Tag Archives: organic

Pet food porn

Posted on by
1

With an appeal to the simplistic, Barbara Laino says, “We know processed foods are wrong for us. It has to be wrong for them. If you can feed yourself healthily and your children, then you can feed your pets healthily, too. It really isn’t that hard.”

Laino is talking about the standard recipe she uses to feed her Alaskan malamute, another dog and three cats in her house for around 10 days: grind 40 pounds of pasture-raised chicken necks with another 20 pounds of chicken giblets. To this, she adds five pounds of carrots, a whole cabbage and several other fruits, all from the organic fields of Midsummer Farm, Ms. Laino’s farm in Warwick, N.Y. Finally, she blends the mix with herbs and supplements.

She tells the New York Times in a piece of pet food porn that she wants for her pets what she wants for herself: a healthy diet of unprocessed organic foods. And now she teaches others.

Cesar Millan, host of the television show “The Dog Whisperer,” says, “The dog has always been a mirror of the human style of life. Organic has become a new fashion, a new style of living.”

Cesar got the lifestyle bit right, because that is all it is; as for microbiological safety, the cross-contamination risks alone in the food prep sound daunting.

Nancy K. Cook, the vice president at the Pet Food Institute, a trade association for commercial pet food makers, cautions pet owners that it is hard to create a balanced diet at home, since dogs and cats have specific nutritional requirements.

Joseph J. Wakshlag, a clinical nutritionist at the Baker Institute for Animal Health at Cornell University, said that if pets are not fed the correct balance of proteins, fats, minerals and vitamins, they can experience several health disorders, including anemia, broken bones and loss of teeth from lack of calcium.

Korinn Saker, a clinical nutritionist at the College of Veterinary Medicine at North Carolina State University, who treats animals at the school’s teaching hospital, said she was not against people cooking for their pets, but that if it was not done correctly, the consequences could be harmful.

She has seen several dogs with adverse effects from unbalanced homemade pet food diets, including a German shepherd puppy “who was walking on its elbows because it had no strength in its bones,” she said. The dog, it turned out, was not getting enough calcium.

Dr. Saker, asked to analyze the recipe from Ms. Laino’s workshop, found that it was lacking in a number of nutrients recommended by the Association of American Feed Control Officials.

Ms. Laino said she rejects the standards recommended by the feed association, and suggested that her recipe might be richer in certain nutrients because the ingredients are organic.

Hucksterism is alive and well for Barbara Laino and the N.Y. Times.
 

Fantastical food safety tales

Posted on by
Reply

Examiner.com is some web site that has published fantastical food safety tales over the years.

A correspondent from Tampa Bay writes that, “by pledging to only use wholesome, organic foods … the chance of foodborne illness is lessened as you are buying from a trusted source. Buy organic when possible – Markets such as Whole Foods and your local farmers market are good sources for quality earth-grown produce."

Whole Foods sucks at food safety. Organic is a production standard that has nothing to do with food safety. Enjoy the Armstrong and Miller Farmer’s Market. 

Whole Foods hucksterism

Posted on by
1

Starting a sentence with, ‘well’ may be how people talk but it’s just sloppy writing.

And terrible writing is proliferating all over the Internet.

The Whole Story blog of Whole Foods is a favorite target. It must be a challenge to keep getting people to pay a premium for crap.

Today, they put aside the pretentions and said this is why you should pay more – for crap.

“Well, our turkey standards prohibit animal by-products in feed and require space for normal turkey behavior. So isn’t it worth it that when a turkey is raised with these standards its meat costs more?”

I’m interested in turkey that doesn’t make me barf. Can you provide that?

Seeduction bread or whole wheat sandwich bread made without artificial dough conditioners and preservatives is about 14¢ more per sandwich compared to leading conventional brand whole wheat sandwich bread.

I’m a fan of chemistry, Is Whole Foods a fan of witchcraft?

Organic Mustard (and I have no idea why the ingredients are capitalized, must be that unique Whole Foods writing style) helps you avoid exposure to pesticides with your sandwich and is less than 2¢ more per serving.

Organic is a production standard that has huge tolerances for synthetic chemicals and any kind of so-called natural chemicals.

Organic Lettuce is another good choice for your health and that of the planet and costs about $1.00 more per head.

Why? Is it safer? No. Do the production methods extract less of a toll on the soil? No.

Tomatoes taste best (and have more nutrients) when they are picked ripe, so look for local and in season, as well as organic. Local may cost less, organic about 20% more.

Food porn, nothing to back this up.

Lunchmeat that doesn’t contain artificial colors, flavors or preservatives such as added synthetic nitrates or nitrites and from animals raised to meet our animal welfare standards- you get all that for about 25¢ more per slice.

This has nothing to do with food safety. Whole Foods is familiar with listeria?
 

Nosestretcher alert: Organic Trade Association tells FDA organics a national model for food safety

Posted on by
Reply

Thanks to Tom Karst of The Packer for taking the time to read submissions to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as the agency contemplates preventative controls for fresh produce.

Christine Bushway, Executive Director of the Organic Trade Association (OTA) says “organic agriculture is the most highly regulated system of agricultural production in the U.S., and the USDA-accredited verification system, especially its recordkeeping and inspection requirements, should be recognized and considered by FDA when drafting rules requiring similar features.”

Lots of record-keeping does not mean lots of food safety.

Bushway also says, “the organic system offers an integrated process approach to preventive food safety practices that could stand as a national model for both farming and manufacturing operations. The organic process already contains many steps that contribute to food safety processes and it can be easily integrated into a more elaborate food safety system – especially in processing.”

That’s true, and we said as much back in 2004 (see below). But why is it up to everyone else; why don’t organic processes expand so they can be considered a more rigorous or even certifiable food safety program?

The potential for microbial contamination along the food production chain exists for both conventional and organic food products. Water quality, soil amendments such as composted manure and general sanitation need to be monitored and verified in any food production system. Organic certification is not a food safety certification.

Microbial food safety considerations for organic produce production: an analysis of Canadian Organic Production Standards compared with U.S. FDA guidelines for microbial food safety,” by K.A. Blaine and D.A. Powell. Food Protection Trends 24, no. 4 (2004): pp. 246-252.

Increased attention has been focused on fresh fruits and vegetables, especially raw or minimally processed, as a significant source of foodborne illness. Outbreaks have been linked to both conventionally and organically grown produce. This paper outlines the risks associated with fresh produce, common pathways of contamination, and current trends in organic agriculture. The primary objective was to determine whether the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) organic standard is consistent with the production of microbiologically safe produce and to examine the potential for the CGSB organic standard to include considerations for microbial food safety. This objective was achieved by examining information gaps between the US Food and Drug Administration on-farm food safety guidelines and the organic standard developed by the CGSB. This examination showed a significant degree of commonality and, in some cases, it was demonstrated that microbial food safety standards are achieved indirectly under organic production. The main difference between the U.S. guidelines and the CGSB standard is the focus on the process rather than the safety of the final product,and the lack of discussion of microbial considerations in the CGSB standard. Specific omissions include worker hygiene and recommendations for safe use of processing and irrigation water. The production of safe food is the responsibility of everyone in the farm-to-fork chain. With established relationships between growers and regulatory infrastructure, the CGSB organic standard would be an ideal vehicle for providing organic growers with information and guidelines on identifying and controlling microbial hazards on their produce.
 

Study finds media may be overhyping benefits of organic food, agriculture

Posted on by
Reply

News accounts of organic agriculture and organic food are more likely to be positive than negative and inaccurately claim organic food is safer, according to Kansas State University’s Doug Powell.

Powell, an associate professor of food safety, is the co-author of "Coverage of organic agriculture in North American newspapers: Media — linking food safety, the environment, human health and organic agriculture," just published in the British Food Journal.

The paper is based on a study Powell conducted from 1999-2004 with two colleagues at the University of Guelph in Canada, Stacey Cahill and Katija Morley. Cahill was one of Powell’s students at the time.

The team explored how topics of organic food and agriculture were discussed in five North American newspapers. Using the content analysis technique, the 618 articles collected were analyzed for topic, tone and theme regarding food safety, environmental concerns and human health.

The prominent topics of the articles were genetic engineering, pesticides and organic farming, Powell said.

The analysis found 41.4 percent of the articles had a neutral tone toward organic agriculture and food, 36.9 percent had a positive tone, 15.5 percent were mixed and 6.1 percent were negative, Powell said.

"We concluded that articles about organic production in the selected time period were seldom negative," he said. "Organic agriculture was often portrayed in the media as an alternative to allegedly unsafe and environmentally damaging modern agriculture practices. That means organic was being defined by what it isn’t, rather than what it is."

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has repeatedly stated that the organic standard is a verification of production methods and not a food safety claim, Powell said.

"Food safety was the least important in the media discussion of organic agriculture," Powell said. "The finding that 50 percent of food safety-themed statements in news articles were positive with respect to organic agriculture, while 81 percent of health-themed statements and 90 percent of environment-themed statements were positive toward organic food, indicates an uncritical press."
Analysis of articles over time, among media outlets and by topic, allows for understanding of media reporting on the subject and provides insight into the way the public is influenced by news coverage of organic food and agriculture, Powell said.

The article is available at:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1871116&show=abstract.

The fawning media coverage of organic food

Posted on by
1

In the early part of the 2000s, media outlets seemed to be co-opted by the fantastical claims of the organic food sector. Organic was portrayed as safer, healthier and better for the environment.

There wasn’t a lot of data.

There was a lot of food porn.

I had a student review and code 618 newspaper stories – it seems so quaint now, there were newspapers back then — reporting on or referencing organic food and organic agriculture from five North American media outlets from 1999-2004.

The paper was published in the British Food Journal yesterday.

Stacey found that of the 618 stories, 41.1 per cent were coded as being neutral, 36.9 per cent positive, 15.5 per cent mixed and 6.1 per cent negative.

From the discussion:

“It was determined that organic agriculture was often portrayed in the media as an alternative to allegedly unsafe and environmentally damaging modern agriculture practices — organic was defined by what it isn’t, rather than what it is. The National Post, for instance, published an article in 2002 about a report by Environmental Defence Canada, which had interpreted food safety data from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and found that many products such as maple syrup and eggs did not meet safety standards. The article stated that, “to avoid health problems, Mary McGrath, the group’s director of research, suggested consumers consider purchasing organic or ecologically grown produce” (Sokoloff, 2002). Such unsubstantiated comments have become endemic in media coverage of all things organic.

“The stories examined in this analysis frequently suggested organic production was void of many of the challenges faced by large-scale, modern agriculture, including pesticide residue, mad cow disease and genetic engineering.

Of the themes health, safety and environment, food safety was the least important in the discussion of organic agriculture in the media. … The finding that 50 per cent of food safety-themed statements in news articles were positive with respect to organic agriculture, while 81 per cent of health-themed statements and 90 per cent of environment-themed statements were positive towards organic food, indicates an uncritical press. USDA has repeatedly stated that the organic standard is a verification of production methods and not a food safety claim: ‘National standards for organic food will be released soon, and they will make clear that such products aren’t safer or more nutritious than conventional products, Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman says’ (Brasher, 2000).”

The abstract is below.

Coverage of organic agriculture in North American newspapers: Media: linking food safety, the environment, human health and organic agriculture19.jul.10British Food Journal, Vol. 112 Iss: 7, pp.710 – 722
Stacey Cahill, Katija Morley, Douglas A. Powell
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1871116&show=abstract
Abstract
Purpose – The project explored the ways in which the topics of organic food and agriculture are discussed in representative North American media outlets in reference to food safety, environmental concerns, and human health.
Design/methodology/approach – Articles from five newspapers were collected and coded using the content analysis technique and analyzed for topic, tone, and theme.
Findings – For a six-year time period, 618 articles on organic food and organic agriculture are analyzed and the prominent topics are found to be genetic engineering, pesticides, and organic farming. Articles with a neutral tone with respect to organic agriculture and food accounted for 41.4 percent of the articles, while positively toned articles garnered 36.9 percent. The themes human health, food safety, and environmental concerns were discussed with positive reference to organic food and agriculture in 81, 50, and 90 percent, respectively, of comments pulled from the articles.
Practical implications – Analysis of these articles over time, between media outlets and by topic allows for understanding of media reporting on the subject and provides insight into the way the public is influenced by news coverage of organic food and agriculture.
Originality/value – Research that analyzes media coverage for how it portrays the topic of organic food and organic agriculture with respect to health, food safety, and environmental concern, and concludes that articles about organic production in the selected time period are seldom negative.

Is grass-fed and organic beef microbiologically safer than conventional? No

Posted on by
1

There are any number of agricultural production systems out there, each with their own way of making a buck and each with a certain level of hucksterism involved. I focus on whether the system and the end product are microbiologically safe. The best producers use techniques – regardless of political ideology – that fit best in their production system in their geographic location.

A new study in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease compared bacterial contamination rates and antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from 50 grass-fed and 50 conventionally produced beef products. The researchers from Purdue University and China concluded there was no safety advantage for either group.

The abstract is below:

Contamination rates and antimicrobial resistance in bacteria isolated from “grass-fed” labeled beef products
Foodborne Pathogens and Disease
Jiayi Zhang, Samantha K. Wall, Li Xu, Paul D. Ebner
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/fpd.2010.0562
Abstract
Grass-fed and organic beef products make up a growing share of the beef market in the United States. While processing, animal handling, and farm management play large roles in determining the safety of final beef products, grass-fed beef products are often marketed as safer alternatives to grain-finished beef products based on the potential effects of all-forage diets on host microbiota. We conducted a series of experiments examining bacterial contamination rates in 50 beef products labeled as “grass-fed” versus 50 conventionally raised retail beef products. Coliform concentrations did not differ between conventional and grass-fed beef (conventional: 2.6 log10 CFU/mL rinsate; grass-fed: 2.7 log10 CFU/mL rinsate). The percentages of Escherichia coli positive samples did not differ between the two groups (44% vs. 44%). Enterococcus spp. were frequently isolated from both grass-fed beef products (44%) and conventional beef products (62%; p=0.07). No Salmonella or E. coli O157:H7 isolates were recovered from any of the meat samples. Enterococcus spp. isolates from conventional beef were more frequently resistant to daptomycin and linezolid (p<0.05). Resistance to some antimicrobials (e.g., chloramphenicol, erythromycin, flavomycin, penicillin, and tetracyline) was high in Enterococcus spp. isolated from both conventional and grass-fed beef. There were no differences in the percentages of antimicrobial resistant E. coli isolates between the two groups. Taken together, these data indicate that there are no clear food safety advantages to grass-fed beef products over conventional beef products.
 

Small ag, farmer’s markets, conspiracies and trust; show me the data

Posted on by
Reply

I started going to the farmer’s market in Guelph, Ontario, Canada, in the fall of 1983. I’d been to other markets, lots of farmers in the family, but for the first time I lived close to a downtown market (right, San Francisco market, 2009). For my third year as an undergraduate university student — what Americans would call my junior year — I had a room that used to be the garage in a semi-detached sorta house and was exceedingly cold in the winter. I lived with a mom and her 8-year-old son, and got free rent in exchange for a couple of hours of child care in the early evenings.

I remained a regular at the market, through to 1988, and enjoyed chatting with farmers, and quickly discovered the best producers were eager and open to discuss any inquiries about their food. When I returned to live in Guelph in 1997, I went to the market a few times but soon soured on the activity. Some of the same producers were there, but the space had largely become a political and gimmick-filled flea market.

There was a new apple guy, who was selling unpasteurized apple cider in the post-Odwalla world, referring to the 1996 outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 in Odwalla juice containing unpasteurized apple cider that sickened 70 and killed a 16-month old in the U.S. He had installed his own microbiology lab on the farm, and was happy to share test results and methodology. That’s the kind of trust I’m looking for.

I’ve been to lots of other markets over the years (left, Toulouse), but find I can get the same shared social space and conversations about food at a supermarket. It’s not trendy, but it’s my experience.

The San Jose Mercury News reports this morning that small, organic farmers like Tom Willey who supplies 800 local families and West Coast retailers with a year-round supply of fresh produce, say stricter food-safety regulations, developed after a cluster of outbreaks of bacterial contamination in spinach and lettuce in 2006, threaten the principles upon which their farms are based.

The story says that Willey already adheres to the voluntary food-safety regulations deemed necessary by the organic farm community. Except organic standards are not food safety standards. Organic is a production system. Food safety is about fewer people barfing.

Trevor Suslow, a food-safety expert and plant pathologist at UC Davis whose research helped form the basis of the California Leafy Green Marketing Agreement, said,

"For the smaller growers, I don’t think it is reasonable to throw up their hands and say it doesn’t apply to us, or we are not the problem or we can never be the problem.”

Suslow also said regulations should be tailored to both the size and the nature of the operation, and that,

"Everybody needs to be doing something, but everybody doesn’t need to be doing the same thing.”

Agreed. I want to know what is being done to control microorganisms that could make people barf on any farm, or anywhere else.

I don’t care if the operation is large or small, organic or conventional, local or global. I care if food makes people sick.

A similar argument is going on in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan, where a provincial draft document outlining new guidelines for public markets has created some of the same faith-based arguments surrounding proposed U.S. legislation. One critic said,

"It will only be a matter of time before all farmers’ markets in Saskatchewan will cease to exist as we know them."

Not so, writes the owner of Lincoln Gardens, located in the Qu’Appelle Valley near Lumsden, Saskatchewan, and who sells at the Regina Farmer’s Market and on the farm.

“I welcome any changes that can improve accountability and public safety at the market level. I don’t believe that requiring commercial food processors to follow proper food handling techniques will put Farmers Markets out of business. It is not difficult or expensive to set up a private commercial, certified kitchen. And if a vendor is unable to do so in their own home, due to lack of space, lack of financial resources or they don’t own their home, they are able to obtain the use of a certified kitchen at many community centres, church halls or town offices. that doesn’t seem like such a big deal to me. …

"Our farm encourages all consumers to ask their vendor if they are following proper food safety guidelines, where do they bake, where do they grow, how do they transport the products etc. We have been improving our on farm food safety for several years now. Many of you will remember when Lincoln Gardens transported produce in recycled banana boxes! You may have noticed that we don’t do that anymore…we also provide hand sanitizer to customers at the farm and at the market so that they can avoid cross-contamination. We will continue to look far ways that we can improve the safety of your food. It is too bad that not everyone thinks this is important."

That sounds like the kind of grower I could talk with.

Like the best restaurants, the best farmers and the markets they supply will welcome questions about food safety along with a public disclosure system. The best will even promote their data-driven food safety efforts to build trust with a skeptical public.