Food scandals are so costly to Big Food, it has repeatedly tried to kill the messenger rather than clean up its act. In the 1990s it pushed through “food disparagement” laws under which Oprah Winfrey herself was sued by cattlemen in 1997 (Winfrey said she would never eat a hamburger again upon learning that cows were being fed to cows). Winfrey was acquitted and cow cannibalism was made illegal but the US still lost $3 billion in beef exports when a first mad cow was discovered in 2003. April’s new mad cow will not help foreign trade.

Last year, Big Food introduced Animal Facility Interference laws in several states which make it a crime to “produce, distribute or possess photos and video taken without permission at an agricultural facility.” The bills also criminalize lying on an application to work at an agriculture facility “with an intent to commit an act not authorized by the Owner”–in an effort to stop the flow of grisly undercover videos. The first facility interference offense would be an aggravated misdemeanor but subsequent offenses could be felonies.

Of course, the Ag-Gag bills, as they were quickly dubbed, are anti-free-speech and would chill both whistle-blowers and news media (who couldn’t legally even receive non-approved farm images). The bills were scorified by CNN, the New York Times, Time magazine and First Amendment and food safety activists and, luckily, were defeated in 2011. But they are creeping back.

Many farmers and agricultural professionals are miffed that the days of “it’s-none-of-your-business” farming are over. Once upon a time, consumers cared only about the price and wholesomeness of food and didn’t worry about–or videotape–its origins and “disassembly.” Now consumers increasingly want to know how an animal lived, died, and even what it ate in between. Some of the newly engaged consumers are motivated by health, wanting to avoid hormones in milk, antibiotics in beef, arsenic in chicken, and who knows what in seafood. But many are also motivated by humane concerns.

Here are some shocking facts that Big Food would like to mute with Ag-Gag and food defamation laws:

rBGH in milk

Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), injected into dairy cows to increase milk production, was created by crossing cow DNA and E. coli bacteria. Yes, that E. coli. From the start, farmers and veterinarians worried about the udder infections it causes, the resulting need for more antibiotic usage and more. “I surely wouldn’t want to eat from the hypodermic pockmarked section of the cow,” said one farming critic as early as 1994. Banned in many countries and unlabeled here, rBGH-produced milk also contains pus and a protein associated with increased prostate and breast cancer risk called IGF-1. Still, Eli Lilly, who bought rBGH in 2008 from Monsanto insists, it “safely increases productivity of dairy cows” and helps “family farm owners.”

Eggs with a side of salmonella

Two years ago, a salmonella outbreak caused the recall of half a billion eggs and 1,600 illnesses. Thanks to factory farming, with thousands of hens stacked over their own manure, egg operations are festooned with germs. In fact, the government found both Tyson Foods and a hatchery injecting eggs of future laying hens preventively with antibiotics to avert infections. Yum. Austin “Jack” DeCoster, to whose farms the salmonella was linked, had a 30-year history of health and safety violations. In fact, when authorities raided his Turner, Maine operation in 2009, charging him with animal cruelty, four officers required treatment for ammonia-burned lungs just from entering his barns. Yet DeCoster received no penalties for the salmonella outbreak and enjoyed a gracious retirement.

Illustration courtesy of Prometheus Books

The drug store in your meat

You may not have heard of Fort Dodge, Elanco, or Intervet, animal divisions of Big Pharma, but you may well be “taking” their drugs. Government safety inspectors miss residues of penicillin and other antibiotics, parasite and anti-inflammatory drugs and heavy metals in beef, says a 2010 Office of Inspector General report, allowing contaminated beef into food supply. For other toxins like dioxin, lindane and fire retardants, inspectors do not even have “established action levels” to test for. Four plants, with an astounding 211 drug residue violations, were given a pass says the OIG report. Worse, unlike germs like salmonella or E. coli, drug and metal residues aren’t neutralized by cooking and can even turn into more dangerous compounds when heated.

Illustration courtesy of Prometheus Books

“Free antibiotics” in your food and water

One of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s last legislative fights was about the overuse of livestock antibiotics. “It seems scarcely believable that these precious medications could be fed by the ton to chickens and pigs,” he wrote in the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act. Over 70 percent of antibiotics go to livestock, not to people, says the bill and 48 percent of national streams are tainted with antibiotics. Other reports say that almost half of Midwest hog farms harbor the antibiotic resistant germ, MRSA, and 64 percent of workers carry it. Are people who don’t eat meat or drink tap water safe? Guess again. Crops themselves can harbor antibiotics, say food researcher, siphoning them right up from the soil.

