Food Safety News

Subscribe to Food Safety News feed Food Safety News
Breaking news for everyone's consumption
Updated: 2 hours 51 min ago

New York State is latest to threaten removal of harmful food additives

Wed, 03/06/2024 - 00:05

The movement to ban certain additives in food or beverages that started last year in California and spread this year first to Illinois has now reached as far as the Empire State.

Two New York State lawmakers introduced related bills to protect consumers from dangerous known and unknown additives used in foods and beverages.

The first bill, A6424A/S6055B, would prohibit the use of seven dangerous and unnecessary additives in foods or drinks sold in New York state: azodicarbonamide, brominated vegetable oil (BVO), butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA), potassium bromate, propylparaben, Red 3, and titanium dioxide. 

All but BHA are banned in the European Union. Last year, California enacted legislation to eliminate BVO, potassium bromate, propylparaben, and Red 3 from foods and drinks sold in that state by 2027. 

New York’s prohibition would take effect two years sooner in 2025.

The second bill, S08615/A9295, would require companies to disclose to the state of New York when they add chemicals to foods and drinks that the company secretly self-determines are “generally recognized as safe” or GRAS, without notifying the FDA. 

While the FDA does approve a small fraction of new food chemicals, it does not require premarket approval, notice, or safety review for the vast majority of chemicals that are self-determined by the companies as GRAS. These GRAS determinations can currently be conducted secretly by people paid by the companies without notifying the FDA or the public.

Both bills are sponsored by Sen. Brian Kavanagh and Assemblymember Anna Kelles, who holds a doctorate in nutritional epidemiology.

Support for the two bills comes from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Interfaith Public Health Network, NYS American Academy of Pediatrics, Clean+Healthy, Consumer Reports, Environmental Working Group, and others, say the bills close gaps left open by the FDA. 

The FDA eliminated the synthetic dye Red 3 from cosmetics and topical drugs in the 1990s when it learned it caused cancer when eaten by laboratory animals. Yet, it is still allowed to be used in food and oral drugs. 

“New Yorkers deserve the highest level of protection when it comes to the safety of the food we eat,” said Sen. Kavanagh. “State law has long included the authority to regulate what goes into our food, but New York has generally deferred to the federal government; such deference is not warranted concerning these seven additives, which pose significant health risks. Nor should we defer to the secrecy of the federal process regarding new chemicals that food companies add to our food without any public disclosure or review by the FDA. This legislation will ensure transparency and permit public scrutiny of food chemical safety.”

“For too long, the FDA has failed to take action to protect consumers from toxic chemicals found in our food,” said Assemblymember Kelles. “I am proud to sponsor legislation to ban seven of these additives that are linked to serious adverse health effects, like DNA damage, heart and thyroid toxicity, and reproductive harm. We also must close a loophole allowing food and chemical companies to bypass FDA approval for new food additives irresponsibly.  My legislation would remove GRAS’s secret by requiring the industry to notify New York of their GRAS determinations that the FDA has not reviewed.”

Like the legislation enacted in California banning the use of four food additives, the New York bill banning seven dangerous additives would reverberate far beyond the state’s borders: Food manufacturers complying with it may well implement the changes nationwide. Such bills are also likely to incentivize officials at the FDA to catch up to the states and eliminate the use of chemicals in food nationwide.

According to CSPI, the second New York bill, requiring disclosure of chemicals not disclosed to FDA, would also have nationwide impact.

“These bills would introduce the most important reforms to the U.S. food chemical review process in decades,” said CSPI regulatory counsel Jensen Jose. “Not only can the state of New York ban harmful additives, it can shed new light on the chemical safety decisions the food industry currently makes in secret by making these safety decisions accessible to everyone.”

“These two bills will increase transparency and protect consumers from toxic chemicals in New York’s food supply,” said Environmental Working Group policy director Jessica Hernandez. “Without federal action, it’s up to states like New York to keep us safe from additives linked to health harms in the foods we eat and feed our families.”

“The FDA’s system for ensuring that food additives are safe is broken,” said Consumer Reports director of food safety Brian Ronholm. “For too long, the FDA has been unable to keep up with the latest research documenting that some chemicals allowed in food pose unacceptable risks to our health. These bills will protect the public and help fill the regulatory gap by banning certain harmful food additives and requiring greater transparency from manufacturers when introducing new chemicals in food products without FDA review.”

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Fish controls assessed in Spain and Saudi Arabia

Wed, 03/06/2024 - 00:03

The European Commission’s health and safety unit has published two reports looking at controls of fishery products in Spain and Saudi Arabia.

An audit in Spain in February and March 2023 by DG Sante made three recommendations.

The visit concluded that official controls over vessels freezing tuna provide confidence that they follow EU rules; however, there are inconsistencies in compliance with national regulations on frozen tuna for human consumption.

Spain has set criteria for tuna frozen in brine to be eligible for direct human consumption. These require that operators of freezer vessels conduct a validation study of the freezing process against parameters that must be assessed and approved by the authorities.

However, although all but one operator has not concluded their validation studies, they are being allowed to put products on the market for direct human consumption, found auditors.

System weaknesses
Products from the freezer ships may enter Spain through other country vessels where, upon import, controls consist of verification of the brine temperature and freezing times. Product from Spanish freezer vessels directly landed in the EU is not subject to additional control.

“This undermines the effectiveness and robustness of the official control system aimed at verifying compliance of Spanish vessels with national rules, but also implies an extension of these rules to products from other countries,” said auditors.

From 2020 to 2022, 49 Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) reports covered tuna from Spain. Most were under the food additives and flavorings hazard category. Two examples were reviewed during the audit. One was related to excessive amounts of ascorbic acid; another covered histamine levels above the regulatory limits in tuna filets. These notifications were thoroughly followed up, and in all investigations, it was possible to trace the product to the producing freezer vessels.

The audit team noted that full approval was granted to one new freezer vessel in early 2021 despite the report indicating that some documentary information was not complete during the assessment, which was mandatory under Spanish rules to carry out some of the processes on board. At the time of the audit, authorities had not received the documents and information to comply fully.

Spanish officials said changes will be made by June 2024 to improve conditional approval processes.

All imported consignments of tuna frozen in brine for human consumption, from October 2021 to January 2022, were harmful for histamine. From January 2022, officials moved to a random monitoring sampling plan.

For one of three recommendations made during a 2019 audit on official controls in the tuna sector, the actions proposed addressed the issue and had been satisfactorily implemented. For the other two, measures were in progress but had not yet been fully implemented.

Saudi Arabia verdict
A desk assessment of Saudi Arabian controls on fishery products sent to Europe led to one recommendation. This work precluded onsite verification on implementing official controls and certification processes.

Based on information provided by Saudi Arabia, it was concluded there was the necessary legal framework, authority structures, and legal powers for a control system to work.

However, the limits for specific contaminants were not aligned with European rules, compromising the reliability of health attestations made in the EU export certificate.

EU member states were first authorized to import fishery products from Saudi Arabia in 2005. There are three EU-listed establishments. Almost all exports are frozen shrimps from aquaculture.

Official controls do not cover additives, and this type of testing is carried out by food companies and checked during controls at their premises.

In the case of benzo(a)pyrene for fishery products, including crustaceans, the maximum level of 5 µg/kg exceeded the limit of 2 µg/kg set in EU regulation in April 2023. To address this issue, Saudi Arabian officials provided an updated Manual of Procedures for Exports of Shrimp and Finfish.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Singapore moving toward new licensing model

Wed, 03/06/2024 - 00:01

Singapore is making progress on a revised grading system for assessing the food safety performance of establishments.

