“It’s a big deal that these two are coming out because it’s the central framework for prevention,” said Michael Taylor, FDA’s Deputy Comissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine, in an interview with Food Safety News. “We’re eager to get to the next phase of the process.”

The two rules were mandated by the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) — a law that aims to shift the U.S. food safety system from being primarily reactive to focusing on prevention — which President Obama signed into law, with broad bipartisan support, exactly two years ago.

Since the law was enacted, the FDA has failed to keep up with the multiple deadlines set by Congress, in large part because the measures proposed by the agency were under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget’s Office of International and Regulatory Affairs for more than a year — a delay many stakeholders blamed on election politics.

It is still not clear exactly why the Obama administration’s review took so long (OMB officials have long maintained the rules are just complex and take time). According to Taylor, the OMB’s cost-benefit analysis, which will soon be posted online, found that the the economic benefits from the two new rules are much greater than the expected costs to the food industry.

“There are significant benefits that well exceed the estimated costs,” said Taylor, adding that preventing outbreaks and the health care costs associated with them is actually one small part of the expected economic benefit. “There’s a great benefit in reducing the disruption to the markets, the loss of sales, and the loss of consumer confidence each time a major foodborne illness outbreak strikes.”

The agency has made full drafts of the proposed rules, which are lengthy, available online. The public will have 120 days to comment and then the rule will go through the normal rulemaking process, which could take several months.

It will likely take time for stakeholders to review the proposed rules, as the agency has not yet released an overview of what exactly would be required under the proposal, but the early reactions were unanimously positive.

“We applaud the Administration’s release of these important proposals,” said Sandra Eskin, director of the food safety campaign at the Pew Charitable Trusts. “This is a significant step forward in reducing preventable foodborne illnesses and restoring consumer confidence in the food supply.”

The Grocery Manufacturers Association said that industry and government need to work together “to provide Americans and consumers around the world with the safest possible products” and called FSMA implementation a “role mode” for this type of cooperation.

“We are pleased that implementation of FSMA is moving forward and look forward to working with the FDA by continuing to share our food safety expertise and best practices and by evaluating and commenting on the proposed rules,” said Pamela Bailey, the president and CEO of GMA.

Joe Levitt, a partner at Hogan Lovells, which represents food industry clients, called the two new rules “form the cornerstone of FSMA.”

“They get to the very heart of the new law’s paradigm shift from reaction to prevention,” said Levitt, who formerly served as Director of FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. “As with all FDA proposed rules, public comment is a key component of the process, and the food industry and other stakeholders will review these proposals thoroughly and submit comments to FDA on how to make the final rules as beneficial and cost-effective as possible.”

The agency plans to do extensive outreach to stakeholders to have a “real dialogue” and ensure all elements of the food industry understand the new requirements.

“This is the first time we’ve ever had enforceable standards on the farm. It’s the first time we’ve tried to apply preventive controls across all types of operations,” said Taylor. “What I think we’ll see, especially in the produce community, where standards are new is that we’re going to need to work with the community to explain what we’re proposing and to explain how the flexibilities work.”

“There are many, many examples of where we’ve built flexibility into the rules so the requirements are adaptable to the particular circumstances of a farm: what they’re growing, how they’re growing it, the way they use water, and so forth,” he added.

If produce growers, for instance, are already  paying attention to food safety by implementing good agricultural practices (GAPs), and doing rigorous certifications, there may not be anything new or surprising about the produce rules, according to Taylor.

One of the key elements of the proposed rule for produce focuses on water. If a farm is applying water to the edible part of the crop, it will likely have to meet a microbial standard, or explain why such a standard isn’t relevant to that specific product.

There are three other key draft rules that remain under review at OMB, two that have been there for more than a year, on foreign supplier verification and preventive controls for the feed industry, and one on third party audit certification, which was only recently submitted to the administration.

