The NYT outlined on Sunday why ground beef might be the most dangerous thing on the supermarket shelves. It’s a behemoth of an article which starts with a young woman who is paralyzed by eating a contaminated beef patty, but then goes on to show how stores who want to do that right thing are often helpless against the mega slaughterhouses and what a joke our regulations and government agencies are.

The retail giant Costco is one of the few big producers that tests trimmings for E. coli before grinding, a practice it adopted after a New York woman was sickened in 1998 by its hamburger meat, prompting a recall.

Craig Wilson, Costco’s food safety director, said the company decided it could not rely on its suppliers alone. “It’s incumbent upon us,” he said. “If you say, ‘Craig, this is what we’ve done,’ I should be able to go, ‘Cool, I believe you.’ But I’m going to check.”

Costco said it had found E. coli in foreign and domestic beef trimmings and pressured suppliers to fix the problem. But even Costco, with its huge buying power, said it had met resistance from some big slaughterhouses. “Tyson will not supply us,” Mr. Wilson said. “They don’t want us to test.”

These meat producers are so powerful that they can refuse to do business with a massive chain like Costco.  Not only that, but it is so important for them to make sure their meat is not tested that they are willing to forego a huge contract that is probably worth millions upon millions of dollars a year. Its not just the retailers that are controlled by these agri-businesses though.  They own government agencies too.

The meat industry treats much of its practices and the ingredients in ground beef as trade secrets. While the Department of Agriculture has inspectors posted in plants and has access to production records, it also guards those secrets. Federal records released by the department through the Freedom of Information Act blacked out details of Cargill’s grinding operation that could be learned only through copies of the documents obtained from other sources. Those documents illustrate the restrained approach to enforcement by a department whose missions include ensuring meat safety and promoting agriculture markets.

The government is not just hiding their secrets though.  These industries are their number one priority - above and beyond the consumers that they are supposed to be protecting.

In October 2007, the agency issued a notice recommending that processors conduct at least a few tests a year to verify the testing done by slaughterhouses. But after resistance from the industry, the department allowed suppliers to run the verification checks on their own operations.

In August 2008, the U.S.D.A. issued a draft guideline again urging, but not ordering, processors to test ingredients before grinding. “Optimally, every production lot should be sampled and tested before leaving the supplier and again before use at the receiver,” the draft guideline said.

But the department received critical comments on the guideline, which has not been made official. Industry officials said that the cost of testing could unfairly burden small processors and that slaughterhouses already test. In an October 2008 letter to the department, the American Association of Meat Processors said the proposed guideline departed from U.S.D.A.’s strategy of allowing companies to devise their own safety programs, “thus returning to more of the agency’s ‘command and control’ mind-set.”

Dr. Kenneth Petersen, an assistant administrator with the department’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, said that the department could mandate testing, but that it needed to consider the impact on companies as well as consumers. “I have to look at the entire industry, not just what is best for public health,” Dr. Petersen said.

Are you scared yet?

PEW put out a new report yesterday on American attitudes regarding food and food safety.  The verdict is pretty clear:

• 58 percent of voters are worried about bacterial contamination of the food supply
• 83 percent of likely voters interviewed believe the federal government should be responsible for ensuring that food is safe to eat
• 89 percent support the federal government enacting new measures to better protect people from getting sick from eating contaminated food
• 91 percent of those polled favor annual or semi-annual government inspections of facilities that process food that is at a high risk of contamination

Also out yesterday, the FDA rolled out their Reportable Food Registry, the new database that is supposed to track food bourne illnesses:

Facilities that manufacture, process or hold food for consumption in the United States now must tell the FDA within 24 hours if they find a reasonable probability that an article of food will cause severe health problems or death to a person or an animal.

The reporting requirement applies to all foods and animal feed regulated by the FDA, except infant formula and dietary supplements, which are covered by other regulatory requirements. Some examples of reasons a food may be reportable include bacterial contamination, allergen mislabeling or elevated levels of certain chemical components.

