USDA’s proposed rule with new regulatory requirements to better align the voluntary “Product of USA” label claim with consumer understanding of what the claim means appears to have collected a lot of support.

The recent March through June public comment period has resulted in 3,358 individual filings with support for the rule being dominant.

Posted last March, the proposed rule allows the voluntary “Product of USA” or “Made in the USA” label claim to be used on meat, poultry, and egg products only when they are derived from animals born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States. 

“American consumers expect that when they buy a meat product at the grocery store, the claims they see on the label mean what they say,” Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said when posting the rule for comments. “These proposed changes are intended to provide consumers with accurate information to make informed purchasing decisions. Our action today affirms USDA’s commitment to ensuring accurate and truthful product labeling.”

Under the proposed rule, the “Product of USA” label claim would continue to be voluntary. It would also remain eligible for generic label approval, meaning it would not need to be pre-approved by USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) before it could be used on regulated products, but would require supporting documentation to be on file for the agency inspection personnel to verify.

The rulemaking also proposes to allow other voluntary U.S. origin claims seen on meat, poultry, and egg products sold in the marketplace. These claims would need to include a description of the package of all preparation and processing steps that occurred in the United States upon which the claim is made.

Most recently, Farm Action, the Rural Coalition, and the American Grassfed Association issued a joint public comment in support of a proposed rule from USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). The three agricultural organizations said they favor the use of the voluntary “Product of U.S.A.” label for meat products derived from animals born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States. 

Current policy allows the “Product of U.S.A.” label to be used on imported meat if it merely passes through a USDA-inspected plant. Farm Action’s co-founders and the American Grassfed Association filed a petition calling for reforms to this labeling system in 2018, prompting USDA to open a public comment period. FSIS referenced that petition in its announcement of the survey that preceded this proposed rule.

The comment they’ve submitted sets forth the legal foundations of the proposed rule and enumerates the benefits it would achieve on behalf of American farmers and consumers. 

Reviewing decades of research into consumer attitudes toward food labels, the comment revealed that the current label use deceives consumers, whereas the proposed rule would bring the “Product of U.S.A.” label into alignment with what consumers already believe it means.

With the proposed rule, FSIS “would take a significant step toward giving consumers the information about where their food comes from that, in survey after survey, consumers have indicated they want to have,” the comment said.

USDA said the benefits of the proposed rule are particularly compelling for U.S.-based farmers. For decades, “cheap imports masquerading as domestic products” have “[undermined] the competitive position of independent ranchers and processors” and denied them market opportunities. 

“The Proposed Rule would enable consumers to confidently locate meat products derived from animals bred and raised by American ranchers, slaughtered in American processing facilities, and prepared for wholesale distribution and retail consumption by American workers.”

USDA further said that by allowing consumers to act on their well-documented preference for domestic products, the resulting shift in consumer spending “could substantially enhance market opportunities for independent ranchers and processors.”

“Commenters urged FSIS to move decisively and issue a strong final rule establishing that meat, poultry, egg, and other FSIS-regulated products must be derived from animals born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States to bear a ‘Product of U.S.A.’ label,” the comment concluded. 

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

They said the top-down focus of efforts to build food safety capacity in LMICs has largely failed when it comes to the informal sector. Instead, interventions, both regulatory and facilitative, should primarily be implemented at the municipal level and the focus to build capacity needs to be local.

The report, commissioned by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and the CGIAR Initiative on One Health, highlighted the need for strategies to address food safety risks in the informal sector of developing nations as very few countries have coherent plans to tackle the issue.

Authors argue broad use of terms like “informal sector” and “developing countries” are not helpful in tackling the problem as there are different types of players and risk profiles, operating in a variety of settings. Distinctions are needed to better discern what is and is not possible, and what actions should be prioritized and are most feasible in different contexts.

Current situation and focus areas
“Previous studies have shown widespread issues of food contamination within informal food distribution networks,” said Steven Jaffee, report co-author and lecturer at the University of Maryland.

Contributing factors include inadequate food safety awareness, poor hygiene practices, substandard food storage and preparation methods, and deficient infrastructure and environmental conditions. Previous studies in Thailand, Mexico, and Malaysia found significant levels of Salmonella contamination in chicken sold in supermarkets and traditional markets.

Most current approaches are making little headway in tackling these problems, said experts. However, the Eat Right India program was flagged as a positive which involves formal and informal food enterprises and consumers.

During a webinar presenting the report, Jaffee said food systems in developing countries are evolving quickly but smaller players and less formal channels are common for fresh produce, meat, and fish.  

“We estimate that for lower and LMICS that a large majority of the burden of foodborne illness can be attributed to the informal sector. Unsafe food in informal distribution channels represents a central part of the food safety challenges facing developing countries. This is a big problem, it may get bigger and it’s not going away,” he said.

“Our overall assessment is first, we see important policy gaps, very few countries have included the informal sector in their vision of national food system development or defined a coherent approach to this sector in national food laws. The upkeep of markets has often been an area of neglect. Second, some interventions have probably been counter-productive. Official interactions often involve attempts to issue fines or other punishments due to non-compliance with regulations. Third, some interventions have shown promising initial results yet sustaining these gains has been difficult without follow-up efforts or investments in infrastructure.”

Jaffee said just devoting more resources to current actions is unlikely to deliver much better results.

“We don’t believe that centralized agencies can deliver safer food in the informal sector. Standalone programs and projects may not be the most successful means of deploying resources. Food safety initiatives could be better incorporated into other programs by combining attention with that for nutrition, environmental and animal health or other areas,” he said.

“We need to rebalance the sticks and carrots and the interface between government and informal markets. As lower LMICs update their regulations and build enforcement capacity they should avoid the temptation to pursue a policing approach. Instead, they need to emphasize the promotion of good practice and sustained improvement. Local officers are the ones interfacing with community markets and small processors and street food vendors. Let’s give them better tools and more resources to induce upgrades.”

WHO and FAO backing
Simone Moraes Raszl, of the World Health Organization (WHO), and Markus Lipp, from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), welcomed the report.

“I agree that we need to have coherent strategies for tackling food safety risks in the informal sector and we need to consider that each context will require a specific solution. We need to understand why consumers choose to buy from informal markets or vendors, the answer may not be the same for all countries. For example, why a consumer wants to go to a market to choose a live chicken to be slaughtered and bring it back home? What drives this behavior? Is it culture, something their mother always did or they don’t trust the inspection service in the country? If we don’t understand the behavior we won’t be able to define strategies. We also need to think about the role of women in food markets,” said Raszl.  

“It is fantastic that a very comprehensive and systematic approach to informal markets has been published because it will shape the discussions going forward. Everybody knows about food and that makes the discussion complicated because it gets personal if behavioral changes are required. Informal markets are part of the agri-food system and they will stay there for quite some time to come. We feel this report gives us the language and the intellectual framework to continue, fine-tune and expand the discussions and to build on this with interventions which hopefully improve food safety for everybody,” said Lipp.

The report sheds light on the dominant role of small-scale processors, grocers, market vendors, and food service operators in informal markets in more than 20 low- and lower-middle-income countries and emphasizes that a one size fits all approach will not work.

Investments have been made in testing laboratories, food company inspection units, and national agencies but efforts primarily focus on medium and larger enterprises in the formal sector.

Strict enforcement of the regulation is unlikely to be effective for informal food sector operators. Gradual and continuous enhancements in food hygiene and other practices are more likely to help secure their ongoing viability, said authors.

Municipalities must-see financial penalties as a last resort, rather than a source of revenue. While shutting down businesses and harassing street vendors might send a message of seriousness about food safety to the public, these measures tend not to result in sustained safer food in the marketplace. Authors suggested food officer bonuses could be tied to the number of food safety-compliant vendors or processing enterprises, rather than the amount of fines issued.

(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)

I saw your story regarding the “Dirty Dozen” list and would appreciate your consideration of updating your content to include some additional facts and information for your readers so there is a balanced perspective and inclusive of peer reviewed studies, not just claims from Environmental Working Group.

Peer reviewed research published in the Journal of Toxicology found that the recommendation in the “Dirty Dozen” list to substitute organic forms of produce for conventional does not result in any decrease in risk for consumers because residues on conventionally grown are so low, if present at all. 

The research also found that the list authors follow no scientifically established methodology in the development of their list.

Further, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Pesticide Data Program (PDP) consistently finds that over 99 percent of foods sampled had residue levels well below Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) safety standards with 25% having no detectable residues at all. According to the USDA: “Based on the PDP data, consumers can feel confident about eating a diet that is rich in fresh fruits and vegetables.”

And the EPA states: “EPA is confident that the fruits and vegetables our children are eating are safer than ever. EPA evaluates new and existing pesticides to ensure that they can be used with a reasonable certainty of no harm to infants and children as well as adults. EPA works continually to review and improve safety standards that apply to pesticide residues on food.”

The “Dirty Dozen” list authors admit that their list does not assess risk nor do they apply basic tenets of toxicology in the development of their list. From Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) “Dirty Dozen” report: “The Shoppers Guide does not incorporate risk assessment into the calculations.  All pesticides are weighted equally, and we do not factor in the levels deemed acceptable by the EPA.”

Research published in the journal Nutrition Today has also shown that fear-based messaging used by groups like the EWG may result in consumers purchasing less produce – organic or conventionally grown.  And, in a survey conducted by the Alliance for Food and Farming (AFF), 94 percent of registered dietitians agreed that the “Dirty Dozen” messaging negatively impacts their ability to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables among their clients and consumers.

“The consumption of fruits and vegetables can help decrease chronic diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer. These fear tactics used in the ‘Dirty Dozen’ report are actually hurting consumers, especially the vulnerable populations, and may lead consumers to eat even less produce,” says Dr. Sylvia Klinger, DBA, MS, RD, founder of Hispanic Food Communications who serves on the AFF’s Management Board. 

In a report released by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) last year, only one in 10 Americans consume enough fruits and vegetables each day, which is unchanged from previous survey levels announced in 2015.  Those living below or close to the poverty level were the least likely to meet vegetable recommendations.

From the CDC: “Continued efforts to increase fruit and vegetable consumption by improving access and affordability in diverse community and institutional settings will help mitigate health disparities among U.S. residents. Additional policies and programs that will increase access to fruits and vegetables in places where U.S. residents live, learn, work, and play, might increase consumption and improve health.”

From: Teresa Thorne, Executive Director
Alliance for Food and Farming

The Alliance for Food and Farming is a non-profit organization formed in 1989 which represents organic and conventional farmers. Alliance contributors are limited to farmers of fruits and vegetables, companies that sell, market or ship fruits and vegetables or organizations that represent produce farmers. Our mission is to provide credible, science based information about the safety of fruits and vegetables

House Bill 1515 would allow dairy owners to sell so-called raw milk at their farms. It was approved by North Dakota’s lower chamber with an 83-10 vote.

The bill has public health advocates butting heads with supporters of raw milk. Raw milk advocates say that exposure to pathogens such as E. Coli, Salmonella, and Listeria is less important that their perceived benefits of unpasteurized milk.

Rep. Dawson Holle, R-Mandan, sponsored the bill, which would prohibit farms from selling the controversial product to grocery stores or wholesalers.

Federal law prohibits the sale of raw, unpasteurized milk across state lines, leaving its status for in-state sales up to individual state legislatures.

Holle works on a dairy farm and told the House of Representatives this week that allowing so-called farm sales of raw milk could boost local agriculture.  

Public health officials and agriculture officials in North Dakota oppose the bill, as do their counterparts in other states as well as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The sale of raw milk is illegal in 23 states. Several states allow only on-farm sales, which is what the North Dakota bill would do.

Rep. Eric Murphy, R-Grand Forks, told the Bismarck Tribune that he sides with public health experts, noting that the consequences of legalizing raw milk “would be an extended bacterial infection, especially in young children, which are difficult to fight.

“The risk is potential death and potential infection that could cause disability or hospitalization,” Murphy told the newspaper. “There’s virtually zero benefits to raw milk versus drinking pasteurized milk.”

In 2017 the North Dakota Legislature removed a provision to legalize raw milk from a bill regarding the sale of certain homemade foods.

The sale of raw milk is illegal in 23 states. Several states allow only on-farm sales, which is what the North Dakota bill would do.

