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

After years of deliberation, USDA has formally declared six additional pathogenic E. coli serogroups (O26, O45, O103, O111, O121 and O145) to be adulterants in non-intact raw beef.

From this point forward, any raw ground beef or tenderized steaks found to contain these pathogens will be prohibited from sale to consumers.

While some within the beef industry reacted warmly to the news, others where not so receptive. In a September 13^th, press release, AMI Executive Vice President James H. Hodges criticized the foundation of the new policy:

“This new policy is not supported by science and likely will not benefit public health.  Indeed, in the policy notice USDA acknowledged that ‘we do not know how many illnesses will actually be prevented.  It is not clear whether or not there will be a reduction in the number of illnesses.  It is also challenging to know what the industry cost will be because it is difficult to predict how many establishments will start to test and what the size distribution will be or to what extent industry will take additional measures that will prevent, reduce, or control those hazards, as they do with regard to O157 STEC.”  

Indeed, in many ways, the issue has given way to more questions than answers. Processors, especially small ones, are asking how they will be able to adapt to the likely array of new testing requirements and protocols which may soon be be expected of industry. Moreover, as of today, the time needed to carryout the tests has been causing significant problems for those companies which are already testing.

“It can be a cumbersome process,” Craig Letch, director of quality assurance for Beef Products Inc., told Meatingplace. Letch said that while testing for E. coli O157:H7 can hold up a product shipment for days, there have been times when products being tested for the new strains have been held for even longer, “if in fact you have reactivity.”

Many companies, especially those dealing in fresh products, simply do not have the space or capacity to hold their products for nearly a week before shipment. The added expense of not just testing, but then instituting new programs and holding product for extended periods of time, could significantly and adversely affect both industry and consumers alike.

I have always been the first to commend USDA for demonstrating a real commitment to food safety. In the absence of any real studies supporting this decision, however, the policy appears to have been driven more by sensationalism than by science. 

While it may feel good to declare a bug an adulterant, there is little to show, at this point, that it will have any effect on making our food safer.

I sincerely hope that I am proven wrong.

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

Hamburgers and fries have long been a staple of both American diet and culture.

In recognition of that, President Barack Obama treated fellow world-leader, Dimitri Medvedev, to lunch at Washington’s favorite burger restaurant.

Ray’s Hell-Burger, a Washington hot-spot, is known for delicious, ten-ounce behemoths which are built from hand-trimmed, freshly ground beef. The restaurant is located in an unassuming storefront and boasts numerous B-movie posters and wooden tables outfitted with an assortment of condiments and a roll of paper-towels.

What did the two leaders talk about while consuming the all beef patties? Ironically, it was poultry. The men agreed, over their 10-ounce burgers, to resume poultry exports to Russia, overturning a ban that was put in place earlier this year. The dispute arose over the use of a chlorine rinse which Russia said violated its food-safety rules. Fortunately, the Washington burgers helped seal the deal, and poultry is now back on the menu. 

And, once again, a simple meal proves its worth in bringing the world just a little bit closer.

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

The USDA has published new rules for a proposed program, under which select State-inspected establishments (with 25 or fewer employees) will be eligible to ship meat and poultry products in interstate commerce. Click on the following link to view the Proposed Rule.

The new program was created as part of the 2008 Farm Bill to supplement the existing Federal-State cooperative inspection program to allow State-inspected plants with 25 or fewer employees to ship products across State lines. This announcement is part of the USDA's new Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food Initiative, which seeks to better connect consumers with local producers to help develop local and regional food systems to spur economic opportunity.

"This new cooperative interstate shipment program will provide new economic opportunities for many small and very small meat and poultry establishments, whose markets are currently limited," said USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety Jerold Mande. "We can provide new markets for these establishments, while maintaining the integrity of the Federal mark of inspection."

Currently, 27 states operate State Inspection Programs for meat and poultry, and FSIS verifies that the State programs are implementing requirements that are "at least equal to" those imposed under the Federal meat and poultry products inspection acts. Click on the following link to view the Current List of Qualifying States. For these programs, FSIS provides up to 50 percent of the State's operating funds and provides oversight and enforcement of the program.

