After a long string of infections required America’s poultry business to depopulate their flocks by 58.7 million birds in 2022-23, there is a welcomed break in the outbreak.

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) last struck a commercial flock in the U.S. on April 18, 2023.

Veterinary experts told the 2023 Chicken Marketing Summit that nobody has a crystal ball to forecast what will happen.  While commercial poultry is getting a break in North America, the same cannot be said for the rest of the world. 

According to the World Organization for Animal Health, Sweden, Poland, Germany and Denmark have all seen recurrences this summer of Avian flu outbreaks. Some countries, including the United States, are reporting that the virus has jumped from birds to mammals.

Only some reports in New York’s live bird markets have marred the U.S. record since last April.

Commercial poultry businesses in the United States continue to  invest in biosecurity measures because they are best barriers for the perimeters. Personal protection equipment is also used. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Aug.9, 2023, updated its Avian flu work.

Commercial poultry is not in a high demand for vaccinations in the U.S, because of concern they might mask the the disease and slow identification. 

Only one person in the U.S. has been confirmed as being infected by the bird flu, and that person fully recovered.

More than one year ago, CDC reported that a Colorado man tested positive for avian influenza A(H5) virus (H5 bird flu). The case occurred in a person who had direct exposure to poultry and was involved in culling (depopulating) poultry with presumptive H5N1 bird flu.

The CDC again reports that the current public health risk from Avian flu remains low.

The patient reported fatigue for a few days as his only symptom and has since recovered. The patient is being isolated and treated with the influenza antiviral drug. 

The case did not change the human risk assessment for the general public, which CDC considers low. However, people with job-related or recreational exposures to infected birds are at higher risk of infection and should take appropriate precautions.

The CDC said detecting H5 bird flu may result from surface contamination of the nasal membrane. Still, it could not be determined, and the positive test result meets the criteria for an H5 case.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

People can be infected when they deliberately or accidentally eat a raw snail or slug containing the lungworm larvae or eat unwashed lettuce or other raw leafy vegetables that the slime of infected snails or slugs has contaminated.

Each of the 300+ PBS stations makes its own decision about when, where and if to air the film. It’s had good uptake in many markets, including Florida, Puerto Rico and various midwestern states. Programmers at other major stations have not yet aired the show because of the limitations of their schedules. The film’s distribution as an Accidental Host to PBS stations will continue through September 2025, and the content will undoubtedly hold up for at least that long, if not longer.

On the other hand, PBS Passport is an app available to anyone who supports their local PBS station at a basic level (usually $60/year). So whether or not their home station has already aired the show, a supporter can access the film at no additional charge through the PBS Passport streaming site.

Paznosian is an infectious disease specialist at UCLA and Food Safety News contributor. She is an expert in rat lungworm disease.

This public education approach comes after the best minds with the best science have concluded that Hawaii’s rat lungworm is not spreading beyond the state. In fact, Hawaii is the epicenter of rat lungworm disease which was first found in Asia.

According to Hawaii’s State Department of Health:

“Angiostrongyliasis, also known as neuroangiostrongyliasis or rat lungworm, is a disease that affects the brain and spinal cord. It is caused by a parasitic nematode (roundworm parasite) called Angiostrongylus cantonensis. The adult form of A. cantonensis is only found in rodents. However, infected rodents can pass larvae of the worm in their feces. Snails, slugs, and certain other animals (including freshwater shrimp, land crabs, and frogs) can become infected by ingesting this larvae; these are considered intermediate hosts. Humans can become infected with A. cantonensis if they eat (intentionally or otherwise) a raw or undercooked infected intermediate host, thereby ingesting the parasite.”

And the Hawaii Department of Health says this is what puts you at risk:

“You can get angiostrongyliasis by eating food contaminated by the larval stage of A. cantonensis worms. In Hawaii, these larval worms can be found in raw or undercooked snails or slugs. Sometimes people can become infected by eating raw produce that contains a small infected snail or slug, or part of one. It is not known for certain whether the slime left by infected snails and slugs are able to cause infection. Angiostrongyliasis is not spread person-to-person.”

With these results:

“This infection can cause a rare type of meningitis (eosinophilic meningitis).

The clinical presentation can vary. Symptoms can start with non-specific symptoms and evolve into more specific symptoms over the next following weeks. People may experience nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain a few hours to a few days after ingestion. Symptoms can then progress to headache and other neurologic symptoms. Non-specific symptoms include fever, light sensitivity, muscle pain, fatigue, and insomnia. More specific symptoms may include constant headache, neck stiffness and pain, tingling or burning of the skin, double vision, bowel or bladder difficulties, and seizures.

Children may experience more fever, irritability, somnolence, lethargy, gastrointestinal symptoms, muscle twitching, convulsions, and extremity weakness. In addition, individuals may experience a few days to weeks of no symptoms followed by neurologic symptoms.

Although it varies from individual to individual, the symptoms usually last between two to eight weeks. Symptoms have also been reported to last for longer periods of time.

Risk in Hawaii
According to the Hawaii Health Department: “The majority of cases of rat lungworm that are identified in Hawaii have occurred on the Big Island, but cases, and infected intermediate hosts (snails and slugs), have also been identified on all of the major neighbor islands. Since the risk for infection is present statewide, the recommendations for preventing infection should be followed no matter where in the state you are.

Prevention:

To prevent angiostrongyliasis, the Hawaii Department of Health says don’t eat raw or undercooked snails or slugs, and if you handle snails or slugs, be sure to wear gloves and wash your hands. Eating raw or undercooked freshwater shrimp, land crabs and frogs may also result in infection, although, there have not been any documented cases in Hawaii.

You should thoroughly inspect and rinse produce using potable water. Leaves of leafy greens should be washed one by one under running potable water. Boil snails, freshwater prawns, crabs, and frogs for at least 3–5 minutes. Only drink potable water and do not drink from garden hoses.

Eliminating snails, slugs, and rats founds near houses and gardens might also help reduce risk exposure to A. cantonensis. Eliminating snails, slugs, and rats can be achieved through pesticide baits, traps, rodent proofing your home and sanitation.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Throughout history, wastewater analysis has played a crucial role in monitoring and detecting various pathogens. In the 1940s, cell-culture methods were employed to track viral pathogens such as polio in sewage. In the 1980s, DNA probes were adapted for the detection of hepatitis A virus (HAV). The incorporation of PCR detection into sewage surveillance in the 1990s further enhanced detection capabilities. Notably, in 2013, sewage surveillance successfully provided early warnings for HAV and norovirus outbreaks in Sweden and prevented a potential paralytic polio outbreak in Israel.

Wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) has also proven effective in detecting the SARS-CoV-2 virus at a local level. This method has allowed scientists to gain valuable insights into the movement of the virus through populations, filling the gaps left by clinical diagnoses that often miss unreported cases.

One significant benefit of WBE and surveillance is its potential to detect specific viruses and parasites. For instance, wastewater analysis at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm detected Adenovirus 41, known for causing outbreaks of gastroenteritis in children. Recent outbreaks in the United States also suggested a potential link between Adenovirus 41 and liver inflammation. Several children in Alabama, displaying hepatitis symptoms, tested negative for hepatitis but positive for Adenovirus 41. This connection prompted the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to investigate further.

Kniel emphasized the need for standardized reporting and the use of indicators and biomarkers to calibrate concentrations obtained from wastewater monitoring for epidemiological models.

Various detection methods were discussed during the presentation. Digital PCR, for example, enables the absolute quantification of genomic targets, offering advantages such as a lower limit of detection and not requiring standard curves or CT (cycle threshold) values. However, the current cost of digital PCR is relatively high.

To illustrate the effectiveness of wastewater analysis, a case study comparing indicators in a town and hospital’s influent, water flowing in, was presented. The town demonstrated different indicator concentrations due to various factors, including precipitation.

Hospitals were identified as crucial sites for pathogen detection, as they can serve as sentinels for environmental contamination. Understanding the processes involved in wastewater treatment and the discharge of treated water into the environment is vital for effective surveillance, Kniel said.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) released their aspartame hazard and risk assessment results Friday. The IARC classified aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” because of “limited evidence” for carcinogenicity in humans. Meanwhile, the JECFA reaffirmed the acceptable daily intake of 40 mg/kg body weight for aspartame.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a response to the recent assessments. While the IARC classified aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” the FDA maintains that there is no evidence linking the artificial sweetener to cancer.

Aspartame, an artificial sweetener widely used in various food and beverage products since the 1980s, has become a topic of concern due to its potential health effects. It is commonly found in diet drinks, chewing gum, gelatin, ice cream, dairy products such as yogurt, breakfast cereal, toothpaste, and even medications such as cough drops and chewable vitamins.

Dr. Francesco Branca, Director of the Department of Nutrition and Food Safety at the World Health Organization (WHO), emphasized the importance of understanding potential factors contributing to cancer and the need for further studies. “The assessments of aspartame have indicated that, while safety is not a major concern at the doses which are commonly used, potential effects have been described that need to be investigated by more and better studies,” he stated.

The IARC and JECFA conducted separate evaluations of aspartame, considering its potential carcinogenic hazard and other health risks. IARC classified aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” based on limited evidence for cancer in humans, experimental animals and possible mechanisms for causing cancer. On the other hand, JECFA reaffirmed the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 40 mg/kg body weight and concluded that aspartame consumption within this limit is safe.

Addressing the IARC’s classification, Dr. Mary Schubauer-Berigan of the IARC Monographs program acknowledged the need for more research to refine understanding regarding aspartame’s potential carcinogenic hazard. Meanwhile, Dr. Moez Sanaa, WHO’s Head of the Standards and Scientific Advice on Food and Nutrition Unit, stressed the necessity for further studies on mechanistic pathways relevant to insulin regulation, metabolic syndrome and diabetes, particularly in relation to carcinogenicity.

In response to the external safety reviews, the FDA expressed disagreement with the IARC’s conclusion, citing significant shortcomings in the studies relied upon. The FDA’s own scientists reviewed the scientific information provided by the IARC in 2021 and found no safety concerns when aspartame is used under approved conditions. The regulatory and scientific authorities of various countries, including Health Canada and the European Food Safety Authority, have also deemed aspartame safe at currently permitted use levels.

The FDA recognizes that some consumers rely on products containing aspartame and other sweeteners to reduce their sugar consumption. In order to assist consumers in making informed choices, the FDA will continue to provide reliable, science-based information on aspartame and other sweeteners on its website.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Geoff Ogle told attendees at the Government Chemist Conference this week that in recent years consumers have expanded expectations and understanding of the food system to include sustainability and ethical factors.

