Comprehensive News List
General Food Safety News/ Outbreak News/ Recall News/ New Methods News/
/ On-Line Slides/ Job Information/Internet Journal of Food Safety



Sponsorship Q/A

Click here
to go
Main Page


Click here
to go
List of Newsletters

To subscribe this Food Safety Newsletter,
Click here


Job Opennings


Click here fore more information and Register today!!

2010 Food Safety Training Class Schedule
Basic and Advanced HACCP San Francisco, CA, August 2 - 4
Basic HACCP Houston TX , August 16 and 17
Basic HACCPChicago, IL, August 30 and 31
Basic HACCPLos Angeles, CA. September 9 and 10
Basic HACCPCamden, New Jersey, September 13 and 14
Chicago, IL, September 27 and 28
Basic HACCPVisalia, CA., October 4 and 5
Basic HACCPYuma, AZ, October 11 and 12
Basic HACCPChicago, IL, October 25 and 26
Redondo Beach, CA, November 4-5, 2010
with 5th International Conference

Basic HACCPChicago, IL. November 29 and 30
Basic HACCPLos Angeles, CA, December 6 and 7
Basic HACCPVisalia, CA, December 13 and 14

Several lawmakers and lobbyist groups try to limit proposed FDA ban on antibiotics in livestock

July 15, 12:24 AM
The FDA and the Obama administration have begun the process to initiate the banning of antibiotic use in US livestock. Antibiotics, ones regularly used by humans, are commonly added to the feed of conventionally raised, healthy chickens, cows, and pigs to encourage faster growth and prevent disease from spreading. The FDA and the administration, along with the American Medical Association and several expert scientists, are concerned that the rampant use of antibiotics in US food has and will continue to lead to the development of bacteria that are antibiotic resistant.

Many experts in both the science, medical and farming fields have raged for years about this practice. It is estimated that 70% of the pharmaceuticals consumed in America is given to healthy livestocka and poultry. Antibiotic-resistant, possibly dangerous super strains of bacteria, such as e.coli 0157, campylobacter, and salmonella, have emerged over the last decade as this practice has become more widespread.

But skeptical lawmakers debated the benefits of this bill Wednesday, along with - surprise! - lobbyists for the Pork and other self-interested groups. Illinois Republican John Shimkus believes that more science is needed before passing of a bill that would potentially have devastating economic impacts on the livestock industry. Several Republicans, along with agricultural lobbyists, oppose the bill, even though the CDC, the FDA, and officials from the Agriculture department believe that evidence is strong enough to indicate a possible health concern.

Use of antibiotics in livestock for growth purposes have already been banned in several European countries.

The FDA received a significant increase in funding and power under the Obama administration last summer. During the Bush administration, insufficient funding and a tendency to overlook safety issues by Congress contributed to a laxity of oversight. Dr. Margaret Hamburg, FDA commissioner under Obama, has stepped up the amount of inspections and punitive actions toward corporations since taking office last summer.

The use of antibiotics in livestock has been an issue of concern for several decades. The creation of resistant, super strains of bacteria, as well as just the effects of too much antibiotics, have always been of concern.

There's no doubt that there will be a financial impact on the livestock industry - conventional animal farms seek to grow and fatten up their livestock as quickly as possible. Scientists have discovered higher levels of bacteria in these animals as opposed to organically, free range livestock.

Perhaps this issue, concerning the public health of America, for once should not be about politics and money. Here's an idea - why not raise less livestock, thus encouraging a lesser consumption of animal protein, like our grandparents did?

But profits rule - as consumers, we should speak with our pocketbook and either limit our consumption of animal protein or purchase socially and environmentally conscious free range livestock and poultry. It may be more expensive, but eating a lesser portion will be healthier for all.

Antibiotics in livestock affect humans, USDA testifies

By PHILIP BRASHER ? ? July 15, 2010

There is a clear link between the use of antibiotics in livestock and drug resistance in humans, President Barack Obama's administration says, a position sharply at odds with agribusiness interests.
In testimony to a House committee on Wednesday, even the Agriculture Department, which livestock producers have traditionally relied on to advocate for their interests, backed the idea of a link between animal use of antibiotics and human health.
The Agriculture Department "believes that it is likely that the use of antimicrobials in animal agriculture does lead to some cases of antimicrobial resistance among humans and in animals themselves," said John Clifford, the USDA chief veterinarian.

