The FDA Should Ban Bromated Flour

Potassium Bromate is typically added to bread and other flours as maturing agent which promotes gluten development in doughs, making the bread stronger and more elastic. Commercial bakers use bromated flour because it yields dependable results and can stand up to bread hooks and other commercial baking tools. It is also used to render inferior flour with low protein levels more useable since these flours do not develop enough gluten on their own.

Bromate is also considered a category 2B carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), meaning that it may be harmful when consumed. In theory, the substance is supposed to bake out of bread dough as it cooks, but if too much is added, or if the bread is not cooked long enough or not at a high enough temperature, then a residual amount will remain.

Potassium Bromate has been banned from use in food products in Europe, as well as the United Kingdom in 1990, and Canada in 1994, and most other countries. It was banned in Sri Lanka in 2001 and China in 2005. It is also banned in Nigeria, Brazil and Peru.

In the United States, it is not banned. In California a warning label is required when bromated flour is used. Some organizations such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest have lobbied the Food and Drug Administration to ban Potassium Bromate as a food additive in the United States. Instead, since 1991 the FDA has urged bakers to voluntarily stop using it.

The FDA currently permits the addition of Potassium Bromate in flour provided that its inclusion does not exceed .0075 parts for each 100 parts of weight of the flour (or 750 parts per million). These regulations are found at: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/FCF136.html.

To avoid packaged foods that contain bromate, look for “potassium bromate” or “bromated flour” in the ingredient list. Bromated flour is likely to be found in your local pizza shop, but not in Dominos Pizza or Pizza Hut (though it uses bleached flour). You will also find bromated flour in Arby’s French Toastix and Burger King’s hamburger buns. It is also found in the hoagie rolls at your local Johnny Rocket Restaurant (http://www.johnnyrockets.com/themenu/ingredients.php). You may also find in your supermarket flour brands, especially Gold Medal flours by General Mills.

Whole Foods Markets lists both bromated flour and potassium bromate as unacceptable ingredients for food on its web site: http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/products/unacceptable-ingredients.php.

Consumers should be ever-aware of the ingredients they ingest from corporate bakers and fast food chains, and push for local legislation banning bromated flour until the FDA (and the federal government) gets its act together.

Mixed Feelings About Food For Progress Program Grants, Genetically Engineered Foods Featured

Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer recently announced plans for $212 million in international assistance under Food for Progress (FFP) Program for the current fiscal year.

Under the enabling legislation, agricultural commodities may be sent to countries that are “emerging democracies” and “have made commitments to introduce or expand free enterprise elements into their agricultural economies.”

Related food aid programs state that (1) the policy of the United States is to use food aid to “develop and expand export markets for United States agricultural commodities” and, (2) that priority for food aid should be given to countries that “have the demonstrated potential to become commercial markets for competitively priced United States agricultural commodities.”

Genetically Engineered Foods the Focus of This Year’s Food Aid

This year’s allocations announced by the secretary include more than 280,000 tonnes of U.S. wheat and wheat flour, soybean and vegetable oil, soybean meal and yellow corn that will be purchased on the U.S. market and donated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These commodities are eligible because they have been acquired by the US government through its price support operations.

92% of planted soybean acres in the US are genetically engineered. 63% of corn acreage in the US is genetically engineered. Many recipients of food aid from the US still prohibit the import and planting of genetically modified seed, but they accept genetically modified food from the United States.

One may not want to dwell on the politics of hunger and food aid, but one has to note that the opening and maintaining of markets is a key objective of the Food For Progress program.

CARE opts out of monetized food sales and most Food For Progress Programs

In CARE USA’s White Paper on Food Aid Policy, recognition is given that “under some circumstances food aid can harm local production and markets, undermining long-term food security.” Based on this and other reasoning CARE has decided to transition out of monetization under the Food For Progress Program. Monetization is the sale of US donated food to generate cash for humanitarian programs. CARE has taken the position that food aid should not be used to enable a donor country to establish an unfair commercial advantage and must not create disincentives to local production and markets. By September of 2009, CARE will no longer accept Food For Progress resources that come from subsidized sales or surplus disposal, nor will CARE monetize resources from the FFP Program.

