitioned the USDA’s NOSB requesting that DHA and other synthetic fatty acids be allowed in organic food. Currently, however, the Board has yet to make a final decision on whether to approve Martek’s petition. The process could take several more months. Martek hopes their synthetic DHA will be approved by the Board before the phase out period for the substance is complete.

Moreover, in response to The Cornucopia Institute’s complaint, Horizon Organic stressed that they are “work[ing] with Martek and the USDA to follow the correct process to get the DHA approved as an accepted additive to organic milk.” The company also asserts that, as an organic food provider, they support regulations that will add to the organic label.

Unconvinced by Horizon’s assertions, The Cornucopia Institute is hoping that USDA, at a minimum, sends a cease-and-desist letter to the Dean Foods company that would prevent Horizon from introducing the milk products into the market in order to protect both the public and the integrity of the organic label.

In support of Cornucopia’s recent complaint, Kastel urged, “It’s time for the USDA to show that the organic regulations and standards are not a matter of interpretation by powerful corporations, but mean something and must be followed by everyone in the organic community.”

Horizon Organic maintains that it is willing to have an open dialogue about the issue.

It also has gained widespread popularity among livestock producers who use it illicitly to enhance the muscle growth of their meat.

Although the drug is currently not controlled under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (CSA), it is listed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the International Olympic Committee as a non-steroidal anabolic performance enhancing drug. Accordingly, athletes are barred from using it. In past years, many professional athletes have tested positive for clenbuterol and were subsequently banned from their respective sporting events.

Most recently, the three-time Tour de France champion, Alberto Contador, was temporarily suspended from competitive cycling after he tested positive for trace amounts of clenbuterol in September 2010. Urine tests administered by doctors for WADA showed that the presence of the drug in Contador’s system was low, nearly 40 times below the minimum standards required for a violation.

Contador told officials he had not ingested clenbuterol intentionally to improve his athletic performance. Instead, he claimed that he unknowingly consumed a steak contaminated with clenbuterol, which caused the test results to indicate a “small concentration” of the drug. Contador may learn today whether the Spanish cycling federation has accepted his defense, or whether he will be banned from cycling for doping.

According to the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of USDA, clenbuterol is not licensed for any use in the United States. In addition, some countries permit the limited use of the drug in animals not meant for food, and only a few countries have approved small doses of it for therapeutic uses in food producing animals.

The reason why countries have created such strict limitations on the use of clenbuterol  in animals is because the drug, like other beta adrenergic agonists, can produce adverse cardiovascular and neurological effects when ingested by humans in high enough concentrations.

Although not usually life-threatening, ingestion of the drug may result in symptoms such as heart palpitations, muscle tremors, nervousness, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, fever, and chills. In rare cases, though, the drug may result in death.

In addition, long-term consumption of the drug can lead to malignant tumors and pose a particular danger to persons with high blood pressure or diabetes.

The drug, which is readily absorbed after ingestion, typically accumulates in an animal’s organs such as lungs, liver, or kidneys and residues may linger there for several days.

Yet, despite these restrictions, clenbuterol is increasingly bought and sold on the “black market” for use in livestock feed to provide the same desirable effects it does for athletes– accelerated fat burning and muscle growth.

The drug allows livestock growers to rapidly improve the animal’s muscle to fat ratio thereby producing leaner meats more quickly. Another bonus for producers that use the drug illegally in their animal feed is that it has the effect of making the meat appear redder or pinker in color, a characteristic that is attractive and important to consumers, creating the illusion that the meat is fresh even after extended periods of time.

Using clenbuterol in animal feed creates a twofold increase in profits. First, producers are able to shorten the animal growing time allowing them to get their meat to the marketplace faster. Secondly, the drug produces meat that contains less fat, appears fresher, and is seemingly “healthier,” something for which customers are willing to pay a little bit extra.

This illicit practice has resulted in several outbreaks of acute illness due to the ingestion of meat containing clenbuterol residue in France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Ireland. Most notable, however, were outbreaks that occurred in China.

In September 2006, one of the largest food poisoning cases involving clenbuterol occurred in Shanghai, China when 336 people were hospitalized with severe cases of diarrhea and stomach cramps after eating pig meat or organs contaminated with the feed additive.

Then again, in February 2009, 70 people in Guangdong province in southeast China suffered from food poisoning as a result of eating pig organs contaminated with clenbuterol and were hospitalized.

The most recent outbreak occurred last year in the city of Shenzhen near Hong Kong when 13 people became sickened after eating clenbuterol-tainted snake meat.

Although the Chinese government has taken steps to eliminate the presence of clenbuterol from the food supply by banning its use, establishing a system for screening for the drug in animals, implementing a comprehensive food surveillance program, and even instituting penalties for producers and sellers of clenbuterol-tainted meat including fines and prison time, the problem persists.

Livestock producers have learned that by feeding animals the drug, often referred to simply as “lean meat powder,” several weeks before they are ready for slaughter, it becomes increasingly difficult to detect by health inspectors. That, coupled with the government’s wariness of food safety whistleblowers, as in the case of Zhao Lianhai   who organized public protests in China during the 2008 scandal involving melamine-contaminated milk and was later sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison, has contributed to the pervasiveness of the problem.

Particularly, clenbuterol contamination within the Chinese pork industry is considered by some to be one of the country’s most significant impediments to a safe food supply.

In a report by Associated Press, Pan Chenjun, a senior industry analyst with Rabobank in Beijing who focuses on the business of food in China, stated, “It’s really a big problem in China.” He added, “It’s not reported frequently so people sometimes think it’s not a big issue but actually it’s quite widespread.”

Pork is, by far, the most popular type of meat consumed in China. In 2006, the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) of USDA estimated that China produced 53 million tons of pork and consumed approximately 52.5 million tons accounting for more than half of the global supply of pork. Moreover, FAS forecasted that Chinese production and consumption would increase, largely due to urbanization and the increasing disposable income of its population.

Government officials, frustrated with the lingering problem of clenbuterol contamination, are making efforts to bring it under control.

Pan noted that inspectors have cracked down on pork producers, sellers, and distributors in larger cities, like Beijing and Shanghai, which has proven to be successful in decreasing the number of reported food poisoning cases due to clenbuterol contamination in those areas. Unfortunately, however, smaller cities and rural areas where enforcement is not as stringent have not seen the same improvements.

It is likely that clenbuterol contamination will remain a serious food safety problem as the drug is readily available on the Internet in the form of tablets, syrups, and injectable formulas used for veterinary purposes, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency.

The website includes sections instructing consumers how to properly clean, handle, separate, cook and chill their foods, complete with a link to appropriate internal temperatures for various meats, poultry, seafood, and eggs. Moreover, it provides a chart of “higher risk foods” listing foods to avoid completely and others to consume with caution. 

Although created to promote food safety for all Canadians, CPHA specifically intended that the online tool would target “higher-risk groups” including seniors, people living with HIV/AIDS, people undergoing cancer treatment and pregnant women.

According to Dr. Lynn McIntyre, CPHA Board member, “Everyone should be aware of their personal level of risk for foodborne illness and follow some simple steps to safeguard their health, whenever they buy, cook, or store food.” 

However, she added, “Most bacteria, viruses and parasites that induce foodborne illness present a greater risk to seniors, pregnant women, people living with HIV, and people undergoing cancer treatment.” Those groups remain among the most susceptible to a food-related illness as their immune systems are weakened. In addition, if those vulnerable populations do contract a foodborne illness, the symptoms are often more severe and may even be fatal. 

In support of EAT SAFE!, Maple Leaf Foods Inc. contributed to the funding of the website by providing an unrestricted educational grant to CPHA. 

Dr. Randall Huffman, Maple Leaf Foods’ chief food safety officer, agreed with McIntyre’s statement, noting that “vulnerable populations and their caregivers have a particular need for relevant information on food safety that is easily accessible.” 

“Our partnership with CPHA and the development of the EAT SAFE! Web site provided an excellent opportunity to support our education and outreach initiative and help deliver important information to higher-risk Canadians on proper food safety practices, including which foods they should avoid,” said Huffman.  

The launch of the new food safety website comes nearly 2 and a half years after a devastating Listeria outbreak that claimed the lives of 22 Canadians and sickened hundreds. 

The Canadian federal government eventually traced the 2008 outbreak back to Maple Leaf Foods products. As a result, Maple Leaf Foods recalled 191 of its ready-to-eat meat products and shut down its Toronto plant. Unfortunately, however, it took more than two months from the date of the first reported illness associated with Listeria for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to confirm the presence of Listeria Monocytogenes in Maple Leaf Foods products.