Not a moment too soon, now the question is whether this new reporting scheme is going to change the practices of food processors.

Looks like Rep. Peterson stripped out the provisions to cover farms under the new regulations of the Food Safety Enhancement Act.  While it is troubling that we’re not going to have any safety “enhancements” on our nation’s farms, there is a positive to this.  There was a concern that the new changes would be unfairly burdensome to small farmers, so this should take that issue off the table for now.  However, this bill will do nothing to provide new and badly needed standards for the mega factory farms.

On the bright side, the bill does increase inspections and fines for violation for food processing facilities.  This would be a huge step forward and address some the contamination issues we’ve seen in the past year such as the multiple ground beef recalls and the peanut butter contamination.

The fines actually look like they have real teeth, from CQ:

The bill imposes both criminal and civil penalties for individuals and companies that violate food safety laws. For individuals who knowingly violate food safety laws, the measure allows for a prison term of up to 10 years.

• For unintentional violations involving individuals, the measure imposes a fine of $20,000 per violation, not to exceed $50,000 in a single proceeding.
• For unintentional violations involving companies, the bill imposes a fine of $250,000 per violation, not to exceed $1 million in a single proceeding.
• For intentional violations with respect to individuals the fine would be $50,000 per violation, not to exceed $100,000 in a single proceeding.
• For intentional violations involving companies, the fine would be $500,000 per violation, not to exceed $7.5 million in a single proceeding.

Update: meat and poultry are exempt. Sigh. OK this bill is not so good.

From Congressional Quarterly, the House is scheduled to vote today on this (no link, subscription required):

Food Safety — HR 2749, Food Safety Enhancement Act, is scheduled for House consideration today under suspension of the rules. The bill overhauls food safety regulations for farms and food processing facilities, requiring more frequent inspections at food facilities and giving the FDA authority to impose criminal and civil penalties. The measure generally exempts farms from registration requirements and fees, although the bill does establish new regulations for the farming practices for fresh produce. The FDA would have authority to impose mandatory quarantines on geographic areas which are concluded to be the source of contaminated food posing a serious threat to humans or animals. The House will take up a version of the bill that has been modified as a result of talks between leaders of the Energy and Commerce and Agriculture committees to address concerns of agricultural interests about the role of the FDA in regulating farm activities. The compromise bill was released this morning.

Recall fun this week - alfalfa sprouts in North Carolina.

Raleigh, NC– Solar Farms Inc. of West Columbia, S.C., is voluntarily recalling Solar Farms Alfalfa Sprouts after tests by the NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services confirmed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes in product samples, Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler announced Wednesday.

The recalled alfalfa sprouts are sold in 4-ounce containers with the code “Sell By:072209.” These alfalfa sprouts were sold at Food Lion stores and distributed to N.C. food service establishments through Sysco of Charlotte.

Listeria - haven’t seen that one in a while.  Good of them to mix things up a bit. Last time it was salmonella.

The SF Chronicle has a sprawling article on the extreme and unscientific safety measures being taken by some produce providers. Fun things like pumping out poison gas to kill mice and squirrels, banning children under the age of 5 from farm visits, and bulldozing ponds used for irrigation recycling.

The strangest part of all this craziness is that the produce buyers refuse to divulge what these new directives are that they are handing down to their farmers.  Considering all of these mandates are in response to food recalls and the lawsuits that followed, one would think that they would want to shout their new and supposed improved guidelines from the rooftops. Yet, instead, they are hiding behind a curtain.

It’s true - more recall is never as good as MORE COWBELL.  But there it is, in dry milk.  How the heck does salmonella get in dry milk?

Food safety is moving briskly along.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously passed legislation yesterday that would increase government oversight of the U.S. food supply and, if the measure passes in the House, it will be the most sweeping reform of the food safety system in nearly 50 years. The House of Representatives is expected to decide on the bill before the July 4 recess.

The bill is not perfect, but at least it will increase inspections significantly.

There’s been another big step forward for the Food Safety Enhancement Act. A key House panel, the Energy and Commerce Committee, approved the legislation, and will move forward to the House floor for a vote.