The Safety Assurance for Food Establishments (SAFE) framework will consider an establishment’s track record and food safety management systems. It will also harmonize the grading systems for retail and non-retail food outlets, which are currently regulated by two frameworks.

Officials said the current system provides a snapshot of performance at the point of inspection and may not adequately reflect whether food safety standards are consistently maintained. Under this system establishments are rated from A to D based on an annual audit.

“In line with our risk-based approach, establishments involved in significant food handling with a large distribution scale, such as food manufacturers and caterers, will need to meet additional requirements to attain higher grades than smaller scale ones. Establishments with poor food safety performance and lower grades will face more frequent inspections. Poor performance during these inspections could lead to downgrading,” said Grace Fu, Minister for Sustainability and the Environment.

Fu said the SAFE Framework was an improved version of what was announced in 2021.

“The Singapore Food Agency (SFA) incorporated feedback it has received from the industry and kept the intent of recognizing food establishments with a consistent record of good food safety performance, and spurring others to achieve and maintain high grades of food safety,” she said at the Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (MSE)’s Committee of Supply debate.

Risk-based actions
Citing a risk-based approach, Singapore plans to remove licensing requirements and fees on food establishments with minimal food safety risks.

By January 2025, all market stalls and vending machines selling non-food or low-risk food items, such as canned food and packed biscuits, will not need to be licensed. This policy change will affect more than half of existing market stall licensees and around 2 in 5 vending machine licensees.

“The safety of food from these stalls and vending machines will continue to be regulated through standards imposed by SFA on the importers and suppliers of these food items,” said Fu.

Singapore imports more than 90 percent of its food. Recent approvals include eggs and live chickens from Indonesia and eggs from Turkey.

Singapore has designated 2024 as the Year of Public Hygiene, focusing on hygiene standards across four key areas: clean environment, safe food, clean air, and clean water.

A Food Safety and Security Bill will also be introduced to protect consumers better and safeguard the country’s food supply resilience. Industry discussions are ongoing, and a public consultation will be conducted in phases later this month.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

NY cheese manufacturer pleads guilty for adulterated product linked to deadly Listeria outbreak

Tue, 03/05/2024 - 15:41

Pursuit to a 16-page plea agreement that leaves little to the imagination, a former raw milk cheese manufacturer and the company he owned and managed pleaded guilty today to charges related to cheese that was linked to a deadly outbreak of listeriosis.

Johannes Vulto and his company, Vulto Creamery LLC, are scheduled for sentencing on July 9 at the U.S. Courthouse in Syracuse, NY.  The maximum sentence for the single misdemeanor count is one year imprisonment, a fine of $250,000, and one year of supervised release plus a 5-year term of court supervision.

The plea agreement requires a payment of $100,000 from Vulto and a one-year supervised release to begin after any imprisonment.

Following an investigation by the FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations, the misdemeanor charge of  Introducing Adulterated Food into Interstate Commerce was filed on Jan. 30, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

The criminal information filing said that from in or around July 2014, through and including on or about March 4, 2017, in Delaware County in the Northern District of New York, and elsewhere,  defendant Johannes Vulto “did cause the introduction of food into interstate commerce, namely cheese produced at Vulto Creamery that was adulterated because it was prepared, packed, and held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health under Title 21, United States Code…”

Johannes Vulto and his company, Vulto Creamery LLC, each pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of causing the introduction of adulterated food into interstate commerce. 

Vulto oversaw operations at Walton, NY’s Vulto Creamery manufacturing facility, including sanitation and environmental monitoring. In pleading guilty, Vulto and Vulto Creamery admitted that between December 2014 and March 2017, they caused the shipment of adulterated cheese in interstate commerce.

According to the plea agreement, environmental swabs taken at the Vulto Creamery facility between approximately July 2014 and February 2017 repeatedly tested positive for Listeria species. The Listeria family includes harmless species and L. monocytogenes, which can cause human listeriosis. 

In March 2017, after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) linked Vulto Creamery’s cheese to an outbreak of listeriosis, Vulto shut down the Vulto Creamery facility and issued a partial recall that was expanded to a full recall within weeks. 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the listeriosis outbreak resulted in eight hospitalizations and two deaths.

“American consumers must be able to trust that the foods they buy are safe to eat,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “The department will continue to work with its law enforcement partners to hold responsible food manufacturers that sell dangerously contaminated products.”

“This investigation and prosecution holds accountable the defendant and his business who through unsafe practices caused illness and death to consumers in an entirely preventable tragedy,” said U.S. Attorney Carla B. Freedman for the Northern District of New York. “The law enforcement and regulatory partners involved in this case will continue to work together to bring to justice those who endanger the public through unsafe and unsanitary products and facilities.”

“U.S. consumers rely on the FDA to ensure that their food is safe and wholesome,” said Special Agent in Charge Fernando McMillan of FDA’s Office of Criminal Investigations New York Field Office. “When companies and individuals put themselves above the law by producing food that endangers and harms the public, as occurred in this case, we will see that they are brought to justice.” 

Listeriosis is a severe, invasive illness that can sometimes be life-threatening. Persons with the most significant risk of experiencing listeriosis due to consumption of foods contaminated with L. monocytogenes are pregnant women and their newborns, the elderly, and persons with weakened immune systems.

Vulto and Vulto Creamery pleaded guilty before federal Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks in Syracuse, NY.   Senior Trial Attorney James T. Nelson of the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch and Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael F. Perry for the Northern District of New York prosecuted the case.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Tossed line speed case is coming back

Tue, 03/05/2024 - 00:06

The federal case of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) v. Sonny Perdue was dismissed in late February after hanging around for four years.

HSUS and other animal activists, on Feb. 25, 2020, sued then Secretary of Agriculture Perdue, challenging rules set by the USDA on chicken-slaughter line speeds at specific chicken slaughterhouses. A 2014 regulation from the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) allows line speeds of 140 chickens per minute. In 2018, FSIS began allowing waivers for slaughterhouses that permit line speeds of 175 chickens per minute.

After four years in the U.S. District Court for Northern California, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler tossed the line speed lawsuit, but it is not over.  Her order gives HSUS and the other activists “ leave to amend.”

The plaintiffs must file any amended complaint within twenty-one days and attach a black line of the amended complaint against the current complaint as an exhibit. If the plaintiffs do not amend the complaint, the court will enter judgment in favor of the defendants.”

The 2018 waivers were terminated in 2022 and modified waivers were allowed under new criteria with the new criteria continuing to incorporate the 2018 line-speed increase. The plaintiffs challenged the line-speed-increase decision because it violates the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) conducted rule-making from 2012 to 2014, resulting in the “New Poultry Inspection System,” an optional federal inspection system for chicken slaughterhouses. 

Under the NPIS, opt-in slaughterhouses could operate at line speeds of up to 140 chickens per minute. During the rule-making, FSIS considered and rejected allowing all opt-in slaughterhouses to use line speeds of up to 175 chickens per minute, but it did allow up to twenty slaughterhouses.

In addition to HSUS, the other non-profit activists are Animal Outlook, the Government Accountability Project, Mercy for Animals, and Marin Humane. 

“The plaintiffs describe the chicken-slaughter process, from transportation from the factory farm to upside-down shackling on a conveyor line, to passage through electrified water to render the chickens unconscious, to carotid-artery severing by a blade, to submersion of the deceased chickens into a hot-water tank. The plaintiffs allege that each step entails a margin of error such that the intended result at that step is not achieved for a certain number of chickens (but those chickens still proceed to the next step),” the court order explains.

