Tag Archives: Usda

Egypt and Kansas – food brings us together

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been hanging out with the visiting Egyptians since Thurs.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has this Cochran Fellows program that provides U.S.-based agricultural training opportunities for senior and mid-level specialists and administrators from public and private sectors who are concerned with agricultural trade, agribusiness development, management, policy, and marketing.

After spending over 30 hours to reach Kansas from Egypt, with a variety of travel headaches, the three food scientists and one professor have been taking in the best Manhattan has to offer: dinner at the Little Apple Brewing Company, viewing the animals at the Riley County Fair, shopping, taking in the Kaw Valley Rodeo Saturday night, and my lectures.

Sunday, the Fellows came to our house for some American-style BBQ and hospitality. I showed them how to cook a hamburger with a tip-sensitive digital thermometer, they told me about cooking and hospitality in Egypt.

Baby Sorenne was the star attraction.

And it’s been a huge honor hanging out with the accomplished gentlemen and learning.

 

Improving sampling and risk communication at FSIS

Posted on by
Reply

Chuck Dodd is dreamy – as a student, that is.

What teacher wouldn’t be proud when a student does a class assignment, and it eventually gets published in a peer-reviewed journal?

Chuck took my graduate course, Food Safety Risk Analysis, in the early part of 2008. For the final assignment, students are required to take a food safety risk issue of their choosing, and develop a risk analysis report for an audience, like a regulatory agency, integrating risk assessment, management and communication.

Chuck’s report – after editing and thoughtful comments from colleagues – was recently published in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, entitled, Regulatory management and communication of risks associated with Eschericia coli O157:H7 in ground beef.

The Kansas State University press release that went out this morning says, in part,

What consumers may not be finding out about recalls and the inspection process, however, could make them doubt the effectiveness of what is actually a pretty good system to keep food safe, according to Kansas State University researchers.

Charles Dodd, K-State doctoral student in food science, Wamego, and Doug Powell, K-State associate professor of food safety, published a paper in the journal Foodborne Pathogens and Disease about how one government agency communicates risk about deadly bacteria like E. coli O157 in ground beef.

Publications, Web pages and recalls are all used in this risk communication.

Dodd said that although the Food Safety and Inspection Service generally does a good job of keeping meat safe, it’s easy for consumers to think the opposite, particularly when a recall tells them that the food in the fridge or pantry may be dangerous. In their study, Dodd and Powell looked at what information consumers can take away from the Food Safety and Inspection Service’s Web site, and suggest government agencies can more clearly communicate their role in keeping the food supply safe.

"We as Americans tend to expect more from regulatory agencies than we should, so we set ourselves up for disappointment," Dodd said. "Occasionally, regulatory agencies may create unrealistic expectations by the way they communicate with the public. The message of our paper is to say that the Food Safety and Inspection Service is doing a good job, considering the amount of resources it has. We are trying to open up dialogue about how its role could be communicated more effectively." …

Testing is just one tool that the Food Safety and Inspection Service uses. Its role is to monitor what other stakeholders are doing to keep food safe. "As a regulatory agency, the Food Safety and Inspection Service is monitoring food safety, not necessarily testing it themselves," Dodd said. "I think that’s what a lot of us consumers misinterpret. We need to remember that regulatory agencies allocate, not assume, responsibility."

He got an A in the class. And he collects his own cow pies for sampling (left).

Dodd, C.C. and Powell, D.A. 2009. Regulatory management and communication of risks associated with Eschericia coli O157:H7 in ground beef. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, 6(6): 743-747.

Abstract

Foodborne illness outbreaks and ground beef recalls associated with Escherichia coli O157:H7 have generated substantial consumer risk awareness. Although this risk has been assessed and managed according to federal regulation, communication strategies may hamper stakeholder perception of regulatory efforts in the face of continued E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks associated with ground beef. To mitigate the risk of E. coli O157:H7 contamination in ground beef, the beef industry employs preharvest and postharvest interventions, while the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) provides regulatory oversight. Policy makers must understand and clearly express that regulation allocates, not assumes, responsibility. The FSIS role may be poorly communicated, leading consumers, retailers, and others in the farm-to-fork food safety system to misrepresent risks and creating unrealistic expectations of regulatory responsibility. To improve this risk communication, revisions may be needed in FSIS-related documents, Web pages, peer-reviewed publications, and recall announcements.