Taylor said he expects the remaining rules will be released “shortly,” but declined to provide a specific timeline. “I know people are working hard on it.”

While releasing the rules is a big step toward implementing FSMA, many stakeholders remain concerned the agency won’t have the resources to enforce them.

“We’ve said from the beginning we’ll need additional resources to fully implement this,” said Taylor. The Congressional Budget Office estimates FDA would need about $1.5 billion in additional funds over five years to do so, but so far Congress has not provided anywhere near that level of funding.

This story originally appeared on Food Safety News.

Consumer Reports tested 198 samples and found that while the vast majority were positive for Yersinia, only 3 to 7 percent were positive for more the more common foodborne pathogens Salmonella, Staphylococcus aureus or Listeria monocytogenes.

According to the report, several of the isolates found were resistant to one or more antibiotics: Six of the eight Salmonella samples, 13 of the 14 Staphylococcus samples and 121 of the 132 Yersinia samples. The study also found MRSA on one sample.

The group points to the widespread use of antibiotics in agriculture as a key contributor to the resistance problem.

The report cites Robert Lawrence, a doctor who serves as director of the Center for a Liveable Future at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health: “When you give low-dose antibiotics for growth promotion of for prophylaxis of infection, you end up killing off the susceptible bacteria, whether they’re E. coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter or other bacteria. And you continue to select for those bacteria that, through spontaneous mutations or transfer of genes from other resistant bacteria, allow them to be resistant to antibiotics.”

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), a vocal critic of agriculture’s use of antibiotics, reacted to the study on Tuesday calling the results “simply terrifying.”

“It’s getting harder and harder for the food processing industry and the FDA to ignore the fact that the overuse of antibiotics in animals is threatening public health,” said the congresswoman, in a statement. “Their half-measures and voluntary guidelines are no longer enough – we must act swiftly to reverse this public health crisis.”

USDA affirms safety of pork products

The USDA responded to questions about the study by pointing out that the low levels of Salmonella and other common pathogens found by Consumer Reports show that pork processors are meeting federal food safety requirements.

“The findings reported in the article affirm that companies are meeting the established guidelines for protecting the public’s health,” said a USDA spokesperson, on background. “USDA will remain vigilant against emerging and evolving threats to the safety of America’s supply of meat, poultry and processed egg products, and we will continue to work with the industry to ensure companies are following food safety procedures in addition to looking for new ways to strengthen the protection of public health.”

The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service does not test for Yersinia in its periodic baseline studies, which give the agency data on the prevalence of pathogens in different meat products. Since Consumer Reports found “very low” Salmonella contamination levels, the agency says, this indicates that the pork industry is adequately controlling pathogens.

FSIS also points out that last year 100 percent of pork processing establishments tested by the agency met the agency’s 2011 performance standards for Salmonella.

“FSIS selected Salmonella as the target organism for its pathogen reduction performance standards due, in part, to its high resistance to lethality treatments such as cooking. Eliminating Salmonella in a ready-to-eat pork product results in a product that also is safe from other pathogens, such as Yersinia.”

“Raw pork products are expected to be cooked sufficiently to destroy any pathogens of public health concern, including Salmonella and Yersinia,” added the agency.

There are a number of precautions consumers can take to avoid exposure to Yersinia. CDC recommends avoiding raw or undercooked pork, consuming only pasteurized dairy products, and washing hands when preparing food, after contact with animals and after handling raw meat.

Raw chitterlings, or pig intestines, are seen as a particular risk. CDC recommends cleaning hands and fingernails thoroughly with soap and water before touching infants or their toys, bottles or pacifiers after handling chitterlings.

Study finds traces of veterinary drug

The study also tested 240 additional samples of pork and found that 20 percent contained traces of ractopamine, a controversial beta-agonist drug widely used in pork production to boost feed efficiency and leanness.

Each sample that tested positive had concentrations at less than 5 parts per billion (ppb), which is below the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s safety standard for pork muscle meat (50 ppb) and the recently adopted Codex Alimentarius Commission standard (10 ppb).

