Online Consumer Complaint Portals - Too Much Transparency?

An interesting article in the NY Times titled Too Much Power to the People? A Food Safety Site Tests the Limits discusses the online complaint site IWasPoisoned.com and the impact it has on food companies.  According the article, the site has collected about 89,000 reports since starting in 2009.   The site provides an outlet for consumers to voice their issues, in this case, the blame for their illness.

While it has proved a key for pointing out linkages to foodborne illness associated with less-than-good operators such as Chipolte, there are some major drawbacks of having too much transparency.

"Restaurant executives have criticized IWasPoisoned for allowing anonymous and unverified submissions, which they say leads to false reports and irresponsible fear-mongering. Some public health officials have objected on the grounds that food poisoning victims can’t be trusted to correctly identify what made them sick."  

So for one, people can publicly bash a restaurant with out substantiating the restaurants involvement.  Depending on the type of agent involved in foodborne illness, the food may have been consumed hours before or days before the symptoms show up.  Unfortunately, people are apt to blame the food they last ate.

People may just want to pile on without actually being sick.  In some cases, people may do it because they don't like a given food establishment, or perhaps they favor a competitor.

The website does review complain submissions and they do provide an opportunity for those establishments which have been blamed for an illness to appeal any complaints.

However, the high level of transparency makes this information readily available for all, including news media outlets who are always hungry to report an outbreak of foodborne illness.

One fact is interesting in how a website like this makes money - they provide an early warning to investor and others willing to pay for leads on a given restaurant that may be involved in an outbreak scenario.

NY Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/13/business/too-much-power-to-the-people-a-food-safety-site-tests-the-limits.html
Business Day
Too Much Power to the People? A Food Safety Site Tests the Limits
The Shift
By KEVIN ROOSE FEB. 13, 2018

CDC and FDA Hold Off from Implicating Romaine Lettuce in E. coli Outbreak

FDA and CDC did not pull the trigger on making a public notice to avoid romaine lettuce for involvement in an E. coli outbreak.   The Canadians were first to issue a public notice implicating Romaine lettuce on Dec 14th.  At this point, however, there were no additional cases of E. coli infection reported with the last case on December 12th being reported (and recognizing there is a delay from infection and reporting).

In the end, that call was right.  Even if it is found that romaine lettuce was the source, that contaminated product would had already been through the system (considering the short shelf-life of product).  A public notice would have been missed the target and resulted in needless waste.

However, what we did see was a lot of confusion on the part of various entities issuing reactionary notices.  FDA and CDC would have done better to put their findings out there earlier.  Outbreak investigations are not perfect, and while it would have been easier on their part to trash the leafy green industry, relaying the findings would have gone a long way to quieting the alarmists.

https://www.fda.gov/Food/RecallsOutbreaksEmergencies/SafetyAlertsAdvisories/ucm591989.htm
FDA Information about E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak Likely Linked to Leafy Greens
January 10, 2018

Arsenic in Wine - Is It Worth the Worry?

A guy who owns a testing laboratory is filing a lawsuit against wine makers, claiming that the wine has too much arsenic.  He tested over 1300 bottles of wine and found that 80ish had levels up to 50 ppb (parts per billion).

Should one worry?  Of course the mass media would have you worry (CBS News Report). 

EPA has set a level of 10ppb in drinking water.  And that level is based on drinking 2 L of water per day.  Certainly if you are drinking 2 L of wine per day everyday, your liver has bigger issues from the alcohol.

FDA has proposed a limit of 10 ppb for fruit juice, and although that is low, it was done considering that children are the top juice drinkers.  But I don't see a lot of children drinking wine.

The EU has a limit of 200 ppb of arsenic, and the Canadians have a limit of 100ppb.  So all of these wines would be safe for sale in Europe and Canada.

Arsenic is naturally found in nature, and can be found in many foods in low levels.

On topics such as this, we like to say that if you are still concerned from the risk, don't drink wine....the more for the rest of us (of course, always consumed in a responsible way). 

 

NPR - The Salt

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2015/03/25/395091550/arsenic-in-california-wines-should-drinkers-be-concerned
Arsenic In California Wines: Should Drinkers Be Concerned?
MARCH 25, 2015 4:12 PM ET

ALLISON AUBRE

There's been a lot of buzz around the story that some inexpensive California wines, including a Charles Shaw (aka two-buck Chuck) white Zinfandel sold at Trader Joe's, have been found to contain traces of arsenic.

