Christopher Waldrop | Food Safety News

USDA Misleads About New Poultry Testing Requirements

Christopher Waldrop — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 05:02:11 +0000

U.S. Department of Agriculture statements and subsequent news reports have given the impression that, under the USDA’s new poultry inspection program announced last week, poultry plants will be required to test for Salmonella and Campylobacter. That is simply not true. It is true that, under the final rule, USDA will require poultry plants to test at two points along the production line. However, the agency will leave it up to the company to decide what organism to test. There is no requirement that plants test for pathogens. A plant could decide to test for enteric pathogens such as Salmonella or Campylobacter. Or the plant could decide to test for indicator organisms such as generic E. coli or Aerobic Plate Count (APC) instead. USDA leaves that decision up to the plant. That means the public has no guarantee, under the final rule, that poultry plants will test for the pathogens which make people sick. Consumer advocates, in comments on the proposed rule, urged USDA to require plants to test specifically for Salmonella and Campylobacter, the two pathogens most commonly associated with illnesses from raw poultry. According to the CDC, millions of consumers are sickened by these pathogens every year, with almost no improvement in more than a decade. A study by the University of Florida[1] ranked poultry contaminated with Campylobacter (No. 1) and Salmonella (No. 4) in the top five pathogen/food combinations that cause the greatest disease burden to the public. If these pathogens are responsible for high rates of illness, wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that poultry plants should be testing for them? Yet USDA rejected the idea that plants should have to test for specific pathogens. Instead, USDA stated that the purpose of the new testing requirements is “to ensure that establishments are effectively monitoring process control on an ongoing basis,” and this could be achieved “by sampling pre- and post-chill for enteric pathogens, such as Salmonella and Campylobacter, or for an appropriate indicator organism.”[2] USDA further explained that the cost of analyzing samples for Salmonella and Campylobacter is “much greater” than the cost of analyzing indicator organisms and concluded that the costs were not justifiable with regard to monitoring process control. Consumers who are sickened from Salmonella or Campylobacter would undoubtedly disagree. Testing to monitor process control and testing for pathogens should not be mutually exclusive. It doesn’t have to be one or the other; it should be both. Some poultry plants already test for Salmonella and Campylobacter, in addition to indicator organisms, and the cost of analyzing samples has not put those plants out of business. USDA touted its final rule as a “modernization” effort. But USDA rejected a prime opportunity to update its regulatory program to require plants to test for the pathogens that make people sick.

[1] Batz MB, Hoffman S, Morris JG, “Ranking the Risks: The 10 Pathogen Food Combinations with the Greatest Burden on Public Health.” University of Florida Emerging Pathogens Institute, 2011.

[2] Food Safety and Inspection Service, Modernization of Poultry Slaughter Inspection final rule, July 31, 2014.

Consumer and Public Health Groups: FDA Should Not Delay FSMA Implementation

Christopher Waldrop — Wed, 09 Oct 2013 06:30:58 +0000

(The FDA’s important food safety work, like the rest of the agency’s mission and much of the federal government, is currently on hold due to the government shutdown. But once the agency gets back to work – which we hope is very soon – we urge them to continue to implement the Food Safety Modernization Act as expeditiously as possible.) In 2010, Congress passed the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) with overwhelming bipartisan support. Passage of the legislation followed years of debate on how to improve our food safety system, numerous Congressional hearings, and media reports on dangerous foodborne illness outbreaks, which were sickening and killing consumers across the country. After President Obama signed the bill into law in January 2011, consumer groups were hopeful that FDA would work swiftly to implement the law. Prior to writing proposed rules, FDA made considerable efforts to gather stakeholder input, holding several public meetings and numerous interactions with food producers and other stakeholder groups. When FDA finally developed proposed rules on produce safety and preventive controls, the rules were reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget for over a year before they were released to the public. FDA again held public meetings and engaged stakeholders to solicit their input, even sending FDA officials on a cross-country tour to hear directly from food producers. The due date for public comment on the proposals was pushed back twice to accommodate industry requests and to allow time to review the proposed import rules. Now, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) and others want FDA to delay implementation of these important rules even further and publish a second draft of proposed rules. NASDA raises concerns by producers in member states as one of the reasons to delay publication of a final regulation. Since FDA will undoubtedly be relying on NASDA members to help the agency enforce these rules at the state level, it alarms consumer and public health groups when those who are supposed to enforce regulations are advocating on behalf of the food producers who will be required to implement the regulations. There are a number of issues and concerns in the proposed rules that FDA must address. Still, we believe that FDA needs to move forward without delay. In a decision of the federal district court, the judge said that FDA must finalize the proposed rules by mid-2015. This is a more than ample timeframe, and well past the statutory deadlines that Congress originally established in the law. Phased-in compliance dates within each rule will provide smaller producers with additional time – in some cases several more years – to implement the new regulations. The public comment period provides all stakeholders with an opportunity to provide FDA with their best ideas, data, and suggestions for improving the rule. Then it’s up the agency to synthesize that input into a final regulation and to implement the law. Delaying the process further ultimately means that consumers will continue to suffer illnesses and even deaths from contaminated food, which could have been averted by FSMA. Center for Foodborne Illness Research & Prevention Center for Science in the Public Interest Consumer Federation of America Consumers Union The Pew Charitable Trusts National Consumers League STOP Foodborne Illness Trust for America’s Health

What's in Your Drink? TTB Takes a Step Toward Alcohol Labeling

Christopher Waldrop — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 05:40:52 +0000