As a result of the delayed response, the Canadian government came under fire. Food Safety News reported on Sept. 15, 2009 that “The herky-jerky nature of Canada’s response to the Maple Leaf outbreak brought down criticism on the government and led to the independent investigation headed up by Sheila Weatherill, a public health executive.”

After investigating the crisis, Weatherill submitted a report with 57 recommendations to bolster the Canadian food safety system. The Canadian government subsequently spent $75 million (Canadian) to adopt all of her recommendations.

In the aftermath of the outbreak, Maple Leaf Foods also attempted to mend its reputation by creating an updated food safety website which, as Food Safety News previously reported on Oct. 6, 2009, “outline[d] actions the company has taken to improve food safety including improving sanitation, doubling environmental testing, increasing food testing, and strengthening recall procedures.”

The site, published a year after the 2008 outbreak, also included a “food safety at home” section designed to show the important role of consumers in preventing foodborne illness. 

Many thought the emphasis on consumer responsibility was distasteful in light of the discovery by Canadian health officials that Maple Leaf Foods knew it had a Listeria problem in the plant before the outbreak occurred.

Doug Powell, Kansas State University food scientist and expert in food safety communication, expressed that telling consumers that they need to do more was not the best plan of action. “Companies like Jack in the Box recovered because they did the right thing–and didn’t blame consumers,” he added.

Yet, despite criticism, CPHA and Maple Leaf maintain that consumer awareness of proper food safety measures is crucial to disease prevention. They believe that the EAT SAFE! website, will serve as an invaluable tool in raising consumer awareness as well as helping bring about a decrease in the estimated 11 to 13 million Canadians who contract foodborne illness each year.

While discussing the new website, McIntyre stated, “The food industry and all levels of government have primary responsibility to deliver food that is safe, but consumers are an important link in that chain.” 

“With more than 74.9% of Canadians online today, people are more likely to turn to a computer search engine to find information, and we’re proud to deliver rich, relevant food safety information through the EAT SAFE! website,” said McIntyre. 

As part of the EAT SAFE! campaign, CPHA has contacted public health and home health care professionals to inform them of the important features on the website. The agency has also made many of its food safety and foodborne illness prevention materials available for download in English, French and 11 other languages to increase accessibility.

The suns rays are a natural source of the three bands of ultraviolet radiation, namely UV-A, UV-B, and UV-C. Although invisible to the human eye, ultraviolet light in all of its forms can be damaging to human health. Specifically, it can cause sunburn or discoloration, premature aging of the skin, and even some forms of skin cancer through indirect DNA damage.

However, at the opposite end of the spectrum, ultraviolet light can also produce many beneficial effects, most significantly, the healthy production of vitamin D in the skin.

Under the direction of McHugh, the research team at ARS, USDA’s chief intramural scientific research agency, was able to harness those beneficial aspects of ultraviolet light to quickly, safely, and easily increase the antioxidant activity of carrots. This comes as an important finding since antioxidants are recognized as lowering the risk of cancer and heart disease.

In their investigation, McHugh and others exposed fresh, sliced carrots to a 14-second dose of UV-B. The results of the trial indicated that this short exposure of UV-B can actually enhance the antioxidant capacity of the carrots by about threefold without significantly heating or drying the carrots.

According to the report in the January 2011 issue of Agricultural Research magazine, “Scientists have known for at least a decade that exposing plants to UV-B may cause what’s known as ‘abiotic stress.'” McHugh believes that this is most likely what happened when the sliced carrots underwent UV-B exposure.

Abiotic stress is defined as the, typically negative, impact of non-living stress factors on a living organism that must affect the organism in a significant way. One such stress factor is ultraviolet light.

In plants, the natural reaction to abiotic stress is to intensify their production of two natural enzymes, polyphenylalanine ammonia-lyase and chalcone synthase, as a mechanism to adapt to the stress conditions. As this happens, levels of phenolics, chemical compounds synthesized by the enzymes, will also grow. McHugh explained that some phenolics are classified as antioxidants. Accordingly, ultraviolet exposure will induce this chemical process, ultimately producing antioxidants as a byproduct.

Although previous studies have identified these antioxidant-producing reactions in various plant species, there has been little data collected on how fresh produce respond to UV-B. McHugh hopes that her research, which she recently presented at the annual meetings of the American Chemical Society and the Institute of Food Technologists, will help to expand that knowledge and prove that fresh produce undergo chemical reactions similar to other plants resulting in greater antioxidant power.

Working with ultraviolet light and studying its effects on fresh produce is not a new endeavor for McHugh. In her earlier research, McHugh experimented with the potential for UV-B to boost the vitamin D content of mushrooms.

In partnership with the Mushroom Council, based in San Jose, California, and Monterey Mushrooms, Inc., of Watsonville, California, McHugh found that the ergosterol in mushrooms, a component of fungal cell membranes which serves the same function as cholesterol in animal cells, could be converted into vitamin D by exposure to controlled UV-B. Since mushrooms usually grow in dark, damp areas, there is little opportunity for them to absorb the sun’s natural ultraviolet rays necessary to undergo this process.

Eventually, McHugh and Monterey Mushrooms together developed a technique to introduce UV-B to mushrooms during packing, allowing the company to market a line of mushrooms rich in vitamin D. The product effectuated the first-ever commercial use of UV-B to increase mushrooms’ vitamin D content.

The research conducted by McHugh and her fellow scientists on the beneficial use of ultraviolet light is just one segment of the many National Programs at ARS. In particular, the study falls under the Quality and Utilization of Agricultural Products program whose mission is to “[e]nhance the economic viability and competitiveness of U.S. agriculture by maintaining the quality of harvested agricultural commodities or otherwise enhancing their marketability, meeting consumer needs, developing environmentally friendly and efficient processing concepts, and expanding domestic and global market opportunities through the development of value-added food and nonfood technologies and products, except energy and fuels.”

————

Photo below of pilot-scale UV-B treatment of carrot slices courtesy ARS’s Western Regional Research Center

Specifically, the study indicated that organic milk has much higher concentrations of beneficial and nutritionally desirable fatty acids than milk from conventional production systems. Additionally, organic milk was found to contain lower levels of harmful saturated fat. Although the overall fat content was similar in both types of milk tested, the organic milk showed evidence of more “healthy” fats.

The study, conducted by a team of researchers at Newcastle University’s School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, was a continuation of previous research that also compared organic and conventional milk. 

The earlier studies suggested that fatty acid and antioxidant profiles of milk from cows under organic management differ from those produced by cows under conventional management in the United Kingdom (UK) and elsewhere in Europe. However, those earlier studies were derived solely from farm-based studies. 

In explaining the importance of further research, Gillian Butler, project leader of the study, remarked, “We wanted to check if what we found on farms also applies to milk available in the shops.” 

The team began its research by collecting as many brands as possible of whole, fresh milk available in supermarkets and other retail outlets in northeast England between August 2006 and January 2008. Out of 124 milk types purchased, 88 samples from 22 brands, 12 from conventional production and 10 organic, were analyzed during the course of the study. The samples represented milk produced in both summer and winter seasons.

In addition to discovering the significant disparities between the fat composition of organic and conventional milk, the Newcastle University researchers reported other surprising conclusions. 

Interestingly, the study evidenced an unsuspected correlation between milk quality and climate. The results revealed that samples of non-organic milk collected during a particularly wet and cool UK summer and the following winter had a detrimental effect on the quality of the milk. According to the study, non-organic milk samples collected during a very poor UK summer had significantly higher saturated fat content and far less beneficial fatty acids than in a more “normal” year.

Importantly, however, researchers found that the samples of supermarket organic milk demonstrated higher levels of nutritionally beneficial fatty acids compared with “ordinary” milk, regardless of the time of year or weather conditions. 

In the previous study, which sampled milk directly from 25 various farms, it had been reported that greater health benefits were seen only during the summer months. However, this most recent Newcastle University study shows that those health benefits of organic milk are, in fact, present all year round, making it an overall healthier option.

Butler proffered that the considerable differences between organic and conventional milk are largely due to conventional farms’ lower reliance on grazing and overuse of nitrogen fertilizers, which often suppress the growth of nutrient-dense clover.

As reported by Newcastle University’s Press Office, “Organic dairying standards prescribe a reliance on forage, especially grazing, and, in the absence of nitrogen fertilizer, tend to encourage swards of red and white clover, which have been shown to alter the fatty acid intake and composition of milk.”

Remarking on the group’s findings, Emma Hockridge, Head of Policy at the Soil Association, said, “This groundbreaking research proves for the first time that people buying organic milk will be benefitting from the higher levels of beneficial fatty acids in organic milk through the whole year.”

Also worth noting was the greater consistency in quality seen between organic suppliers, whereas conventional milk was often found to be of varying quality. 

