by Marion Nestle

Search results: fda new food safety rules

May 21 2025

Concerns about food safety regulation (or the lack thereof)

[Personal note: my graduation address today at Hopkins has been rain-postponed to 1:00 EDT .  It will be streamed here.]

Food safety is always a difficult topic because nobody wants to talk about it.

  • We expect the food we buy to be safe (a quite reasonable expection, in my view).
  • Food companies, by law, are supposed to produce foods safely.
  • Regulators are supposed to make sure they do.

Any breakdown in rules and regulations causes problems.  Three troubling examples:

I.  Sentient Food: Federal Inspectors Found Antibiotics in Beef ‘Raised Without Antibiotics.’ They Took No Action

These letters, recently obtained by the advocacy group Farm Forward through a Freedom of Information Act request, reveal that the world’s largest meat producers — JBS, Cargill, and Tyson — raised cattle that tested positive for antibiotics prohibited under USDA-approved labels advertising the beef as free of antibiotics…These findings were announced last August, but the names of the companies which tested positive for antibiotics were not made publicly available until recently, as part of a new report released by Farm Forward questioning the validity of this popular label.

II.  Phyllis Entis: Manufacturer repeatedly shipped pet food after presumptive-positive pathogen test results

During the 2024 calendar year, Morasch Meats, Inc. (Portland, OR) sold dozens of batches of Northwest Naturals raw pet foods and pet treats after the finished products tested presumptive-positive for Salmonella or Listeria monocytogenes.

Instead of confirming the presumptive result as required by the test kit manufacturer, the company repeated the same rapid test on fresh samples. When the repeat test did not find the pathogen, Morasch released the production batch for sale.

III.  Food Safety News:   Intent or impact? New rules redefine food safety justice

On May 9, President Trump signed Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations, an executive order directing agencies like the FDA and USDA to limit criminal charges for food safety violations unless companies knowingly break the law. The executive order discourages criminal charges for unintentional violations…while deliberate acts, like falsifying tests, remain subject to prosecution…Critics, including consumer advocates, warn that the executive order, combined with reported cuts to FDA and USDA staff, could weaken deterrence against food safety violations.

Comment: When it comes to food safety, enforcement regulation is essential.  History tells us that unwatched food companies sometimes tend to let safety measures slide.  FDA and USDA food safety inspectors need to be on the job.  FDA inspectors have been cut.  USDA staff cuts undoubtedly will affect meat inspections.   None of this bodes well for the safety of the US food supply.

Tags: , , ,
Apr 30 2025

Bad news: USDA withdraws proposals for reducing Salmonella contamination of chicken

The USDA announced last week that it is withdrawing its proposed framework for reducing Salmonella in raw poultry.  Oh great.

Why?

FSIS received 7,089 comments on the proposed framework…from a variety of stakeholders that included poultry and meat industry trade associations, small poultry producer and processor trade associations, large and small poultry processing establishments, consumer advocacy organizations…The issues that generated the most comments…[were] the proposed Salmonella levels and serotypes for the final product standards…the scientific and technical information used to support the proposed framework, the potential economic impacts of the proposed framework, and the potential impact of the proposed framework on small poultry growers and processors. Several comments also suggested alternative approaches other than the proposed framework for addressing Salmonella illnesses associated with poultry products.

While FSIS continues to support the goal of reducing Salmonella illnesses associated with poultry products, the Agency believes that the comments have raised several important issues that warrant further consideration.

Consumer Reports, which has for years been pushing the USDA to do something about Salmonella contamination in poultry, is not happy with this move, not least because its investigators found large numbers of poultry plants to be heavily contaminated with Salmonella. contamination.

The proposed rule was intended to help reduce the number of salmonella infections in the U.S. Of the estimated 1.35 million illnesses that occur each year from food tainted with the bacteria, nearly 200,000 of them are due to chicken, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “And instead of declining, salmonella infections are increasing and expected to continue to grow…This move, along with the steep budget and staffing cuts at the USDA and FDA, appears to be part of an overall effort to weaken food safety oversight,” says director of food policy at Consumer Reports.

