Defending Food Safety : Food Safety Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Gass Weber Mullins Law Firm : National Food Product Defense Counsel : Defending Food Safety Blog

Today, more than 15 percent of the food consumed in the United States is imported from foreign shores.  In turn, more and more cosumers are begining to question what is, and what isn't, being done to ensure the safety of foreign food product imports. 

In response, the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") recently announced the creation of a new group, called the Import Safety Commercial Targeting and Analysis Center ("CTAC"), designed to enhance federal efforts to ensure the safety of imported foods.

Recommended by President Obama’s Food Safety Working Group, the new center will be staffed with about 30 members, will operate under the direction of Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"), and will receive direct assistance from numerous additional governmental agencies, including the FDA, EPA and CPSC. As one of CBP's six commercial targeting centers in the United States, the CTAC will target shipments of imported cargo, including food, for potential safety violations.

"In addition to guarding against terrorism and crime, securing our borders and facilitating legitimate trade involve ensuring the safety of imported [food] products," said DHS Secretary Napolitano. "This new targeting center will enhance the inspection of goods entering our country by centralizing and strengthening federal efforts to protect U.S. consumers."

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also backed the initiative. “With so much food coming from abroad, we must do all we can to ensure that it conforms to the same safety standards as our own food safety systems,” said Sebelius. “The new CTAC announced today is an important step toward the type of collaboration necessary to ensure that Americans have access to a safe and healthy food supply,” added Vilsack.

As part of its collaboration with CBP, FSIS will also extend its enforcement efforts to target ineligible imports, and investigate suspicious shipments based on manifest information filed prior to the arrival of goods at U.S. ports.

Ultimately, the new facility, which will be located adjacent to CBP's Office of International Trade in Washington, will strive to enhance the safety of foreign food product imports by promoting the three core principles announced by the Food Safety Working Group: Prevention, Surveillance and Response.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Helping a friend remodel his home this weekend, we pondered briefly (during a short break for dinner) whether the food we were eating was made in the U.S. or China. Although China was a possibility, I didn’t have the heart to tell my close friend that, even if the food didn’t kill us, his new drywall might. Health officials from numerous states are now looking into claims that Chinese-made drywall poses health risks to consumers. It has been alleged that the drywall has been emitting sulfur-based gases, which corrode electrical wiring (ruining common household appliances) and may even make people sick. Following numerous complaints, limited laboratory testing of Chinese-made drywall found that it contained higher levels of sulfuric and organic compounds (some of which could cause severe illness) than American-made samples. Additional testing, however, is needed to determine the extent to which the Chinese-made products may be responsible for the growing number of complaints. For more information, please visit the Florida Department of Health Drywall Website, which is devoted specifically to this developing issue.

These disturbing reports, of course, come only months after 2008 Chinese milk scandal. As you may recall, Chinese-manufactured milk, infant formula, and other food products were found to be tainted by melamine – an inexpensive but harmful substance that can cause severe health problems. Following reports of numerous illnesses, it was discovered that Chinese companies were adding the industrial chemical to their food products because it can artificially make poor quality or inferior foods appear to have higher protein content. In turn, when consumed in large quantities, melamine can lead to the formation of dangerous crystals in the kidneys, and can result in organ failure. When the Chinese melamine outbreak was finally contained, China reluctantly reported that 300,000 people were affected, 860 babies were hospitalized, and at least 6 people died. Although these are large numbers, I personally doubt they are accurate. China has no real food-borne illness reporting or surveillance system like in the U.S., and the total people affected by the scandal (and other unreported food-related illnesses and outbreaks in China) is likely staggering.

Although China is continuing its “investigations” into the melamine scandal, and recently “fired” a number of high-level industry regulators, this is likely little more than political gamesmanship. China has done little to impress when it come to food safety. If the Chinese leadership really wanted to make a difference, it would be well-advised to look beyond a few, select personnel changes, and promptly invest billions into new system of food safety regulation, enforcement and oversight. And, although China did recently enact various “new” food laws (which will go into effect in June), popular thinking suggests that, with still relatively few regulations, multiple agencies with competing responsibilities, uneven enforcement, rampant corruption and nearly 500,000 food companies to regulate, not much will change. Sounds to me like a missed opportunity. Although our own system is not perfect, we are at least well-suited to quickly identify, capture and solve problems when they do occur.