Illustration courtesy of Prometheus Books

Meat inspection by the “Have a Cup of Coffee and Pray” method

Once upon a time, federal meat inspectors visually examined carcasses for wholesomeness. But under the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), implemented in 2000, inspectors now simply ratify that companies are following their own self-created systems–as in “Trust us.” Soon after HACCP, 80 percent of inspectors surveyed said that HACCP limited their ability to enforce the law and the public’s right to know about food safety. Almost 20 percent said they’d been told to not document violations. And 62 percent of inspectors said they allowed contamination like feces, vomit, and metal shards in food on a daily or weekly basis since HACCP. No wonder HACCP has been been dubbed “Have a Cup of Coffee and Pray.”

Illustration courtesy of Prometheus Books

A delicacy from hell

Foie gras is a “delicacy” that requires the indelicate force-feeding of geese and ducks to bloat their livers. Video shows birds with bloody throats, barely able to walk and struggling to breathe. Yet Big Food, restaurateurs and even the American Veterinary Medical Association defend the gratuitous cruelty lest veal crates and other extreme “production agriculture” be questioned next. Foie gras is banned in Europe and other countries but a 2007 foie gras ban in Chicago drew ridicule from the Chicago Tribune‘s food critic (“Has City Council finally quacked?” Will “quack-easies” surface?) and a Foie Gras Fest backlash from area chefs who served five-course foie gras meals. P.S. The ban was repealed.

Illustration courtesy of Prometheus Books

Extreme growth promoters

Many of the growth promoters used in US meat production are banned in other countries. Europe boycotts US beef because of hormones like oestradiol-17 and trenbolone acetate which it says are linked to prostate and breast cancer. The EU also disallows farmers to use antibiotics and arsenic as growth promoters, which the US does. (Yes, arsenic.) Still, it is some consolation that most US growth promoters are withdrawn in the weeks before slaughter. Not so with ractopamine, an asthma-like drug given to 60 to 80 percent of US pigs, 30 percent of ration-fed cattle and an undisclosed number of turkeys. Ractopamine, which few are aware of, is given during the last weeks of life and not withdrawn before slaughter.

Illustration courtesy Martha Rosenberg

Mad Cow–it’s baaaack

Does anyone remember the government’s misinformation and ineptitude with the first three mad cows, now that the disease is baaaaacck? With the first cow, a government report said all “potentially-infectious product” had been “disposed of ” in a landfill but the San Francisco Chronicle and Los Angeles Times said it went to California restaurants where it was eaten. That’s very different. With the second cow, authorities did not even realize it had mad cow disease for seven months! The government’s final report says the farmer who sold the cow was “relatively sure” he had not kept any offspring but “there were essentially no records maintained.” Want more reassurances? The ranch was cleared to resume selling meat within one month.

Illustration courtesy Marta Rosenberg

Brave new clones

The FDA says clones and their offspring are no different from other food animals and won’t be labeled. (See: rBGH.) But in its own 2008 report it cites cloned calves with elevated glucose, elevated growth indicators, early mammary development, umbilical abscesses and high white blood cell counts. Even the meat and milk is different in one study, the FDA admits. Are Americans eating unlabeled clones right now? “I can’t say today that I can answer your question in an affirmative or negative way,” replied Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to the question in 2010. (Why should the ag secretary know?) “I don’t know. What I do know is that we know all the research, all of the review of this is suggested that this is safe.”

Illustration courtesy of Prometheus Books

Originally published on Huffington Post

The California cow died of a particularly virulent form of mad cow disease known as BASE, bovine amyloidotic spongiform encephalopathy, also known as L-type atypical BSE. Typical BSE was first documented in the ’80s in Britain. Afflicted cows often became twitchy and aggressive, giving rise to the “mad cow disease” moniker, as their brains degenerated into a characteristic Swiss cheese-like appearance. Hence the scientific name, BSE: bovine (cow) spongiform (sponge-like) encephalopathy (brain disease).