“We were surprised to see obvious differences between the conventional brands, with the more expensive ones not necessarily better,” said Butler. “Some brands–which promote their suppliers as wholesome and grazing on fresh pastures–actually sold milk that appeared to be from very intensive farms.”


Butler offered that “the results suggest greater uniformity of feeding practice on farms supplying organic milk since there were no brands which differed consistently in fat composition.” She added, “This implies a fairly uniform approach to feeding practiced across these suppliers.”


In light of the growing worldwide obesity epidemic as well as other health concerns, Butler, while discussing her research, recommended that opting for organic milk could be a step in the right direction. “We’re always being told to cut down on the saturated fat we consume and switching to organic milk and dairy products provides a natural way to increase our intake of nutritionally desirable fatty acids, vitamins and antioxidants without increasing our intake of less desirable fatty acids,” said Butler. 



She continued, “By choosing organic milk you can cut saturated fats by 30-50 percent and still get the same intake of beneficial fatty acids, as the omega-3 levels are higher but omega-6 is not, which helps to improve the crucial ratio between the two.”

The UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) has yet to endorse the health benefits of organic milk as suggested by this study. The findings conflict with a prior statement delivered by the agency that organic milk could contain high levels of omega-3 fatty acids but that they were of “limited health benefit.”

In a more recent address, a spokesman for the UK Department of Health, stated, “There is some evidence that organic milk may have higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids than conventional milk. However, the types of omega-3 fatty acids in organic milk are different to those found in oily fish. It is the omega-3 fatty acids in oily fish which have been shown to be beneficial in terms of heart disease.”

The saga began in June when some of the farm’s cheeses were seized in an armed raid at Rawesome Foods, a health food store in California. On Nov. 2, 2010, Food Safety News reported, “With guns drawn, federal, state and local authorities entered the Venice raw food club and seized cartons of raw milk and packages of unpasteurized goat cheese.”

Coincidentally, the raid occurred at a time when FDA had begun to take a harder look at producers using raw milk in their cheese production. Recently, FDA initiated a program to test the buildings and equipment used in cheesemaking for Listeria. 

Since April 2010, FDA has sent inspectors to more than 100 cheesemaking facilities, including both large and small cheesemakers. During those inspections, Listeria was found in the production facilities of 24 cheesemakers, more than half of which were considered to be small, artisan-scale operations. 

After performing tests on the Morningland Dairy cheeses that had been distributed to the California retailer, officials from the California Department of Food and Agriculture announced that some of the samples contained trace amounts of Listeria monocytogenes and Staphylococcus aureus. Missouri state officials were notified of the contamination found in the company’s products. 

The seizure at Rawesome Foods and subsequent test results prompted Morningland Dairy to issue a nationwide voluntary recall of 68,957 pounds of raw milk cheese in late August. Nine varieties of raw cow milk cheese and seven varieties of raw goat milk cheese under the company’s Morningland Dairy and Ozark Hills Farm labels were subject to the recall. 

The company had previously sold its raw milk cheeses in 48 states serving 330 personal customers as well as more than 100 health food stores. The products were distributed in retail stores, by mail order, through direct delivery and through crop-sharing associations.

After Morningland Dairy conducted the recall, 14 samples of Morningland Dairy’s cheese were sent to a St. Louis laboratory to be tested. Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster and Missouri’s State Milk Board reported that all 14 samples tested positive for Staphylococcus aureus and 6 of the samples tested positive for lLsteria monocytogenes.

On Oct. 1, Missouri’s State Milk Board condemned all the company’s cheese products manufactured between Jan. 1 and Aug. 26 and ordered them destroyed; however, Morningland Dairy objected to the destruction, disputing the allegations that their cheeses were contaminated. The company refused to obey the Board’s order because it would result in the loss of eight months of work, as well as approximately $250,000. 

In response to Morningland’s refusal to destroy its cheese products, Attorney General Koster sought a court order enforcing the state’s destruction notice, which has resulted in the current litigation in Howell County. 

The Howell County News later reported that Morningland Dairy submitted a counterclaim requesting “more than $80,000 in damages for cheese that has spoiled while quarantined in a cooler at the farm since August, as well as for the expenses of the recall.”

Judge David Dunlap, currently presiding over the Morningland bench trial, heard testimony on Jan. 11 from several witnesses for the state, including Gene Wiseman, executive secretary of the Missouri State Milk Board, Don Falls, an environmental specialist with Missouri State Milk Board and inspector of Morningland Dairy plant, and Sara Blamey, senior microbiologist and laboratory manager for Microbe Inotech Laboratories in St. Louis.

During her examination, Blamey testified that she had conducted tests on samples of cheese sent by Morningland at the end of August. She informed the court and confirmed her previous report that all of the 14 samples tested were positive for Staphylococcus aureus and 6 were positive for Listeria monocytogenes. 

In addition, the state presented testimony from its expert on microbiology and food safety, Dr. Joseph Franks. He discussed the various sources for contamination of the Morningland cheeses and concluded that “the most likely place was at the animal level.”

Listeria is commonly found in abundance on farms, where it can grow in the soil, plant matter, water and manure. Accordingly, cheesemakers who work on farms must take extra precautions to ensure that their product does not become contaminated. 

Moreover, Franks added that tests of milk in the dairy’s equipment might not show evidence of Listeria contamination because it is present below a detection level. However, he explained that the cheesemaking process can cause the bacteria to become concentrated by 10 times that amount.

After the state rested its case, the defense called Denise Dixon, general manager of the  Morningland Dairy cheese plant, to the stand. She testified that neither she nor her husband were present when cheese samples were collected and sent to Microbe Inotech Laboratories, suggesting that the samples may have been mishandled. 

Dixon also stated that an FDA recall notice was sent out to various media outlets without the company’s authorization. “We were strong-armed by the state and FDA,” she said. 

Dixon urged the court to consider that in 30 years of business, there have been no reports of illness associated with consumption of Morningland Dairy cheese. 

The defense also presented testimony from Jedadiah York, Morningland’s plant manager, who described the cheesemaking process and attested to the fact that the dairy’s equipment was sanitized before and after use each day.  He added, “Everything we do is held responsible to God. His Word, the Bible, tells us how we’re supposed to act. We feel like we’re personally responsible for our product and what we do.”

Although York asserted that Morningland’s cheeses were always aged for the requisite 60 day period, during the state’s cross examination, York admitted that he occasionally failed to record dates of when certain batches of cheese had been cut. York’s statement was of great significance because raw milk cheeses must, by law, undergo an aging process of at least 60 days before being sold. The company’s record-keeping could prove to be damaging to its case.

Finally, the court heard from Timothy Wightman, a dairy expert with the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund, and Dr. Theodore F. Beals, a pathologist who has devoted his time since retirement to studying food science and dairy food safety.

Specifically, Wightman opined that Morningland Dairy followed proper procedures for dairy safety. He also discussed the somatic cell count (SCC) of milk, which serves as one indication of the milk’s quality. SCC is a measurement of the amount of white blood cells in milk. Typically somatic cells, or white blood cells, will increase in number if exposed to pathogenic bacteria. Therefore, a high SCC can b
e a sign of mastitis, or a bacterial infection in the particular animal. 

Wightman testified that the SCC expected for Grade A milk is a count of under 750,000. However, in rebuttal to Wightman’s testimony, the state introduced the results of a particular test of Morningland’s products performed on Aug. 25, 2010 showing a SCC of 1.7 million. Other test results displayed SCCs ranging from 160,000 to 830,000.

After hearing testimony from both sides, Judge Dunlap scheduled closing statements and post-trial arguments to be submitted in writing by Jan. 28. 

At a cost of approximately $700,000, the new robot, similar to robots used in the car manufacturing industry, has been recognized as highly accurate. Ron Penn, General Manager of Linley Valley’s Meat and Livestock division says, “It scans the carcass . . . takes an image of it and then directs the robot exactly where it should be cutting.”

By taking these precise measurements, the robot can be programmed to make cuts based on each pig’s individual anatomy accomplishing 3 important goals of maximizing the production of high-value meats, reducing waste caused by accidental cuts to the carcass, and providing a product that meets consumer preferences and requirements.

In addition, Dean Romaniello, Project and Senior Manager of the company’s Meat and Livestock division, said that the use of robotic cutting during meat processing significantly reduces the potential for contamination.

Romaniello noted that the company sees food safety as a major concern. Prior to instituting the use of robotics to the processing line, the company spent more than $10,000 per month to perform microbial testing and worked closely with Singapore’s AVA quarantine inspection agency. This is largely due to the fact that meat processing involving manual labor often bears a higher risk of accidental cutting to organs, such as the stomach and the intestines, which harbor bacteria that may be harmful or even deadly to humans.

