Currently browsing posts about: USDA

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued: Food Safety: Status of Foodborne Illness in the U.S.

This one sounds much like GAO reports I’ve been reading since the early 1990s.

We have long reported that the fragmented nature of the federal food safety oversight system causes inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient use of resources. Since 2007, we have identified federal oversight of food safety as a high-risk issue and made several recommendations and matters for congressional consideration. In 2017, we called for the Executive Office of the President to develop and implement a national strategy for overseeing food safety. As of January 2025, there were no plans to create a national strategy, according to officials from the Office of Management and Budget.

What’s impressive about this report is its comprehensiveness.  If you want to understand why food safety in the U.S. remains a problem, this is the place to start.

Among other things, it’s got great graphics, like this one.

It makes several points, none for the first time.

Oversight of food safety is a mess; it needs consolidation.

At least 30 federal laws govern the safety and quality of the U.S. food supply, both domestic and imported. Collectively, 15 federal agencies administer these laws, including CDC, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), and HHS’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The federal food safety oversight system is supplemented by states, localities, Tribes, and territories, which may have their own laws and agencies to address the safety and quality of food.

The division of oversight responsibility between USDA (meat and poultry) and FDA (everything else) makes no sense.  It needs fixing.

Foodborne pathogens can be transmitted through multiple types of food and, therefore, can affect both FDA- and FSIS-regulated foods. For example, in 2024, two Salmonella outbreaks—one attributed to cucumbers, an FDA-regulated food, and one attributed to charcuterie meats, an FSIS-regulated food—collectively caused 650 confirmed illnesses and about 180 hospitalizations.

We keep trying and wish everyone would listen to us.

We previously reported on the need for a national strategy to guide federal efforts to address ongoing fragmentation and improve the federal food safety oversight system. This strategy could address our other previous matters for congressional consideration about a government-wide performance plan and sustained leadership for federal food safety. We maintain that such a strategy could create an opportunity to further strengthen federal oversight of the nation’s food supply and reduce the economic and public health effects of foodborne illness.

Food Safety News reports that the FDA says

the biggest stumbling block to conducting inspections of food facilities is understaffing…The annual target for FDA inspections is 19,200, according to the report. The most annual inspections of foreign food facilities occurred in 2019, with 1,727 inspections, or 9 percent of the annual target… in July 2024, FDA had a total of 432 investigators — 90 percent of the full-time equivalent ceiling — for conducting both domestic and foreign inspections, according to FDA officials.

Comment

The instructions to the MAHA Commission (see yesterday’s post) say nothing about food safety beyond its being a matter requiring fresh thinking. Food safety does not appear to be a MAHA priority, especially in light of the threatened mass firings of FDA staff.  Reducing the number of FDA inspectors is unlikely to help at this point.  I hope the Commission adds safe food to its agenda.  The GAO has called for a single food safety agency for decades.  This might be just the time to take that on.  Fresh thinking indeed!

OOPS: A reader alerted me that all links have been taken down by the new administration.

In his last weeks in office, former President Biden issued a Fact Sheet on the food system investments achieved by his administration. A reader, Ethan Wolf, sent in a link from the Wayback Machine. Fact Sheet on the food system investments achieved by his administration

The Fact Sheet divides the achievements into several categories.

• Building new markets and income for farmers and ranchers
• Modernizing the middle of the agriculture and food supply chain: food processing, aggregation, and distribution
• Creating more fair and competitive markets
• Improving food access, nutrition security and health
• Enchancing food safety
• Supporting breakthrough agricultural rewearch and innovation

To highlight just one—food safety:

• USDA issued a rule to classify raw poultry products contaminated with specific Salmonella levels and serotypes as adulterated.
• USDA also finalized a rule declaring Salmonella an adulterant in raw breaded stuffed chicken products exceeding 1 colony-forming unit per gram.
• FDA launched the “Closer to Zero” initiative (C2Z), which sets forth a science-based approach to continually reducing exposure to lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury to the lowest levels possible in foods eaten by babies and young children.
• FDA has issued numerous action levels for toxic elements: draft levels for lead in juices; final levels for lead in foods intended for babies and young children; and a final level for arsenic in apple juice. 
• FDA revoked authorizations for the uses of brominated vegetable oil (BVO) in food because of the potential for adverse health effects in humans.
• FDA also revised its regulations and revoked prior-sanctioned uses of partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs) because studies consistently link consumption of PHOs (industrially produced trans fat) with heart disease. 
• Before the end of the term, FDA also plans to revoke the authorization of Red No. 3, a red dye used in certain medications and various foods and beverages, including candies, cakes, frostings, and frozen desserts, due to studies showing that the dye caused cancer [it did this].