The Food and Drug Administration, which regulates antibiotics in animals and humans, has recently proposed to end the use of many drugs as growth promoters in hogs and other livestock. Only antibiotics such as ionophores that have no human use would be permitted to speed animals' growth. The FDA has set a schedule for phasing out the drugs' use or proposed specific restrictions.
Officials said the ban is needed to ensure that the drugs remain useful in human medicine.

Clifford was joined by officials from the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in telling a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee that there was evidence of a link between animal uses of antimicrobials and human health.
At an earlier hearing, government health experts said U.S. data on the linkage was lacking. But Wednesday, administration officials tried to make a closer connection. Studies of salmonella, for example, have shown that giving antibiotics to livestock causes bacteria in the animals to develop resistance and that resistant bacteria in food can be transmitted to people, said Ali Khan, the assistant surgeon general.

Agribusiness representatives and their allies on the committee said more research is needed.
"So far there's nothing that links use in animals to a buildup of resistance in humans," said Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill.
A representative of the drug makers, Richard Carnevale of the Animal Health Institute, said there is "no unequivocal evidence" of a connection.
A committee member, Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Ia., said there were "very real production concerns" with restricting the drugs. He said "this is an issue that demands thoughtful careful consideration of all points of view."

Congressman Presses FDA on Gulf Seafood Safety
by Suzanne Schreck | Jul 16, 2010
Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), chair of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which is leading the congressional investigation into the BP oil spill, sent a letter to U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Margaret Hamburg this week concerning the safety of Gulf seafood.
Markey's letter is a follow-up to a letter he sent in May requesting information relating to the potential impacts on seafood safety from the prolonged use of chemical dispersants on oil flowing out of the Deepwater Horizon oil well. In it he states, "Although I have yet to receive any response to my letter, new developments that seem to indicate that the marine food chain in the Gulf of Mexico has already been contaminated by oil and arsenic raise new questions about the impact that this catastrophic oil disaster will have on marine life in the Gulf waters."
While the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) continues to increase the area of federal waters closed to fishing, samples of crab larvae have tested positive for hydrocarbons. Markey says that this is, "a major concern given that crab is a favorite food for both humans and multiple fish species that live in the marshes."
Markey fears that predators that eat oil-tainted food like crab or crab larvae will swim into areas that are not closed to fishing and that those predators will enter the human food supply.
Another concern he voices is that the amount of arsenic in Gulf waters is increasing as more and more oil continues to spill. A study published by a team from Imperial College London earlier this month revealed that oil spills can partially block the ocean's ability to naturally filter arsenic out of seawater.
According to a press release issued by the Imperial College London team, "High levels of arsenic in seawater can enable the toxin to enter the food chain and can disrupt the photosynthesis process in marine plants and increase the chances of genetic alterations that can cause birth defects and behavioral changes in aquatic life. It can also kill animals such as birds that feed on sea creatures affected by arsenic."
The researchers found that oil spills can partially block the ocean's natural filtration system and prevent it from naturally cleaning arsenic out of seawater. The scientists say this shutdown of the natural filtration system causes arsenic levels in seawater to rise, which means that it can enter the marine ecosystem, where it becomes more concentrated and the further it moves up the food chain.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, arsenic is found in both organic and inorganic forms in nature. Inorganic arsenic is typically used in industry, in copper chromated arsenate-treated lumber, and in private well water in some parts of the country. Organic arsenic is found in many foods--particularly shellfish such as bivalves (clams, oysters, scallops, mussels), crustaceans (crabs and lobsters), and certain cold water and bottom feeding finfish, and seaweed or kelp. Organic forms of arsenic found in seafood are generally considered to be nontoxic, and are excreted in urine within 48 hours of ingestion; however, a 2007 study found high levels of inorganic arsenic in hijiki seaweed.
Non-cancer effects of arsenic exposure can include thickening and discoloration of the skin, stomach pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, numbness in hands and feet, partial paralysis, and blindness. Arsenic has been linked to cancer of the bladder, lungs, skin, kidney, nasal passages, liver, and prostate.
Markey asks Hamburg to provide answers to a number of questions regarding seafood safety with regards to both hydrocarbon and arsenic contamination by July 28. Among them are:
1. What is FDA doing to assess whether the ingestion of contaminated species by other more mobile fish is not resulting in the contamination of marine seafood caught outside the areas closed to fishing?
2. While FDA's Webpage states that "FDA and NOAA have agreed on a protocol to determine when closed federal harvest waters can be re-opened." The protocol relies heavily on the ability to pass a sensory and chemical analysis to identify oil and its residues. Does this protocol also identify when seafood is contaminated with arsenic?
3. How does FDA plan on monitoring the long-term effect that oil, other hydrocarbons, and other toxic compounds such as arsenic have on aquatic life in the Gulf of Mexico and any potential effect that consumption of seafood from the Gulf has on human health?
4. Will FDA continue to conduct long-term monitoring for arsenic to ensure that the chemical does not bioaccumulate in the food chain for months or years after the leak has stopped and the oil is visibly removed?
5. What federal standards are in place for how much arsenic can be present in seafood consumed by humans?