Valley Meats ground beef recalled due to E. coli

Posted on by
Reply

Almost 100,000 pounds of ground beef are being recalled today after an epidemiological investigation linked E. coli O157:H7 infections in three states to the products.

The meat—sold frozen as ground beef, chopped steak, and pre-formed patties—was produced by Valley Meats LLC of Coal Valley, Illinois, on March 10, 2009 and distributed to various consignees nationwide.

A USDA FSIS press release states,

“The problem was discovered through an epidemiological investigation of illnesses. On May 13, 2009, FSIS was informed by the Ohio Department of Health of a cluster of E. coli O157:H7 infections. Illnesses have been reported in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.”

The pathogen, found in the poop of warm-blooded animals, can be killed with sufficient heat. 

However, as the president and chief executive of the American Frozen Food Institute, Kraig R. Naasz, stated today in a letter to the editor of the New York Times,

“While food safety is a shared responsibility among food producers, government agencies and consumers, we recognize that the primary responsibility rests with food producers. Providing consumers with safe and nutritious products is a responsibility frozen food producers stake their names and reputations on.”

The letter was written in response to the Times’ May 15 article on frozen entrees, which Naasz felt did not “fully depict the frozen food industry’s commitment to product safety.”

With the name and reputation of Valley Meats on the line, will they be able to demonstrate a similar commitment to the safety of food? As the data on those sickened by Valley Meats’ products are released, it’s likely we’ll find out.
 

Food Safety Working Group hears ‘good is simply not good enough’

Posted on by
Reply

A White House Food Safety Working Group Listening Session was held Wednesday that marked "the beginning of a significant and critical process that will fully review the safety of our nation’s food supply," according to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack.

In his opening remarks, Vislack outlined several specific challenges that would require imput from the stakeholders present at the session. These included the development of an approach consistent between the FDA and USDA for preventing foodborne illnesses, as well as an active surveillance and response system for foodborne disease outbreaks.

In regards to the latter, Vislack stated, "Our regulatory agencies must actively watch for disease outbreaks and take rapid action to ensure that we have effective and targeted recalls. Such recalls are in the interests of public health and the strength of industry sectors that might otherwise be tarnished by massive recalls."

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who oversees the FDA and the CDC, also briefly mentioned the subject of foodborne outbreaks in her opening remarks, saying, "When outbreaks do occur, we must all respond quickly, both to protect public health and to speed the recovery of affected industries."

Sebelius went on to say, “We have already made good use of new tools to protect and inform the public. When peanut products were recalled, we produced a widget that was placed on more than 20,000 external Web sites and resulted in 9.6 million page views. And as we saw during the H1N1 flu outbreak, communication is critical during any kind of crisis and we will use every tool possible to get the word out."

However, she failed to mention how effective that tool was in protecting public health and speeding the recovery of the peanut industry.

As Vislack stated at the end of his opening remarks, "[W]e need to develop a way to measure our success… Lives are at stake and good is simply not good enough."

Expiration dates don’t really mean much

Posted on by
3

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]."

Vilsack is Obama’s agriculture secretary – my kid farted

Posted on by
Reply

My kid just had this huge dump. Or a huge fart. Amy and I walked around in the snow this afternoon in our own sustainable transportation way, and when we got home I was holding her in the living room, and she passed gas for a good 30 seconds.

It was awesome.

I wouldn’t be much of a new parent if I didn’t talk about my kid’s bowel movements. And all this talk about the so-called sutainable ag community wanting some food porn type to be the agriculture secretary has me focused on baby farts.

Bob and Angelique brought us dinner and hung out – much better than baby wresting in a restaurant – and we were watching some Flight of the Conchords reruns. Murray the Manager had a poster in his office that said, New Zealand: Don’t expect too much and you will love it.

That’s how I feel about government appointments. Sure a political appointment can set a tone, make a fashion statement, but it’s not really going to change anything. And why wait for government – if you want to change something, go do it.
 

USDA to ban all downers from meat supply

Posted on by
Reply

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer has just announced plans to ban all downers from the meat supply.

Parts of his statement are below:

One day after I was sworn in as Secretary of Agriculture, I learned of the illegal acts of inhumane handling that took place at the Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company in Chino, California. I immediately called upon the Office of the Inspector General and the Food Safety and Inspection Service to determine how this happened and what could be done in the future to ensure that animals are treated humanely.