Bill 1515 in the North Dakota Legislature states:

A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 4.1-25 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the sale of raw milk directly to a consumer.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:

SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 4.1-25 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:

Sale of raw milk directly to a consumer – Prohibitions – Exemptions.

A farm may sell raw milk directly to the end consumer for personal consumption.

A farm may not sell raw milk to a wholesaler or retail store for mass consumption under this chapter. The seller shall only sell milk within this state. The sale may not involve interstate commerce. Raw milk may not be donated.

A farm selling raw milk under the provisions of this section is not subject to chapters 4.1-05, 4.1-25, 4.1-26, 19-02.1, 23-9, or title 64.

(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.)

They clearly are not cleaned and sanitized between deliveries. Some of those boxes are quite large, a box that’s the size of a small coffin, and rests over an axel is popular in Amersterdam.

What they call “post-pandemic” food delivery trends are being closely monitored in Europe. The Stockholm-based Dometic, which tracks “mobile living,” is out with a new report that says food deliveries in 2022 are a bit behind 2021.

During the peak of the pandemic, Europe experienced a dramatic rise in the number of food delivery services and businesses significantly changed food and grocery delivery trends along with consumer habits. “Yet as parts of Europe began to re-open, with sweeping restrictions lifted for indoor dining, the report demonstrates an overall decline in consumer demand which has impacted the rate of market growth,” according to Dometic. It reports that:

— Total respondents who ordered home food deliveries decreased from 62 percent in 2021 to 56 percent in 2022.

— Of those, who ordered food delivery to their home at least once per month dropped from 37 percent in May 2021 to 29 percent in May 2022.

Food deliveries in Europe are still seen to be on an upward trend. The firm Research & Markets predicts the online food delivery market will reach $66.2 billion by 2027.

“With the fast-paced lives in Europe,” it says “online food delivery has a priority audience of the millennials for food delivery services. They tend to spend a more significant share of their budgets on prepared food than other generations.”

The Dometic report says that from 2021 to 2022, food delivery orders from people 15 to 34 years of age increased, while the 35-plus demographic is ordering less. The report also indicates consumers have higher expectations now than before the pandemic.

The younger demographic has the highest expectations. The biggest concern for consumers is warm food being cold at delivery followed by food being shaken or having a less-than-pleasing appearance.

The report says that with the re-opening of Europe’s bars, restaurants, and other outlets, “there is very little margin for dissatisfied customers.”

The U.S.-based Research and Markets put the European online food delivery market size in 2022 at $36 billion.

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

A recent mushroom poisoning case in Massachusetts has illustrated again how people who forage mushrooms can find themselves carrying home a basket of toxins, especially if they are not well-versed in local species.

Mushroom poisoning can range from an upset stomach to death. 

Common symptoms of the poisoning include vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, weakness or lethargy. Illness and death can come quickly in some instances.

A 63-year-old mother and her 27-year-old son showed up at UMass Memorial Medical Center in Worcester, MA, looking ill and with signs of liver and kidney damage after consuming wild mushrooms picked in their friend’s Amherst, MA, backyard. The mother and son said the symptoms hit within hours of consuming what was later identified as a death cap mushroom.

Translating for his mother, the son said the mushrooms reminded his mother of the mushrooms she would eat in Malaysia.

With the help of an experimental drug flown in from Philadelphia, the two were stabilized, though the mother had to have a liver transplant.

A study published in the journal Mycologia,  took the compiled U.S. mushroom exposures as reported by the National Poison Data System (NPDS) from 1999 to 2016 and analyzed the data from those 28 years. 133, 700 cases, 7,428 a year, of mushroom exposure, mostly by ingestion, were reported. Approximately 704, 39 a year, of the exposures resulted in major harm. Fifty-two fatalities were reported during the 16-year period, mostly from cyclopeptide-producing mushrooms ingested by older adults unintentionally. The study found that the misidentification of edible mushroom species appears to be the most common cause.

While many edible mushroom species grow wild all across the U.S., stories like this show there is risk involved because of toxic and poisonous species These toxic species include lookalikes that can cause serious illness or even death when eaten. This is why it is important that a certified mushroom expert properly identify the mushrooms.

If you’re interested in mushroom foraging and how to do it safely, contact your local mushroom foraging clubs, certification programs, university extension programs, or your State’s Department of Agriculture.

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

Public health officials did not release any other information about the death. They did not say where the patient lived or the patient’s age.

The officials are urging residents to take precautions against infection and illness by avoiding eating raw or undercooked oysters and other shellfish or exposing open wounds to seawater and estuarine water. 

Vibrio vulnificus is a bacterium that usually lives in warm, brackish seawater. These bacteria typically grow faster during warmer months. People with open wounds, cuts, or scratches can be exposed to Vibrio vulnificus through direct contact with seawater or estuarine water. Also, Vibrio vulnificus can cause disease in those who eat raw or undercooked oysters and shellfish. Vibrio vulnificus has the potential to cause severe illness or death. 

Healthy individuals typically develop a mild disease; however, Vibrio vulnificus infections can be severe for people with weakened immune systems, children, older adults and pregnant women. 

• Symptoms can include vomiting, diarrhea, and abdominal pain.
• Wound infection can lead to skin breakdown and blistering. 
• In persons with weakened immune systems, particularly those with chronic liver disease, Vibrio vulnificus can invade the bloodstream, causing a severe, life-threatening illness with symptoms like fever, chills, decreased blood pressure, septic shock, and blistering skin lesions. 

Individuals experiencing these symptoms should contact a physician immediately for diagnosis and treatment. Individuals with wound infections should also seek care promptly. 

To avoid infection

1. Thoroughly cook oysters and other shellfish by frying, stewing, or roasting to eliminate harmful bacteria and viruses in the meat.
2. Avoid exposing open wounds, cuts, or scratches to seawater or estuarine water.
3. Immediately clean and monitor wounds received in the marine environment or from uncooked shellfish; seek immediate medical care if signs of infection occur.

Researchers detected Campylobacter, Yersinia, Listeria, Salmonella, and Shiga toxin-producing E. coli in snails in Cameroon. African land snails are a source of food for many people in sub-Saharan Africa because of their protein.

In Cameroon, no data on pathogens in snail meat are available, and their role in causing enteric diseases in the local population is unknown, but live snails are sold in most local markets in the country. 

Commercial snail farming is uncommon and people may spend up to 20 hours a week in search of edible snails in environments that include marshes, decaying vegetation, domestic waste, roadsides and bushes. These practices of collecting, handling, and consuming snails could expose handlers and consumers to pathogens.

The study, published in Emerging Infectious Diseases, assessed the prevalence of potential foodborne pathogens in African land snails consumed in Buea, Cameroon.

Outbreaks likely happening but not being recorded
Researchers collected live snails from peoples’ homes, on arable land, and in local markets from vendors during June to October 2019. 

They detected at least one pathogen in every sample examined and most contained multiple pathogens.

The team said results show the public health risks in the handling and consumption of raw or undercooked edible snails collected from natural habitats in Cameroon.

Higher rates of Campylobacter and Listeria may reflect the common practice of free-range poultry farming in Buea and the direct contact of snails with the soil and decaying vegetation.

Findings suggest that foodborne outbreaks from edible snail consumption may be occurring, but are unidentified, in Cameroon, and probably other sub-Saharan Africa countries.

Another study, published by the same authors in the International Journal of Qualitative Methods, looked at the methodological challenges in studying local practices that could lead to food related illnesses among snail meat vendors and consumers in Buea. It aimed to improve health outcomes of people in Cameroon.

To complement preliminary field observations and get more in-depth understanding of the existing situation, experts used experiences, participant observation, in-depth interviews, and a focus group between June 2019 and August 2021.

Snail vendors and consumers reported their routines and experiences from harvesting to consumption and the strategies used to keep their families safe from foodborne illnesses.

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

Takeshi Kasai, WHO regional director for the Western Pacific, said traditional markets are a key part of the food system.

“They play an important economic, cultural and social role in the Asia Pacific region and are a source of livelihood for millions of people in both urban and rural areas. Healthy and safe traditional food markets can be achieved by implementing measures based on risks identified in the market. When managed properly they provide access to safe, healthy, nutritious and culturally appropriate food and they play a role in promoting health and preventing diseases, especially among vulnerable groups,” he said.

When managed improperly, food markets can be unsafe environments and even pose health risks related to food safety and zoonoses threats.

“Whether you’re a consumer or work in a food market there are simple measures you can take to mitigate the risks in traditional food markets. Maintaining good personal hygiene habits, avoid mixing raw and ready-to-eat foods, check if foods are safe and suitable for consumption before eating them and minimize contact with live animals in markets and follow local public health measures to prevent the spread of infectious diseases,” he said.

In the Western Pacific region, more than 125 million people fall ill and 50,000 die annually from unsafe food.

“Many food safety issues extend beyond the health sector and require a multi-sectoral approach. Local actions, sometimes based on novel solutions, will help us to achieve this. Concerted efforts on food safety will help countries mitigate the socio-economic impacts of the pandemic and boost their resilience in the long term by facilitating and accelerating food and agricultural trade, helping to prevent the next zoonotic pandemic and transforming food systems. Guaranteeing food safety for all is a shared responsibility which involves the participation of many actors from different sectors including consumers,” said Kasai.  

Efforts in South-East Asia
Poonam Khetrapal Singh, regional director of WHO South-East Asia, said efforts had been made to increase access to safe and healthy food, in line with the Framework for Action on Food Safety.

“In all countries of the region, national Codex committees continue to facilitate multi-sectoral action to strengthen food safety. Five of the region’s 11 member states have begun implementing group or individual Codex Trust Fund projects, with more set to follow. Six – Bhutan, Indonesia, Maldives, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Timor-Leste – have already developed national food safety plans that are aligned with the Regional Framework for Action and the Global Food Safety Strategy,” she said.

“In 2021, WHO conducted a series of food safety-focused workshops and meetings in the region, including on risk mitigation in traditional food markets, advancing implementation of the Framework for Action, addressing AMR as a food safety issue, and mitigating the impacts of COVID-19.”

The WHO South-East Asia region accounts for 150 million illnesses and 175,000 deaths per year from unsafe food.

Singh said all stakeholders must act and momentum was strong, but people must push harder and faster.

“First, policymakers can initiate and/or support measures to strengthen national food safety systems, with a focus on enhancing legal frameworks and compliance. Second, food businesses can better engage employees, suppliers and other stakeholders to nurture and develop a culture of food safety. Specific focus should be put on achieving full compliance with international food standards,” she said.

“Third, educational institutions and workplaces can intensify efforts to promote safe food handling and engage with and involve families in food safety activities. Fourth, consumers should practice safe food handling at home, following WHO’s Five Keys to Safer Food: keep clean, separate raw and cooked, cook thoroughly, keep food at safe temperatures, and use safe and raw materials.

“At last year’s UN Food Systems Summit, countries from the region and across the world committed to transform food systems, ensuring such systems are not only resilient, inclusive and sustainable, but also healthy and safe. WHO is committed to achieving that outcome, which will in turn reduce the disproportionate impact of foodborne illness on infants and young children, the elderly and sick, and diminish wider socioeconomic effects.”

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

Evidence and Action Towards Safe, Nutritious Food (EatSafe) is a five-year program led by the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) and funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

In 2019, 33 percent of surveyed Ethiopians and 20 percent of Nigerians said they had experienced serious harm from food and water, leading to illness, malnutrition and stunting in children.

The challenge call is open to students, researchers and entrepreneurs passionate about food safety and nutrition, to share their ideas on how existing innovations can be adapted and applied in traditional food markets and along value chains to resolve upstream food safety issues, which would increase the amount of safe food reaching local markets, where hundreds of thousands of people buy food.

Applicants based in Ethiopia or Nigeria will be asked to select one of seven innovation categories and develop a concept of how it can be adapted in a local food market.

These categories are food waste technology; peer-learning platforms; platforms for supply chain management; processing; retailing and packaging; sensors for food safety assessment and urban-rural linkages; and food logistics.

Making local food safer
Richard Pluke, chief of party at EatSafe, said: “With the EatSafe Innovation Challenge, we are trying to get national talent to contribute to making their fellow citizens healthier through safer food. Anyone passionate about food safety and/or nutrition can apply and we highly encourage women and young people to take part in what will undoubtedly be a highly rewarding adventure.”

