U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-Calif.) has called for an independent review of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) meat and poultry inspection system, citing the recent recall of approximately 864,000 pounds of beef possibly contaminated with E. coli. Issued by a Montebello, Calif.-based meat packing company, the recall involved ground beef products identified by USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) during a recent food safety assessment. In addition, FSIS reportedly flagged some 2008 products based on the establishment’s records. According to DeLauro, an independent board would “support and advise USDA, ensure that the inspection process is rigorous and scientifically robust, and recommend changes to any practices that are insufficiently protecting our food supply.” She further opined that this latest incident, which involved products produced almost two years ago, “is a glaring indication that the current inspection system for meat and poultry is inherently flawed and not sufficient to protect the…
Category Archives Legislation, Regulations and Standards
Scientists and others objecting to the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) to stimulate milk production in dairy cows have reportedly resubmitted a petition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) challenging the new animal drug application approval for an rBGH drug. FDA apparently failed to respond to the original petition, filed in 2007. The petition also requests that dairy products made from cows treated with rBGH be labeled with a health-hazard warning. The petitioners include Samuel Epstein, chair of the Cancer Prevention Coalition; Ronnie Cummins, national director, Organic Consumers Association; Arpad Pusztai, a consultant biologist from Scotland; and Jeffrey Smith, executive director, Institute for Responsible Technology. They claim that rBGH milk poses major cancer and other risks to the U.S. population and that the drug has toxic effects on cows. See World-Wire.com, January 15, 2010.
The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) has responded to the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) recent review of bisphenol A in food contact applications, praising regulators for stopping short of a ban on the ubiquitous chemical but criticizing their concern for “hypothetical and non-existent health risks.” FDA has stated that it now shares the National Toxicology Program’s outlook on “the potential effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and young children,” and is considering a more aggressive oversight approach. To this end, the agency may seek new authority to govern BPA and its different formulations through the Food Contact Notification Program created in 2000. This regulatory framework not only requires manufacturers to provide detailed analysis on substance applications, but allows FDA to “quickly protect the public by revoking the use through a notice in the Federal Register.” Noting that BPA was first…
The Canadian government has announced a January 20, 1010, webcast titled “Health Claims in Canada: An Update on Function Claims and Probiotic Claims for Food.” Presented by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), the Webcast will (i) “provide an update on the development of a modernized framework for health claims for food and the future directions for managing health claims”; (ii) “present new guidance on function claims and probiotic claims, and the requirements for scientific evidence to validate claims” and (iii) provide insights into CFIA’s enforcement approach.
A California court of appeal recently determined that the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) preempts point-of-sale or other warning labels on meat products under Proposition 65 (Prop. 65). Am. Meat Inst. v. Leeman, No. D053325 (Cal. Ct. App., decided December 22, 2009). In 2004, Whitney Leeman notified a number of meat processors and retailers in California that she intended to file a citizen suit against them alleging violations of Prop. 65 for their failure to provide warnings that their beef products contained dioxins and PCBs, chemicals known to the state to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. The companies’ trade association filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief, and the trial court, finding implied, but not express, federal preemption, granted the association’s motion for summary judgment. The court of appeal focused for the most part on defining “labeling,” because Leeman argued that point-of-sale warnings do not constitute labeling under the FMIA, which contains…
The American Meat Institute (AMI) has apparently submitted comments to the Office of U.S. Trade Representative contending that country of-origin labeling (COOL) requirements violate U.S. international trade obligations. According to AMI, the nation’s “credibility is undermined when U.S. legislation violates America’s commitments” under international agreements. AMI claims that the COOL requirements “are not consistent with U.S. obligations” under World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement obligations or the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The organization apparently characterizes COOL as “de facto discrimination against foreign products, a result even contemplated by sponsors of the legislation who declared that it would be ‘helpful to a lot of American agricultural producers’ and force companies to rely ‘on our independent producers here in this country.’” Canada and Mexico have asked the WTO to rule on the legality of the COOL law. See AMI Press Release, January 8, 2010; meatingplace.com, January 11,…
The National Salt Reduction Initiative (NSRI) has called on companies “to reduce the salt levels in 61 categories of packaged food and 25 classes of restaurant food,” issuing a list of proposed targets designed to cut the salt in these foods by 25 percent over five years. Led by the New York City Health Department, this partnership of cities, states and national health organizations apparently solicited input from the food industry in developing the proposed targets. NSRI will also accept additional comments until February 1, “especially from companies that have not yet participated in the target-setting process, as well as consumer organizations and other interested parties.” “Americans consume roughly twice the recommended limit of salt each day–causing widespread high blood pressure and placing millions at risk of heart attack and stroke–in ways that they cannot control on their own,” stated a January 11, 2010, press release, which noted that “some popular…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agriculture Marketing Service has issued a proposed rule that would amend the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (National List) to reflect the recommendations of the National Organic Program Board (NOPB). The National List “identifies the synthetic substances that may be used and the nonsynthetic (natural) substances that may not be used in organic production,” as well as identifying “synthetic, nonsynthetic nonagricultural and nonorganic agricultural substances that may be used in organic handling.” The proposed rule would alter the National List to “amend the annotation for one exempted material (tetracycline) and add one substance (sulfurous acid) for use in organic crop production.” AMS will accept comments on the proposed rule until March 15, 2010. See Federal Register, January 12, 2009.
The American Soybean Association has reportedly submitted comments expressing concerns about agribusiness concentration to the Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in response to their recent initiative on competition and regulatory issues in the agriculture industry. According to ASA President Rob Joslin, “In recent years, we have seen increased consolidation in various agricultural industries. Many farmers have questioned why high levels of concentration have not been more thoroughly reviewed and analyzed by the federal government to determine their impact on competition.” See Southeast Farm Press, January 11, 2010. The agencies announced that they would be holding a number of joint public workshops to explore these issues in a November 2009 news release. Discussions about issues for crop farmers, “including seed technology, vertical integration, market transparency and buyer power” will take place in Ankeny, Iowa, on March 12, 2010; production contracts, concentration and buyer power in the poultry industry…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has published its notice about the availability of a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for genetically modified (GM) alfalfa. The agency was required to prepare the EIS by a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling finding that APHIS violated the National Environmental Protection Act by failing to do so in connection with its determination that the crop could be deregulated. Comments must be submitted by February 16, 2010, and public meetings will be held on January 19 in Las Vegas; February 3 in Kearney, Nebraska; February 4 in Lincoln, Nebraska; and February 9 in Riverdale, Maryland. See Federal Register, January 12, 2010. Meanwhile, Food & Water Watch, a consumer advocacy organization, is calling on supporters to take action on the EIS by telling the USDA “loud and clear that consumers want foods that are free from genetic…