However, now that the company has equipped its plant with the laser guided robotic cutting system, Romaniello predicts that the cost and necessity of testing will be cut in half.

Moreover, if improper incisions are made, the tainted carcasses must be carefully handled and heavily trimmed resulting in the loss of large quantities of meat. Managers at Linley Valley estimate that by using traditional methods of manual cutting, contamination could affect as many as 20,000 pigs annually based on current production levels. However, by implementing robotic technology, Linley Valley is confident that it can reduce that number to 5,000 pigs or less.

Romaniello pointed out that “critical to the value of this laser guided H-bone saw and belly opener equipment for the evisceration line is that stomach breakage, caused by manual error, is reduced from four percent to less than one percent.” Accordingly, the use of robotics allows for a much smaller margin of error.

The company first started looking into the use of the laser precision cutting technology two or three years ago when they experienced regional labor shortages. Penn explained that many skilled workers at the time went to work instead for the mining industry.

With the help of a matching dollar grant from the Australian government’s Food Innovation Grants Program, as well as support from Food Equipment Australia, Banss Meat Technology of Germany, Australian Pork Limited, WA Pork Producers’ Association and the Pork CRC, Linley Valley has become a leader in Australia’s pork processing industry by adopting the sophisticated cutting equipment.

Linley Valley, however, is not the first company worldwide to utilize this type of technology. Specifically, companies in Denmark, Canada and the United States are among Australia’s major competitors in the lucrative Singapore market that have already invested in robotic cutting machines equipped with laser guided imaging. Despite that fact, it is still a major step forward for food safety in Australia and globally.

Penn announced that the investment will bring the company closer to its goal of “achieving the world’s best practice for traceability, quality, food safety, innovation and workforce practices.” He plans to “continue to work collaboratively with industry bodies and other meat producers and processors to identify and then tackle critical industry-wide issues,” and hopes that the company’s newly installed technology will serve as a model for other companies within the industry.

The recall was announced after the Food Safety and Inspection Service of USDA, during a routine label review, found that the products contained an allergen, namely whey, which was not noted on the package label. 

The products subject to recall include:

• 8.5-lb. cases of “Garibaldi Beef Tamale” with each case containing 12 individual 11-oz. packages.
• 8.5-lb. cases of “Garibaldi Turkey Tamale” with each case containing 12 individual 11-oz. packages.
• 10.5-lb. cases of “Golden West Traditional Beef Tamale with Sauce in Husk” with each case containing 12 individual 14-oz. packages.
• 10.5-lb. cases of “Golden West Traditional Turkey Tamale with Sauce in Husk” with each case containing 12 individual 14-oz. packages.
• 18-lb. cases of “Casper Homestead Pasta Company Beef Tamale” with each case containing 36 individual 8-oz. packages.
• 18-lb. cases of “Casper Homestead Pasta Company Chicken Tamale” with each case containing 36 individual 8-oz. packages.

Individual packages bear the establishment number “P-4994” or “EST. 4994” inside the USDA mark of inspection. 

The products subject to the recall were produced from April 2010 until January 2011 and shipped for retail sales in California, Oregon and Washington and institutional use in California.

Food allergies affect millions of Americans each year and may cause symptoms ranging from minor to life-threatening.  According to FDA, although there are more than 160 foods that can cause those reactions in people with food allergies, the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004 (FALCPA) identifies the eight most common allergenic foods. 

The list includes milk, eggs, fish, Crustacean shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, and soybeans.  The law states that these foods “account for 90 percent of food allergies reactions.” Moreover, the eight foods listed in the statute are also the food sources from which many other ingredients are derived.

Currently, FALCPA requires that labels must clearly identify the food source names of all ingredients that are or contain any protein derived from the 8 major food allergens. 

The allergen involved in this recall, whey, is formed when curd is separated from the milk or cream. Whey makes up 20 percent of the proteins found in milk and, as such, must be identified as an ingredient on the product’s label pursuant to FALCPA. 

So far, FSIS and Homestead Pasta Company have received no reports of illness due to consumption of their tamale products which failed to list whey as an ingredient. However, USDA health officials and the company caution consumers to contact a healthcare provider if they are concerned about a possible allergic reaction to the product. 

Consumers with questions about the recall should contact the company’s customer service representative, Candace Liu, at 650-615-0750.

This excerpt, from Fyodor Dostoevsky’s parable “The Grand Inquisitor,” introduces Mark Winne’s  “Food Rebels, Guerrilla Gardeners, and Smart-Cookin’ Mamas: Fighting Back in an Age of Industrial Agriculture,” a recently published exposition of what he describes as an epic battle raging over our food system.

Specifically, the battle that is being fought across the globe in both small towns and big cities is about protecting citizens’ right to “food sovereignty” or the right to control our food system. This image of war persists as a strong undercurrent throughout Winne’s book.  However, this is not a war being fought with guns and violence, but rather with backyard gardens, local food distribution, and consumer education.  “[T]he battle lines have been drawn between two major camps,” proclaims Winne.

In the first camp is the industrial food sector, a system that is “highly organized, rational, efficient, and possesses a singular focus on the financial bottom line,” he says.  It is the system from which most Americans eat; however, it is also the system that average consumers know the least about.  Due to the anonymity of the industrial food system, “it is now possible to eat whatever we want whenever we want it without having a clue about who produced it or where.”  Yet, by perpetuating food certainty, the idea that consumers can be confident that grocery store shelves will remain stocked and refrigerators full, the industrial food production system has lulled the consumer into complacency. 

On the other side of the divide lies the alternative food system.  Contrary to industrial food production, Winne explains that the alternative system takes a more value-based approach to food. Those values include producing food that doesn’t harm the environment or human health, maintains transparency in food production so consumers know where their groceries are coming from, avoids the depletion of natural resources such as water and fossil fuels, is distributed locally to support regional economies, and upholds the principles of justice and democracy.  Its supporters include those farmers who produce food locally, organically, and sustainably, as well as the consumers who buy those products. 

While Winne appreciates industrial agriculture’s ability to produce mass quantities of food on smaller parcels of land and by fewer people, he laments that “such abundance has come at a high cost to the environment, human health, food and agricultural workers, farm animals, wildlife, and the social and economic fabric of many American communities.” This broad spectrum of problems stems from practices that are common within the industrial food production system such as the use of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), the overuse of non-therapeutic of antibiotics in livestock production, the reliance on chemical pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides, the mismanagement of waste materials on farms, inadequate labor protections for farm workers, and the adoption of genetically modified crops. 

Some would argue that those practices have allowed for a food supply that is both plentiful and affordable.  It is a system that allows “U.S. shoppers [to] spend less on food as a percentage of their total annual household expenditures than the people of any other country in the world.”  However, there are long terms costs that proponents of industrial have failed to consider.  For this reason, Winne advocates for action.  Instead of simply accepting as the norm a food system that lures its consumers with the promise of being fed, Winne thinks the better answer is a food system that provides choice, freedom, and information. 

Although Winne notes that the 2007 Census of Agriculture showed an uptick in the number of organic farming operations in the U.S., Winne analogizes the alternative food movement to “the intrepid Chihuahua nipping tenaciously at he ankles of the mastiff.”  There are millions of followers behind the alternative food movement; however, they are struggling against an army of billions who subscribe to the industrial food way of life. 

Yet, this battle that Winne discusses throughout the course of his book is not merely a fight between competing interest groups in the food industry.  Rather, it also represents the internal battle in the minds of consumers when make daily food choices.  Do we eat what is local, seasonal, and organic, or do we succumb to what is convenient, inexpensive, and available? 

In the beginning of his book, Winne envisions a world in the not-so-distant future in which the industrial food system has already won the battle for control.  He paints a bleak picture, conjuring up images of a national food czar ordering the seizure of private property in order to construct a network of dairy pipelines, of never before seen plant diseases and insects destroying crops, of the complete takeover of the soybean industry by a satirically named “MongoPlant,” of small farmers relinquishing their water rights in order to make way for urban development, of stores like “Mega-Shop,” “Whole Wonders,” and “MacBurger’s” that have inundated the market, and of angry mobs resorting to violence to protest these developments but who gradually resign themselves “to the hopelessness of the struggle.” Only a few devoted individuals remain who would persevere against “Big Food.” Whether that small group will be successful comes down to “the ability of democracy and individual freedom to resist, even when the claim is made by truly credible forces that we must submit in order to survive.” 

Reflecting later on Dostoevsky’s parable, Winne points out that “when institutional food production, financial incentive and distribution power are placed in the hands of the few; when corporate might and the pull of money set the agenda, we feel control of our food system slipping away and our tenuous grip on democracy loosening.”  Yet, how hard will one fight back against a system that ensures its food is cheap and readily available to its consumers? 

