Search results: USDA meat

The interesting part about this latest recall – now 2 million pounds and involving 74 products so far – is how the Salmonella contamination was discovered.  According to a lengthy account in USA Today, a small nut company in Illinois, Georgia’s Nut, routinely tests for Salmonella and found the bacteria in nuts purchased from Setton Pistachio of California.  Georgia’s Nut recalled products distributed in the Chicago area.  This company also produces a trail mix for Kraft Foods.  It notified Kraft Foods, which also promptly recalled its products.

I’m guessing that Georgia Nut must follow a HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) plan.  HACCP is a science-based food safety procedure that requires analyzing where contamination might occur in production processes (hazard analysis), taking steps to prevent contamination at those critical control points, and using pathogen testing to make sure the steps were followed and the plan is working.

HACCP, as I keep complaining, is only required for meat and poultry production on the USDA regulatory side (where is it poorly enforced) and for sprouts, fresh juices, seafood, and eggs on the FDA side.  The producers of everything else are supposed to follow Good Manufacturing Processes, which are considerably less rigorous and, as we saw with the peanut butter recalls (more than 3,800 products from 200 companies) and their health consequences (nearly 700 sick, at least 9 deaths), clearly do not work.

How about HACCP for all foods?  Worth a try?

April 3 update: USA Today reports that Setton Pistachio has not yet issued its own recall (note: this is a good reason why the FDA needs the authority to order recalls), that its California plant passed recent inspections with relatively minor violations, but that its sister plant on Long Island is a mess.  USA Today also reports that Setton Pistachio has had positive tests for Salmonella for months.  What did the company do with the contaminated pistachios?  A mystery.

The Trust for America’s Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation announce the release of a new report on how to fix the food safety system.  The report, Keeping America’s Food Safe: A Blueprint for Fixing the Food Safety System at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), makes a bunch of suggestions for strengthening the FDA.  The FDA, it says, needs to concentrate resources on the highest risks, enforce existing rules (what a concept), establish a position with authority over all food safety programs in the agency, and work with Congress to establish a Food Safety Administration within HHS.

Wait a minute: I thought two agencies were involved in food safety regulation.  Yes, HHS regulates most foods through the FDA, but the USDA regulates meat and poultry.  These are not two separate food systems. Wastes from food animals (USDA-regulated) contaminate fruits and vegetables (FDA-regulated).

Don’t we need one system?  I think we do.

And buried in the mess of bills submitted to Congress and currently under consideration (handily summarized by Bill Marler), are several aimed at doing just that.  This is a great time to weigh in on them, especially since polls show that nearly 75% of Americans are more afraid of food than they are of terrorists.

The long awaited and much postponed Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) finally takes effect today, despite massive efforts by the beef industry to make it go away.  It is interesting to see what meat producer groups object to:  too expensive, too difficult, it’s really just another trade barrier, and – my favorite – consumers don’t care where their meat comes from.  As of today, COOL is law.  Will anyone pay attention?  Or will the law be as widely ignored by meat sellers as it is for fish sellers?  But don’t you care where your food is produced?  I do.

President Obama had quite a lot to say about food safety this morning and I’m happy to say that it sounds like he gets it: the present system is outdated (it was developed a century ago), too spread out, under-resourced, and hazardous to health.  He’s going to appoint a committee to make recommendations and promises that all will be fixed “under the leadership of Dr. Margaret Hamburg.”  I hope she knows what she’s gotten herself into.

In the meantime, here’s his radio address and lawyer Bill Marler’s take on it.  And thanks Bill for posting the entire text of the speech.

And while I’m at it, how about the USDA’s new plan to test the meat at hamburger packing plants four times a month?  Is this an improvement or a clear effort to make sure nobody ever finds anything wrong?  Here’s Brian Hartman’s discussion of that question at ABC News.