CARE’s primary objection to participation is that these programs have as their stated objectives the support of US farmers, and the promotion of free enterprise and competition in agricultural economies in recipient countries.

Eliminate Objectives that Link Food Aid to Expansion of Export Markets

Policies and programs for U.S. food aid should be established and operated based on the food security needs of recipient countries and vulnerable populations rather than donor country objectives to expand its export markets.

While US food aid programs do not overtly include objectives to expand US markets (and to promote GE crops and seeds) and their success is not measured on this basis, there are provisions in current law that state market expansion as an objective. Changes are needed to correct this problem. Congress should eliminate the statement in the preamble to PL 480 that it is the policy of the United States to use food aid to “develop and expand export markets for United States agricultural commodities.”

And, in PL 480 Title I, Congress should eliminate the priority for countries that “have the demonstrated potential to become commercial markets for competitively priced United States agricultural commodities” and other references to using Title I for market development purposes.

Using food aid to compel recipient countries to accept genetically engineered crops or to open their fragile markets to US subsidized crop competition is an exploitation of our comparative advantages in food production to the detriment of the recipient countries. We should not benefit economically by the destruction of recipient countries’ ability to feed themselves or to provide for their own food security.

The Food For Progress and other food aid programs should be continued, but the purposes of the program should exclude development of export markets and the fortunes of agribusiness conglomerates.

New York's Soft Drink Tax; Calorie Posting; and Economic Externalities of Super-Size Sodas

After eight years of neglecting public policy at the federal level, states and counties have taken it upon themselves to fill the void left by Bush appointees.

Counties, cities and states have banned trans fats, mandated calories be posted on menu boards, used zoning to control the rampant growth in fast food outlets, and now Governor Paterson's (D-NY) newest policy move is a tax on sugared soft drinks. With this move, Paterson accomplishes several goals. One, he adds tax revenue to New York's desperate financial problems. Two, he tackles obesity where it flourishes -- with calorie laden non-nutritious liquid candy, aka soda. And three, he fires a salvo at powerful industry groups like convenience store associations, restaurant associations, beverage lobbies, etc. who oppose any action designed to point out the evils of their products.

In economics, there is a concept called externalities. What an externality basically is is a cost not reflected in the product itself, but one that is paid for and absorbed by society at large. For example, the price of a gallon of gasoline does not cover the costs of the pollution it creates. The price of a car does not include the price of public highway construction needed for cars to drive on.

In the foodsphere, the price of a sugared soft drink does not include the medical costs of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and all of the medical ailments stemming from obesity. Now I'm not naive enough to think that the soft drink tax will go anywhere other than to the general revenue of New York State, but somewhere, somehow, I'd like to think that the extra revenue to the state paid by those who drink themselves obese would be used to cover some of the health care costs borne by the state in caring for its citizens.

Is it really necessary to have 64 ounce sodas sold at gas stations and convenience stores? Have you ever seen the size of the large sodas sold at the movie chains? Taxing them is sound public policy. It is also sound public policy to require the convenience stores and movie theater to post the calories contained in those giant sodas so that consumers can see number of empty calories they would ingest and make informed decisions to reject those products.

Also, I've really been enjoying Marion Nestle's coverage of Governor Paterson's proposed soda tax.

All valuable food for thought.

FDA Watching "Smart Choices" Front-Of-Package Nutrition Label Program For False Or Misleading Claims

The Food and Drug Administration issued a "Dear Manufacturer" letter regarding front-of-package symbols in response to recent industry efforts to create its own front-of-package marketing program.

In the letter, the FDA reminded food manufacturers and distributors that there is an existing regulatory scheme with specific requirements regarding nutrition claims.

Readers of this blog will recall that a little more than a month ago, several food companies agreed to use a front-of-pack nutrition labeling system called the Smart Choices Program on products beginning next year.

The FDA intimated its intent to monitor the Smart Choice Program and notify manufacturers when front-of-package symbols explicitly or impliedly violate legal requirements for nutrient content claims. Such use would render the labeling false or misleading.

