Expiration dates mean quality, not safety

The local grocery store where I earned minimum wage in my high school days closed down after I went off to college because it could no longer afford to compete with the Wal-Mart Supercenter in the next town.

I suppose confining the sale of expired goods to a single grocery cart at the front of the store really limited our earning potential.

Likewise, confining my ideas on the safety of out-of-date food to simple assumptions really limited my family’s money-saving potential. In my naivety, I assumed that dates on food referred to how long they were safe to eat.

This is not true.

Most dates provided by manufacturers on packages of food are just an indication of when the quality of the item will start to decline and—in the majority of cases—foods will remain safe past the date given.

This is why people are comfortable buying expired foods at discounted prices from online sellers in the UK and local groceries in Pennsylvania.

Many food safety authorities feel that pregnant women should be more careful than these buyers, though. Agencies in Europe, New Zealand, and Australia, each tell pregnant women to avoid food past their ‘use by’ dates protect themselves and their babies from harm.

I am certainly not the foremost authority on the diet of a pregnant woman. But in the words of my new favorite USDA FSIS fact sheet,

“‘Use-by’ dates usually refer to best quality and are not safety dates.”

Expiration dates don’t really mean much

While working at the hometown grocery store in high school, I spent one summer cleaning the shelves. As I removed and dusted each item and shelf, I would put the goods I found had expired in a grocery cart up front for half off.

That cart cleared out about as fast as I could fill it.

Even at that time (pre-Food Science degree and Barfblogger status), the huge demand for those products baffled me. Weren’t the dates there for a reason: to protect consumers from bad product?

The FDA says,

“Selling food past the expiration date [on most products] is not a violation of FDA’s regulations or law.”

and

“When storage conditions have been optimal, many foods are acceptable in terms of taste and other quality characteristics for periods of time beyond the expiration date printed on the label, and also are safe to eat.”

Shoppers at the local grocery told me they were never afraid of getting sick. They said some things had less flavor or color, but the savings was always worth the sacrifice.

A USDA FSIS fact sheet explains,

“Except for infant formula and some baby food, product dating is not generally required by Federal regulations.”

and

“…even if the date expires during home storage, a product should be safe, wholesome and of good quality — if handled properly and kept at 40° F or below.”

So, wait… what is the purpose of providing expiration dates? Perhaps they only serve to make good food affordable in tough economic times.

The UK Telegraph reported recently that online retailer Approved Food is doing big business with the expired cart idea.

As the self-proclaimed “BIGGEST online sellers of clearance, short-dated and out-of-date food & drink” in the UK, Approved Food can’t even keep up with their demand.

A notice on Approved Food’s website today said,

“We currently have a 7-day backlog of orders that are to be processed… We strongly recommend that you place your order next week when we will have more items [for sale]."

King Nut stops talking

King Nut is evidently done talking about peanut butter.

Following a comprehensive recall by Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) of 21 lots of its peanut butter—including the King Nut product found by the Minnesota Departments of Health and Agriculture to contain a strain of Salmonella genetically identical to that found in over 425 sick people across the nation—King Nut deferred all further questions about the outbreak to PCA.

Clamming up is not good risk communication.

However, after a couple unfounded claims, it may be wiser that King Nut stop talking.

King Nut’s last statement to the press was a letter from President and CEO Martin Kanan refuting the suggestion that contaminated King Nut peanut butter could have caused people in 43 different states to become sick.

Kanan argued, in bold font,

“We only distribute in seven states and therefore King Nut peanut butter could not possibly be the source of a nationwide outbreak of salmonella.
(King Nut peanut butter is distributed to food service companies in Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan, North Dakota, Arizona, Idaho and New Hampshire.)”

Really? It couldn’t possibly? How do you know?

Do you track the consumption of all the peanut butter you distribute? Many states with sick people share borders with those seven states, don’t they? Maybe it’s not probable that all 425 people were sickened by King Nut peanut butter, but it’s still possible.

It’s a better idea to talk intelligently about those small possibilities than to make big claims that can’t really be proven.

Another silly claim I noticed was found upon closer inspection of the January 10 press release. There, I realized Kanan did say “sorry” once. But he also said,

“All other King Nut products are safe and not included in this voluntary recall.”

Really? They’re all safe? How do you know?

Do you have data? The pinky promise (i.e. certificate of safety) PCA gave you didn’t seem to hold up, so why should we believe you?

Talking about the possible risks—however minute—is the only way to gain the trust of an intelligent public. Pushing unfounded beliefs or assumptions onto society is just one effective way to create chaos.

Just ask the South Koreans.
 

Recycling used chopsticks

A Japanese man spent over 3 months gluing together used chopsticks to make a canoe.

Shuhei Ogawara collected the 7,382 chopsticks from the cafeteria at the city hall where he worked. The collection took two years.

Ogawara commented that simply disposing of the chopsticks were a waste of perfectly good wood.

A man in Beijing with the same thought was once caught packaging and selling used chopsticks without any form of disinfection.

I prefer the boat idea.
 

Talking about peanut butter

I know Doug has some beef with peanut butter. He’s got every right to avoid the foods he can’t trust to keep his family healthy.

I, on the other hand, have a great relationship with peanut butter. It’s the nutrition that keeps me in. Once, for a high school project, I served a church full of friends and family a slew of dishes made with peanut butter and then told them how they were being saved from heart disease, breast cancer, and diabetes with those delicious monounsaturated fats and a low glycemic index.

This was after writing a 20-page paper on the nutritional excellence of the dietary staple. (Elizabeth Weise of USA Today called it a “sandwich spread”, but that’s entirely too limiting… maybe even offensive.)

Nutrition, however, is no consolation to people sickened by Salmonella contamination. Barfing (or even barfing potential) can turn anyone against a food pretty fast.