China Sends Mixed Messages on Food Safety
by Helena Bottemiller | Jul 19, 2010
The recent seizure of 76 tons of melamine-tainted dairy products in China has again sparked concern over the country's food safety system.
While it remains unclear whether the recently-seized dairy was left over from previous incidents, or a new batch, or whether any illnesses have been connected to the dairy, Chinese government officials sought to assuage worries last week, again pledging to improve enforcement of newly revamped food safety laws.
"China attaches great importance to food safety, particularly dairy quality and safety," Deputy Secretary for Health Supervision Chen Rui told reporters at a recent conference at the Ministry of Health. "The ministry will continue to organize the national dairy safety standards to track evaluations, listen to the food production companies and consumer opinion, and constantly revise and improve the national dairy safety standards."
Striking another tone, a senior Chinese health official said last Monday that more food safety incidents, like melamine-tainted milk scandals, are likely given China's size and unbalanced development.
"With such a huge territory and population in China, it's hard to avoid all food safety threats and to put all unscrupulous businessmen under scrutiny," said Su Zhi, director of the health supervision bureau under the Ministry of Health at an international food safety forum last week. Su also said the Chinese government would investigate every food safety incident and punish responsible parties.
Xinhua, an official Chinese media outlet, reported that Su refused to comment on whether the recently seized dairy products were leftovers from the 2008 scandal, which sickened over 300,000 and killed six infants.
After a 10-day food safety raid last February, which turned up more melamine-laced milk, the Chinese government announced that most of the tainted milk had been destroyed.
Melamine is an industrial chemical used in many plastic products. The chemical is an attractive means of economic adulteration for milk producers because it makes watered-down, low quality milk appear to have a higher protein content in certain tests. When ingested, melamine can cause bladder or kidney stones, bladder cancer, and acute kidney failure.
China's national food safety office responded to the recent melamine raid by announcing it will restart a nationwide overhaul of milk powder, including its source, manufacturing, storage, and sales, according to Xinhua.