The drug, marketed to pork producers as Paylean, has been at the heart of recent trade controversies with the European Union, Taiwan and China, which each ban the drug and ask that U.S. meat imports are from pigs not fed ractopamine.

Citing incomplete safety data, Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy arm of Consumer Reports, has pressed for a ban on the drug.

A report published by nbcnews.com last year found that ractopamine had sparked more adverse drug experience reports for pigs than any other drug. According to FDA documents, the adverse reports complained that pigs suffered hyperactivity, trembling, broken limbs, inability to walk and death. FDA says such data do not establish that the drug caused the health problems, but the agency asked the drugmaker to add a warning label to the product in 2002.

Originally posted on Food Safety News

As concerns grow about antibiotic-resistant pathogens in our food, environment, and hospitals, the Agricultural Research Service is trying to figure out the best alternatives for food animal producers, who have long relied on these miracle drugs for combating diseases and boosting feed efficiency.

Though antibiotic resistance is a known consequence of antibiotic use in both humans and animals, agricultural use has come under greater scrutiny in recent years as more consumers take an interest in how their food is produced. According to the most recent estimates, around 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in the United States each year are used in food animal production.

Vitamins, phytonutrients, and probiotics are all being explored as viable alternatives, according to this month’s Agricultural Research magazine. Some of the findings will be presented by ARS researchers at an World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) conference in Paris in September.

“A number of the new technologies have direct applications as medical interventions for human health, but the focus of the symposium is animal production, animal health, and food safety,” said Cyril Gay, the national program leader for animal health at ARS, which is a U.S. Department of Agriculture program based in Beltsville, MD. “The result of this symposium will be an assessment of new technologies for treating and preventing diseases of animals and recommendations that will advance strategies for growth promotion and health in livestock, poultry, and aquaculture.”

At the BARC Animal Parasitic Diseases Laboratory, an ARS lab in Beltsville, avian immunologist Hyun Lillehoj has found that certain food supplements, probiotics, and phytonutrients can be effective in fighting off diseases like coccidiosis, a common parasitic disease. The USDA estimates that coccidiosis costs the domestic industry $600 million annually.

Lillhoj is now working to apply the same technology to develop ways to treat intestinal bacterial infections caused by Clostridium without using antibiotics, according to ARS. As part of her research, Lillhoj is working on gaining a better understanding of poultry genetics.

“My work over the last 27 years at ARS has involved trying to figure out how to grow poultry without using drugs and enhance their innate immunity,” Lillehoj told Agricultural Research. “One of those strategies is genetic improvement. We’ve been working to identify genetic markers associated with enhanced innate immunity to enteric pathogens.”

Lillehoj and her team hope their research can eventually be used to help breed birds for enhanced disease resistance, so that they can rely on their own immune systems instead of drugs. The team has also identified and patented an immune molecule called “NK lysin,” a chicken protein that kills the parasite that causes coccidiosis and other troublesome parasites.

For the past couple of years, ARS researchers have also studied whether phytochemicals derived from safflower, plums, peppers, cinnamon, and green tea can help enhance a chicken’s immune system.

Another research team at the ARS National Animal Disease Center in Ames, IA has found that Vitamin D is a promising treatment for mastitis, a mammary gland infection common among dairy cows that is currently usually treated with antibiotics.

Cows treated with vitamin D showed fewer bacterial counts and fewer clinical signs of severe infection — and if they were treated early enough in the infection, the treated cows also produced more milk than untreated cows, reported Agricultural Research.

“We hope this natural form of vitamin D will be a means to reduce antibiotic use either by using this in tandem with antibiotics and shortening the duration of antibiotic use, or as a means against some bacteria that are resistant to antibiotic treatments,” said NADC researcher John Lippolis.