Ogle’s presentation mentioned Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia invading Ukraine, food prices and inflation, and food security.

Scottish consumer tracker data has shown prices are a major concern but standards are not as people trust that the work of regulators protects them. However, potential trade deals are driving some concern about standards in Scotland.

Current challenges
Public health and the food landscape is changing, according to Ogle. An aging population means there are more vulnerable people at risk of foodborne infection and new production methods such as vertical farming and novel protein sources need to be taken into account.

Food Standards Scotland produced a strategy in 2021 but went through a reprioritization exercise in 2022 due to real-term budget cuts and a lack of staff.

Ogle said the agency is often hit with several issues at the same time and pointed to resources as being one of the greatest risks. The use of data is improving and showing promise but is still at an early stage. He added there had been increased demands on environmental health officers in the past 20 years despite a reduction in resources and stressed that food is only one of their many responsibilities.

The Government Chemist resolves scientific disputes in the food and feed sectors, gives advice to regulators and industry, and carries out research.

Keynote lectures over the two days were given by Henry Dimbleby, lead author of the National Food Strategy, and Guy Poppy, deputy executive chair of BBSRC and ex-chief scientific advisor at the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

The FSA’s National Food Crime Unit (NFCU) and Scottish Food Crime and Incidents Unit (SFCIU) hosted an interactive session where attendees discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the system for reporting incidents and sharing information, putting forward suggestions on how to make improvements.

Potential future concerns highlighted
Louise Manning, a professor at the University of Lincoln, said UK consumers take it as a given that food is of high quality and safe.

Manning, who produces a weekly look at Rapid Alert System for Food System and Feed (RASFF) alerts, said recent problems have included tea as well as sildenafil in food supplements. Sildenafil is used to treat erection problems but can be dangerous if the user is on certain other medicines.

Manning spoke about climate-related risks such as predicted temperature change and related droughts, landslides, and floods; forest fires as a potential source of airborne dioxins and polyaromatic hydrocarbons; plus adverse and more humid weather conditions.

She questioned how issues will be risk assessed as many are not well understood as yet and some are long-term and chronic, such as aflatoxins, instead of short-term and acute. One example is how risk assessments are set up for oats in muesli but not in oat milk, despite changing consumer diets.

Manning said the role of labs was critical in detecting and preventing emerging issues and it was essential to have validated methods and competencies to undertake testing programs. 

Vittorio Fattori, a food safety officer at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), shared an overview of global trends and their food safety implications including climate change, consumer behavior and dietary patterns, new food sources and production systems, technology advances, and how foresight can help with early identification and evaluation of emerging issues.

Fattori said the agency is working on a report on the implications to food safety from the circular economy and will be holding a meeting in November 2023 on new foods including plant-based, precision fermentation, and 3D/4D printed foods.

Attendees also heard about food regulation in the UK, the authenticity of alternative proteins, sustainability in laboratories, cell-based, or cultured, meat, traceability of genome-edited products, and vertical farming.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The Center for Food Safety, the Pesticide Action Network North America, and Nacional De Campesinas have sued the EPA charging that continued approval of the herbicides Enlist One and Enlist Duo are unlawful actions.

Enlist One and Enlist Duo (Enlist products) are both herbicides containing the choline salt of 2,4-dichloro phenoxy acetic acid choline salt (“2,4-D”), an active ingredient with highly toxic effects on crops, plants, pollinators, and other species. Enlist Duo contains two active ingredients–2,4-D and glyphosate dimethylammonium salt (“glyphosate”),3 whereas Enlist One only contains 2,4-D.4

Both Enlist products are approved for controlling weeds in corn, soybean and cotton operations in 34 states. Enlist products can be sprayed on corn, soybean and cotton crops that have been genetically engineered to be resistant to 2,4-D (i.e., Enlist-resistant crops) throughout the growing season. Specifically, both Enlist products can be applied “any time before or after planting, but before [crops] emerge (pre-plant through preemergence), as well as after Enlist-resistant crops have emerged from the soil (postemergence).”

In a 105-page brief, the three non-governmental organizations claim that the EPA ignored the adverse effects the Enlist products have on communities and the environment. “EPA unlawfully ignored the environment and public risks of Enlist herbicides,” said Kristina Sinclair, the attorney, and counsel for the Plaintiffs. She said the herbicides are also causing harm to endangered species across the country.

“This is an administrative law case for declaratory and equitable relief challenging EPA’s failure to properly evaluate the risks of two harmful herbicides – Enlist One and Enlist Duo (which includes glyphosate) – as required under FIFRA and the ESA,” according to the complaint.

“Shortly before EPA decided to extend the registrations for these herbicides for an additional seven years, until 2027, the Ninth Circuit held that EPA’s previous registrations for these herbicides were unlawful. In its rush to renew the registrations for Enlist One and Enlist Duo, EPA again failed to comply with its statutory duties. EPA also ignored new evidence confirming that both herbicides have harmful effects on the environment and local communities, including the health of those exposed to the herbicides through work on nearby farms,” it continued.

The plaintiffs say Enlist One and Enlist Duo are herbicides “containing a highly toxic and harmful active ingredient known as 2,4-D.” Enlist Duo also contains the active ingredient glyphosate. These herbicides are sold across the country for over-the-top use on corn, soybean, and cotton crops that have been genetically engineered to be resistant to 2,4-D, glyphosate, and glufosinate.

“Although these herbicides are marketed as a “solution” to glyphosate-resistant weeds in corn, soybean, and cotton production,” the complaint says they threaten to increase the spread of new herbicide-resistant weeds because EPA failed to properly mitigate risks, making it harder for farmers to manage troublesome weeds. Moreover, these herbicides threaten to damage crops, native plants, and wildlife habitats in surrounding areas.

The complaint says “Mounting evidence shows that Glyphosate has the potential to cause serious health problems, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The EPA’s approval of Enlist Duo fails to grapple with the real-world and laboratory evidence of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate, despite the conclusions of scientists and researchers inside and outside EPA,” it adds.

The EPA and the Department of Justice have 21 days to respond to the summons, which notified them of the lawsuit. The response is made to the plaintiff’s attorney.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

On June 6-9, the World Health Organization has scheduled a series of talks on food safety to increase awareness and encourage a variety of stakeholders to debate and discuss an array of topics on health and food safety. Over four days, WHO will explore the topics behind World Food Safety Day’s theme: “Food standards save lives.” 

The topics of the webinars cover:

• the standards behind food safety, food safety in international emergencies, food fortification, and ways to estimate the burden of foodborne diseases, among others;
• updates on the WHO Global Strategy on Food Safety;
• release of a new WHO publication on whole genome sequencing.

The Health Talks, hosted by the  Food Safety Community of Practice, will deliver high-quality content with the support of international experts. The format of these talks includes dialogues with experts from around the world on current and emerging topics in food safety.

Health talks on food safety program:

— Health consequences of unsafe food: An effort to quantify the burden of unsafe food
Date: June 6, 11 a.m. – noon CEST 
https://www.whofoodsafety.org/networks/events/3752

— Towards stronger food safety systems: WHO Global Strategy for Food Safety
Date: June 6, 1 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. CEST
https://www.whofoodsafety.org/networks/events/3604

— The standards behind food safety: ways of ensuring safety and quality
Date: June 8, 2023, 1 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. CEST
https://www.whofoodsafety.org/networks/events/3753

— Whole genome sequencing as a tool for foodborne disease surveillance and response
Date: June 9, 2023, 1 p.m. – 2 p..m. CEST
https://www.whofoodsafety.org/networks/events/3758

WHO advocates for mainstreaming food safety in the global agenda by raising awareness about the importance of this topic and providing a platform for dialogues on critical issues to affect the safety and healthiness of foods.

Attendees will need to log in to the Food Safety Community of Practice website to register to attend the Health Talks on Food Safety.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The new guidance sets the level at 10 parts per billion (ppb), the same as the agency’s draft guidance issued in 2013. In its final guidance document the Food and Drug Administration says it is possible to further reduce public exposure to inorganic arsenic from apple juice in general, and specifically from apple juice that currently may contain inorganic arsenic at levels above 10 ppb.

The action June 1 by the Food and Drug Administration is too little as far as the consumer safety group Consumer Reports is concerned.

“Today’s announcement by FDA will have minimal impact on public health because the action level should be lower than 10 ppb based on current science. Plus, they waited until a vast majority of the industry was already meeting this level, so this announcement is virtually irrelevant,” said Brian Ronholm, director of food policy for Consumer Reports.

“Nonetheless, it is encouraging that the FDA has recently undertaken a renewed focus on addressing food chemicals and heavy metals. Hopefully, the FDA will continue to focus on these issues and monitor and take action if they find troubling levels of inorganic arsenic in apple juice.” 

As if it knew that its action would be criticized, the FDA’s announcement included what could be considered a disclaimer.

“The FDA’s testing results reflect a trend in reductions in the amount of inorganic arsenic in apple juice on the market, with an increasing percentage of samples testing below 3 ppb and 5 ppb. However, since the release of the draft guidance (in 2013), we have identified some apple juice samples with inorganic arsenic levels above 10 ppb. Therefore, we are finalizing an action level of 10 ppb because we consider this level achievable with the use of good manufacturing practices,” according to the agency’s announcement.

Guidance documents from the FDA do not carry the weight of law, a fact readily admitted by the agency. Its announcement says that the “non-binding” limit for arsenic in apple juice will “help encourage” manufacturers to reduce levels of inorganic arsenic in apple juice.

The FDA says guidance documents do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities but instead describe the agency’s current thinking on a topic and “should be viewed only as recommendations.” The use of the word “should” in FDA guidances means that something is suggested or recommended, but not required.

Inorganic arsenic in apple juice is considered a key component in food safety for children. The FDA says apple juice is a greater potential source of dietary inorganic arsenic exposure for children than for adults, because children’s dietary patterns are often less varied than those of adults, and they consume more apple juice relative to their body weight than do adults.

Scientific studies have shown that inorganic arsenic can impact the development of children, and lead to a host of problems including damage to the brain and nervous system, which can cause learning and behavioral problems.

“A report by the National Research Council (NRC) also listed adverse pregnancy outcomes and neurodevelopmental toxicity as adverse health effects of concern for exposure to inorganic arsenic,” according to the FDA’s final guidance document.

“The Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) Expert Committee on Food Additives, which includes participation by FDA scientists, concluded that food can be a major contributor to inorganic arsenic exposure, and the European Food Safety Authority concluded that dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic should be reduced.”

Consumer Reports has repeatedly urged the FDA to set lower levels for inorganic arsenic in foods, especially baby foods, and to lower the action level to 3 ppb for arsenic in apple juice. 