Debate Over Antibiotics in Ag Rolls On
by Helena Bottemiller | Jul 19, 2010
The debate over the subtherapeutic use of antibiotics in animal agriculture brought veterinarians, public health officials, scientists, and industry representatives to Congress last week for a hearing, the third in a series held by the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health on growing antibiotic resistance.
The hearing comes just a few weeks after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a draft guidance "intended to help reduce the development of resistance to medically important antimicrobial drugs," which are widely used in food animal production to ward off disease and promote growth.
In the meeting, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) called the draft guidance "a good first step," but stressed that more could be done to combat the problem.
"We must do more to tackle this piece of antibiotic resistance puzzle. And we must do so as part of a comprehensive strategy designed to safeguard the vitally important public health tool that is our antibiotics. It is critical that we encourage the development of new drugs," he said. "But it is also essential to preserve the antibiotics we already have. That means we must move expeditiously to slow the advancement of antibiotic resistance in both humans and animals."
Experts from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and FDA discussed the link between antibiotic resistance in humans to the use of medically important antibiotics in animals.
"USDA believes that it is likely that the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture does lead to some cases of antibacterial resistance among humans and in the animals themselves, and it is important that these medically important antibiotics be used judiciously," Dr. John Clifford, the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service deputy administrator for veterinary services, told the committee last Wednesday.
"We need to work together to conduct research and develop new therapies that protect and preserve animal health, without increasing the risk of resistance to medically important antibiotics," said Clifford in his prepared statement, adding that the agency must partner with farmers and producers, in addition to federal agencies, to facilitate the judicious use of antibiotics "in ways that are feasible to farmers and ranchers."
Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of CDC, submitted responses to questions in time for the committee hearing, clarifying the agency's position on the issue. Using much stronger language than in previous testimony, Frieden said there is "strong scientific evidence of a link between antibiotic use in food animals and antibiotic resistance in humans."
Representing FDA at the hearing, Joshua Sharfstein, principal deputy commissioner of the agency, said the agencies were having "good discussion" on antimicrobial resistance, as it relates to food safety, in the President's Food Safety Working Group.
Sharfstein also pushed back against criticism of FDA's draft guidance, telling lawmakers the document was based on a "mountain of scientific evidence."
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the Animal Health Institute, a trade group representing veterinary pharmaceutical companies, questioned the science linking growing resistance to agricultural use, called for more research, and described antimicrobials as a critical tool for food safety and animal health.
According to Dr. Christine Hoang, assistant director of the scientific activities division at AVMA, "a direct epidemiological investigation still cannot be completed." Hoang cautioned lawmakers about the potential of unintended consequences from any "preemptive" ban on antimicrobials.
"Simple solutions may not solve such complex problems," said Hoang, in her prepared statement. "Inappropriate reactions could have unknown and unintended consequences that negatively affect animal health and welfare, and ultimately, could create other public health risks, such as increased foodborne illness."
Dr. Richard Carnevale, vice president of scientific, regulatory and international affairs at the Animal Health Institute expressed similar concerns.
"Research shows that the first link in the chain of producing meat, milk, and eggs is keeping animals free from disease," said Carnevale in his prepared testimony, adding that the industry is committed to working with FDA to address concerns about antibiotics use in food animal production.
The FDA is inviting comments on the draft guidance, The Judicious Use of Medically Important Antimicrobial Drugs in Food-Producing Animals (pdf). See the Federal Register notice (pdf) for more information.
The agency is accepting comments on a rolling basis, but recommends submitting before August 30 for comments to be considered in the next draft.

Food Standards Agency 'will remain' government promises
20 July 2010
The government says it will retain the Food Standards Agency, following concerns the independent watchdog would be scrapped under reforms.
But it will hand over some responsibilities to government, Health Secretary Andrew Lansley confirmed.
The Department of Health will oversee nutrition policy and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will handle food labelling.
This, says the government, will leave the FSA to focus on food safety.
Charities said government must follow through with this reorganisation and "should not let the good things the FSA achieved disappear into a black hole".
The FSA was set up as an independent food safety watchdog in 2000, in the wake of the BSE crisis and a number of high-profile outbreaks and deaths from foodborne illness.
More recently, the FSA has led calls for the Europe-wide introduction of a traffic light system requiring food companies to label the front of their products with red, amber or green symbols to denote the amounts of fat, saturated fat, salt and sugar contained per serving.
Mr Lansley said bringing some policy-based functions 'in house' made sense. Nearly 100 of the Agency's posts will be moved, leaving 2,000 remaining staff.
"It's absolutely crucial for the Food Standards Agency to continue providing independent expert advice to people about food safety. But bringing nutrition policy into the Department makes sense.
"It will enable a clear, consistent public health service to be created, as our Public Health White Paper later this year will set out.
"I believe - in the-long term - we'll have a clearer and less bureaucratic system for public health. The end result will focus on turning expert advice and support into better health."
Caroline Spelman, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "It makes perfect sense to bring policy on food origin and associated labelling to Defra to sit with wider food policy. The Government has made very clear its commitment to clear and honest labelling - particularly origin labelling.
"These changes will enable the FSA to focus on food safety and it is right that this should stay in the hands of an independent body."
Lord Rooker, Chair of the FSA, said: "Food safety and hygiene have always been at the heart of what the Agency does. They are our top priorities in protecting the interests of consumers."
Peter Hollins, Chief Executive of the British Heart Foundation, said: "The Government must follow through with this reorganisation, by recognising its responsibilities in relation to food labels now it has brought the issue in-house.
"The FSA did much to promote healthy diets and now the Government must demonstrate it will not let the good things the FSA achieved disappear into a black hole.
"Regardless of the European jurisdiction issues, the Government should recognise it has an opportunity to put the health of the UK population first and continue battling for traffic light colours on food labels."