Winne probes his audience by asking, “How proud will humankind be when faced with the choice between clinging stubbornly to freedom–whether granted by a higher being or through individual instinct – or avoiding starvation? If authority – whether in the form of a government, a food industry, or even a charitable foundation – offers what we perceive to be an answer to a very difficult problem that threatens large numbers of us, and all that is required is that we submit to that authority, what might be the lesser of two evils?” Many seem to be indifferent to this loss of control over our food as long as there will be a guarantee of food. 

Winne highlights some of the “soldiers” of the alternative food army across the nation and globe consisting of farmers, social activists, community organizers, teachers, chefs, parents, lobbyists,  and lawmakers. 

With the diligent efforts of people like Maurice Small, an organizer for City Fresh that provides gardening training and marketing assistance for urban farmers in northeast Ohio, Nancy Ranney, the owner of a cattle ranch that practices rotational grazing and more sustainable methods of beef productio
n, Richard Pirog, a researcher at Iowa State who promotes sustainable food systems  and the strengthening of regional food networks, the founders of Happy Kitchen, a food class offered to members of the Austin, Texas community about the effects of obesity and diabetes and healthful eating, and others, Winne believes that more and more Americans will be able to get their “heads above the plate” and learn something more about food than just how it tastes. 

Winne concludes with a message of empowerment, calling on all consumers to “find the fire within.” Invoking Ralph Waldo Emerson’s notions of individualism, Winne urges consumers to shape their own “food destiny” rather than becoming complacent with the industrial food system.  It is through a sense of individual empowerment and self-reliance that will allow the alternative food system to grow. “Thus empowered, we are then ready to join a community, make a contribution, and build the new food system,” he says.

“Too many now accept our food system not only as the norm but as our destiny,” says Winne.   As a result, consumers are lulled into a state of passivity, unwilling to “engage in the ‘rugged battle of fate.'” He adds that “[t]he argument we must make is for action, not contemplation; we must engage the food system, not presume that all is well because the food system feeds us.” 

Although WInne delivers strong arguments for the alternative food system, his book too glibly disparages the benefits of the industrial food system–namely, an inexpensive food supply, a system that can meet growing worldwide food demand–with its one-sided approach, demonizing industrial agriculture as the “darker force.” There certainly are problems with the industrial agriculture system, however, it is also important to address why that system has prospered and whether any other system would be able to meet the demand and needs of billions of consumers across the globe. 

To produce the non-browning effects in apples, OSF employed a patented technology  originally developed by Australian researchers for potatoes that, in essence, “silences” the gene that produces the enzyme polyphenol oxidase. Once that enzyme is turned off, apples that are sliced or exposed to air will not brown quickly as most apple varieties tend to do.

In contrast to “transgenics,” a type of genetic modification that introduces foreign genes into a plant commonly used in modern day crop breeding, OSF boasts the use of a new method called cisgenics. The cisgenic approach allows scientists to alter an existing apple gene without introducing new genes into the plant.

The company reports that its researchers have performed 5 years of vigorous field testing in order to track the behavior of the genetically modified apples. So far, tests have yielded non-browning apples in varieties such as Gala, Fuji, Golden, and Granny.

In addition, research has shown that the OSF genetically modified apples are more likely to resist “cosmetic deterioration,” meaning the fruit “will have less superficial scuff marks and finger bruises from harvest and post-harvest handling; it is less prone to scrabble marks when packing; and will have less superficial marking and shrinkage at the retail level.”

Currently, the food service industry frequently rinses sliced apples in solutions of water and vitamin C or lemon juice or other antioxidant solutions in order to maintain freshness and avoid browning. However, this method can be costly and may also result in an off flavor.

According to OSF, the genetic technology used to modify various apples would not only lower the cost of producing fresh apple slices for snacks, salads and other meals, but would also benefit retailers and consumers.

OSF President Neal Carter adds, “We think that there is value in this product all the way along the value chain, growers, packers and especially the food service industry, where people are putting fruit in bags and on buffet tables and in salads.”

However, despite the potential benefits of the non-browning apple, there remain many critics of genetically modified food products.

For example, some opponents have expressed the concern that a non-browning apple may deceive consumers into thinking it is fresh when it is not. Others fear the risk of cross-pollination between genetically modified apples and conventional apples if planted within a close proximity.

USDA recognizes that the public has mixed feelings about modern biotechnology and its use in food production. “There is an ongoing controversy over the benefits and risks of this technology, and concerns about unforeseen consequences of its use,” says USDA.

USDA notes that proponents of genetic modification argue that there are several significant benefits to its use in crop breeding including “improved agricultural performance (less labor, energy, and cost input), reduced usage of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, more efficient land usage, ability to grow crops in previously unfavorable environment leading to improved ability to feed an increasing world population, improved sensory characteristics and nutritional attributes of food, removal of allergens or toxic components, and improved processing characteristics leading to reduced waste and lower food costs to the consumer.”

On the opposite end of the spectrum, opponents view biotechnology in food production as an unnecessary interference with nature that could have severe unintended consequences on the environment and human health. Moreover, those critics point to the moral and ethical concerns, labeling issues, and socioeconomic implications raised by the use of genetic modification in food.

To date, APHIS has reviewed approximately 100 petitions for genetically engineered or modified crops. However, only a limited number of those genetically modified crops have been approved for consumption and trade on the international market, including Bt Corn, Golden Rice, Flavr SavrTM Tomatoes, and Roundup Ready® Soybeans.

Government approval of the non-browning apple, which OSF has branded with the label “Arctic” named for its long-lasting white flesh, may take years.  Even if the apples receive market approval, the true test will be whether consumers will buy them.

Currently, the most common testing method used throughout the food industry to identify Salmonella contamination can take up to 5 days to produce results. Consequently, contaminated food could already be present in grocery stores before Salmonella test results are available. In light of the recent recall of more than half a billion eggs from Wright County Egg and Hillandale Farms in August that sickened hundreds, 5 days could simply be too long to wait for results.

However, in recent research trials employing the new test at the University of Missouri, accurate results were achieved rapidly, in as little as 5 to 12 hours.

Azlin Mustapha, a food scientist and professor at the University of Missouri College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, along with her graduate student, Luxin Wang, developed the new test for Salmonella by modifying a technique called real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). The technique has been available for use by the food industry for years and considered to be a quick and reliable method for identifying pathogens in food.

According to Mustapha, traditional PCR technology involves first amplifying a single gene found within the DNA of a particular organism, such as Salmonella bacteria. After being magnified, that specific part of the DNA is then copied thousands to millions of times. This multiplication of genetic material allows for easier detection and identification of bacterial gene sequences in bacteria using visual techniques.

However, the PCR process as it is currently used often produces false-positive results, which could lead to costly but unnecessary recalls of poultry and eggs. The problem, Mustapha states, is that PCR and other “DNA-based methods … do not differentiate between the live and the dead Salmonella.”  Thus, the failure of the PCR technique to recognize this distinction has skewed results.

She further explained that “live Salmonella are the ones that can kill consumers, not the dead ones, but false-positives can result in a large number of unnecessary food recalls.”

In order to take advantage of the speed of the PCR method while reducing the frequency of false-positives, Mustapha modified the PCR test by adding a dye called ethidium bromide monoazide (EMA) to the test sample.

EMA enters and is absorbed by dead Salmonella cells where it binds to DNA molecules. Mustapha explains that the absorption of the dye renders the dead Salmonella cells insoluble and, therefore, invisible to a visual study of PCR test results.

In contrast, the dye cannot penetrate live cells.  Accordingly, the modification of the traditional PCR testing procedure allows food scientists to easily distinguish between dead and live cells, avoiding false-positive test results.

Earlier, Mustapha developed a similar method to detect E. coli O157 in beef products that has since been adopted by the Missouri Department of Agriculture testing laboratory. Several other testing agencies, including the Food Safety and Inspection Service of USDA, have expressed an interest in implementing the new method in their own laboratories.

By using the modified PCR method, scientists can now quickly isolate the live Salmonella calls, dramatically reducing the overall testing time. “The advantage of this method is that it’s rapid, so you can get the results within 12 hours versus 5 days with the traditional method,” Mustapha noted.

The impetus behind the research was to discover Salmonella contamination as quickly as possible before it enters the food supply, thereby preventing recalls and ensuring the safety of consumers. Mustapha believes that having test results available within 12 hours would enable agencies as well as food companies to accurately test for Salmonella before a product is shipped and put on the market.

Agencies and companies seeking to implement Mustapha’s modified testing method will have to make an initial capital investment in a PCR machine and train personnel to use it. However, Mustapha emphasized that over time, the PCR method will result in significant savings since it requires less labor and time than conventional testing techniques.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Salmonella bacteria is one of the most common causes of food poisoning in the United States. Salmonellosis, the disease caused by Salmonella, causes diarrhea, vomiting, fever, abdominal cramps and, in severe cases, death.