 “The adverse effects from higher line speeds are essential that these error rates increase, resulting in problems such as bruising and broken bones (which threaten food safety), inhumane treatment (for example, conscious chickens entering scalding water at the final step), worker injuries (including exposure to chickens’ waste), and environmental harm (such as from increased water and fossil-fuel consumption),” it adds.

USDA said the plaintiffs lacked standing to continue as the 2018 waivers were terminated and are not a final agency action. Modified waivers are permitted under the 2022 criteria.

The Judge said:” The defendants contend that the plaintiffs’ injuries stem from waivers issued under the 2018 waiver criteria, not the requirements themselves. Put another way, if no waivers had been issued, the harms alleged to the animal welfare mission and the members’ environmental interests would not have occurred. Instead, the plaintiffs challenge only FSIS’s 2018 decision (the waiver criteria for slaughterhouses to use maximum line speeds of 175 rather than 140 chickens per minute).”

As a clear sign the issue will be back, the judge said:” Dismissal of a complaint without leave to amend should be granted only when the jurisdictional defect cannot be cured by amendment.”

“The plaintiffs have the burden of establishing standing; the judge continues in her 19-page order.  “They have not established that injuries from the poultry establishments were traceable to the 2018 waiver criteria or are redressable. They can try to do so in an amended complaint that addresses the changed regulatory landscape, including the termination of the waivers and the issuance of modified waivers under the 2022 criteria.”

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

New Zealand reassesses Salmonella risk after outbreak

Tue, 03/05/2024 - 00:05

The risk of Salmonella Enteritidis from eggs in New Zealand remains low despite an outbreak, according to the country’s food safety agency.

The original risk profile for Salmonella in and on chicken eggs in New Zealand was published in 2004, with updates in 2011 and 2016. Human illness attributed to New Zealand-grown poultry from Salmonella Enteritidis was not considered. The 2023 update looked at any potential change in the risk of salmonellosis from eggs produced in New Zealand following an outbreak.

New Zealand Food Safety said that while the risk associated with Salmonella Enteritidis is no longer negligible, it is still low. The risk from other Salmonella serotypes also remains low.

Salmonella outbreak

The first reported incidence in domestic, commercial poultry flocks was the detection of a strain of Salmonella Enteritidis through the routine National Microbiological Database monitoring program in March 2021. After detection in a processed poultry carcass, it was also found in hatcheries and poultry sheds of layer and broiler flocks from which the birds associated with the carcass meat detection were originally sourced.

The strain was linked by whole genome sequencing (WGS) to human cases, including an outbreak starting in December 2019, with a higher hospitalization rate than other Salmonella strains.

From 2015 to 2021, there were six salmonellosis outbreaks where eggs were suspected or confirmed as the vehicle of infection, including 79 confirmed and 24 probable cases. From May 2019 to February 2023, one outbreak included 128 confirmed and six epidemiologically linked cases. Of the 134 patients, 49 were hospitalized.

The strain detected in poultry and causing illness in people was phage type (PT) 8, which could have negative consequences for egg farmers, according to the risk profile. The route by which the outbreak strain was introduced into the country’s poultry industry was listed as a knowledge gap.

Early investigations showed inconsistent implementation of poultry industry guidelines, particularly on biosecurity. There was some complacency towards the risk of Salmonella where prevention relied on populating sheds with Salmonella-free birds without sufficient risk management measures throughout the supply chain.

An emergency control scheme was implemented, which led to an amendment to the Animal Products Notice, requiring poultry chain operators to include steps for Salmonella Enteritidis as part of their Risk Management Program. Other measures included testing the poultry environment for Salmonella Enteritidis and changes to overseas market access requirements.

Monitoring the situation

There has been a significant reduction in the export of eggs and egg products from 1,970 tons in 2015 to 1,100 tons in 2022. The amount of egg products imported into New Zealand has almost tripled since 2015, increasing from 346 tons to 983 tons in 2022.

The potential for transmission of Salmonella Enteritidis to eggs via breeder flocks in the supply chain could result in widespread dissemination through the layer poultry chain. Colonization of layer flocks poses a greater risk for consumers. However, absence of reported infections with the outbreak strain since February 2023 suggest risk management actions have been effective.

Vaccination is widely used on New Zealand layer farms and can reduce, but not prevent, flock colonization, shedding, and contamination of eggs. The best approach to gather information on the prevalence of Salmonella on eggs is by environmental sampling of dust and feces in layer sheds.

The current shelf life for New Zealand eggs is 35 days, regardless of storage temperature. However, a reconsideration of these guidelines could happen if the strain were to re-emerge and become endemic in the country’s layer flocks, according to the risk profile.

The risk associated with other serotypes in and on eggs has been unchanged since the 2016 risk profile. This conclusion is based on a low prevalence of non-Enteritidis serotypes in New Zealand layer flocks in a 2016 survey, the static incidence of salmonellosis, and a few outbreaks involving other serotypes where eggs were suspected.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

FSA wants views on Mechanically Separated Meat guidance

Tue, 03/05/2024 - 00:04

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is seeking comments on guidance covering Mechanically Separated Meat (MSM).

New guidance was developed for food businesses following a series of court judgments on the definition of MSM, obtained by removing meat from bones.

Decisions by the court clarified what MSM is, how food businesses should interpret the definition, and how they should apply it to their products. Several legal cases culminated in a 2022 High Court Judgment.

Some firms in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland will be affected by the court rulings, and the FSA said businesses may need time to adapt their processes and how they classify products.  

“We understand that this ruling will impact businesses, so it is right that we seek views from consumers and industry, on the guidance to maximize its effectiveness,” said Rebecca Sudworth, director of policy, at the FSA.

“We’re doing this to ensure businesses have extensive opportunities to feed in. Food businesses are responsible for ensuring they comply with food law, and the FSA has committed to developing new guidance on MSM to aid understanding following the court judgments.”

Impact of guidance

FSA also asks for input on an impact assessment from companies affected by the guidance.

MSM produced from pork or poultry in line with regulatory requirements is safe to use as an ingredient in foods. The use of cattle, sheep, and goat bones, or bone-in cuts, as raw material for MSM is prohibited.

MSM does not contribute to the meat content of final products and must be in the ingredients list as Mechanically Separated Meat with the name of the animal species from which it derives.

It is of lesser commercial value than fresh, ground (minced) meat and meat preparations, which do contribute to the meat content percentage on product labels. This means classification is significant for food businesses and consumers.

Court judgments mean there may be products previously not classified as MSM that now must be. Companies using mechanical meat separation equipment may need to relabel products to comply with regulations. Some firms may have to make operational changes to meet hygiene regulatory requirements. Businesses that switch to MSM activity require approval from either the FSA or their local authority.

The consultation closes on May 22, 2024; more information can be found here.

FSA supports the Brazilian decision

Meanwhile, the FSA has backed a decision to lift enhanced import controls on beef and poultry from Brazil and restrictions on listing such establishments for export to Great Britain. 

In March 2017, a police investigation into fraud and corruption in the meat sector in Brazil involving companies and official inspection staff, called Operation Carne Fraca, was revealed.

The European Commission delisted involved establishments that had been approved for EU exports. Based on an audit, the EU reinforced import controls for Brazilian beef, poultry meat and meat products in March 2017. These measures remain in force.

In August 2021, Brazil asked the UK to review import controls. An audit in 2022 led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) found Brazilian authorities had taken steps to rectify their national food safety control systems following recommendations from EU audits.