LJ Anderson: Rise in food imports heightens contamination risk
By LJ Anderson
Daily News ColumnistPosted: 07/20/2010
As computer jobs have gone offshore, so has the production and processing of food. In addition, the U.S. now imports more food than it exports ? with fresh produce, and fresh and frozen fish and shellfish among the leading imports. Mexico is the No. 1 exporter of fruit to the U.S., and China is in second place.
This unprecedented growth in globalization of food sources is accompanied by concerns about health risks to consumers. Regulations governing food production in many developing countries are often negligible. For example, two-thirds of the world's production of farmed fish is grown in ponds fertilized by animal manure or human sewage.
Michael Doyle, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia ( His Ph.D. is in microbiology, and his research is in the area of food microbiology with a focus on bacterial foodborne pathogens.
Q: In general, what are the challenges in preventing foodborne illness?
A: One of the biggest challenges is keeping manure out of the food. The reason is that animals, in large part, carry harmful microbes in their intestines and shed it in the feces. Especially, in foods of animal origin ? such as meat, poultry and raw milk ? these bacteria can be found. They also can be found on fruits and vegetables because manure can get into soil and irrigation water, and feces from wildlife get into the fields ? so there are lots of different sources from which foods can become contaminated.
The other piece of the equation is that many of these foods may be eaten without further cooking ? like fresh foods, vegetables or raw milk ? which would kill harmful bacteria if they were present. Consumers themselves can take control by using good food-handling practices, properly cooking the food, and avoiding cross-contamination.
Q: What trends are occurring regarding food imports to the U.S.?
A: It depends on the food category, but a major portion of our food supply comes from other countries. Many of these are developing countries that do not have the same level of sanitation that we have in the U.S., and so harmful microbes can be present. (I've seen) an outhouse stationed right over a pond where shrimp or tilapia are grown, and untreated chicken manure as the nutrient primarily used to feed the shrimp and tilapia.
Currently, more than 15 percent of all foods that we consume are imported, and the number is growing. Labor is a primary cost of producing processed or consumer-ready foods, and that is the category of imported foods that is growing most rapidly. An example is fruit that is processed and canned in California, and then shipped to China or Thailand in (industrial) cans where the fruit is repackaged into small plastic containers, and sent back to the U.S. for sale. There are a lot of things out there that people don't realize are processed in other countries. And the oversight that occurs is largely from U.S. companies that buy ingredients or have foods processed in these countries, and the level of oversight varies dramatically. Some companies have third-party auditors go in and take a snapshot view for the particular day they're there. Others may take a certificate of analysis from the company, and don't even check out where it's coming from.
Q: What foods are most prone to foodborne pathogens?
A: Seafood can be contaminated with salmonella from the chicken manure or other manure that is used in aquaculture, or from processing water that is not properly treated. Up until last year in the U.S., seafood inspection was totally under the FDA. But their inspection oversight is totally different from the USDA. which mandates its inspectors be in the plant during processing of meat and poultry. The law was changed to include catfish (under the USDA) ? because catfish growers in Louisiana and the Southeast were concerned about improperly labeled catfish coming into the U.S. from Asia, and growers thought continuous oversight or inspection would prevent that false labeling from occurring.
Q: How, if at all, do you eat differently because of what you know?
A: I don't eat raw oysters, for sure, and I won't drink raw milk because we know the potential for pathogens. I prefer shrimp from the Gulf Coast of the U.S., and I'm very careful that hamburger is well cooked. I handle chicken with care, and my wife and I make our own salads from whole heads, and avoid bagged salads. With lettuce, (harvesters) remove the leaves and core the lettuce in the field. But if the knife hits the ground and there are harmful microbes in the ground ? and the knife is then used to remove the core ? bacteria are trapped and will not wash away. The lettuce head is put on a belt where it goes through chlorinated water, but that doesn't do much in terms of killing any harmful microbes. It used to be that lettuce was cut in the field and then taken to a processing facility, where it was cored and the outer leaves were removed. But the waste had to be taken back to the field, so to save on transportation costs, (growers) decided to core the head and remove the outer leaves in the field, and leave the waste out there. On top of that, there's dust blowing around, and they're exposing the outer leaves that we're going to eat.

Main Page
Sponsorship Qustions

ist of Newsletters

To subscribe this Food Safety Newsletter

Copyright (C). All rights reserved