The CDC estimates that there are 1.4 million Salmonella infections each year.  In addition, approximately 400 deaths are caused by acute salmonellosis annually.

PCR technology may serve to detect potential pathogens earlier in the production process allowing for greater food safety in the supply chain.

“Processors and consumers will benefit from the speed and sensitivity of the new test’s results,” said Mustapha. She continued, “This will keep companies from shipping contaminated products, and thus, keep Salmonella infected products out of consumers’ hands.”

To celebrate Thanksgiving here at Food Safety News we’re hosting our fourth virtual potluck (we’ve also held virtual picnics on Memorial Day, the Fourth of July and Labor Day).

We’ll be having turkey, of course, and for tips on how to cook a turkey, you can’t beat the Food and Drug Administration’s Keep Food Safe Blog.  For instance, did you procrastinators know it’s safe to cook a frozen turkey?  It will just take 50 percent longer than a fully thawed turkey.   Check out the FDA’s helpful Turkey Roasting Chart and reminders that no matter what method you use — roasting, brining, deep frying or smoking — the bird isn’t safe until it reaches a minimum internal temperature of 165 degrees (and that goes for the stuffing). 

In addition to the turkey, we’ve got two soups–Dan’s lentil and Marijke’s curry kale. Claire has contributed corn pudding, Gretchen made Brussels sprouts, and Helena has roasted squash and veggies. Alexa has shared Parmesan-rosemary potatoes and cranberry Waldorf salad.  For dessert there’s Michelle’s “that blueberry thing,” a variation on a crisp, and Suzanne is bringing an unusual-but-delicious concoction involving butternut squash and pretzels.

We’re sharing the recipes here, so you can join in our virtual potluck or use them at your next one.

Have a happy and food-safe Thanksgiving Day.

The Food Safety News team

Claire’s Corn Pudding

Although corn has been traditionally recognized as a symbol of Thanksgiving and a staple item during the holiday, it had for years remained absent from my family’s dinner table. Overwhelmed with bowls of fresh cranberry sauce and the canned stuff, turnips, string bean casserole, mashed potatoes, sweet potatoes, 2 varieties of stuffing, gravy, crescent rolls, creamed onions, and of course the turkey, there was rarely room on the table or in our stomachs for another dish. 

Last year, however, I decided that corn needed to make a triumphant comeback. What usually hung in dried form as a decoration on my parents’ front door should be introduced as part of our celebratory meal to honor its importance and history, I thought. 

While scouring the internet for the ultimate corn recipe, I stumbled upon Emeril Lagasse’s recipe for corn pudding. Seeing heavy cream, cheese, bacon, and butter on the ingredients list, I had to give it a try. Needless to say, it was a definite crowd pleaser. 

I’m now proud to announce that corn has a designated spot on our Thanksgiving table. I hope it will find its way on to yours! 

Ingredients

— 4 tablespoons unsalted butter 

— 3/4 cup chopped yellow onions 

— 1/4 cup chopped, seeded poblano pepper 

— 2 teaspoons minced garlic 

— 4 cups fresh white corn kernels 

— 2 teaspoons chopped fresh thyme leaves 

— 1 1/4 teaspoons salt 

— 1/8 teaspoon cayenne 

— 1/4 cup all-purpose flour 

— 4 large eggs 

— 2 cups heavy cream 

— 1 tablespoon granulated sugar 

— 1/2 teaspoon ground black pepper 

— 1 cup grated Havarti cheese 

— 4 strips bacon, cooked, drained and crumbled 

— 2 tablespoons chopped green onions 

Instructions

Prep: Preheat the oven to 350 degrees F. Grease a 2-quart baking dish and set aside.

In a large saucepan, melt the butter over medium-high heat. Add the onions and poblano peppers and cook, stirring, for 2 minutes. Add the garlic and cook, stirring, for 30 seconds.

Add the corn, thyme, 3/4 teaspoon of the salt, and the cayenne, and cook, stirring, until just tender and starting to turn golden, 4 minutes.

Add the flour and cook, stirring, for 2 minutes. Remove from the heat and let cool slightly.

Put half of the corn mixture in a food processor and blend until smooth.

In a large bowl, whisk the eggs, cream, sugar, thyme, remaining 3/4 teaspoon salt, and black pepper until frothy. Add the pureed corn and whole corn mixtures and the cheese, crumbled bacon, and green onions and whisk to combine.

Pour into the prepared dish and bake until set and a knife inserted into the center comes out clean, 50 minutes to 1 hour. Remove from the oven and let rest for 10 minutes before serving. 

Enjoy!

A newsletter from the Food Safety Consortium at the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture recently reported that food processing companies might soon have such natural alternatives.

In a series of trials, researchers from the University of Arkansas said they applied extracts from natural sources including green tea, grape seed, and nisin, a bacteriocin recognized as a safe food preservative, to chicken and turkey hot dogs. In performing the experiment, researchers used a combination of 75 percent of the chemical preservative and 25 percent natural plant extracts.

According to Navam Hettiarachchy, the University of Arkansas food science professor who supervised the project, the results were encouraging.

When combined with lower levels of chemical preservatives, the natural plant extracts in green tea and grape seed inhibited the growth of Listeria monocytogenes to undetectable levels, Hettiarachchy said.

Importantly, Hettiarachchy explained that “the chemical preservatives can be partially or wholly replaced by natural plant extracts when the extracts are combined with other technologies such as heat treatment, electrostatic spraying or nanotechnology.”

She added of those three technologies, nanotechnology would most likely work best as a delivery system for the natural antimicrobials.

“If we can deliver these antimicrobials in nanoparticles, we will have better pathogen inhibition at a much lower concentration of the antimicrobial over a longer period of time,” Hettiarachchy said.  Essentially, this would allow for the least amount of plant extracts to be used with the greatest capacity for pathogen reduction.

This development could prove to be advantageous not only for food processors, but for consumers as well.

Currently, food preservation systems often use chemicals and heat treatments to reduce the risk of bacterial food poisoning outbreaks and food spoilage, but chemicals can alter the taste of the product and, moreover, can compromise food safety.

The findings of Hettiarachchy’s research team indicate that food can instead be treated with natural substances in order to eliminate the risk of potential pathogens during the processing stage, creating a benign alternative to the use of chemicals.

The Food Safety Consortium, established by Congress in 1988 through a special Cooperative State Research Service grant, works on the pressing technological needs of the food industry.

Its primary function is to develop the necessary tools for a safe food supply, including “technology to rapidly identify contaminants, methods to evaluate potential health risks, risk-monitoring techniques to detect potential hazards in the food chain, and the most effective intervention points to control microbiological or chemical hazards.”

Consisting of researchers from the University of Arkansas, Iowa State University and Kansas State University, the Consortium allows each university to focus its studies on a particular animal species. For instance, scientists at the University of Arkansas concentrate on the study of poultry, while Iowa State University targets pork and Kansas State University, beef.

The food industry presents a great demand for technology that would improve food safety.  It wants what is considered to be cutting-edge technology.  Hettiarachchy is confident the use of nanotechnology to introduce natural antimicrobials to meat would provide just that. “The food processing companies are interested in the state-of-the-art delivery system with the natural antimicrobial extract for better pathogen control,” she added.

Before food processing companies adopt natural antimicrobials for use in their products, however, further development will be required.  As Hettiarachchy confided, “Industry takes time to decide.”

However, color changes are quite normal even for fresh products, maintains the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), which says it is a common misconception that slightly discolored meat is no longer fresh or safe to eat.

Ground beef, for instance, can show signs of discoloration, or brownness, in as little as 36 hours. It is only when discoloration appears in conjunction with an off odor and/or a slimy surface that FSIS warns consumers not to use the meat.

Despite efforts by FSIS, as well as the meat industry, to raise awareness that fading or darkening of meat does not affect its safety, consumers remain hesitant to purchase meat unless it bears the familiar, bright red hue.  Research shows that if meat has 30 percent or more discoloration, consumers will not purchase it.  As a result of this mindset, retail stores experience millions of dollars in lost profits each year.

A recent study performed at the University of Arkansas’ Department of Animal Science may have uncovered a key ingredient that would prevent discoloration thereby extending the shelf-life of meat in retail outlets.

In September 2009, Nathan Tapp, then an animal science major at the University of Arkansas, began a series of research trials using the pulp of a Tahitian fruit called noni (Morinda citrifolia) in ground beef patties. He discovered that the noni pulp, when combined with ground beef, prevented the rapid discoloration that typically occurs.