There have been 36 border notifications, and 17 intensified official controls for products of animal origin since January 2021. However, the FSA said reverting to the default level of controls means imports from Brazil will be subject to risk-based checks at the border, and intensified official controls can be put in place if non-compliant consignments are found.  

In February, a regional court in Santa Maria, in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, denied the request of a local unnamed slaughterhouse to annul a fine imposed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (Mapa) based on findings as part of Operation Carne Fraca.

The judge ruled the penalty was correct, and the company was told to pay Brazilian Real $450,000 (U.S. $90,800). In June 2021, the meat firm filed a case against the decision covering issues found in 2017 and can still appeal the verdict.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

It’s time to finally clear up food date label confusion for consumers

Tue, 03/05/2024 - 00:03

— OPINION —

Roughly nine years ago, while serving as Vice President for Food Safety at the world’s largest food retailer, I surveyed how many different date labels were used by food producers to convey that food was nearing its expiration date. Much to my surprise, we counted 47 different and unnecessarily complicated labels. They ranged from “freshest-by,” “enjoy-by,” to “sell-by” and many more.

This diversity in how to convey the same message resulted in confusion and food waste. We swiftly acted to fix that among our private-label food brands. Almost 10 years later, what was true then is still true today across much of the food industry. Confusion about the meaning of so-called “expiration dates” because of the inordinate number of different ways it’s conveyed remains one of the primary drivers of food waste.

The Food Date Labeling Act (S.1484 | H.R.3159), which would standardize and simplify date labels across the United States, has been on the Congressional docket for the last five years. The research is clear. We have at our fingertips a proven, simple, and cost-effective solution: standardize the date label phrases used on food. It’s time to stop talking about confusing date labels and time to fix the problem.

It has been estimated that confusion over date labeling accounts for approximately 20 percent of consumer food waste. That’s equivalent to 1.3 billion meals or a quarter of all the meals Feeding America food banks distributed in 2022. But it’s not the consumers’ fault. Consumer confusion is the result of a confusing system. With over 50 non-standardized variations of phrases on labels today, it’s no wonder date labels are hard to understand.

Sometimes, manufacturers use a date to convey a food product’s safety, but more often, the date label is used to indicate the manufacturer’s estimate of the product’s peak quality. The indiscriminate use of terms like “fresh until” or “use before” leads consumers to throw away good food with the mantra “better safe than sorry,” even though the date is meant to convey maximum quality, not food safety. Unfortunately, that means people are wasting their money by tossing food despite it being safe to consume.

Solving the problem is straightforward: standardize date labels and educate consumers on what the label means. Consumer surveys have shown we only need two consumer-facing phrases: “Best If Used By” for quality and “Use By” for safety. Educating consumers about the differences between these two standard phrases will limit confusion, save consumers money, and reduce food waste.

Standardizing date labels is also safe. During my time as Deputy Commissioner for Food Policy at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), we found that part of the reason people toss safe-to-eat food when it is past the date on the package is because they are scared there is a food safety issue. Empowering consumers with food label education will increase their confidence in decision-making around when the date is on a package for safety or when it just conveys optimal quality.

Standardizing date labels is supported by many food manufacturers. As Vice President of Food Safety at Walmart, I spearheaded the transition to require all private brand foods selling in our stores to use the standardized “Best If Used By” phrase for quality date labels. Our customers responded well to the change and told us this phrase best conveyed to them the date only conveyed quality. The change was an opportunity to simplify our customers’ lives and empower them to make smart purchasing decisions. Manufacturers would also benefit from a national standard for date labels rather than the piecemeal industry and, sometimes, the state-by-state approach we have now.

Lastly, standardizing date labels is feasible. At Walmart, we achieved near-perfect compliance with the standardized date label requirement on private brand food within a year and a half. Manufacturers have the technology to switch the verbiage on their food products. They also already have methods, such as conducting shelf-life evaluations for quality or microbial challenge testing for safety, by which they determine what date to put on their products.

Legislative solutions like the Food Date Labeling Act don’t tell manufacturers what date to use, nor require that they change their practices in how the dates are determined. They simply clear up consumer confusion by streamlining the intention of the date through common terminology across food products.

The need for action to reduce food waste has never been clearer. The research is established, and the functionality of a standardized date-label solution is proven.

People already assume that the federal government regulates date labels. It is time to finally clear up food date label confusion. Remember, food is too important to waste.

Editor’s note: This column was first published by AgriPluse and is reprinted here with permission.

Consumer complaints of plastic in Trader Joe’s dumplings prompt recall

Mon, 03/04/2024 - 11:01

CJ Foods Manufacturing Beaumont Corporation of Beaumont, CA, is recalling approximately 61,839 pounds of steamed chicken soup dumpling products that may be contaminated with foreign materials, specifically hard plastic from a permanent marker pen, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).

The problem was discovered after the firm received complaints from consumers reporting they found hard plastic in Trader Joe’s steamed chicken soup dumplings.

FSIS is concerned that some product may be in consumers’ freezers. 

The steamed chicken soup dumplings were produced on Dec. 7, 2023. 

These items were shipped to Trader Joe’s retail locations nationwide.        

Recalled product:   

  • 6-oz. boxes with plastic trays containing six pieces of “TRADER JOE’S Steamed Chicken Soup Dumplings” with lot codes “03.07.25.C1-1” and “03.07.25.C1-2” printed on the side of the box.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number “P-46009” inside the USDA mark of inspection.                  

As of the posting of this recall, there have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions or injury due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury should contact a healthcare provider.  

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact the CJ Foods Manufacturing Beaumont Corporation’s Consumer Experience Department at 800-544-6855.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Report Reveals Suspected Fraud discussions in Europe

Mon, 03/04/2024 - 00:03

Fruit and vegetables were the top product category discussed by European countries about fraud suspicions in January.

Data comes from the first of monthly reports on potential, but not confirmed, fraud published by the European Commission.

The report includes non-compliances with fraud suspicions of a cross-border nature shared between members of the Alert and Cooperation Network (ACN) and retrieved from the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed network (RASFF), Administrative Assistance and Cooperation network (AAC) and the Agri-Food Fraud Network (FFN).

It covers food for human consumption, animal feed, food contact materials, animal welfare, plant protection products, and veterinary medicine products. Fraud fears affecting only one country will not feature in the monthly reports.

A total of 111 out of 277 notices mentioned fruit and vegetables. Dietetic foods, supplements, and fortified foods were in second place with 44 alerts, followed by cereals and bakery products with 18 notices. Ethylene oxide was mentioned twice in products from China and India.

The aims of sharing the information are to support member states in their risk-based controls and to guide food businesses in assessing their vulnerabilities to fraudulent and deceptive practices, said the EU Commission.

Border inspections or market controls detected the majority of issues. Nine were due to whistleblower information.

Suspected fraud examples
Alerts involving the United States included high levels of the additive sunset yellow in Nerds Rainbow candy, unapproved use of tartrazine in pickles and of titanium dioxide in candy, and use of the ingredient L-theanine in G-Fuel energy drinks.

Examples of product tampering were additives not compliant with EU maximum levels, such as ascorbic acid in tuna from Vietnam; carbon monoxide treatment of tuna from an unknown origin; adulteration of fish fillets from the Netherlands due to added water; and chicken meat instead of pork in sausages from Poland.

Record tampering cases included issues with health claims on food supplements and using the misleading denomination prosecco on wine.

Other non-compliances identified covered traceability issues with eggs; ingredients not authorized in Europe – often in supplements; residues of pesticides not compliant with EU maximum levels – mostly in fruit and vegetables; products skipping border controls and unauthorized operators.