Solutions will help to tackle issues such as a lack of consumer awareness around safe and nutritious food; lack of knowledge on food origins; food perishability; undetected harmful substances; and food loss.

A selection committee of food safety experts will rate entries on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the lowest and 5 the highest. The five selection criteria are food safety and nutritional benefit, feasibility, adaptability in low-and-middle-income countries, scalability, and environmental sensitivity.

Following workshops and mentoring from May to August, two out of five shortlisted finalists for each country will be selected.

Four winners from the national EatSafe challenges will be chosen to participate in the global finals in Denmark in October 2022 and have a chance of winning $10,000. The deadline to apply is April 30.

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

You’ve probably heard a lot about the new plant-based foods — meatless beef and poultry and dairy-free milk, for example, but most people don’t know much, if anything, about them. In fact, the first time you heard about them, you might have said “Forget about that. If I want food, I want ‘real food.’ ”

But now that you’ve heard friends talk about plant-based foods or seen ads about them in restaurants or grocery stores, you can’t help but wonder if this — as crazy as it sounds — is here to stay. Or is it just one of those fads that burst onto the scene with a lot of hullabaloo and then disappear?

As for food safety, which is a major consumer concern, plant-based foods don’t involve slaughtering or butchering animals. In other words, no blood or guts here. But even so, basic food safety principles have to be followed. Keeping products and processing facilities clean and sanitary and keeping plant-based foods and ingredients away from products such as meat that could contaminate them with foodborne pathogens is essential.

The marketplace
When looking at the marketplace, some questions come to mind: “How popular are they? Are they healthy to eat? Are they good or bad for the environment?  And what do they cost  compared to ‘real food?’ ” And maybe more important to you as a consumer, do they taste good?

Good questions and ones that a lot of everyday shoppers are asking. And even some of the major producers are asking now that some are seeing declining sales.

A recently released report  (https://www.plantbasedfoods.org/2021-u-s-retail-sales-data-for-the-plant-based-foods-industry/) on how plant-based meats, poultry, milk, and eggs are faring in the marketplace has some answers to questions about each of the categories. And plenty of encouraging news for producers of plant-based foods. For example, overall, plant-based food retail sales have grown three times faster than total food retail sales, with most plant-based categories outpacing their conventional counterparts when it came to growth.

Released on March 24, the new data was collected by the Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA), The Good Food Institute (GFI), and SPINS.

Even so, there are other reports that show that the popularity and revenues of plant-based categories are slipping.

As for the future, for the most part, it will be in the consumers’ hands. What they buy and how much of it they buy will provide a lot of the answers about the industry’s future. We’re not there yet.

Contrasting predictions
In August 2021 the news was all rosy. According to a report from Bloomberg Intellingence, “Plant-Based Foods Poised for Explosive Growth,” the projected plant-based food market would make up 7.7 percent of the global protein market.

Also according to the report, global retail sales of plant-based food alternatives might even hit $162 billion by 2030 — up from $29.4 billion in 2020. That’s a lot of billions.

The report predicted that the two largest subcategories of plant-based alternatives — milk/dairy and meat — will continue to dominate sales in the segment.

While most people are familiar with plant-based milk — almond and soy milk, for example — meatless meats such as Beyond Meat burgers and Impossible Meats burgers are not as widely known by the general consumer, even though they are popular with consumers who’d rather eat less meat, are concerned about how meat animals are treated, and see advantages to the environment in having fewer animals on the land.

Even so, Jennifer Batashus, senior consumer staples analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence, went so far as to predict that plant-based protein alternatives will become a long-term option for consumers — not just in the United States but around the world as well.

“If sales and penetration for meat and dairy alternatives continue to grow,” she said, “meat and dairy alternatives could even obtain 5 percent and 10 percent of their respective global market shares in the next decade.”

But, then, by early 2022, the situation had taken a different tilt, with one headline declaring “Fake Meat is Bleeding Money.” The featured food item in the AgWeb article (https://www.agweb.com/news/livestock/beef/fake-meat-bleeding-money) was none other than Beyond Meat, hamburgers made with plant-based ingredients — in other words, no meat at all. According to the article, for three years the company has been bleeding cash. It’s gotten so bad that investors in the once trendy company have seen losses mounting.

Another major player acknowledged slowing growth. Based on that, the Canadian meat giant Maple Leaf will downgrade its 40 percent plant-based growth estimate to 10 percent to 15 percent.

All sorts of reasons come into play, among them the disruption the market suffered because of Covid-19. Then, too, other plant-based meat products are now available for consumers to choose from. But Beyond Meat company officials acknowledge that a major obstacle to sustained growth is that it remains higher priced than beef —as much as two times higher. Bottomline: Beyond Meat is still not meat. For many consumers, that’s a no-brainer of a reason to stick with meat.

Meanwhile, consumers still see meat as a major part of their shopping list. According to the 2022 Power of Meat report, (https://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/26302-sneak-peek-the-2022-power-of-meat-report) nearly all American households (98.5 percent) purchase meat, with volume sales up 3.9 percent for all meat compared to pre-pandemic levels.

And just this month, the United States and Japan hammered out an agreement that will allow for more beef exports into Japan. Why? Because demand for beef is so strong in that country.

The ‘new report’
Despite all sorts of up-and-down challenging economic conditions, among them them inflation, supply-chain problems (think ‘empty shelves’), and especially the pandemic, plant-based foods held on tight in 2021.

According to the report released on March 25 by the Plant Based Foods Association (PBFA), The Good Food Institute (GFI), and SPINS, U.S. retail sales of plant-based foods grew a hefty 6.2 percent in 2021 over a record year of growth in 2020. No small change here considering that it brought the total plant-based market value to an all-time high of $7.4 billion.

As for the ingredients, besides the traditional soy, wheat, and corn that used to be the staples for earlier versions of plant-based meats, newcomers like chickpea, mung bean, fava beans, mushrooms, sorghum, and barley are now on the list.

Here’s how the categories did, according to the recent report:

Meatless meats
Think meatless burgers, meatless chicken nuggets, and even meatless bacon. And more. There’s a surprisingly wide range of meatless items that consumers can now choose from either in a conventional grocery store —  or dining out at fast-food chains.

What about plant-based chorizo? Chipotle’s plant-based chorizo’s main ingredient is pea protein, and it’s flavored with chipotle peppers, tomato paste, garlic, smoked paprika, and olive oil. In addition to being certified vegan, the chorizo is also free of gluten and soy.

And what about jerky? Beyond Meat and PepsiCo recently announced the debut of plant-based jerky, the first snack made under a partnership between Beyond Meat and and the soft drink giant.

Data in the recently released report show that plant-based meat dollar sales in 2021 remained strong, delivering a repeat year of $1.4 billion in sales, and growing 74 percent in the past three years, outpacing growth of conventional meat by almost three times.

The unit comparison is even more striking — while conventional meat unit sales have grown 8 percent in the past three years, plant-based meat unit sales have outpaced that by more than six times, growing 51 percent during the same period.

How mainstream has this become? According to the report, 19 percent of households purchased plant-based meat in 2021, up from 18 percent in 2020, with 64 percent of buyers purchasing plant-based meat more than once throughout the year.

Not surprisingly, plant-based burgers lead the pack when it comes to sales in the plant-based meat category.

Even so, there’s now more to choose from. Variety is the spice of life, and that’s what consumers are looking for. What about some plant-based meatballs, chicken nuggets, tenders and cutlets — and even some deli slices. These were the fastest growing plant-based meat items in 2021.

McDonald’s is even getting into the game, with some of its restaurants testing a McPlant burger.

Meanwhile, a relative newcomer into the game, plant-based seafood grew 14 percent, hitting a whopping $14 million. The future in this category beckons.

Plant-based milk
Already a major player, plant-based milk saw its sales grow 4 percent and 33 percent in the past three years to an impressive $2.6 billion.

All the more impressive considering that animal-based milk sales fell 2 percent in 2021.

Representing 16 percent of all retail milk dollars, plant-based milk, is referred to as the “growth engine” of the milk category. As such it contributes $105 million in growth, compared to a loss of $264 million in animal milk sales.

According to the Natural Enhanced Channel, plant-based milk represents 40 percent of all milk sold, up from 34 percent in 2018.

As proof as another mainstreamer on its way, 42 percent of households bought plant-based milk, with almond milk being the most popular. Not only that, 76 percent of plant-based milk buyers purchased it multiple times in 2021.

Of course, there’s more to milk than a glass of milk. Plant-based milk opens the way to a host of popular dairy products — none of them made with cow’s milk.

Think products like yoghurt, ready-to-drink items, cheese, ice cream and even creamers.

As for yoghurt, plant-based yogurt sales grew 9 percent — three times the rate of conventional yogurt. Plant-based cheese grew 7 percent, while conventional cheese declined 2 percent. And plant-based ice cream and frozen desserts grew 31 percent over the past two years to reach $458 million.

Plant-based eggs
No crowing roosters needed here. In fact, JUST Egg’s website (https://www.ju.st/plant-based-eggs?utm_source=google_ads&utm_medium=search_cpc&utm_campaign=JE-US-Branded-Google-Search-Exact-%5BKNOWN%5D&utm_content=Just_Egg&utm_term=just%20eggs&creative=543156369521&matchtype=e&device=c&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6ceChezp9gIVqGxvBB1N5A5bEAAYASAAEgJ6kvD_BwE) says “We’re living in the golden era of eggs.”

“No cholesterol,” it says. “No industrial chicken farms. No artificial flavors. Just really delicious eggs made from plants.”

You can use plant-based eggs to make all sorts of popular dishes — scrambled eggs as a starter, omelettes, French toast, quiches and soufflés.

With some consumers looking for what they consider a healthier “egg choice,” it’s no surprise that the plant-based egg category also enjoyed rapid growth in 2021, recording a 42 percent increase in dollar sales.

According to the report, plant-based egg dollar sales have grown more that 1,000 percent. At the same time, conventional egg dollars declined by 4 percent in 2021.

Consumers with dollars
According to the report, 62 percent, or 79 million, U.S. households are now buying plant-based products —an increase from 61 percent the previous year.

Industry leaders point to increased repeat rates in plant-based food across already numerous record-breaking years.

And they point to who these consumers are and what’s motivating them.

For example, consumers, particularly Millennials ages 26-41 and Gen Z ages 10-25, are motivated by an interest in foods that are better for their health and deliver on positive environmental impact and social responsibility.

We’re talking about an important shopper demographic. We’re talking about the present but also the future consumer public.

That’s why leaders in this sector say this is important to keep an eye on what’s happening in all parts of the grocery store and in restaurants in general. It’s a new day, they say, and no one wants to be left behind.

Voice of a beef raiser
Western Washington cattleman Larry Gadbois is definitely not part of corporate agriculture. His herd, which includes 65 mother cows, is grass fed, and the hay he raises for the animals and also to help meet expenses is organic. He’s been a cattleman for decades and takes pride in his cows and his hay.

He admits he hasn’t kept up-to-date about plant-based beef. After all, his cattle operation keeps him plenty busy. But he has heard you can go into Burger King and get a burger that’s not made of meat.

“There’s probably going to be a place for plant-based meats,” he said. “You’ve always got someone looking for something different. And there are the people who don’t want animals to be killed. Right now there’s a lot of experimentation going on. People will want to try it, but how many people will actually settle into it. That’s the important question.”

As far as he’s concerned, the real question is “How long is this going to last?”

Is he worried that this “meatless” option is going to hurt his business?

“I do worry about it a little bit, but that’s where it ends,” he said.

For him, there are a some dark clouds looming over small-scale operations like his that have him plenty worried.

“It’s very challenging,” he said. “We need the small farmer, but we’re being forced out. You have to be bigger to get good prices at the auction.”

“There will always be beef,” he said. “But the real question is who’s going to be able to afford it.”

At this point, plant-based industry officials say that although plant-based products are selling for more than conventional products, they also say that as the industry gears up and gets larger, the prices should be more on par with conventional products. When that happens, they say, price will no longer be a stumbling block to increased and sustained sales.

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

Jeff Havens, Senior Public Health Sanitarian and Registered Sanitarian since October 2012 for the Montana Department of Health and Human Service’s Food and Consumer Safety Section, is ready with the Plaintiff Pro Se filing in Montana’s First Judicial District Court for Lewis and Clark County.

Montana Gov.  Greg Gianforte and Adam Meier, state Health and Human Services director would be named as defendants.