ARS researchers at the Food and Feed Safety Research United in College Station, TX patented their new technology to fight foodborne pathogens in the intestinal tracts of animals. The method uses cholrate and  nitro compounds to significantly reduce or eliminate pathogens like Salmonella and E. coli O157: H7, according to ARS.

Agency microbiologist Robin Anderson found that mixing the chlorate-based compound into cattle’s water or feed two days before slaughter was highly effective in killing E. coli — reducing bacteria levels from 100,000 E. coli cells per gram of fecal material to 100 cells per gram.

The researchers found similar results with Salmonella in turkeys: the incidence of Salmonella dropped from 35 percent to 0 and from 37 percent to 2 percent in broiler chickens.

“We found that chlorate by itself had significant bacteria-killing activity against E. coli and Salmonella, and that activity was enhanced 10- to 100-fold with addition of the nitro compound,” said Anderson. “We also found that the nitro compounds by themselves had significant bacteria-killing activity, and that activity was more persistent than the chlorate activity by itself.”

“This could be used instead of certain antibiotics that are commonly used to treat diarrheal infections in young pigs and cattle.”

As Agricultural Research noted, the demand for food animal products like meat, dairy and eggs is only increasing as developing countries expand their consumption of these items, so strategies to reduce the amount of antibiotics used in agricultural will continue to be critical. The OIE meeting in September will bring together scientists, veterinarians, and policymakers to discuss alternatives.

“The major issue to be addressed is novel biocontrol approaches for reducing bacterial pathogens in food animal production that employ strategies specifically geared to reduce or eliminate drug-resistance development,” said Gay.

More on the meeting in September can be found here.

Originally published on Food Safety News

Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley Tuesday signed a bill banning arsenic in poultry feed, making his state the first to have a law against the practice on the books.  

The new law, which takes effect Jan 1, prohibits the use, sale, or distribution of commercial feed containing arsenic and specifically mentions two Pfizer drugs that contain arsenic: Roxarsone, which the company voluntarily withdrew from the market last year, and Histostat, which is still on the market.

The move follows a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) study released last summer that found increased levels of inorganic arsenic in the livers of chickens treated with the Roxarsone. The new data raised concerns of a “very low but completely avoidable exposure to a carcinogen,” said Michael Taylor, FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Foods, when FDA announced the company was withdrawing the drug in response to the study’s findings.

Arsenic is a known human carcinogen and has been linked to a variety of health concerns, including interfering in fetal development, but FDA said the levels found in their poultry study are low enough that consumers are not at risk eating poultry while Roxarsone is phased out of use in the United States.

It is not known how widely the drug might be stockpiled and still used today. When Pfizer announced the withdrawal, FDA said it did not have data on usage in poultry production.

Aside from food safety concerns, which have been raised for many years, there is also overwhelming evidence that feeding arsenicals to poultry has had a harmful impact on the environment.

Maryland knows the impacts first hand. According to Food and Water Watch, the state’s poultry producers spread 22,000 pounds of arsenic–which is found in the fecal waste–to farmland “which ultimately gets washed into waterways like the Chesapeake Bay.”

A recent study by researchers at the University of Maryland found that poultry fed Roxarsone produced poultry litter–the waste from production, which includes feces, feathers and bedding–that contains 2.9 to 77 times the arsenic than poultry not fed Roxarsone. Further, the team found that the arsenic in the litter broke down into inorganic, the kind known to be harmful to human health, and it accumulates in soil.

Originally published on Food Safety News

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is taking its biggest step yet to rein in the indiscriminate use of antibiotics that help food animals grow bigger, faster. The agency said Wednesday it is asking veterinary drug makers to voluntarily phase out medically important drugs from being available over the counter in the hope that the shift will help combat growing antimicrobial resistance.

Under FDA’s proposal, these antimicrobials will still be allowed in animal agriculture but, if veterinary drug companies agree to change the labels, farmers will be allowed to use the drugs only to prevent, control, or treat diseases and under the supervision of a veterinarian and not for promoting growth or improving feed efficiency.

