The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced the availability of a draft compliance policy guide for FDA staff that provides direction on Salmonella in animal feed or feed ingredients that come into direct contact with people, such as pet food and treats, or that are “contaminated with a Salmonella serotype that is pathogenic to the target animal for which the animal feed is intended.” The guide “proposes criteria that should be considered in recommending enforcement action against animal feed or feed ingredients that are adulterated due to the presence of Salmonella.” FDA will accept comments until November 1, 2010. See Federal Register, August 2, 2010.
Tag Archives animal feeds
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a proposed rule that would amend the agency’s animal-food regulations by requiring manufacturers to list the common or usual names of FDA-certified color additives on animal food labels, including animal feeds and pet foods. The amendment would make the regulations consistent with those that apply to human food and suggests how color additives not certified by FDA should be declared on the ingredient list of animal foods. According to FDA, the proposal responds to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, which modified the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by requiring food labels to list the common or usual names of all FDA-certified color additives. The 1990 amendments apply both to human and animal foods, but apparently regulations pertaining to animal foods have yet to be issued. Written comments will be accepted until February 22, 2010. See Federal Register, November…
Finding that a trial court erred in admitting evidence and instructing the jury in a lawsuit involving claims that milk permeate sickened or killed calves that were fed the product as a source of dietary energy, protein and minerals, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has returned a breach-of-warranties lawsuit to the lower court for a new trial. Millenkamp v. Davisco Foods Int’l, Inc., Nos. 07-35299 & -35318 (9th Cir., decided April 14, 2009). The defendant allegedly advised the owners of a cattle operation about the use of milk permeate as a food source for their calves and then sold the product to them. When their calves fell ill and some died, the plaintiffs learned that they had stored the product at an improper temperature, “which allowed lactose to ferment into a harmful lactic acid that caused the calves to fall prey to rumen acidosis.” The plaintiffs sued for breach…
Seeking “substantial damages,” a company that makes wild bird food has filed a lawsuit against a supplier that allegedly sold it peanut by-products originating from the Georgia facility linked to the Salmonella contamination outbreak. The Scotts Co., LLC v. Cereal Byproducts Co., No. 09-108 (S.D. Ohio, filed February 17, 2009). According to the complaint, the defendant sold and shipped peanut by-products to the plaintiff in December 2008 and January 2009, after it was known that the outbreak originated in the Blakely, Georgia, facility owned and operated by the Peanut Corp. of America (PCA), and repeatedly “made false representations” that the by-products did not come from a potentially contaminated PCA facility. The plaintiff was allegedly forced to recall its suet wild bird food products and incurred unspecified costs and injury to goodwill. The complaint alleges breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and violations of Ohio’s deceptive trade practices law.
The GAO, which serves as the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress, has released a report that analyzes federal oversight of genetically engineered (GE) crops and recommends steps the agencies could take to better address the unauthorized release of these crops into food, animal feed or the environment. Titled Genetically Engineered Crops: Agencies Are Proposing Changes to Improve Oversight but Could Take Additional Steps to Enhance Coordination and Monitoring, the 109-page report discusses the roles that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) play in regulating GE crops. It also notes how six unauthorized releases of GE crops in recent years may not have adversely affected human or animal health, but did result in lost trade opportunities. The GAO’s assessment was undertaken at the request of Senators Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia), the chair and ranking member respectively of the Committee on…
The Chinese government has reportedly arrested the owner of a poultry feed operation implicated in a nationwide scandal involving melamine-tainted animal products. The manufacturer apparently confessed to using the industrial chemical in 212 tons of chicken feed sold to Dalian Hanovo Enterprise Group, which then distributed adulterated eggs to Chinese consumers. The government also destroyed an additional 75 tons of contaminated feed seized from the owner as part of its crackdown on the widespread practice of adding melamine to feed and dairy products to artificially boost protein counts. State media sources have indicated that inspectors have shuttered 238 illegal farms and 130 dairy farms since melamine-laden infant formula first sickened thousands of children. The scandal has closed approximately 20 percent of China’s dairy industry. See What Not To Eat: Marion Nestle, November 12, 2008. Meanwhile, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has apparently issued a detention order for milk-containing products imported…
The Chinese government has reportedly deployed 369,000 inspectors in a nationwide crackdown on melamine-tainted animal feed. Regulators apparently destroyed more than 3,600 tons of animal feed and shuttered 239 feed operations after food safety tests revealed that eggs in three provinces contained high levels of the industrial plasticizer, which some unscrupulous manufacturers use as an artificial filler in animal feed. In September, melamine-laced infant formula also sickened more than 50,000 infants, prompting an international recall and widespread concerns about Chinese food exports. Nestle SA has since sent 20 research specialists to its Beijing center to strengthen food testing protocols for melamine and other chemicals. “It is illegal for any individual or any enterprise to add melamine into feed, and we will crack down uncompromisingly on melamine,” said Wang Zhicai, director of the animal husbandry and livestock bureau at the Agriculture Ministry. See Bloomberg.com, October 31, 2008; The New York Times, November 1…
According to a news source, the Chinese press is reporting that melamine is commonly used in animal feed “to reduce product costs while maintaining protein count for quality inspections.” The Nanfang Daily apparently calls the practice an “open secret” in the industry. Unnamed industry analysts reportedly said that such news reports constitute “an unusual departure for Chinese officials” and amount to a tacit admission that the scandal, which has affected a range of food products in recent months from milk to eggs, could affect even more parts of the food supply chain. U.S. food safety officials reportedly indicated some months ago that melamine detected in livestock feed did not pose a threat to human health. Details about their conclusions appear in issue 213 of this Update. See BBC News, October 31, 2008.
Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) has introduced a bill (S. 3095) that would amend the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to “require premarket consultation and approval with respect to genetically engineered foods.” The Genetically Engineered Foods Act, which has been referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, defines genetic engineering as “a transformation event,” i.e., one that involves “the introduction into an organism of genetic material that has been manipulated in vitro,” “to derive food from a plant or animal or to produce an animal.” Any producer of a genetically engineered food would be required to obtain FDA approval before introducing such food into interstate commerce. Such approval would require a determination that the food is (i) safe, (ii) safe under specified conditions of use, or (iii) not safe because the food “contains genes that confer antibiotic resistance,” “contains an allergen,” or “presents 1 or more other safety…