The wines were tested by a commercial laboratory called BeverageGrades. And alawsuit filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court against a group of wine producers claims two other labs confirmed tests that found arsenic levels in some wines exceeded what is allowed in drinking water.

With headlines like "Very High Levels of Arsenic" In Top-Selling Wines (from CBS's website), it's not a surprise that some wine drinkers are mystified. Since more than a few burning questions crossed our minds here at The Salt, we went looking for answers.

How does arsenic end up in food and wine?

Subway Restaurants removes dough conditioning chemical azodicarbonamide

Subway is removing azodicarbonamide, a dough conditioning chemical, from its bread formulation. This chemical can be found in bread sold by numerous retailers and foodservice establishments, however Subway was targeted because of its good nutrition stance.

FDA does allow this product to be used in bread applications. From the Code of Federal Regulations:

172.806 Azodicarbonamide.
The food additive azodicarbonamide may be safely used in food in accordance with the following prescribed conditions:
(a) It is used or intended for use:
(1) As an aging and bleaching ingredient in cereal flour in an amount not to exceed 2.05 grams per 100 pounds of flour (0.0045 percent; 45 parts per million).
(2) As a dough conditioner in bread baking in a total amount not to exceed 0.0045 percent (45 parts per million) by weight of the flour used, including any quantity of azodicarbonamide added to flour in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
(b) To assure safe use of the additive:
(1) The label and labeling of the additive and any intermediate premix prepared therefrom shall bear, in addition to the other information required by the Act, the following:
(i) The name of the additive.
(ii) A statement of the concentration or the strength of the additive in any intermediate premixes.
(2) The label or labeling of the food additive shall also bear adequate directions for use.

 Much of the hullabaloo made is that for these reasons: 

1) the chemical is also used in non-food applications such as yoga mats……however, you can find that many chemicals used in our foods are also used in non-food applications.

2) a breakdown product of azodicarbonamide is semicarbazide, a potential hazard…… however, that is formed in the formation of plastic bottles and sealants, but any formation in bread is very low risk.

3) The chemical can be hazardous….but only in applications when working with the chemical with the potential of breathing it in in massive doses, not at 45 ppm.

Presented below are two stories, one from CNN and the other from the Huffington Post. Which one provides a more balanced view? Not CNN. As pointed out in the Huffington piece, people will not need to worry. So no need to worry, it is unlikely that Jared will have to worry about his Subway diet.

I guess this is the trend now…to identify any ingredient that has a long, unidentifiable chemical formula name and that is used in some non-food application. How about this one - dihydrogen monoxide is found in a multitude of applications, both food and non-food… including the manufacturer of cleaning compounds. Additionally, it has been involved in deaths, including a woman who died after drinking 6 liters of it in 3 hours. Time for a ban?

It is funny, on one hand, people want more government intervention into making safe food, but on the other hand, they don’t trust what the government, namely FDA and EPA, have done. 


Subway to remove 'dough conditioner' chemical from bread

By Elizabeth Landau, CNN
updated 1:23 PM EST, Thu February 6, 2014
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/06/health/subway-bread-chemical/

(CNN) -- Take a look at ingredients for some varieties of Subway's bread and you'll find a chemical that may seem unfamiliar and hard to pronounce: azodicarbonamide.

Consumer Reports Chicken Report - Fear your chicken or Cook your chicken

Consumer Reports has just released a report on the safety of chicken, “The High Cost of Cheap Chicken”. This report is bound to get a lot of airplay.

There is little dispute over the fact that chicken can contain pathogenic bacteria…in fact, USDA on-going testing shows similar numbers. And while this report deals out some harsh treatment of your common grocery store chickens, it is important to note that even small farmed raised chicken can have pathogenic bacteria. In the Penn State study by Dr. Cutter and Josh Scheinberg where farmers’ market chicken were found to have a high prevalence of pathogens .

The CR report does point out good information: 1) no type/brand of chicken tested was really any better than any other in terms of the prevalence of pathogenic bacteria, and 2) that it is important for people to properly handle and prepare their poultry. This includes cleaning of surfaces that may have come in contact with raw poultry or their juices and that poultry be properly cooked to a temperature of 165ºF or higher.