The agency said it was taking the voluntary action to “preserve the effectiveness of medically important antimicrobials for treating disease in humans.”

According to the most recent estimates, around 80 percent of all antibiotics sold in the United States are given to animals. FDA said it doesn’t know what percentage is used for growth promotion or so-called production uses, which the agency is trying to limit.

The reaction in the public health, veterinary pharmaceutical and animal agriculture community was mixed, but mostly negative.

The Pew Charitable Trusts, which has been lobbying for limiting antibiotic usage in food animal production for years, gave the move a tepid thumbs up.

“This is the most sweeping action the agency has undertaken in this area, as this covers all antibiotics used in meat and poultry production that are important to human health,” said Laura Rogers, director of the Pew’s Campaign on Human Health and Industrial Farming. “There are some gaps in these measures that we will urge FDA to address and, because this is voluntary, we will have to monitor antibiotic usage and resistance rates carefully. If these measures do not bring down antibiotic use and drug-resistant bacteria, then FDA will have to take additional steps.”

The Animal Health Institute, which represents veterinary pharmaceutical companies, also said it supports the FDA’s voluntary stakeholder approach, but has reservations.

“We strongly support responsible use of antibiotic medicines and the involvement of a veterinarian whenever antibiotics are administered to food producing animals,” said AHI. “While we agree with this direction and the collaborative, stakeholder process, there are details that must be addressed to make this approach practical and workable.  We will continue to work with FDA through the comment process to address these details.”

Most consumer and pubic health groups expressed disappointment that the proposal is voluntary and seems toothless.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest called the plan “tragically flawed” because it relies on the industry to voluntarily act in the best interest of consumers, though it did applaud the agency for recognizing the “public health imperative” to address the problem.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, which has been working on the issue for years, was also critical of the voluntary move.

“The approach announced represents a bold, well-intentioned attempt by the FDA to persuade an entire industry to voluntarily abandon claims that allow them to sell a large number of lucrative products,” said Margaret Mellon, the group’s senior scientist. “We have no reason to believe that the veterinary pharmaceutical industry–which, to date, has rarely even acknowledged that antibiotic resistance is a serious public health issue–will cooperate with the agency on a plan that could reduce its profits.”

The National Pork Producers Council blasted the proposal, arguing that it would be burdensome for producers in remote areas who have trouble getting access to veterinary care. NPPC called the plan “problematic” for pork producers, and said it believes the move would not only have a negative effect on animal health, but also increase the cost or producing food.

Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY) called the announcement “a step in the right direction,” but said she believed “much more must be done.”

“Antibiotic-resistant diseases now kill more Americans than AIDS and this issue needs to be treated with the seriousness it deserves,” said Slaughter, who has introduced legislation on the issue. “Of course if an animal is sick it should be treated, but the misuse of antibiotics in animal feed is destroying the effectiveness of antibiotics and limiting our ability to treat human illnesses.”

“Nonbinding recommendations are not a strong enough antidote to the problem,” added Slaughter.

It is not clear exactly how FDA will measure progress on its voluntary initiative. If drug companies agree to change their labels over the next few months, they are to notify FDA and then they have three years to voluntarily phase in the changes.

Agency officials were hesitant to say whether the public should expect a significant drop in overall antibiotics usage. Michael Taylor, FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Foods, said that if progress is not what the agency expected then FDA will look at other regulatory options.

The FDA’s voluntary guidance is independent of a recent court order that directed the agency to revive a 35-year-old proposal to ban three antibiotics from animal feed–penicillin and two types of tetracycline–pending hearings.

In 1977, FDA determined these three antibiotics were likely contributing to drug-resistant bacteria strains in humans and should be reserved for only therapeutic uses. But the agency never held the drug company hearings required to put this proposal into place, and in December of 2011 it revoked these approval withdrawals altogether. In March 2012, a federal court ruled that FDA had to revisit the issue.