How many calories are in a bottle of beer? How much alcohol is there in a shot of whiskey? How many serving are in a bottle of wine? Consumers would probably be hard-pressed to know the answers to these questions. Fortunately, that may soon change. Late last month, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), which has jurisdiction over labeling of alcoholic beverages, took a small, yet positive, step to allow beer, wine and spirits companies to provide consumers with nutrition and alcohol information on their products. In a May 28 ruling, TTB said that alcoholic beverage manufacturers can now voluntarily disclose on the label the number of calories and carbohydrates in alcoholic beverages, as well as provide information about alcohol content, such as percent alcohol by volume and fluid ounces of alcohol per serving. Consumer groups have been advocating for standardized labeling for over a decade so that consumers can be informed about the nutrition and alcohol content of the beer, wine and spirits they choose to drink. Packaged food, dietary supplements and drugs all contain essential information about their contents on the package label. Yet alcoholic beverages have remained the one consumable product without similar “serving facts” information. This is a blind spot for American consumers who could use nutrition and alcohol content information to help moderate their drinking and the calories they consume. TTB’s ruling comes in the wake of a Federal Trade Commission decision to require the maker of Four Loko, a popular alcoholic beverage that originally included caffeine, to apply to TTB for permission to include an alcohol facts panel on the product. Though this issue has been brewing for years, TTB has yet to finalize rulemaking – initiated in 2007 – on the labeling issue. So while TTB’s ruling is a good step, the agency needs to finish the job by finalizing its rule and requiring standardized nutrition and alcohol content information on all alcoholic beverages. A voluntary approach simply won’t assure that consumers are provided this important information on all alcoholic beverages they choose to consume. And a standardized serving facts label would help consumers more easily understand the information presented and be able to compare information across products and categories. Importantly, the label should also include the definition of a “standard drink,” which is 0.6 fluid ounces of alcohol. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines and other government publications refer to a standard drink as 12 ounces of regular beer (5% ABV), 5 ounces of wine (12% ABV), and 1.5 ounces of 80-proof distilled spirits (40% ABV), each of which contain 0.6 fluid ounces of alcohol. Knowing how much alcohol is in a serving of beer, wine or distilled spirits and comparing that to a standard drink can help consumers follow recommendations for moderating drinking. TTB should keep the momentum going and finalize its rule so that consumers can have the information they need to really know what they’re drinking.

Calorie Cover-up on Chain Restaurant Menus

Christopher Waldrop — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 01:59:04 +0000

The public has until July 5 to tell the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require chain restaurants to disclose the amount of calories in beer, wine, and spirits, beverages that play a significant factor in America’s battle of the bulge.

In an effort to help consumers maintain a healthy weight and reduce health care costs associated with obesity, Congress passed legislation last year instructing the FDA to require chain restaurants to disclose calorie content for standardized menu items. Alcoholic beverages are a significant source of calories in many Americans’ diets. A bottle of beer, glass of wine, or a cocktail can have as many or more calories as a soft drink.

Two-thirds of Americans are obese or overweight, conditions associated with increases in Type II diabetes, as well as heart attacks and strokes. It is true that no single public health initiative like disclosing calories for standardized menu items will solve the nation’s obesity crisis. But giving consumers basic nutrition information can at least allow those who care about their health to make informed choices about foods and beverages they consume away from home, which now account for as much as 50% of the average American’s food budget.

Congress instructed FDA to issue compliance guidelines for restaurants, and then publish a formal regulatory proposal. FDA issued guidelines several months after the legislation was enacted which plainly stated that alcoholic beverages served at chain restaurants were covered by the new law. FDA’s position made good sense.

But then FDA flip-flopped — the agency issued a formal regulatory proposal exempting alcoholic beverages from calorie disclosure requirements. (FDA also exempted movie theater popcorn, which was originally covered by the agency’s guidelines).

The agency’s excuse for excluding alcoholic beverages is that it lacks authority to require calorie disclosures next to listings of beer, wine, and liquor on chain restaurant menus. FDA claims another government agency within the Treasury Department has been working on a proposed regulation that would require disclosing the amount of calories on beer, wine, and liquor labels. But the Treasury Department has been moving at a turtle’s pace, pondering the issue for more than seven years. While Treasury retains general authority over what is printed on alcoholic beverage labels, it never even considered requiring calorie disclosures for restaurant menus. Congress gave that responsibility to the FDA.

Consumer Federation of America (CFA) and other consumer groups hope that FDA ultimately covers alcoholic beverages in the agency’s rules for menu labeling at chain restaurants and that Treasury requires calorie, alcohol per serving and other disclosures on bottles and cans. The two steps would be complimentary, and would benefit consumers. If Treasury finalized its proposed rule requiring calories and other important information on alcoholic beverage labels, restaurants would have a much easier job complying with any FDA requirement to disclose calories on menus, as the information would be readily available. However, that doesn’t mean one agency should wait for the other. Both agencies need to act.

Congress clearly intended FDA to require menu labeling for alcoholic beverages, a requirement that is no different than calorie disclosure for meat and poultry dishes served at restaurants, as is intended in the menu labeling law. Like alcoholic beverages, the labels of meat and poultry sold in stores are regulated by a different agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But when it comes to calorie disclosure for burgers and chicken on chain restaurant menus FDA has not questioned its own authority and has assumed responsibility as Congress intended.

The FDA needs to stop punting and should require calorie information for alcoholic beverages on chain restaurant menus.

—————————————–

Chris Waldrop is the director of the Food Policy Institute, Consumer Federation of America