But in this report, as well as in the mass media reports that followed, there is there over-the-top titles or commentary that will cause confusion among consumers. In the Chicago Tribune, there is “Superbug bacteria widespread in U.S. chicken: consumer group” and in Huffington Post, “Half of Supermarket Chicken Harbors Superbugs, Consumer Reports Finds”. Superbugs in my chicken…OMG!. The term ‘superbug’ is a loosely used term that generally is applied to organisms that are resistant to multi-antibiotics. The biggest concern for multi-antibiotic resistance organisms is in hospitals, where they can cause severe infections especially during surgery. But many of these species have not been shown to be a concern in food, outside of Salmonella. Antibiotic resistance is nothing new….it has been found in microorganisms that have never been exposed to antibiotics, so superbug status could have been applied to organisms long before antibiotics were used by people. And just having resistance to a few antibiotics is not as important as to which antibiotics the organisms are resistant. So the study, which is not a scientifically peer reviewed research (as far as we can tell), does not provide detail on these particulars, but rather throws out a generalized number that is latched on by the media without providing any qualifiers. So this nebulous term ‘superbug’ used in these reports does not advance the understanding of the general public, but rather serves to grab headlines through fear.

This is not to say that antibiotics should be used judiciously for animals. In fact the FDA is looking to put tougher restrictions on antibiotic use in food producing animals. As many farmers will point out however, antibiotic use is a lot lower than portrayed in the news media.






So yes, chicken can contain pathogenic bacteria. That is why it is important to properly handle it as well as cook it.

Chobani Recalls Greek Yogurt Due to Quality Issues

Chobani is recalling its Greek Yogurt due to issues encountered by consumers, namely product bloating / swelling. News reports suggest the issue may be related to mold and that there may be some related illnesses.

Initially the company cited this as a quality issue and did not recall the product. But after public outcry and a solid media beat-down, the company issued a recall and ceased distribution of the product (Guardian article below).

Chobani pioneered Greek yogurt, and now controls 35% of the Greek yogurt market. And this market has taken a serious bite out of the traditional yogurt markets, now accounting for about 1/3 of the US yogurt market. Much of this is due to the products higher protein content compared to traditional yogurt (see the nice NY Times article below).

This issue and the lack of a firm response will certainly give the competitors a leg up. Especially when this company had such a ‘consumer oriented’ brand. We’ll need to watch how market share changes after this incident. This case is one of those hard lessons all food companies can learn from.


FDA News Release
Chobani, Inc. Voluntarily Recalls Greek Yogurt Because of Product Concerns
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - September 5, 2013 - Chobani, Inc., of Twin Falls, Idaho is voluntarily recalling Greek Yogurt.
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm367298.htm

The company has ceased the distribution of the product due to reports of product bloating and swelling and some claims of illness as the company continues its investigation to identify the root cause.

Let the Alarmism Begin on The Safety of Spices

Earlier this week, we commented on the New York Times report regarding an FDA study on the safety of spices (http://pennstatefoodsafety.blogspot.com/2013/08/safety-of-imported-foods-spices-and-fsma.html) . We indicated that there is essentially no risk for consumers when buying spices from the grocery store. Brand label spices are produced by reputable companies, such as McCormick, have extensive food safety systems in place that minimize the risk.

But unfortunately, major media outlets can’t help themselves from jumping on this study and spreading some fear. At least, the NY Times article’s title ‘Spices’ Link to Food Ills Prompts Changes in Farming’ wasn’t overly misleading. But from that article, other news outlets had their own spin in order to ‘one-up’ the other. Let’s take a look at these titles. 

From NPR, we have ‘ Your Kitchen Spices Can Often Harbor Salmonella’. The title suggests something that is completely inaccurate. Even the reader’s comments at the bottom of the article (you can connect to the link on the article below to read) indicate that these readers know that this is over-the-top fear mongering.

NPR is not the only one. LA Weekly has an article “Spices a Potent Source of Food Poisoning”. Not to be outdone MSN News has - Rumor: Common kitchen spices contain salmonella’ and goes on to state that this rumor is true. No it is not.