Russia was mentioned once for an unauthorized operator of mineral water, products from Turkey were often flagged due to pesticide residues and issues from China included chlorate in chicken meat and presence of pork, poultry, and bovine DNA in snacks.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

State anti-cruelty enforcement doesn’t need to be bound by federal authority, prosecutors say

Mon, 03/04/2024 - 00:02

An organization for all prosecutors, including appointed and elected and their deputies and assistants, supports the pending Animal Partisan petition. The Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (APA) is a private non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C.

The petition requests that USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)  issue a notice to convey that: 1) State government officials are not categorically preempted from enforcing state anti-cruelty laws by the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, or the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and 2) FSIS personnel should cooperate with state government officials in the enforcement of state anti-cruelty laws and improve clarity and frequency of communication (i.e., Letters of Concern (“LOC”)) to those officials.

The Animal Partisan petition was submitted to FSIS on Sept. 2, 2023, assigned No. 23-07. and referred to the FSIS Office of Policy and Program Development for review

In the newly submitted comments, the APA says: “We have reviewed Animal Partisan’s petition and are in favor of its request for a public notice that would clarify the jurisdiction of state and local law enforcement and prosecution officials to enforce state animal cruelty laws when animals are mistreated in federally inspected slaughter establishments. We also appreciate and support the petition’s call for greater cooperation between U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) personnel and state government officials in enforcing those laws.”

It adds that:  “As the petition notes, it appears there is confusion among some state and local officials about whether they have the authority to investigate and prosecute instances of livestock and poultry mistreatment in federal slaughter plants.

“It seems that some officials are under the misconception that federal laws such as the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) (21 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.), Humane Methods of Slaughter Act (HMSA) (7 U.S.C.§ 1901 et seq.), and Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) (21 U.S.C. § 451 et seq.) categorically preempt the enforcement of state animal cruelty statutes when animal abuse occurs in slaughter facilities,“ APA continues. “On the contrary, federal courts have made it clear that not all state anti-cruelty statutes are preempted by the FMIA or HMSA, for and that few, if any, are preempted by the PPIA.

A half dozen individuals and animal activist organizations previously endorsed the Animal Partisan petition.

Another petition, filed by Perdue Farms LLC,  also picked up a new endorsement.  Kristen Boffo and Walden Local filed strong comments in support of Petition 23-03. 

“We implore FSIS to reconsider their opinions and define separate pasture raised and free range claims for meat and poultry products, along with updating its guidance on allegations related to living and raising conditions to ensure anything labeled pasture-raised has seen fresh grass in a meaningful way,“ Boffo wrote.

The Perdue petition requests that FSIS conduct rulemaking to define separate “free range” and “pasture-raised” claims for meat and poultry products. The petition also requests that FSIS update its guidance on claims related to living/raising conditions to ensure that the claims align with consumer expectations.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News,click here)

FDA issues warning letter to bakery regarding improper allergen labels

Mon, 03/04/2024 - 00:01

As part of its enforcement activities, the Food and Drug Administration sends warning letters to entities under its jurisdiction. Some letters are not posted for public view until weeks or months after they are sent. Business owners have 15 days to respond to FDA warning letters. Warning letters often are not issued until a company has been given months to years to correct problems.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Perfection Bakeries Inc. dba Aunt Millie’s Bakeries
Fort Wayne, IN

In a Sept. 7, 2023 warning letter, the FDA told the bakery owner that the agency has determined that your recalled “Our Family” brand White Hot Dog Enriched Buns (8 count, 12oz. retail unit, UPC #0-70253-75107-3) manufactured between Feb. 9, 2023, and March 20, 2023, were misbranded within the meaning of section 403(w) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 U.S.C. § 343(w)], in that the finished product label did not declare a major food allergen, sesame. The introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food that is misbranded is prohibited by section 301(a) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 331(a)]. 

Your firm recalled “Our Family” brand White Hot Dog Enriched Buns on March 21, 2023, after you discovered that the product contained sesame, but the printed packaging did not declare sesame. Your firm became aware of the undeclared sesame after being notified by a customer of an allergic reaction to sesame after a child consumed the buns. In documentation provided to the Office of Human and Animal Food Operations East Division 6 Recall Coordinator on March 21 and 28, 2023, you indicated that your firm reformulated “Our Family” brand White Hot Dog Enriched Buns in January 2023 by adding sesame to the formulation. On February 9, 2023, you received printed plastic packaging for the buns which did not declare sesame in the ingredients statement. Between February 9, 2023 and March 20, 2023, you manufactured the “Our Family” brand White Hot Dog Enriched Buns using the incorrect label, which resulted in undeclared sesame in the product.

On March 28, 2023, you provided documents which indicated that you determined the root cause to be a “lack of label control,” as the receiver accepted incorrect packaging into the plant and the bagger operator used incorrect packaging that did not contain the correct allergen labeling. 

You stated that your action plan includes retraining “bag operators, break people, and supervisors” to check for correct allergen labeling “before being used at point of use”; updating policy to include the “QA manager or designated back-up visually verifying and documenting every receipt of bags before they can be received in (redacted by FDA) and put in the warehouse”; creating a policy that future allergen labeling changes will require a new bag number, “making it impossible to receive old bag into plant”; and creating policy that will require new packaging proofs to be signed off by your company before new packaging can be printed. We will verify implementation of any corrective actions during FDA’s next inspection of your facility.

As of January 1, 2023, sesame is considered a “major food allergen” under section 201(qq) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 321(qq)]. A food is misbranded under section 403(w) of the Act if it is not a raw agricultural commodity and it is, or it contains, an ingredient that bears or contains, a major food allergen, unless either:

  • The word “Contains” followed by the name of the food source from which the major food allergen is derived, is printed immediately after or adjacent to the list of ingredients, section 403(w)(1)(A) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 343(w)(1)(A)]; or
  • The common or usual name of the major food allergen in the list of ingredients is followed in parentheses by the name of the food source from which the major food allergen is derived (e.g., “Whey (Milk)”), except the name of the food source is not required when either the common or usual name of the ingredient uses the name of the food source or the name of the food source appears elsewhere in the ingredient list (unless the name of the food source that appears elsewhere in the ingredient list appears as part of the name of an ingredient that is not a major food allergen), section 403(w)(1)(B) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 343(w)(1)(B)].

Your recalled “Our Family” brand White Hot Dog Enriched Buns are misbranded within the meaning of section 403(w) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 343(w)], in that the finished product label fails to declare a major food allergen (sesame).

Your facilities are subject to the requirements of the Current Good Manufacturing Practice, Hazard Analysis, and Risk-Based Preventive Controls for Human Food regulation (CGMP and PC rule) (21 CFR Part 117). As such, you are required to identify and implement preventive controls to provide assurances that any hazard requiring a preventive control (e.g., undeclared allergens) will be significantly minimized or prevented and the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held by your facilities will not be adulterated under section 402 or misbranded under section 403(w) of the Act (21 CFR 117.135(a)(1) and (c)(2)). The failure of the owner, operator, or agent in charge of a covered facility to comply with the preventive controls provisions of the CGMP & PC rule (subparts A, C, D, E, F, and G) is prohibited by section 301(uu) of the Act [21 U.S.C. § 331(uu)].

The full warning letter can be found here.

Food Safety and Inspection Service gives the bottom line on sausage safety

Sun, 03/03/2024 - 00:03

Summer sausage, kielbasa, bologna, bratwurst: The list goes on and on. There are so many varieties of sausage. How long can you store them — and where? Are they fully cooked or not? The following background information will answer these questions and others. Use the chart as a guideline for safe storage.