The Smart Choices Program has received a lot of positive publicity, and there is a huge PR effort to make Smart Choices into a consumer standard for identifying good food choices.

I think the effort is misguided. It is “just-another” industry effort to self-regulate and to limit the actual dissemination of information on good versus bad food choices. From its outset, the program would have a funding stream conflict of interest, as its source of revenue to sustain itself would be conditioned on the participation of food manufacturers. That funding stream would likely dry up if standards were too rigorous, or if foods that failed to meet standards were required to state their shortcomings on their front package labels. Even in Keystone’s Request for Proposal seeking an administrator for the program, it repeatedly highlights the need to control costs to participants and to minimize the burdens on manufacturers in the provision of nutritional information.

Michael F. Jacobsen, executive director of nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest recently wrote: “A disinterested funder and committee of experts free of conflicts of interest likely would have rated the healthfulness of foods differently from the ‘better for you’ Smart Choices Program adopted by the roundtable.”

A system that is not mandatory for all foods and beverages is inherently flawed and is no different from current laws that permit manufacturers to make product claims related to good health. Smart Choices will be just another of the 25 icon systems currently in the US marketplace that permit manufacturers to puff up their food's desirability with health claims.

Also, unless there is a “Dumb Choice” standard, similar to the “Traffic Lights” program in the UK, the system is neither meaningful nor comprehensive. Self-regulation is preferred by industry as manufacturers would not be required to disclose which food products in their portfolios are “not” smart choices. The FDA mandated Nutrition Facts Panel currently in use requires uniform disclosure for all products, favorable or unfavorable.

Pending in the Senate (and likely to die there in the 110th Congress), and part of Tom Harkin’s (D-IA) HELP America Act (S.1342, Section 421, Front-Label Food Guidance Systems), is a mandate for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to solicit public comments regarding whether American consumers would be better served by establishing a single, standardized, retail front-label food guidance system regulated by the FDA.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) has also petitioned the FDA to develop a standardized system of symbols for front-label claims. The better route is establishment by the FDA of a directed, standardized, and comprehensive front-of-package food labeling program and icon system with unified criteria based on the best available science, and geared toward the public’s interest in health. It should apply to all foods and beverages, and not be compromised by dependence on industry funding or industry science.

Dioxin Tainted Irish Pork Products Recalled In United States, USDA Sees Low Risk Of Harm and Will Not Disclose Retail Recipients

According to the USDA, three importers of Irish pork products received pork products that have either tested positive for the presence of dioxins or may contain dioxins.

Rupari Food Services, of Deerfield Beach, FL establishment has recalled approximately 41,020 pounds of the dioxin tainted pork that was sent to restaurants in California. The pork was sold as 44-pound approximate weight boxes of "ROSDERRA MEATS, ROSCREA, Pork Loin Back Ribs, KEEP FROZEN." The shipping label bears the Irish establishment number "EST NO. 355."

Dawn International of Acton, MA has recalled approximately 33,880 pounds of the dioxin tainted pork that were sent to distribution centers in Florida. The pork was sold as 30-pound cartons of "DAWN PORK & BACON, PORK LOIN BACK RIBS, PRODUCT OF REPUBLIC OF IRELAND." The shipping label bears the Irish mark of inspection "IRELAND 332 EC."

And, Tommy Moloney's Inc. of Long Island City, NY has recalled approximately 4,041 pounds of the dioxin tainted pork The pork was sold as 8-ounce packages of "Tommy Moloney's Traditional Irish Breakfast Bacon, Made from imported Irish Pork." The label bears the establishment number "EST. 33789" inside the U.S. mark of inspection as well as a "sell by" date between "Dec. 15, 2008" and "Jan. 31, 2009." These products were sent to retail stores in California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia.

The pork products were produced in Ireland between Sept. 1 and Dec. 7, 2008, and were then exported to the United States.

The USDA/FSIS was notified by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) that routine surveillance tests indicated the presence of dioxin in pork products that were sent to importers in the United States.