Certainly there have been a few incidents that contaminated spices have resulted in illnesses, but these were extremely isolated and due to unique circumstances. Going back to look at the original study, there are few things we can see in this FDA study which was published in Food Microbiology that warrant comment :

• The sampling in the study primarily evaluated untreated spices which had a higher level of contamination…as we would expect. Will those spices be treated at some point during further processing….probably yes?
• We don’t know the type of importer for the spices that were found positive. Were the major spice companies, or smaller importers? Companies with familiar brands names must protect those brands, and thus will have solid quality and safety programs including preventive control measures. But unfortunately, this study does not indicate they type of company. And the news articles then lump all spice companies together.

This is not to say that these companies representing major brands will not have the occasional issue, but they are few and far between. So as I put pepper on my pizza tonight, I will not worry about Salmonella contamination. Will you worry about the spices in your cabinet? Probably not.

The real take home from the FDA study is that companies who import spices need to have preventive controls in place to ensure the safety of those items.



Your Kitchen Spices Can Often Harbor Salmonella
by Nancy Shute
August 29, 2013 3:16 PM
NPR – The Salt
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/08/28/216550862/your-kitchen-spices-can-often-harbor-salmonella

 Spice may be nice, but spices also can carry very bad bugs. About 7 percent of spices tested by Food and Drug Administration researchers were contaminated with salmonella, which can cause serious illness and death. Because of this finding and others, the FDA and international food safety organizations are putting more effort into how to reduce the risk.

 

A New York Times

article this week really brought the issue to everyone's attention. Here are some of the questions we've been asking about spices and salmonella here at The Salt:

What is the Risk? - Household Germ Study

A newly released “study”, the 2013 NSF International Household Germ Study, has sparked some media attention. http://www.nsf.org/business/newsroom/pdf/2013_germ_study_FOR-WEB-ONLY.pdf

The summary report discusses the analysis of 14 common kitchen items for the presence of E. coli, Salmonella, yeast and mold, and Listeria. In they identify:

The six “germiest” items contained the following microorganisms that can cause sickness:
1.) Refrigerator vegetable compartment: Salmonella, Listeria, yeast and mold
2.) Refrigerator meat compartment: Salmonella, E.coli, yeast and mold
3.) Blender gasket: Salmonella, E.coli, yeast and mold
4.) Can opener: Salmonella, E.coli, yeast and mold
5.) Rubber spatula: E. coli, yeast and mold
6.) Food storage container with rubber seal: Salmonella, yeast and mold 

And share their analysis on organisms found.

• E. coli – 36 percent of items contained E. coli. Items with E. coli included the refrigerator meat compartment, rubber spatula, blender gasket, can opener and pizza cutter.
• Salmonella – 36 percent of items had Salmonella including the refrigerator vegetable and meat compartments, can opener, blender gasket and the rubber seal on a food storage container.
• Yeast and mold – All 14 items (100 percent) tested positive for yeast and mold, and six items (43 percent) tested positive at concerning levels. The six items with concerning levels of yeast and mold were the refrigerator vegetable compartment, rubber spatula, blender gasket, refrigerator ice and water dispensers, and the rubber seal on a food storage container.
• Listeria – 14 percent of items tested positive for Listeria. The refrigerator vegetable compartment contained Listeria, as did the refrigerator door seal.

While the summary of the “study” highlights the need for cleaning in the kitchen, it is unknown to what degree this is actually a scientifically based study (statistically sound, peer reviewed, etc). The results are also questionable - the percent of samples found to be positive for Salmonella and E. coli is very high compared to previously published studies. (It is also important to note that this is generic E. coli, not necessarily pathogen E. coli). It would have been nice if they published the actual results so we could see the number of kitchens sampled (was it one kitchen?), percent positive for each item, etc.

Another item missed in this report is the impact of cross contamination during handling of raw foods and subsequent cleaning. This is when there is most likely to be transfer of pathogens to food contact surfaces, including appliance, as well as other foods. Along with this, there is the need for cleaning practices immediately after handling and processing (proper use of cleaning cloths and the use of cleaning/sanitizing agents). 

So yes, proper, routine cleaning of kitchen appliances and utensils is very important, and NSP does provide nice links for cleaning various kitchen appliances, but they miss what many consider a bigger risk for pathogen cross contamination in the kitchen – the potential for cross contamination during handling, processing, and subsequent cleaning. And there will be many who read this and overreact, thinking that their kitchen is full of Salmonella. Unfortunately, too others will carry this story not making any qualifying comments, but rather will probably further embellish upon the results.

