The FDA has just produced a summary of the first-year accomplishments of the food protection plan it announced a year ago. According to the New York Times, FDA officials say their overhaul of the food safety system is right on track (for a summary, see consumeraffairs.com). Skeptical?  Join Congressional representative Rosa De Laura (Dem-CT) who says of the FDA: “It’s got to be so totally redone…It needs resources; it needs better management; it needs less influence from the industry and more influence on the science.”  Single food safety agency, anyone?

Here’s what Consumers’ Union has to say about the plan, starting with “the FDA needs a complete overhaul.”

Friday is a great day for releasing news that might be controversial.  The FDA announced a 1 ppm standard for safe levels of melamine in infant formula – provided cyanuric acid is not also present.  By this standard, the amount in the adulterated Chinese infant formula – 2,000 ppm or more – would be deemed demonstrably toxic.  The amount in the contaminated U.S. formula – 0.1 to 0.2 ppm – would be considered safe.  Of course zero would be better, but that seems hard to achieve in today’s chemically contaminated environment.  A 1 ppm standard is tough enough to give the FDA plenty of leeway in banning unsafe products.

People whose pets got sick or died as a result of melamine adulteration of pet foods in 2007 are entitled to compensation.  The U.S. courts approved the $24 million settlement on November 17. Now, the Canadian courts also have approved the settlement. The $24 million is in addition to the $8 million already paid out.   Pet owners who have not yet filed claims can still do so by writing to: In re Pet Food Products Liability Litigation, Claims Administrator, c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta LLP, P.O. Box 890, Philadelphia, PA 19105-0890.  Tel: 1-800-392-7785.  Website: www.petfoodsettlement.com.

Happy Thanksgiving holiday!

A survey by Consumers Union finds a huge majority of respondents to want more inspection of domestic and imported foods, better country-of-origin labeling, and labeling of genetically modified and cloned foods.  Me too.

Oh great.  So now trace amounts of melamine are turning up in infant formulas made by all the big makers.  The amounts –  0.1 to 0.2 ppm or less –  are way too low to be harmful, says the FDA.  This seems logical, but does this mean that trace amounts of melamine are in everything?  And it would be good to know what concentration of melamine mixed with cyanuric acid – or uric acid – is safe.  I can understand why the FDA might not want to get into all this but I wish the Associated Press could have gotten this information without having to file a freedom-of-information-act request.

Updates: Here’s the more circumspect account in the New York Times, and a skeptical commentary from LawyersAndSettlements.com.  The Washington Post (November 29) reported specific figures: The FDA tested 87 infant formula products and has results for 77.  Of these, it found melamine at levels of .137 and .14 parts per million in Nestle Good Start Supreme Infant Formula with Iron in liquid form.  It also found cyanuric acid at levels between 0.245 ppm and 0.249 ppm in Enfamil Lipil with Iron (Mead Johnson Nutritionals/Briston-Myers Squibb). These are very low levels.

I am hearing rumors that the melamine crystals that caused kidney blockage in Chinese infants are not the same as the ones that harmed cats and dogs last year.  The crystals in pets’ kidneys were formed of melamine and its by-product, cyanuric acid.  The ones in infants seem to be made of melamine linked to uric acid.  Fortunately, these are not nearly so lethal.

Uric acid is not a contaminant.  It is a normal breakdown product of components of DNA and RNA, excreted in urine.  Babies – and adults –  normally excrete uric acid through the kidneys. Really, eating melamine is not a good idea and putting it into pet food, animal feed, or human food is nothing short of evil.

The City University of New York Campaign Against Diabetes and the Public Health Association of NYC have produced a new report: Reversing Obesity in New York City: An Action Plan for Reducing the Promotion and Accessibility of Unhealthy Food.  I especially like the clear statements of arguments – on both sides – of doing something about stopping junk food marketing, especially to kids.  This report should be useful for advocates who want to influence policy.  Thanks to Lauren Dinour, Liza Fuentes, and Nick Freudenberg for writing it.

Yes Virginia, there is indeed a trade association for everything and omega-3 fats have their very own.  This one is hard at work trying to get the FDA to approve a full health claim (as opposed to the current qualified claim) for omega-3 fatty acids and heart disease risk.  The FDA now allows this statement: “Supportive but not conclusive research shows that consumption of EPA and DHA omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease” (my emphasis). I can understand why the omega-3 industry wants something stronger.  Health claims, as I keep insisting, are about marketing, not health.