Here’s the thing. The USDA/FSIS has described this as a Class II recall. That means, that our government is not going to tell us what restaurants, distributors, or retail stores received the tainted products. Class II recalls have recently been exempted from the requirement that the final recipients of the recalled meat be revealed to the public. Yes, you read that correctly. We posted a similar situation earlier this month regarding recalled Polish Kielbasa.

It also means that our government considers there to be a low risk of harm to persons who eat the dioxin tainted pork. Yes, you read that correctly, too. So go ahead, enjoy the bacon in California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Virginia. Also, enjoy your pork ribs in restaurants in California and wherever the Florida distributors resold them.

Our government does not believe we have the right to know where these recalled items may be being sold or served.

Michael Pollan On Bill Moyers Journal

Bill Moyers sits down with Michael Pollan, Knight Professor of Journalism at UC Berkeley, to discuss what direction the U.S. should pursue in the often-overlooked question of food policy. Here is a link to the show and a transcript.

Walgreens Recalls Melamine Tainted Chocolates

Walgreens is recalling 173 teddy bears with chocolate bars sold in stores since late September 2008. Analysis by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found that certain samples of the chocolate provided with the teddy bears were contaminated with melamine.

The item is described as an approximately 9-inch high Dressy Teddy Bear with 4-oz. Chocolate Bar. The product's UPC number is 047475864485, and the product tag also includes the item number 291332.

It was only a matter of time before more melamine tainted products surfaced in the United States. In the new few weeks or months we will start to see more melamine recalls, especially for products made with milk protein concentrates, a manufactured item that is largely imported in mixed batches from overseas.

"Got Milk" may as well read "Got Melamine." We need to support mandatory country of origin (mCool) labelling for for dairy products.

Two Recalls You Can Not Trace To Retail Stores

Last week DeNunzio's Sausage recalled 36,388 pounds of Polish Kielbasa, and John Soules Foods recalled 8,496 pounds of cooked chicken strips. Both recalls were based on the food manufacturers' failure to disclose known food allergens on their labels. Normally, this site reports or links to the retail stores that received the recalled products so that consumers can be aware of possible dangers.

A new policy by the USDA will prevent this blog and others from revealing the names of the retail stores that received the recalled meats. The policy precludes the USDA from revealing retail consignees by designating the recalls as Class II recalls. Earlier this year, the USDA classified the massive recall of downer cows as a Class II recall.

This flaw in reporting requirements is not unintentional. It is part of the design of the Bush administration to enable industries to self-police and regulate their own bad acts. The consumer suffers and industry gets to continue to limit information about recalled products.

To anyone with a food allergy unlucky enough to have purchased a product recalled for an undeclared allergen, the recall was not low-risk at all. All Class I and Class II (to the extent they exist at all) recalls should have a mandatory requirement that all retail recipients of recalled products be revealed.

Friendly's Abandons Trans Fats, But Does It Really Matter

The Friendly Ice Cream chain of about 500 restaurants, said it is "officially banning artificial trans fat" from its menu. Earlier this year, Friendly's disclosed plans to join other restaurant chains in phasing out trans fat oil and said then that it expected the transition to be completed by the fall. Numerous city and municipal governments have already banned trans fats including New York and Boston.

So no more trans fat at Friendly's. But have you looked at its menu.? If you eat the Buffalo Chicken Sandwich Wrap (no fries, no soda), you are still getting 1300 calories, of which 810 come from fat. The 90grams of fat equal 138% of the recommended amount for an entire day.

The 22grams of saturated fat amount to 110% of a daily allotment. 140mg of cholestoral are about one half a daily allowance, and the wrap has a whopping 2,870 mg of sodium. That is more than a full teaspoon or 120% of a recommended daily amount.

So, no more transfat, but you still eat there at your own health risk.

France Recalls Melamine Tainted Chinese Soymeal, Feed Intended for Organic Poultry

Almost 300 tons of soymeal from China, used to feed organic poultry in western France, were taken off the market after testing positive for melamine at 50 times the recommended limit.