Then cats started dying. Max, someone’s pet Siamese, was the first non-bovine victim of the disease. Infectious pet food was implicated as the cause of Max’s death from a never-before-described feline spongiform encephalopathy.

Then young people started succumbing to a human spongiform encephalopathy called Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, a relentlessly progressive and invariably fatal dementia, often involving weekly deterioration into blindness and seizures as their brains became riddled with holes. CJD appears sporadically in one in a million people, but typically strikes only the elderly. The new cases among teenagers were dubbed “variant” CJD, a disease now understood to be caused by consuming contaminated meat (or by getting a blood transfusion from someone who did).

Despite massive contamination of the food supply, no more than a few thousand people are expected to die, suggesting a robust transmission barrier between cows and humans when it comes to BSE. The same may not be true of the atypical forms of BSE found in California and in the last two mad cows in Texas and Alabama. Experimental models of human infection suggest that the type of mad cow disease discovered in the California case “is a more virulent BSE strain… in humans,” with “higher transmissibility” and causing a swifter death.

Just as one in a million people sporadically get CJD, evidence suggests one in a million cattle get atypical BSE. The U.S. cattle population hovers around 100 million. Though there is evidence some of these sporadic human cases of CJD may be associated with infected cows or sheep, case control studies tie CJD more closely to the consumption of pork. A study co-authored by D. Carleton Gajdusek, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his research on these diseases, found that “consumption of pork as well as its processed products (e.g., ham, scrapple) may be considered as risk factors in the development of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.”

Though pigs have been proven susceptible to a porcine spongiform encephalopathy, the National Pork Producers Council claims that no naturally occurring cases of “mad pig” disease have ever been discovered. The Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, however, has petitioned the federal government to reopen an investigation into a case in which a USDA veterinarian may have found a cluster of suspect pigs in upstate New York.

New research just found that unlike the British strain, the atypical forms of BSE found in the U.S. cause animals to have difficulties in standing up, so instead of mad cow disease, it’s more of a downer cow disease. Since we continue to feed slaughterhouse waste and blood to pigs, this raises the question whether any of the hundreds of thousands of downed pigs that arrive at slaughter plants every year in the U.S. may be infected.

It’s ironic that this new case of mad cow disease was discovered in California where a law excluding downed animals from the food supply was recently overturned by the Supreme Court.

In 2008, an undercover investigation by The Humane Society of the United States of a dairy cow slaughterplant in California showing that downers were being dragged to slaughter for school lunch hamburgers prompted California to strengthen its laws to keep downer livestock out of the food supply. The meat industry, represented by the National Meat Association and the American Meat Institute, responded by successfully suing the state of California to keep meat from downed animals on people’s plates on the grounds that only USDA had the authority to determine which animals should not be forced to the kill floor for humane or public health reasons.

Sick animals can lead to sick people. An unequivocal ban on the slaughter of any farm animal unable even to stand may reduce the public health risk of myriad threats from anthrax and E. coli to swine flu and Salmonella. Spongiform encephalopathies are a special case, though, as they are caused by infectious agents that cannot be eliminated by cooking, pasteurization, or the rendering process used to make pet food. In fact, infection can survive even incineration at temperatures hot enough to melt lead. It is therefore the meat industry’s responsibility to prevent sick animals from entering the food chain in the first place, by instituting a “bright line” ban on the slaughter of all downed livestock. In the California case, the animal was killed before she could be slaughtered. Next time we might not be so lucky.

Originally published on Huffington Post

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 stakes couldn’t be higher. Dow’s 2,4-D corn, soon to be followed by 2,4-D soybeans and cotton, are the first of many new GE crops designed to launch American agriculture into a new era of increased dependence on more toxic pesticides, reversing decades of progress. Two-thirds of GE crops awaiting approval by USDA are resistant to one to three herbicides each, with many more in the longer-term pipeline. For instance, Monsanto has developed crops resistant to dicamba, a close chemical cousin to 2,4-D.

According to agricultural expert Dr. Charles Benbrook, 2,4-D corn will trigger an astounding 30-fold increase in 2,4-D use on corn by the end of the decade, assuming widespread planting. 2,4-D soybeans and cotton will boost usage still more. Yet USDA has provided no analysis of the serious harm to human health, the environment or neighboring farms that will result.