In 2018, Consumer Reports tested 45 popular fruit juices sold across the country — including apple, grape, pear, and fruit blends — and found elevated levels of cadmium, inorganic arsenic, and/or lead in 21 of them. The consumer organization’s tests showed that it is possible for manufacturers to sharply reduce inorganic arsenic in their juices.

“Setting limits for inorganic arsenic in foods, especially foods consumed by children, is vital to help reduce exposure and better protect public health. While Consumer Reports (CR) supports an action level to offer regulators a necessary enforcement and accountability tool and a key benchmark for apple juice manufacturers, CR research shows the FDA’s final action level is not in the best interest of consumers,” the group said in a statement following the FDA’s announcement.

The FDA says it is possible for manufacturers of apple juice to reduce the levels of arsenic in apple juice by sourcing apples from orchards that have less ground contamination and less use of certain pesticides. Among other action, the agency also cautions manufacturers to test water sources for inorganic arsenic. 

“. . . recent research by FDA shows that the use of some filtering aids to remove sediments in juice can contribute to elevated arsenic levels. Changing or treating filtering aids may reduce the levels of arsenic in filtered juices,” according to the final guidance.

Looking at an averaging technique for data collected through the Total Diet Study (TDS), the FDA says the data had a mean of 2.7 ppb total arsenic with a standard deviation of 2.0 ppb total arsenic and ranged in concentration from 0 to 10 ppb total arsenic. The FDA did not use that data. 

“Because the compositing provides an ‘average’ result, and our achievability assessment is based on percentiles of arsenic concentrations in individual samples, we did not use the TDS data in the achievability assessment or other assessments in Section IV (of the final document),” according to the FDA.

In its conclusion of the final guidance, the FDA says it will take the following actions sampling and enforcement approach to arsenic in apple juice. 

• We intend to initially analyze apple juice samples for total arsenic. 
• We intend to speciate samples containing more than 10 μg/kg or 10 ppb total arsenic to determine inorganic arsenic levels. 
• We intend to consider the action level of 10 μg/kg or 10 ppb inorganic arsenic as an important source of information for determining whether apple juice is adulterated within the meaning of section 402(a)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(1)). 

“FDA considers on a case-by-case basis whether a food that contains a contaminant is adulterated. When considering whether to bring an enforcement action in a particular case, we will consider whether the inorganic arsenic causes apple juice to be adulterated under section 402(a)(1) of the FD&C Act,” the final guidance says.

IAFP non-members will have the opportunity to browse through more than 100 recorded webinars dating back to 2009 on the IAFP website. Unlike usual access requirements, no login will be necessary during this period, allowing individuals to freely explore the wealth of knowledge and insights shared by experts in the field.

While access to the webinar archives is typically a benefit exclusive to IAFP members, the organization has decided to extend this privilege to non-members during the month of June as part of their commitment to promoting food safety on a global scale. The webinars cover a wide range of topics, offering valuable information on emerging trends, best practices, and innovative approaches to ensure food safety and protect public health.

IAFP membership comes with a host of advantages, including access to the association’s free webinars that are generously sponsored by the IAFP Foundation. Members can take advantage of these educational resources year-round, gaining valuable knowledge and staying up to date with the latest developments in food safety. For those who are not yet members but are interested in joining, IAFP encourages them to consider taking this opportunity to explore the benefits and significance of becoming a member.

For more information, visit IAFP’s website.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Too bad the Taco Bell worker was not already vaccinated.

The Snohomish County Health Department has identified a case of hepatitis A that occurred in a food worker who worked at two Taco Bell locations: 2727 Broadway in Everett and 303 91st Ave NE in Lake Stevens.

Anyone who ate food from the Everett location on May 22 or 23 or from the Lake Stevens location on May 23 should take the following actions:

• Check if you are vaccinated against or immune to hepatitis A. People who are vaccinated or immune do not need to take any further action as they would be considered protected against this exposure. People can check their vaccination records by contacting their healthcare provider, using the Washington Immunization Information System at https://wa.myir.net or, if available, referring to their copy of their immunization record. People who have previously been infected with hepatitis A also may be immune. If they are not sure, they should check with their healthcare provider. 

Hepatitis A vaccine should be administered as soon as possible, within 2 weeks of exposure, to all unvaccinated people aged12 months or olderepatitia a who have recently been exposed to hepatitis A virus (HAV).

It is surprising the the Hepatitis A vaccines are not being offered to all exposed patrons by the Snohomish Department of Health.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News,click here)

The unpasteurized, raw milk was sold at a farmers market in Missoula County, according to the Missoula City-County Health Department. The department did not specify what farmers market is involved.

“We don’t know if the cow was shedding the bacteria at the time it was milked, or if that cow’s milk was sold at the farmers market,” said Environmental Health Director Shannon Therriault. “So we can’t say for sure whether anyone was exposed. However, what we do know is that unpasteurized milk can contain harmful bacteria that can make you and your loved ones sick.”

The health department warned that unpasteurized milk products have been linked to outbreaks of E. coli, campylobacter, salmonella, brucella, listeria and cryptosporidium in addition to Q fever. In the case of Q fever, symptoms can take two or three weeks to become apparent following exposure. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, symptoms of Q fever include fever, chills, fatigue, headache, muscle aches, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, chest pain, stomach pain, weight loss and a non-productive cough.

“While drinking ‘raw’ milk has become more widespread in recent years, we want people to know that it can easily be contaminated with harmful bacteria, even when the milking operation is well-run,” Therriault said. 

In the 1980s, Missoula experienced a large salmonella outbreak caused by unpasteurized milk from a local dairy. More than 100 cases were linked to the outbreak, and half of those cases were children 14 and younger, according to the health department. 

The strain of salmonella was multi-drug resistant, and 15 percent of those who got sick were hospitalized. An inspection of the dairy revealed no sanitation laws or practices on the books at that time were broken, but people still got sick.

After that outbreak, Montana passed a law that all milk sold to consumers had to be pasteurized. The CDC reports that when milk pasteurization requirements began in the early 1990s, deaths and diarrheal illnesses in young children declined dramatically.

In 2021, the legislature reversed course, and unpasteurized milk sales are now allowed in Montana under certain, limited conditions. Unpasteurized milk can be sold at a farm, farmers markets and other traditional community events, as long as the herd is five lactating cows or fewer, and the seller informs the end consumer that the product is not licensed, certified, packaged, labeled or inspected under any official regulations.

The Iowa State Dairy Association opposes the sale of unpasteurized, raw milk direct to consumers. The association says raw milk can harbor dangerous microorganisms, such as salmonella, E coli, campylobacter, and Listeria, which can pose serious health risks. Raw milk can be especially dangerous for infants and young children, the elderly, and people with weakened immune systems.

Most state health departments and departments of agriculture, as well as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, advise against the consumption of raw milk for the same reasons. 

The transport and sale of raw milk across state lines are against federal law because of health concerns.

The Iowa legislature OK’d the bill to allow some sales of raw milk by votes of 64-to-35 in the House and 37-13 in the Senate. Sen. Jason Schultz, R-Crawford, and the floor manager for the bill said it has taken 17 years for a raw milk bill to survive the legislative process.

Supporters of the plan argued it gives consumers more freedom in the choice of foods they buy. Those against the plan said they worry about the health impact that drinking raw milk can have on Iowans.

Rep. Megan Srinivas, D-Des Moines, is an infectious disease doctor. She said raw milk increases the chances of infection by 150 times and brings about outbreaks that impact others beyond just those who are milk drinkers.

The measure sent to the governor permits sales from farms directly to consumers of raw, unpasteurized milk.

The off-farm sale of raw milk, such as at farmer’s markets and grocery stores is still prohibited. Raw milk sold on farms must carry labels warning about the lack of inspections or freedom from regulations involving pasteurization and grading.

Raw milk dairies will have to submit to testing, mostly on animals, and keep records that health officials can access. Monthly “coliform counts” for bacteria levels and yearly veterinarian check-ups are required.

The law also states that raw milk can only be sold if stored at 45 degrees or lower and needs to be distributed within seven days. Farmers can’t distribute milk from animals recently treated with antibiotics.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

FAO’s Committee on Agriculture (COAG) asked the FAO to produce an assessment on the contribution of livestock to food security, sustainable food systems, nutrition, and healthy diets. The first part focuses on the downstream impacts of terrestrial animal source food consumption as part of healthy diets. It covers four areas including food safety and foodborne diseases as well as emerging issues.

The Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group (FERG) of the World Health Organization (WHO) analyzed 31 hazards and estimated that they caused 600 million illnesses and 420,000 deaths in 2010. Updated figures are expected by 2025.

One-third of the global foodborne disease burden is associated with the consumption of contaminated terrestrial animal source food (TASF), according to the report.

TASFs may support microbial growth and can become contaminated at any stage along the value chain, from primary production to manufacture, distribution, and retailing, or through handling during preparation and consumption.

A changing sector

While evidence on foodborne disease hazards and health outcomes, and on risk analysis methods are well documented, knowledge of their national burden in terms of incidence and severity is lacking, said experts.

Food products covered include eggs and egg products; milk and dairy products; meat products; food from hunting and wildlife farming; and insects and insect products.

The section on food safety details biological, chemical, and physical hazards, parasites, viruses, pesticide and veterinary medicine residues, natural toxins, environmental contaminants, risk analysis, and One Health.

Changing agricultural practices such as the intensification of livestock production and input use, the lengthening and broadening of value chains, and growing consumption of processed food contribute to increased exposure to foodborne hazards, found the report.

TASFs are traded in formal, regulated markets and in local, unregulated markets. Informal markets, especially wet markets, have been linked to the emergence of zoonotic pathogens. Public pressure is driving regulators to increase scrutiny of markets and enforce food safety standards. Interventions to ensure the safe and hygienic operation of food markets can mitigate risks associated with live animals and their products said the report.

Improving the situation

Experts said food safety issues can be tackled by enhancing sanitation, investing in education, and strengthening national control systems. Factors to help mitigate foodborne diseases include risk-based approaches to food safety management, regulations that specify and enforce food safety requirements, provision of an enabling environment, and adoption of the One Health approach.

Surveillance systems that facilitate the collection of country-specific epidemiological data and support updated foodborne disease burden estimates are required, especially for developing countries. Risk assessment studies that inform prioritization and decision-making are lacking, as are traceability and food recall tools, according to the report.