Comment

This is an extremely disappointing decision.  The poultry industry argues that Salmonella contamination is normal.  They don’t need to do anything to prevent chickens getting contaminated.  It is your responsibility to store and cook your chicken properly.

Safety advocates (like me) argue that Salmonella is not normal, contamination is preventable, and the industry ought to be doing that.  The USDA’s 2021 proposal to declare Salmonella an adulterant was a major step in making food safer.

This decision is a major setback.

Resources

What the USDA says about Salmonella

What the USDA says today about reducing Salmonella in poultry.  The web page displays USDA’s 2021 announcement that it would be “mobilizing a stronger and more comprehensive effort to reduce Salmonella illnesses associated with poultry products.”

 

Tags: , , ,
Mar 25 2025

Keeping up with U.S. food politics

It’s not easy to figure out what’s happening on the food front in DC these days, but a lot of it does not sound good.  Here are a bunch from last week.

I.  Food Bank Support. USDA stops $500 million worth of shipments of food to food banks.

Food banks across the country are scrambling to make up a $500 million budget shortfall after the Trump administration froze funds for hundreds of shipments of produce, poultry and other items that states had planned to distribute to needy residents.

The Biden administration had slated the aid for distribution to food banks during the 2025 fiscal year through the Emergency Food Assistance Program, which is run by the Agriculture Department and backed by a federal fund known as the Commodity Credit Corporation. But in recent weeks, many food banks learned that the shipments they had expected to receive this spring had been suspended.

II.  Line speeds in meat processing plants.  USDA announces “streamlined” meat processing.  This is USDA-speak for increasing line speeds in processing plants, something terrifying to anyone who cares about worker safety and food safety.  As Food Safety News puts it, this is unsafe at any speed—again.

Once more, policymakers are making the same catastrophic mistake. Once more, industries are downplaying risk while lives hang in the balance. Once more, we are choosing efficiency over responsibility…It’s a reckless increase in processing speeds that threatens to overwhelm the very safeguards meant to protect both workers and consumers.

III.  Food safety rules.  FDA puts food safety rule on hold

In an announcement on March 20, the Food and Drug Administration said it intends to publish a proposed rule “at a later time.” The rule has already been published and approved and was set to go into effect Jan. 1, 2026. The rule was mandated by the Food Safety Modernization Act, which Congress approved in 2010.

The food industry has been pushing back against the rule since before it was written, citing expenses. Industry groups applauded the FDA’s postponement of enforcement of the rule.

IV.  Seed Banks.  DOGE is trying to fire staff of the USDA’s National Plant Germplasm System, which stores 62,000 seed samples.

In mid-February, Trump administration officials…fired some of the highly trained people who do this work. A court order has reinstated them, but it’s unclear when they will be allowed to resume their work.

On the other hand, a few useful things are happening.

V.  Infant formula. FDA launches “Operation Stork Speed to Expand Options for Safe, Reliable, and Nutritious Infant Formula for American Families.  This will involve

  • Increased testing for heavy metals and other contaminants.
  • Encouragement of companies to develop new infant formulas
  • Reviewing baby formula ingredients
  • Collaborating with NIH to address research gaps

This is in response to the loss in availability of infant formula due to contamination at an Abbott plant.  I don’t see anything in this initiative aimed at enforcing food safety rules in production plants, or anything about the ridiculous pricing of infant formula, which can range four-fold for essentially identical products (all infant formulas have to meet FDA nutrition standards).  See: FDA’s main page on Infant Formula.

According to FoodFix, this announcement came after RFK Jr. met with the CEOs of major formula makers, but before Consumer Reports issued a report finding “concerning” levels of heavy metals in some infant formula products.

USA Today reports:

The FDA’s testing is ongoing. To date, it has completed testing of 221/340 samples, which at this time, do not indicate that the contaminants are present in infant formula at levels that would trigger a public health concern.

VI.  Chemical contaminants in food. FDA has published a Chemical Contaminant Transparency Tool.  This gives action levels for each contaminant. Presumably, the 221 tests gave results that did not exceed those levels.