FSIS explains that when meat is fresh and protected from contact with air, it exhibits a purple-red color that comes from myoglobin, a protein found in muscle tissue and one of the two key pigments responsible for the color of meat. When exposed to air, myoglobin forms the pigment, oxymyoglobin, which gives meat an attractive cherry-red color.

Over time, the continued contact of myoglobin and oxymyoglobin with oxygen, coupled with exposure to bright grocery store lighting, will naturally lead to the formation of metmyoglobin, a pigment that turns meat an unappealing shade of brownish-red or grey. Some scientists have analogized this transformation to the oxidation process of certain metals, or rust.

Jason Apple and Janeal Yancey, Tapp’s supervisors during the course of his research, explained that the antioxidant qualities of noni acted to inhibit this oxidation process in meat. Tapp’s experiments showed that noni pulp effectively enhanced the color stability of the meat, allowing it to remain red after four days.

By experimenting with varying concentrations of noni pulp within the ground beef patties, Tapp determined that a concentration of 5 percent noni by weight within a typical burger could increase its shelf life by at least one to two days.

These findings come at time when there has been a great public outcry over another, more controversial color stabilizer: carbon monoxide. Often associated with the exhaust from an automobile’s tailpipe, many consumers were outraged that this gas was being used in packaging to maintain meat’s red color.

In the earlier part of the decade, consumer advocacy groups urged FDA and USDA to ban the use of carbon monoxide. Alternatively, consumers argued that they should at least have the right to know whether a package of meat was treated with carbon monoxide. At the same time, lobbyists for the meat packing industry fiercely opposed  the ban and the push for labeling requirements.

In an attempt to quell these concerns, FSIS responded to the public with information that the levels of carbon monoxide being used in packaging is harmless to humans. Moreover, carbon monoxide was deemed to be a “fixative” rather than an “additive” since the gas does not impart a color to the meat, but simply maintains its naturally occurring color and dissipates upon opening the package.

Although carbon monoxide currently remains on the FSIS list of safe and suitable ingredients that may be used in specified concentrations in the production of meat, the meat packaging industry is looking ahead toward new technologies that can take the place of carbon monoxide. For this reason, Tapp’s research could prove to one day be the future of meat packaging.

In an interview with Food Safety News, however, Apple and Yancey expressed that a study exploring the effects of noni pulp in ground beef was never intended. Yancey, a program technician at the University of Arkansas, recounted that the Tahitian Noni International originally contacted professors within the Department of Animal Science in 2006 to perform behavioral studies on cattle that had been fed noni pulp.

The product had previously been used in behavioral studies with rodeo horses. Those studies showed that when fed to horses, noni pulp functioned as a calming agent.

In commissioning this study, Yancey indicated that the Tahitian Noni International had hoped the University’s research would show that noni pulp produced a similar calming effect in cattle in order to market the product to both the livestock industry and rodeo circuit. Although the studies in cattle revealed that noni improved weight gain and overall health, there was no indication that the fruit calmed the animals.

Left with buckets of noni pulp in the Department’s laboratory and ground beef that had been donated by Tyson Foods, Yancey considered what effects the noni might have in hamburger patty. It was at that point that Yancey passed the project along to Tapp for further development.

Since Tapp’s discovery, he has gained regional and national attention. In February, he won the southern section of the American Society of Animal Science undergraduate research competition and presented his research in Orlando. He was also awarded the American Meat Science Association’s Undergraduate Achievement Award.

In addition, the Department is currently in the process of seeking a patent on the noni pulp as a food ingredient from the University Patent Committee.

Yet despite the recent acclaim, Apple, a full time professor at the University of Arkansas, noted that there are still a few kinks that need to be worked out before noni pulp could be used in the meat packaging industry. For instance,  ripe noni is considered to have a quite pungent, and to some, even an unpleasant taste and odor. “The taste is not necessarily a deal broker though,” Apple continued.

In the upcoming months, they plan to consult with culinary experts and perform a series of taste tests to get around the flavor issue. Apple and Yancey are both confident that with further testing and guidance from consumer panels, they will be able to minimize the flavor of the noni pulp in the meat.

Apple stated that another step in the research will be to confer with a food safety expert. Presently, Apple said that noni pulp “is FDA approved for human consumption and is approved in the EU as a human dietary supplement.” He anticipates that the product will most likely be safe for consumption since the pureed noni pulp is pasteurized before combining it with ground beef, no related allergen issues have been discovered, and digestion problems occur only when noni is consumed in large quantities.

There remains some uncertainty regarding the cost effectiveness of using noni in ground beef on an industry-wise scale as well as the potential labeling requirements that meat packers will face if and when noni is introduced into the market. Notwithstanding those unanswered questions, however, Apple maintains that the important bottomline is that “noni has the capacity to lengthen the shelf life of meat, which can mean millions of dollars in savings to the retail meat industry.”

Tapp has since graduated from the University of Arkansas with a bachelor’s degree in animal science and an agribusiness minor. He is now pursuing a master’s degree in meat science at Texas Tech University.

Those staggering statistics open Jeremy Seifert’s recent documentary “DIVE!,” a film featuring a group of individuals, including Seifert himself, who live off the food most would consider trash. 

The film exposes a hidden world of people, commonly referred to as “Dumpster divers,” who nourish their bodies with the enormous volumes of food found in grocery store Dumpsters throughout the country. 

However, a recent NPR interview described Seifert and other self-proclaimed trash-can scavengers not just as individuals in search of their next meal, but as social activists in search of justice and change. 

The film raises serious issues that arise from food waste, namely, its toll on the environment as a result of greenhouse gas production in landfills, the waste of billions of barrels of oil each year used to produce, process, and transport food products that will ultimately end up in the garbage, and the expenditure of thousands of consumer dollars on food that will never be eaten. 

Most importantly, the film examines global hunger and poverty in a world that wastes billions of pounds of food each year.  With 850 million people suffering from hunger every day, Seifert asks why our trash cans are brimming with food.  In response to his own question, Seifert lamented, “there is a problem, the system is broken.” 

In a telephone interview with Food Safety News, Seifert explained that he was first introduced to the concept of Dumpster diving about 4 years ago by friends who arrived at his apartment with bags of gourmet food that had been disposed of in the trash bins behind a local Trader Joe’s market.  Seifert noted that the sell-by dates listed on the food packages were for the following day.  

Intrigued and simultaneously shocked by the idea, Seifert ventured to the Dumpster one evening ad returned home with a supply of produce, meat, eggs, and cheese that would last several days.  All of it having been thrown away the day before its sell-by date.  With this food he was able to feed not only himself, but his pregnant wife and young son, Finn, also featured in the documentary.  “My son was raised and nurtured on Dumpster food,” Seifert remarked.

The film asked the question: how can one be sure that food retrieved from the Dumpster is safe for consumption? Seifert explained that by relying on his senses, eating safely could be achieved easier than most would think. 

By visually inspecting, touching, and smelling with great care the food he found discarded in grocery store dumpsters and cleaning the items thoroughly, Seifert said he was able to feel confident that it was safe. He explained that the biggest hurdle to overcome was the gross factor. Yet, after a few excursions, he learned to not be afraid of discarded food just because it came from a Dumpster.

This notion of depending on the senses to ascertain the safety of food is not such a foreign concept.  Beginning in the early 1900s, the “poke and sniff” method was implemented as the primary meat-inspection system employed in slaughterhouses around the country. Under the auspices of USDA, inspectors would touch, smell, and prod meat to test its wholesomeness as it moved down the slaughter line.

A major shortfall of the “poke and sniff” method, though, was the inability of the system to detect invisible pathogens and microbes. After the 1993 Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak, there was a strong public opinion that the “poke and sniff” system was neither stringent nor scientific enough to ensure the safety of the nation’s meat supply. 

Ultimately, USDA adopted a science-based approach to food inspection, known as the HACCP system, in which individual plants designate “critical control points” where pathogens could enter processed meat and monitor them for contamination.

With the exception of cross-contamination, most opportunities for contamination exist during the processing stage of food production and prior to distribution to retail outlets. As a result, Seifert argues that he is not unlike average grocery store shoppers who use their senses when determining whether to purchase a particular food item. Whether food is found on a supermarket shelf or in a Dumpster, Seifert contends that consumers and Dumpster divers alike take the same risk that their food has been contaminated by an invisible pathogen while being processed. 

The film points out also that the dates on food packages are not necessarily an indication of the safety of the product.  In fact, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of USDA has reported that the “sell-by,” “best if used by,” and “use by” dates displayed on the labels of many food items in the grocery store are not safety dates. 