The Montana Local Food Choice Act was signed into law by Gov. Gianforte April 30, 2021, after passing the Senate 31-to-18 on March 1, and the House on April 9, 70-to-26. As Senate Bill 199, the Local Food Choice Act went through the Montana Legislature mostly, but not entirely, on Republican votes. Its purpose is “to allow for the sale and consumption of homemade food and food products and to encourage the expansion of agricultural sales by ranches, farms, and home-based producers and the accessibility of homemade food and food products to informed end consumers. . .”

According to the draft complaint, the case has been “in preparation for several months, but the plaintiff delayed filing, hoping negative health consequences as a direct result of the new law would be publicly disclosed, new and additional workload obligations caused by the new law would diminish, and Defendant Meier would exercise his constitutional authority to challenge the new law.”

The complaint draft says the issues involved are not being addressed in the best interest of public health and requires the lawsuit to go forward.

“The constitutionality measure at issue is the failure to completely separate the subject of interstate commerce from intrastate commerce in former 2021 Senate Bill 199, rendering its title unclear and the Act void and unequal consumer protection for high-risk canned foods,” the draft continues.

Havens, a resident of Helena, MT, has also served as a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) contract investigator. He also names State Sen. Greg Hertz, R-Polson, MT, as a defendant. Havens contends SB199 “was also advocated by the libertarian-conservative political advocacy group nqm4 “Americans for Prosperity.”

Sen. Hertz was SB199’s chief sponsor. He went along with amending the bill to hold the state’s federally sanctioned meat inspection program harmless,  meaning food produced under the “Choice Act” cannot include meat.    

The draft lawsuit says the Montana Local Food  Choice Act “is negligently silent on the subject of food ingredients and food components that comprise food products..”

Havens wants the Montana court to rule that the “true intent” of the Montana Local Food Choice Act is to “avoid any and all interstate commerce and federal jurisdictional authority over such commercial food.”  He also says the act violates the Montana State Constitution because the bill “negligently fails to completely separate the subjects. of interstate commerce food from intrastate commerce food.”

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

Institute of Food Technologists member expert and Cornell Professor Emeritus of Food Science  Dr. Robert “Bob” Gravani, gave Food Safety News some tips to keep your family safe from food poisoning this spooky season.

Trick-or-treat food safety tips:

• No snacking: “Talk to your kids about the importance of not snacking on any of the goodies that they collect,” Gravani said. Parents should urge their children to wait until they get home and let an adult inspect their treats before they eat any of them. “Kids get so excited with this that it’s easy to want to take something out of your goodie bag and eat it on the way, but it behooves everyone to make sure those treats are safe.” Gravani suggests that “the first thing parents should do, is give their kids a light meal or snack before they go out trick-or-treating,” which will help stop their snacking. 
• Safe treats:  Children should not accept, and especially not eat, anything that isn’t commercially wrapped. “I would encourage parents and kids, not to take anything that isn’t commercially wrapped. With homemade snacks, you just don’t know where it was made or how it was made,” Gravani said. “When parents get home they should look for signs of any tampering, unusual appearance, discoloration or tears in the wrapping.” 
• Food Allergies: Parents of children with food allergies should check the labels to ensure the allergen isn’t present. “If your child has any type of food allergy,  parents should make sure the label is checked to make sure the specific allergen they have a problem with is not present,” Gravani said. “And again, don’t allow kids to eat home-baked products they might have received.”
• Choking hazards: Parents of young children should be sure to remove any choking hazards such as gum, peanuts, hard candies or small toys. “Parents should keep an eye out for candies that pose a choking hazard to young children,” Gravani said. 

Halloween party food safety tips:

• Serve pasteurized drink juices and ciders: If you’re having a party at home, make sure you’re serving pasteurized juices and ciders. Unpasteurized juice or cider can contain harmful bacteria such as Salmonella. To stay safe, always serve pasteurized products at your parties.
• Hands off the raw cookie dough: “Sometimes people have kids involved in some sort of baking project, and it’s always tempting to eat or taste the raw batter, but that should be avoided,” Gravani explained.  Raw cookie dough or cake batter that contains uncooked eggs or unbaked flour can harbor harmful bacteria such as Salmonella and E. coli.
• Keep food chilled before serving: Gravani told us that perishable foods should be chilled until serving time. These include finger sandwiches, cheese platters, fruit or tossed salads, cold pasta dishes with meat, poultry, or seafood and cream pies or cakes with whipped cream and cream-cheese frostings. “We need to make sure that we don’t leave perishable foods out for longer than two hours.”
• Let’s skip the bobbing for apple: Bobbing for apples is an all-time favorite Halloween game, but Gravani suggests finding a different activity or a variation of the game. “You can make apples out of construction paper and place a paperclip on them, write activities or games on them and then place them all in a bucket. Then you give the kids a stick or a line with a magnet on it, and have them fish for the apples and have them do the activity written on it.”

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

The five-day meeting will be live online with a recorded version to be posted on the National Organic Program website. 

“With input from the Board and the organic community, we are modifying the NOSB Fall 2021 meeting to be held live online, instead of in-person. This will allow the Board to move forward with deliberations as scheduled in an open and public setting, without the need for travel,” according to a notice posted by the board.

“The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) typically meets twice per year in various locations around the United States. During the meetings, the NOSB listens to public comments, discusses petitions to add or remove substances from the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (National List), reviews substances due to sunset from the list and votes on recommendations to the Secretary in a public forum.”

Public comments are scheduled for today and tomorrow, Oct. 14. All speakers making public comments have signed up and been notified by email of the commenting order. Speakers will be called on when it is their turn.

The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), is a 15-member volunteer advisory board appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. It meets twice each year in a public forum to discuss and vote on recommendations to the USDA.

“NOSB recommendations are an important tool to assist the (USDA) in developing standards for organically produced products. The open meetings allow for public input on topics of interest to the organic community, and resulting standards support farmer and consumer confidence in the integrity of the USDA organic seal,” according to a statement from the board.

Members of the public will be able to hear the live comments, Board deliberations, and see any slides presented. Only Board members may ask questions.

The timetable is as follows:

•    Wednesday and Thursday, Oct. 13-14, Noon – 6 pm Eastern

• Tuesday, Oct. 19 from noon – 6 pm Eastern
• Wednesday, Oct. 20 from noon – 6 pm Eastern
• Thursday, Oct. 21 from noon – 6 pm Eastern

The meeting Zoom links, full agenda, proposals, discussion documents and Federal Register notice are available on the NOSB Fall 2021 Meeting webpage.

For those who wish to join by phone, please call the appropriate number below and enter missing number 160 703 3566 For higher quality, dial a number based on your current location:

+1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)
+1 551 285 1373 (US)
+1 646 828 7666 US (New York)
Meeting ID:  160 703 3566

International numbers are available at: https://zoom.us/u/aewOZJsOJw

Those who field dress animals, fish and birds are often unaware of the potential risks associated with foodborne pathogen contamination. As with any perishable meat, raw or undercooked game meat can contain harmful bacteria such as Salmonella and E. coli. 

Contamination of meat or fish can occur through the initial wound as well as during field dressing, handling and transport.

Another huge food safety concern is cross-contamination. Even if proper technique is used while dressing or butchering, surfaces and utensils can easily become contaminated from microscopic amounts of pathogens found in wild game.

Improper handling or lack of temperature control allows pathogens the opportunity to grow, resulting in highly contaminated meat with serious health risks.

The environment and location that the hunter harvests adds another source of potential contamination. 

Here are some tips from Penn State’s Extension Service on how to minimize risks while field dressing wild game:

Clean hands and surfaces

• Plan to take paper towels or plastic to place down as a barrier between the ground and tools, minimizing the risk for cross-contamination during field dressing. A plastic drop cloth or new tarp serves as a great barrier. 
• Carry disposable plastic gloves. Always consider protecting yourself from the possible risks of contracting a foodborne pathogen while field dressing, especially if you have any open wounds on your hand. Even a tiny opening from a hang nail is enough to allow infection from pathogens and parasites. 
• Carry pre-packaged alcohol wipes to wash your hands before, during and after removing the entrails. 

Temperature control

• When the outside temperature is above 41 degrees F, consider taking coolers packed with either bags or blocks of ice. Packaged dry ice is a good option. 
• If you’re working with small game, remove the hide as quickly as possible to allow the carcass to cool quickly when surrounded by ice. 
• Large game should have the hide removed quickly after harvest if the outside temperature is above 41 degrees F. 
• The worst practice is wrapping large game in plastic or a tarp to keep it clean when transporting it. Wrapping the carcass only traps the heat, leading the internal temperature of the meat to remain in the temperature danger zone. If at all possible, pack the internal cavity with ice to cool down the carcass. 
• The longer you let the carcass remain at temperatures above 41 degrees F from the time of harvest till the time of processing, the greater the risk for foodborne pathogens to grow and become dangerous. 

After the harvest

• The carcass should be cut within seven days after harvest if it was chilled rapidly and cold temperatures maintained. The sooner the better if warmer temperatures prevail. 
• For best flavor, limit fresh venison to eight months of frozen storage and seasoned and cured venison to four months of frozen storage. 

Infected animal and food safety

Chronic wasting disease
Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a prion disease that affects deer, elk, reindeer, sika deer and moose. It has been found in some areas of North America, including Canada and the United States. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises that hunters should try to minimize the risk for exposure to the CWD and consult with their state wildlife agencies to identify areas where CWD occurs and continue to follow the advice provided by public health and wildlife agencies.

The agency also advises hunters to avoid eating meat from deer and elk that look sick or test positive for CWD. 

Roadkill
Food safety issues regarding roadkill are not widely discussed in traditional food safety circles. However, the risks that exist with roadkill are similar to those from hunting wild game. Even if you see an animal hit and immediately pick it up there can be problems.

If an animal was hit, the force of being hit by a car can cause internal damage that being shot through the head or the heart — that killing with a gun or bow and arrow — wouldn’t cause. This means that the chance for bacterial contamination is a bigger concern, because gut spillage from a ruptured bladder or torn intestines is very possible. 

As with all food safety situations, it’s always better to err on the side of safety. 

State by state rules vary on the legality of taking home roadkill. But though this might sound odd, if you hit a deer, you can ask the responding officer if you can take it and they will often write a permit for you to take the deer. 

The deer generally will not count against a hunter’s annual tag limit.

More information
The next time you go hunting, start thinking about the safety of the meat you harvest while you prepare for your trip. 

As all hunters know, it takes a lot of work, time and patience to have a successful hunt. The last thing you would want is to ruin the meat or end your hunt with foodborne illness. 

For more information on how to field dress various animals and food safety tips, visit the PennState Extension here.

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

Maniza Qureshi reported the incident to Seattle & King County Public Health after the shocking experience with a lunchtime salad from an Evergreens restaurant.

“No other complaints of foreign items in the salad have been received by this location. Based on the items placed in the salad, it is possible that the lizard came in one of the sealed packages of greens,” a report from Public Health’s inspector said.

Seattle-based food safety attorney Bill Marler, an expert in the field of food safety, told KIRO-TV Channel 7 that finding creatures in food is not as rare as you might think.

“Snakes, mice, spiders, sometimes live things, sometimes not live things,” Marler said. “The positive thing is, even though these things are grotesque, most of the time they don’t cause human illness.”

Qureshi told the news outlet that part of a leg and the tail of the lizard were missing, leaving her to wonder if she ingested parts of the animal or if other customers’ food might have been contaminated.

The shocked restaurant patron also spoke with WKQX-Radio Channel 101.1, which posted a photo of the salad with the lizard on its Twitter feed.

Other area media reported that the restaurant management was just as shocked as their customer.

Ian Courtnage, the CEO of Evergreens, told the TV channel that the company pays a premium to suppliers to ensure the lettuce and greens they get are good to go.

“We’re working with a national supplier that triple washes, cuts, and bags the greens so they’re ready to eat for us – specifically to avoid any issues,” Courtnage said, adding that they immediately contacted the supplier to figure out what went wrong.

Qureshi told media outlets that she went public with the situation because she thinks the restaurant employees should have noticed the animal when they were preparing her salad.

“Staff were already required to go through the greens while filling the service container,” according to the Public Health report.

The report also said the supplier for lettuce is from California but did not indicate where the kale was grown.