Comment

I’m not seeing much about Making America Healthy Again, beyond encouraging the elimination of artificial colors and trying to do something about the GRAS loophole, which lets companies essentially self-determine whether additives are safe.  Those are both worth doing, and have been a long time coming.  I still want to see this administration take strong action on:

  • Ultra-processed food
  • Food Safety
  • School meals
  • Support for small and medium farms

The cancelling of funding for the Diabetes Prevention Program, a 30-year longitudinal study, seems at odds with MAHA.  I hope the funding gets restored quicky.

Tags: , ,
Jan 24 2025

Weekend reading: Former President Biden’s food-and-farming legacy

OOPS: A reader alerted me that all links have been taken down by the new administration.

In his last weeks in office, former President Biden issued a Fact Sheet on the food system investments achieved by his administration. A reader, Ethan Wolf, sent in a link from the Wayback Machine. Fact Sheet on the food system investments achieved by his administration

The Fact Sheet divides the achievements into several categories.

  • Building new markets and income for farmers and ranchers
  • Modernizing the middle of the agriculture and food supply chain: food processing, aggregation, and distribution
  • Creating more fair and competitive markets
  • Improving food access, nutrition security and health
  • Enchancing food safety
  • Supporting breakthrough agricultural rewearch and innovation

To highlight just one—food safety:

Perhaps coincidentally, Lisa Held at Civil Eats published How Four Years of Biden Reshaped Food and Farming: From day one, the administration prioritized climate, “nutrition security,” infrastructure investments, and reducing food system consolidation. Here’s what the president and his team actually did.

Her categories are somewhat different:

  • Taking on Consolidation and Corporate Power, and Supporting Farmer Livelihood
  • Tackling the Climate Crisis
  • Regulating Pesticides and Other Chemicals
  • Focusing on Food Safety
  • Linking Hunger, Nutrition, and Health
  • Supporting Food and Farm Workers
  • Advancing Equity

Here’s my excerpted summary of her analysis of Taking on Corporate Power.

The lists go on and on.  Held’s only overall conclusion: “The impacts of many of those efforts will take years to reveal themselves, while other actions may be more quickly sustained or reversed in the second Trump administration.”

Comment

I did not know about many of the items listed here and I’m guessing you didn’t either.  My impression is that the Biden Administration tried hard to improve the food system in multiple ways, some publicized, some not.  But Held is right: we won’t know for a long time how much good all this did, but we are likely to find out soon whether the gains will be overturned by the new administration.  She will continue to write about such topics.  I will too.

 

Tags: , , , ,
Jul 9 2024

What the Supreme Court’s nix on the Chevron doctrine means for food regulation

By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court struck down the Chevron doctrine, which said that the courts were required to uphold regulatory decisions of federal agencies unless Congress said otherwise.  The court majority called the doctrine “fundamentally misguided.”

The decision involves food politics in two ways: (1) the case, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, involved fishing, and (2) it has profound implications for food regulations.

(1) The case, as described in SCOTUSblog: “Can fishermen be required to pay for federal monitors? And by the way – should Chevron be overruled?”

Summary: The National Marine Fisheries Service had been requiring “the herring industry to pay for the costs, estimated at $710 per day, associated with carrying observers on board their vessels to collect data about their catches and monitor for overfishing… the agency reimbursed fishermen for the costs of the observers.”  Commercial fishing companies, which do not like having observers on board, challenged the Chevron doctrine.  Koch Industries paid for the challenge, as part of its long-standing deregulatory agenda.

Significance: businesses objecting to agency regulations can sue the agencies and let judges decide.

The courts (politically appointed judges) can overrule the agencies ‘ public health and safety regulations.

(2) Implications for food, nutrition, and public health regulations

The decision is widely interpreted as putting food and nutrition policies at grave risk, particularly those of the FDA.  Here is a preliminary list of what is at stake.

  • FDA: food safety, sodium, front-of-package nutrition labeling, the healthy front-of-package label claim, GRAS determinations, dietary supplements, chemical toxins.
  • Many of these proposed regulations were already at risk because of disinterest or lack of understanding by agency officials who seem unwilling to argue forcefully for public health measures.  This lack is seen most clearly in a Wall Street Journal interview with Jim Jones, the FDA’s new Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods, who appears uninterested in taking on regulations to reduce production as well as consumption of ultra-processed foods. [this discussion runs from 13:20 to 17:02].
  • USDA: meat and poultry safety, Salmonella and E. coli as adulterants, pesticides, herbicides, meat industry consolidation reduction, safe handling instructions, labeling requirements.
  • EPA: slaughterhouse pollution, water quality, PFAS
  • FTC: dietary supplement health claims

Comment: There are undoubtedly more regulations in play that I haven’t thought of.   Food companies (like businesses in general) do not like being regulated.—too cumbersome, too expensive, too intrusive, too limiting on profits.