In any event, once China gets its act together and begins addressing seriously its growing and ominous food safety problems, perhaps it can come replace my friend's drywall.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Tom Vilsack, Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, announced that the final rule (74 FR 2658) for mandatory country-of-origin labeling (“COOL”) will become effective on March 16, 2009. Under the new rule, retailers will be required to notify customers of the country of origin of certain food products. Food products (or, “covered commodities”) included within the COOL program include whole muscle cuts, ground beef, lamb, chicken, goat and pork; wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish; perishable agricultural commodities (specifically fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables); and macadamia nuts, pecans, peanuts and ginseng. Additionally, for food such as fish and shellfish, the method of production, wild or farm-raised, must be specified.

Exempted from COOL, however, are various products (e.g., ingredients) used to manufacture “processed” food items. Processed foods are generally defined as: (1) any retail item derived from a covered commodity that has undergone specific processing resulting in a change in the character of the covered commodity; or (2) any retail item that has been combined with at least one other covered commodity or substantive food component. “Specific processing” that results in a change in the character of food includes cooking (e.g., frying, broiling, grilling, boiling, steaming, baking, roasting), curing (e.g., salt curing, sugar curing, drying), smoking (cold or hot), and restructuring (e.g., emulsifying and extruding). For this reason, Vilsack also expressed concerns, in an open letter to industry, that the definition of processed foods contained within the final rule "may be too broadly" drafted. Because Vilsack was also concerned about the labeling of products of mixed origins, and time allowances for labeling of certain ground meat products, he asked industry to voluntarily adhere to the following additional labeling practices:

• With respect to processed foods, Vilsack suggested that processors voluntarily use country-of-origin labeling for those products that "are subject to curing, smoking, broiling, grilling, or steaming."

• With respect to products derived from animals with multiple countries of origin, Vilsack asked processors to include labeling information identifying what production step -- born, raised and/or slaughtered -- occurred in each country.

• Finally, because final rule allows a label for a ground meat products to bear the name of a country when meat from that country was present in the processor's inventory within the last 60 days, Vilsack suggested that time allowance be reduced to 10 days.

American Meat Institute President J. Patrick Boyle stated that, despite Vilsack’s concerns, the organization was "gratified" that USDA is allowing the final rule to go into effect. Namely, this is because the new rule, in its current form, took nearly six-years (with assistance from industry) to develop. Boyle also noted that, once the rule is effective, nearly 95 percent of beef and pork products would likely be eligible to bear a "Product of the USA" label.

Nevertheless, Boyle also stated that it would ultimately be up to individual companies to decide whether to voluntarily comply with Vilsack’s recommendations. According to Boyle, "to the extent that companies are able and elect to go beyond [the] federal labeling requirements, as requested by Agriculture Secretary Vilsack, [that] is an individual company decision, which will have to be made in collaboration with a company's retail grocery customers . . .."

In any event, Vilsack confirmed that the USDA “will closely review industry compliance with the regulation and its performance in relation to these suggestions for voluntary action.” Depending upon such performance, the USDA “will [then] carefully consider whether modifications to the rule will be necessary to achieve the intent of Congress." The rule had also been under review on the orders of the new presidential administration. Ultimately, Vilsack stated that, allowing the rule to go into effect on March 16, 2009, and then monitoring implementation and compliance by industry, would likely be the most efficient way to evaluate the success of COOL, and also to determine whether additional rulemaking would be necessary.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As we continue to comment on food safety litigation avoidance and crisis management, several food industry groups on Friday, in letters to Congress, urged House and Senate leaders to quickly enact enhanced food safety reforms.  The letters announced that, although “Americans continue to enjoy the safest food supplies in the world, . . . new challenges require Congress and the Administration to modernize our food safety net.”  In turn, industry groups urged lawmakers to move forward on the following FDA proposals, originally announced in 2007, as part of the FDA’s Food Protection Plan:

• Require Domestic Food Safety Plans:  As proposed, the initiatives would require domestic food producers to affirmatively identify potential food safety risks associated with production methods and products, identify and implement enhanced production or other controls, and prepare formalized food safety plans (for FDA review) addressing such risks;

• Require Foreign Food Safety Plans:  Adoption of the pending initiatives would also empower the FDA to assist foreign governments seeking to adopt robust food safety regulations, and require foreign food product importers to better police foreign suppliers. The initiatives would also, in part, require domestic foreign food product importers to document food safety controls being implemented by foreign suppliers, and require such records to be available for FDA review; and

• Adopt A More Robust Risk-based Approach to Inspections:  As proposed, the initiatives would also enable the FDA to increase food safety inspections for those facilities and products (both foreign and domestic) that pose, based upon science and risk-based studies, the greatest risk of potential contamination.