One tested lot contained 116mg/kg of melamine, while the permissible level is no more than 2.5mg/kg. Other untested batches were delivered to some 127 organic farms in the Loire region in western France.

The scandal is the latest to rock China's food industry, which has been tarnished by a series of health scares over dangerous products in recent years. Melamine falsely boost protein levels in food products.

First milk products, then eggs, then fishmeal, now soy. Is this the final death knell for the Chinese food export industry?

USDA Inspection Reveals Excessive Drug Residue In Slaughtered Farm Animals

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted an investigation of John Mellot Farm located at 6512 Lemar Road in Mercersburg, Pennsylvania 17236, and found Mellot offered for sale an animal for slaughter as food that was adulterated.

United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA/FSIS) analysis of tissue samples collected from a bob veal calf identified the presence of neomycin at 8.42 parts per million (ppm) in the kidney tissue of the animal. The FDA has established a tolerance of 7.2 ppm neomycin in cattle kidney. Neomycin is an antibiotic used to kill bacteria in the intestinal tract.

The investigation also found that Mellot held animals under conditions that are so inadequate that medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues were likely to enter the food supply, and that Mellot failed to maintain treatment records on medicated animals.

Beef Made For Blimpie Recalled For Listeria Monocytogenes

Home Market Foods, Inc., a Norwood, Mass., firm, is recalling approximately 5,250 pounds of ready-to-eat frozen beef sandwich portions that may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

The product recalled is: 3.5-ounce individually wrapped packages of "Blimpie FULLY COOKED SEASONED BEEF SHAVED STEAKS Thinly Sliced with Onions." Each label bear the establishment number "EST. 2727" inside the USDA mark of inspection as well as a printed Julian date of "3198," "3228" or "3238," on the products available for consumer purchase.

The ready-to-eat frozen beef portions were produced on Nov. 14, 17, 18 and 20, 2008, and distributed to retail institutions in the Atlanta metropolitan area, California, Florida, Illinois and New York. Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially fatal disease.

A Melamine Problem That Won't Go Away - Melamine in US Infant Baby Formula

A single sample of infant formula has tested positive for trace amounts of the toxic contaminant melamine, the Food and Drug Administration said Tuesday. The FDA would not disclose the manufacturer and said that the trace amounts posed no danger. A trace amount is generally less than 250 parts per billion. Last month, the FDA set the safety threshold for melamine at 2,500 parts per billion for foods other than infant formula. Most consumer and health advocates agree that there should be zero tolerance for melamine in food products.

In October 2008, the U.S. FDA issued new methods for the analysis of melamine and cyanuric acid in infant formulations in the Laboratory Information Bulletin No 4421.

Melamine is an industrial chemical used in the manufacture of can liners, flame retardant, cleaning products, fertilizers and pesticides.

It does not occur naturally in food.

Because it contains nitrogen, its addition to food products can wrongly suggest an inflated protein content. Melamine contains 66% nitrogen by mass.

Melamine is also used to extensively by the U.S. fertilizer industry.

Fertilizer companies add melamine to products to help control the rate at which nitrogen seeps into soil, allowing farmers to get more nutrient bang for their fertilizer buck. The government doesn't regulate how much melamine is applied to the soil.

A related area of agricultural concern is animal feed. Chinese eggs seized last month in Hong Kong had elevated levels of melamine caused by melamine-laden wheat gluten used in the feed for the chickens that produced the eggs.

The U.S. imports most of its wheat gluten. Last year the FDA reported millions of Americans had eaten chicken fattened on feed with melamine-tainted gluten imported from China. Around that time, Tyson Foods processed hogs that had eaten melamine-contaminated feed. The government decided against a recall.

The New York Times recently reported that several Chinese melamine suppliers admitted to newspapers to selling melamine to animal feed operations and fish feed providers in China.
One would have to be naïve to think that the melamine scandals are contained.

On October 13, 2008, this blog posed the question, “Can Chinese Catfish Be Trusted?” Chinese producers, in order to export fish to the US, must meet the same production standards as US fish farmers by December 2009. What does this really mean when there is no mechanism to police Chinese producers?

