Would you buy meat from a mobile slaughterhouse?With a mobile slaughter unit, usually built on a flatbed truck, a local farmer can have small numbers of animals slaughtered on or near the farm, then sell the meat to neighbors or at farmers markets. Many supporters argue that mobile slaughter units, which might handle only five cows a day, better promote food safety than slaughterhouses that process thousands of animals.
"There's a lot of enthusiasm for this," said Arion Thiboumery of Iowa State University, who has studied mobile slaughter units. "In large plants, the animals go by real fast. This is much smaller, so it's slower. Many people say it's safer."
The nation's first federally inspected mobile slaughter unit — the units travel with an inspector — started in Washington state. Today, Thiboumery said, there are about 20 mobile slaughter units for poultry and a half-dozen for cattle around the country.
"People are realizing that it’s not the safest decision to buy eggs shipped from huge factory farms in the Midwest, where traceability and accountability is limited,” she said. “At the farmers’ market, you can shake the hand of the farmer who collected your egg that morning and I think that is much more reassuring.”They also have an interview with FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg in which she comments on the scope of the recall. From the transcript:
Well, it is the largest egg recall that we've had in recent history. We're continuing to investigate aggressively to determine the exact source of the contamination as we move forward with the recall. We may see some addition al recalls over the next couple days, even weeks, as we better understand the network of distribution of these eggs contaminated.You can watch CBS's latest report on the recall here.
Raw egg can be found in sauces and condiments, including Hollandaise sauce and Caesar salad dressing, as well as eggnog, milkshakes and smoothies. Raw egg can also lurk in homemade mayo and ice cream.
Dave Kirby from The Huffington Post has a strong opinion on the egg recall. His artcile is named, "Lessons from the Recall: Cheap Food Makes You Sick."
What good is a 13-cent egg if it's going to get you hospitalized? And why isn't the federal government doing more to encourage and even subsidize the production of humanely-raised and less pathogenic eggs?
Instead, we are told we will have to learn to live with it. The FDA says to cook all eggs thoroughly, but I like my yolks runny and my omelets soft, thank you very much. And the FDA is also recommending that food service providers offer only pasteurized eggs and "egg products" (scrambled eggs in a box) at their establishments.
But seriously: Have we really come to the point where we must disinfect our eggs before we consume them? Wouldn't it be better to focus on producing affordable eggs that won't kill you in the first place?
Do you agree with Mr. Kirby's stance on the recall? Let us know!
Further Reading:
USA Today has a Q&A about the recall.
This is a situation that pops up on occasion and this seems to be a banner year for glowing seafood. People are calling to ask about safety and we’re assuring them there’s nothing wrong with their seafood. I’ve even seen glow-in-the-dark salmon before.Specialists say this actually happens all the time, but as no one prepares their food in the dark, it usually goes undiscovered.
We have prevented contaminated products from reaching consumers. Industry is increasingly detecting contamination incidents through its own testing, and FDA access to this information permits us to better target our inspection resources and verify that appropriate corrective measures have been taken. Ensuring that the American food supply is safe is a top priority of the FDA, and the Reportable Food Registry strengthens our ability to help prevent foodborne illness.You can access the Safety Portal here.
I guarantee every Murray’s Chicken ever produced at our plant is safe and wholesome. How can we have a passing grade on Friday and Monday morning have food-safety issues?The Times-Herald Record online has more on the story:
Murray's has spent hundreds of thousand of dollars addressing ongoing FSIS complaints about its aging plant, said Gold. Because of that effort, owner Murray Bresky and company officials were shocked when they received the shutdown notice, he said.Further Reading:
"For some reason, it came to a head yesterday," he said.
Murray's 350 employees process about 35,000 chickens a day at the South Fallsburg plant. A group of five men stood outside a Murray's office on Main Street Tuesday afternoon but refused to comment about the closure.
Fallsburg Supervisor Steve Vegliante is confident the plant will reopen shortly. "I fed my children Murray's chicken on Monday night, and will continue to do so," he said.
According to a University of New South Wales study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, Beef produced in feedlots has a smaller carbon footprint than meat raised exclusively on pastures. The study also found that the greenhouse gas impact of Australian beef and sheep meat production is equal to or lower than that of livestock raised in many countries.TruthAboutTrade.org backs up the new findings and parallels them to findings in the US:
In 2007, 13 per cent fewer animals were slaughtered than in 1977 (33.8 million versus 38.7 million), but those animals produced 13pc more beef (26.3 billion pounds of beef in 2007 versus 23.3 billion lb. in 1977). By producing more beef with fewer resources, Dr Capper found that the total carbon footprint for beef production was reduced 18pc from 1977 to 2007. "As the global and national population increases, consumer demand for beef is going to continue to increase," Dr Capper said. "The vital role of improved productivity and efficiency in reducing environmental impact must be conveyed to government, food retailers and consumers." Compared to beef production in 1977, Dr Capper found that each pound of beef produced in modern systems uses:In addition, modern beef production produced 18pc fewer total carbon emissions (methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide) than in 1977.
- 10pc less feed energy;
- 20pc fewer feedstuffs;
- 30pc less land;
- 14pc less water; and
- 9pc less fossil fuel energy.
Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists called that assertion "patently untrue. There is a mountain of studies linking the use of antibiotics in animals to the evolution of resistant pathogens that cause human disease."
Mellon chided the FDA for moving tentatively, with recommendations rather than with actions to cut down on the use of antibiotics.