Originally published on Food Safety News

The USDA said that while it believes all products it buys for the school lunch program, including Lean Finely Textured Beef, are “safe and nutritious” it would respond to customer demand to give schools additional options, so they can opt out of purchasing LFTB if they wish.

LFTB is essentially hamburger filler made from leftover trimmings once relegated to pet food and other byproducts. Because the trimmings are at risk for E. coli or Salmonella contamination, the company adds a mixture of ammonia and water (ammonium hydroxide) to kill bacteria.

The announcement comes in the midst of an astounding level of public outcry over the ingredient, has been served in schools and used in the majority of American ground beef for years.

Last spring, celebrity chef Jamie Oliver sparked interest in the topic after railing against the product on his ABC reality show. He called the “clever scientific process” shocking and a breach of consumer trust and referred to LFTB as “shit.”

Fast food giants McDonald’s, Taco Bell, and Burger King have all dropped LFTB from their ground beef this year.

‘Pink slime’ caught fire again late last week when Bettina Siegel, a mom and blogger, petitioned USDA to remove the product from school lunches. In less than a week her petition at change.org had more than a quarter of a million signatures.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) both wrote Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack this week asking that the product both be removed from lunches and also labeled for the general public.

“There is only one word for this product: gross,” said Pingree. “McDonald’s and Burger King won’t serve it in their restaurants and it doesn’t belong in school cafeterias either.”

Hagen weighs in

When asked whether she could understand parents’ concern about ‘pink slime,’ Dr. Hagen said that it was important to separate food safety from production concerns.

“I think about the food safety aspect of it,” said Hagen, who has two young children, ages 4 and 7. “In talking about that, it’s important to distinguish people’s concerns about the idea of this sort of product and not having not having known before what’s going into their food or how it’s being processed–separating those things from the safety concerns, because that’s really not the issue here.

“We do feel that this is safe. It’s been used for a long time. Ammonium hydroxide itself is used in a multitude of different products,” added Hagen. “I think it’s the idea of this product that is troublesome to people. Just being honest, I don’t think your average consumer probably knows a lot about how food is produced. So yeah, I understand that they have questions. They didn’t know that this was going into their food. I think it would be more productive to be able to educate people about this. But our concern is the safety.”

Originally published on Food Safety News

UEP, which represents 87 percent of domestic egg production, and HSUS are jointly petitioning Congress to create national animal welfare standards for egg production, notably transitioning from battery cages to enriched housing systems, including perches, nesting boxes, and scratching areas that provide laying hens almost double the amount of space than current systems.

The groups want to amend the Egg Products Inspection Act to mandate standards they agreed to in a landmark agreement in July. Eggs produced under conditions that don’t meet the new standards would not be allowed for sale in the U.S. under the new proposal, which would fully phase out battery cages by 2029.

Egg producers say they’re seeking the national standards in the face of a growing patchwork of varying state laws and regulations. Livestock groups are not pleased about the idea, which they fear will create a precedent for more federal regulations on livestock care.

In a letter to the House Agriculture Committee sent last week, eight leading livestock groups blasted the proposal, saying that it would impose “costly and unnecessary animal rights mandates,” according to a Feedstuffs report.

Livestock interest groups said that the uniform standards would ensure that “Congress will be in the egg business for years to come” and even called the proposal “an unconscionable federal overreach.” The groups argue the new standards’ $10 billion price tag would eliminate jobs and reduce consumer choice.

The letter was signed by the Egg Farmers of America, which represents a small fraction of the egg industry, the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Farmers Union, American Sheep Industry Association, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Milk Producers Federation, National Pork Producers Council and National Turkey Federation, according to Feedstuffs.

United Egg Producers fired back Thursday with their own letters to both agriculture committees on Capitol Hill.

“Although we respect the right of the livestock groups to make their views known, the letter provides an overheated and distorted view of an initiative that is strongly supported by U.S. egg farmers,” said the letter.