Mandatory Country-Of-Origin-Labeling (mCOOL) does not apply to food components, that is -- if Chinese farmed-fish are baked into a casserole served at your child’s elementary school, there is no requirement to disclose that the fish was farmed in China, or that the casserole contains Chinese-made ingredients.

Senate Bill S.1776 (The Imported Food Security Act of 2007) would enable the FDA to withdraw the certification of any food importer that fails to meet U.S. safety standards. It has been sitting in committee since July of 2007, and will die with the end of the 110th Congress.

And H.R. 3937 (the Food Import Safety Act) gives the FDA authority to ban imports from countries that have a pattern of food safety violations, as well as mandatory recall authority. It has been sitting in subcommittee since October of 2007, and will die with the end of the 110th Congress.The government is charged with insuring food safety in the United States. Its failure to act will be the proximate cause of food related illnesses and injuries in the United States. This is really a do-nothing Congress in the area of food safety.

One can only hope that President Obama will recognize the dangers to the food supply and make appropriate appointments to both the USDA and the FDA. Those appointees should zealously pursue their mandates and make substantive changes to their agencies, making food safety a national priority, and not a beard of the food industry and its lobbyists.

E. Coli Tainted Meat Recalled From New Jersey Restaurants, Stop & Shop Recalls Butternut Squash Side Dishes

Dutch Prime Foods, Inc., a Long Branch, New Jersey firm, is recalling approximately 345 pounds of ground beef products because they may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7.

The following products are subject to recall: 5-pound and 10-pound vacuum sealed plastic bags of "DUTCH PRIME FOODS HAMBURGER."

These packages of ground beef were packed in 5- and 10-pound shipping cases which bear the establishment number "EST. 5206" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These ground beef products were produced on Nov. 18 and distributed to restaurants in New Jersey. This case represents an obvious need to have a list of restaurant recipients posted on the USDA web site.

In an unrelated recall, Stop & Shop Supermarkets is recalling all butternut squash sides that are packaged with the supermarket chain’s prepared turkey and ham holiday dinners.

The recall applies to all 24-ounce sides of butternut squash packaged in the holiday meals and was issued immediately after Stop & Shop’s vendor, Simmering Soup, Inc. recalled the product because of an undeclared egg allergen and quality concerns. The recall applies only to butternut squash that comes as part of the packaged holiday dinners.

New USDA Directive Details Retail Reporting of Recalled Foods; No Retail Reports For Class II Recalls

For many years, neither the USDA nor slaughterhouses and processors were required to disclose the names of retailers who have received potentially contaminated meat. USDA has disclosed the brand and type of meat but, by failing to name retailers, it left consumers in the dark as to whether their community might be at risk. In August of 2008, the USDA began naming retail consignees of recalled products.

A new FSIS directive details the mechanics of recalls and conditions of retail disclosure, but the new rule only applies to Class I recalls.

The USDA scales recalls from I to III; Class I involves a health hazard situation in which there is reasonable probability that eating the food will cause health problems, or death; Class II involves a potential health hazard situation in which there is a remote probability of adverse health consequences from eating the food; Class III involves a situation in which the food will not cause adverse health consequences.

Most meat recalls are Class I (more than 85%), but consumers have a right — and a need — to know about Class II and III recalls as well. For example, USDA classified an April 2007 recall of more than 5,000 pounds of salami as a Class II recall but also called the health risk "high."

And, this year’s record-breaking recall of 143 million pounds of beef from Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company was also deemed a Class II recall. The meat was recalled because "the cattle did not receive complete and proper inspection" and non-ambulatory, or downer, cows were allowed into the food supply. Downer cows are at greater risk for carrying mad cow disease. Under the current regulatory framework, the USDA would not post retail consignees of similarly adulterated meat.

The new rule closes the reporting gap regarding Class I recalls, but it still leaves consumers uninformed if an incident similar to the Hallmark/Westland recall occurred in the future.

The rule also does not mandate that the food processor immediately disclose an actual and complete list of its retail consignees for public posting, and it leave the burden of compliance on on the producer to contact consignee, and those who received the recalled product further down the distribution chain. The complete new FSIS directive (dated November 17, 2008) can be found at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISDirectives/8080.1Rev5.pdf.