Perhaps coincidentally, Lisa Held at Civil Eats published How Four Years of Biden Reshaped Food and Farming: From day one, the administration prioritized climate, “nutrition security,” infrastructure investments, and reducing food system consolidation. Here’s what the president and his team actually did.

Her categories are somewhat different:

• Taking on Consolidation and Corporate Power, and Supporting Farmer Livelihood
• Tackling the Climate Crisis
• Regulating Pesticides and Other Chemicals
• Focusing on Food Safety
• Linking Hunger, Nutrition, and Health
• Supporting Food and Farm Workers
• Advancing Equity

Here’s my excerpted summary of her analysis of Taking on Corporate Power.

Let’s start the new year off with a classic industry-funded study with predictable results.

Beef Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.  Sanders, Lisa M et al. Current Developments in Nutrition, Volume 8, Issue 12, 104500

Background: Results from observational studies suggest associations of red meat intake with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, RCTs have not clearly demonstrated a link between red meat consumption and CVD risk factors. Further, the specific effects of beef, the most consumed red meat in the United States, have not been extensively investigated.

Objectives: This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCT data evaluating the effects of minimally or unprocessed beef intake on CVD risk factors in adults.

Methods: A search of the literature was conducted using PubMed and CENTRAL databases.

Results: Beef intake did not impact blood pressure or most lipoprotein-related variables, including total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, non–HDL-cholesterol, apolipoprotein A or B, and VLDL-cholesterol. Beef consumption had a small but significant effect on LDL-cholesterol (0.11; 95% CI: 0.008, 0.20; P = 0.03), corresponding to ∼2.7 mg/dL higher LDL-cholesterol in diets containing more beef than that in low-beef or -o beef comparator diets. Sensitivity analyses show this effect was lost when 1 influential study was removed.

Conclusions: In summary, the results of this analysis showed no meaningful effect of daily unprocessed beef intake, compared with diets with less or no beef, on circulating lipoprotein lipids, apolipoproteins, and blood pressures, except for a small effect to increase the LDL-cholesterol concentration by ∼2.7 mg/dL. Given that unprocessed beef has minimal to no impact on these CVD risk factors but is a significant source of highly bioavailable protein as well as iron, zinc, and selenium, its inclusion in the diet may help improve dietary nutrient profiles without significantly affecting lipids or blood pressures.

Funding: This study was supported by the Beef Checkoff. The funding sponsor provided comments on early aspects of the study design. A report was shared with the sponsor prior to submission. The final decision for all aspects of the study and the manuscript content were those of the authors alone.

Comment:  As I said, an instant classic of the genre.  The USDA-managed Beef Checkoff had input into the study design and got to comment on the results and conclusions before the article was submitted for publication.  The sponsor exerted influence at the two places bias is most often found: the study design and the interpretation of the results.  Hence, industry influenced and predictable.

More to come.  Happy new year!

Let’s end Food Politics this year (this is the last post until January 6) with some more good news: USDA Builds on Actions to Protect Livestock and Public Health from H5N1 Avian Influenza

The Agriculture Department’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) today announced a new National Milk Testing Strategy (NMTS) requiring that raw (unpasteurized) milk samples nationwide be collected and shared with USDA for testing.  T

This new guidance, developed with input from state, veterinary and public health stakeholders, will facilitate comprehensive H5N1 surveillance of the nation’s milk supply and dairy herds, USDA said.

Testing will be mandatory.

• Producers will have to share raw milk samples, if asked
• Producers must provide epidemiological data to enable contact tracing of infected cattle
• Veterinarians and labs must report positive results to USDA

Great.  Now if USDA would only enact the same requirements for testing for toxic E. coli.

