Search results: USDA meat

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued: Food Safety: Status of Foodborne Illness in the U.S.

This one sounds much like GAO reports I’ve been reading since the early 1990s.

We have long reported that the fragmented nature of the federal food safety oversight system causes inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient use of resources. Since 2007, we have identified federal oversight of food safety as a high-risk issue and made several recommendations and matters for congressional consideration. In 2017, we called for the Executive Office of the President to develop and implement a national strategy for overseeing food safety. As of January 2025, there were no plans to create a national strategy, according to officials from the Office of Management and Budget.

What’s impressive about this report is its comprehensiveness.  If you want to understand why food safety in the U.S. remains a problem, this is the place to start.

Among other things, it’s got great graphics, like this one.

It makes several points, none for the first time.

Oversight of food safety is a mess; it needs consolidation.

At least 30 federal laws govern the safety and quality of the U.S. food supply, both domestic and imported. Collectively, 15 federal agencies administer these laws, including CDC, USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), and HHS’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The federal food safety oversight system is supplemented by states, localities, Tribes, and territories, which may have their own laws and agencies to address the safety and quality of food.

The division of oversight responsibility between USDA (meat and poultry) and FDA (everything else) makes no sense.  It needs fixing.

Foodborne pathogens can be transmitted through multiple types of food and, therefore, can affect both FDA- and FSIS-regulated foods. For example, in 2024, two Salmonella outbreaks—one attributed to cucumbers, an FDA-regulated food, and one attributed to charcuterie meats, an FSIS-regulated food—collectively caused 650 confirmed illnesses and about 180 hospitalizations.

We keep trying and wish everyone would listen to us.

We previously reported on the need for a national strategy to guide federal efforts to address ongoing fragmentation and improve the federal food safety oversight system. This strategy could address our other previous matters for congressional consideration about a government-wide performance plan and sustained leadership for federal food safety. We maintain that such a strategy could create an opportunity to further strengthen federal oversight of the nation’s food supply and reduce the economic and public health effects of foodborne illness.

Food Safety News reports that the FDA says

the biggest stumbling block to conducting inspections of food facilities is understaffing…The annual target for FDA inspections is 19,200, according to the report. The most annual inspections of foreign food facilities occurred in 2019, with 1,727 inspections, or 9 percent of the annual target… in July 2024, FDA had a total of 432 investigators — 90 percent of the full-time equivalent ceiling — for conducting both domestic and foreign inspections, according to FDA officials.

Comment

The instructions to the MAHA Commission (see yesterday’s post) say nothing about food safety beyond its being a matter requiring fresh thinking. Food safety does not appear to be a MAHA priority, especially in light of the threatened mass firings of FDA staff.  Reducing the number of FDA inspectors is unlikely to help at this point.  I hope the Commission adds safe food to its agenda.  The GAO has called for a single food safety agency for decades.  This might be just the time to take that on.  Fresh thinking indeed!

It’s a big worry.

From the Cleveland Clinic: Bird flu (avian influenza)

Bird flu (avian influenza) is an infection from a type of influenza (flu) virus that usually spreads in birds and other animals. Sometimes, humans can get bird flu from infected animals. Like the versions of flu that people usually get, bird flu can make you severely ill.

It has infected  and, in the case of dairy herds and poultry flocks, mass culling:

• Wild birds
• Domestic Chickens
• Domestic Turkeys
• Domestic Ducks
• Dairy cattle
• Raw milk
• Wild and captive mammals
• Pet dogs and cats
• People

What is the government doing?

• USDA Announces New Federal Order, Begins National Milk Testing Strategy to Address H5N1 in Dairy Herds
• FDA: Investigation of Avian Influenza A (H5N1) Virus in Dairy Cattle
• USDA: Detections of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza
• CDC: H5 Bird Flu: Current Situation

The CDC says: “The best way to prevent H5N1 bird flu is to avoid sources of exposure whenever possible.”  Thanks a lot.

From the New England Journal of Medicine

• Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza A(H5N1) Virus Infections in Humans
• The Emerging Threat of H5N1 to Human Health

Comment: For producers of dairy and poultry, H5N1 is already a disaster.  “Only” about 66 people have been infected and human-to-human transmission does not seem to be occurring—yet?  If ever a potential epidemic needed a coordinated response, here is a truly alarming example.

As for its effects on the food system?  Higher prices, for sure: Egg Prices Are High. They Will Likely Go Higher.