Rapid Growth in Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops Continues, 92% of Planted Soybean Acres In US Are Genetically Engineered

According to the USDA’s Economic Research Service, U.S. farmers have rapidly taken to planting genetically engineered (GE) soybeans, cotton, and corn with herbicide tolerance and/or insect resistance traits.

In the U.S., Herbicide Tolerant (HT) soybean adoption has expanded more rapidly and widely than other GE crops, reaching 92 percent of planted soybean acreage in 2008. The second most adopted variety, HT cotton, was planted on 68 percent of cotton acreage. The level of HT corn adoption, has recently accelerated, reaching 63 percent of U.S. corn acreage.

Insect-resistant (Bt) crops contain a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis that produces a protein toxic to specific insects. Bt cotton was planted on 63 percent of U.S. cotton acreage in 2008. Bt corn was planted on 57 percent of U.S. corn acreage in 2008.

The rapid increase in the adoption of crop varieties with more than one GE trait (stacked traits) continues. Corn varieties with both Bt and HT traits account for 40 percent of planted acres in 2008, while cotton varieties with stacked traits account for 45 percent of cotton-planted acres.

In addition to corn, soybeans, and cotton, U.S. farmers have adopted HT canola and virus-resistant papaya and squash. Other GE crops are in various stages of development. As of May 2008, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had approved 1,311 field-testing applications for crops with resistance to virus, 842 for resistance to fungi, 2,200 for improved agronomic properties (such as resistance to cold, drought, and salinity), and 3,362 for higher product quality (including crops with increased protein and/or oil content, and crops with added vitamins and iron).

Worldwide, more than 280 million acres of GE crops with HT and/or Bt traits were planted in 23 countries in 2007, with the U.S. accounting for about 50 percent. Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India, China, Paraguay, and South Africa accounted for about 49 percent.

Despite the rapid expansion of GE crops, there is still no requirement that products made from GE crops be labeled as such. Given the prevalence of GE planted acres, the American consumer can more or less assume products bought commercially will contain GE crops or ingredients derived from GE crops.

Wegmans Recalls Tomato Sauce, Panos Recalls Vegan Cheese, and USDA Publishes List of Retail Stores Receiving Recalled Hot Dogs

The USDA/FSIS has published a list of retail stores that it believes received recalled hot dog products from R.L. Zeigler. The retailers are in AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, MS, MO, TN and TX. To see the full list, click here.

Wegmans Food Markets is recalling 24 oz. Wegmans Italian Classics Seasoned Tomato Sauce with a “use-by- date of 11/26/08”, UPC 77890 79010. The product is being recalled because the package may actually contain a milk ingredient which is not declared on the label.

The 24 oz. Wegmans Italian Classics Seasoned Tomato Sauce is packaged in a clear flexible pouch, and was sold in the prepared foods department of Wegmans stores located in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland, and was available in stores between Saturday, November 15 and Thursday, November 20.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the affected code of Italian Classics Seasoned Tomato Sauce actually contained VODKA BLUSH SAUCE which contains milk.


In a separate recall, PANOS brands, of Saddle Brook, NJ is recalling Vegan Rella Cheddar Block, (a cheese substitute) with a Sell by date of 12/09/2008. This product is being recalled because it may possibly contain an undeclared milk protein.

The product was sold directly to the consumers from their retail stores located nationwide.
The recalled product is packed in 8oz packages with UPC Code 0 37983 00015 4 and a sell by date of 12/09/2008.


The product is manufactured by Swan Gardens/Tree of Life, Austell, GA.

Some Perspective on Burger King's Announcement to Reduce Sodium In Kids Meals

Burger King Corp. announced it is limiting sodium in all of its Kids Meals advertised to children under 12. The effort limits sodium to 600 mg or less and is a part of the BK Positive Steps initiative. It has not actually done it yet, but has annonced its intentions. Let’s give that some perspective.