Now, a company fviewing any of these rules as inconvenient can take the FDA to court.  Doing so:

  • Leaves scientific and public health matters to the personal views of judges.
  • Ties up federal agencies in legal challenges.
  • Reduces agency resources for inspections and other regulatory work.
  • Casts a chill on developing new regulations development.

This decision has been applauded by the business community.

For those of us wanting diets to be healthier and more sustainable, it’s a disaster waiting to happen.

I’ll bet we won’t have to wait long for the first cases to be filed.

Tags: ,
May 4 2023

More pro-GMO info from the FDA

I’m working on a new edition of What to Eat and am spending a lot of time in grocery stores seeing what’s new and different since 2006—vastly more than I thought when I signed up to do this project, which is why it is taking a long time to do.

One change is in the number of products displaying Non-GMO labels.  The Non-GMO Project says it has certified 60,000 products, and I believe it.

On the other hand, don’t expect to see labels on foods that are genetically modified even though they are required.  With much searching, I found a few on shipping boxes but not on grocery shelf labels.

So I’m interested to see what the FDA is saying about genetically modified foods.

It sent out a press release recently.

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released new “Feed Your Mind” educational materials to provide science-based information on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). “Feed Your Mind” is an education initiative launched in 2020 to help increase consumer understanding of GMOs and was developed in partnership with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The new materials for consumers include:

…Funding for the “Feed Your Mind” initiative was provided by Congress in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017 to conduct “consumer outreach and education regarding agricultural biotechnology and biotechnology derived food products and animal feed, including through publication and distribution of science-based educational information on the environmental, nutritional, food safety, economic, and humanitarian impacts of such biotechnology, food products, and feed.” More funds were provided through 2018 and 2019 Appropriations bills.

For More Information

The last time I wrote about the FDA’s GMO initiatives, I titled the post “The FDA’s new pro GMO propaganda.”  I pointed out that the FDA’s materials stick with limited issues, and say nothing about:

  • Corporate control of commodity agriculture
  • Glyphosate, the herbicide used with GMOs and considered carcinogenic by international health agencies and US courts
  • How pesticides used on GMO crops contaminate organic production
  • The ways GMO companies harrass independent farmers by enforcing intellectual property rights
  • How the Farm Bill subsidizes GMO corn and soybeans, causing them to be overproduced and corn to be used for ethanol
  • The lack of labeling of the few GMO foods on the market.

No wonder sales of organic foods are booming and so many people look for Non-GMO labels on food products.

*******

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

 

Tags: , , ,
Mar 14 2023

Alarming (in)action from the FDA

Last week I posted about Bill Marler’s “Take the F out of the FDA” campaign.

Since then, he additionally posted letters from the FDA that make it clear how poorly the agency is doing its job to protect all of us against foodborne illness.

Let’s start with the the agency’s March 8 letter to companies making infant formula.

The agency is asking—not requiring—infant formula companies to:

  • Evaluate their systems for ensuring safety
  • Comply with existing regulations
  • Follow existing rules, and
  • “Voluntarily notify the Agency any time a product sample is found to be positive for Cronobacter spp. or Salmonella, even if the affected lot(s) have not been  distributed.”

What?

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) of 2011 gave the FDA the authority to ensure safe food by requiring HACCP-like process controls at every stage of production.

Infant formula is the sole source of food for many babies.

The formula crisis of last year, where Abbott Labs produced formula contaminated with Cronobacter and Salmonella, meant that Abbott was not following the law and should have been required to clean up its act instantly.

Companies are supposed to test to make sure their process controls are working.

If FSMA did not require companies to notify the FDA when they found contamination, the FDA should be going to Congress to get that authority to announce its rulemaking to get that authority.

