Category: Food Safety

GM Food Labeling: An Unfinished Battle

The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

By Kuei-Jung Ni

In Washington state, a proposal (Initiative 522) to require labeling of genetically modified (GM) or engineered (GE) foods was defeated recently by votes of 45.17% in favor and 54.83% against. The state law would have implemented mandatory labeling requirements on food composed of 0.9% or more of GM ingredients, measured by weight. Prospects for passage of the proposal were quite promising when it was first introduced. But, the scenario shifted when GM food companies, including General Mills, Nestle USA, PepsiCo, Monsanto, etc., launched a multi-million dollar advertisement campaign challenging the justification for GM labeling.

The downfall of the proposal, while disappointing consumer groups, is not likely to stop the labeling movement. Actually, there have been many other attempts to regulate GM foods on a state level. California Proposition 37, which would have imposed labeling requirements similar to the Washington proposal, was put to a vote last year, but failed to pass. According to Just Label It, a NGO, more than 20 state laws were introduced about GM labeling this year.

Many scientists trust the safety of GM foods, and the benefits brought by the development of GM agriculture are obvious. GM crop production can reduce the use of pesticides and enhance yields. By contrast, in addition to possible new allergies caused by the consumption of GM foods, some worry about their potential harm to the environment and ecological system. On the federal level, three agencies are competent to regulate GM crops and foods: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which use existing rules to regulate. Yet, the inadequacy of their oversight has been disclosed. Until now, no specific federal law has been enacted to regulate GM food production and consumption.

Read More

FSMA Proposed Rule on Accreditation of Third-Party Auditors

The Petrie-Flom Center Staff Leave a comment

By Ching-Fu Lin

Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published for public comment the proposed rule to implement §307 of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).  The proposed rule is to establish a program for accreditation of third-party auditors to provide the FDA with a more efficient tool to regulate food products.  Particularly, it assists the FDA in regulating food entering the United States via international trade, as it is recognized by the FSMA that the FDA is administratively and financially unable to ensure the safety of imported foods solely on its current system of border inspection.  Under the new program, the FDA would recognize accreditation bodies, which would in turn accredit third-party auditors.  These third-party auditors would then conduct onsite food safety audits in foreign jurisdictions and issue certifications for foreign food producers.  According to the FSMA and the proposed rule, an accreditation body can be a foreign government/agency or a private third party, and a third-party auditor can be a foreign government, foreign cooperative, or a private third party.  Both are required by the proposed rule to meet standards for legal authority, competency and capacity, impartiality/objectivity, quality assurance, and records procedures.

Will such a multilayer delegation structure result in dilution of accountability and effectiveness?

Congress -> FDA -> Accreditation Body -> Third-Party Auditor -> Producer

The FSMA seems to have created a regulatory dilemma for the FDA in terms of addressing imported food safety.  The dilemma results from a structural mismatch between the broad scope of power granted to the FDA and the long chain of delegation to foreign/private actors as primary “regulators.”  The FSMA instructs the FDA to delegate its regulatory authority to foreign governments and/or private third parties, aiming to largely increase the effectiveness of regulation along the global supply chain. However, the FSMA does not give the FDA adequate capacity to closely oversee such foreign/private regulatory agents along the delegation chain.  Thus, the FSMA cannot hold foreign/private regulatory agents fully accountable for their failures in ensuring food safety.

Read More

How Well Do You Know Your Turkey?

eparasid Leave a comment

by Efthimios Parasidis

In the United States, over 250 million turkeys are slaughtered each year, with over 45 million just for Thanksgiving. The overwhelming majority of these birds (over 99%) are a genetically engineered and industrially-farmed breed known as Broad Breasted White. As the name suggests, this breed of turkey has an unnatural abundance of white breast meat.  In many ways, industrial turkey farms are similar to industrial chicken farms–typically there are thousands of birds packed into a closed space with no natural light, no access to the outdoors, and mechanized feed and water (often laced with antibiotics and growth hormones). Adult turkeys in an industrial farm typically cannot walk properly or reproduce on their own, and artificial insemination is the norm. The eggs are hatched in an incubator and newborns have no contact with their mother. Shortly after birth, the young turkeys are placed into a large dark warehouse that will be the only space they will ever know. Their toes and beaks are cut without pain killers. Due to the grotesque environment, millions of birds die from “stress-induced conditions“. Those that survive grow at an astonishing rate, attaining market weight in just 12-18 weeks. The adults often are blind, due to lack of natural light and other factors (such as pecking fights in the tight quarters). According to one study, if a 7 pound human newborn grew at the same rate as an industrial turkey, it would be 1,500 pounds at 18 weeks of age.

