Defending Food Safety : Food Safety Defense Lawyer & Attorney : National Food Industry Counsel : National Food Regulatory Lawyer and Attorney, FDA Lawyer and Attorney. USDA Lawyer and Attorney : Gass Weber Mullins Law Firm

This month marks the 15th annual National Food Safety Education Month!

The National Restaurant Association initially created National Food Safety Education Month in 1994 to enhance food safety education in the restaurant and food service industries. Today, food safety instruction is given special highlight each September by many sectors of the food industry.

This week the American Meat Institute (AMI) described its campaign aimed at educating consumers on the proper handling, cooking and storing of meat and poultry products. AMI released a 60-second radio piece nationwide, reminding consumers of the importance of meat and poultry thermometers and directing them to www.meatsafety.org. The radio piece can be heard here.

Developed by AMI, meatsafety.org offers safe handling guidelines and information on a variety of other topics such as food-borne illness statistics and food safety publications. Consumers can test their meat and poultry IQ on the site with a quiz (let’s just say I scored well). Meatsafety.org is a comprehensive site that also offers, among many other things, an overview of the U.S inspection system and AMI’s position on hot topics like antibiotics and meat myths.

AMI also built another great site, www.meatmattersinfo.org, to help consumers partner with them in food safety. Consumers can download the free brochure “Safe Handling of Meat and Poultry Products.” Further, AMI’s YouTube Channel, the Meat News Network, has many consumer-focused education videos, including video of safe handling practices.

In addition to the AMI, the following websites contain valuable materials to easily teach anyone about food safety and National Food Safety Education Month:

• ServSafe National Food Safety Education Month;
• FSIS Food Safety Education;
• Facebook – National Food Safety Education Month;
• Fightbac.org.

AMI consumer survey data indicated that only 34% of consumer respondents knew safe cooking temperatures, and only 1 in 5 consumers use a thermometer when cooking meat. These numbers are wholly unacceptable; consumers are the last line of defense against food-borne illness.

We applaud the the efforts of each of these initiatives, and remind everyone to boldly share their food safety knowledge.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Following the 1993 Jack in the Box outbreak, the Food Safety Inspection Service (“FSIS”) issued a policy statement declaring E. coli O157:H7 to be an adulterant in ground beef. Since this announcement, and as things are currently postured, no other non-O157 Shiga toxin producing E. coli (“non-O157 STECs”) are considered adulterants in whole-intact and non-intact beef products.

On May 27, 2010, however, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) proposed new legislation aimed a classifying six additional strains of E. coli as adulterants under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (“FMIA”). Although the text of the proposed bill (S.3435) is not yet available, Sen. Gillibrand announced that, among other things, the legislation would:

• Define “E. Coli” to includ all “enterohemorrhagic (EHEC) Shiga toxin-producing serotypes of Escherichia coli (E. coli)”;
• Specifically include as adulterants the following seven E. coli strains: O157: H7, 026, 045, 0103, 011, 0121, 0145; and
• Require the USDA and beef manufacturers to test product for all seven strains, and dispose of product in which any of the strains are found.

This bill comes on the heels of the Senator’s April 22, 2010 letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack urging the USDA to begin testing for and regulating the additional E. coli strains. And, as we reported previously, Bill Marler (a national plaintiffs’ food lawyer) also petitioned FSIS in October 2009 for an interpretive rule declaring all non-O157 STECs to be adulterants in ground beef.

The FSIS has since announced, however, that it could not “reach a decision about the substance of the petition until it has developed additional laboratory capacity to detect and isolate various non-O157 STEC groups.”

At a 2007 meeting regarding non-O157 STECs, the FSIS noted that since 1990 there were only an handful outbreaks associated with non-O157 STECs in the United States, and none of them were associated with ground beef. This fact, coupled with a lack of data regarding the prevalence of non-O157 STECs in beef products, has prompted the FSIS to examine the feasibility of more thorough research and testing prior to adopting the significant policy changes sought by Mr. Marler and Sen. Gillibrand.

Additionally, at least some questions still remain about the virulence of non-O157 STECs that may in rare instances find their way into beef products. Not all of the strains, even when present in beef (as opposed to other food products), may be able to produce the specific toxins or combinations of toxins necessary to cause the severity of illness sometimes associated with E. coli O157:H7. Here too, knowledgeable experts concede that more research is likely needed.

Finally, according to the American Meat Institute (“AMI”), there is no test currently available to easily detect the six strains included in the bill. Thus, in addition to needing additional research to quantify the prevalence and virulence of these additional strains in beef, additional efforts would likely be needed to ensure not only that an effective test is readily available, but that the test could be easily obtained and quickly administered.

Even with this said, however, experts at USDA have already confirmed that existing food safety interventions already in place work equally well to combat both O157 and non-O157 STECS. And, AMI recently echoed these comments, noting further that, because “food safety resources in the private sector and the public sector are not infinite, it's important to invest in [new] technologies that will provide meaningful food safety benefits." Thus, whether such resources should ultimately be devoted toward the development and implementation of additional interventions to actually combat pathogens, or whether government and industry should instead invest in “additional testing,” will likely depend upon the results and findings of future research.