Farmers, women and children at greatest risk

Farmers are on the front line. While generally healthier than other Americans, farmers suffer higher rates of certain cancers, such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), a cancer of the lymph nodes that kills 30 percent of those afflicted. Numerous studies in Sweden, Canada and by scientists at the U.S. National Cancer Institute have found that farmers who use 2,4-D and related herbicides are more likely to contract deadly NHL. While Sweden, Norway and Denmark have banned 2,4-D based on such studies, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refuses to act. Other studies link farmer 2,4-D exposure to greater risk of Parkinson’s Disease.

The rest of us may also be at risk. 2,4-D is known to be a hormone-disrupting chemical, which can affect critical developmental processes in very small amounts. Lactating rats fed low doses of 2,4-D exhibit impaired maternal behavior while their pups weigh less. Children of pesticide applicators in areas of Minnesota with heavy use of chlorophenoxy herbicides like 2,4-D had a disproportionately higher incidence of birth anomalies than in non-crop regions or where these herbicides were less used. 2,4-D is frequently detected in surface water, albeit at low levels.

Based on these and numerous other studies, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petitioned EPA in 2008 to ban 2,4-D, and recently sued the Agency for its failure to respond. Meanwhile, the latest available data show that 2,4-D is still contaminated with low levels of extremely toxic dioxins, which may or may not be the cause of 2,4-D’s toxicity.

Chemical arms race with weeds

Farmers would have no interest in 2,4-D crops if there weren’t a raging epidemic of weeds resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Glyphosate-resistant weeds evolved to infest millions of acres of cropland through massive, unregulated use of glyphosate on Monsanto’s Roundup-resistant soybeans, corn and cotton. This epidemic of “superweeds” has alarmed agricultural scientists, triggering a substantial increase in herbicide use, greater use of soil-eroding tillage operations, and a return to weeding crews hoeing hundreds of thousands of acres, dramatically increasing production costs. A National Academy of Sciences committee singled out glyphosate-resistant weeds as an issue demanding national attention, and a leading weed scientist warns they represent a threat to global food production.

As farmers struggle to contend with a problem that Monsanto assured them would never arise, Dow sees a golden opportunity, marketing its 2,4-D crops as a false solution to glyphosate-resistant weeds. Dow scientist John Jachetta excitedly announced in the Wall Street Journal ”a new era” and “a very significant opportunity” for chemical companies in 2,4-D and similar herbicide-resistant crops.

Far from solving the resistant weed problem, however, a recent peer-reviewed study by Penn State weed ecologists suggests that 2,4-D crops (along with Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant crops) will trigger an outbreak of still more intractable weeds resistant to both glyphosate and 2,4-D or dicamba, another salvo in the all-out “chemical arms race” between herbicide-resistant crops and weeds. Weeds resistant to multiple herbicides are already on the rise, prompting an Illinois weed scientist to warn that ”we are running out of options” to confront what is rapidly becoming an “unmanageable problem.” The Center for Food Safety made similar findings in a 2008 report and in Congressional testimony on resistant weeds in 2010. The Penn State study also outlines sustainable weed control techniques that could avert further weed resistance.

Crop damage from herbicide drift

The Penn State scientists also warn that the massive increases in use of drift-prone 2,4-D and dicamba accompanying resistant crops will threaten neighbors’ crops through drift. Soybeans, cotton, most vegetables, grapes and many other crops are damaged by very low levels of 2,4-D. Even now, 2,4-D drift is responsible for more episodes of crop injury than any other pesticide. Farmers agree. Iowa corn and soybean grower George Naylor was recently quoted in a Greenwire story, and speaks for many farmers who are concerned about 2,4-D corn:

“It’s a big turning point for agriculture,” Naylor said. “If they are going to keep going down this road by coming up with a quick fix to the problems they created in the first place, then the problems are just going to compound… My neighborhood and a lot of farm neighborhoods are just going to be sacrificed zones,” added Naylor… “There is going to be stuff in the air all the time.”

In fact, a new coalition of farmers and food processors–the Save Our Crops Coalition–is organizing to stop 2,4-D crops from concern over huge crop losses due to 2,4-D drift.