Types of sausages

Sausages are either uncooked or ready-to-eat. They can be made from red meat (for example, beef, pork, lamb or veal), poultry (turkey or chicken, for example) or a combination. Uncooked sausages include fresh (bulk, patties or links) and smoked sausages.

To prevent foodborne illness, uncooked sausages that contain ground beef, pork, lamb or veal should be cooked to 160 degrees F. Uncooked sausages that contain ground turkey and chicken should be cooked to 165 degrees F.

Ready-to-eat sausages are dry, semi-dry and/or cooked. Dry sausages may be smoked, unsmoked or cooked. Semi-dry sausages are usually heated in the smokehouse to fully cook the product and partially dry it. Cooked sausages (for example, bologna and frankfurters) are cooked and may also be smoked.

Who inspects sausages?

USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) inspects all sausages in interstate commerce and all sausages that are exported to other countries. If sausages are made in a retail establishment (such as a grocery store, meat market or restaurant) and are sold within the state where the establishment is located, the sausage may be under the jurisdiction of that state’s health or agriculture department.

What is on the label?

The label provides consumers with information about a product at the time of sale. Labels are required to bear certain mandatory features including:

  1. the product name;
  2. an ingredients statement;
  3. the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer or distributor;
  4. an accurate statement of the net quantity of contents;
  5. the inspection legend and USDA establishment number;
  6. a safe handling statement if the product is perishable (for example, “Keep Frozen” or “Keep Refrigerated”);
  7. safe handling instructions if the meat or poultry component of the product is not ready to eat; and
  8. nutrition facts information. The nutrition facts information on the label can help consumers compare products and make more informed, healthy food choices. If sausages are made and packaged in a local store, the nutrient information on the package is voluntary or it may be at the point of purchase. The application of a “use” or “sell by” date is optional.
What must be listed on the label of sausages that are not ready-to-eat?

The labeling for sausages under FSIS inspection that are NOT ready-to-eat must bear certain features such as, safe handling instructions. In cases where the sausage is partially cooked or otherwise appears cooked but requires cooking by the consumer for safety, FSIS requires additional labeling features such as a prominent statement on the principal display panel, for example, “Uncooked, Ready to cook, Cook before eating, Cook and serve” or “Needs to be fully cooked.” In addition, the product should display cooking directions that are sufficient for the intended user. The manufacturer would have to validate that the cooking directions are sufficient to destroy any pathogens that could be present.

If a sausage is perishable, the label must say “Keep Refrigerated.” Some federally inspected shelf-stable sausages are not ready to eat. If so, they will be labeled as above but will not have “Keep Refrigerated” on the label.

Definition of Fresh Sausages

Fresh sausages are a coarse or finely “comminuted” (reduced to minute particles) meat food product prepared from one or more kinds of meat, or meat and meat “byproducts” (heart, kidney or liver, for example). They may contain water not exceeding 3% of the total ingredients in the product. They are usually seasoned, frequently cured, and may contain binders and extenders (for example, wheat flour and non-fat dry milk). They must be kept refrigerated and thoroughly cooked before eating.

Content of Fresh Sausages
  • “Fresh Pork Sausages” may not contain pork byproducts and may contain no more than 50% fat by weight.
  • “Fresh Beef Sausages” may not contain beef byproducts and may contain no more than 30% fat by weight.
  • “Breakfast Sausages” may contain meat and meat byproducts and no more than 50% fat by weight.
  • “Whole Hog Sausage” contains meat from swine in such proportions as are normal to a single animal and no more than 50% fat by weight.
  • “Italian Sausage Products” are cured or uncured sausages containing at least 85% meat, or a combination of meat and fat, with the total fat content constituting not more than 35% of the finished product. It contains salt, pepper, fennel and/or anise and no more than 3% water. Optional ingredients permitted in Italian Sausages are spices (including paprika) and flavorings, red or green peppers, onions, garlic and parsley, sugar, dextrose and corn syrup.
Cooked and/or Smoked Sausages

Cooked and/or smoked sausages are made of one or more different kinds of chopped or ground meats which have been seasoned, cooked and/or smoked. Meat byproducts may be used. Included in this category are:

  • liverwurst
  • hot dogs
  • bologna
  • knockwurst
  • cooked bratwurst
  • braunschweiger
  • cooked Thuringer
  • cooked salami*

*Cooked Salami (not dry) is made from fresh meats which are cured, stuffed into casings and cooked in a smokehouse at high temperature. It may be air dried for a short time. It has a softer texture than dry and semi-dry sausages and must be refrigerated.

Meat Specialties

Some meat specialties are ready-to-eat sausage like products. These are made from comminuted meats that are seasoned and usually cooked or baked rather than smoked. They are usually sliced and served cold. Included in this category are:

  • chopped ham loaf
  • peppered loaf
  • head cheese
  • jellied corned beef
  • ham and cheese loaf
  • honey loaf
  • old fashioned loaf
  • olive loaf
  • pickle and pimento loaf
  • scrapple
  • souse
  • veal loaf
Dry and semi-dry sausages

Dry and semi-dry sausages are possibly the largest category of dried meats, particularly in the United States. These products can be fermented by bacterial growth for preservation and to produce the typical tangy flavor. Alternatively, they may be cultured with lactic acid — much as cheese, pickle and yogurt makers do — to eliminate the fermentation phase and shorten the process. They are, with a few exceptions, cooked.

Fermentation is one of the oldest methods of preserving meats. Dry sausages — such as pepperoni, and semi-dry sausages such as Lebanon bologna and summer sausage, have had a good safety record for hundreds of years.

In this procedure, a mixture of curing ingredients, such as salt and sodium nitrite, and a “starter” culture of lactic acid-bacteria, is mixed with chopped and ground meat, placed in casings, fermented and then dried by a carefully controlled, long, continuous air-drying process. The amount of acid produced during fermentation and the lack of moisture in the finished product after drying typically have been shown to cause pathogenic bacteria to die.

Dry sausages require more time to make than other types of sausages and are a more concentrated form of meat. Dried sausages range from 60% to 80% of their original weight before drying.

Semi-dry sausages are usually heated in the smokehouse to fully cook the product and partially dry it. Semi-dry sausages are semi-soft sausages with good keeping qualities due to their lactic acid fermentation and sometimes heavy application of smoke. Some are mildly seasoned, and some are quite spicy and strongly flavored.

What are examples of dry and semi-dry sausages?

Dry sausages include:

  • Sopressata (a name of a salami)
  • pepperoni (not cooked, air dried)
  • Genoa Salami (Italian, usually made from pork but may have a small amount of beef; it is moistened with wine or grape juice and seasoned with garlic

Semi-dry sausages include:

  • summer sausage
  • Lebanon bologna
  • Cervelat
  • Thuringer
Are any Sausages Shelf Stable?

Some dry sausages are shelf stable (in other words, they do not need to be refrigerated or frozen to be stored safely). Dry sausages require more production time than other types of sausage and result in a concentrated form of meat. If the product is shelf stable and ready to eat, the product is not required to have a safe handling statement, cooking directions or a “Keep Refrigerated” statement.

Should people “At Risk” eat dry sausages?

Because dry sausages are not cooked, people “at risk” (older adults, very young children, pregnant women and those with immune systems weakened by disease or organ transplants) might want to avoid eating them. The bacterium E.scherichia coli (E. coli ) O157:H7 can survive the process of dry fermenting, and in 1994, some children became ill after eating dry cured salami containing the bacteria.