In terms of emerging topics, further research is needed to complete food safety risk assessments for cell-cultured meat produced at an industrial scale, and food safety concerns should be considered in the scaling up of insects as food or animal feed.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Healthcare and agricultural groups, including the Iowa Public Health Association, Iowa Farm Bureau, and Iowa State Dairy Association, are on record as being opposed to the bill because of public health concerns.

The bill was already approved by the Senate, but the House made revisions to it that require the proposed legislation to be voted on again by the higher chamber. The bill, referred to as Senate File 315 was approved in the House of Representatives by a 64-35 vote.

The approved version includes an amendment added by Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, R-Wilton, to require that raw milk producers test dairy animals for bacteria. It does not require that the raw milk itself be tested for bacteria or viruses, which can allow contaminated milk to enter the stream of commerce.

Rep. Megan Srinivas, D-Des Moines, is opposed to allowing the sale of unpasteurized milk in the state. She says as an infectious disease physician she has seen multiple children as patients who fell ill after consuming raw milk.

“It’s one thing if it’s an adult choosing what milk that they’re consuming,” Srinivas told the Iowa Capital Dispatch. “But when we have children who are falling victim because they are being given milk that can make them sick, (and) have permanent or even lethal ramifications, that’s where I get concerned.”

Kaufmann said he understands Srinivas’ perspective but disagrees with her assessment that her concerns mean the government should not allow the production and sale of raw milk. According to the Capital Dispatch, he likened such government control to the Disney character Jiminy Cricket sitting on consumers’ shoulders and telling them what to do.

Most state health and agriculture departments as well as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say it is not safe to consume unpasteurized, raw milk because it often contains dangerous pathogens. The sale of such milk is banned from sale across state lines.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

While many of these cases go unreported, from 2000 to 2018, there were 76 Salmonella outbreaks linked to live poultry, resulting in 5,128 cases, 950 hospitalizations, and 7 deaths. This Easter, it is recommended to stick to candy and other gifts to avoid the risk of illnesses and animal abandonment.

One of the main problems with giving live animals as gifts is that children are often the recipients, and they are among the most likely to not observe good hygiene around the animals. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises that children younger than 5 years of age should not handle or touch chicks, ducklings, or other poultry, as they are even more likely to get sick from germs like Salmonella.

Humane societies and animal rights groups across the U.S. advise against purchasing live animals as Easter gifts, citing the risk of animal “dumping” after the child loses interest in the pet. This can lead to tragedy for the pet and is an ecological concern. Domestic rabbits, for instance, are not prepared for life in the wild and make easy prey for predators. They can also compete with other rabbit species, potentially destroy native plants, and reproduce rapidly. Domestic rabbits can also carry and spread diseases, such as the RHD virus, to indigenous rabbit species.

For more information on handling chicks safely watch the short video below.

About Salmonella infections
Food and animals contaminated with Salmonella bacteria do not usually look different that non-contaminated products. Anyone can become sick with a Salmonella infection. Infants, children, seniors, and people with weakened immune systems are at higher risk of serious illness because their immune systems are fragile, according to the CDC.

Anyone who has handled live poultry and developed symptoms of Salmonella infection should seek medical attention. Sick people should tell their doctors about the possible exposure to Salmonella bacteria because special tests are necessary to diagnose salmonellosis. Salmonella infection symptoms can mimic other illnesses, frequently leading to misdiagnosis.

Symptoms of Salmonella infection can include diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after handling infected animals or eating contaminated food. Otherwise healthy adults are usually sick for four to seven days. In some cases, however, diarrhea may be so severe that patients require hospitalization.

Older adults, children, pregnant women, and people with weakened immune systems, such as cancer patients, are more likely to develop a severe illness and serious, sometimes life-threatening conditions.

Some people get infected without getting sick or showing any symptoms. However, they may still spread the infections to others.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

According to John R. Clifford, veterinary trade policy advisory for the USA Poultry & Egg Export Council, an approved vaccine is not yet available that is a “good match to the virus.” That leaves biosecurity measures as the best U.S. weapon against the virus.

Clifford, who is scheduled to speak at the upcoming Chicken Marketing Summit, says the worst-case scenario would be the continuation of the current situation for “many years.” The Chicken Marketing Summit is scheduled for July 31 to Aug. 2 in Miramar Beach, FL.

Vaccinations against HPAI are being used in Mexico, China, Egypt and Vietnam.

The highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) viruses have been detected in U.S. wild aquatic birds, commercial poultry, and backyard or hobbyist flocks since January 2022, causing the destruction of 58,645,211 birds. These are the first detections of HPAI viruses A (H5N1) in the U.S. since 2016.

The virus is increasingly being found in mammals in the United States and other countries.

Bird flu does not currently threaten food safety and only one U.S. poultry worker was sickened by the virus and that individual made a complete recovery. The virus has, however, turned up in 47 states, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. Birds not killed by the fast-moving virus are culled to prevent further spread.

Bird flu continues to strike. This week a mixed flock of 114 chickens, ducks, and geese were infected with the virus in LeSueur County, MN. The backyard flock was culled after the virus was confirmed by a federal laboratory in Ames, IA. HPHI strike was announced by the Minnesota Board of Animal Health.

Minnesota’s last case was reported four months ago, and the spread is blamed on migratory birds.

During the last week of March, Chile reported a second non-U.S. case of human infection with the avian influenza A(H5N1) virus. This second human “H5N1 bird flu” virus infection was reported in South America. The first was reported by Ecuador in December and was associated with exposure to backyard poultry.

In February of this year, neighboring Peru reported H5N1 virus infections in sea lions and pelicans after die-offs in those animals. Globally, there have been 11 human cases of H5N1 reported since January 2022. The prior 10 H5N1 cases all had exposure to poultry.

The source of H5N1 virus infection for the patient in Chile is part of an ongoing investigation. A respiratory specimen from the Chile case patient is being sent to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for confirmation and additional testing. In the U.S., one H5N1 case was reported in a person who reported fatigue without any other symptoms after poultry culling activities.

As of March 10, 2023, H5N1 viruses (clade 2.3.4.4b) have been detected in wild birds or poultry in 16 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean as well as the United States and Canada, and in most of the rest of the world.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

The key word here is biotechnology. And President Biden is all for it. In fact, he goes so far as to say it should be used to make agriculture more productive and sustainable, create safer and healthier food, protect plants and food animals from pests and diseases, and even help protect the world from environmental harm.

All of this is found in Biden’s recently released Executive Order on “Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy.”

In the report, the President offers his vision for a “whole-of-government” approach to advance biotechnology and biomanufacturing. This would be done by creating a research agenda that outlines the needs that will lead to innovative solutions in agriculture, health, climate change, energy, food security, supply chain resilience, and national and economic security. 

Beyond R&D, says the report, we have the domestic capacity to make in the United States all the bio-based products that we invent here. This will create new jobs, build stronger supply chains, and contribute to our climate goals.

Not that biotechnology hasn’t been around for a long time when it comes to improving agricultural endeavors. It just wasn’t called that. Choosing the best cows for breeding to get better cows, for example. Or saving seeds from the most productive plants to sow at planting time. Cross-breeding plants to get hybrids. Or even using microorganisms to make wine and cheese. These are good examples of how farmers increased productivity and quality with biotechnology.

But there’s something new in the wind now. Modern biotechnology actually veers away from this basic biological approach and instead generates new tissues by manipulating genes and living tissues in a controlled environment.

No, this doesn’t sound anything like “back on the farm,” but rather something like “out of the lab.” And it’s already happening. 

When it comes to food safety, time and time again, the farmers and companies that are using biotechnology to grow crops or create meat, chicken, fish, or even milk, say that food safety isn’t a problem — as long as everything is done right before, during and after production. That’s because, in the case of livestock, for example, there’s no manure or slaughterhouses involved.

For vegans and environmentalists, this is a decided plus. But for President Biden, the real plus is that it makes farming more productive while also reducing climate change.

When it comes to crops — corn is a good example of the benefits of biotechnology.

The National Corn Growers Association says it welcomes additional support for the use of biotechnology in agriculture. 

“Since corn growers started using seeds created with biotechnology in the mid-1990s, average yields have increased by nearly 50 bushels-per-acre, leading to an increase in food and fuel security for both domestic and export markets,” said an association spokesperson. “Biotechnology also contributes to the sustainability profile of corn production, allowing farmers to grow more on less land with seeds designed to withstand challenging weather events, such as drought or excess rain, and pest pressures.”

This is but one example of how biotechnology makes it possible to achieve high yields of food products, while using fewer resources and reducing the carbon dioxide footprint of food production thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Not that agricultural biotechnology hasn’t provoked heated controversy. On the food-safety front, some biotech critics warn that genetically modified foods should not be used for food. They warn that consumers are being used as guinea pigs in what they consider to be an unproven science. On the other side of the divide, the FDA says there’s no substantial difference between genetically modified foods and non-biotech foods.

Infrastructure, yes
The president’s new report calls for going forward with biotech agriculture.

This would include building more food-grade biomanufacturing facilities,  including ones for precision fermentation; supporting the necessary infrastructure for more plant and animal gene sequencing and breeding; and developing a greater understanding of consumer acceptance of food products made with the assistance of biotechnology.

In the case of precision fermentation, for example, food can be produced without using living things, soil, or conventional farming practices thanks to innovative technologies that include tissues taken from animal biopsies and grown in nutrients in bioreactors. In this approach, the animal is not killed. For “animal rights” advocates, this is a definite plus.

The report describes goals for developing new food and feed sources, enhancing nutrient density in foods, and reducing foodborne illness. Innovations in food and feed can boost both dairy and cultivated protein companies, for example, sustainably expanding the range of available protein options. 

The report concludes by saying that by leveraging innovation in biotechnology and biomanufacturing, “we can expand the toolbox for farmers, ranchers, and other producers to meet the many challenges in food and agriculture.”

Again, food safety comes into the picture.

“Improving nutritional quality and reducing foodborne illness is essential for increasing food security,” says the report.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

EFSA assessed the public health risk related to nitrosamines. Ten nitrosamines in food are carcinogenic, meaning they can cause cancer, and genotoxic, which means they may damage DNA.

Nitrosamines have been found in foodstuffs like cured meat products, processed fish, cocoa, beer, and other alcoholic beverages. They may also be present in other foods such as cooked meat, processed vegetables, cereals, milk, and dairy products, or fermented, pickled, and spiced foods. 

Dieter Schrenk, chair of the panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain, said the assessment revealed that for all age groups across the EU, the level of exposure to nitrosamines in food is a concern.

“Based on animal studies, we considered the incidence of liver tumors in rodents as the most critical health effect. To ensure a high level of consumer protection, we created a worst-case scenario for our risk assessment. We assumed that all nitrosamines found in food had the same potential to cause cancer in humans as the most harmful nitrosamine, although that is unlikely,” he said.