The bill passed yesterday by the Energy and Commerce Committee would give the Food and Drug Administration the power to force recalls of tainted foods, require food facilities to be inspected as often as once a year, and give the FDA expanded authority to impose civil penalties on scofflaw companies.

The legislation, approved on a voice vote, would also require companies to keep better records of their activities to make it easier for federal authorities to trace the origins of outbreaks of food-borne illnesses. Food importers would have to register with the government.

The power of mandatory recall is the key piece here - the FDA has no power to do anything but beg Big Food not to kill anymore people well after an outbreak hits consumers.  So this is great, great news.  But like anything else, there is always a caveat:

The House bill does not apply to meat, poultry, eggs, or other products regulated by the Department of Agriculture.

Guess this legislation is just another reason to go veggie.

Jill has the Consumer Union’s response to the bill.

Joseph Coning

Joseph Coning died yesterday morning at the age of 8.  His kidneys failed and then his heart gave out after contracting E. Coli.  The source of the E. Coli is unknown at this time.

Today the House Energy and Commerce Committee is marking up the Food Safety Enhancement Act. This bill has some really strong initiatives, the most important being:

1. Traceability - Food suppliers are required to track of where their food comes from and where it goes.
2. Inspections - Mandates regular inspections every 6 to 18 months for high risk entities.  Right now inspections average once every 10 years.
3. Recall Authority - The FDA FINALLY will have the authority to mandate a recall when necessary.

When I first mentioned this 2 weeks ago, I was very concerned about a provision that requires all food producers to register with the FDA (good) and pay a yearly fee of $1000 (not so good).  For a part time farmers who may only bring in a few thousand dollars a year, there goes his profit right out the door.  A sliding scale where the bigger guys shouldered more of the cost seemed to make more sense.

I tossed the idea to Jill over at La Vida Locavore and she wrote back:

Saw your post about the food safety bill… it took a lawyer friend of mine a while to poke around the U.S. code and figure this out, but it seems the $1000 user fees do not apply to farms or restaurants. But that still doesn’t make it fair or right, because I would assume that the small businesses that sell at my farmers market (jam, home made salami, artisan cheese, and garlic dip, for example) will still get nailed by the $1000 fine. Would be nice to see them exempted or a sliding scale put in place, as you say. And what’s more - a friend pointed this out that perhaps it’s not a good idea for the FDA to get its funding from the very companies it is supposed to regulate. It’s not politically convenient to suggest paying for anything new with tax dollars, but as far as I see it, if we can afford wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we oughta be able to afford safe food and a functional FDA.

Jill has an extended post up on DKos about the bill and actions people can take.

I generally consider myself to be a champion of the little guys - the community gardens, farmers markets, local food coops and particularly the small independent farmers.  So I find it very surprising that I find meself agreeing with the statements made by the Grocery Manufacturers Association in the Wall Street Journal today:

“We are not opposed to all fees,” said Scott Faber, vice president of federal affairs at the Grocery Manufacturers Association, representing the $2.1 trillion food, beverage and packaged-products industry. “We are concerned that a poorly designed fee to finance inspections and enforcement would create an inherent conflict of interest. That would erode rather than enhance consumer confidence.”

This is a serious conflict of interest, no different than a lot of the issues we saw in the financial sector due to investment firms paying ratings companies for their ratings.  Any entity will be beholdant to their revenue stream in some manner, so its best to try and create as much distance between the ratings/inspectors and those they rate/inspect.  I would much prefer to see a junk food sales tax than for the farmers and processors to pay the FDA. The GMA had this suggestion:

Mr. Faber of GMA said the food industry supports fees to cover costs of repeat inspections as well as certification fees for U.S. exporters as well as fees for product recalls, an idea included in Senate legislation sponsored by Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.).

Jill at Locavore gives an awesome write up on major elements of the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. The huge piece?  Gives the FDA mandatory recall authority. Huge! Going from advisory recalls to mandatory recalls is Progress with a capital P.  Most Americans don’t even know that if their food is contaminated all the US government can do is ask food companies nicely to alert their customers.