FDA Proposes Action Level for Arsenic in Apple Juice

FDA proposed a limit of 10ppb for inorganic arsenic in apple juice.  This is the same level that is in place for drinking water.

This issue garnered attention when that crusader for scaring the heck out of people in the name of public health, Dr. Oz, put a beat down on apple juice claiming that samples had high levels of aresenic.  However, FDA countered with scientific facts -  that they had monitored juice samples for years and had not found such levels AND the methodology used by the Oz quoted study looked at total arsenic and not inorganic aresenic, the harmful form.

If anything, it shows how mass-media-generated misinfomation can be used to force regulation.

FDA NEWS RELEASE
 FDA proposes “action level” for arsenic in apple juice

For Immediate Release: July 12, 2013
Media Inquiries: Theresa Eisenman, 301-796-2805, theresa.eisenman@fda.hhs.gov
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDAhttp://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm360466.htm

Agency testing and analysis confirm overall safety of apple juice

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today proposed an “action level” of 10 parts per billion (ppb) for inorganic arsenic in apple juice. This is the same level set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for arsenic in drinking water.

“The FDA is committed to ensuring the safety of the American food supply and to doing what is necessary to protect public health,” said FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D. “We have been studying this issue comprehensively, and based on the agency’s data and analytical work, the FDA is confident in the overall safety of apple juice for children and adults.”

“While the levels of arsenic in apple juice are very low, the FDA is proposing an action level to help prevent public exposure to the occasional lots of apple juice with arsenic levels above those permitted in drinking water,” said Michael R. Taylor, the FDA’s deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine.


The FDA is establishing this threshold to provide guidance to industry. The agency takes the action level into account when considering an enforcement action, if it finds a food product exceeds the threshold.

The FDA has been monitoring the presence of arsenic in apple juice for the past 20 years and has consistently found that samples contain levels of arsenic that are low, with few exceptions. New tools, however, have allowed the agency to better understand the breakdown between organic and inorganic arsenic levels. Last year the FDA released findings from its latest data collection and analysis of 94 samples of arsenic in apple juice. The analysis showed that 95 percent of the apple juice samples tested were below 10 ppb total arsenic; 100 percent of the samples were below 10 ppb for inorganic arsenic, the carcinogenic form of arsenic.

The proposed level of 10 ppb takes into account this sampling data plus a recently completed, peer-reviewed risk assessment of inorganic arsenic in apple juice conducted by FDA scientists. The assessment is based on lifetime exposure.

Inorganic arsenic may be found in foods because it is present in the environment, both as a naturally occurring mineral and because of activity such as past use of arsenic-containing pesticides. A known carcinogen, inorganic arsenic also has been associated with skin lesions, developmental effects, cardiovascular disease, neurotoxicity, and diabetes.

In conducting its new assessment on apple juice, the FDA was able to use data from two studies published in 2010, as well as a 2011 evaluation by the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants of the Food and Agriculture Organization, part of the United Nations and the World Health Organization.

The agency will accept public comments on the proposed action level and the risk assessment for 60 days.


It's Dr. Oz versus the FDA on apple juice and arsenic
September 16, 2011|By Jeannine Stein, Los Angeles Times / For the Booster Shots blog http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/16/news/la-heb-apples-arsenic-oz-20110916

An apple a day may keep the doctor away, but apple juice? That's asking for trouble.

Witness the white-hot flames of controversy this week over Dr. Mehmet Oz's claims that apple juice contains unhealthful levels of arsenic. Here's the background in a nutshell: On his syndicated television show, Oz made the claims about apple juice containing arsenic, which prompted the Food and Drug Administration and others to fire back, saying that Oz's claims were unfounded and that the juice was safe to drink.

Martha Stewart, celebrity chef and author, contracts Salmonella

Martha Stewart contracted Salmonella over Thanksgiving from mishandling food in the form of raw turkey.  While we hate to see anyone become ill, having a celebrity chef come down with Salmonella can have a positive outcome.  Too often we see these celebrity chefs demonstrating poor practices, whether it is inadequate hand washing, cooking to the incorrect temperatures, or canning foods using the oven technique.  But my hope is that Martha will use this experience as motivator to endorse good safety practices.