As we have learned all too often, dishonest food companies cut corners on food safety any time they can get away with it.  That is why inspections are absolutely necessary.  Right now, the inspection system is largely voluntary and all too easily corrupted.  In a series of articles in the New York Times, we now learn that some of the peanut butter caught up in the recent recalls was Certified Organic, and that the plants had passed inspection by USDA-licensed organic certifiers.

As for conventional foods: today’s front-page article expands on flaws in the food inspection system.  Inspectors, for example, are paid by the plants they are inspecting (oops).  Here’s my favorite quote, attributed to Mansour Samadpour, a food safety consultant: “The contributions of third-party audits to foods safety is the same as the contribution of diploma mills to education.”

When I was doing the research for my book, Safe Food, I visited a plant that manufactured meat products.  The plant manager told me that you could butcher a dog in front of the onsite USDA inspector and he would never see it.  I believed him: inspectors only see problems if they know what to look for.

All of this makes me think that inspections need to be done by independent agencies that are rewarded for finding problems, not ignoring them.  Mandatory HACCP (standard food safety procedures) with testing and inspection would help too.   And if the organic food industry wants the public to believe that organic foods are better, it must make sure that production methods meet organic standards in letter and spirit.  Otherwise, why bother to pay more for organic foods?

The USDA needs to close loopholes and insist on the integrity of the inspection system. The FDA needs to figure out a way to get its inspection needs under control.  These are issues for Congress to handle.  I keep wondering:  How bad do things have to get before Congress does something useful about food safety?

One of the first things President Obama did on his first day in office was to freeze last-minute regulations squeezed in by the Bush administration, among them Country of Origin Labeling (COOL).

On January 15, cutting it close, the USDA  issued final rules for COOL for meat, poultry, and fish, as well as for plant crops: fresh and frozen fruits and vegetables as well as, oddly, peanuts, pecans, ginseng, and macadamia nuts. The rules were supposed to take effect March 16. They excluded foods that were cooked, cured, or smoked, or mixed with other food ingredients (examples: chocolate, breading and tomato sauce). These were the same as previous versions and full of loopholes (see previous posts on the topic). I thought the lame-duck rules were better than nothing, but now it seems we are starting over.

Big question: will the Obama administration make the rules better or worse?  Fingers crossed.

Well, we now have our answer to the question of who President-elect Obama will appoint to head the USDA: former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack.  I don’t know much about him.  What I hear is that he is former chair of the Governors Ethanol Coalition (uh oh), the Governors Biotechnology Partnership (oops), and the National Governors Association’s Natural Resources Committees (not sure about this one). I’m disappointed.  This looks like mainstream, industrial agriculture to me, but I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, at least for awhile.

The Organic Consumers Association, however, is not.  It says his appointment is hardly “change we can believe in,” and it “sends the message that dangerous, untested, unlabeled genetically engineered crops will be the norm in the Obama Administration.”  If you agree with the OCA, you can join its petition opposing the appointment.

According to meatpoultry.com, Vilsack is a lawyer who does not have roots in farming.  He did, however, compete for the presidential nomination.  And let’s not forget Wikipedia, which has already added this appointment to Vilsack’s biography; its entry points out that this appointment strongly contradicts Obama’s campaign promises: “Obama and Biden will fight for farm programs that provide family farmers with stability and predictability.”

Ah politics.

And for more about this appointment, see Kerry Trueman’s Eating Liberally blog.

Here are a few of the questions I get asked most often. Enjoy!

Questions 

1. I’m really interested in nutrition. How do I study it?
2. I want to study about food. Can I get a degree in Food Studies?
3. I want to do something to improve the food system, nutritional status, and health. How do I get started?
4. I want to work in food policy. How do I get started?
5. I’m a lawyer. I want to work on food issues. How do I get started?
6. I want to find out what Americans eat. What are the best sources?
7. What are ultra-processed foods and should I avoid them?
8. Are organics worth it?
9. Which is better: organic or locally grown?
10. What’s the deal on soy? Is it good or bad for me?
11. Is high fructose corn syrup good, bad, or indifferent to health?
12. Whose nutrition advice can I trust?