Instead, the date is used primarily to help retail stores determine how long to display the product for sale.  FSIS provides that even after the date on the product label passes, while not of best quality, the product should still be safe for consumption if properly handled. For this reason, Seifert thinks more people should overcome the fear and perhaps indignity of Dumpster food. 

The impetus for the film did not come until after Seifert had made several trips to Uganda while working for a non-profit organization raising awareness about global poverty. On these trips, Seifert witnessed firsthand the effects of hunger and severe malnutrition.  In particular, he noted the stunted growth and swollen bellies of children, often the same age as his own son, living with their families in displaced persons camps and receiving only one meal a day. 

While making the film, Seifert admitted that he did not necessarily intend to become part of the movement to end hunger and raise awareness about food waste.  He recalled certain times during the making of the film when he was, as he put it, “tired of food, tired of Dumpsters, tired of thinking about it, tired of talking about it.” 

Yet, despite his original intentions, after the film was first screened in October 2009 he realized he had become too deeply entrenched in the issues surrounding food waste and hunger to forget about them. 

Now, Seifert has taken further action with the Eat Trash Campaign for Zero Waste, which is part of a growing movement that challenges people to reexamine the role of food in society. In addition, the campaign aims to educate schools, corporations, hotels, restaurants, and supermarkets on how to effectively reduce waste. 

Seifert hopes the film, which has been screened more than 100 times both domestically and internationally, will continue to gain acclaim. After winning awards for Best Documentary at several film festivals around the country, Seifert feels confident that his audience will continue to grow. 

He also hopes his film will cause more grocery store chains to reexamine their policies regarding food donations to local charities and food banks to ensure that food goes to hungry people rather than into Dumpsters.

According to Schaefer, the idea of constructing a modern meat science facility had been contemplated by the Department of Animal Sciences within the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences at the University for more than a decade.  However, it was not until 2008 that the dean of CALS, the department, and a newly formed Meat Industry Advisory Committee focused their efforts on what has become the current initiative. 

Although the University of Wisconsin-Madison has not made an official announcement of the project plans, fund-raising efforts are already underway.

Schaefer wears many hats at the university, currently serving as interim associate dean for instruction in CALS, professor of animal sciences, and former chairman of the Department of Animal Sciences and now lead faculty member working on private fund raising for the new research facility.

Estimated to cost $42.8 million, the facility will be supported by both public and private funds. Schaefer explained in a telephone interview with Food Safety News.  The university’s goal is to develop a sum of $20 million in private sector support by March 1, 2011. 

The university has already begun to identify important players in the meat industry, including state, regional, and national companies, as potential investors in the project.

The University of Wisconsin, a public land-grant institution, is known for having the first and one of the most vibrant academic meat science programs in the country.  But the oldest wing of the meat science lab dates back to 1931.  The newest section was completed in 1969, making it more than 40 years old. 

Out-paced by new technology, the 80-year-old building no longer meets industry food safety standards.  This capital initiative aims to recognize the importance of the meat industry to the state, region and nation by designing and building a facility that can facilitate the generation of answers to current and future meat industry challenges and raise the awareness of students to opportunities involving products derived from meat animals. 

  At the same time, however, academic programs are often challenged by the large capital investments required to undertake facility replacement. 

Unfazed, Schaefer seems confident that the college will raise the necessary funds to build the new facility and have it fully operational in 2017.  He said, “We expect the number of nationally available academic meat science programs to decline from the present inventory, yet we aim to sustain an academic meat science program on this campus.” 

He continued, “Food pathogens will continue to vex the meat industry.  We wish to be the ‘go to’ solution for these challenges while also being an important provider of young, well-trained graduates for meat industry employment during the next 80 years.”

Once completed, the lab will have a core staff of 4 faculty and 4 staff members, along with undergraduate and graduate students participating in classes and research.  They will collaborate with scientists in the university’s Food Research Institute, Food Science, Bacteriology, Veterinary Medicine, School of Medicine and Public Health and other campus academic units. 

According to Schaefer, the new facility will allow a cadre of research scientists to work in partnership with meat research scientists using realistic meat processing procedures in the development of novel pathogen intervention strategies.

To achieve that, the new meat research facility will have a bio-safety level 2 isolatable pilot plant in which pathogens can be intentionally introduced into meat prior to various meat manufacturing steps.  From that point, novel intervention strategies can be tested or HACCP procedures validated.

Such capability should make the new program unique among national meat science facilities.  The scientists will be working with current “off-the-shelf” pathogens as well as those that are not yet recognized. 

Most importantly, the improved lab will allow researchers to remain on the cutting edge of food safety measures, according to Schaefer.  “The new facility will have a layout that is consistent with HACCP guidelines as we promote them to the industry” he explained.  With this layout, scientists will be able to demonstrate to companies industry methods that promote food safety and pathogen control. 

The program will also include a site for training government meat inspectors and the derivation of value-added uses for non-muscle offal. 

Schaefer added that the program’s food and meat science researchers must communicate their findings and expertise not only to the meat industry–including meat packers, processors and ingredient suppliers–but also to consumer groups.  They plan to accomplish this through training programs for corporate partners, adult and youth extension workshops, the electronic media and publications. 

Asked what he hopes the new research facility will contribute to the university as well as to industry, Schaefer outlined a concise, three-pronged goal: “We will be able to put onto display good manufacturing practices, we will reveal to students the many career paths available in the meat industry, and through the isolatable lab we will give the university and companies the important opportunity to study pathogen control.”

The University of Wisconsin’s website, “The mission of the Department of Animal Sciences is to generate new knowledge in the humane use of animals for the production of safe food, fiber and recreation.”  A modernized meat science research lab, school administrators believe, is a critical step toward furthering that mission.

Last week, however, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) declared at a global Rinderpest eradication symposium in Rome that it was confident that Rinderpest had been completely eradicated from the face of the earth. 

The celebratory announcement marked only the second time in human history that a virus has been pronounced to be wiped out. The first time occurred about 30 years ago when officials confirmed the eradication of smallpox.

Rinderpest, which means “cattle plague” in German, is thought to have originated in Asia and spread through the trade and transport of cattle. Livestock would become infected with the disease mainly through direct contact or by drinking contaminated water; however research has shown that it was also transmitted by air. Scientists believe that by approximately 3,000 B.C., the disease had reached Egypt. 

The infectious virus, despite its apparent sensitivity to heat, light and desiccation, has been considered by some to be the world’s most devastating disease affecting farm animals. It is estimated that over the course of its lifespan, the virus has killed millions of cattle, bison and yaks.

Belonging to a group of closely related viruses called morbilliviruses, which include human measles, rinderpest is often characterized by fever, oral erosions, diarrhea, lymphoid necrosis and high mortality.

Although humans are not at risk of infection from the disease, the virus’s ability to kill vast numbers of cattle at a rapid rate has led to devastating effects on agriculture including severe famine and economic ruin.

During the period of European colonization in Africa in the 19th century, the disease spread throughout the African continent resulting in utter catastrophe in some areas. Certain areas in Kenya and Ethiopia, in particular, were forced to destroy whole herds of cattle which led to widespread starvation.

Individual countries began eradication efforts in the early 1900s; however joint global efforts were not launched until the 1980s. In 1994, the Global Rinderpest Eradication Program was initiated and supported by FAO and the World Organization for Animal Health as the disease continued to ravage livestock populations worldwide.

By the late 1990s, the worldwide eradication program was successful in significantly reducing the incidence of Rinderpest infections with the use of a vaccine developed by Dr. Walter Plowright, for which he won the World Food Prize in 1999. In addition, diagnostic tests were implemented among ranchers to detect the disease in its early stages.

After a several-decades long crusade, the last confirmed case of rinderpest was diagnosed in 2001 in Kenya. Vaccinations of livestock continued until 2006 and surveillance teams continued their observations until 2009 at which time scientists no longer found evidence of the disease present in animals. 

On Thursday Oct. 14, FAO announced the remarkable achievement that its worldwide campaign to eradicate Rinderpest would cease all field operations. The agency said that “[a]s of mid 2010, FAO is confident that the rinderpest virus has been eliminated from Europe, Asia, Middle East, Arabian Peninsula, and Africa,” which were the locations in which the virus had been last reported.

“I think that the biggest achievement in veterinary history has been the eradication of rinderpest globally,” said Dr. John Anderson, Head of the FAO’s Rinderpest World Reference Laboratory at the Institute for Animal Health until his retirement in 2008.

Although FAO expressed its certainty that the disease has been wiped out, a formal declaration will not be released until sometime in mid-2011 after a final review of rinderpest field reports. 

A question still remains whether samples of the rinderpest virus in laboratories around the world should be maintained. Scientists argue that it is too soon to destroy all stocks of the disease. Currently stocks of the virus are will kept in highly specialized and secure laboratories until further review is performed.