This is not a time for politeness.  Infants’ lives are at stake.

The FDA may argue that it cannot take action because so few companies make infant formula (illustrating why industry consolidation is not good for society).

But it must.  Marler is clear on what the FDA needs to do.

  • Put an inspector in every infant formula plant, 24/7.
  • Require product testing and report results to the CDC (to compare with illness).
  • Lobby to make Cronobacter a reportable infection (to reveal the extent of the problem).

To demonstrate the ineffectiveness of politeness, Marler also posted this 2005 letter from the FDA to lettuce growers (“we strongly encourage your industry to begin or intensify immediately efforts”)….  This was followed a year later by the Dole spinach recalls of 2006 (199 cases, 102 hospitalizations, 3 deaths) and many others, leading up to congressional action in passing FSMA.

It’s the FDA’s job to enforce FSMA.

If the FDA is too captured by industry to do that, let’s get the F out of it and into some place that is serious about doing something about food safety.

FDA Commissioner Califf ‘s tweeted response to Marler’s campaign—a thread of 14 tweets— is not reassuring.

There should be no question in anyone’s mind that the F in FDA is a top priority for me. We’ve accomplished a tremendous amount in the last 10 years to make the American food supply as safe as it’s ever been & improve the nutritional quality of foods. 
Not only does the U.S. have one of the safest food supplies in the world, we’ve also advanced our capabilities to detect pathogens. We’re now detecting more outbreaks & safety issues using modern methods like Whole Genome Sequencing that would have eluded detection in the past….
Creating a new foods agency isn’t in the FDA’s purview and would take years to put in place and distract from the important work that needs to be done today.
Right.  So do it.  Unsafe infant formula is a national scandal, unacceptable by any standard.
Addition: FoodFix reports this morning that the FDA has requested some of this authority in its legislative proposal (see page 4).as part of the Biden administration’s fiscal 2024 budget request that was unveiled Thursday (see page 4).
Tags: , ,
Sep 20 2022

Judge rules QR codes can’t substitute for GMO (GE) food labels

A couple of years ago, the Center for Food Safety filed a lawsuit challenging the USDA’s GMO labeling law.

I’ve discussed the law in a previous post (and in an even earlier one, Goodbye GMO, Hello Bioengineered: USDA publishes labeling rules).

Basically, the current law is supposed to put this logo on GMO foods.

Image result for bioengineering logo usda

The Center’s lawsuit called for:

  1. On package labeling.  The law allowed QR codes instead.
  2. Use of the term genetically modified or GMO rathat than bioengineered.
  3. Labeling of foods with GM ingredients.
  4. More information about GM food.

The District Judge dismissed #2, #3, and #4, but agreed that QR codes are insufficient.

Consequently, plaintiffs have carried their burden of showing that AMS’s decision to implement a standalone text message disclosure option was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law”…Summary judgment is granted to plaintiffs on the APA claim for the text message regulation, and Sections 66.106 and 66.108 of the regulations are remanded to the USDA without vacatur for reconsideration in light of this order. Summary judgment is denied in all other respects.

The Center for Food Safety’s translation:

A U.S. District Court has held that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s decision to allow genetically engineered (GMO) foods to only be labeled with a “QR” code was unlawful, and that USDA must instead add additional disclosure options to those foods under USDA’s National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard. The Court sent back to the agency the QR code portions of the 2018 Trump administration rules for GMO labeling that went into effect on January 1, 2022, which hindered consumer access with burdensome electronic or digital disclosures.

If you care at all about whether GMO foods are in supermarkets, good luck.  I’ve seen cartons of Hawaiian papayas labeled with that logo, but not the papayas themselves and not much else.

Once again, if you want to know what GMO fruits and vegetables might—in theory—be in supermarket produce sections, you can check the FDA’s website.

The purple tomato recently approved by USDA is not on that list; the FDA hasn’t gotten to it yet.

Mostly, GMO produce is not in supermarkets.  But wouldn’t it be nice to know for sure?

It will be interesting to see if this ruling makes things more transparent.

************

Coming soon!  My memoir, October 4.

For 30% off, go to www.ucpress.edu/9780520384156.  Use code 21W2240 at checkout.

 

 

 

Tags: