The UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) recently convened a board meeting to discuss reducing the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) testing requirement for cattle. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) “recognized an increase in the age at which cattle intended for human consumption are BSE tested would represent a ‘minimal to negligible increase in the risk to human health,’” according to an October 15, 2008, press release. FSA has consequently agreed to “support a move to increase the age at which UK cattle are BSE tested from 30 months to 48 months, subject to a review of current and continued BSE surveillance.” FSA Chief Scientist Andrew Wadge also emphasized that other BSE controls offer sufficient consumer protection. “Prevention of exposure to BSE rests primarily with SRM [specified risk material] controls and not BSE testing,” he was quoted as saying. See FSA Press Release, October 15, 2008.
Posts By Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
The WTO has reportedly issued a ruling supporting the United States in its decision to impose duties on European imports in response to a ban on beef from animals treated with growth hormones. According to the U.S. trade representative, “The Appellate Body’s report confirms that WTO members that are subject to additional duties for failing to bring themselves into compliance with the WTO’s rulings and recommendations must do more than simply claim compliance in order to obtain relief from such duties.” The ruling ends an EU appeal from a March 2008 ruling by the trade organization finding that the EU failed to justify its ban on these imports and allowing the United States and Canada to impose duties on Roquefort cheese, truffles and chocolates because the EU’s practice violated international trade rules. The WTO Appellate Body apparently reversed that part of the March ruling which criticized the United States for…
USDA has announced the first meeting of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee to formulate an agenda for its review of the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Slated for October 30, 2008, the meeting also includes presentations on the history of the Dietary Guidelines published every five years by USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services. USDA has encouraged the public to submit written comments before October 24, 2008, to ensure prior transmission to the committee, but will accept comments throughout the committee’s deliberations.
USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is seeking comments on policies that regulate whether processors can use animal raising claims in labeling for meat and poultry products. “[R]ecent experience with labeling claims related to the raising of poultry have led FSIS to initiate a review of its evaluation and approval process for labels of meat and poultry products that contain animal raising claims,” stated the agency in a recent Federal Register notice. Animal raising claims include language that describes a product as “raised without antibiotics”; “not fed animal by-products”; “free range”; “vegetarian fed diet”; and “raised with added hormones.” FSIS currently evaluates such claims “by reviewing testimonials, affidavits, animal product protocols, and other relevant documentation provided by animal producers.” The agency is soliciting public input on this approval process, which also allows meat and poultry establishments to submit certification from outside organizations or entities in support of animal raising claims.…
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine’s (PCRM) Cancer Project has filed a petition with the USDA asking the agency to prohibit processed meats from school cafeteria menus. The initiative follows an advertising campaign warning about the purported cancer risks of processed meat consumption. Further details about the campaign appear in issue 277 of this Update. PCRM advocates a vegetarian diet and opposes animal research. See PCRM Press Release, October 9, 2008; meatingplace.com, October 13, 2008.
The Cornucopia Institute has reportedly filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the USDA and the California Almond Board seeking documents on which the government agencies relied in adopting a rule requiring the pasteurization of raw almonds grown in California. The Wisconsin-based organization has apparently been unable to obtain information and scientific studies supporting the agencies’ position on the effectiveness of pasteurization and “the comparative nutrition, quality, and safety of pasteurized almonds and raw untreated almonds.” According to the Institute’s research director, “We have taken this step because we have been frustrated by the Almond Board and the USDA’s unwillingness to share the science behind the rule, the science that purports to show that treatment with either a toxic fumigant or steam heat is safe and does not affect the almond’s taste and nutritional qualities.” The Institute claims that the rule may have been adopted before scientific studies were complete…
GAO recently presented a new report, titled Food Labeling: FDA Needs to Better Leverage Resources, Improve Oversight, and Effectively Use Available Data to Help Consumers Select Healthy Foods before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies. The report claims that FDA oversight, which has failed to keep pace with the growing number of food firms, offers “little assurance that companies comply with food labeling laws and regulations for, among other things, preventing false or misleading labeling.” In particular, GAO found that FDA (i) “does not have reliable data on the number of labels reviewed”; (ii) conducted only “limited” testing for the accuracy of nutrition information for labels from 2000 through 2006; and (iii) “does not track the complete and timely correction of labeling violations or analyze these and other labeling oversight data in routine reports to inform managers’ decisions, or ensure the…
A recent FSAI report addresses the application of nanotechnology to the food industry and urges the European Union (EU) to provide a legislative framework for regulating nanotechnology in food. Citing a general lack of information concerning the purported risks of nanoparticles in food, FSAI recommends the following: (i) “food business operators should conduct risk assessments on all foods involving introduction of new nanoparticles into foods and packaging”; (ii) “legal provisions should be considered at EU level to ensure that food and feed should be re-evaluated in terms of safety whenever the properties are changed/re-engineered to the nanoscale”; (iii) “the FSAI should promote the establishment of a publicly available inventory of nanotechnology-based food products and food contact materials”; (iv) “urgent consideration should be given to whether additional controls are required on the disposal and/or recycling of nanoparticle-containing food and other materials”; and (v) “food surveillance programmes should include investigation of the…
A GAO report has claimed that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “examined less than 1 percent of the 7.6 million fresh produce lines imported from fiscal years 2002 through 2007.” “Moreover, FDA acknowledged that it has not yet been able to conduct certain fresh produce work crucial to understanding the incidence of contamination of produce by pathogens such as E. coli O157:H7 or Salmonella,” according to GAO, which attributed the failures to a lack of resources for either extramural research grant programs or internal research agendas. The report also noted that the agency “has no formal program devoted exclusively to fresh produce” and has not “reliably tracked its fresh produce spending. “What I found most interesting is that fresh produce has been a priority for FDA for nearly a decade, but all the initiatives the agency said it needs to implement to improve its oversight efforts have been delayed because…
Country-of-origin labeling rules, long-delayed for fresh, perishable foods other than fish and shellfish, went into effect on September 30, 2008. They require supermarkets and mass-merchandise outlets to label or display the country of origin for meats, poultry, produce, and some nuts. Small food outlets, such as butcher shops and restaurants are exempt, and the rules do not apply to processed foods, like smoked salmon and cooked shrimp, or mixes, like bagged mixed salad greens, trail mix and fruit salad. Meats blended with products from several countries are not required to list the countries in any particular order. Any covered foods produced or packaged before September 30, do not have to include the COOL information. For many years, foods packaged in another country have been required to carry origin labeling; with the latest COOL implementation, almost all food should carry this information. Consumer groups have hailed the mandatory rule change, calling…