Evaluation of data and past work
Nitrosamines are formed by a reaction between nitrites and certain amines. Cured meats often contain detectable levels of nitrosamines due to the use of nitrite as a preserving agent and are affected by additional factors, such as temperature, pH, and processing conditions.

Food consumption data from an EFSA database was used for the dietary exposure assessment. Analytical results from the EFSA contaminant database and the literature on Nitrosamine concentrations in food were used to assess dietary exposure. Information relevant for hazard identification and characterization was identified by a literature review.

EFSA evaluated the potential harm caused by nitrosamines to humans and animals and assessed consumer exposure.

When assessing genotoxic and carcinogenic substances in the food chain, EFSA calculates a margin of exposure for consumers. The MOE is a ratio of the dose at which a small but measurable adverse effect is observed, and the level of exposure to a substance for a population. In general, a ratio above 10,000 indicates a low concern for consumers. In this assessment, the panel concluded that calculated MOEs are below 10,000 in two scenarios, which raises a health concern.

EFSA held a public consultation on the draft opinion in late 2022 and 12 comments were received including from the UK Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) and French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (Anses).

In 2017, another EFSA panel published a risk assessment of nitrates and nitrites as food additives. It found consumer exposure was within safe levels.

There is no EU regulation on the presence of Nitrosamines in food or drinking water. EFSA’s opinion will now be shared with the European Commission, which will discuss with national authorities what if any, risk management measures are needed.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

There are several areas where data is lacking or information is required to manage the risk or hazard that the products may pose. More work is needed from the cultured meat industry and by regulators to help understand the hazards of individual products, found the assessment published by the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

The purpose of the report was to identify hazards in the cultivated meat production process to help inform the FSA risk assessment process for authorization. It was also important that products do not pose any microbiological or chemical concerns. The research was based on a review of scientific literature in 2020.

There was little or no data on the final analytical composition of products, key toxicology data, nutrition profiles, product stability, allergy risk, and any recorded adverse effects when consumed by animals or humans.

Wider situation
As of March 2023, there are no cultivated meat products permitted for sale on the British market but approval for cell-cultured chicken was granted in Singapore in late 2020 and is being looked at in the United States. It is expected that such products will come under novel food regulations in the UK. This means each one will need pre-market approval and be assessed by a panel of experts for potential risks.

Cell-based meat is also known as cultivated or cultured. Other terms include in vitro, artificial, lab-grown, and fake. Cell-based food production involves culturing cells isolated from animals without slaughter.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) are organizing a webinar on food safety and cell-based food on April 5. The agencies have already published several documents but a final report will be released during the webinar.

The FSA report found there are several stages of development for producing cultured meat and at each one, different chemicals, biologics, media formulations, additives, and supplements are used. The contamination risk of each input needs to be assessed, as any undesirable components that remain in the final product need to be at an acceptable exposure level or be food-grade and safe.

Examples of possible issues
Problems may arise from contaminated reagents or air, the water bath, poorly cleaned or maintained equipment and the cell culturist not following cleaning protocols, good laboratory practices (GLP) or good manufacturing practices (GMP).

Antibiotics and fungicides, such as penicillin, streptomycin, and gentamicin are used in cell cultures to prevent infection. Some cell isolation, proliferation, and differentiation protocols also use chemicals that are toxic to humans.

It is not clear whether viruses will prove a significant health hazard through the consumption of cell-cultured meat products, but literature sources suggest the risk will be less or the same as that posed by eating meat. 

There may be a risk of cross-contamination of one cell line into another cell due to the use of multiple lines. Cross-contamination can come from many sources including poor maintenance of equipment, poor cleaning regimes, incorrect storage of cells, working with multiple cell lines in one area, using the wrong cells, and incorrect labeling. 

One area is the potential to use cell lines of animals not common in local diets. The chance to eat exotic animals could appeal to the consumer, but there may be risks such as the transfer of new diseases and viruses and allergic reactions to new proteins. 

Another potential hazard was the nutritional impact of products, as the nutrition profile could be different from what it is replacing. Current cultured meat lacks the sensory and nutritional properties of traditional meat. So additives, such as flavorings, colorings, vitamins, and minerals may be added to the culture that impacts the final nutrition of the product.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The narrow and fast-moving corridor of water vapor in the atmosphere is expected to bring intense precipitation. Central and southern California are likely to be hit with vast amounts of rainfall, which could result in flash floods.

Residents should follow the steps below to reduce the risk of foodborne illness during this or other emergency events:

Plan Ahead If You Can

• If possible, raise refrigerators and freezers off the floor, putting cement blocks under their corners.
• Move canned goods and other foods that are kept in the basement or low cabinets to a higher area.

Food Safety After a Flood

• Use bottled drinking water that has not come in contact with flood water.
• Do not eat any food that may have come in contact with flood water.
• Discard any food that is not in a waterproof container if there is any chance it may have come in contact with flood water. Food containers that are not waterproof include those with screw caps, snap lids, pull tops, and crimped caps.
• Also, discard cardboard juice/milk/baby formula boxes and home canned foods if they have come in contact with flood waters. They cannot be effectively cleaned and sanitized.
• Inspect canned foods; discard any food in damaged cans. Can damage is shown by swelling, leakage, punctures, holes, fractures, extensive deep rusting, or crushing/denting severe enough to prevent normal stacking or opening with a manual, wheel-type can opener.
• Discard wooden cutting boards, plastic utensils, baby bottle nipples, and pacifiers that may have come in contact with flood waters. There is no way to safely clean them.
• Thoroughly wash metal pans, ceramic dishes, and utensils (including can openers) with soap and water (hot water if available). Rinse and sanitize them by boiling in clean water or immersing them for 15 minutes in a solution of 1 tablespoon of unscented, liquid chlorine bleach per gallon of drinking water.
• Thoroughly wash countertops with soap and water (hot water if available). Rinse and then sanitize them by applying a solution of 1 tablespoon of unscented, liquid chlorine bleach per gallon of drinking water. Allow air-drying.
• Note: If your refrigerator or freezer was submerged by floodwaters — even partially — it is unsafe to use and must be discarded.

If the Power Goes Out  
Cold temperatures slow the growth of harmful bacteria. Keeping food at safe temperatures is key to reducing the risk of foodborne illnesses.

• Keep refrigerator and freezer doors closed as much as possible. The refrigerator will keep food cold for about 4 hours, and a full freezer will keep the temperature for approximately 48 hours (24 hours if half full) if the doors remain closed. 
• Use ice (dry, block ice, or ice cubes) and frozen containers of water or gel packs to keep your refrigerator and freezer as cold as possible.

When Power is Restored
Before eating any food after a power outage, check the temperatures inside your refrigerator and freezer.

• If the power was out for no more than 4 hours, refrigerated food should be safe as long as the doors were kept closed. When the power comes back on, check the temperature in the refrigerator or of the food. Perishable foods such as meat, poultry, seafood, milk, eggs, or leftovers with temperatures that are 45 degrees F or below, as measured with a food thermometer, should be safe but cook and consume them as soon as possible.
• Discard any perishable food that has been at temperatures above 40 degrees F for 4 hours or more.
• If the freezer thermometer reads 40 degrees F or below, food is safe and may be refrozen. If you did not have a thermometer in the freezer, check each package to determine its safety; you can’t rely on appearance or odor. If the food still contains ice crystals or is 40 degrees F or below, it is safe to refreeze or cook.
• Be aware that perishable foods that are not kept adequately refrigerated or frozen may cause food poisoning if eaten, even after they are thoroughly cooked.

If you have questions about food safety during severe weather, or any other food safety topics, you can call the USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888MPHotline or chat live with a food safety specialist at AskKaren.gov. These services are available in English and Spanish from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. Answers to frequently asked questions can also be found 24/7 at AskKaren.gov.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

According to President Biden’s budget proposal, the agency wants $128 million of that allocated for food safety programs. The FDA also proposed legislative action from Congress to expand its authority and ability to intervene to prevent contamination or shortages of the food and drug supply. 

The agency has been under fire for the lack of a clear chain of command on the food side of its responsibilities as well as underfunding, compared to the drug side of its operations. A portion of the $128.2 million would go toward the food safety revisions outlined recently by FDA Commissioner Robert Califf. 

Califf has proposed changes that he says will help with response and prevention in food safety matters, but critics say his proposed deputy commissioner position lacks the authority to make a difference.

The FDA’s budget proposal also includes money to strengthen responses to shortages of critical foods, including infant formula. The infant formula crisis of 2022 — sparked by findings of Cronobacter contamination in an Abbott Nutrition production plant that manufactured Similac and other popular brands, and the subsequent recall and temporary closure of the plant — brought to light the agency’s lack of ability to respond to such occurrences.

Part of the $128.2 million request would also include:

• $10 million in investments in enterprise data and information technology (IT) modernization;
• $16 million for regulatory and mission support functions within the Office of the Commissioner; and 
• $9.4 million for FDA buildings, facilities, and infrastructure improvements.

Proposals for the food safety efforts of the agency include legislative efforts to boost the FDA’s authority to pursue food safety and some other areas of its operations. Those items include:

• Requiring the industry to test final food products marketed for consumption by infants and children for toxic elements and allowing the FDA access to those records;

• Enhancing tools to help reduce exposure to toxic elements in the food supply, especially food consumed by infants and young children, including the new authority to establish binding contamination limits in food;

• Broadening the agency’s authority to request records or other information in advance of or in lieu of inspections to include all FDA-regulated product areas, explicitly including food; and

• Requiring animal drug sponsors to implement changes designed to protect consumers from drug residues in animals intended for human food by making post-approval safety-related labeling changes based on new data, developing programs for the safe use of certain products, and requiring post-approval studies based on new safety information that becomes available after approval.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

The allowed concentration of inorganic arsenic in white rice is lowered, while there are new limits for arsenic in some rice-based food items, infant formula, baby foods, fruit juices, and salt.

Arsenic is present at low concentrations in rocks, soil, and natural groundwater, with food and drinking water being the principal routes of human exposure. The inorganic forms of arsenic are more toxic than organic arsenic.

Children under the age of 3 are the most exposed to inorganic arsenic, especially infants who eat rice-based formula. Developmental problems in children have been documented.

High consumers of rice, such as certain ethnic groups, and people who eat a lot of algae-based products are the main groups subjected to inorganic arsenic exposure.

The lower maximum levels are part of Europe’s Beating Cancer Plan to limit or remove the carcinogenic risk associated with chemicals in food.