Impacts on endangered species

2,4-D drift and runoff will also impact wild plants and animals. Because it is such a potent plant-killer, 2,4-D can harm animals by killing the plants they depend on for habitat and food. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Marine Fisheries Service have found that even now, 2,4-D is likely having adverse impacts on several threatened and endangered species, including salmon and related fishes, the California red-legged frog, and the Alameda whipsnake. USDA’s approval of 2,4-D resistant corn can only make matters much worse, likely placing many other species at risk.

Comment period ends April 27, 2012

If approved, millions of acres of 2,4-D corn could be planted as early as next year. USDA’s public comment period is open until Friday, April 27, 2012. Tell USDA to deny Dow’s petition to approve 2,4-D corn. Comments may be submitted to the agency through the Center for Food Safety’s action link or through Regulations.gov. For more information on 2,4-D corn, see our fact sheet and more extensive Food Safety Review.

Originally published on Huffington Post

“There’s a lot of green lipstick on this pig,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety. “The whole idea of genetically engineering a pig to fit into an unsustainable production model and then dubbing it “enviro” is ridiculous. Given recent industry and consumer backlash, it’s no surprise that funding for this misguided research has dried up.”

The “Enviropig” was engineered using genetic material from a mouse and an E. coli bacterium to reduce phosphorus in the pig’s feces. The University of Guelph began its GE pig research in 1995 and requested food safety approval from regulatory authorities in Canada and the U.S. in 2009. While Canada approved reproduction of the GE pigs in February 2010, no government has approved the “Enviropig” for human consumption and no GE pigs have been sold commercially.

According to recent news reports, the Canadian hog industry group Ontario Pork has redirected its funding away from GE pig research. Lacking this funding, the university is ending its program to breed the genetically engineered pigs.

The announcement comes after years of mounting rejection by farmers, pork producers and consumers.  In a statement appearing in Reuters Canada yesterday, Paul Slomp of the National Farmers Union said, “[t]he GM pig was going to drive consumers away from eating pork if it was ever approved for market. This GM pig fiasco could have permanently damaged (Canada’s) domestic and international pork markets.”

Last year, Olymel, a pork processor in Quebec, announced it would not sell meat from Enviropigs even if the animals were approved for marketing. Other pork industry players are also leery of such biotech efforts. For example, the leading U.S. pork producer Smithfield Farms stated it would not sell meat from animal clones even with FDA approval, and that the company relies on traditional breeding.

“The U.S. government should quit wasting taxpayer dollars on what amounts to an engineered sham for the hog industry,” continued Kimbrell. “Consumers have made clear that they don’t want to eat genetically engineered animals. The FDA should stop its review of this GE pig immediately.”

Recent polls show that consumers do not want to eat these genetically engineered animals. An October 2010 poll by Thompson Reuters found that nearly 65 percent of consumers would not eat genetically engineered fish or meat and 93 percent consumers would want GE animals to be labeled if approved for consumption.

Support for GE labeling recently garnered media attention when a record-breaking one million public comments were sent to the FDA late last month in support of a legal petition filed by CFS calling on the agency to require the labeling of GE foods.  Fifty-five Members of Congress joined Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in a letter to FDA in support of the legal petition.

Originally published by the Center for Food Safety

The Just Label It (JLI) Campaign announced today that a record-breaking one million Americans of all political persuasions have called on the FDA to label genetically engineered (GE) foods. Today, March 27, is the date that the FDA is required to respond to the petition. It took JLI and its more than 500 partner organizations less than 180 days to accumulate an historic number of public comments—a testament to the power of collective voices to demand our right to know what’s in our food. (I’ve written about the campaign before here, here, and here.)

The campaign also announced today a new national survey revealing that more than nine out of 10 Americans across the political spectrum supports labeling food that has been genetically engineered. This new infographic is a compelling visual that shares the results of the survey.

New Survey Results: Motherhood, Apple Pie and GE Food Labeling

Voter support for GE-foods labeling in the U.S. is nearly unanimous, according to the political opinion survey on GE food labeling conducted by The Mellman Group on behalf of JLI. Explained pollster Mark Mellman, “Few topics other than motherhood and apple pie can muster over 90 percent support, but labeling GE-foods is one of those few views held almost unanimously.” The survey found nearly all Democrats (93% favor, 2% oppose), Independents (90% favor, 5% oppose) and Republicans (89% favor, 5% oppose) in favor of labeling. The study also revealed that support for labeling is robust and arguments against it have little sway.

In the era of pink slime, BPA in our soup and deadly melons, we have a right more than ever to know about what’s in our food. The FDA needs to restore confidence in our food and our right to know about the food we eat and feed our families. It’s time for the FDA to give Americans the same rights held by citizens in over 40 nations, including all of our major trade partners, to know whether our foods have been genetically modified.

Stay tuned as the campaign now works to make sure that the FDA and Washington knows that one million Americans are watching to make sure they deliver.

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

It looks like 2012 will be the year of two salmons: one a genetically altered “Frankenfish” currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration, and the other an inhabitant of one of the world’s last great wild salmon runs, which is unfortunately situated atop a whole lot of copper and gold deposits.

Our first salmon represents a giant step into the unknown of genetically engineered organisms. AquaBounty, a company originally incorporated to produce antifreeze, is trying to get FDA approval of its very own patented salmon species called “AquAdvantage.” If approved, the purportedly sterile, all-female salmon would be the first-ever market-approved, genetically engineered protein to reach our dinner plates. But in the absurd world of engineered food, the FDA is not reviewing AquAdvantage salmon as “fish,” rather it’s being studied as a “new animal drug.” A new animal drug–sorry, “fish”–that wouldn’t require labeling on grocery shelves or menus.

Three consumer groups–Food and Water Watch, Consumers Union and the Center for Food Safety–recently submitted a petition calling on the FDA to reclassify the genetically altered fish so that it undergoes a more rigorous review process. Even the current Congress has taken note, with at least 30 House members and 14 senators having written the Obama administration expressing serious concerns about the FDA’s review of AquAdvantage salmon, in some cases calling for the outright prohibition of its approval for human consumption.

In a hearing last December, Four Fish author Paul Greenberg told a Senate subcommittee that “This fish is not worth the risk. We would be better pursuing a course of truly sustainable aquaculture and better management and use of our wild fisheries.”

Which brings us to our second salmon of 2012, one that swims wild and free but faces a big crisis in Southwestern Alaska. Several mining corporations think that Bristol Bay, home to the world’s largest wild sockeye salmon run, would be a great place to hollow out what would be one of the largest open-pit mines on the planet. In digging out deposits of copper and gold, the Pebble Minecomplex would require an immense containment pond to hold up to 10 billion tons of mine waste, all held back by nine miles of dams reaching up to 740 feet high. For perspective, the Hoover Dam is 726 feet high and a relatively meager 1,200 feet wide, so we’re talking potentially 40 Hoover Dams stretching across the Alaskan wilderness.

This risky development would straddle two of the Bay’s most important salmon streams and, just to keep things really interesting, sit on top of a seismically-active zone. And the Pebble Mine may be just the start of much more mineral excavation in the region, because the massive investment in infrastructure that the mine would require–roads, pipelines, a shipping port–will likely lead to even more mining proposals. Proponents of course cite the new jobs that the mine would create, about 1,000 long-term jobs according to the Pebble Partnership, while perhaps conveniently ignoring the thousands of local jobs already supported by the sustainably-managed salmon fishery in the region–jobs that could be put in jeopardy if the project is approved.

The Pebble Mine’s future may be decided this summer. Congress will conduct hearings on the project by June, while an alliance of sportsmen, Alaska tribes, native corporations, commercial fishermen and even chefs from across the country are petitioning the Environmental Protection Agency to invoke its Clean Water Act authority and protect this important salmon spawning and wildlife habitat.

So, 2012, which salmon will it be for dinner: wild or patented? That depends on whether we decide if protecting one of the last wild stocks trumps the profit potential (for a selected few) that gold and copper mining presents. It also depends on whether we think allowing genetically modified fish on grocery shelves is acceptable, despite not fully understanding the health and environmental costs. Which do you prefer? We know what sounds good to us.

Originally published at Ecocentric.

Photo: Salmon run by Shutterstock

Since the homemade food renaissance has taken root in California, there’s been no shortage of home picklers, jammers, and bakers. But under current state laws, it’s a misdemeanor for those home artisans to sell their goodies in the open marketplace. Case in point: Last June, Department of Public Health officials shut down ForageSF’s popular Underground Market, which featured mostly home producers, because its sellers were not compliant with local and state regulations.