"I was expecting an action plan. I was disappointed that all we have here are principles," Mellon said. "They're apparently expecting voluntary action. It's my belief that the industry's not going to act until it has to."
You can read the entire FDA statement here.
Further Reading:
"To deepen Russia's integration into the global economy, I reaffirmed our strong commitment to Russia's ascension to the World Trade Organization," Obama said. "Today, we've reached an agreement that will allow the United States to begin exporting our poultry products to Russia once again."
Dear Mr. President:
Next week, you are scheduled to meet with Russian President Medvedev for talks on improved collaboration between our two nations, in advance of the G-8 summit in Canada. While in some areas the level of cooperation between our two countries has improved, irritants remain in that relationship that require attention at the highest level. For the past five months, the Russian Federation has blocked poultry imports from the United States over the use of chlorine rinses in the production process. We believe the stalemate in the negotiations requires the attention of the leaders of both countries. We urge you to include this issue on the agenda of your meeting with President Medvedev to ensure that importation rules are based on science and consistent with international standards.
Over the last three years, U.S. poultry exports to Russia averaged more than $800 million in value, making Russia our single largest export market. The poultry industry in this country represents over 500,000 jobs in the United States and has a significant impact on countless other communities across the country.
Since 1990, Russia has imported U.S. poultry that was processed using chlorinated water to reduce pathogens and enhance food safety. Throughout this period, Russian authorities did not express any concern. Therefore, the current ban seems arbitrary and capricious. Science has shown the use of chlorine solutions to be a safe and cost effective way to maintain food safety during poultry processing. Additionally, we understand Russia is still buying poultry from other suppliers, such as Brazil, where some facilities use the same process as U.S. facilities, without guarantees that they are not using chlorine solutions. This disparity appears to be contrary to the Russian government's assertions that its actions are being taken out of concern for the safety of its population.
The cumulative effect of the actions taken by Russia's government has been to keep U.S. products entirely out of the Russian market. We believe the United States and Russia should work together to promote trade between our two countries and lower barriers that undermine the bilateral relationship. Your meeting with the Russian President in advance of the upcoming G-8 summit offers a crucial opportunity to address this issue with the seriousness it deserves. We urge you to use all means at your disposal to address this situation and we thank you for working with us.
Among other things, the report suggests antibiotic use in livestock is leading to more resistance in humans, a trend Dr. Jen Greiner says isn't supported by the science.The National Pork Council has released a statement about the use of antibiotics on pig farms that you can read here (pdf file).
"We're just not seeing those trends," Greiner said. "Our producers are working on using antibiotics responsibly on farms each and everyday."
Greiner is Director of Science and Technology for the National Pork Producers Council. She notes Denmark placed a ban on antibiotic growth promoters in the late 1990s, and while CBS called it a great success story, Greiner says that's just not the case.
"When you go to Denmark and talk to producers in that country they will tell you that banning antibiotic growth promoters not only created more pig deaths and caused their pigs to suffer, but also it didn't have a positive public health outcome," Greiner said.
I’ve been involved in beef safety research since college, and I don’t recognize the industry you’ve depicted in recent articles.
Your readers probably don’t realize how many different individuals — university researchers, lab technicians, quality assurance managers and so many others — work daily to bring safe beef to dinner tables across the country.
Jeremy Russell, Director of Communications and Government Relations for the National Meat Association added:
Instead of encouraging efforts to improve food safety, you demonize a company that had the courage to invest in innovative technology proved to be effective in reducing dangerous pathogens.
You can read both letters via the New York Times page here.
This week the House is expected to take up the new Final Rule on preventing contaminated eggs from reaching the public. Here is what you can expect if the measure passes: (Via the FDA)Producers with at least 3,000 but fewer than 50,000 laying hens must comply within 36 months after the rule’s publication. Producers with 50,000 or more laying hens must be in compliance with the rule within 12 months after its publication in the Federal Register.
Under the rule, egg producers must:
You can read more about the announcement at Whitehouse.gov, and the new government food safety website, The President's Food Safety Work Group.A cabinet level panel convened by the White House will announce this afternoon a series of steps aimed at reducing outbreaks of salmonella, E.coli and other pathogens, according to a summary of the panel's report. The panel's recommendations represent a shift in food regulation to prevention from reacting to outbreaks of food-borne illnesses.
The new approach includes a rule aimed at reducing salmonella contamination of raw or undercooked shell eggs during production, a step the panel said will cut the number of human infections caused by egg consumption by 60%, or 79,000 illnesses.
The survey found that over the past two years, consumer appetite for information about food products increased. 77 percent of consumers want more information about the content of the food products they purchase, and 76 percent would like more information about its origin. 74 percent are willing to dig deeper and seek more data about how the food products are grown, processed and manufactured. Despite industry efforts to keep consumers informed with more detailed product information, there's still a significant gap between consumer expectations and what retailers/manufacturers are providing.What is changing in food safety to keep up with these demands? The LA Times has an article detailing and criticizing the just-cleared-for-a-senate-vote Food Safety Enhancement Act:
The objective of safeguarding consumers would be more effectively met if the bill didn't perpetuate the existing system of splitting oversight among multiple agencies. Most notably, the Department of Agriculture -- which receives 80% of the food safety funding, although it's responsible for just 20% of the nation's food -- would continue to oversee meat and eggs. Combining the missions under one agency would make better organizational sense and provide more flexibility for spending regulatory dollars where they are most needed.You can read more about the act at the Examiner.com.