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

“In order to effect defendants’ future compliance, by making them aware of the seriousness of their violations and the consequences for future violations, defendants are ordered to pay to the United States, within 30 days of the date of entry of this Order — and pursuant to written instructions that the United States will provide to defendants—a fine of $250,000, or face further monetary and other penalties, possibly including imprisonment of Amos Miller,” the order says.

Smith also ordered Miller to reimburse USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) for its enforcement costs, totaling $14,436.26   Miller has 60 days to make the reimbursement.

Further, Miller and Miller’s Organic Farm are ordered not to slaughter any amenable animals in violation of the order or a $25,000 per day fine will be immediately imposed by the court.

Miller is also to “cease and desist all amenable meat and poultry-related retail operations, except to liquidate existing inventories unless and until Miller’s can demonstrate compliance with federal and Commonwealth laws.

“For each day that Miller’s conducts such retail operations in violation of law, and without a Commonwealth of Pennsylvania license, defendants shall be ordered to pay a fine of $1,500,” the order continues.

With 14 days, Miller must also place statements pre-approved by FSIS on his websites “explaining to (his) members and customers that: 

(a) the Court has ruled that Miller’s has violated the Court’s Injunction Order and Consent Decree.

“For each day after fourteen days following the entry date of this Order —  and until FSIS verifies that Miller’s has liquidated its existing inventory of amenable products — that such a statement does not appear on Miller’s websites, its associates’ websites, and Miller’s Facebook page, defendants shall be ordered to pay a fine of $1,500,” the order adds.

The Court on June 16, 2021, found Miller in contempt of the Injunction Order and Consent Decree following an in-person show cause hearing.   Miller was shown to have “had knowledge of those orders and their contents,” and that he disobeyed the orders.

The current action against Miller goes back five years when FSIS asked the Court to enforce a USDA subpoena was brought against Miller for his denial of access to his records and his meat and poultry facilities.

Later, in two 2017 letters, FSIS warned Miller and Miller’s Organic Farm that they were still violating federal inspection, labeling, and FSIS right-of-access requirements in the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

With a 2019  Injunction Order, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the United States and entered the requested permanent injunctive relief, enjoining defendants from committing continuing violations of the Acts. 

Among the Court’s findings were these:

(a) Amos Miller and his wife owned and operated Miller’s, an unincorporated business located at 648 Mill Creek School Road, Bird-in-Hand, Pennsylvania; 

(b) at its farm site, Miller’s had been slaughtering livestock or poultry, and then preparing, processing, storing, and/or distributing meat, meat food products, and poultry products;

(c) Miller’s sold its meat, meat food products, and poultry products that are subject to the Acts (known as “amenable products”) for commercial purposes and for human consumption to consumers in Pennsylvania and throughout the United States; 

(d) federal inspection is required at such an establishment that slaughters livestock or poultry, and then prepares or processes amenable meat, meat food products, or poultry products that are capable of use as human food for interstate or foreign commerce, unless the establishment qualifies for an exemption from federal inspection; 

(e) Miller’s had been operating its meat and poultry business without a USDA-FSIS Federal Grant of Inspection and (with rare exception) without taking its livestock and poultry for slaughter and processing to any federally inspected facility; and 

(f) defendants had not yet changed Miller’s business model to attempt to qualify for an exemption from federal inspection under the Acts for any part of their operations.  

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

Economics kept coming up as the panel discussed “Diversity in Food Culture from Sushi to Steak Tartare: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Understanding Roots of Food Safety Behaviors.” Phyllis B. Posy of PosyGlobal in Jerusalem moderated the discussion. Participants were:

• Caroline Smith DeWaal, Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, Washington D.C.; 
• Amarat (Amy) Simonne, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 
• Bobby Krishna, Dubai Municipality, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; 
• Adewale Olusegun Obadina, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria; and 
• Joe Mac Regenstein, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

The four main topics addressed in the 90-minute session covered street food, cold chain, fermentation, and regulations within cultures. But when it came down to it, money was the bottom line behind much of the discussion.

The economics of food cultures across the globe vary widely, but a common denominator is the end cost to the consumer. The more requirements and regulations in place the more money it costs to be a street vendor, for example.

Obadina said when trainers go out and educate vendors in Nigeria in food safety the vendors all like it, but there is always the question “who will pay for it.”

Krishna agreed about the economic impact of food safety costs. He said in India any change, no matter how important, is perceived to make food more expensive for consumers. To help vendors understand food safety, the government is paying them after they successfully complete a training course.

Then there are the street markets, somewhat akin to farmers markets in the United States, said DeWaal. In other countries they have a more critical role, she said, providing an affordable food source for local people. So no matter what group people are from — vendors, consumers, or government — increased food safety is perceived to be an expense, not necessarily a solution.

In addition to economics, other common discussion points included education and data collection, with virtually all of the panelists agreeing that more of both are urgently needed.

The panelists discussed the four following areas. Not all panelists addressed all four points.

Topic One: How safe is street food?
To a person, the panelists agreed on four key considerations hindering the safety of food from street vendors: no cold chain, no potable water, no regulations, and no infrastructure.

A lack of electricity for refrigeration can’t be addressed until some level of infrastructure is in place, and that is slow in coming, they said.

Simonne said improvements must be made in Thailand because street food is part of the economic engine that drives the country. Electricity is the key improvement needed in most areas in terms of improving food safety. The areas that now have access to electricity are already making strides, she said.

“Street food is here to stay,” she said.

Krishna said progress is also slow in his home country of India, but things are in the works. He said when he was a boy there weren’t any restaurants or other places to buy food so you had to go to street vendors and markets. There have been advancements in the past five years, he said, but much more work needs to be done.

Topic Two: Cold chain considerations
As with the first discussion point, access to electricity was a key point for speakers when discussing the lack of a cold chain in many countries. The reasons are not, however, always related to infrastructure. Some cultural and religious practices are in play, according to the presenters.

In India, Obadina said, some of those vendors who lack power rely on ice. However, instead of making consumers more comfortable because of the refrigeration aspect, the ice makes many in the country skeptical. He said the perception is that if fish has to be kept on ice it means it is not fresh. The mindset is the same for virtually all fresh food — if it requires ice, it’s not fresh.

In some religious communities around the world refrigeration comes in second to traditional slaughter methods, said Regenstein. Both Kosher and Halal preparation calls for the blood to be removed, which can have some impact on food safety. Also, any problems with any of the organs or a wound on an animal preclude the entire animal from consumption.

Another key to Kosher and Halal food preparation is to thoroughly cook meat, again to remove blood, Regenstein said, but with the added effect of killing pathogens.

Simonne said in Thailand traditional methods of fermentation and salting are thought to be a replacement for refrigeration. But many are learning that is not true as educational efforts progress.

One reason vendors in Thailand and other countries are willing to learn about improving food safety is the almighty tourist dollar, according to all of the panelists.

The accidental tourist topic
Tourism and food safety wasn’t on the list of discussion points for the session today, but it reared its head throughout the 90-minute presentation.

No matter what region was discussed similar thoughts were presented. Countries, right down to the level of street vendors, want to increase tourism and tourists don’t want to get sick when they are on vacation.

The vacation dollars are “a huge driver” for food safety in street vending, said Posy. She said changes are being made every day to improve food safety in travel destinations.

DeWaal pointed to research out of the U.S., China, and Denmark that has shown improvements in food safety and tourists’ trust have been enhanced by restaurant rating systems. In systems where restaurants must display inspection rating businesses benefit and tourists are more confident.

And, with the introduction of Google reviews and the like, tourists have the power to know before they book travel whether they want to risk certain areas and foods, Krishna said.

Krishna also said in some areas savvy developers are creating somewhat authentic experiences for tourists by building street markets that look traditional but have the benefits of modern technology and utilities. They give a taste of authenticity with much less of a chance of food poisoning.

Topic Three: Fermentation’s role
Obadina said much of the fermentation in Africa is done on a very small-scale basis by people who are lacking in knowledge of best practices. Consequently, pathogens can be introduced. But more often the threat is from mycotoxins.

In Africa, fermented food is mainly from grains and root vegetables, with mycotoxins being a particular problem area. He said part of the problem comes from the water that is used and part of the problem is sometimes leaves that are used in the process.

“We need more surveillance of food,” Obadina said, adding that chemicals and mycotoxins are a bigger problem than many pathogens that are destroyed in processing and cooking. Over time a buildup of mycotoxins can cause problems for many people.

In Kosher food, salt is often used and offers a small reduction in pathogens, but Regenstein said it is “no where near” the 4 log or 5 log reduction desired in terms of food safety.

Simonne said in Thailand seafood and vegetables are frequently fermented and often have high salt content. During fermentation there can be problems, which researchers are looking for, she said. “We just need more data.”

Topic Four: Regulations and preserving culture
Before new regulations are enacted, all of the panelists agreed that science-based data is needed. DeWaal said the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations have been working on the issues related to street food since the 1960s.

Progress has been made.

In 2006 the WHO published a guide to healthy food markets and the agencies are working on programs to train vendors.

“There are definitely a lot of resources from WHO and FAO on training vendors,” she said.

Obadini said in Africa education for vendors is lacking mostly because of government funding. Without that money, there is little point in imposing new regulations because they could not be implemented.

Krishna said interest in food is increasing in India, but not necessarily around food safety. “We have a long way to go,” he said, “with vendors and water.” He said a lack of structure for finding and tracking foodborne illnesses is also a big problem and that India needs preventive measures even if they don’t have regulations.

Conclusions
DeWaal summed up the session with a brief comment about the responsibilities of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. She said FDA has a daunting task and issues with funding. The USDA has extensive programs in place, but not nearly the number of foods as the FDA regulates. Funding is also an issue for food safety programs at the USDA, she said.

But DeWaal ended her comments with a global comment.

“What’s really important is how to improve domestic programs globally,” she said. 

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

Officials with the Washington Department of Health have not released details about the patient, except to say that the person lives in Arizona and is considered a “secondary” case.

Investigations by the Washington health department and the state agricultural department are ongoing. The state health department announced the outbreak on May 12.

The newly confirmed patient is the third person in Arizona to be declared part of the outbreak. All three are considered secondary patients because they did not consume the implicated yogurt. Rather, they were exposed to the bacteria via people from Washington state who were infected and visited Arizona.

As of June 24 there are 17 confirmed patients in the outbreak. Ten of the patients are younger than 10 years old. Ten of the 17 patients have had such severe symptoms they had to be admitted to hospitals. The Washington health department has not released the ages of those who have hospitalized.

Of the 17 outbreak patients, four have developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), a type of kidney failure that can be fatal.

Most of the sick people reported eating organic yogurt made by the Pure Eire Dairy in Othello, WA. Both PCC brand and Pure Eire brand yogurt have been recalled.

A civil lawsuit filed by the parents of two children, aged 3 and 1 years old, says both children required hospitalization and one developed HUS. Both children ate some of the implicated yogurt before becoming ill with the outbreak strain of E. coli, according to the legal complaint. The children’s recoveries are ongoing and their futures are uncertain, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of Washington says the PCC brand yogurt from Pure Eire Dairy was contaminated with E. coli when it left the dairy. The complaint alleges that the dairy owners were negligent when they offered the implicated yogurt for sale.

“The minor plaintiffs are in the class of persons intended to be protected by these statutes and regulations, and the minor plaintiffs were injured as the direct and proximate result of the defendant’s violation of applicable federal, state, and local food safety regulations,” according to the legal complaint.

Another civil lawsuit, also in the Superior Court of Washington, has been filed by the parents of a minor child. She ate the implicated yogurt before becoming ill. The child was admitted to a hospital and developed HUS. Her recovery is ongoing with her future uncertain.

The second lawsuit also alleges that the dairy owners were negligent.

“The defendant had a duty to manufacture and sell food products that were from reliable sources and that were clean, wholesome, free from adulteration and fit for human consumption, but failed to do so, and therefore breached that duty,” according to the lawsuit.

“. . . The minor plaintiff’s injuries proximately and directly resulted from the defendant’s breach of express and implied warranties, and the plaintiffs are thus entitled to recover for all actual, consequential, and incidental damages that flow directly and in a foreseeable fashion from these breaches.”

Both lawsuits ask the court to “award such other and further relief as it deems necessary and proper in the circumstances.”

About E. coli infections
Anyone who has eaten any of the implicated yogurt and developed symptoms of E. coli infection should seek medical attention and tell their doctor about their possible exposure to the bacteria. Specific tests are required to diagnose the infections, which can mimic other illnesses.

The symptoms of E. coli infections vary for each person but often include severe stomach cramps and diarrhea, which is often bloody. Some patients may also have a fever. Most patients recover within five to seven days. Others can develop severe or life-threatening symptoms and complications, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The CDC reports about 5 percent to 10 percent of those diagnosed with E. coli infections develop a potentially life-threatening kidney failure complication, known as a hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). Symptoms of HUS include fever, abdominal pain, feeling very tired, decreased frequency of urination, small unexplained bruises or bleeding, and pallor.

Many people with HUS recover within a few weeks, but some suffer permanent injuries or death. This condition can occur among people of any age but is most common in children younger than five years old because of their immature immune systems, older adults because of deteriorating immune systems, and people with compromised immune systems such as cancer patients.

People who experience HUS symptoms should immediately seek emergency medical care. People with HUS will likely be hospitalized because the condition can cause other serious and ongoing problems such as hypertension, chronic kidney disease, brain damage, and neurologic problems.

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

Polis, a “Food Freedom” advocate since his days representing Colorado in Congress, signed the “Ranch to Plate Act” on April 29 and the new law became immediately effective with his signature. It’s possible that direct sales to consumers are not obvious because the paperwork is taking some time.

The new law allows a person to sell, without licensure, certain animals or animal shares to informed end consumers without regulation or inspection by any public health agency. The scant role for the state, pretty much limited to the State Board of Stock Inspection, does not mean the needed share agreements don’t take time and expertise.

Jim Krantz, South Dakota State University Extension cow-calf field specialist, recently disclosed “11 things that should be in a cow lease/share agreement” with Farm Progress readers. “While many business arrangements have been done on a handshake to the benefit of both parties, there are numerous examples of verbal agreements that have failed because the parties couldn’t agree on exactly what had been agreed to,” Krantz says. “Having things in writing goes a long way to eliminate those problems.”

Cattle, calves, sheep, elk, bison, goats, hogs and rabbits are among the animals for which shares may be sold under the new law. The “informed end consumer,”  meaning the last person to purchase meat by the share without being involved in the resell of the product, isn’t regulated or inspected.

The person making the sale must either give the purchaser a disclosure document or conspicuously display signage to disclose the meat is not subject to license or inspection by any public health agency.

The meat sold must be “delivered directly” by the seller to the informed end-consumer, and all sales are limited to Colorado.

The state’s only role is the requirement for the brand inspector to conduct one inspection before slaughter.  The state Board of Stock Inspection is required to promulgate implementation rules. Those rules have not been released even in draft forms.

And whether Colorado consumers can obtain a larger share of locally-produced meat may come down to slaughter capacity.

Gov. Chris Sununu signed House Bill 345 into law this past week. It goes into effect on July 1, 2022. The law allows for fines of up to $1,000 for mushroom sellers per incident. It covers individuals who forage and sell wild mushrooms as well as distributors, retailers and restaurants that sell them.

The bill also requires the state’s Department of Health and Human Services to develop a list of approved mushrooms for distribution. The department is also tasked with producing the educational curriculum for license applicants.

Many wild mushrooms are poisonous and look very similar to edible mushrooms. Mushroom poisoning can range from an upset stomach to death. Common symptoms include vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, weakness, lethargy, and jaundice. Illness and death can come on quickly in some instances, especially in children. Some patients develop liver failure and require transplants.

New Hampshire State Rep. Peter Bixby, D-Dover, was one of the sponsors of the bill. He told the Seacoast Current that up until now there was no way to ensure that people who harvest and sell mushrooms “knew what they were doing.”

The licensing process will cost $75 per person and will include fulfilling educational requirements and passing examinations approved by state officials.

New Hampshire is not the only state concerned about the sale of wild mushrooms.

Michigan requires mushroom hunters who intend to sell their finds to have all mushrooms inspected by a certified mushroom expert to help reduce food poisoning incidents. Certification is available through the Midwest American Mycological Information. Certifications must be renewed every five years.

“Wild mushrooms, like morels and chanterelles, help define the forests of Michigan and provide potential income streams for foragers, farmers, restaurateurs, and food entrepreneurs,” said Tim Slawinski, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Food and Dairy Division director.

“However, if improperly identified, mushrooms can pose serious health risks. If you are purchasing wild mushrooms, you should only purchase them from a certified mushroom identification expert, as required by Michigan’s Food Code, to assure they are safe and edible.”

As with the New Hampshire law, Michigan’s law applies to retailers, online sellers, and restaurants that sell wild-foraged mushrooms. The certified experts can be on staff at the businesses or by third-party individuals.

Slawinski urged consumers to exercise extreme caution when buying wild mushrooms online, especially on social media sites.

For information about mushroom identification experts in Michigan or how to become certified, visit the Midwest American Mycological Information website.

Illegal sales of wild-foraged mushrooms can be reported to the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development at 800-292-3939.

Mushroom concerns in other states
In 2018 the California Department of Health reported that a bloom of poisonous mushrooms commonly referred to as “destroying angel” resulted in high harvest rates and illnesses. 

There were 14 poisonings that resulted in patients being admitted to hospitals. Three of the patients had to have liver transplants. It is unknown how many people total were poisoned by the wild mushrooms because people with milder symptoms often do not seek medical attention.

The California department officials said the most serious illnesses and deaths have been linked primarily to Amanita phalloides, which are also known as the “death cap,” and Amanita ocreata, known as “destroying angel.”

In 2017 Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder vetoed a bill that would have eliminated a training requirement for people who sell wild mushrooms to food establishments.

“With the increased popularity of local foods over the past several years, there has been a significant increase in the demand for wild mushrooms by food establishments, wholesalers, and processors,” Snyder said in his 2017 veto letter. “The requirement for wild mushroom pickers to be experts has been in the FDA Food Code which Michigan adopts by reference since 2000.

Michigan adopted a formal certification course in 2015 to assure that people picking wild mushrooms to sell to food businesses could identify safe vs. toxic mushroom varieties. The certification is good for five years.

In 2016 several Los Angeles children were sickened after sampling a toxic mushroom growing in a community garden at their neighborhood school. At least two of them, including a 10-year-old boy, were taken to a local hospital for treatment. The garden was closed.

The culprit was identified as Amanita pantherina, or Panther cap mushroom, which a worker reportedly gave the children to try Sept. 21 while guiding them through the garden at Micheltorena Elementary School in the Silver Lake neighborhood.

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

The new Texas Department of State Health Services rules permit widespread delivery of raw milk anywhere in the Lone Star State, allowing raw milk dairies to distribute their products to practically anyone in the state. 

It means groups like the Cameron, TX-based Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance have, after a decade or more, been successful in winning in Texas  in the debate about sales of milk without pasteurization that kills most bacteria.

“We’ve been trying for several sessions to get a bill passed that would have allowed the farmers to deliver their milk,” said Judith McGeary, executive producer of the Farm and Ranch Alliance.

Such raw milk sales are now possible because of a change in rules by the state health department, a move that McGeary credits mostly commercial dairies that pasteurize milk.

Whoever gets the credit means raw milk dairy farms in Texas are much more able to make deliveries in the Lone Star State. Once there is a sale at a farmer’s market or over the internet, a complete sale can occur just about anyplace.

The key is to keep the sale at the self size or its online site, not just on the farm as was in the past.

The new rule in Texas also recognizes the legality of an animal purchase that can be a  share of an animal or herd to receive a portion of the raw milk produced.

After years, Texas now has revised rules for raw milk producers in the state that opens new opportunities for farmers, and addresses problems that have occurred with sampling, and provides clear recognition for dairy herd shares, supporters say.

Previously, by meeting licensing requirements — a Grade A “raw for retail” license — Texas farmers could sell raw milk directly to consumers, but sales  were limited to on-farm only because of DSHS rules. 

The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance first tried in 2009 to change the rules at the agency level. When the agency refused, it took the issue to the Texas Legislature and got a bill introduced during five sessions.

Majorities in both the Texas House and Senate voted in favor of the Farm and Ranch Freedom bill — but never in the same session. The regular industry, which uses pasteurization in the processing and distributing dairy products, and local health departments were in opposition and expended significant financial and political resources to kill the bills each time.

But persistent, strategic organizing paid off. The pressure raw dairies created over the years through the legislative process, together with a reputation for solid factual and legal arguments and its approach to negotiating, made an impact on the agency, proponents say.

In February of 2020, the alliance launched into action when DSHS posted draft rule changes that it considered contained several bad provisions. In addition, it urged the agency to pull back on the problem sections where the alliance also recommended changes that raw dairy farmers needed — not just those that it had supported in past legislation, but additional for concerns that have never made it into a bill. 

This tactic opened extensive negotiations with the DSHS staff, which have resulted in some changes. The final rules reverse the bad provisions from the draft version and incorporate many of the affirmative changes the alliance urged.

The new rules:

1. Legalize delivery of raw milk anywhere in the state that the consumers and farmers wish to arrange. Sales at farmers’ markets — a provision the alliance pushed for many years — are still not allowed, but a farmers’ market booth could serve as a delivery point for pre-purchased raw milk.
2. Empower farmers to take their samples to any approved lab, so they have an option if they are concerned that their inspector or the local lab is not handling their samples properly. Such an issue that, in the past, caused several farmers to have their licenses suspended.
3. Recognize the legality of animal shares. Until now, cow/goat/herd shares — under which someone purchases a share of the animal or the herd and then gets a share of the milk produced by that animal — have operated in a gray area of Texas law. We contended that they were legal under normal principles of contract law, while the agency contended that they were illegal sales. So, people with one or two cows, too few to justify the expense of a license, operated under a cloud of fear of government action. Now, as long as the herd share operates with a bill of sale and divides milk proportionally, which a true herd share should do, the agency’s new rules recognize that it is not a “sale” and is excluded from the regulations.

Other victories claimed by the alliance in the final rule include:

• No requirement for farmers to keep or provide a customer list, which was a proposal in the draft rules that agency staff had also urged back in 2009.
• The definition of the raw milk products that can be sold by Grade A licensed producers has been expanded. It includes not only milk, but also cream, sour cream including acidified and cultured sour cream, plain and flavored yogurts, buttermilk, whey, eggnog and kefir. It does not include infant formula, ice cream or frozen desserts, raw butter, or raw cheese that has not been aged a minimum of 60 days.
• Inspections will be “at least quarterly,” which is less frequent than the current requirements. Because of the reduced frequency of sampling, two consecutive violations of bacterial counts, coliform, somatic cell counts, water adulteration, or cooling temps is enough for the agency to take a farmer off-grade, as opposed to the current three out of five tests.

More details in the new rule

Delivery requirements: In addition to the general requirements for a Grade A license, the farmer must keep cold temperatures, use ice from potable water sources, and have a temperature-control sample. The farmer must keep records of how much is delivered and the sample’s temperature.

Labeling Requirements: Each bottle will have a batch number showing the date the milk was bottled, but, unlike the draft rules, the time is not required. There is also a warning label that follows the language put forward as part of bills in past years.

Frozen Milk: If the farmer freezes milk, there must be unfrozen samples available for the department to sample from the most current milking. The draft rules had completely banned freezing raw milk.

Test Results: Farmers must post their last two test results in the milk house or store front and notify customers that testing results are available upon request.

What is a herd share?
A herd share, also known as a cow or goat share, is the purchase of ownership of a portion, or share, of a milking herd or individual milking animal.

A consumer first buys a share of the animal or herd through a legal bill of sale. They then enter into a boarding agreement with the farmer, paying the farmer a fee — typically monthly — to house, care for, and milk the animal. The boarding agreement fee is supposed to cover costs of feed, maintenance, time, labor, equipment depreciation, etc. This fee is nota charge for the milk. The boarding fee must be paid regardless of variations in milk production; and even if a herd share owner is out of town for a few weeks, they still pay the boarding fee even though they aren’t getting their milk while they are away.

The farmer provides the share owner with their share of the milk produced at no additional expense — because it’s not a sale of the milk, it’s that consumer’s milk already. The consumer pays costs, and receives milk, in proportion to their ownership interest.