There is one element that I am slightly concerned with - the $1,000 registration fee that is required of all farm producers.  If you’re a tiny 100 acre family farm, that can only get by by supplementing with other part time work, then this is a problem.  What we really need is sliding scales based on previous year’s income. So If you’re farm only makes $30,000 a year you only pay something like $200. If your farm makes $1 million youpat $10,000. I’m totally making up numbers here, but you get the point. Sliding scales based on income or acreage is the long ball game. As I mentioned in my post about the food safety hearing, house members do seem to recognize the issue.

Last week I went to a hearing to review food safety standards for horticulture and organic agriculture by the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture.  I haven’t written it up, because there wasn’t a whole lot of ‘there’ there. The first panel had David Acheson, Commissioner for Foods for the USDA, and David Shipman, Agricultural Marketing Service of the Dept of Agriculture. It was a little disturbing how few of the members showed up. Of the 10 members, only Reps. Cardoza, Massa, Schmidt, Costa, Schrader, Kratovil and Lumas attended parts of the first panel and less than half stayed for the whole thing. Reps. Moran, Johnson, and Murphy were MIA.  Maybe they showed for the second panel, which I couldn’t stay for.

Anywho, the majority of Acheson’s testimony was various members asking if he was looking into X issue or Y solution, in which he had pretty much the same answer for everything, “yes we are looking into it” or “we already have a program for that”. A very positive revelation was how concerned all the members on both sides of the aisle were concerned about the adverse affect new laws and new regulation would have on small farmers.  Both Massa(D-29) and Schmidt(R-OH), who couldn’t come from more opposite sides of the spectrum belabored this point.

The other aspect of the hearing I found interesting was Shipman repeated references to agricultural marketing agreements. He often made it sound like these agreements were what we currently have instead of real regulation. The California Leafy Greens Marketing Agreement was discussed as an example of voluntary standards. The is essentially what would have happened with organics had the USDA not codified the label.  The CLGM defines a set of standards and then producers apply to be certified.  I can only assume that the value in this is then the producers can use the label for marketing purposes with distributors and buyers.  Unfortunately, should members fail to uphold those standards, there isn’t anything that anyone can do about it:

Decertification Actions

The following handlers are signatories to the California Leafy Green Products Handler Marketing Agreement who are currently decertified or who will not be certified:

There are currently no decertification actions

Shipman often pushed back on the committe, asking if they made these regulations mandatory was the US Congress ready to pay for them.

3,913 is the number of different products that have to be recalled due to the salmonella tainted peanuts.  76 million is the number of people are sickened by food-borne illnesses each year in the US.  Lots of fun with numbers in this NYT acticle on food safety. Also a cautionary tale:

Concerned about health, Ms. Tardiff, the California nurse, bought organic and less processed foods whenever possible. She decided to try raw milk, believing the unpasteurized product would supply helpful organisms.

Instead, she got a dose of an unhelpful germ: campylobacter, easily killed by pasteurization. The ensuing intestinal illness caused a debilitating nerve disease. Ms. Tardiff communicated by blinking for months, and still cannot stand or use her hands.

“This has been life-altering,” she said. “All I want to say is, ‘Be careful.’ ”

Jennifer Huget from WaPo illustrates why our food safety system is so out of control, and why a key part of the fix is consolidating all the different food safety functions of our government into one entity.

As the situations have unfolded, one thing has grown increasingly clear: Somebody has to be in charge of keeping our food safe. As it stands, that responsibility is parceled out among more than a dozen government agencies, most prominent among them the FDA and the Department of Agriculture, whose jurisdictions are defined in mysterious ways. (For instance, if a frozen pizza has just a cheese topping, it’s regulated by the FDA, but if it has meat, it’s the USDA’s to monitor.) Once people are sickened by food-borne pathogens such as salmonella and E. coli, the CDC joins in, investigating and tracking outbreaks and providing information about preventing and treating illness caused by those pathogens.