First, according to the American Heart Institute, healthy adults should limit sodium intake to 2,300mg per day. The UK Recommended Nutritional Intake for adults is less than 1600mg per day. The National Academy of Sciences says a healthy adult should have between 1500 and 2400mg per day. The Canadian government recommends that 4-8 year olds get no more than 1200mg per day, and that nine year olds plus get no more than 1500mg per day. Part of the proposed Smart Choices nutritional guidelines recommends limits of 480mg of sodium per serving, but makes an exception for main dishes and permits up to 600mg (again, for adults).

One teaspoon of salt has 2,325mg of sodium.

The chain's current kids meal, which features Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, apple slices cut to look like french fries with low-fat caramel dipping sauce and Hershey's low-fat milk, has 340 calories and 505 milligrams of sodium . The company said other kids meals meeting its nutrition guidelines are in development and will be launched by this summer.

Taking a look at the current state of some of those other offerings reveals the following: The 4 piece Chicken Tenders Kids Meal has 480mg of sodium and the 6 piece Big Kids Chicken Tenders Meal has 720mg of sodium. Add an ounce of BBQ dipping sauce and you add 310mg of sodium. Try an ounce of the Buffalo dipping sauce and you add 350mg of sodium.

Whopper Juniors have 570mg of sodium and if you add cheese, the Whooper Junior has 780mg of sodium. Throw on a some bacon and you add 50mg per strip. This is all before the soda and dessert.

I applaud any effort to be more nutritionally responsible, but nobody should be fooled by PR efforts into thinking that feeding your kids at Burger King is a healthy nutritional decision, particularly for those who have to watch their sodium intake. Full calorie, sodium and other nutritional information for Burger King's offerings is available on Burger King's web site.

Proposed FDA Rule to Reduce "Port Shopping" For Refused Imported Foods

Pending before the The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is a proposed rule designed to reduce a practice known as "port shopping" which affects the safety of imported food.

When the FDA refuses entry of a food into the United States, the food is generally exported or destroyed. Some owners or shippers may attempt to bring the refused food back into the United States by shipping it through another US port in the hopes that it will not be inspected there and then admitted.

The proposed regulation would require shipping containers of food barred from entry, and any accompanying documents, be permanently labeled as refused. The label would alert inspectors at other ports that the food has already been inspected and refused.

"This system will make it more difficult for food importers to evade import controls after being denied admission into the United States," said Randall Lutter, Ph.D., deputy commissioner for policy. "It will complement our ongoing efforts to monitor food imports."

The proposed rule implements a provision of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, which provided the FDA with new authority to protect the nation’s food supply.

Under the proposed rule, all owners or consignees of refused food would be required to affix a label to the shipping container that reads: "UNITED STATES: REFUSED ENTRY" in clear, conspicuous, print. A label would also have to be affixed to all documents accompanying the imported food such as invoices, bills of lading, and electronic documents.

International shippers have asked that the actual shipping containers be marked, but that the larger maritime container (containing the shipping containers) be unmarked. This is problematic as not every maritime container is opened. At a minimum, the FDA should compromise and mark the maritime container as "containing a refused food shipment." That way, owners and consignees would not be able to sit quietly knowing that part of their load containing a rejected food may pass a loose inspection.

Comments are invited up to December 2nd.

USDA/FSIS Tests Again Reveal Impermissible Levels Of Drugs In Slaughtered Farm Animals

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted an investigation of Red Arrow Dairy located at 69444 County Road 687 in Hartford, MI 49057, and found Red Arrow offered for sale an animal for slaughter as food that was adulterated.

United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA/FSIS) analysis of tissue samples collected from a bob veal calf identified the presence of flunixin at 0.151 parts per million (ppm) in liver tissue. Analysis of tissue samples also identified the presence of 0.13 ppm of penicillin in the kidney.

There is no FDA established tolerance for residues of flunixin or penicillin in the edible tissues of calves to be processed as veal. Flunixin is a FDA regulated veterinarian drug used to alleviate fevers and pain.

The investigation also found that Red Arrow held animals under conditions that are so inadequate that medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues were likely to enter the food supply.

____