The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced a public meeting slated for May 1, 2009, in College Park, Maryland, to discuss the economically motivated adulteration of foods and drugs, which the agency defines as the “fraudulent, intentional substitution or addition of a substance in a product for the purpose of increasing the apparent value of the product or reducing the cost of its production, i.e., for economic gain.” FDA is seeking public input on how the food, drug, medical device, and cosmetic industries, regulatory agencies and other stakeholders “can better predict and prevent economically motivated adulteration with a focus on situations that pose the greatest public health risk.” The agency will accept written or electronic comments until August 1, 2009. See Federal Register, April 6, 2009.
Category Archives Legislation, Regulations and Standards
The Obama administration has reportedly issued a tough warning that it will substantially change the way government oversees food safety. According to published reports, food-handling practices that formerly would have resulted in mild warnings from FDA may now lead to wide-ranging and expensive recalls.“ The food industry needs to be on notice that FDA is going to be much more proactive and move things faster,” David Acheson, FDA associate commissioner for food protection, was quoted as saying. “We’re going to try to stop people from getting sick in the first place, as opposed to waiting until we have illness and death before we take action.” Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a report April 9 claiming the nation’s food safety system needs a thorough overhaul and that even though cases of Salmonella may be increasing, their incidence is not statistically significant. The system should be overhauled,…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has amended swine health protection rules to clarify that regulations regarding the treatment of garbage consisting of industrially processed materials are subject to the same treatment requirements of other regulated garbage except for materials that meet the definition of “processed product.” The action ensures that garbage fed to swine has been treated to inactivate disease organisms that pose a risk to the U.S. swine industry. Comments must be received by June 2, 2009. See Federal Register, April 3, 2009.
The 111th Congress is now on recess until April 20, 2009, but before legislators left Washington, D.C. for their district offices, they introduced several more bills relating to food safety, nutrition or wellness. They include: H.R. 1869 – Introduced April 2, 2009, by Representative James McGovern (D-Mass.), this bill would require the president to convene a “White House Conference on Food and Nutrition.” The main focus of the bill is addressing hunger and food insecurity. It has been referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 1897 – Introduced April 2, 2009, by Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), this proposal would amend the Internal Revenue Code to give employers a tax credit for the costs of implementing workplace wellness programs that would have health awareness, employee engagement, behavioral change, and supportive environment components. Among the targets of the legislation are obesity and fitness. The bill, which has a companion in the…
In this publication of the Food and Drug Law Institute, Bruce Silverglade examines his belief that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should play a significant role in advancing President Obama’s “prevention” agenda. “The Administration should reinvigorate FDA’s nutrition mission and the agency should be instructed to develop and implement a series of initiatives that would help Americans improve their diets and protect their health,” writes Silverglade, who is director of legal affairs for the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, D.C. He outlines ways the government could facilitate improvements in diet and health, including product reformulation, food labeling, universal symbols to communicate nutritional content, and food marketing to children The government, Silverglade writes, “has an important role in mitigating the toxic food environment created by the food manufacturers and restaurant chains promoting huge servings of soft drinks, snacks and ‘value’ meals that are literally penny-wise and…
A European Union (EU) ban on U.S. wines violating rules about the use of terms such as “clos” and “chateau” apparently took effect in March 2009. With strict regulations about the use of words like “Champagne,” “Chablis” and “Burgundy,” the EU has been feuding with the United States at least since 2002, and has ended a three-year waiver extended to U.S. vintners in 2006. The United States considers these terms to be “semi-generic,” descriptive of wine styles and not French geography. A number of Sonoma County, California, wineries have reportedly been affected; they include Clos du Bois, Chateau St. Jean, Clos Du Val, and Clos Pegase. According to a news source, the term “clos,” which means “enclosure,” can appear on a French wine label only if the vineyard using the term produces and bottles its own wine. See Miami Herald, March 27, 2009. Meanwhile, a study published in March 2009…
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned consumers to avoid eating all pistachio and pistachio-containing products after a California-based processor issued a voluntary recall for its entire 2008 crop due to suspected Salmonella contamination. Meanwhile, the agency has praised Kraft Foods Inc. for demonstrating how the country should handle food safety issues. Kraft voluntarily notified FDA after one of its suppliers, Georgia Nut Co., discovered Salmonella on its pistachios during routine testing and traced the tainted products to Setton Pistachio of Terra Bella, Inc, the nation’s second-largest pistachio processor. “You can call it a fluke, you can call it good luck, or you can call it good judgment on the part of Kraft,” David Acheson, FDA’s associate commissioner on food safety, was quoted as saying. “They’re not required to tell us. They did and we’re moving on it.” See Foodproductiondaily.com, March 31 and April 3, 2009; The Associated Press, April 2,…
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently updated its news information services by establishing RSS feeds and Twitter accounts for some of its major divisions, including the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) and Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES). The department has joined several other government agencies in revamping its media outreach efforts, responding in part to the availability of new social networking sites in which a wide spectrum of consumers, interested citizens and industry stakeholders are participating. In what the White House web blog has described as “a smart match,” FSIS has thus far used its Twitter account to “tweet” about recalled products, the importance of food safety precautions during natural disasters and newly available resources. See Meatingplace.com, March 30, 2009.
The Agricultural Research Service has requested nominations for individuals to serve two-year terms on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture. The committee is charged with examining the long-term impacts of biotechnology on the U.S. food and agriculture system. A minimum of 12 committee slots need to be filled, including the chairperson’s. Written nominations must be received by fax or postmarked on or before April 29, 2009. See Federal Register, March 30, 2009.
According to a news source, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has elected not to change its position on the deregulation of genetically modified (GM) sugar beets. The Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice apparently requested that USDA reconsider its deregulation decision pertaining to Monsanto’s Roundup Ready® sugar beets, and the agency’s lawyers apparently chose to “stand by” its decision. Center for Food Safety lawyer Zelig Golden was quoted as saying, “This certainly is not the ‘change’ the Obama administration promised. We’re very disappointed that the USDA and Secretary [Tom] Vilsack did not take this important opportunity to reverse the Bush administration’s flawed position on [genetically modified organisms], and take steps to safeguard public health, environment and farmers’ livelihoods.” Critics of GM crops are particularly concerned about the contamination of non-GM and organic crops. See Foodnavigator-USA.com, April 1, 2009.