A small but growing number of turkeys are non-genetically engineered Heritage Breeds. Heritage Breeds were in existence prior to the industrial-farming practices introduced in the 1960s, with some breeds tracing their roots to the 1800s. Standard farming practices for Heritage breeds include liberal roaming of pastures, humane growing conditions, and no antibiotics or growth hormones. Heritage turkeys are difficult to find, with some farmers requiring advanced notice (often months in advance) to purchase. The higher cost of Heritage turkeys (about $7 a pound, compared to approximately $1.50 a pound for industrial birds) reflects the higher cost of raising them, as well as insufficient subsidies for farmers employing organic and/or sustainable practices (along with over-subsidization of industrial and corporate farms).

It’s important to note that an organic turkey is not necessarily a Heritage breed. An organic turkey is any breed that has been fed an organic diet. Similarly, a free-range turkey is not necessary a Heritage breed. In fact, free-range does not mean that the turkey has actually stepped foot on a pasture. Rather, under USDA regulations, a bird can be labeled free-range if it lives in a space where there is access to the outdoors. Reaching the outdoors is immaterial. If knowing your turkey matters to you, be sure to ask the right questions, including the breed of the turkey, what feed the turkey has been provided (including whether the feed was comprised of genetically-modified ingredients), whether the turkey has been given antibiotics or other drugs or hormones, and whether the bird actually foraged in a pasture.

FDA Food Safety Modernization Act Might Raise Trade Concerns?

clin Leave a comment

By Ching-Fu Lin

At the World Trade Organization (WTO) committee dealing with food safety and other issues under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) held approximately three weeks ago, China raised several trade concerns about the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).  Other WTO members, such as Brazil, Belize, and Korea, supported China’s concerns.  One of the major points of contention was the FSMA’s import certification requirements and whether its outsourced third-party auditors will conduct food safety inspections in a manner consistent with the SPS Agreement.

Before we dig into the trade implications of the FSMA, two important questions must first be answered.  What are the FSMA import food safety requirements?  And what is the underlying rationale for such requirements?

Read More

Taking China’s Food Safety Problem Seriously (II)

clin Leave a comment

By Ching-Fu Lin

[See Part I here.]

In response to the melamine-tainted milk scandal in 2008, China replaced its outdated Food Hygiene Act with the Food Safety Law, which came into effect in 2009.  The 2009 Food Safety Law includes provisions on risk assessment methods, establishment of a food safety committee, mandatory product recall requirements, and unification of food safety standards.  However, this legal reform has left many key areas of the regulatory framework intact—such as industry compliance and law enforcement.

First, the crucial problem of overlapping competencies among responsible authorities is not addressed in the 2009 Food Safety Law.  Although the Ministry of Health (MOH) is mandated to take the lead on food safety regulation, the current state is flawed as multiple agencies are only organized in a loosely coordinated system.  For example, the State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA), the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), the State General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ), and the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) all take part in the regulation of the entire food supply chain.  The result is a fragmented regulatory environment, which creates blind areas for agencies to push responsibility away, and therefore, perpetuate rather than alleviate loopholes in routine control.  Thus, timely response and cooperation is difficult.

Read More

Taking China’s Food Safety Problem Seriously (I)

clin Leave a comment

By Ching-Fu Lin

Why should we be concerned about China’s food safety problem?  A recent opinion by Adam Minter on Bloomberg offers yet another tough criticism on China’s food system: “For more than a decade, China has earned a reputation as one of the world’s worst food-safety offenders.”  Melamine-tainted milk, rat meat sold as lamb, recycled “gutter oil” for cooking, and most recently, juice made from rotten fruit, Chinese food producers never cease to surprise us with their “creativity” in economic adulteration.  The Chinese government, however, has failed to establish an effective regulatory system beyond executing violators and political campaigns.  The Chinese consumers continue to react with desperation to these endless food safety crises, smuggling bunks of infant formula from Hong Kong and other countries.

But why should we care?

According to testimony before a subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in May, food products of Chinese origin have dominated the U.S. food market in areas such as tilapia (77.5%), apple juice (65.2%), cod (52.7%), processed mushrooms (34.1%), garlic (27.4%), clams (16.1%), frozen spinach (16.0%), and salmon (12.7%).  The Chinese food imports are also expected to increase by about 10% annually until 2020.  Faced with the huge volumes of foods imported into the US every year, the Food and Drug Administration has only been able to inspect about 2.3% of the total imports from China in 2011 (which is, well, an improvement compared to 1.3% in 2007). Moreover, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced last month that China’s poultry processing inspection system is equivalent to its US counterpart.  That is, processed chicken from China is determined as meeting US food safety standards (even if there are no on-site USDA inspectors in the processing facilities) and granted it access to the US market.