But due to a campaign launched by the Sustainable Economies Law Center (SELC), the laws might change this year. The Oakland-based SELC recently teamed up with Los Angeles Assemblymember Mike Gatto to introduce the California Homemade Food Act (AB 1616), a “cottage food” bill that would legalize the sale of certain foods produced in home kitchens.

“There are a lot of hoops to get a food business started. That’s what prompted the cottage food law campaign,” says SELC research associate and campaign coordinator Christina Oatfield. Founded in 2010 by attorneys Janelle Orsi and Jenny Kassan, the SELC provides legal research and assistance to foster local and sustainable economies and business ventures.

Currently, state law requires that any foods produced for sale be prepared in a certified kitchen or food facility using commercial-grade equipment that is inspected by the health department. For many startups, this means renting a commercial kitchen space, which costs upwards of $25 per hour or $1,500 per month—a large expenditure, particularly for hobby food producers who just want to make a bit of supplemental income. Additionally, shared kitchens are often not a practical option for producers who make specialty items such as gluten-free baked goods.

For entrepreneurs who want to open their own kitchen, the investment and risks are greater. In addition to the costs of buying or renting a brick-and-mortar space and furnishing it with commercial-grade equipment (often several times the cost of home kitchen appliances), there are other fixed expenditures, such as insurance and health department inspections. “It can easily exceed $100,000 with equipment and infrastructure work,” says Oatfield. “That’s a huge barrier to a startup entrepreneur, especially in these tough economic times.”

A Growing Movement

To date, more than 30 states have cottage food laws on the books, many of which have been passed in the last couple of years. Oatfield sees this trend as a response to both the economic downturn of 2008 and the surge of interest in local food over the last few years. “There’s a growing awareness among consumers about food systems issues and enthusiasm for buying local and knowing the person who made your food,” she says.

Cottage food law advocates argue that loosening the regulations for small, home-based businesses fosters growth in the local economy, while giving startups the opportunity to test their products, establish a customer base, and incubate their business before investing in commercial kitchen space. “Very often laws and regulations are written to keep large corporations in check, and they’re not scale-appropriate for small, community-based businesses or other informal activities,” says Oatfield.

For consumers and public health officials, the safety of foods produced in home kitchens has been the greatest concern, so many cottage food laws limit the products that can be sold. Under the California Homemade Food Act, cottage food operations would be allowed to prepare and sell “nonpotentially hazardous” items such as dry-storage baked goods, jams, preserves, nut mixes, dried fruit, roasted coffees, honey, pickles with a pH level of 4.6 or below, and other items with low risk for supporting toxic microorganisms.

The proposed bill also states that home producers must register their business and follow the same sanitation, packaging, and labeling procedures that are expected of commercial kitchens, though it does not require inspections unless complaints are made. While such details may be revised in the legislative process, the SELC is working closely with the state public health department to ensure that health measures are followed while keeping the entrepreneur’s costs as low as possible.

Healthy Competition

In addition to the health concerns, cottage food bills have created a bit of controversy among small-scale food producers. Some argue that home-based producers, who have less overhead, could place extra stress on fledgling business owners who have followed the letter of the law and taken on the costs and risks of starting their own kitchen.

Others welcome the competition, opportunity, and diversity that this proposed legislation could bring to the world of small-scale food production. “I’m delighted by it,” says June Taylor, who started making artisan preserves in her home kitchen before launching her business in 1990. “The more people can vote with their dollars in a smaller-scale system, the more we don’t have to acquiesce to the industrial system, and we can create an alternative way of doing business, feeding ourselves, and challenging that system.”

Santa Cruz-based sauerkraut maker Kathryn Lukas, who launched Farmhouse Culture in 2008, agrees. “I think it’s long overdue. The fewer barriers to entry into farmers markets, the better for the consumer. I would love the diversity it would spawn. You’re going to see a real flourish of creativity and interesting new recipes. It’s a win-win for the consumer who’s brave enough to trust the relationship that he or she develops with the food artisan.”

While enthusiastic about the possibilities, Lukas also emphasizes the need for clear safety regulations. “Not everyone coming into the food business knows the basics about sanitation,” said Lukas. She recommends that food handler certification, such as ServSafe, be a requirement for all home-based food businesses. (The Golden Gate Restaurant Association in collaboration with the Small Business Association offers free training for food safety certification.)