Sen. Gillibrand is also sponsoring two other pieces of legislation related to food safety. She authored the E. Coli Eradication Act of 2009 (S.2792), which would require additional tests for E. coli O157:H7 in beef facilities, and is also a co-sponsor of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, which will likely pass later this year.

Sen. Gillibrand is a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee. She was appointed to the U.S. Senate in January 2009 to fill Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's seat and is a candidate for the seat in the upcoming November 2010 election.

We will, of course, continue to monitor the non-O157 STEC issue, as well as other pending food safety legislation, and will keep you apprised of any new developments.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed last July by the vegan advocacy group Cancer Project asserting that hot dogs cause cancer.

The Cancer Project originally filed claims against several hot dog manufacturers on behalf of three New Jersey residents who alleged they were exposed to carcinogens by eating hot dogs — even though none of the plaintiffs had actually developed cancer.

In addition to money damages, the lawsuit also sought an order requiring hot dogs to bear the following label: “Warning: Consuming hot dogs and other processed meats increases the risk of cancer.”

Although a few studies have attempted to link processed meats with an increased risk of cancer by focusing on the potential health effects of nitrites used as preservatives, the fact remains that nitrates occur naturally in fruits and have actually been proven to improve health in many ways. In turn, numerous additional scientific studies, including one from Harvard University in 2004, have found no link between meat consumption and an increased cancer risk.

Concerned about the potentially frivolous nature of the claims, and citing the lack of scientific support for the allegations, the hot dog manufacturers promptly filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On March 18, 2010, Judge Jose Linares, of the United States Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey, granted the motion and dismissed the case in its entirety.

"We are pleased that the court moved quickly and dismissed this lawsuit," said J. Patrick Boyle, president of the American Meat Institute. As explained by Boyle, Meat products are regulated and inspected by the USDA and bear the federal government's seal of inspection, showing they are wholesome and nutritious.”

And, Boyle is not the only authority on the matter. According to the U.S. Dietary Guidelines, processed meat and poultry products — including hot dogs — can be, and often are, a healthy part of a balanced (and, frankly, tasty) diet.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Although most people believe that the decision to develop and utilize ground-breaking food safety technology rests exclusively in the hands of industry, this view is often mistaken.

Rather, the use of most new interventions that could immediately increase the safety of our food depends, not upon industry, but upon the approval of the federal government. And, when federal officials refuse or fail to act, both industry and consumers can suffer.

In 2004, the American Meat Institute (AMI) submitted a petition to FSIS to approve the use of carcass e-beam irradiation technology in meat plants. AMI requested that the petition be granted so that low levels of irradiation could be applied to the surface of chilled beef carcasses as a food safety processing aid. The use of such technology has proven to be an effective measure in reducing the presence of pathogens in raw meat products.

And yet, despite the obvious food safety advantages, the agency has for five years refused to approve use of the technology. To the surprise of many, agency officials announced in a recent meeting with the North American Meat Processors Association (NAMP) that no decision would be forthcoming soon.

Presumably, the reason carcass irradiation is an issue with FSIS is because AMI requested that it be approved as a “processing aid.” If the request was granted, processors would be allowed to use the technology without having to place special labels on meat processed with the intervention. Without specifying what, exactly, it was referring to, however, the FSIS stated simply that, “because of other recent events, processing aids in general are under greater scrutiny right now."

Although all of this may be true, with an increasing ability to detect food-borne illnesses and outbreaks nationally, the overall safety of food is under greater scrutiny as well.

In any event, carcass irradiation has often been cited by the meat industry as viable way forward in the fight against E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef. Keeping the word "irradiation" off labels, or even changing its description to something like "pasteurization," have been suggested as ways to increase public acceptance. This is because, previously, the use of low levels of irradiation to treat finished ground beef products fell flat, in large part, because the USDA required the use of a radura symbol on ground beef labels which simply scared the public away.

Frustrated by the lack of progress on its long-standing request, the AMI recently sent a letter to FSIS officials urging them to take action on the outstanding petition. FSIS then responded by saying the issue was being held up because it was waiting for the AMI to answer some of its queries on the petition. AMI, however, reported that it had never received any questions or concerns from the agency.

The controversy intensified last week when, as noted, FSIS informed NAMP of its intent not to grant the petition. When FSIS was asked to provide additional details regarding the continuing delay, it again stated that “AMI [still] needs to provide answers to [FSIS’] questions in order for FSIS to be able to act further on the petition.” Once again, however, the meat association denied being contacted by the FSIS, stating it had “received no formal response to [the] petition, including any questions or concerns that FSIS may have”.

AMI executive vice president James Hodges stated further that there was no reason to continue delaying evaluation of the matter. “AMI has submitted all information needed for FSIS to . . . publish a proposed rule regarding treating carcass surface irradiation as a processing aid”, he said. “Questions or issues about the technology [can be] best addressed through the rulemaking process that will be required to establish the parameters regarding applying this proven food safety technology. We look forward to a favourable response from FSIS.”

Having defended well-intentioned food companies for nearly ten years, and having witnessed the onslaught industry has received recently from media and congress for “failing to do more,” I am perplexed at the lack of urgency displayed by the agency. Perhaps this is yet another example of how government, rather than solving our problems, can often make them worse.

Thus, we too urge FSIS to take action on AMI’s proposal. If we truly want to advance food safety, we should start by convincing our government to advance those technologies that make it possible.

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