Charles Platkin sent me this  article from Food Manufacturing: “Eating pork linked with better handgrip strength, industry group says.”

I quickly found the The Pork Board’s press release.

And went right to the source.

The study: Jung A-J, Sharma A, Chung M, Wallace TC, Lee H-J. he Relationship of Pork Meat Consumption with Nutrient Intakes, Diet Quality, and Biomarkers of Health Status in Korean Older Adults.  Nutrients. 2024; 16(23):4188. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16234188

Objectives: We evaluated the association between pork meat consumption and nutrient intake, diet quality, and biomarkers of health among older adults (age ≥ 65 years) in Korea.

Methods: Our analyses utilized dietary and health examination data from the 2016–2020 Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (n = 2068).

Results: Pork consumption was associated with  a higher intake of energy and [some] nutrients…Diet quality was modestly higher among…pork consumers. Differences in biomarkers were clinically irrelevant…Handgrip strength was slightly higher.

Conclusions: In Korean older adults, pork consumption may contribute to a higher intake of energy and most nutrients, improved diet quality scores, higher vegetable intake, and small improvements in health biomarkers.

Funding: Funding for this research was provided through an investigator-initiated educational grant from the National Pork Board (#22-056) to Think Healthy Group, LLC. The sponsor had no role in the design, analysis, interpretation, or presentation of the data or results. The authors and sponsor strictly adhered to the American Society for Nutrition’s guiding principles for private funding for food science and nutrition research. M.C. did not receive salary support or consulting fee from this grant.

Conflicts of interest”: T.C.W. has received scientific consulting fees as a current member of the Science Advisory Board for the National Pork Board. He has also received other investigator-initiated educational research grants from the National Pork Board. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Comment: Applause to Food Manufacturing for noting the industry  source in its headline: “industry group says”.  Note the effect size: “small improvements in health biomarkers.”  Nevertheless, the Pork Board thought it was worth a press release—it had paid for the study, after all.  The Pork Board runs a USDA-sponsored checkoff program; it collects fees from pork producers and uses them for purposes like these.  Worth it?  A lot of pork producers don’t think so, but the USDA insists and manages it through its Agricultural Market Service.  I wonder if the new administration will take interest in such programs…?

 

 

 

 

 

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:

• USDA issued a rule to classify raw poultry products contaminated with specific Salmonella levels and serotypes as adulterated.
• USDA also finalized a rule declaring Salmonella an adulterant in raw breaded stuffed chicken products exceeding 1 colony-forming unit per gram.
• FDA launched the “Closer to Zero” initiative (C2Z), which sets forth a science-based approach to continually reducing exposure to lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury to the lowest levels possible in foods eaten by babies and young children.
• FDA has issued numerous action levels for toxic elements: draft levels for lead in juices; final levels for lead in foods intended for babies and young children; and a final level for arsenic in apple juice. 
• FDA revoked authorizations for the uses of brominated vegetable oil (BVO) in food because of the potential for adverse health effects in humans.
• FDA also revised its regulations and revoked prior-sanctioned uses of partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs) because studies consistently link consumption of PHOs (industrially produced trans fat) with heart disease. 
• Before the end of the term, FDA also plans to revoke the authorization of Red No. 3, a red dye used in certain medications and various foods and beverages, including candies, cakes, frostings, and frozen desserts, due to studies showing that the dye caused cancer [it did this].

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.

 

Let’s start the new year off with a classic industry-funded study with predictable results.

Beef Consumption and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.  Sanders, Lisa M et al. Current Developments in Nutrition, Volume 8, Issue 12, 104500

Background: Results from observational studies suggest associations of red meat intake with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, RCTs have not clearly demonstrated a link between red meat consumption and CVD risk factors. Further, the specific effects of beef, the most consumed red meat in the United States, have not been extensively investigated.

Objectives: This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCT data evaluating the effects of minimally or unprocessed beef intake on CVD risk factors in adults.

Methods: A search of the literature was conducted using PubMed and CENTRAL databases.

Results: Beef intake did not impact blood pressure or most lipoprotein-related variables, including total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, triglycerides, non–HDL-cholesterol, apolipoprotein A or B, and VLDL-cholesterol. Beef consumption had a small but significant effect on LDL-cholesterol (0.11; 95% CI: 0.008, 0.20; P = 0.03), corresponding to ∼2.7 mg/dL higher LDL-cholesterol in diets containing more beef than that in low-beef or -o beef comparator diets. Sensitivity analyses show this effect was lost when 1 influential study was removed.

Conclusions: In summary, the results of this analysis showed no meaningful effect of daily unprocessed beef intake, compared with diets with less or no beef, on circulating lipoprotein lipids, apolipoproteins, and blood pressures, except for a small effect to increase the LDL-cholesterol concentration by ∼2.7 mg/dL. Given that unprocessed beef has minimal to no impact on these CVD risk factors but is a significant source of highly bioavailable protein as well as iron, zinc, and selenium, its inclusion in the diet may help improve dietary nutrient profiles without significantly affecting lipids or blood pressures.

Funding: This study was supported by the Beef Checkoff. The funding sponsor provided comments on early aspects of the study design. A report was shared with the sponsor prior to submission. The final decision for all aspects of the study and the manuscript content were those of the authors alone.

Comment:  As I said, an instant classic of the genre.  The USDA-managed Beef Checkoff had input into the study design and got to comment on the results and conclusions before the article was submitted for publication.  The sponsor exerted influence at the two places bias is most often found: the study design and the interpretation of the results.  Hence, industry influenced and predictable.

More to come.  Happy new year!

The USDA announced last week the arrival of the Scientific Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC).

The DGAC deserves much praise for getting this job done on time under what I consider to be difficult constraints (large committee size, large areas of research to review, requirement that all recommendations be “evidence-based” which sounds good, but is unreasonable given the inability to conduct long-term controlled clinical studies).

The report is now open for public comment (see information at bottom of post).

The process to develop the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025-2030 is under way. Get involved by providing written and oral comments to the Departments on the Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (Scientific Report). You may also sign up to receive email updates on news related to the development of the next edition of the Dietary Guidelines…For more information, visit the Public Comments to the Departments page.

A reminder about the process:  The DGAC report is advisory.  Since 2005, the agencies appoint an entirely separate internal governmental committee to write the actual guidelines.  This, of course, makes the process far more political and subject to lobbying (file comments!).

The recent election will install new leaders of USDA and HHS.  If they follow the same process, they will appoint and instruct the new committee.  Or, they can change the process entirely.

Another reminder: When I was on the DGAC in 1995, our committee chose the research questions, did the research, wrote the scientific report, and wrote the actual guidelines.  Those were the days.

Comments on the DGAC report

For starters, it’s 421 pages.

Its bottom line:

This healthy dietary pattern for individuals ages 2 years and older is: (1) higher in vegetables, fruits, legumes, nuts, whole grains, fish/seafood, and vegetable oils higher in unsaturated fat; and (2) lower in red and processed meats, sugar-sweetened foods and beverages, refined grains, and saturated fat. A healthy dietary pattern, as indicated by the systematic reviews, may also include consumption of fat-free or low-fat dairy and foods lower in sodium, and/or may include plant-based dietary options.

The proposed guidelines:

1. Follow a healthy dietary pattern at every life stage. At every life stage—infancy, toddlerhood, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, pregnancy, lactation, and older adulthood—it is never too early or too late to eat healthfully.
2. Customize and enjoy nutrient-dense food and beverage choices to reflect personal preferences, cultural traditions, and budgetary considerations.
3. Focus on meeting food group needs with nutrient-dense foods and beverages, and stay within calorie limits.
4. Limit foods and beverages higher in added sugars, saturated fat, and sodium, and limit alcoholic beverages.

This looks like all the other Dietary Guidelines since 1980.  Its bottom-line statement is more explicit than previously about reducing red meat and sugar-sweetened beverages.

Worth reading

• Support federal data.  I especially appreciated the strong support for strengthening nutrition monitoring, food composition data (FoodData Central, an invaluable resource), and updating the Dietary Reference Intakes.  Yes!
• The chapter on portion size.  At last!  Larger portions have more calories!

What’s missing

• A separate chapter on calories stated explicitly.  The report discusses concerns about obesity and diet-related chronic disease in an excellent paragraph on page 1, and mentions calories but “stay within calorie limits” doesn’t get at what’s needed.  I want more on “…adults and children [should] consume smaller portions of foods and beverages that are high in energy density and low in nutrient density.”
• A guideline to reduce consumption of ultra-processed foods.  This committee, unwisely in my view, chose not to advise minimizing intake of ultra-processed foods, deeming their definition too uncertain and ignoring what are now three controlled clinical trials demonstrating that diets based on these food induce people to overconsume calories.

What’s confusing

–The addition of recommendations for diets in early childhood.  This was done for the 2020-2025 guidelines and it involved doubling the size of the committee. This makes the committee’s work much harder and its report insufferably long.  I would rather see a separate report on children (this could deal with the effects of food marketing as well).

