Currently browsing posts about: USDA

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.

The USDA has just summarized its accomplishments with respect to food and nutrition assisttance since the pandemic.  It’s an impressive list.

The report has loads of enlightening charts.  This one shows the substantial increase in spending on food assistance over the years, and recently.

This report has the advantage of putting everything in one place.

This report uses preliminary data from USDA, Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to examine program trends and policy changes in USDA’s largest domestic food and nutrition assistance programs through FY 2023. It also summarizes two 2023 USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS) reports including one that examines the prevalence of household food insecurity in the United States in 2022 and another that documents the share of households with school-aged children reporting difficulty paying for expenses after pandemic waivers allowing schools to serve free meals expired in 2022.

If you want to understand why food assistance is anything but a bipartisan issue, the facts and figures here tell the story.  I’m glad to have this one.

[Oops.  This one did not get sent out, apparently.  Hope it works this time].

*****

The current bird flu pandemic is a huge worry, because the current strain, H5N1, is highly pathogenic .

Although there have only been 4 reported cases in humans since 2022, the strain has infected:

• Nearly 100 million chickens .
• 101 herds of dairy cattle.
• Some number of cats

The CDC says: “Mammals can be infected with H5N1 bird flu viruses when they eat infected birds, poultry, or other animals and/or if they are exposed to environments contaminated with virus. Spread of H5N1 bird flu viruses from mammal to mammal is thought to be rare, but possible.”

Oh great.

The epidemiological fear, of course, is the more cattle affected, the more the virus can mutate (sound familiar?).

the personal fear is that the milk supply might contain active viruses.  Untreated milk does, and lots.

But the NIH says tests show that the virus is destroyed by standard Pasteurization methods.

The FDA says (as it always has): do not drink raw milk.

This seems like especially good advice at the moment.

I’m going to be tracking this closely.  Stay tuned.

Resources

• USDA’s home page for bird flu in livestock.
• USDA’s home page for detections of bird flu.
• CDC’s bird flu current situation page.
• CDC’s dairy herd situation page.

Also

The industry-fun Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) is doing a webinar , Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) and Its Impact on Food Production Industries.” June 24 at 1 PM CST. Register for it here.

It takes a while for USDA to catch up to the data so its most recent report on food insecurity ends with 2021: “Household Food Insecurity Across Race and Ethnicity in the United States, 2016-21.”

The highlights:

▪ The prevalence of food insecurity ranges from a low of 5.4% for Asian households to a high of 23.3% for American Indian and Alaska Native households. Food-insecure households had difficulty at some time during the year providing enough food for all household members because of a lack of resources.
▪ Food insecurity varied substantially by country of origin. Among Hispanic origin subgroups, food insecurity varied from 11.4% in Cuban households to 21% in Dominican households. Food insecurity among Asian origin subgroups ranged from 1.7% in Japanese households to 11.4% in other Asian households.

But where is the trend?  The report did not include a trend line (could politics have something to do with this?).

Fortunately, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities used the USDA data to produce this:

It’s a sad story of policy failure.  We had one that worked during the pandemic.  But Congress chose to end demonstrably effective measures.  Politics wins over science, in this case tragically.

Overall, food insecurity increased from 10.2 percent in 2021 to 12.8 percent in 2022 — resulting in 10.3 million more people, including 4.1 million more children, who lived in households that experienced food insecurity in 2022 compared to 2021 — reflecting higher food costs and the phasing out of many pandemic relief measures.