In their rebuttal, UEP called the fear of setting a precedent for burdensome regulation as “hypothetical and baseless.”

“We hope Congress will realize that we are seeking legislation only for the egg industry,” continues the letter. “Both we and HSUS will oppose efforts to bring any other livestock or poultry species into the legislation.”

When the deal was announced in July, egg industry representatives said they would be closely monitoring and studying the humane standards’ impact on food safety.

“We have to make sure that we’re not giving up anything on the food safety front,” said a leading executive, who added that the industry would still be following the new U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines.

Originally published on Food Safety News

The recalled meat came from a single processing facility in Springdale, Arkansas, but ended up in dozens of different ground turkey products sold nationwide under a variety of brand names including Honeysuckle White, Shady Brook Farms, Riverside, Aldi’s Fit and Active Fresh, Spartan, Giant Eagle, Kroger and Safeway. Cargill is recalling products produced between February 20 through Aug 2, 2011 and halting production of ground turkey products at the facility until the source of contamination is identified and corrected. Products subject to recall bear the establishment number “P-963″ inside the USDA mark of inspection.

As consumers take to their fridges and freezers to figure out if their ground turkey has been recalled, local, state and federal public health officials are working to identify and link illnesses to the outbreak. At least 77 illnesses in 26 states, beginning as early as March, have been reported to be the same strain of resistant Salmonella.

Those numbers are likely to grow as more consumers learn of the recall. Normally, a low percentage of foodborne illnesses are ever lab-confirmed and thus reported to public health authorities, let alone definitively linked to outbreaks.

“It is regrettable that people may have become ill from eating one of our ground turkey products and, for anyone who did, we are truly sorry,” said Stevel Willardson, president of Cargill’s turkey processing division, in a statement.

Cargill’s recall follows a July 29 USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service public health alert, issued last Friday, urging consumers to use caution when handling ground turkey and to cook all poultry products to an internal temperature of 165 degrees.

Serious questions remain about why it took food safety officials several months to issue a public health alert or announce a product recall after Salmonella Heidelberg illnesses began to spike in March.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also announced that the agency found four retail ground turkey samples to be positive for the same strain of Salmonella Heidelberg between early March and late June. The samples were taken as part of routine sampling for the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS), and had “not been linked to illnesses” so they did not spark a recall. Salmonella is not considered an adulterant in meat products, but consumer groups have petitioned USDA to consider antibiotic-resistant strains adulterated.

As late as Tuesday, FSIS officials said there was not enough evidence to substantiate a recall. Wednesday the agency said that epidemiologic and traceback investigations, as well as in-plant findings, led the agency to determine there is a link between the Cargill ground turkey products and the outbreak.

“FSIS is continuing to work with CDC, affected state public health partners, and the company on the investigation. FSIS will continue to provide information as it becomes available, including information about any further related recall activity,” the agency said in a press update Wednesday.

Salmonella infections can be life-threatening, especially to those with compromised immune systems, including the young and the elderly. The most common manifestations of salmonellosis are diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever within six to 72 hours. Additional symptoms may be chills, headache, nausea and vomiting that can last up to seven days. Individuals concerned about an illness should contact a health care provider.

A complete list of recalled products, with pictures of labels, can be found here.

Originally posted on Food Safety News.

Recent estimates indicate around 80 percent of all antibiotics in the U.S. are given to food animals.

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the primary sponsor of The Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act, otherwise known as PAMTA, reintroduced the measure to address “the rampant overuse of antibiotics in agriculture that creates drug-resistant bacteria, an increasing threat to human beings.”

“The effectiveness of antibiotics for humans is jeopardized when they are used to fatten healthy pigs or speed the growth of chickens,” said Senator Feinstein.  “This is a basic food safety initiative that would phase out the misuse of these drugs so that food in supermarkets across America will not spread strains of drug-resistant bacteria.”