–The health equity lens.  I’m all for this but its discussion dominates the report.  It is discussed in a separate chapter but then in boxes and other places throughout.  The word “equity” is mentioned 217 times and “health equity lens” 38 times.

Although prior Committees incorporated basic demographic factors such as age, race, and ethnicity into their reviews of the science, this Committee considered additional factors and did so in a holistic manner as it reviewed, interpreted, and synthesized evidence across data analysis, systematic reviews, and food pattern modeling. In particular, this Committee considered factors that reflect social determinants of health (SDOH). In doing so, the Committee could interpret the evidence based on both demographic factors (which are considered to be downstream, i.e., more proximal in terms of their influence on behavior) and socioeconomic and political factors (which are considered to be upstream, i.e., broader societal factors that influence the distribution of power and resources). Addressing SDOH is considered key to achieving a just, equitable society.

Other comments

From the Meat Institute:  Meat Institute Issues Statement on the Scientific Report of the 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee

“The Meat Institute remains strongly opposed to the Report’s recommendation to reduce meat consumption and will urge the agencies to reject it,” said Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts.

From the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine: Prioritizing Plant-Based Protein in the Scientific Report of the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee is a Step Forward, Doctors Say

For the first time, the advisory committee tasked with making scientific recommendations for revising the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended that the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines “include more nutrient-dense plant-based meal and dietary recommendation options,” prioritize plant-based protein over animal protein, and recognize the many benefits of beans, peas, and lentils as a protein source. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) continued to discourage consuming foods like red meat, eggs, and dairy that are high in saturated fat, while also suggesting that the next Dietary Guidelines for Americans specifically recommend plain drinking water as the primary beverage for people to consume.

I can’t wait to see what comes next.

How to commennt

A 60-day public comment period on the Committee’s Scientific Report is open through February 10, 2025. More information about how to provide written and oral comments to the Departments is available at DietaryGuidelines.gov.

• Read about opportunities to provide public comments, including requirements for oral comments 
• Register to provide oral comments to the Departments.   Note: do this now.  Spaces are limited.
• Submit written public comments to the Departments
• Register to attend the virtual public meeting to hear oral comments on the Scientific Report  

Read the Committee’s Scientific Report 

Food trade is always a big issue, but it’s one I have a hard time keeping up with.  It’s in the news right now because President-elect Trump is threatening to increase tariffs with unsettling effects.   His vows, vows to slap new tariffs on U.S. trading partners on Day One, according to Politico, “has sent ripple effects through the U.S. agricultural industry, which relies on exports to boost profits for vital commodity crops like soy and corn.”

On top of that, the USDA predicts a record $45.5 billion deficit in food trade this year: U.S. Agricultural Exports in Fiscal Year 2025 Forecast at $170.0 Billion; Imports at $215.5 Billion.

As Agricultural Dive explains,

An already record agricultural trade deficit in the United States is expected to get even bigger, the Agriculture Department said Tuesday.  The U.S. farm trade deficit in fiscal year 2025 is on track to reach $45.5 billion, according to an updated USDA outlook. Government analysts were previously forecasting a $42.5 billion deficit in August….

While U.S. producers have been able to modestly increase exports of livestock, dairy, corn and sorghum since the USDA’s August forecast, trade of other major commodities — namely cotton and soybeans — has declined. Crop farmers have been hit the hardest by a decline in global prices and are expected to bear the brunt of the widening trade deficit….

Trade with two of the U.S.′ biggest markets faces additional risks next year as President-elect Donald Trump threatens 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Trade with both countries has soared in recent years, with Mexico replacing China as the top U.S. agricultural market.

Much of the deficit is our fault, apparently.  We have a voracious demand for “ever-larger amounts of imported fruits, vegetables, wine, alcohol, coffee, and beef.”

The issue of Mexico as our top market raises questtions about the GMO corn we send there.  US Right to Know has published or reproduced a series of articles on this issue.

• GM corn and glyphosate science: Documents from Mexico-US trade dispute 
• New scientific analyses underpin Mexico’s restrictions on GM corn and glyphosate due to health risks
• Mexico’s Scientfic Dossier on GMO Corn and its Effects
• Leading scientist defends Mexico’s food sovereignty from GM corn and glyphosate

The trade dispute works both ways: US suspends Mexico cattle imports after New World screwworm detected: The United States has relied on livestock from the country as ranchers struggle to rebuild depleted cattle herds.

Finally, for now, a new FAO report offers guidance and data on integrating nutrition goals into food trade policies: The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2024.

While trade liberalization has numerous benefits for food security, questions linger about whether it is conducive to healthy diets. An analysis for SOCO 2024 using FAO’s Cost and Affordability of a Healthy Diet indicator found that higher import tariffs are associated with higher food prices irrespective of the healthy qualities of the foods, indicating that, in general, trade openness does not have a disproportionate effect on high-energy low-nutrition foods.

A reader writes:

Can you address the current food crisis outlining the many foods, long time frame, economic impact, and personal effort involved in this event?

I did not realize until I read the NPR email news brief this morning that one factory is the source of nine  deaths,  that multiple meat products are suspect, that many stores are involved, that sell-by dates extend into October, that products may be in appliances at home, and that all food in the appliance must be disposed of and that the empty appliance must be thoroughly cleaned.

My immediate response was to say that this is yet another recall due to foodborne illness and I’ve written previously about lots of these.  But this one is especially tragic.

• The products—meat contaminated with Listeria—killed people who ate them.
• The plant in which they were produced is inspected daily by an on-site USDA inspector.
• Even so, the plant was especially dirty and unsafe.

The CDC reports: “Epidemiologic, laboratory, and traceback data show that meats sliced at delis, including Boar’s Head brand liverwurst, are contaminated with Listeria and are making people sick.”

This particular outbreak began in June.

The USDA issued a recall notice at the end of July.

FSIS [USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service] is concerned that some product may be in consumers’ refrigerators and in retail deli cases. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them and retailers are urged not to sell these products with the referenced sell by dates. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase. Consumers who have purchased these products are also urged to clean refrigerators thoroughly to prevent the risk of cross-contamination.

Boar’s Head published a list of the recalled products.  These include several brands and product types.

CBS used FOIA to request USDA’s records of Boar’s Head inspection results.  These take up 44 pages.

Food Safety News did a summary: “Inspection report reveals history of sanitation issues at Boar’s Head plant linked to deadly Listeria outbreak.”

Over a year of repeated sanitation failures — totaling 69 violations — at Boar’s Head’s Virginia plant, appears to have fueled the ongoing Listeria outbreak that has sickened 57 people across 18 states and claimed nine lives…The violations documented in the report include the presence of mold and mildew on surfaces that employees use to wash their hands, on the outside of steel vats and in holding coolers between smokehouses. These conditions are particularly concerning given the ability of Listeria monocytogenes to thrive in cold, moist environments.

CBS did a news video on the inspection results: “Mold, mildew and bugs linked to listeria outbreak, records show.”

Food safety lawyer Bill Marler is calling for a Congressional Investigation.

…years of inspection reports leave little doubt that the Boar’s Head plant’s HACCP [required safety plan] must have been either non-existent or used for toilet paper. It is hard to wrap your head around how food could be produced in these conditions by this company and under the un watchful gaze of FSIS inspectors.

Today’s New York Times points out that food safety recalls have additional consequences.  The economic viability of the town that houses this Boar’s Head plant depends on it for employment and purchases of local services.

Comment

Few of the food safety issues I’ve written about recently involve meat.  This is because of a major overhaul of USDA requirements for meat safety in the 1990s.  Once the USDA required meat producers to develop and use HACCP [Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point] safety plans, outbreaks due to contaminated meat declined.  When done right, these plans are highly effective.  They require producers to identify places in production where contamination could occur, take steps to prevent contamination at those critical control points, and monitor to make sure those steps were taken.  USDA inspectors are supposed to make sure all that happens.

But the inspection system has a built-in conflict of interest.  The system is voluntary.  The USDA cannot force compliance or order recalls.  All it can do is to withdraw its inspectors, thereby forcing the plant to close.  Nobody ever wants to do that.

The food safety system, divided between two agencies as it is (with different legislative mandates and different powers), needs an overhaul.  Lives are at risk.

If you have any Boar’s Head products in your freezer, better take a look at what they are and get rid of any on the recall list.

And let your congressional representatives know that you want better food safety oversight.

Additions

Thanks to Michael Jacobson for sending a link to the Boar’s Head website and the company’s promotional video.  After seeing it, this feels like even more of a tragedy.

Here’s Bill Marler’s legal complaint, just filed.

7-31-24: USDA withdraws inspectors

9-13-24: Boar’s Head announces plant closure