As food safety lawyer Bill Marler explains in Hey, RFK, your “Raw Milk Czar” has had a few E. coli issues:

A total of 11 people infected with the outbreak strain of E. coli were reported from 5 states…Of 11 people with information available, 5 were hospitalized and 2 developed hemolytic uremic syndrome, a serious condition that can cause kidney failure. No deaths were reported.

Raw milk, after all, is high on the list of foods Bill Marler won’t eat.

On that cheerful note, happy food politics holidays.  I will be back on January 6.

[Apologies for sending this out yesterday (in error).  I’ve added a few things.]

Such an odd time we live in, with politics making increasingly strange bedfellows, this time with the American Council on Science and Health, an industry front group if there ever was one.

Yet here it is with two articles on the looming threat of bird flu.

USDA’s Dereliction in Containing Bird Flu Could Cause Calamitous Pandemic (Part 1) An inherent conflict of interest – USDA both regulating and promoting livestock industries – prevents appropriate responses to outbreaks of infectious disease. READ MORE

The government’s inaction has allowed H5N1 to spread with remarkably little attention. The virus has now affected at least 446 dairy herds in 15 states and more than 100 million birds, mostly commercial poultry, in addition to the documented human cases…USDA is the primary culprit in this failure. The department is tasked with two conflicting roles: protecting the health and safety of the nation’s livestock while promoting and protecting the $174.2 billion agriculture industry. Sick cows with a novel strain of bird flu do not bode well for business, especially for a dairy sector that exports millions of tons of milk, cheese, and other products globally each year.

Shortly after the March detection of H5N1, USDA imposed what amounts to a gag order on its employees, according to insiders. State veterinarians began receiving private phone calls from their USDA colleagues, who told them to refrain from discussing the outbreak without prior approval. This information embargo severely hindered the response from the start.

How Bureaucratic Infighting, Dairy Industry Lobbying Have Worsened H5N1 Bird Flu Outbreak (Part 2): There is an inherent conflict of interest – and the potential for injury to public health – when a federal department both regulates and promotes an industry. Nowhere is this more evident than at USDA. READ MORE

While the White House pushed for a response focused on public health, the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which share jurisdiction over the production, transportation, and storage of eggs, seemed more concerned with protecting the interests of the dairy industry. Dairy representatives worried that the virus and subsequent restrictions could cripple their business…According to a former USDA official, dairy industry insiders were alarmed that White House staff were contacting them directly, bypassing the usual channels through the USDA. State veterinarians reported they were told to discontinue routine calls with the USDA’s veterinary services. This exacerbated the communication rift between the White House and the USDA.

The USDA had historically relied on the cooperation of farmers and industry stakeholders, and the bureaucrats feared losing that trust. In contrast, the White House’s OPPR and its public health allies grew increasingly frustrated as the USDA dragged its feet and adopted an approach that seemed to be, “If you don’t test, you don’t know.” This tension and communication failures have come to define the fractured nature of the government’s response to the H5N1 outbreak.

Comment: much of this sounds familiar.  As with any food safety issue, testing protects the public but puts companies at risk.  If testing finds something, companies have to do something: recall products, cull animals, or other things that will cut into profits.  Bird flu is a looming threat to humans; only 55 cases have been detected so far, but as the disease spreads among cattle, cases could increase.  Federal agencies should be doing everything they can to stop this threat.  Let’s hope.

In the meantime, the USDA says it is taking action: USDA Builds on Actions to Protect Livestock and Public Health from H5N1 Avian Influenza.

Since this disease was first detected in dairy cattle in March 2024, the USDA and state and federal partners have taken several steps to better understand the virus and work to eliminate it from dairy herds. In May 2024, USDA implemented a Federal Order to require the testing of cattle before interstate movement, which has helped to limit H5N1’s spread to new states; in the past 30 days, the number of states with known avian influenza detections in dairy herds has dropped from 14 to two. However, USDA believes that additional steps are needed to proactively support effective biosecurity measures, which are key for states and farmers to contain and eliminate H5N1 infections from their livestock.

Thanks to Hugh Joseph for this one: Running for the Ribeye.