Under the proposed rule, selected establishments will receive inspection services from federally trained and/or supervised State inspection personnel who will verify that the establishments meet all Federal food safety requirements. Meat and poultry products produced under the voluntary cooperative program will bear an official USDA mark of inspection, thereby enabling interstate shipment of the products.

State-inspected establishments that are not selected for the voluntary cooperative program, including state-inspected establishments with more than 25 employees, are only eligible to sell and ship their products within their State.

Comments must be received on or before Monday, November 16, 2009, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, by mail to: FSIS Docket Room, USDA, FSIS, OPPD, Docket Clearance Unit, 5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Stop 5272, Beltsville, MD 20705.

All comments must identify FSIS and the docket number FSIS-2008-0039. Once received and published, interested parties will be able to View All Comments Online.

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

At a recent conference focused on the prevention of E. coli, the USDA came prepared to comment on its current thinking relating to new and emerging policy initiatives. In turn, Dan Engeljohn (Deputy Assistant Administrator of the FSIS Office of Policy and Program Development) offered a number of pointed observations.

In cases involving a further processor which commingles raw materials from multiple suppliers, it can sometimes be difficult to trace the source of a subsequent outbreak to a single supplier. As a result, Engeljohn explained that the USDA is currently analyzing the merits of using the internal microbiological testing data generated by a further processor of product testing positive for pathogens to help the agency trace the pathogen back to the originating slaughter facility.

With respect to slaughter facilities themselves, Engeljohn also announced that the USDA may issue criteria for assessing prudent "high event day determinations.” Although the USDA concedes that 100 percent testing at any large slaughter operation would likely produce at least some positives during any given day of production, Engeljohn noted further that a large number of positives in a short period of time could potentially be a red flag.

Engeljohn also confirmed that the USDA is continuing its work on validating the methodology for testing and identifying non-O157 Shiga Toxin-Producing E. coli (STECS), from six serogroups (O26, O103, O111, O121, O45 and O145), in FSIS samples. Once sufficient baseline data can be collected and assessed, the agency will likely make a determination whether to classify any of these pathogens as adulterants in raw ground product. In addition, although whole-intact cuts of beef containing E. coli O157:H7 are not considered adulterated under current law, Engeljohn suggested that USDA is continuing to consider whether it may someday modify this standard.

Moving forward, we will, of course, continue to report on new and emerging developments.

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

For many of us, there is nothing better than the first bite of a delicious steak. Whether it is a sirloin, tenderloin, or perhaps grill-fired New York Strips shared with family and friends, there is a lot to be said for a good cut of beef.

This also, however, raises an important question. Beyond tasting delicious, to what extent is meat really an integral part of a healthy diet?

Many Vegetarians assert that among other things, living as a Vegetarian improves health. An Australian-Vietnamese study published in the July 2 edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, however, disputes this concept. The research has shown that Vegetarians can have as much as a 5 percent lower bone density than individuals who consume meat. Vegans are potentially worse off, at 6 percent.

The Mayo-Clinic states that a vegetarian lifestyle can lead to a number of necessary vitamin deficiencies. They include:

• Protein. Your body needs protein to maintain healthy skin, bones, muscles and organs. Vegetarians who eat eggs or dairy products have convenient sources of protein. Other sources of protein include soy products, meat substitutes, legumes, lentils, nuts, seeds and whole grains.

• Calcium. This mineral helps build and maintain strong teeth and bones. Low-fat dairy foods and dark green vegetables, such as spinach, turnip and collard greens, kale, and broccoli, are good sources of calcium. Tofu enriched with calcium and fortified soy milk and fruit juices are other options.

• Vitamin B-12. Your body needs vitamin B-12 to produce red blood cells and prevent anemia. This vitamin is found almost exclusively in animal products, including milk, eggs and cheese. Vegans can get vitamin B-12 from some enriched cereals, fortified soy products or by taking a supplement that contains this vitamin.