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

That’s why he wants to develop the first fully transparent source-to-plate supply chain that has everyone in that chain, including the consumer, in mind. For example, a buyer will be able to track a vegetable or fruit’s journey from where it sprouted as a seed to your grocery store shelf, or restaurant. And although a lot of produce now bears labels saying what area it comes from, information about how it grew and how it got there is still unknown to most people and not verifiable.

In Giscombe’s mind, this is not the way things should be. He blames this lack of knowledge for allowing foodborne illnesses to become such a serious health crisis. The numbers say it all. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, foodborne illness is a preventable public health challenge that causes an estimated 48 million illnesses and 3,000 deaths each year in the United States.

Not that this dismaying situation happened overnight. It wasn’t all that long ago that people did know where their food came from. Family farms that supplied local stores dotted the landscape. Giscombe believes that the change started with industrialization and the resulting “busier” lives people live.

“Convenience and immediacy, that’s the consumer dynamic,” he said. “If a consumer wants something, and it’s not there, he or she will go go somewhere else to buy it. When it comes to agriculture, stores have to keep enough food on their shelves to satisfy consumer demand. And that means there has to be a system in place that can supply it even if it means getting the food from distant places.”

The problem is that a lot of produce grown conventionally is in most cases coming from thousands of miles away, “and that means it has lost 50 percent or more of its nutrition by the time the consumer buys it,” he said. 

As a result, most consumers don’t even remember how good food used to taste — food that’s been grown in their own area. And their level of expectations have fallen. 

“We can’t expect reality to change until consumers change,” said Giscombe. “The average consumers — they’re the ones who have to demand quality food. Until they do that, the industry won’t change. That’s why it’s so imperative to educate the consumer.”

Giscombe believes that “we’re on the brink of a generational change,” and he refers to technological breakthroughs that can be used for innovations and improvements across the agricultural chain.

“We have a generation of consumers who want to know what they’re getting and where it’s coming from. This is a demand issue, not a supply issue,” he said. 

One fell swoop
While there are companies hacking away at fixing parts of the farm-to-table journey, Giscombe believes it will take what he refers to as one fell swoop to fix what he sees as the “broken system.” 

This comes in the form of what he calls Agriculture as a Service (AaaS), a novel and unique combination of cutting-edge breakthroughs, among them high-tech greenhouse farming, blockchain to track products across the supply chain, and environmental monitoring systems that can collect and analyze billions of gigabytes of data points around the clock. 

Giscombe said that if all this sounds familiar, it’s because this is very much “big data.” But unlike what we’ve come to expect from the tech titans, the PLANT-AG platform is being built on an open source framework. In other words, it’s accessible for free to anyone engaged in any area of fruit and vegetable development and production.

In the coming months, consumers will be able to access verifiable information on the DNA of a produce item, the cultivation (planting, growing and harvesting), see inside the actual facilities where their lettuce, tomatoes, strawberries and more are being produced and even transported, all in real-time on their smartphone. When you talk about last-mile visibility across the fresh produce supply chain, PLANT-AG is looking to set the standard.

“If ever there was a time to ask society ‘what do you want to know about food’, this is it,” he said.

A lot of this comes down to what he would call the “front end” of the system. In the case of food safety, for example, instead of figuring out how a foodborne pathogen contaminated a crop, it will use all the gigabytes of information being collected to prevent it from happening in the first place.

Giscombe says that taking a preventive stand means making the process before shipment safer instead of reacting to outbreaks after they happen.

Taking care of the environment is also part of this. In contrast to outdoor farms, the greenhouse facilities are designed to optimize regenerative power sources that allow for the best environmental alignment based on availability by location. This includes, solar, and wind to  power expansive hydroponic systems. Hydroponics, which relies on using water instead of soil to grow crops, uses 15 times less water than conventional farming.

Meanwhile, the produce grown inside these greenhouses is protected not only from harmful weather but also many pesticides. Not to mention wild animal intrusions, many pests, and the dangers of agricultural run-off, and even the humans interacting with the produce who can bring contaminants in with them.

“Food safety is paramount to what we’re doing,” he said, pointing out that there are many overlaps with the Food Safety Modernization Act and PLANT-AG, especially when it comes to traceability. 

Go here (https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2020/02/safety-aspects-of-indoor-farming-signal-a-change-in-agriculture/#more-192514) for more information about food safety and greenhouse growing.

Go here (http://ceafoodsafety.org/) for information about the Controlled Environment Agriculture Food Safety Coalition (http://ceafoodsafety.org/). 

Fresh food year-round
There are advantages in all of this to be sure, but Giscombe said there’s another important one: “This sort of farming gives broader and more equitable access to communities and allows for year-round access to fresh produce grown in their area. And it’s this access, alongside the kind of efficiency you’d expect from Amazon, that will ensure your food is not only fresh, but with stipulations such as hold time for distributors being not not more than 72 hours, PLANT-AG products will be the freshest you can get. And that can translate into an important food-safety advantage compared to food that’s been trucked across the country under all sorts of weather and storage conditions. 

“No one can do it faster,” he said, referring to getting food delivered quickly.

More nutritious food is also part of this. 

Michael Barron, of AeroFarms, sums it up this way: “With the increased control you can produce more, and you can also have it be higher quality. You can change the nutrition of it. There is a lot more you can do. It gives you a lot more control over the crop and the production of the crop.”

The dreamer
Who is this dreamer who wants to transform the current agricultural system by launching a $9 billion infrastructure project that will close the knowledge gap about where our food comes from?

 A former investment banker at Merrill Lynch, Giscombe, 45, is the founder and CEO of PlANT-AG, whose first facility is a sprawling 700 acres of greenhouse production capacity that looks more like a Silicon Valley complex than a farm. There are plans to deliver a total 3,000 acres for the next five years. When asked for comment on dates, the only response given was that produce units will be available for the markets served by the first site by the fall of 2022.

Along the way in his former career in investment banking, Giscombe gained the rare ability to see how businesses are nurtured. With that, he decided it was time to step aside and make a change.

“I had a greater appreciation for market dynamics than in years past,” he said. 

Giscombe has put more than six years of his life into this and is currently raising $9 billion to make it happen. What’s driving him is the belief that more and more consumers want to know where what the food they’re buying comes from. 

To fund it, Giscombe said, “the capital marketplace wasn’t ready for a project like this,” which necessitated alternative thinking on capital structuring. Phase one of the massive infrastructure project totals just more than $9 billion, with less than $800 million being offered to investors outside of the green-bonds, brought to market by the over 100-year-old Chicago-based investment bank B.C. Ziegler and the sizable J.P. Morgan, whose commitment to sustainable finance and specifically green bonds leads the industry.

Institutional investors in this financing will be betting on Giscombe’s vision, the high powered team assembled around him, including former Victoria’s Secret PINK COO Richard Dent and former Pepsi CMO Cie Nicholson, that this network of high-tech greenhouses is in fact “The Future of Food.” 

The first site, a greenhouse complex just outside Jacksonville, FL, was originally slated to begin construction this month, but has been pushed back to allow for the expansion of the site which was originally 400 acres, but grew based on demand across the series area and to allow for the incorporation of technology, which Giscombe says was worth the wait. By fall 2022, the PLANT-AG expects to be supplying produce such as lettuce, tomatoes, eggplants, blueberries, strawberries, kale and sweet peppers to markets across the southeastern U.S. 

The USDA refers to greenhouses and controlled-environment agriculture, or CEA.

According to a report from Fast. MR, Marketing and Consulting, in 2019, 55 percent of the world’s population lived in urban areas, a proportion that is expected to increase to 68 percent by 2050. Yet, the population living in urban areas are demanding locally grown foods such as fruits, vegetables and meat.

CEA producers across the globe are setting up their production centers near urban consumers to take advantage of this trend because of their close proximity to urban centers.

It is estimated that the global controlled environment agriculture market will be worth more than USD $1,42,222.6 million by 2024. 

One thing we can say about indoor farming in 2020: it grew, both in market size and investment, says an article in “The Spoon.”

Into the future
Giscombe points out that there are many cities 500 miles or closer to the north Florida site. That translates into faster shipping and fresher food. More than that, it will taste better because the process by which it is grown was designed for quality and flavor and not to withstand the rigors of thousands of miles of travel. And it will be more nutritious for the same reason.

But that’s just the beginning. From there, the company has already secured contracts in more than nine other key markets to supply the south-central U.S. and the broader Eastern Seaboard by 2025. The goal is to fully decentralize production of “high-risk produce items” — lettuce, tomatoes, eggplants, blueberries,

strawberries, kale and sweet peppers, for example — via a widespread network that will allow food produced in the protected environments to be shipped to customers in the same region where the production sites are located. That, in turn, will help tackle the consolidation of the produce industry, which often leads to produce being shipped across the country instead of to markets close to where it was grown. 

Within four years, the company predicts it will be able to feed one-third of the United States with fresh produce that was growing a scant 72 hours earlier. Not only that, it expects to be able to do that with “consumer-friendly” prices. “No more $6-head-of-lettuce.” 

“If this isn’t accessible to everybody we (the industry) have failed in our responsibility to the consumer and society at large,” said Giscombe. 

Markedly reduced shipping costs are part of the cost savings achieved. 

The company has brought in other industry leaders such as VB Greenhouses Projects, a top Dutch builder, to build its mega sites, and Green Automation for leafy green production systems, among many others.  

Giscombe said that the goal is to optimize automation and human labor.

“It takes more than just operational knowledge to accomplish that,” he said. “It takes innovation and the humility to acknowledge the critical importance of experience, which is why we chose partners like these. Green Automation already had the premier lettuce system in which the seeding is done with an automated machine, and cutting the lettuce leaves is also automated, eliminating the need for human hands touching the item.”

All technicians which is what farmworkers are called, must adhere to stringent protocols before entering the production areas, all of are part of the safety-first approach to working in the protected environment.

Should a pathogen get into a greenhouse, that specific zone will be locked off, thus keeping one area separate from others. In addition, workers in one zone can’t intermingle with workers in other zones. And tools are also row-specific.

All of these precautions, and more, are based on the goal of keeping food safe for consumers, who are becoming increasingly aware of how important food safety is. 

Another advantage to controlled environment agriculture is reducing food waste. According to the USDA, moving production to controlled environments, such as greenhouses or vertical farming concepts, has the potential to reduce food waste by minimizing environmental exposure that can create cosmetic imperfections. 

“These production systems also allow production schedules to synchronize to the timing of typical consumer demand patterns rather than to favorable weather patterns, which may also reduce waste through closer alignment of the timing of the demand and supply of perishable produce,” the USDA researchers conclude.

How will consumers know
“Oh, trust me, they’ll know,” Giscombe said with regards to how PLANT-AG will set itself apart from the competition. “We don’t believe that the current agricultural system is sustainable nor even meeting the true needs of the consumer, and we aren’t going to pretend. No meaningful change has ever occurred in any industry without challenging the status quo, and we fully appreciate that fact.”

He said that’s reflected in the brand identity and “we’re excited about it.”

When looking at consumer demographics, he said that Gen Z (people born between 1995 and 2010)  is tomorrow’s consumer, and has a right to be heard.

“We’ve listened, and now we’re responding,” he said.

 In addition, PLANT-AG will be launching a nationwide billboard campaign in the end of May to educate consumers about their food to empower them to choose. And it will be launching its website this month also. 

“To be clear, this in not advertising,” he said. “If you buy our product, it will be because you made an educated choice, not because you were sold on a story. It (the approach taken in PLANT-AG’s educational campaign) might rattle people’s cages just a little.”

Another unique component of the company and its approach is it’s not-for-profit research and development arm, PLANT-4TMRW which plans to continue its work in education through partnerships across K-12, and advanced research initiatives with distinguished entities like the University of Florida – IFAS (Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences).

The solution is here
Giscobme believes the solution to transforming the current agricultural system is already here.

“Hidden in the technological advancements of our time and the given ability to source both qualitative and quantitative data in ways previously unavailable to us, is a ‘solution set’ that can  — if used objectively and made accessible to all — reconstitute the dynamic, which is the global food supply system,” he said. “The question that must be answered is how that is developed with the consumer and their needs at the center.”

“The world has changed,” he said, “and large corporations are looking to evolve because consumers are expecting more.”