Reducing the risk
The decision is based on a 2021 scientific report from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and comes after member states were told to monitor the presence of arsenic in foods.

EU rules will follow the Codex Alimentarius maximum level of 0.5 mg/kg for total arsenic in salt. Other products covered are cereals and cereal-based products, non-parboiled milled rice, parboiled and husked rice, rice flour, rice cakes and crackers, and non-alcoholic rice-based drinks. Maximum levels differ depending on the product.

Stella Kyriakides, the commissioner for health and food safety, said: “We are taking additional measures to further reduce the exposure risk of a carcinogenic contaminant from our food chain. Our citizens want the reassurance that the food they eat is safe, and these new rules are yet another proof that food safety standards in the EU remain the highest in the world.”

Safe Food Advocacy Europe said it welcomed any measure that avoids or reduces the exposure of European consumers to harmful substances in food.

Existing maximum levels for arsenic in food products were established in 2015 based on an EFSA opinion that found inorganic arsenic may cause cancer of the skin, bladder, and lungs. 

Due to problems related to the analysis of inorganic arsenic in a number of foods, maximum levels for arsenic were initially only set for rice and rice-based products.

As certain foods covered by the regulation have a long shelf life, items that were lawfully placed on the market before the new rules apply will be allowed to remain on sale.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Editor’s note: This article was first published by Harvard Public Health magazine and is reprinted here with permission.

By Jerold Mande

Federal food law is clear: It bans “any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render [a food] injurious to health.”

For decades, regulators have used that provision mostly to crack down on food contaminated with toxic chemicals or microbes such as Listeria and Salmonella that can make us acutely ill. It’s important to protect people from these harms, but let’s also put them in perspective: These regulated contaminants kill an estimated 1,400 Americans per year. By contrast, 1,600 Americans die every day from chronic food illness, such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

In recent years, evidence has mounted that these chronic illnesses are caused by deleterious substances in ultra-processed foods. From heat-and-eat meals such as frozen pizza to sweetened breakfast cereals, ultra-processed foods are industrial formulations of ingredients from substances extracted from foods or synthesized in laboratories. They are also staples of our diets.

It is time for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to use their authority under federal law to protect us from these highly processed foods. This would be a paradigm shift — but it is also common sense: FDA and USDA must make at least as much effort preventing chronic food illness as they do acute food illness.

About 678,000 Americans die each year from chronic food illness. That toll is higher than all our combat deaths in every war in American history—combined. That’s right: there are more deaths each year from our food than all the combat deaths from the Revolutionary War through the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In addition to deaths, poor diet causes tremendous suffering. For instance, two-thirds of severe COVID cases resulting in hospitalization have been attributed to four diet-caused diseases: obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and heart failure. In other words, these hospitalizations could have been prevented if the patient didn’t have these diseases. All told, the economic cost of nutrition-related chronic diseases has been estimated at $16 trillion over the period from 2011 to 2020.

Mounting evidence suggests that ultra-processed foods are causing much of this harm.

In a recent study conducted by the National Institutes of Health to discover the cause of sharp increases in obesity in the U.S., volunteers were randomly assigned to either eat minimally processed foods or ultra-processed foods matched for daily nutrients like carbohydrates, sodium, fat, and sugar. Investigators thought weight gain would be the same in both groups, since nutrient composition was equivalent. They were wrong.

While on the ultra-processed diet, people ate an additional 500 calories per day and began to rapidly gain weight. When the same people were later assigned to eat the minimally processed diet, they lost weight.

This is an important finding, because it raises the possibility that it’s the additives and processing—not just the percentage of fat or sugar in a diet—that make us sick. More research is urgently needed.

Our regulatory agencies clearly have the legal authority to take on this threat to public health. Congress revealed its intent in a 1958 amendment that provides that no food additive shall be deemed safe if it is found to induce cancer, a chronic illness, when ingested by humans or animals. There is recent precedent for using our food safety laws to regulate chronic food illness. In 2015, the FDA banned artificial trans fats from food on the grounds that it caused heart disease, another chronic illness linked to diet.

The agencies should use this same authority to regulate the design of ultra-processed foods. Our food must continue to be delicious, affordable, and convenient—traits Americans appropriately demand—but can be eaten daily without making us sick.

Our laws make clear that action is required. What’s missing is leadership and funding.

The leadership must come from Robert M. Califf, our FDA Commissioner, and José Emilio Esteban, the newly confirmed under secretary for food safety at USDA. Through appropriate regulation and enforcement, they must provide food companies with legal incentives to design foods that promote health and well-being — and these incentives ought to be equal to those the marketplace provides for taste, cost, and convenience.

As for funding, the President and Congress must provide the needed budget. The president should ask for at least $200 million to address chronic food illness in his Fiscal Year 2024 budget and Congress should appropriate it. It won’t be easy. In last year’s budget, the president asked for $135 million to cover USDA nutrition security, FDA nutrition regulation, and NIH nutrition research. He received $0.

In a recent event promoting his proposed redesign of FDA’s food program, Califf acknowledged that nutrition initiatives require more funding and said: “We need leaders who will be very persuasive with government.”

He needs to be that persuasive leader — making nutrition a priority and getting FDA’s food programs the resources they need to be effective.

There is precedent for FDA and USDA collaborating in a moment of food-related crisis. In 1993, the nation was hit with a deadly Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) outbreak from contaminated Jack in the Box hamburgers. At the time, there were eight cases per 100,000 population of these deadly infections. USDA declared these bacteria an adulterant and adopted FDA’s use of preventive controls. It then worked with the meat industry to provide the needed training and technical assistance to keep STEC out of our meat. Finally, USDA inspectors — who are a constant presence in meat-packing plants— reinforced these steps. Today, STEC cases are down to about 1 case per 100,000. Our food is safer now due to USDA’s stronger food safety laws, bigger budget, and effective collaboration with FDA.

Now is the time to apply that model to address the threat of chronic food illness. FDA and USDA must work together to design a 21^st century food safety system to protect us not just from acute cases of food poisoning but also from the deadly toll of chronic exposure to ultra-processed food. Our lives literally depend on it.

About the author: Jerold Mande is an adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and former senior adviser to the FDA commissioner and deputy undersecretary at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He is a co-founder of Nourish Science, a nongovernmental organization focused on solving the country’s nutrition crisis.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News,click here)

“Today’s draft guidance was developed to help address the significant increase in plant-based milk alternative products that we have seen become available in the marketplace over the past decade,” said FDA Commissioner Robert Califf. “The draft recommendations issued today should lead to providing consumers with clear labeling to give them the information they need to make informed nutrition and purchasing decisions on the products they buy for themselves and their families.” 

In addition to the increase in market availability and consumption, the variety of alternative products available in the marketplace has also greatly expanded from soy, rice, and almond to include cashew, coconut, flaxseed, hazelnut, hemp seed, macadamia nut, oat, pea, peanut, pecan, quinoa, and walnut-based beverages. Although these products are made from liquid-based extracts of plant materials, such as tree nuts, legumes, seeds, or grains, they are frequently labeled with names that include the term “milk.”

The draft guidance, “Labeling of Plant-based Milk Alternatives and Voluntary Nutrient Statements: Guidance for Industry,” recommends that a plant-based milk alternative product that includes the term “milk” in its name such as “soy milk” or “almond milk,” and that has a nutrient composition that is different than dairy milk, include a voluntary nutrient statement that conveys how the product compares with milk based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service fluid milk substitutes nutrient criteria. For example, the label could say, “Contains lower amounts of Vitamin D and calcium than milk.” 

In September 2018, the FDA requested information on the labeling of plant-based milk alternatives (PBMA) with terms that include the names of dairy foods such as “milk.” More than 13,000 comments were received, and the FDA determined that consumers generally understand that PBMA does not contain milk and choose to purchase PBMA because they are not milk.

However, many consumers may not be aware of the nutritional differences between milk and PBMA products. For example, almond- or oat-based PBMA products may contain calcium and be consumed as a source of calcium, but their overall nutritional content is not similar to milk and fortified soy beverages, and they are not included as part of the dairy group in the Dietary Guidelines 2020-2025.

Dairy foods, including milk, are recommended by the Dietary Guidelines as part of a healthy eating pattern and contribute multiple key nutrients, including protein and vitamins A and B-12, along with calcium, potassium, and vitamin D, which are currently under-consumed. The Dietary Guidelines only include fortified soy beverages in the dairy group because their nutrient composition is similar to that of milk. However, the nutritional composition of PBMA products varies widely within and across types, and many PBMAs do not contain the same levels of key nutrients as milk. 

“Getting enough of the nutrients in milk and fortified soy beverages is especially important to help children grow and develop, and parents and caregivers should know that many plant-based alternatives do not have the same nutrients as milk,” said Susan Mayne, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. “Food labels are an important way to help support consumer behavior, so we encourage the use of the voluntary nutritional statements to better help customers make informed decisions.” 

To support consistency across federal nutrition policies, the draft guidance recommends that the industry use the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service fluid milk substitutes nutrient criteria to determine if a PBMA is nutritionally similar to milk. Also, the FDA encourages consumers to use the Nutrition Facts label to compare the nutrient content of different products to help make informed choices.

The FDA is accepting comments on the draft guidance. A manufacturer may choose to implement the recommendations in a draft guidance before the guidance becomes final.

Labels provide consumers with valuable information to help them choose healthier foods. It is one of the priorities of the FDA’s nutrition efforts to ensure people in the U.S. have greater access to healthier foods and nutrition information to help make healthy choices more easily. The draft guidance does not apply to other plant-based dairy alternatives, such as plant-based cheese or yogurt alternatives. The FDA is in the process of developing a draft guidance to address the labeling and naming of other plant-based alternative products and will communicate updates when available.

Related Information

• Draft Guidance: Labeling of Plant-based Milk Alternatives and Voluntary Nutrient Statements: Draft Guidance for Industry
• Constituent Update: FDA Releases Draft Guidance on Labeling of Plant-Based Milk Alternatives
• Consumer Update: Milk and Plant-Based Milk Alternatives: Know the Nutrient Difference  
• Using the Nutrition Facts Label to Choose Milk and Plant-Based Beverages
• Plant Based Milk Alternatives (PBMA)

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

This treatment in the Food Code is part of the Biden Administration’s National Strategy on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health. The National Strategy provides a roadmap of actions the federal government will take to end hunger and reduce diet-related diseases by 2030 – all while reducing disparities.

The National Strategy was released in conjunction with the first White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health hosted by President Biden on Sept. 28, 2022.