Team Beef was created in 2009 by the national beef checkoff program, the marketing and research group that requires beef producers and importers to pay a $1-per-head on animals they market. The stated goal is to “promote beef’s health benefits and showcase people leading active and healthy lifestyles fueled by lean beef,” according to the Cattlemen’s Beef Board website. There are more than 20 teams across the country, each independently run by the respective state’s beef board.

…“Team Beef is a collection of runners and athletes … that believe in beef as a powerful protein to fuel their training and their everyday lives,” said Kentucky rancher Joe Lowe, in a promotional video that includes him cheersing his wife Cassie with beef jerky.

…Some states require that team members go through an online, self-guided course called Masters of Beef Advocacy that trains them on how to speak knowledgeably about environmental sustainability, beef nutrition, animal welfare, and beef safety.

Comment

This is a great way to advertise beef, to associate beef with sports, and to deflect attention from the role of beef production in climate change, antibiotic overuse, and pollution of soil, air, and water.  The checkoff program is a partnership with the USDA.  Extremist Republicans want to get rid of checkoff programs (see Project 2025 agenda).  So do I (politics does indeed make strange bedfellows).

The USDA announces updated guidelines for substantiating claims on meat and poultry labels in these categories.

• Animal Welfare Claims
• Breed Claims
• Diet Claims
• Living or Raising Conditions Claims
• Negative Antibiotic Use Claims
• Negative Hormone Use Claims
• Source and Traceability Claims
• Organic Claims
• Environment-Related Claims

It says:

Animal-raising claims, such as “Raised Without Antibiotics,” “Grass-Fed” and Free-Range,” and environment-related claims, such as “Raised using Regenerative Agriculture Practices” and “Climate-Friendly,” are voluntary marketing claims that highlight certain aspects of how the source animals for meat and poultry products are raised or how the producer maintains or improves the land or otherwise implements environmentally sustainable practices…FSIS [USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service] last updated its guideline on these claims in 2019.

USDA’s new guidance says it “strongly encourages”

• The use of third-party certification to substantiate animal-raising or environment-related claims
• Substantiating “no antibiotics” claims by testing for antibiotics or using a third-party certifier who does the testing
• Providing data on soil or air quality studies to substantiate environmental claims

Comment

This guidance is voluntary.

This raises immediate questions about the antibiotic claim.  A study conducted by researchers and policy experts at George Washington University found 20% of cattle marketed as “raised without antibiotics” to have been treated with antibiotics.

You would think that fixing this situation requires mandatory regulation, not voluntary.

Groups concerned about animal welfare also object.  The Animal Welfare Institute wants stronger standards.

The ASPCA issued a press release: “ASPCA Condemns Long-Awaited USDA Guidelines that Fail to Meaningfully Improve Oversight of Animal Welfare Label Claims”

ASPCA’s labeling guide points out that claims for cage-free, humane-raised, and pasture-fed, for example,

which often appear on the packaging of meat, egg and dairy products, may indicate better animal welfare but lack strong standards and have no on-farm verification processes, meaning farm conditions and the treatment of animals vary widely across producers.

Voluntary means that producers can voluntarily ignore such guidelines.  Plenty of evidence suggests that many do.

We need a better system.

• The full guidelines.
• The advance Federal Register notice.

USDA has proclaimed August 4 – 10 as National Farmers Market Week.  I love farmers markets and I’m glad USDA is trying to promote them.

USDA publishes a directory of US farmers markets—7,033 listings.

It also lists

• Agrotourism sites (12,763)
• CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture (1,011)
• Food hubs (230)
• On-farm markets 1,937)

Farmers markets have a long history in the U.S.  The National Agricultural Library has a report on them published in 1948.

Its got all kinds of interesting information.

Here’s the most recent information I can find on growth in numbers.

This is progress.  Farmers markets are well worth support.

The Farmers Market Coalition provides resources and toolkits.

It also makes clear why they deserve support.  Famers markets:

• Preserve farmland
• Stimulate local economies
• Increase access to nutritious food
• Support healthy communtiies
• Promote sustainability

Besides, it’s fun to know your farmer, know your food.