• Iron. Like vitamin B-12, iron is a crucial component of red blood cells. Dried beans and peas, lentils, enriched cereals, whole-grain products, dark leafy green vegetables, and dried fruit are good sources of iron. To help your body absorb nonanimal sources of iron, eat foods rich in vitamin C — such as strawberries, citrus fruits, tomatoes, cabbage and broccoli — at the same time you consume iron-containing foods.

• Zinc. This mineral is an essential component of many enzymes and plays a role in cell division and in the formation of proteins. Good sources of zinc include whole grains, soy products, nuts and wheat germ.

Although most of these vitamins can be replenished by taking supplements and eating things like tofu-dogs, cod liver oil and soy burgers, it does seem like a lot of work.

So, as delicious as a lentil wrapped wheat germ biscuit may be, rest assured that a delicious, perfectly cooked steak with some garlic butter, red potatoes and a glass of cold milk will, indeed, do wonders for your health.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Once again, we’re stuck between a rock and a hard place. While consumers are continuously reminded to cook their meat thoroughly before sitting down for dinner, the results of a new study suggest that grilling your filet until it resembles a hockey puck could have deadly consequences as well. The study links consumption of burned or charred pieces of meat to an increased risk of pancreatic cancer.

Dr. Kristin Anderson, an epidemiologist with the School of Public Health, at the University of Minnesota, was recently quoted as saying that "we’re still trying to understand how this works." She said it’s been known for some time that particular carcinogens exist in meat, as they do in many other foods, "but the question is what causes them to react and how that’s relevant in meat."

The study, which Anderson presented at the recent meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, and which was based on a prospective analysis that included more than 62,500 participants, linked the increased risk of pancreatic cancer to consumption of meats that had been well-cooked, or over-cooked by frying, grilling or barbecuing. At the meeting, Anderson told her colleagues that her research “has been focused on pancreatic cancer for some time, and we want to identify ways to prevent the cancer because treatments are very limited and the cancer is often fatal."

Data was gathered over nine years. According to the research, subjects who preferred very well-done steak were almost 60 percent more likely to get pancreatic cancer than those who consumed their steak less well-done or who didn’t eat steak at all. When overall consumption and doneness preferences were used to estimate the meat-derived carcinogen intake for subjects, respondents who had the highest intake had 70 percent higher risk than those with the lowest intake.

Anderson, who also stated that her husband "has a big Weber grill in the backyard," said the study has generated a lot of interest, mostly "because people relate to meat." Several of her colleagues, she added, have told her she "had taken all the fun away."

And truly, there is certainly a lot of fun to be had in eating a piece of charcoal. I do wonder, however, whether we should really be looking deeper into the issue. Who are these people, and does their increased cancer risk really correlate to the fact that they like burnt meat?

Any individual who actually enjoys eating charred black crunch is most likely lacking taste in other ways as well. Let’s be honest, someone who can’t distinguish a difference in quality between ash and viably edible meat is apt to demonstrate poor judgment across the board. One can only assume that the burnt meat crowd is composed of the same individuals who shamelessly consume cheap booze, chain smoke, live near power lines, stand near the microwave, use artificial sweeteners, get x-rays, or, for those who live in Los Angeles; breathe.

Science also tells us that, across the biological spectrum, Darwinian law mandates the culling of the weak, so that only the strongest and most adaptable can survive and replicate over the millennia. So, it should come as no surprise then that people who actually enjoy incinerated meat (and the carcinogenic byproducts which are created when you burn ANY food beyond recognition) would have an increased likelihood of becoming gravely ill.

Thus, in a John Maddenesque delivery of wisdom and insight, Anderson concludes we would all be better off (and, frankly, more likely to enjoy our steak) if we would simply "Lower the temperature. Use indirect heat. Wrap meat in foil. Use marinades, and cut off the charred parts.” And, “you can cook food thoroughly,” Anderson urges, “without burning it."

So, will I heed Anderson’s advice? Probably. But, I also remain quite hopeful that, in coming years, with more studies and additional research, we will be better able to distinguish the absolute cancer risk between those sophisticated enough to eat steak the way it was meant to be served, and those who prefer a good beer, a shot of whiskey, and chunk of blackened meat cooked (well beyond recognition) over an open fire...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link