The 60-day enhanced surveillance period concluded on May 6 and while we are still analyzing those results, today I am announcing that USDA will begin working on a proposed rule to prohibit the slaughter of all disabled non-ambulatory cattle, also know as "downer cattle." In other words, I am calling for the end of the exceptions in the so called "downer rule."

Last year, of the nearly 34 million cattle that were slaughtered, under 1,000 cattle that were re-inspected were actually approved by the veterinarian for slaughter. This represents less than 0.003 percent of cattle slaughtered annually. As you can see, this number is minimal.

The current rule, which focuses on cattle that went down after they have already passed pre-slaughter inspection, has been challenging to communicate and has, at times, been confusing to consumers.

To maintain consumer confidence in the food supply, eliminate further misunderstanding of the rule and, ultimately, to make a positive impact on the humane handling of cattle, I believe it is sound policy to simplify this matter by initiating a complete ban on the slaughter of downer cattle that go down after initial inspection.

FSIS will draft a proposed rule to remove the exception that allows certain injured cattle to proceed to slaughter. This action is expected to provide additional efficiencies to food safety inspection by removing the step that requires inspection workforce to determine when non-ambulatory cattle are safe to slaughter.

The decision to ban all non-ambulatory cattle from slaughter will positively impact the humane handling of cattle by reducing the incentive to send marginally weakened cattle to market.

Cattle producers, transporters and slaughter establishments alike will be encouraged to enhance humane handling practices, as there will no longer be any market for cattle that are too weak to rise or walk on their own.

Animal welfare shouldn’t be a downer.

Meat safety chief: Increase E. coli testing

Posted on by
Reply

Philip Brasher of the Des Moines Register reported from Seattle this morning that USDA’s undersecretary for food safety, Richard Raymond, said he’s determined to increase testing for E. coli contamination before he leaves office, adding,

"We need to address this tougher problem and take some moves there to help protect the American public."

Raymond, a physician who was formerly the chief medical officer in Nebraska, said results from some public health laboratories shows illnesses form non-O157 strains of E. coli are “at least as prevalent” as O157 illnesses. He said the non-O157 strains are harder to detect.

I’m at the same conference, Who’s Minding the Store? – The Current State of Food Safety and How It Can Be Improved, hosted by lawyer and barfblog sugar daddy Bill Marler.

Washington  Governor Christine Gregoire (right) gave the food safety luncheon address.

I chatted with the affable Dr. Raymond after his presentation, and asked him if USDA would consider using video cameras to augment veterinary inspection in slaughterhouses. He said, "ask me after next Thursday."

Raymond, and several of the other speakers stated that the political-media focus on a single food inspection agency was a distraction.

I agree. Whatever is done, it should reduce the number of sick people. That’s the measure that counts, and one where progress has stalled.

Letter to Canada: This is what we’re testing

Posted on by
Reply

A letter from Dr. William Jam, Acting Assistant Administrator Office of International Affairs FSIS, USDA, to his Canadian counterpart, just released, says in part:

This letter is to alert you that on Friday, November 9, 2007,  the Food Safety and Inspection  Service(FSIS) will begin increased productexams of exported Canadian meat and poultry products, and pasteurized egg products at import houses in the United States (US). FSIS will also increase testing of raw groundbeef for E. coli OI57:H7. Also, FSIS will begin testing of raw beef manufacturing trim, boxed beef, and subprimals normally sent for grinding for E. coli Ol57:H7. Additionally, FSIS will increase testing for Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella in ready-to-eat products. The increase product exams, testing of raw ground beef for E. coli Ol57:H7, and for Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella in ready-to-eat products will be at the rate of approximately double that of the past year for Canada.

These measures are consistent with the statement of Dr. Richard Raymond, USDA Undersecretary for Food Safety released on November 3, 2007 . The measures are a reflection of our concern about the Canadian inspection system based on the audit findings of May 1-Jtrne 6, 2007, and the circumstances related to the unsafe practices employed by Ranchers Beef, Ltd., Establishment 630.
The increase in tests for pathogens will continue while the two US teams currently in Canada complete their audits of Establishment 630, the six establishments that received Notices of Intent to Delist in the last US audit of Canada, the one establishment that was delisted in the last US audit of Canada, and beef slaughter establishments identified as similar to Est. 630 in terms of start-up and operations.

The complete letter is available at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Canada_O157_Testing_Letter.pdf