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.

____

Lean Cuisine Chicken Dinners Recalled

Nestlé Prepared Foods Company of Springville, Utah has recalled approximately 879,565 pounds of frozen chicken meals that may contain foreign materials. The fcompany identified the objects as pieces of hard plastic.

The following products are subject to recall:

-9.5-ounce packages of “LEAN CUISINE PESTO CHICKEN WITH BOW TIE PASTA” brand frozen meals. Printed on each side of each package is a production code of “8280595912” as well as a use-by date of “Best Before MAY 2010.”

-10.5-ounce packages of “LEAN CUISINE CHICKEN MEDITERRANEAN” brand frozen meals. Printed on the side of each package is a production code of “8231595912” or “8241595912” as well as a use-by date of “Best before SEP 2010”; a production code of “8263595912,” “8269595911” or “8274595912,” as well as a use-by date of “Best before OCT 2010”; or, a production code of “8291595912” or “8301595912” as well as a use-by date of “Best before NOV 2010.”

-12.5-ounce packages of “LEAN CUISINE CHICKEN TUSCAN” brand frozen meals. Printed on the side of each package is a production code of “8234595911” and a use-by date of “Best before SEP 2009”; a production code of “8253595911” or “8269595912” as well as a use-by date of “Best before OCT 2009”; or, a production code of “8292595911” or “8296595911” as well as a use-by date of “Best before NOV 2009.”

Each package also bears the USDA mark of inspection as well as the establishment number “EST P-9018.” The frozen chicken meals were produced on Aug. 18, Aug. 21, Aug. 28, Sept. 9, Sept. 19, Sept. 25, Sept. 30, Oct. 6, Oct. 17-18, Oct. 22 and Oct. 27 and were distributed to retail establishments nationwide.

As soon as a list of retailers receiving the recalled meals is available, we'll post it here.

EPA Disappoints Again With New CAFO Rule

The EPA has finalized a rule pretending to protect the nation's water quality, and it is now planning to permit CAFOs to self-certify themselves for "no-discharge" certifications.

The rule revises the requirement for all CAFOs to apply for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPEDS) permits and instead requires only those CAFOs that discharge, or propose to discharge, to apply for permits.

EPA should have adopted a recommendation by the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals to establish a regulatory presumption that large-scale CAFOs discharge pollutants. The presumption would have required that a large-scale CAFO demonstrate to regulatory authorities that it is designed and can be operated to avoid all discharges of regulated pollutants. The presumption would have been for permitting and the CAFO would have had the burden to establish that it would not discharge. The CAFO's "intent" would be irrelevant.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a release calling the final rule a "Halloween Trick from Bush Administration: Treat to Factory Farms." NRDC said under the rule, "Thousands of factory farms will be exempt from needing permits that limit water pollution."

Congress specifically targeted factory farms for regulation under the Clean Water Act in 1972 and EPA has recognized the importance of these operations getting pollution control permits. The Bush EPA continues to disappoint.

Access a release from EPA (click here). Access a prepublication copy of the 240-page final rule (click here). Access a 2-page fact sheet (click here). Access EPA's CAFO rule website for additional background information (click here).