In addition to encouraging a more robust food safety inspection system for domestic and foreign products, the letters also urged Congress to better enhance the safety of fruits and vegetables by establishing uniform standards for high-risk products.  In addition, the letters addressed the FDA’s continuing request for mandatory recall authority, which would be available to the agency in those rare circumstances where companies refused, following FDA recommendations, to initiate recalls voluntarily.

The letters were undersigned by numerous industry organizations, including the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the Food Marketing Institute, the American Frozen Food Institute, the International Bottled Water Association, the International Dairy Foods Association, the National Fisheries Institute, the National Restaurant Association, the Retail Industry Leaders Association, the Snack Food Association and the United Fresh Produce Association.  According to Pamela Bailey, President and CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, improved food safety tools would ultimately enable us to better “maintain our position of global leadership and assure consumer confidence.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As work continues to resolve the ongoing salmonella outbreak (associated with peanut butter), we should be thankful for the dedicated health professionals and responsible companies here at home who are working tirelessly to identify potentially implicated products and keep us safe.  Unfortunately, in many foreign countries, existing food safety systems are not nearly as robust, responsive or effective as our own. 

I recently had an interesting discussion with Dr. Michael Doyle, Director of the University of Georgia Center for Food Safety, regarding emerging food safety issues associated with foreign food product imports.  Dr. Doyle has been tracking such issues for years, and recently published a book (along with colleague Marilyn Erickson), called Imported Foods: Microbiological Issues and Challenges.  The book: (1) addresses current and future food safety challenges associated with foreign food product imports; and (2) recommends various strategies that might be implemented to address them.

According to Doyle, "2004 was the first year the United States imported more food than it exported."  Two years later, in 2006, approximately 15% of food consumed in the United States was imported; the most common being fresh produce, tree nuts and fish and shellfish.  The trend, of course, "is that this number will continue to increase," says Doyle.

In turn, Doyle points out that, because sanitation practices for food production are not universally equivalent throughout the world (and with more developing countries now competing to produce foods for export), the safety of imports is emerging as an important concern here at home.  In addition to food safety generally, says Doyle "importing foods [from a growing number of foreign countries] can have the unintended consequence of moving diseases from areas where they are indigenous to locations where they are seldom or do not exist.”  These and other potential future challenges are highlighted by Doyle in his book:

• Doyle reports, for example, that more than 80% of fish and seafood consumed in the United States is imported.  In some Asian countries, says Doyle, sewage and/or livestock waste is often used in fish farming.  In Thailand, chicken coops (as many as 20,000 birds per farm) frequently sit in rows suspended over ponds that hold shrimp and fish that feed on the waste that falls from above.

• In China, crops and seafood are typically grown on small parcels where individual farmers try to produce as much food from their parcels as they can.  To be as efficient as possible, says Doyle, farmers often use excessive amounts of pesticides for produce, and antibiotics for fish and shrimp production.  Many of these compounds are not approved for use in the United States.  In other instances, untreated human and animal waste are used by farmers to treat soils or aquaculture ponds.

• Closer to home, Doyle notes, California produce production is increasingly shifting to countries such as Mexico, where fields are often irrigated with untreated human and animal waste.  According to Doyle, only about 10% of human sewage from Mexico City is treated. The rest goes untreated into rivers.

Nevertheless, although these and other issues (discussed in his book) highlight emerging challenges, Doyle warns consumers "not to immediately jump the gun and start avoiding foods from particular countries.  This is because many U.S companies only import food and produce from these countries if they can verify that the food was produced under stringent sanitary conditions."  Thus, "just because food comes from a particular country," says Doyle, "does not necessarily mean it is bad.”

In any event, given the current (and projected) volume of foreign food product imports, these and other issues will continue to be of importance.  Ultimately, Doyle concludes that the best advice for any processor is "to ensure that the ingredients or products they import are produced under good sanitary practices." 

According to Doyle, Imported Foods: Microbiological Issues and Challenges is the first book to provide a comprehensive treatment of the microbiological food safety issues facing the United States from imported foods -- and he passionately recommends it. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

In recent years, there has been an increase in potentially dangerous foods and other products being imported from China. Following our post on Chinese drywall and dry foods, a number of readers inquired "Why?" Well, this, of course, triggered some very interesting discussions. Ultimately, we all agreed that, somewhere in your purse, or in your car or maybe even between the cushions on your couch, there are two dollars. Somewhere between those two dollars is the answer to this question.