While the current bill language does not place a limit on the volume or income of a cottage food operation, the SELC believes that the logistical constraints of doing business out of a home kitchen will be the self-regulating factor. “The very nature of cottage food operations is that they’re very small-scale and neighborhood-based,” said Oatfield. “With the enthusiasm for local foods and homemade foods, I think consumers really want to be able to access this food.”

If you’re interested in supporting the California Homemade Food Act, contact your state Assemblymember and Senator and ask them to become a co-sponsor. Visit the SELC website to learn more. You can also join the discussion on cartage food law at Kitchen Table Talks on March 27th in San Francisco. More information here, and more to come on Civil Eats. 

Originally published by CUESA

You’ve probably never heard of the Microbiological Data Program (MDP) but if you eat fresh produce, you should, because it’s currently on President Obama’s budgetary chopping block. The MDP is a small ($5 million annually) pathogen monitoring program tucked away in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It tests fruits and vegetables for deadly bugs like E. coli, salmonella, and listeria.

While the testing program may be inexpensive, it’s critical because no other federal mechanism currently exists to conduct regular testing of fresh produce. (The Food and Drug Administration—which technically has jurisdiction over produce safety—conducts only limited inspections.)

To date, the MDP has tested high-risk produce such as alfalfa sprouts, cilantro, green onions, peppers, tomatoes, spinach, and other leafy greens. Every one of these vegetables has caused a food-borne illness outbreak or recall over the years, some of them lethal thanks in part to an industrialized food system that transports bugs nationwide. You might recall, a shocking 34 people (and counting) died from a listeria outbreak last year in cantaloupe in 26 states (yes, melon–also on USDA’s tested produce list). That tragedy alone should cause the Obama Administration to rethink this thoughtless budget cut.

It’s not like this is some wasteful government program. It’s a relatively cheap way to help save lives, so what’s going on? Here is how food safety attorney Bill Marler explains who just might be behind the idea:

The produce industry hates this program as it has found pathogens in domestic and imported samples and FDA has responded to the information and recalled products. The produce industry—via the fruit and vegetable advisory committee—recommended to USDA and Congress that the program be terminated.

The produce industry hates the program? Now we’re getting somewhere.

According to this AP story, lobbyists with the United Fresh Produce Association and other major trade associations “have repeatedly pushed the government in recent years to get rid of the comprehensive testing program, saying it has cost growers millions in produce recalls.” (Isn’t that the idea—to get tainted food off the market?) Instead, industry suggests more private sector testing.

More private sector testing? Like the third-party “audit” that missed the deadly listeria in the cantaloupe at Jensen’s Farms? According to a Congressional report on the matter released in January, FDA called it “an inherent conflict of interest” for a private auditor to provide safe handling advice in exchange for payment. Moreover, such auditors don’t have to adhere to scientific standards, are not regulated by the FDA, and cannot enforce FDA rules.

This is also the same United Fresh Produce Association that claims to care about food safety but does not want to pay the fees necessary to fully implement the Food Safety Modernization Act, the new law intended to improve inspection and oversight by the Food and Drug Administration.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the United Fresh Produce Association has spent more than a million dollars a year on lobbying in each of the past three years. Of course only some of that money was spent lobbying on food safety but the trade group must expect a good return on its investment.

For its part, USDA claims the program doesn’t belong there but is better suited to FDA, raising once again, the challenges caused by our currently fragmented oversight system and lack of a single, effective food safety agency.

The Food Safety Modernization Act may help fix some of these problems, but we still have to find the funding. Obama’s budget also seeks a 17 percent increase for FDA, but almost all of the new money would come from industry fees, which again, industry is dead set against. Moreover, it’s not at all clear that FDA will pick up the slack from USDA’s testing of fresh produce.

In sum, Obama is proposing to cut a nominal food safety program that’s working fine, while suggesting new funds come from fees that industry will fight. Of course, testing won’t solve all problems either. Not with an industrialized food system that consistently externalizes costs in favor of profits. Maybe if we examined how massive consolidation of produce growers, processors, and distributors contributes to these nasty outbreaks in the first place, and considered better prevention through smaller-scale production models, we wouldn’t have to haggle over this testing program. But meantime, can’t we find somewhere else to cut $5 million that doesn’t make our problems even worse?

Originally published on Center for Food Safety