Of course, in one of the news stories she has an idiot quote about a silver lining… “I lost some weight,”.  I can see it now, a bunch of kitchen debutantes licking raw chicken as a way to lose weight.  So much for my wishful thinking.

Salmonella: Martha Stewart Sickened Last Month After 'Handling So Many Turkeys'

Posted: 12/06/2012 11:06 am EST

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/06/salmonella-martha-stewart-infection-salmonellosis-_n_2250353.html

Martha Stewart was confined to her bed for several days last month because of salmonella infection, the New York Post's Page Six reported.

“I never get sick, but I came down with salmonella. I think I caught it because I was handling so many turkeys around Thanksgiving," Stewart told Page Six. "I was on the 'Today' show, I did a number of other [Thanksgiving] appearances. It really hit me hard and I was in bed for days. It was terrible."

Antibiotic-resistant pathogens in pork - reviewing the CR news release

Perhaps you have seen the latest food safety news to hit the mass media - antibiotic resistant bacterial pathogens in pork.

Is there need to worry - No.

1) Is pork that bad? No, all raw meat products - whether pork, beef, poultry, or fish - have the potential to carry bacterial pathogens such as Salmonella, or E. coli. Therefore, one just needs to properly cook (to eliminate those organisms) and properly hande (to prevent cross contamanation) raw meat products to prevent any potential for illness. Remember, use a thermometer.

2) What about the antibiotic resistance? Antibiotic resistenace adds no special ability for these organisms to resist heating and sanitizers, so these bacteria will be controlled the same as any other bacteria though proper cooking and cleaning. The biggest concern with these types of organsims are with high risk groups, so it is especially important to ensure the use of good practice when preparing food for these groups (including the elderly and young children).

 It is true that there is a link between the use of antibiotics in livestock and a higher level of antibiotic resistant organisms that can be found in that meat. And it is true that anitibiotics have been overused in livestock as well as for humans (have you been given antibiotics for a viral infection?). However, the epidemiolgical evidence is lacking in showing a tie between those organisms and increased human illness. To combat the concern, FDA recently released a guidance to promote the judicious use of medically important antibiotics in food-producing animals (http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm299802.htm).

It is also important to note that one can find antibiotic resistant organsims in organically grown meat. So I do not agree with the assertion that is made that one should buy organically certified meat. If you feel that there are quality aspects related to organic meat, than that is one thing. But the fact that the meat is organic does not provide any real benefit regarding safety.

What’s in that pork?
 We found antibiotic-resistant bacteria and traces of a veterinary drug

Consumer Reports magazine: January 2013 http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/pork0113.htm

 Our analysis of pork-chop and ground-pork samples from around the U.S. found that yersinia enterocolitica, a bacterium that can cause fever, diarrhea, and abdominal pain, was widespread. Some samples harbored other potentially harmful bacteria, including salmonella. And there are more reasons to be concerned about “the other white meat.”
Some of the bacteria we found in 198 samples proved to be resistant to antibiotics commonly used to treat people. The frequent use of low-dose antibiotics in pork farming may be accelerating the growth of drug-resistant “superbugs” that threaten human health.

Rachael Ray, the Scourge of Food Safety

If you care about the safety of food in any way, you must agree that Rachael Ray is one of the most dangerous of the food show personalities. In the event you don’t watch The View, (and I don’t, but saw this story on the Meatingplace blog http://www.meatingplace.com/Industry/Blogs/Details/33748?allowguest=true), Ms. Ray claims that pink ground meat is safe as long as it is local/organic….that you know the source of your meat. However, research has shown that organic or local foods are not inherently safer than conventional products. That is, they can and will contain the pathogens…if not more. So where does she get her misguided information? And how can ABC televise this?

Maybe it is time for a lawyer guy like Bill Marler to put a little courtroom smack-down on ABC and Rachael Ray. Not likely to happen. But it is certainly criminal that a show can espouse such dangerous, misguided practices to the public. Shame on her for pretending to know something about food and ABC for broadcasting it.

Undercooking beef, pork, or chicken, regardless of the source, poses a risk. If you want your burger pink inside, either understand and accept the risk of foodborne illness or buy irradiated ground beef. Otherwise, use a thermometer to ensure that the center point reaches 160ºF for beef.
So if you must,
http://abc.go.com/watch/clip/the-view/SH002253950000/PL5554876/VD55208821/rachael-ray-on-the-view/moments