After the outbreak, FSIS developed specific processing rules for making dry sausages that must be followed or the product must be heat treated. These products are included in the FSIS microbial sampling program for E. coli O157:H7, and in 1997, FSIS began to test fermented sausages for Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes.

Dates on packaged sausages

Although dating is a voluntary program and not required by the federal government, if a date is used it must state what the date means. The product can be used after the date, provided it was stored safely.

  • “Sell By” date — tells the store how long to display the product for sale. You should buy the product before the date expires.
  • “Best if Used By” date — date by which product should be used for best flavor and quality. It is not a purchase or safety date.
  • “Use-By” date — the last date recommended for use of the product while at peak quality.
Storage

All sausage — except dry sausage — is perishable and therefore must be kept refrigerated. The following storage times should be followed for maximum quality.

Sausage storage chart
  • If the sausage has a “use-by” date, follow that date. It is the last date recommended for the use of the product while at peak quality. The date has been determined by the manufacturer of the product.
  • If the sausage has a “sell-by” date, or no date, store it for the times recommended below.
  • Freeze sausage if you can’t use it within the times recommended for refrigerator storage. Once frozen it doesn’t matter if the date expires because foods kept frozen continuously are safe indefinitely.
Type of SausageRefrigerator – UnopenedRefrigerator – After OpeningFreezerFresh Sausage, Uncooked1 to 2 days unopened or opened1 to 2 days unopened or opened1 to 2 monthsFresh Sausage, After Cooking by Consumer(not applicable)3 to 4 days2 to 3 monthsHard/Dry SausageWhole, 6 weeks in pantry; indefinitely in refrigerator3 weeks1 to 2 monthsHot Dogs and Other Cooked Sausage2 weeks7 days1 to 2 monthsLuncheon Meats2 weeks3 to 5 days1 to 2 monthsSummer Sausage (Semi-dry)3 months3 weeks1 to 2 months

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News,click here)

Judge invites Amos Miller to become Pennsylvania’s 115th licensed raw milk dairy

Sat, 03/02/2024 - 14:05

Late Friday, a state judge gave Pennsylvania farmer Amos Miller an easy exit ramp to his dispute with the Agriculture Department.

Judge Thomas Sponaugle’s March 1 order says that all Miller must do to resolve his legal troubles is apply for a state raw milk permit and commit to the testing and documentation routinely practiced by the 114 raw milk dairies that already legally operate in Pennsylvania.

In offering that carrot, the judge also kept the court’s stick in place.  Miller cannot sell raw milk or any raw milk products he produces to the public.  He can produce for his immediate family.

The court order also clarifies that the legal dispute concerns state licensing, not raw milk or raw milk products legally produced in the state.  “Nothing in this order is to detract from the sincerely held beliefs of individuals  Who believe in the benefits of Raw Milk Products,” according to the order.

The judge said the Court “cannot ignore this Commonwealth’s regulations requiring a permit to sell raw milk; to do otherwise is to improperly usurp the authority and responsibility of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.”

Once the Judge gets notification of Miller applying for a state raw milk permit, he said he will immediately move to reconsider whether to modify or terminate the order banning his sales.

However, until Miller approaches the permit counter, his employees, agents, or successors are enjoined from marketing or selling raw milk products to the public.

On Thursday, a couple hundred “Food Freedom” advocates rallied outside the Lancaster Courthouse, including local Amish men in their straw hats with black bands. At the same time, the Court took testimony from both sides of the dispute.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Michelle Henry, for the state Department of Agriculture, sued Amos and Rebecca Miller and their farms and related businesses in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas in January to shut Miller down with a permanent state injunction. 

The civil action by the AG came in a 357-page complaint with exhibits on Jan. 23 after years of attempts by state and federal officials to bring the Miller into compliance with fundamental food safety law. The filing outlined violations of Pennsylvania’s Milk Sanitation Law, Food Safety Act, Retail Food Facility Safety Act, Unfair Trade Practices, and Consumer Protection Law. 

The lawsuit, now before the Court, also followed a search of Miller’s farm on Jan 4 involving an investigation of a multistage outbreak of food borne illnesses.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

HUS cases decline in Argentina but still pose a deadly problem

Sat, 03/02/2024 - 00:03

Argentina recorded almost 50 hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) cases in the first six weeks of 2024.

HUS is a severe complication associated with E. coli infections that causes kidney failure. 

The 49 cases up to mid-February are lower than the average in the same period from 2019 to 2023. In 2023, 81 cases were reported and in 2022 it was 73, according to figures published in the National Epidemiological Bulletin.

However, five deaths have been reported, which is up on the two deaths in 2023 and three in 2022. Three deaths were in children under five years of age, and the other two were in those over five years old.

The majority of those affected are children younger than 5. In 2024, 34 of the 49 cases are in this age group. In 2023, 69 cases were in this age group; in 2022, it was 52.

At least 43 of 49 cases required hospitalization, and 15 needed intensive care treatment.

The province of Buenos Aires has 15 cases so far this year, while Córdoba has nine. Officials in Córdoba said three youngsters had died. Patients are children under seven years old and all required hospitalization. Six are males, and three are females.

Data from past years
Every year on August 19, Argentina has a national day to raise awareness about HUS and how to prevent the disease.

From January to mid-June 2023, 159 cases were recorded, and 126 were children under 5. At least 122 people required hospitalization and 57 needed intensive care treatment with three deaths recorded.

Three hundred four cases were reported in 2022, up from 276 in 2021, but lower than most years in the past decade.

Authorities listed prevention strategies for the meat, dairy, and fruit and vegetable supply chains, such as good agricultural practices, standard operating procedures, and promoting the use of pasteurized milk.

Advice to the community included promoting safe practices among people who handle food, washing hands with soap and water, avoiding raw milk products and unpasteurized juice, thoroughly cooking meat, and using safe water.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

State testing finds Listeria in raw milk; dairy initiates recall action

Fri, 03/01/2024 - 18:29

Sigmon Dairy of Rochester, WA, is recalling retail raw whole milk with Best By dates March 4 through March 12 because it may be contaminated with Listeria Monocytogenes. 

The recall was initiated after routine sampling conducted by the Washington State Department of Agriculture revealed the presence of Listeria in retail raw milk dated March 4, according to an announcement from the dairy.

The unpasteurized recalled product was bottled in half-gallon and gallon containers and was sold via retail stores in Rochester and Chehalis, WA, as well as on-farm sales. Sigmon Dairy and the state agriculture department continue to work jointly to address the source of the problem. 

Consumers who have purchased Sigmon Dairy retail raw whole milk with Best By dates of March 4 through March 12 are urged not to drink the product and return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 360- 529-7356. 

Retail raw milk is legal to sell and buy in Washington State, but the potential health risks are serious, according to the state department of agriculture. Consumers should read the warning label on the retail raw milk container carefully and ask their retailer to verify the milk was produced and processed by a WSDA-licensed operation. 

About Listeria infections
Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or smell spoiled but can still cause serious and sometimes life-threatening infections. Anyone who has consumed any recalledproduct and developed symptoms of Listeria infection should seek medical treatment and tell their doctors about the possible Listeria exposure.

Also, anyone who has eaten any of the recalled products should monitor themselves for symptoms during the coming weeks because it can take up to 70 days after exposure to Listeria for symptoms of listeriosis to develop. 

Symptoms of Listeria infection can include vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache, and neck stiffness. Specific laboratory tests are required to diagnose Listeria infections, which can mimic other illnesses. 