Senators Susan Collins (R-ME), Jack Reed (D-RI), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), all collaborated on the legislation.

According to Feinstein’s office, in 2010, the senator was contacted by the Don family of Ramona, California.  Their son, Carlos, “a bright and athletic 12-year old,” became gravely ill with an infection while at summer camp and did not respond to antibiotics.

“It took doctors 48 hours to find a medication that could kill the Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, that had infected his body.  By that time, Carlos’ lungs, kidneys, liver, intestine and heart had failed.  With only some brain activity left, Carlos lost his life because the antibiotics that hospitals have relied on for 80 years no longer worked,” said Feinstein’s office in a statement late last week.

“No parent should ever undergo the heartbreak and the tragedy that the Don’s went through,” said Feinstein.  “My bill makes important changes to the use of antibiotics and ensures that operations on a farm do not negatively impact the health and well being of families across the nation.”

The bill Feinstein is championing, PAMTA, mirrors a bill introduced by Congresswoman Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the only microbiologist serving in Congress. The legislation:

– Phases out the non-therapeutic use of medically important antibiotics in livestock;
– Requires new applications for animal antibiotics to demonstrate the use of the antibiotic will not endanger public health;
– Does not restrict the use of antibiotics to treat sick livestock or to treat pets.

“PAMTA will limit the agricultural use of seven types of antibiotics that have been identified by the Food and Drug Administration as critically important in human medicine to ensure that antibiotic-resistance is not inadvertently accelerated,” according to Feinstein’s office.

The Senate version of the legislation has 17 cosponsors and the House version has 60. Slaughter has been introducing a version of the bill since 2007.

The animal agriculture industry maintains that antibiotics are a critical tool for preventing disease and promoting animal health and welfare, casting doubt on the link between the sector’s use of antibiotics and human health issues.

Originally published on Food Safety News

Food safety and infectious disease experts on both continents are cautioning lawmakers, consumers, and industry that a similar scenario could unfold anywhere.

“Could this happen here? You bet,” said Food Politics author and New York University professor Marion Nestle, on her Web site Food Politics Monday.

David Acheson, former associate commissioner of foods at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, now a consultant to the food industry, agrees. He says the devastation in Europe “serves as a strong reminder to those of us in the United States that we are always one step away from a major food safety crisis.”

“As we look on from the outside at the outbreak in the European Union (EU), it is natural to wonder if this could happen in the United States,” Acheson wrote in a blog post for Leavitt Partners, a consulting firm founded by Mike Leavitt, who served as Secretary of Health and Human Services under the Bush administration. “I have very little doubt that it could, and so we should not lose this opportunity to learn more lessons about food safety.”

“The most important lesson is to focus on building systems that prevent such a situation occurring here in the U.S,” explains Acheson. He believes broad mitigation strategies to prevent all forms of E. coli from contaminating food products are the most critical.

“One one has to look for a multifaceted approach that includes controls throughout the supply chain from farms, during processing (of meat, fresh produce or other higher risk items like raw milk) and during handling of food at home,” he adds.

Both Acheson and Nestle stressed budgetary concerns as Food and Drug Administration (FDA) moves to implement the most ambitious update to the food regulatory system since the early 20th century.

“If ever there was a time to give the FDA more resources, now is it,” added Nestle in her post, which was also published on The Atlantic online. “The FDA now has the authority to impose standard food safety procedures on food producers and to require safety measures for the foods we import. But Congress wants to cut the agency’s budget, and badly.”

The House Appropriations Committee recently advanced an appropriations bill that would give the agency $87 million less food safety in Fiscal Year 2012 than FY 2011.

“In the current climate of reduced federal funding, it should be made very clear to Congress that our food safety system in the US cannot afford to be undermined through lack of resources,” said Acheson.  “A request to Congress is not to cut funding, but rather to ensure efficient use of current and future much needed funding.”

A version of this story first appeared on Food Safety News