Indeed, the problems associated with foreign food product imports are not limited (as they were in the recent Chinese milk scandal) to foreign players who intentionally lace their foods with dangerous substitute additives to save money. Rather, the potential problems -- many of which have yet to materialize -- can be far more obscure.

Even setting intentional wrongdoing aside, there are other examples. Easter, for instance, is only a few weeks away. Let's imagine, even if for just a brief moment, that the new favorite candy is “WOZZY BUBBLES” bubble gum. They are tiny, colorful balls that come in a bag of a thousand, and allow children to blow extraordinarily large bubbles that won’t stick to anything when they pop. It is an amazing and unique new product that children and adults throughout the world regard as the greatest thing to happen to bubble gum since baseball cards.

Because it's cheaper to mass produce food when you don’t have to deal with little irritations like a robust food safety system, comprehensive food safety regulations, an army of governmental inspectors, minimum wages and/or child labor laws, WOZZY BUBBLES are manufactured in China. Imagine, for just another moment, that the revolutionary new chemical used in the gum (which prevents it from sticking to things) is produced at a factory near Beijing. The same chemical plant, unfortunately, also processes a majority of the mercury distributed for the production of thermometers also made in China (which is a topic, frankly, I'll save for another day).

Problems happen because it's the run-up to Easter and things are hectic at Chinese factories all over. WOZZY BUBBLES are in great demand, and will help fill millions of Easter baskets across America. At the same time, the flu season is in full swing, and thermometer production is also at an all time high. At some point, and nobody really knows how or when (or, even why), the mercury and non-stick chemicals get switched. Setting aside the absence of any effective Chinese food safety laws or government enforcement, in the absence of well-educated industry food safety technicians (there are few), dedicated quality assurance personnel (there are often none) and literate workers (a significant and widespread problem), nobody notices or even cares what has happened. Soon, there are more than a million packages of contaminated WOZZY BUBBLES en route to the United States. By the time Easter rolls around, there are thousands of very sick children and many more angry parents.

So, the two dollars I mentioned earlier that you might save by buying a product made in China turns out not to be much of a savings. Indeed, spending the extra two bucks on an American-made product manufactured under a robust (even if not perfect) food regulatory system would have increased substantially the probability that the food would be safe.

In America, those two dollars would have gone to support an expansive federal statutory framework, a comprehensive regulatory scheme and considered industry interventions which in most cases (understanding there are always rare exceptions) effectively ensure that poisonous constituents like melamine, mercury and other contaminants do not end up in our food. Additionally, those two dollars, along with the two dollars from each of the millions of families who actually bought WOZZY BUBBLES, might have allowed your neighbor, who just lost his job to Chinese outsourcing (and whose children didn't get anything for Easter) to keep his job and manufacture the same product safely. Hmmm.

So, what is the ultimate solution to this emerging and ominous food safety problem? The answer, we all seem to agree, appears quite clear. Either check between your couch cushions, or ask your neighbor.

This story, of course, is fictitious. The products do not exist. Our point is merely to illustrate the potential and significant issues facing Americans who increasingly buy food and other products which come from places where (unlike here at home) there is little or no regulation and oversight. If you are interested in learning more about these and other emerging food safety hazards associated with foreign food product imports, we have two suggestions: (1) keep watching for updates on our blog; and (2) read Imported Foods: Microbiological Issues and Challenges, recently published by Dr. Michael P. Doyle - a leading expert on these and other food safety issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Beyond tracking outbreaks and recalls here at home (see below), we will also comment  regularly on emerging trends associated with foreign food product imports.  Today, more than 15 percent of the food consumed in the United States is imported.   In coming years, we expect the number and quantity of imported foods to increase dramatically.

With more foods being imported, there will likely be increased (and, maybe even intense) competition from foreign countries to produce a wide range of additional food products for export.  In some of these countries, there are relatively few (if any) food safety regulations, let alone billion dollar agencies (such as here in the U.S.) working tirelessly to ensure that our food is as safe and wholesome as can be.  As prices of foreign food product imports are driven lower by global competition, we will need to defend the safety of our own food by ensuring that exporting countries (or companies) adopt and follow standards equivalent to our own.  Stay with us as we continue to update the broad range of emerging food safety issues associated with foreign food product imports.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks