Archives

Yesterday’s print edition of the New York Times carried a front-page story on the egg recalls: “U.S. ties farm to Salmonella; town is tense.”  The reporter, Monica Davey, wrote from Clarion, Iowa, the town where the tainted eggs came from.

Her story reminded me of Eric Schlosser’s movie, Fast Food Nation.  The film was intended as fiction, but much of what we are hearing about these egg operations makes it seem like fact.

Here’s what struck me most about her article.

• So far, nearly 1,500 illnesses have been linked to these eggs, a record.
• The FDA found matching strains of Salmonella in samples taken from bone meal and barns owned by the DeCoster family.
• The DeCosters produce 2.3 million dozen eggs per week from their Iowa operations.
• Iowa is expected to produce 15 billion eggs from 60 million hens this year.
• The DeCosters have a long history of violations of health and safety laws at their operations.
• The DeCosters contribute generously to the Clarion community.
• The plant workers are Mexican.

It’s hard to know where to begin, but the take home lessons seem obvious:

• Industrial egg operations have gotten out of hand in size, waste, and lack of safety.
• Immigration issues are very much involved.  If places like this are going to hire immigrants to work in them, we need to protect the rights of those workers.
• The Senate needs to pass the food safety bill and enable the FDA to do more inspecting.  The accompanying New York Times editorial emphasizes that point.

Today’s New York Times editorial says it all again:

It wasn’t simply that the operation is out of scale with the Iowa landscape. It is out of scale with any landscape, except perhaps the industrial districts of Los Angeles County. What shocked me most was the thought that this is where the logic of industrial farming gets us. Instead of people on the land, committed to the welfare of the agricultural enterprise and the resources that make it possible, there was this horror — a place where millions of chickens are crowded in tiny cages and hundreds of laborers work in dire conditions.

I’m hoping some good will come of all this.  Maybe this is our version of The Jungle, Upton Sinclair’s 1906 muckraking book that got Congress to act immediately to pass the Food and Drug Act that governs our food safety system to this day.   The Senate has been sitting on S.510 for more than a year.   For shame!

Addition, August 30: Michele’s Simon’s list of favorite articles on the egg recalls.

When President Obama signed the health reform bill last February, he also signed national menu labeling into law.  The FDA is now proposing rules for how calorie labeling will work in practice.  The proposed rules are posted on the FDA website and in the Federal Register.  The FDA is seeking public comment on its Draft guidance for industry.

The law says that restaurant chains with more than 20 units nationally must post by March 23, 2011:

• The number of calories in each standard menu item “as usually prepared and offered for sale” (the calorie disclosure must be “clear and conspicuous” and “adjacent to” the name of the standard menu item)
• A statement that puts the calorie information in the context of a total daily caloric intake, and
• A statement regarding the availability of the written nutrition information.

In my previous posts and writings about calorie labeling, I’ve been concerned about several problems I’ve observed in the implementation of New York City’s calorie labeling program.  Here’s how the FDA proposes to address them.  FDA’s rules are in black italics.  Mine are in red:

Not displaying calories at all: a “menu” or “menu board” is “the primary writing of the restaurant or other similar retail food establishment from which a consumer makes an order selection. FDA considers primary writing to include all forms of primary writing, such as dessert menus, beverage menus, or other specialty type menus. I think this means that if a restaurant has a menu board, it has to post calories on the board.  If it only has menus, the calories have to be on the menus.

Displaying calories in absurdly precise numbers: calorie disclosure should be expressed in the nearest 5-calorie increments for menu items containing up to and including 50 calories, and in 10-calorie increments above 50 calories, except that amounts less than 5 calories may be expressed as zero. This is fine.  Measuring calories isn’t all that precise anyway.

Displaying absurdly large ranges of calories: FDA will not require posting calories of variable menu items and combination meals until FDA issues a final rule. FDA will provide recommended language in the proposed rule. Uh oh. The FDA must be having a hard time figuring out what to do about this one.

Displaying incorrect values for calories: a restaurant shall have a reasonable basis for its nutrient content disclosures, including nutrient databases, cookbooks, laboratory analyses, and other reasonable means.  What “reasonable” means is debatable but this ought to work within a an error of 10% or so.  We will have to see how this one plays out.

If you want to weight in on these proposed rules, now is the time to comment. You can do this easily at Docket FDA-2010-N-0298.

How is the egg industry handling the recalls?

Yesterday, major newspapers ran a full-page ad from “America’s Egg Farmers” (I saw it in USA Today and in the New York Times). The ad displays an egg and text on a white background, nothing more.

The text is spare and notable more for what it does not say than for what it does. Here it is, with my translations in red italics.

A message from America’s Egg Farmers. We want you to think that we are down home farmers of small flocks of hens in a lovely bucolic settings. We think this sounds better than “A message from egg agribusiness.”

You’ve probably heard about the recent egg recall. We wish you hadn’t.

As egg farmers, we’re concerned, and continue to work closely with the FDA and USDA to help ensure the safest and highest quality eggs possible. We don’t have to take any responsibility for this mess. We will let the FDA and USDA deal it.

The potentially affected eggs, which make up less than 1% of all US eggs, have been removed from store shelves. Whew.  The problem is solved. We don’t need to do another thing except work on public relations.

You may be wondering if eggs are safe to eat. We wish you would just forget about this.

Yes, they are.  Fingers crossed!

Thoroughly cooked eggs are thoroughly safe eggs, according to the Center for Disease control and the FDA. Eggs should be cooked until the whites and yolks are firm. We know we are producing unsafe eggs.  It’s not our fault if you don’t know how to cook them.

To find out more information on this recall and the safe handling of eggs, please visit eggsafety.org. When you do, we will tell you how safe our eggs are and how well we treat our hens, and invite you to watch an FDA video on how to cook eggs properly.

And remember, thoroughly cooked means thoroughly safe. It’s not our fault if you don’t listen.

I think the egg industry has a lot to answer for. It needs to do better than this. OK egg industry, how about placing an ad that says something like this:

• We are devastated that this happened and our hearts go out to everyone who became ill and to their families.
• We are taking every step to make sure that this never happens again.
• We are deeply sorry that our industry did not voluntarily adopt safety procedures years ago, especially when the FDA first proposed egg safety rules in 2004.
• We take full responsibility as an industry for the failure of one of our members to obey the law.
• We will do everything possible to make sure that the victims of this incident are fully compensated for their medical costs and losses.
• We fully support food safety legislation and urge the Senate to pass S.510 immediately. It will give the FDA the tools it needs to do its job and help us produce eggs under the safest possible conditions.
• We apologize to the American public that our eggs are not safe enough and that we have not worked hard enough to make sure that they are safe.

I can dream, can’t I?

I’m traveling, which means it’s time to catch up on saved posts.  Here’s one from FoodNavigator.com that I’ve been wanting to share.  It’s a collection of articles on meat substitutes.

Meat substitutes?  I don’t know how you feel about this sort of thing, but any kind of substitute violates one of my food rules: “Never eat anything artificial.”

Never mind.  Meat substitutes are the ways food technologists respond to nutritionists’ advice to eat less meat.

Here is what FoodNavigator.com has to say about this approach:

• Where’s the beef? The cutting edge of meat substitute innovation: Vegetarian protein options have come a long way from the once-ubiquitous lentils and tofu as food scientists have stepped up to the challenge of creating innovative meat substitutes. 
• Have meat substitutes missed the boat? Many consumers around the globe are turning away from meat as health, price and ethical concerns grow. But the latest market research indicates that meat substitutes are failing to pick up the slack.
• Bring back the meat: How flavours can boost product quality: Meat flavours can be give an intense meaty note to products made with meat substitutes and instant foods, as well as provide a more authentic and intense taste in meat-containing products, says Symrise director.
• TNO to explore meat alternatives and oils from algae: TNO has teamed up with industrial algae producer Ingrepro Renewables for a two year research project investigating the extraction of proteins, healthy oils, and possible carbohydrates from algae.
• Seeing red: The health implications of meat consumption: Headlines continue to raise concerns over the health effects of excessive meat consumption, a situation that is boosting consumer interest in meat substitutes. But what does the science say about meat and health?

The Wall Street Journal published an astonishing piece yesterday on corporate social responsibility.  The author, Aneel Karnani, is a business professor at the University of Michigan.

Why astonishing?  Try this summary from the print edition titled “Finding the Balance:”

The Illusion: Because companies sometimes can profit from acting in the public interest, it fuels the belief that executives have a responsibility to serve not only their shareholders but also some larger social purpose.

The Reality: When companies do well by doing good, the driving force is the pursuit of profit, not a commitment to social welfare.  More often, profits and social welfare are at odds, and executives can’t be expected to heed the call for social responsibility at the expense of shareholders.

The Danger: Appeals to corporate social responsibility are not an effective way to strike a balance between profits and the public good, and they may be a distraction from more effective initiatives, such as government regulation.

OK, so the author uses healthier options at fast-food restaurants and in packaged foods as “situations where profits and social welfare are in synch.”   I would argue that these instances actually support his case, but never mind.

If the business community recognizes that corporate social responsibility is just another marketing tool, we need to listen hard.

Why is the Wall Street Journal giving professor Karnani almost a full page to discuss such things?  The editor explains:

It takes a lot of nerve to speak out against corporate social responsibility. How can you not be in favor of the idea that companies have a duty to address some of the many social ills that plague the world?  But put conventional wisdom under a microscope, and you sometimes see things you never knew existed.

Some of us had a pretty good idea these things existed, but I am delighted to see the business community publicly acknowledging what we have known for a long time.

The massive egg recalls so dominate the news today that it’s hard to talk about anything else.

For one thing, FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg took to the tube and appeared on three morning shows:

“We need greater abilities to trace back products to their source,” Hamburg told NBC’s “Today” show this morning. “We need better abilities and authorities to put in place these preventive controls and hold companies accountable.”

She pointed out that it is now one year after the peanut butter recall prompted calls for increased regulation, but the FDA still has limited authority to order recalls, among other things.

What she did not say, is that the Senate continues to tie the FDA’s hands by not passing S. 510.  Fortunately, other commentators (besides me) are making that point loud and clear:

With elections looming, Washington insiders saw little chance that the Senate would complete the bill this fall – until now. The recall of about a half-billion eggs in a salmonella scare may have given new life to the legislation….At the moment—even with salmonella eggs–the FDA can’t force a company to take its products off the market. (If an egg producer violates safety standards, the FDA does have authority to divert shell eggs to a pasteurization process, which egg producers would rather avoid).

In the meantime, the industry-sponsored  Egg Safety Center says:

Consumers are reminded that properly storing, handling and cooking eggs should help prevent food-borne illness. The Egg Safety Center and the Food and Drug Administration recommend that eggs should be fully cooked until both the yolks and the whites are firm, and consumers should not eat foods that may contain raw or undercooked eggs.

Wouldn’t it be nice if this group also said: “Producers are reminded that properly taking care of hens and diligently following food safety plans should help prevent food-borne illness. The Egg Safety Center urges egg producers to immediately implement the FDA’s new regulations for preventing Salmonella that went into effect on July 9.”

And here is USA Today’s take on it (I’m quoted).

Thanks to reader Michael Bulger for forwarding the Senate staff analysis of the impact of S. 510 on small farms.   Here’s what it says (slightly edited):

No Change in Agency for Regulated Foods: Only foods already regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will be subject to S. 510. Section 403 maintains the existing firewall between FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulated foods and agricultural products.

No Change in Definition of Facility: Under the Bioterrorism Act of 2002, certain food businesses were considered “facilities” and had to register with FDA. Farms and restaurants were exempted. This definition is not changed in S. 510. If an entity does not need to register now, it will not need to register under S. 510.

Flexibility for Small Businesses: Small businesses are given regulatory flexibility throughout S. 510. For example, small processors are given additional time to comply with new food safety practices and guidelines created by the bill and the Secretary may modify or exempt small processors from new hazard analysis and preventive control requirements based on size and risk. The legislation also requires the FDA to publish several user-friendly small entity compliance guides to assist firms with the implementation of new practices.

Scale Appropriate Produce Safety Standards: In coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, FDA develops science-based standards for the safe production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables. Priority is given to specific fruits and vegetables that have the highest risk of food borne illness outbreaks. Flexibility is given for different growing, production, and harvesting techniques. FDA has the discretion to limit produce safety standards for small and very small entities that produce or harvest food which pose little or no serious risk to human health. Consideration is also given to conservation and environmental standards already established by federal natural resource and wildlife agencies. Exemptions are also available for low risk commodities. FDA must minimize the burden of paperwork and, as appropriate, the number of separate standards for separate foods.

Increased Training Opportunities: The bill requires FDA to coordinate with the extension activities of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in educating growers and small processors about any new practices required by S. 510. Necessary funds are authorized to conduct these extension activities. The bill also provides for the training and education of state, local, and tribal authorities to facilitate the implementation of new standards under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act. Competitive grants are made available, for up to 3 years, to support these efforts to enhance education, training, and technical assistance.

Risk-Based Traceability: The ability to trace back potentially unsafe food in the event of a food-borne illness outbreak is important. For the purpose of traceability, farms and small businesses that are not food facilities are not expected to create new records. During an active investigation of a foodborne illness outbreak, in consultation with state and local officials, the Secretary may ask a farm to identify potential immediate recipients of food if it is necessary to protect public health or mitigate a foodborne illness outbreak. Limitations are also included for restaurants, commingled agricultural commodities, direct to consumer sales, fishing vessels and products carrying an identity preserved label.

Regulatory Flexibility for Organic Foods: Throughout the bill, consideration is given to the unique agricultural practices and requirements of organic foods under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990.

Protections for Farmers Markets, Cottage Industries and Direct Farm-to-Market Sales: Small entities that produce food for their own consumption or market the majority of their food directly to consumers or restaurants are not subject to registration or new recordkeeping requirements under S. 510. This includes food sold through farmers’ markets, bake sales, public events and organizational fundraisers.

I hope this helps to calm things down a bit.  This bill needs all the support it can get.  It’s not perfect but it is a reasonable first step, and badly needed.

Yes, the Senate needs to pass S.510 but that is only the first step.  As the inimitable Carol Tucker Foreman puts it in today’s New York Times story on the latest egg recalls:

You have to treat eggs with the assumption that they’re contaminated with salmonella…We may all object to the fact that we have to treat food like toxic waste, but if we don’t want to get sick, and especially if you have someone in your house that’s immune-suppressed, you have to handle things carefully and demand that the standards be set higher.

If you are still unconvinced, take a look at the recalls announced by the FDA just since August 13 (I’ve deleted the ones that do not involve microbial contaminants):

• August 20, 2010 – Hillandale Farms of Iowa Conducts Nationwide Voluntary Recall of Shell Eggs Because of Possible Health Risk

• August 20, 2010 – GloryBee Foods Recalls Whole Raw Pistachio and Whole Raw Pistachio Kernels Because of Possible Health Risk
• August 19, 2010 – COUNTRY Eggs, Inc. Initiates Voluntary Recall of Large AA Loose 15 dozen Fresh Shell Eggs Because of Possible Health Risk
• August 19, 2010 – Austinuts Wholesale, Inc. Announces Voluntary Recall of Pistachio Kernel Products
• August 19, 2010 – Salmonella in Alfalfa Sprouts
• August 18, 2010 – Wright County Egg Expands Nationwide Voluntary Recall of Shell Eggs Because of Possible Health Risk
• August 18, 2010 – Montalvan’s Sales, Inc. Recalls “La Nuestra” Brand Frozen Mamey Because of Potential Health Risk
• August 17, 2010 – NuCal Foods Conducts Recall of Shell Eggs Supplied from Wright County Egg Because of Possible Health Risk
• August 13, 2010 – Goya Foods, Inc. Announces Voluntary Recall of Frozen Mamey Pulp, Produced By Coco, S.A. of Guatemala Because of Potential Health Risk²⁸
• August 13, 2010 – Wright County Egg Conducts Nationwide Voluntary Recalls of Shell Eggs Because of Possible Health Risk

• August 13, 2010 – Merrick Pet Care Recalls Filet Squares & Texas Hold’ems 10oz Bag (Item # 60016 All Lots) Because of Possible Salmonella Health Risk

The FDA has a lot to say about Salmonella risk, but it’s useful to note that all these recalls are voluntary. Hence the need for S.510.

S.510 won’t solve the problem but it is a necessary first step in getting to a food safety system that does a better job of protecting the public against this sort of thing.