That would be why it was so important for the companies involved to start talking to consumers at the first sign of a connection between sick people and King Nut peanut butter.

King Nut Companies was first up, making it abundantly clear that the peanut butter in question “is NOT manufactured by King Nut,” but is merely distributed by them.

In another release, King Nut explained,

“Before distributing peanut butter, we require certification from our supplier that the product has been tested and is safe.”

While that fact relieves them of some responsibility, it does NOT remove all of it. Acquiring food from safe sources is expected of the company with their name on the jar.

Sheesh.

I felt a little more love coming from Peanut Corporation of America (PCA), who manufactured the peanut butter. Their press release opened with an expression of “deep concern about the apparent finding of salmonella in a container of one of its products.”

PCA’s statement went on to explain,

“PCAs facility and products are frequently and rigorously tested for salmonella and other microbiological contamination, including hourly sampling during processing and subsequent analysis by an outside, independent laboratory. No salmonella has ever been found in any of PCAs product.”

The public disclosure of product and environmental sampling is important in good risk communication. I hope to see more of this as the investigation into the source of the contamination continues.
 

Casey the blogger and inappropriate instruments

I got my start on barfblog more than a year ago as a senior in Food Science at K-State when I went to a club picnic with my boyfriend and gasped at an offensive tub of tater salad.

Two days later I gasped again…  this time at an Associated Press story in which a Chinese buffet worker was spied stomping garlic with his boots behind the restaurant. Aghast, I asked,

“Could a fellow eater like myself be so distracted from the bacterial ramifications of using one’s shoes as a culinary instrument?”

Pretty soon I was a regular. Then I was graduated, married, and working with Doug full-time… and far too busy to formulate a blog (or some such nonsense).

So, today you’re privy to my second debut on barfblog.

This jaw-dropping tale is set at another get-together with my husband (same great guy, just a new title). And, interestingly, another use of inappropriate instruments. This one was a little closer to home:

As our hostess busied herself preparing desserts and planning her meal, she realized the spiral ham she purchased was too large for her Crock Pot. It would have to be cut to fit (finished product shown at left).
 

Lacking your standard bone saw, she enlisted the help of her husband… and his reciprocating saw.

She carefully washed the blade in hot, soapy water and assured her husband’s hands were clean. (He had been in the garage, after all.) Then he set to work.

She saw my eyes widen in disbelief and started to apologize, explaining she had no other choice. I quickly smiled and said,

“Oh, I understand. But don’t think for a second I won’t blog about this!”

The moral of the story is: Invest in some appropriate instruments for use with food, if you want to ensure your cooking won’t cause dinner guests to barf.

But don’t eat poop, folks. Wash your hands. And your reciprocating saw, if necessary.

 

Even animal lovers can get E. coli

Nathan Dalenberg was quite annoyed this week to find a letter from Kathryn Dalenberg (no relation) in the Gadsden Times in Alabama lamenting the inhumane handling of livestock at US slaughter facilities.

In his own letter today, Nathan points out that not all facilities are the same and cites the extensive steps his facility takes to ensure humane handling by all employees. "I myself am a big animal lover," he says, "and would not tolerate animal cruelty in my facility."

Nathan goes on to say that "just because I kill animals for a living and also eat them doesn’t mean I don’t love them."
 
Kathryn is an admitted vegetarian. Unfortunately for her, that doesn’t make her food any safer. As Nathan wrote: "Hope she never ate any of the E. coli contaminated spinach."

Here’s another line from Nathan that I also enjoyed: "When people speak or write about things they don’t know or haven’t seen firsthand, it makes them seem somewhat foolish."

Yep. Even animal lovers can get E. coli. Or Mad Cow… So whatever you choose to eat, please handle it properly. And don’t eat poop.

Health department sued over inspection

The White County Health Department is being sued by a restaurant they temporarily closed due to a poor inspection. Owners of Mo’s Restaurant in Monticello, Indiana, claim that following inspections of their restaurant, health department employees "negligently and/or intentionally prepar[ed] a false and defamatory Food Inspection Report" on three different occasions.

A story in the town’s Herald-Journal says, "The lawsuit seeks a judgment against the defendants in an amount sufficient to compensate Drake and Liebner for their losses, including permanent and temporary damage, loss of value, loss of profits, loss of use, costs of repair and mental and emotional stress, as well as "such further relief as the court deems appropriate."

Kosher certification is causing consumer confidence in processors

Heather Sokoloff writes in today’s Globe and Mail that "As health-savvy consumers become more concerned about what is in their food, many non-Jews are equating kosher with safety and quality."

Doug begs to differ and wrote last week that "Fancy food does not mean safe food," even when the establishments are certified as kosher.

"The rabbi is more thorough than the guy from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency,"  insists a
nut- and dairy-free snack producer in Victoria.

Another processor claims that the four annual surprise inspections by the rabbi to her facility have caused her to "be more careful about plant maintenance and cleanliness than any government [inspection]."

The Orthodox Union, North America’s largest certifier of kosher foods, is now overseeing production at 6,000 facilities in 85 countries around the world. Real or imagined, consumer confidence created by producers’ kosher certifications seem to be great for business.

Listeria found in pasteurized milk

Two elderly men died from listeriosis contracted from contaminated milk from Whittier Farms in Shrewsbury, Mass. in June and October. Just this week, state health officials warned consumers not to drink milk from the farm, while they investigated the source of contamination.

Officials today announced that the pasteurization process at the dairy was found to be working properly and that contamination must have occurred after the milk was pasteurized.

Doctor Alfred DeMaria, the state director of communicable disease control, says the dairy appeared to do everything right.

The dairy continues to suspend operations and work with officials to pinpoint the source of the deadly listeria.