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.

Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer Sings Bush's Praises & Accomplishments, Warns Obama Against Change

I offer this transcript verbatim. In it Ed Shafer touts George Bush's accomplishments, fears the new administration and offers words of advice on how Obama can be just like George Bush.


From Ed Shafer:

"Senator Obama's election has drawn the world's attention because of who he is and because of the very positive things his journey to the White House has brought to our country. But in the coming years what will probably be more relevant to all of us—and certainly to you—is what the President-elect thinks about agriculture, about trade and conservation, about renewable energy and nutrition issues and how his views will translate into public policy.

The past eight years have been a remarkable time for American agriculture. President Bush has ushered in an unprecedented growth in the agriculture economy. And it's my hope that the Obama administration will look at the long line of administration successes in agriculture and find a way to build on them with a bipartisan approach. I have certainly grown to appreciate the positioning, I guess, of the United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, as a nonpolitical department. [Editor's Note: Is he serious?] And I certainly hope that stays that way with the new administration.

The prosperity that we see in agriculture today is driven by strong commodity prices, rising export demand and the rapid growth of the renewable fuel industry in rural America. This year cash farm income is on track to set an all-time record of over $100 billion. And we expect export sales to reach a record $114 billion and generate one-third of all cash receipts for U.S. farms. The new global marketplace has emerged, and it's centered on one billion new middle class consumers in developing countries like Mexico and India and China. They're driving strong demand for grains, but also for our beef and pork, and for chicken, for our dairy and processed food products as well.

And these are markets that America's farmers and ranchers are well-positioned to serve. All they need is fair access and a level playing field with our foreign markets. And that's why President Bush has consistently made expanding free trade one of his highest priorities.

Results from our nation's past efforts in that arena have been impressive. In 1994 when North American Free Trade Agreement created a free trade zone covering the United States, Canada and Mexico our agriculture exports to those countries were about $10 billion a year. Today Canada and Mexico rank as our two largest markets for agriculture goods, and our total exports to them will reach $30 billion this year.

The Central American Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement has seen a similar success. Since it began to take effect in 2005, our agriculture exports to the member nations have grown rapidly. Our export sales to the five nations that have fully implemented the agreement jumped to $2.3 billion in 2007, a 67 percent increase from their pre-agreement level. And they'll be up another 45 percent this year.

The Bush Administration has also pushed hard to conclude a series of bilateral free trade agreements, including those with Colombia and Korea and Panama. Those are awaiting actions by Congress. The administration has also tried to advance the Doha Round of multilateral trade talks because it is important to all of us in agriculture as we pursue trade in the global economy.

All in all, this administration has negotiated 17 free trade agreements. The trade agreements we now have in place have opened the door for market-share gains by American producers in agriculture and in other sectors as well. And in 11 of the 17 agreements that have been implemented, agriculture product exports have increased by 76 percent—in Costa Rica, in Omar and Peru—that are being implemented. But as I mentioned we've got Colombia, Panama and Korea that need to have Congressional approval. Those three agreements, along with Peru in South America, can mean an increased $3 billion in agriculture exports annually and should be put in place.

The agreements have given our producers the tools to protect those gains against challenges from producers in other nations as well. We've made sure the agreements have the control mechanisms in them. [Editor's Note: What does he mean by control mechanisms to protect against challenges?]

So the question for the next president is whether we continue to seek wider market opportunities for our producers or pull back. You know, there are a lot of isolationists out there, people who have the mistaken idea that somehow we are sheltered from the global economy. And I read—like you—that in the last election that those anti-trade folks have gained seats in Congress. [Editor's Note: Who is he referring to, and how does he define "anti-trade"?] They are going to work toward moving us backward on our trade agreement, and if they prevail it will be bad for U.S. agriculture.

And 40 percent of the gross domestic product increase last year in this country was driven by trade, and certainly agriculture has the only positive trade balance of any sector in our economy. I think actually the National Association of Manufacturers says that now one piece of appliances, or something like that, has a positive balance of trade, but they're the new kids on the block. Agriculture has been consistent in a positive balance of trade for this country.

I would encourage President Elect Obama to take a hard look at the record of success with agriculture trade—and not tear it down, but build upon it the strength that agriculture can bring to our exports, and in fact to the world.