Pregnant women, the elderly, young children, and people such as cancer patients who have weakened immune systems are particularly at risk of serious illnesses, life-threatening infections, and other complications. Although infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like symptoms, their infections can lead to premature delivery, infection of the newborn, or even stillbirth.

Restaurant complaints about meat result in 46-ton recall

Fri, 03/01/2024 - 18:02

MF Meats of Falconer, NY, is recalling 93,277 pounds of raw meat products, which may have been contaminated with non-food grade mineral seal oil, which is not approved for use in meat processing, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).

The raw meat items were produced from Nov. 26, 2023 through Feb. 16, 2024. The following products are subject to recall:    

  • Various weights of meat cuts, including but not limited to steaks, sausage, meat loaf and ground meat. The products display Julian dates of 330-365 (November 26 – December 31) and 1-47 (January 1 – February 16). View the product list here.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number “EST. 569” inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to restaurants in New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.                              

The problem was discovered after the firm received four complaints from restaurants reporting a chemical taste in the meat products. After investigating, the firm determined that its mineral oil supplier sent them a drum containing non-food grade mineral seal oil labeled as food grade mineral oil. The non-food grade mineral seal oil was applied to food contact surfaces and not directly to the meat products.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider.  

FSIS is concerned that some product may be in restaurants’ refrigerators or freezers. Restaurants are urged not to serve these products. These products should be thrown away or returned to the place of purchase.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News,click here)

FDA confirms contamination of children’s applesauce; theorizes it was intentional

Fri, 03/01/2024 - 00:05

The FDA has confirmed that lead chromate is the source of lead and chromium in cinnamon applesauce marketed for children and imported from Ecuador.

Leaders at the FDA continue to believe the contamination was intentional.

The Food and Drug Administration had already confirmed that applesauce samples had as much as 2,000 times the amount of lead considered safe.

Three brands of cinnamon applesauce were recalled in November of 2023 because of lead contamination: Wanabana, Schnucks, and Weis.

“People who ate recalled products, especially if they had elevated blood lead levels, may have been exposed to chromium and should inform their healthcare provider so they can monitor health and provide supportive care, as needed,” according to the FDA’s Feb. 29 update.

“Historically, lead chromate has been illegally added to certain spices to increase their weight and color, increasing the monetary value of the adulterated spices. FDA’s leading hypothesis remains that this was likely an act of economically motivated adulteration.”

The FDA has limited regulatory power over foreign ingredient suppliers who do not directly ship their products to the United States. Consequently, the FDA cannot take direct action against Negasmart, the supplier of the cinnamon to the Ecuadorean applesauce manufacturer Austrofoods, or Carlos Aguilera, the processor of the cinnamon sticks. 

“Ecuadorian officials in Agencia Nacional de Regulación, Control y Vigilancia Sanitaria (ARCSA) have reported that Carlos Aguilera of Ecuador is the likely source of contamination and is not in operation at this time,” according to the U.S. FDA.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are now 468 patients spread across 44 states. That’s up from the 422 patients identified in the previous update on Feb. 13. The FDA has logged 90 children with adverse reactions. Some of the patients from the CDC and FDA tallies may overlap. 

“FDA does not indicate that this issue extends beyond these recalled products and does not have any confirmed reports of illnesses or elevated blood lead level adverse events reported for other cinnamon-containing products or cinnamon,” according to the agency.

According to health officials in Ecuador, unprocessed cinnamon sticks used in recalled products were sourced from Sri Lanka. They were sampled by Ecuadorean officials and found to have no lead contamination.

An investigation by The New York Times and the non-profit group “The Examination” found the applesauce and cinnamon slipped through every checkpoint meant to safeguard the U.S. food supply.

“The Ecuadorean food processor Austrofood was not required to test for toxic metals and did not, records show,” according to The Times.

“The agency (FDA) is conducting half as many spot checks of food at the border as they were a decade ago. Food importers, which are required to vet foreign food, let the applesauce enter the country.”

About lead poisoning
Parents and caretakers should consult a healthcare provider and ask for blood tests if they suspect a child may have been exposed to the recalled cinnamon applesauce products. 

Short-term exposure to lead could result in the following symptoms: headache, abdominal pain/colic, vomiting, and anemia. 

Longer-term exposure could result in additional symptoms: irritability, lethargy, fatigue, muscle aches or muscle prickling/burning, constipation, difficulty concentrating/muscular weakness, tremors, and weight loss. 

Permanent consequences can lead to developmental delays and brain damage.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News,click here)

EU WTO SPS notifications increased in 2023

Fri, 03/01/2024 - 00:03

According to a report, the number of European Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) notifications went up in 2023.

Overall, 1,993 SPS notifications were submitted by World Trade Organization (WTO) members. While the total number dropped by 8.2 percent compared with 2022, EU notifications increased by 19 percent.

Most notifications issued by the EU in 2023 concerned feed additives, followed by pesticides. Food safety generated the majority of SPS notifications, followed by animal health.

The EU submitted 125 notifications, which lifted the region from 5th to 4th place. Brazil ranked first due to the notification of pesticide MRLs, followed by Japan and Canada.

Bangladesh and Vanuatu published their first SPS notifications, while Tanzania, Uganda, and Kenya were among the top 10 notifiers. Ukraine made 39 notifications despite the war in 2023.

Specific trade concerns
The EU received 48 comments on its SPS notifications, down from 2022. The United States, China, Australia, Brazil, and Japan were the most active commenters on EU legislation, either in writing or in the form of specific trade concerns raised at the SPS committee.

In 2023, the SPS Committee discussed the highest number of specific trade concerns in its history. The EU was the most active member in raising STCs towards other countries and the party receiving the most complaints. These included the EU review of legislation on veterinary medicinal products, the policy on pesticides, MRLs in general, and endocrine disruptors.

The EU sent comments on 32 notifications, focusing on measures notified by Brazil and China, and ten replies were received.

DG Sante has its own SPS database to handle the growing number of notifications and fulfill EU transparency obligations.

Missing, late, and incomplete notifications continue to be a concern. Recurring problems, like the availability of translations of documents in one of the WTO official languages, will be discussed at an SPS committee workshop on transparency in March. There is also the upcoming sixth review of the operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement.

Since 1995, the EU has submitted 1,827 SPS notifications. This puts Europe in fourth position behind the U.S., Brazil, and Canada.

STDF support
Meanwhile, Norway has given $1.5 million to the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) to help developing economies and least-developed countries (LDCs) meet international sanitary and phytosanitary standards.

Support from the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) will enable STDF to launch SPS capacity development projects across Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Caribbean.

Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, WTO Director-General, said: “This contribution underscores the importance of international cooperation in advancing food safety systems, contributing to poverty reduction, enhanced food security, and better protection of the environment. With Norway’s support, the STDF will continue developing and financing projects helping developing countries meet international food safety standards, promoting safe and inclusive trade.”

Finland also gave $1.3 million to four WTO funds, including the STDF. Money will help developing economies and LDCs implement the food safety, animal health, and plant health standards required for international trade and strengthen their SPS systems.

STDF was established by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Bank Group, the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), and the WTO.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

FDA increases sanctions on some imported cheese, seafood, and canned foods

Fri, 03/01/2024 - 00:01

The Food and Drug Administration continues using import alerts to enforce U.S. food safety regulations for food from foreign countries. The agency updates and modifies the alerts as needed.

Recent modifications to FDA’s import alerts, as posted by the agency, are listed below. 

Click here to go to the FDA page with links to details on specific alerts.

Click on table to enlarge. Use link above to go to the FDA page with links to specific alerts.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News,click here)

Pages