In an interdependent world trading system, regulatory failure in one country can spill over to many others, resulting in adverse public health repercussions in the latter country.  We should take China’s food safety problem seriously.

Read More

Foodborne illness and the government shutdown

W. Nicholson Price Leave a comment

By Nicholson Price

This story is still developing, so this post will just be a quick pointer.  You may have seen news stories about how FDA isn’t inspecting foods, and 90% of seafood isn’t getting inspected.  And these are all worries about problems that we think might happen.

Well, the problems have started.  Salmonella-contaminated chicken has sickened 278 people across 18 states.  The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is still operating as an excepted activity (pdf link, see page 2), and has announced the outbreak but the CDC may be unable to do interstate surveillance of the outbreak (exactly what CDC is able to do during the shutdown is a bit unclear).  And FSIS only covers meat, poultry, and eggs.  FDA, which inspects most other foods, won’t be doing so as long as the government is shut down.

And for folks who happen to go to the USDA site looking for answers (as opposed to linking right to the FSIS), they’ll get this message: “Due to the lapse in federal government funding, this website is not available.”

“Mountain Dew Mouth:” A Critical Opportunity for Public Health Law

Temple University Center for Public Health Law Research Leave a comment

By Scott Burris

Last week, the American Journal of Public Health published a PHLR paper by Michelle Mello and colleagues calling for our field to identfy “critical opportunities” for public health law. Critical Opportunities are legal interventions that target important public health problems.  They may have a strong evidence base but be underutilized (like alcohol taxes that keep up with inflation). They may be ideas that appear to be working in practice, and have a plausible mechanism of effect, even if our evidence base still consists of early studies or reports from practice (like distributing naloxone to opioid users and their friends to reduce overdose death). And they may be innovations that are plausible because of how they appear to relate to the problem or because they are similar in mechanism to other legal interventions that have been proven to work (like restricting sales of single cigars).  The bottom line is that we can do a better job spreading the word about legal interventions that work and that policy makers and the public can get behind in states and localities around the country.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has helped get the idea moving by supporting a series of videos in which public health lawyers, practitioners and researchers pitch their ideas for critical opportunities.  These are often done, like a Ted Talk, at meetings, and one of the audience favorites is Dana Singer’s pitch for action to deal with “Mountain Dew Mouth,” a term gaining in traction to name the devastating consequences of heavy consumption of sugary beverages, especially those with critic acid.  The issue is on the federal agenda as part of the debate about food stamps.  It’s a hard one: public health people see the terrible consequences of these products and think that ending the federal “subsidy” for them might reduce harm; SNAP advocates don’t like the idea of anyone telling poor people what to eat and drink; industry, well, you can guess. State and local beverage taxes are another option, and we know that taxes can reduce consumption of even addictive products.

NPR has a story on the problem and some of the solutions this week.  I’m glad to see more attention to this problem, because poor dental health can send anyone’s life on a harder course, and is a very big problem in Appalachia. If you don’t believe me, or even NPR, read Priscilla Harris’s paper and watch Dana’s critical ops video.

Food Safety Regulatory Cooperation in the US-EU Free Trade Pact

clin Leave a comment

By Ching-Fu Lin

In a congressional letter last month, 76 House Members urged United States (US) Trade Representative Michael Froman to push for strong and enforceable sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures in the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).  SPS measures – which have been viewed as an area with very little room for convergence between the two sides – cover animal health, plant health, and food safety law and regulation.  The differences are evidenced by previous politically salient disputes over hormone-treated beef, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and more recently, ractopamine in pork.  Indeed, given the cultural and institutional divergences between the US and the European Union (EU) food safety regulatory systems, many doubt the possibility that TTIP can come up with an SPS chapter (or an SPS-Plus chapter) that strikes a proper balance between public health and international trade.

As noted by some commentators, given the relatively low tariffs between the EU and US, the chief focus will center upon reducing non-tariff barriers to trade in numerous sectors, including agricultural products, biotechnology, and food safety regulation.  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also established a special public health and trade team within its Office of International Programs to take a more active role in the negotiation.  Yet the negotiation over such a “sensitive” area has been considered unpromising—transatlantic deadlock, cooperation failure, and several deal breakers (especially regarding GMOs)—because the differences in food safety regulation between the US and EU seem not only significant but also persistent.

However, the outlook may not be as pessimistic as the common understanding.

Read More