To deserve the support of all Americans, wherever they live, our safety net of farm programs must make wise and efficient use of taxpayers' dollars. And to withstand challenges for our trading partners, they need to be seen as market-based and not price-distorting. [Editor's Note: Does he mean the way we subsidize corn?] That's why we argued strongly for a meaningful cap on adjusted gross income on overall payment limits and of a new approach on setting marketing loan rates as part of the 2008 Farm Bill.

And our farm policies for the new administration must be seen as fair, both here in the United States for our taxpayers, but also from our trading partners abroad. Continued conservation, rural development, and renewable energy initiatives are all critical to the future of rural America, and they all depend on strong and broad-based public support for farm policy and farm programs.

President Bush has been an outspoken advocate for our conservation efforts throughout his time in office. The 2002 Farm Bill marked an historic increase in funding for conservation programs, and the 2008 Farm Bill as a follow-up was another bold step forward that will boost conservation programs by more than $4 billion over the life of the new bill. The conservation programs we now have in place advance environmental goals by preventing soil erosion, preserving wildlife habitat and improving carbon capture while also allowing users to earn additional revenue from their own land.

This administration has also invested an average of $14 billion a year in Rural Development projects—36 percent higher level of spending in rural areas than when we took office. These investments have created or saved over 2 million jobs and have brought broadband services to 2.7 million homes and businesses in rural areas. This has allowed 60 million people who choose to live and work in rural America to be able to compete in the global marketplace.

We've upgraded health care and emergency response services $50 billion in grants to rural infrastructure efforts, and we committed more than $800 million to new renewable energy and energy-efficiency projects. Yet we know that more investments will be needed to ensure that rural America enjoys the same access to services and economic opportunities as our more densely populated parts of the country.

The rapid growth in demand for renewable fuels has brought new jobs and new possibilities to rural America while also enhancing America's energy security. This industry has made remarkable progress in a short period of time, and yet it's still evolving and still changing. Today there is a broad bipartisan agreement that to meet the nation's future energy needs we must develop new policies, new biomass feedstocks, and new business models that go with them. The new farm bill provides $1 billion to help with that transition.

But this industry will need continued public support to reach its full potential. In all these areas—in conservation, rural development, renewable fuels—the Obama administration will have the chance to consolidate and build upon a record of success over the last eight years. And I would encourage them to do so.

Finally, the continuing challenge in food security must be met at home and abroad. Since 2001 this administration has worked hard to make sure that more of the people eligible for domestic nutrition programs actually enroll and receive benefits. We are proud that the rate of participation has climbed from 54 percent in 2001 to 67 percent in 2006, the last year that we have been able to measure.

On the international front, we face the urgent reality of a world population that will grow by more than 70 million people this year and will continue to do that every year. We have to find a way to feed all these new mouths without using any more land. [Editor's Note: Is this his way of saying he believes GE will bring increased yields per acre?]

For all of us in food and agriculture, this really is the challenge of the 21st century. Our administration has worked to develop long-term solutions to world hunger, and there are many, many different dimensions to this challenge. But we believed in meeting this challenge it will require us to share more than just our surplus commodities.

Now we're proud that the citizens of the United States of Americans provide more than 50 percent of the world's food aid today. But that doesn't solve the problem. We believe we must provide countries with better agriculture methods, with more understanding of the land yield with the production of our crops, with better infrastructure, with improved marketing opportunities, with ways to grow our crops so that we can teach and export our expertise in this country that develops the most abundant and least costly food supply in the world.

And certainly we have to provide more countries with opportunities through biotech crops to boost productivity, to increase yields and to create viable and less import-reliant markets. [Editor's Note: But of course he opposes (1) any type of labeling of GE plants and seeds; (2) bans on seed terminator technology; (3) bans on contract provisions prohibiting seed saving by growers; and (4) any application of antitrust laws to seed conglomerates.]

Here again it's going to be up to the next president to decide whether we move forward in this arena or leave our past policies behind. President-elect Obama and my successor, whomever that is going to be, will have my sincere good wishes in dealing with these dilemmas. But it is in everyone's best interest that they find the right answers."

And, there you have it. Read the original release here.

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.