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

“The outbreak now includes 11 confirmed cases, including six children under the age of 10, infected with bacteria that have been genetically linked. Counties with cases include Benton (1), King (8), Snohomish (1) and Walla Walla (1). Seven people have been hospitalized. Three people have developed hemolytic uremic syndrome, a serious complication,” according to a statement this morning from the Washington Department of Health.

Pure Eire Dairy recalled all of its organic PCC yogurt Friday, May 14, after outbreak patients reported eating it before becoming sick. All flavors and best-by dates of the 8-ounce and 16-ounce yogurt sold under the PCC brand has been recalled.

The company and public health officials are urging consumers to check their homes for the yogurt. Anyone who has the yogurt on hand should not eat it and should throw it away.

The following PCC deli items also contain PCC organic grass-fed yogurt:

• Yogurt (salad bar)

• Butter Chicken (hot bar and to-go casseroles)

• Spicy Yellow Curry Chicken (hot bar and to-go casseroles)

• Tzatziki Sauce (grain bowl bar, to-go spreads)

• Sticky Toffee Pudding (refrigerated desserts)

The state health department is coordinating with local health jurisdictions to identify cases related to the outbreak using genetic testing of the bacteria and investigating possible causes. In this type of investigation, public health staff interview patients, look for commonalities and work with local and federal partners to trace back foods that may have caused the illness.

About E. coli infections

Anyone who has eaten any of the implicated products and developed symptoms of E. coli infection should seek medical attention and tell their doctor about their possible exposure to the bacteria. Specific tests are required to diagnose the infections, which can mimic other illnesses.

The symptoms of E. coli infections vary for each person but often include severe stomach cramps and diarrhea, which is often bloody. Some patients may also have a fever. Most patients recover within five to seven days. Others can develop severe or life-threatening symptoms and complications, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

About 5 to 10 percent of those diagnosed with E. coli infections develop a potentially life-threatening kidney failure complication, known as a hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). Symptoms of HUS include fever, abdominal pain, feeling very tired, decreased frequency of urination, small unexplained bruises or bleeding, and pallor.

Many people with HUS recover within a few weeks, but some suffer permanent injuries or death. This condition can occur among people of any age but is most common in children younger than five years old because of their immature immune systems, older adults because of deteriorating immune systems, and people with compromised immune systems such as cancer patients.

People who experience HUS symptoms should immediately seek emergency medical care. People with HUS will likely be hospitalized because the condition can cause other serious and ongoing problems such as hypertension, chronic kidney disease, brain damage, and neurologic problems.

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

Now members of the  industry coalition can choose to be assessed for the CEA Leafy Greens Module, and upon successful completion will be allowed to use the CEA food-safe seal on certified product packaging.  The CEA Leafy Greens Module enables CEA growers to distinguish produce grown indoors while ensuring the highest standard of quality and compliance is achieved.

“The CEA industry is rapidly expanding and predicted to support more than 10 percent of U.S. vegetable and herb production by 2025,” said Rebecca Anderson, technical key account manager for GLOBALG.A.P. North America.

“The CEA FSC Leafy Green Module will set a new industry standard for CEA-grown produce while driving consumer awareness of the innovations happening in indoor agriculture today.”

The CEA Food Safety Coalition consists of leaders in the controlled environment agriculture industry, according to coalition officials. Founded in 2019 to distinguish CEA-produced greens from field-grown greens that have been at the center of many recalls, the coalition worked to educate the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration about the limited risk of contamination for indoor produced leafy greens. That action helped ensure that CEA-produced leafy greens remained on store shelves during later lettuce recalls, coalition leaders say.

“Current food safety standards were written for the field, and many do not address the unique attributes of controlled, indoor environments,” said Marni Karlin, executive director of the Coalition.

“This new certification process and the accompanying on-pack seal helps to unify CEA growers while also differentiating them from traditional field agriculture. It also better informs consumers and provides a quick-glance image to know when produce has been grown safely indoors, with a high standard of quality and without some of the hazards of the field, such as potential contamination from animal byproducts.”

The CEA Leafy Greens Module is measured against science-based criteria and is an add-on to existing compliance with an underlying Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) recognized food safety standards.

Controlled environment agriculture takes a technology-based approach to produce optimal growing conditions inside controlled environments such as greenhouses and indoor vertical farms. Plants are typically grown year-round using hydroponic, aeroponic or aquaponic methods, without the need for pesticides. The crops are unaffected by climate or weather and safe from animal and bird intrusions. 

The certification program is available to all CEA FSC members and must be completed annually. CEA growers can be assessed for multiple sites in four key areas:

• Hazard analysis — use of water, nutrients, growing media, seeds, inputs, site control and other relevant factors;
• Water — all contact with the plant and with food contact surfaces. The use of recirculating water will require a continuing hazard analysis. Will also require zone-based environmental monitoring based on company-specific risk assessments;
• Site control, infrastructure and system design — all food contact surfaces and adjacent food contact surfaces, including plant containers. Will also assess associated farm physical hazards, including lighting, robotics, sensors, equipment and utensils, etc.
• Pesticide use and testing — the use of pesticides or herbicides during the plant life cycle.

More about the certification and auditing process can be found here.

About the CEA Food Safety Coalition
The CEA Food Safety Coalition was founded in 2019 to represent the interests of CEA leafy greens growers in developing credible and appropriate food safety standards while educating consumers and regulators alike on the value of controlled environment agriculture. The CEA Food Safety Coalition is headquartered in Washington D.C.and represents companies with facilities and distribution in more than 21 states. More information can be found on their website.

Before April 1, it looked like the Colorado General Assembly was about to send Senate Bill 21-079 to the governor for his signature. The new law takes effect immediately with his signature. It would permit Colorado consumers to buy shares of animals for eating that have not been inspected and are from Colorado producers who are not licensed.

The hold-up on the legislation, now going on two weeks, occurs because the Colorado House and Senate passed slightly different versions of SB-21-079.

The Senate did not concur on House amendments but instead requested that the House join them in naming conferees for a conference committee. The conference committee met for the first time Monday and will offer a report today on the Senate Floor.

The House amendments that produced the hang-up involve only 15 lines in the five-page bill. In three lines, the amendment adds Elk to the long list of animals covered by the deregulation bill. The final 12 lines are more significant involving disclaimer policies.

The bill itself is a deregulatory policy, providing for direct sales to consumers by farmers and ranchers,

SB-21-079 allows a person to sell without licenses or inspections certain animals or animal shares without oversight by public health agencies. The disclaimer requirements.

At the point of sale, the House amendments call for signage explaining the sales are not subject to certain state safety regulation. The point of sale disclaimer might also be in the form of a signed written document or the use of placards or signs.

Animals that could be sold in shares, under the law, are cattle, calves, sheep, bison, goats, hogs, rabbits, and likely elk. Animal shares sales are limited to buyers and sellers in Colorado, with deliveries directly to the “end consumer.”

Resales aren’t allowed under the bill, and the seller has no civil liability should the product make someone sick.

The only regulatory authority left in the direct sale is the Colorado Department of Agriculture (CDA) and the State Board of Stock Inspection. CDA’s Brand Board remains responsible for one inspection before slaughter.

Once the joint conference committee reaches an agreement, both Houses will have to vote on the bill again. It is officially known as the “Ranch to Plate Act.”

The minimum for an animal share is one percent.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis was a member of the “Food Freedom” caucus when he was in Congress and will likely sign SB 21-079 as soon as it reaches his desk.

The Colorado General Assembly is scheduled to remain in session until May 13.

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

If you’re a farmer who has something customers want, it only makes sense to do your best to get it to them. Unless, of course, if it’s something that’s illegal to sell in your state — something like raw butter, for example.

That’s the dilemma that Billie Johnson, a dairy farmer in eastern Oregon, is facing. She says there are businesses that want to buy her farm’s unpasteurized, raw butter, but because Oregon doesn’t allow retail sales of raw butter, she’s had to turn to politics in search of a solution.

For the second year in a row, she has gone to the state Capitol in hopes of resolving this issue This year she’s pitching a plea for the passage of House Bill 2612, which would allow for the sale of butter made from milk that hasn’t been pasteurized. The bill would also direct the state’s Agriculture Department to establish grades and standards for such butter.

Supporters of the bill say it will give new options to dairy farmers and consumers without sacrificing food safety.

Violations of the regulations would be punishable by up to a year in prison, a criminal fine of up to $6,250 and a civil penalty of up to $10,000.

But that doesn’t scare Johnson, simply because she believes that raw butter is safe. So safe, in fact, that she calls it “brain food.”

“I want anyone who wants it to be able to get it,” she said. “I want to be able to sell it anywhere in the state where there’s a market for it.”

“We have a lot of demand for raw butter,” she told legislators during a recent hearing before the Oregon House Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee.

On the national level, the Food and Drug Agency has banned raw butter and other unpasteurized, raw dairy products — except aged cheese — from being transported or sold across state lines.

In comments about the Oregon bill, Lapsley McAfee of Raw Farm (originally Organic Pastures Dairy Company) in California said that in his state, raw butter is sold in 500 stores.

“It is a top seller,” he said. Describing it as a low risk food, he said that it’s considerably safer than raw milk. Not only that, he said there have been no illnesses associated with it in the past 10 years in CDC’s database.

“All people should be able to enjoy the healthful benefits of raw butter,” he said.

Mark McAfee, owner of Raw Farm, said that his dairy can’t make enough unpasteurized butter to meet demand “at this point.” In the past 20 years, it has sold more than 2 million pounds of raw butter without any known incidents. Yet even though he can legally sell his raw butter in California, he cannot ship it out of state.

While the retail sale of raw butter is prohibited in Oregon, it is legal in 11 states. And selling it directly to customers is legal in three states. However, the Food & Drug Agency prohibits it from being sold across state lines.

“Businesses are asking us for this product,” Johnson said during a recent hearing before the House Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee.

The food safety debate
While raw-butter consumers and advocates give it an enthusiastic thumbs up, Tami Kerr, executive director of The Oregon Dairy Farmers Association, urged lawmakers to carefully consider the oversight and regulation of products such as raw butter.

“If people get sick from it, it gives the industry a black eye,” she said, referring to dairy in general. “And it’s not so much a matter of if but when.”

“We understand the desire of some small producers and their markets to have access to raw products, including butter,” she said. “We also understand the value of pasteurization and combating micro-organisms in retail products.”

Those microorganisms include E. coli, Listeria and Salmonella, foodborne organisms that can get people sick, very sick, or even kill them.

But to Johnson, providing raw milk and raw milk products for people is all about the survival of the family farm. As part of that, food safety is paramount.

“It’s a way of developing a way to get what we produce on the farm directly to consumers,” she said.

Saving the farm
Johnson’s farm, Windy Acres Dairy Farm (https://www.windyacresdairy.com) in Eastern Oregon, has 70 cows, although not all of them are milkers. The farm is a herd share, which means that members own part of it. Besides raw butter, it produces raw milk, kefir, yogurt, cream and aged cheese — “anything you can think of that can be made with raw milk,” Johnson says.

Under a herdshare arrangement, members don’t buy any of the dairy’s products because they’re part-owners of it. This is a way that dairies can offer raw milk and other raw milk products without being under the state’s Agriculture Department’s regulations. Some people call it a loophole that lets them get away with producing raw-milk products that are prohibited under state law. It also frees them from inspections.

But to Johnson and other raw-milk dairy producers, herd shares are a way to stay in business. And that’s where raw butter comes into the picture. Considering the strong demand for it, to be able to sell it to restaurants, coffee shops, grocery stores and other outlets would help flush more money into the dairy’s bottomline.

And people are willing to pay a pretty penny for it: $16 a loaf. (A loaf is equivalent to a pound.)

“It’s all in the eyes of the beholder,” Johnson said about the price of raw butter. “It you value your health, you’ll value your food.”

She also said that it is “real food” and has better flavor than the conventional butter you buy in the store.

Proponents say that the passage of HB 2612 would give dairy farmers a better shot at making a living and could help stem the decline in the number of Oregon dairy farms. In 1992 Oregon had 1,900 farms with dairy cows, according to USDA data; the latest figures from the Oregon Dairy Farmers Association shows there are 194 dairy farms left in the state.

Johnson said being able to buy raw butter in retail outlets would help keep customers from  traveling to northern California to buy it. And that, in turn, would help keep more of the state’s food dollars in the state.

If the bill were to be adopted, it would go into effect on the 91st day after the session has adjourned in June.

To follow the progress of this bill, click here.

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