The FDA encourages the donation of food that is stored, prepared, packaged, displayed, and labeled according to applicable provisions contained in the Food Code or local, state, and federal statutes, regulations, and ordinances.

One-third of all food in the U.S. currently goes uneaten.

Wasted food is the single largest category of material placed in municipal landfills and represents nourishment that could have helped feed families in need. While the Food Code never prohibited such donation practices, this update will make it more explicitly clear that such practices are acceptable.

The Conference for Food ProtectionExternal Link Disclaimer is the main forum for all retail stakeholder groups, including government, industry, consumers, and academia, to contribute to updating the Food Code, which represents the FDA’s best advice for a uniform system of provisions that address the safety and protection of food offered at retail and in food service.

While it is a model code that is not required, it has been widely adopted by state, local, tribal, and territorial agencies that regulate more than one million restaurants, retail food stores, vending operations, and food service operations in schools, hospitals, nursing homes, and childcare centers.

The FDA works with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on reducing food loss and waste.  The FDA has worked with the Conference for Food Protection on its Comprehensive Guidance for Food Recovery Programs and is planning educational materials for retailers on safely donating food.

Members of the FDA’s National Retail Food Team are available to assist regulatory officials, educators, and the industry in their efforts to adopt, implement, and understand the provisions of the FDA Food Code and the Retail Program Standards.

Additional Information:

• Retail Food Protection | FDA
• Food Loss and Waste | FDA
• Reduce Wasted Food By Feeding Hungry People | US EPA
• Donating | USDA

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

“The big issue is what I am now going to be producing, is it safe?” a local farmer told WKBN27.

On Feb. 3, a train derailed in East Palestine, OH, resulting in the leaking of toxic chemicals. Ten of about 50 of the derailed cars were carrying liquid vinyl chloride and butyl acrylate. On Sunday evening, Feb. 5, residents of the small town were urged by authorities to evacuate over the risk of an explosion. The following day, crews conducted a “controlled release” of the chemicals, causing a large plume of black smoke.

Food producers and consumers are asking questions about the effects of the release of these chemicals on food safety and the impact on crops and livestock.

Ohio has about 75,000 farms, and nearly 90 percent of those farms are run by families or individuals. Ohio ranks first nationally in the production of swiss cheese, second in egg production, and third in tomatoes and pumpkins. Ohio is fifth in the nation in bell pepper yield, sixth in sweet corn and cucumbers, and eighth in the number of chickens sold.

Though not much is known or being disclosed at the moment, the FDA does have some regulations when comes to vinyl chloride in plastic food containers.

The Ohio Farm Bureau and Ohio Department of Agriculture have not made official comments on the train crash. However, they requested and received permission for residents to return to feed their livestock.

Since the evacuation order was lifted on Wednesday, there have been numerous reports of people experiencing a burning sensation in their eyes,  animals falling ill, and streams of dead fish.

Officials have stated that the air is safe to breathe and the water is safe to drink.

“All of the readings we’ve been recording in the community have been at normal concentrations, normal backgrounds, which you find in almost any community,” James Justice, a representative of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said at a briefing on Feb 8.

On Feb. 12, the EPA released a full list of the toxic chemicals carried in the derailed cars. 

The EPA has been monitoring the air for several other hazardous chemicals, including phosgene and hydrogen chloride, which are released by burning vinyl chloride. Exposure to phosgene can cause eye irritation, dry burning throat, and vomiting; while hydrogen chloride can irritate the skin, nose, eyes, and throat, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

According to the Ohio Department of Health, once it is in the environment, vinyl chloride is broken down by sunlight in a few days and changed into other chemicals, like formaldehyde. Most vinyl chloride that is spilled in soil or surface water like lakes, ponds, and rivers evaporates into the air quickly. Some vinyl chloride can travel into groundwater where it will be broken down over time.

According to WLWT5, Greater Cincinnati Water Works has detected trace amounts of two industrial chemicals leaked into the Ohio river due to the train derailment in East Palestine. They are continuing to monitor the water quality.

Further along the river, West Virginia American Water is monitoring water quality and is taking precautionary steps by implementing its business continuity plans. According to WSAZ News Channel 3, this includes the completion of a 3,700-foot water line connecting to a temporary secondary intake on the Guyandotte River.

Health Departments around the train crash have told residents to reach out to their medical provider if they experience symptoms of chemical exposure.

“Now that we are entering into a long-term phase of this, people are going to be concerned about the long-term chronic exposure that comes at lower levels,” Karen Dannemiller, a professor at The Ohio State University who studies indoor air quality, told NPR.

Dannemiller explained that indoor spaces can be an important point of exposure. She urges East Palestine residents to take part in EPA’s at-home air screening.

She also recommends residents wipe down surfaces, especially areas that collect dust and wash items that absorb smells, such as bed sheets and curtains. She says residents should vacuum carefully in short bursts to prevent contaminants from moving into the air.

Air cleaners and face masks are likely no match for hazardous chemicals like vinyl chloride because of its tiny atoms, Dannemiller told NPR.

Dannemiller notes, the long-term effect of the chemical fallout is hard to predict. 

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

WHO said multiple problems are negatively affecting health including zoonotic pathogens that spread between animals and humans.

The current system is “failing” with foodborne diseases widespread, and unhealthy diets and malnutrition among the main causes of disease, according to the international agency.

Food systems impact health through poor diets and food insecurity, animal-human disease transmission, increased antimicrobial resistance, unsafe and adulterated foods, environmental contamination, and occupational hazards.

Improve control and surveillance
WHO officials said the sector is vulnerable to climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the war in Ukraine affecting access to, and prices of, food globally and the incidence of foodborne infections.

“Increasing temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and greater frequency of some extreme events affect crop and animal yields and the geographic distribution and persistence of foodborne pathogens, parasites and contaminants,” according to an official statement.

Land use change, wildlife hunting, and trade is a major cause of biodiversity loss and is driving the transmission of pathogens from animals to humans.

Estimates published in 2015 found 600 million people fall ill every year after consuming contaminated food, and 420,000 die including 125,000 children younger than the age of 5. Updated figures are expected by 2025.

In late 2022, WHO launched its food safety strategy for 2022 to 2030 to reduce foodborne diseases. The plan sets a target on the burden of foodborne illness with a 40 percent reduction by 2030.

WHO recommended that governments create regulatory and policy frameworks to support the production and consumption of, and access to, healthier and safer diets. One element is strengthening national food control systems and surveillance to prevent and improve responses to foodborne diseases.

“All stakeholders, including governments, industry, consumers and civil society, must act simultaneously through different entry points of the food system to ensure a systemic response to risks posed to food safety and quality,” according to WHO officials.

Neglected tropical disease update
Meanwhile, WHO has published a progress report on neglected tropical diseases.

Neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) are a group of 20 conditions caused by a variety of pathogens such as viruses, bacteria, parasites, fungi, and toxins. They include Chagas disease, echinococcosis, foodborne trematodes, and taeniasis and cysticercosis. Foodborne trematodes include the parasites Clonorchis, Opisthorchis, Taenia solium, Fasciola, and Paragonimus. 

The report shows the number of people requiring NTD interventions fell by 80 million between 2020 and 2021. The burden of foodborne trematodes, measured in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), has decreased from 2015 to 2019.

Cambodia completed nationwide mapping of foodborne trematodes, while human taeniasis work is ongoing. The Lao People’s Democratic Republic and the Philippines also progressed by looking at taeniases and cysticercosis in people.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Except when it isn’t.

That’s the quandary that many Pacific Northwest and Columbia River Basin tribal members face as they try to balance their strong historic and cultural ties to salmon with modern studies that show salmon in their area can be polluted by contaminants — among them mercury and a host of other toxic chemicals.

The quandary arises because many tribal members eat more than what health officials suggest is the safe amount of salmon each month — eight 8-ounce servings. Because of that, they are particularly vulnerable to the contaminants that can be in the fish.

A serving is about the size and thickness of a person’s hand.

That recommendation is based on findings that contamination in some fish is high enough to advise people to eat that small amount each month. For most non-tribal people, who average less than that amount, the health risk associated with eating fish is minute.

In comparison, many tribal members in the Pacific Northwest and in the Columbia River Basin, who eat an average of about 16 servings a month over a lifetime, this amount is a health risk. One study went so far as to say that tribal people, on average, eat 6 to 11 times more fish than non-tribal members. Another study said that “according to fish consumption surveys of several tribes in Washington State, tribal people currently eat more than 20 times the amount of fish commonly eaten by non-tribal people.”

In other words, the recommended amount for the general population, which allows for a certain amount of contaminants,  doesn’t take into account the amount of fish tribal members actually eat, and therefore their health and the health of tribal communities are at risk.

According to the Washington State Department of Health, fish is a healthy food, known to be high in protein, low in saturated fats, and rich in other nutrients such as vitamin D, iodine, and selenium. The health benefits of eating fish are well documented and linked to the reduction of cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, and partial reduction of certain types of cancer. These major chronic diseases afflict much of the U.S. population.

Contaminants in the water — and fish
Mercury is at the top of the list when it comes to dangerous contaminants.

The top three sources of mercury from human activities are diesel fuel combustion, coal-fired power plants, and wastewater treatment plants.

Agriculture and logging are also part of the picture. And rain can even wash chemicals from the land or air into waterways.

According to the Washington State Department of Health, products containing mercury that is improperly thrown in the garbage or washed down drains end up in landfills, incinerators, or sewage treatment facilities. The mercury then leaches into the ground and water. 

Some household products containing mercury are fluorescent light bulbs, pocket calculators, thermostats, and button cell batteries in watches.

Once mercury enters the water and soil, it is naturally converted to methylmercury by bacteria. In water, the bacteria are eaten by plankton and other small creatures, which in turn are eaten by small fish, then larger fish. 

Mercury tends to stay in a body of an organism, so the amount of mercury builds up in species as they go up the food chain in a process called bioaccumulation. Larger, older fish accumulate more contaminants than smaller, younger fish.

As for what a person can do to reduce mercury levels in fish, cooking is not a solution, as would be the case for foodborne toxins such as E. Coli and salmonella, which are killed by heat, simply because mercury is stored in the meat of the fish.

Meanwhile, other toxic chemicals can also get into the water and therefore into the fish through industrial and municipal discharges, agricultural practices, and stormwater runoff. 

When it comes to human health, all of this is a serious food safety issue mainly because contaminants can build up in a person’s body over time and may result in serious health problems, among them, cancer and heart disease. Mercury, for example, is a highly toxic element that can harm the brain, kidneys, and lungs. 

It can take 5 years or more for women in their childbearing years to rid their bodies of some toxic chemicals and 6-12 months to significantly reduce their mercury levels. 

Mercury and other contaminants can be passed on to a developing fetus through the placenta.

Mercury-related health problems are most severe for the developing fetus and young child. Babies born to mothers who have a lot of mercury in their bodies may develop more slowly and have problems learning, according to health officials.

This is serious
When it comes to mercury, the Environmental Protection Agency recently determined that the Willamette River, which flows through Oregon’s most populated areas and feeds into the Columbia River, would need to cut mercury pollution from industry, agriculture, and logging by 88 percent.

But even though Congress gave the EPA orders to clean up Columbia, it didn’t come through with the necessary funding to do so. 

In 2011, Oregon adopted new water-quality standards aimed specifically to protect the health of tribal people. The goal was to reduce chemicals released by industrial facilities and waste-water plants so that people could eat more than one-third of a pound of fish per day without increasing their health risks.

But state regulators took only a few stops to make sure polluters actually met the state’s new limits. Worse yet, it let more than 80 percent of polluters operate with expired permits.

Why do the tribes eat so much salmon?
To begin with, salmon has always been an important part of their diet. For them, it’s medicine. Like other natural foods they’ve always eaten — berries, shellfish, and roots, for example — it keeps them not only well-fed but also healthy.

“All of our foods were medicine because there were no chemicals,” said Wilbur Stockish, who serves on the Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission.

That approach to healthy eating is no different from modern-day medical experts who advise people to stick to a natural diet and avoid processed foods.

But it’s more than health.  For many tribal members, fish, especially salmon, is an important part of their identity and their values. They have annual ceremonies welcoming the fish back to their “native rivers,” and tribes make sure their elder members get some of that fish. Not surprisingly, salmon is considered a source of strength and medicine — the most important of all foods on the table.

According to EPA documents, agency staff members have flagged the potential for exposure to chemicals in salmon caught not just in the Columbia but also in Washington’s Puget Sound, British Columbia’s Skeena and Fraser rivers, and California’s Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. 

Salmon are born in streams and rivers, migrate out to the open sea, and then return to their native waters, including rivers, again to reproduce.

Recommendations to eat less salmon
The seemingly simple solution for health officials is to recommend that tribal members eat less salmon. Whereas that solution, at first glance, appears to be a practical one, it isn’t one that meets tribal customs and cultural needs.

“Absolutely not,” said Fran Wilshusen, Habitat Services director at Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. “It’s a precious resource. From a health standpoint, it’s one of the best foods you can eat.”

“The long-term solution to this problem isn’t keeping people from eating contaminated fish — it’s keeping it from being contaminated in the first place,” said Aja DeCoteau, executive director of the Columbia Inter-Tribal Fish Commission.

Stocking agrees. “It is wrong,” he said,” for the government to allow pollution and then, instead of cleaning it up, decide it can tell people not to eat the fish they always have.”

The right to fish
Back in the 1850s, some Washington tribes entered into peace treaties with the U.S. government. In doing so they relinquished millions of acres but in exchange, they preserved their perpetual right to their “usual and accustomed” fishing areas. The 1974 Boldt decision reaffirmed the Tribes’ rights to half of the fish harvested in Washington.

But back in the time of the treaties, the focus was on making sure the tribes had the right to harvest enough fish for their needs, based on their historical catches. 

And while fishing areas and the amount of fish were at the heart of the treaties, water quality was not. It’s likely that back then when the country was so new, that pollution was not something signers on either side of the treaties thought about. 

But since then, of course, water quality has become a critical issue when it comes to fish simply because polluted water contaminates the fish. And that, in turn, can make it unhealthy for tribes, who generally eat more fish than the general population, to eat as much fish as in times past.  

Later, after the signing of the peace treaties, the Supreme Court compared this right to the fish as being as important to Native people as the air they breathe.

Some might say that an option for the tribes is to eat wild-caught salmon from Alaska. But that ignores the ties the tribes and the salmon have to waterways in the Pacific Northwest. It’s those ties that bind them to the land and to their communities.

In Native American tribal communities, fish and other seafood are important to food security, community cohesion, ceremonies, and cultural practices that promote individual and community health and well-being.

For tribal members, ”it’s who they are,” said Wilshusen. “If they lose that, they lose themselves. It’s hard for a lot of people to understand the critical nature of this.”

Wilshusen also said tribal communities are advising people about how to prepare the fish and to fish from waters with low contamination.

Standards
The big argument against cleaning up the waterways to benefit the fish has always been that it would cost too much.

“The truth is,” said Wilshusen, “standards should reflect what we know based on science. If you don’t have standards based on science, you won’t get there.”

She is pleased that the public and the water-quality jurisdictions are starting to care.

“People are becoming aware of the toxicity in the water,” she said. “Standards are a way to drive social change. It will make the water we depend on – even the duck hunters and recreational crabbers — clean enough to keep our seafood healthy. And that’s important for food safety. Much good is going on to protect an incredible resource.”

And she pointed out that this is a critical part of “treaty-protected rights, which are the supreme law of the land.”

No easy answers
When all is said and done, The Washington State Health Department has this “bare-boned” conclusion: “Clean water is essential to have healthy fish.” A simple enough decision, but the problem, of course, is how to get there without disrupting the economy.

The formal petition was submitted to FDA by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and it was supported by a number of groups, including CR. The CR effort mentioned in “ON HEALTH” is meant to provide an opportunity for CR readers to support the formal petition.

It all dates back 30 years to when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) found Red Dye No. 3 to cause animal cancer and took action to ban the substance in cosmetics. Research back then also linked Red Dye No. 3 to hyperactivity in children.

“Since the early 1980s, the FDA had evidence that Red Dye No. 3 caused cancer in laboratory animals,” On Health reports. “Despite banning this dye in cosmetics more than 30 years ago, the agency has failed to take the promised steps to ban this known carcinogen in our food, medicines, and supplements. “

“We demand the FDA act immediately to prohibit the use of Red Dye No. 3 in food, medicine, and supplements.” It continues. “This dye, a known carcinogen, is already banned in cosmetics. Yet the FDA still allows it in food products – many of which are marketed to children, including candy and junk food. It’s beyond time to get this unnecessary, dangerous additive out of our food,” Consumer Reports said in its publication.

To sign the CR petition to “Ban Red Dye No. 3 from food, medicine, and supplements”go here.

After it was banned from cosmetics, many expected Red Dry No. 3 would shortly be banned from food and beverages. But it’s one of those instances where the FDA has moved with glacier speed.

According to CR’s “On Health” newsletter, Red Dye No.3 is “an ingredient in thousands of products, from vegetarian bacon by MorningStar Firms to certain flavors of Yoohoo, PediaSure, and Ensure.” Dye is also found in some medicines and supplements.

Red Dye No. 3 was used for 100 years before the health risks were discovered. Even FDA predicted it would be banned in food after the agency’s action on cosmetics. But a generation later, it has not happened.

CR’s Food Policy Director Brian Rodholm’s question for “On Health ” readers was: “If this dye isn’t safe for cosmetic use, how is it safe for you or your family to eat?”

It is estimated that at least 15 million pounds of food dyes are sold every year in the U.S. Yet cancer concerns have brought bans on Red dye No. 1 in 1962; on Red dye No. 2 in 1976, which was shortly followed by the ban on No. 4.

Except for its use in cosmetics, Red dye No. 3 remains in legal use in food and beverages even though it’s been linked to DNA damage in human liver cells in vitro, much like the damage caused by a chemotherapy drug whose whole purpose is to break down DNA.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

The Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC) includes Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Mongolia, and China.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) report provides national and regional insights to help strengthen food safety systems in the region that could enable an increase in intra-regional and global food trade. It recommends the adoption of strategies that harmonize food safety legal frameworks, regulations, and practices and improve the capacity of stakeholders to implement food standards.

In the Kyrgyz Republic, 163 cases of Salmonella infection; 32,081 E. coli infections; 8,395 cases of hepatitis A; and 56 of botulism were recorded in 2017. Cases of diarrheal diseases because of Salmonella infection in Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic were significantly higher than in developed countries in 2016. In 2017, Georgia recorded 5,969 suspected foodborne diarrhea cases, Kazakhstan had 75,500 cases of brucellosis and hepatitis, and Uzbekistan registered 200 cases of salmonellosis and botulism among children.

Complexity issues
The region is affected by the complexity of food control systems adopted by each country. This has resulted in wide variations in the structure, maturity, and design of such systems. Most CAREC member countries (CMCs) have fractured food safety control methods with limited cooperation among local and international agencies, according to the report.

There are only a few formal mechanisms that encourage sharing of food safety information and collaboration among CMCs. Also, many members have outdated systems and standards typically based on individual products and substantial end-product testing, inconsistent with World Trade Organization sanitary and phytosanitary standards.

State agencies in CMCs suffer from a lack of funding that limits their ability to operate and implement changes in food safety policies and regulations. Other problems include a focus on regulating food items rather than operators, a reliance on paper-based methods and end-product testing, outdated lab equipment, and a lack of understanding of the HACCP approach.

An ADB project in the region ran from 2016 to 2021 to improve food safety standards, national labs, and training.

Building capacity
Food exports and imports are perishable products that pose serious food safety risks if standards are not followed throughout the supply chain until final consumption. The region relies heavily on imports to meet the demand for food. This may lead to exposure to unsafe products.

Given the economic situation in the region, local food quality systems may not be able to properly handle food products during transport and storage; which may affect the quality of domestically available products. Strict compliance with food safety standards would be costly and affect the price competitiveness of the region’s products in the short term.

A large number of small-scale livestock producers makes meat monitoring at the farm level difficult. This translates to inadequate testing of samples at slaughterhouses and processing plants for antibiotic residues. From slaughterhouses, fresh meat products are sent to processors, wholesalers, supermarkets, and retailers. There is a high risk of microbial growth during transport because of a lack of refrigerated trucks. Meat processing is done in facilities that are not compliant with international best food safety practices, which raises the risk of contamination, said the analysis.

Establishing a regional expert group and developing a website for the CAREC Food Safety Network was recommended to harmonize sanitary and phytosanitary frameworks.

A two-tiered approach to improving food safety systems in the region is an appropriate policy strategy, according to the report. This method categorizes tier 2 countries as more advanced in their food safety frameworks and adoption of international standards. These nations are Georgia, China, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

Afghanistan has a weak food safety system while Tajikistan’s framework remains fragmented, nonresponsive, and lacks decision support and infrastructure. Pakistan’s system is missing someone to coordinate activities among agencies, making food safety governance cumbersome and complex, often failing to facilitate trade and protect public health.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)