Answers

1. I’m really interested in nutrition. How do I study it?

My first question for anyone who asks me this is what, exactly, do you want to end up doing? There are many approaches to nutrition and you have choices among rather separate fields of study, each with different requirements and training, and each with its own professional journals.  One way to start is to look at the journals and see which one covers work or advertises jobs that might interest you. Here are the most obvious options that lead to professional credentials or degrees:

     Clinical Nutritionist: If you would like to work in a hospital or counsel patients about diet and disease, you will need to be credentialed as a Registered Dietitian Nutritionist (RDN) and must meet course, degree, and practice requirements of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly American Dietetic Association) and its Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

     Nutritionist: If you would like to counsel clients about diet and health, and are quite sure you do not want to work in a hospital or qualify for a state license, you can get a master’s or doctoral degree in nutrition education, nutrition science, clinical nutrition, or any other field (Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior).

     Nutrition scientist: If you want to do research, you will need a science degree of some type. Look for a university with a department of nutrition science or nutritional epidemiology and apply for masters or doctoral degree programs (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Journal of Nutrition).

     Public health nutritionist: If you want to work with community groups, government agencies, or international agencies, look for degree programs accredited by or affiliated with the American Public Health Association (Journal of the American Public Health Association, Public Health Nutrition).

Nutrition is a controversial field and credibility is essential. Anyone can claim to be a nutritionist, but to be credible, the more you know about nutrition, the better. Degrees help. I think it’s good to understand as much as you can of the science and its implications for dietary choices. Get a degree of some kind but also read as much and as deeply as you can and form your own conclusions about what you are reading and being told.

 

2. I want to study about food. Can I get a degree in Food Studies?

Twenty years ago, I would have had to answer no, but today students who want to learn more about food have several options. New York University, for example, hosts undergraduate, master’s, and doctoral programs in Food Studies with a choice of two areas of focus: Food Culture, which examines the social, economic, cultural, and psychological factors that influence food consumption now and in the past, and Food Systems, which traces commodities and agricultural production from farm to table. Boston University has a master’s program in Gastronomy. So does the University of Adelaide in Australia. And if you want to go to Italy, you can study at the University of Gastronomic Sciences, which grew out of the Slow Food movement.

I was responsible for starting the NYU program in 1996 so I am prejudiced in its favor but I have talked to graduates of all of the others and they all have great things to say about whichever one they went to. The Association for the Study of Food and Society lists many more on its website.  The Agriculture and Human Values Society also has great resources.  My conclusion: studying about food is so much fun and so useful that anyplace you can do it will give you a terrific experience.

 

3. I want to do something to improve the food system, nutritional status, and health. How do I get started?

Start by reading a post I did on this topic in 2011.  Its major points are still relevant.  The easiest method is to join an organization working on an issue that interests you. Food Tank has a list of 124 food and agriculture organizations current as of 2024.

I always recommend joining the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) because this group has been at it so long, is so extraordinarily good at taking on the major issues, and is independent of food industry funding. At the very least, subscribe to Nutrition Action.  And keep up with what Food Tank is doing.

 

4. I want to work in food policy. How do I get started?

The easiest way to get involved in food policy is to start doing it. If you want to work locally, find a group in your area that is working on the food policy issue that most interests you. There are always local groups working on food assistance programs, farmers’ markets, food deserts, school food, community gardens, school gardens, urban agriculture, community food security, locally grown food, agricultural sustainability, organic production, the Farm Bill. You can usually identify such groups by an Internet search for “food advocacy” in your area. Or read the Edible magazine published closest to where you live.

If you are interested in food safety advocacy, you might start with Food Safety News’ list of private organizations working on fthese issues, and also public. These were published in 2013 but will give you the idea.

If you want to work on national food policy issues, you might try an internship at a Washington DC-based advocacy group working in your area of interest. For preparation, it helps to know as much as you can—depth and breadth—about the history of food and nutrition policy in the United States, have a firm grounding in how food policy works at the federal agency level (which agency does what), and how Congress and agencies work to implement policies. Much of this can be learned on the ground if you are working with a group engaged with national food issues.  You can also start by writing well researched letters, op-eds, and position papers since these will force you to know what you are talking about and to think clearly about them.

I highly recommend two books well worth reading for their advice about how to do food advocacy:

• Michele Simon’s, Appetite for Profit,
• The Midwest Academy’s Organizing for Social Change.

What’s stopping you? Go for it!

 

5. I’m a lawyer. I want to work on food issues. How do I get started?

Lawyers have important roles in promoting healthy food policies, and the more they know about food culture, history, politics, and even taste, the better.   Many law schools now have units working on food issues.  Check out Harvard’s Food Law and Policy Clinic.  UCLA has one too.  So do plenty of other places.  See, for example, the Food & Drug Law Institute.  In our increasingly litigious society, lawyers have plenty of work to do.  Check out the work of the food safety law firm, Marler Clark.

 

6. I want to find out what Americans eat. What are the best sources?

My favorite sources of information about the American food supply come from the USDA. The USDA provides data on the availability (“consumption”) of specific foods and food groups in the food supply from 1909 to the present. These figures are reported as pounds of food per capita per day. They do not say what people actually eat; instead, they represent the amount of that food produced in the U.S for an entire year, less exports, plus imports, divided by the number of people in the population on July 1.  This site is the source of my saying that the per capita availability of calories is about 4,000 per day.  This is an overestimation of actual intake.  USDA now adjusts that figure for waste, which is closer to actual consumption levels.

Actual data on dietary intake are reported at the site of What We Eat in America. These figures come from self reports by individuals interviewed in dietary intake surveys, such as the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Because people tend to lie about (OK, can’t accurately remember) what they eat, these data underestimate actual intake. Self reports say that people eat about 1,800 to 2,200 calories per day, figures much lower than 4,000. The truth undoubtedly lies somewhere in between.

If you want to know what’s in the food you eat, the USDA also provides nutrient-content information.

 

7.  What are ultra-processed foods and should I avoid them?

Ultra-processed foods (UPF) are a relatively new concept, invented by the Brazilian public health professor Carlos Monteiro and his colleagues in 2009.  They distinguish UPF from minimally processed foods, processed culinary ingredients, and processed foods by their industrial production, use of industrial additives, and design for irresistability (frequent consumption), and profit.  An operating definition: they cannot be made in your home kitchens because you  cannot easily get the equipment or additives required.  They matter because hundreds of observational studies have linked eating a lot of them to chronic disease and overall mortality.  Such studies cannot prove caustion, but well-controlled clinical trials now demonstrate that UPFs encourage people to overeat and not realize it.  The vast majority of UPFs are junk foods, hyper-palatable, nutrient-poor, and textured to be eaten quickly.  Minimally processed foods are generally healthier, and it’s best to eat UPFs in small amounts.

 

8. Are organics worth it?

I think so. In doing the research for What to Eat and the forthcoming What to Eat Now, I spent a lot of time asking questions about whether the USDA Certified Organic seal meant anything. My conclusion: it most definitely does. It means the producer of the food followed rules established by the USDA Organic Standards Board, and was inspected to make sure the rules were followed. The rules say that fruits and vegetables must not be treated with synthetic pesticides or fertilizers and cannot be genetically modified, irradiated, or fertilized with sewage sludge. Food animals must be fed organic feed, may not be treated with antibiotics or hormones, and must be permitted access to the outdoors. When you choose organics, you are voting with your fork for a planet with fewer pesticides, richer soil, and cleaner water supplies—all better in the long run. With that said, the quality of the rules themselves is highly debatable and there is much political jockeying about whether they are too lax or too stringent. I think they need to be as stringent as can be in order to induce trust. Much vigilance is required to maintain the highest possible standards for organic production. To stay on top of the issues, consult the Organic Consumers Association (and see the chapters on organics in What to Eat Now).

 

9. Which is better: organic or locally grown?

I consider this a false dichotomy.  My preference is for both. When you choose locally grown, you are voting for conservation of fuel resources, support of local farmers, and the economic viability of local communities, along with freshness and better taste. Whenever I have the choice, my personal priority order is (1) organic and locally grown, (2) either organic or conventional and locally grown, depending on the season, and (3) Conventional (and see the chapters on produce issues in What to Eat Now).

 

10. What’s the deal on soy? Is it good or bad for me?

I would put it this way: if you are not confused about soy foods, you must not be reading product advertisements or newspaper accounts of research. For every study in my files demonstrating health benefits of soy foods, I have another disputing those benefits. Soybeans are high in good quality protein (meaning that their proteins are similar in amino acid content to those of meat and dairy foods), contain a good balance of carbohydrate and fat, and are loaded with minerals. Enthusiasts say that soy foods protect against practically any disease you can think of, but really, no one food can possibly be that good. Overall, I find the science to be painfully inconsistent. Some studies find benefits, some find none, and others actually suggest that soy foods might cause the very health problems they are believed to prevent. Soybeans contain proteins found to reduce blood cholesterol levels and the risk of heart disease. They also contain isoflavones that behave in the body like weak estrogen (“phytoestrogens”). Although isoflavones work with soy proteins to reduce blood cholesterol levels, they also act like estrogens–and estrogens are known to increase the risk of breast and other cancers in women. As I explain in What to Eat Now, the research is so inconsistent that it is difficult to draw conclusions. I can’t make sense of the health debates about soy foods, not least because so much of the research is sponsored by industries with a vested interest in its outcome. My feeling at this point is that soy is a food, not an essential nutrient. Like any food, you can eat it if you like it, but you don’t have to if you don’t want to.

 

11. Is high fructose corn syrup good, bad, or indifferent to health?

You are probably thinking that high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is the new trans fat— something to be avoided at all costs. But HFCS is not poison. It is just sugar in liquid form, differing from common table sugar (sucrose) mainly in how it affects the texture of foods. HFCS, however, is a marker for junky ultra-processed foods. Cheaper than sucrose, it turns up in all kinds of ultra-processed foods, particularly soft drinks.  Our food supply provides nearly 40 pounds of HFCS a year per capita as compared to about 70 for cane and beet sugars.  Sucrose is a double sugar made of two single sugars — glucose (50 percent) and fructose (50 percent) — stuck together. HFCS also contains glucose and fructose, but the sugars are already separated and their percentages differ slightly. Because sucrose is quickly split by digestive enzymes, the body can hardly tell the two kinds apart. Glucose, by the way, is blood sugar, fructose is fruit sugar, and honey contains both. Fructose — unlike glucose — does not stimulate the release of insulin, and in small amounts can be a useful sweetener for people with diabetes. But fructose is preferentially metabolized to fat in the liver, raising the possibility that HFCS — or any other source of fructose (but we won’t worry about fruit) — could have something to do with current obesity trends. Both HFCS and sucrose give us more fructose than we need and for both the advice is the same: eat less.

 

12. Whose nutrition advice can I trust?

I’m always tempted to answer this question with “mine, of course.” I answered it more seriously in a column I wrote for the San Francisco Chronicle (October 11, 2009). I wrote What to Eat Now to inspire you to think about nutrition and to figure out for yourself whose advice makes sense and not. I think some healthy skepticism is useful in interpreting anyone’s advice, even mine. Does the expert have a vested interest that might influence opinion? Does the conclusion of a research study completely contradict everything you’ve heard before? Does it announce a breakthrough? If so, you should be seeing caution signs everywhere. A lot of nutrition is plain common sense. Use it!