Showing posts with label organic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label organic. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

State of USDA Organic - Growing Demand, But Beware of Fraud

USDA released summary of Investigation Reports for the USDA Certified Organic program.  While the demand for organic foods is increasing, so do the number of certified organic operations.  As with any financial opportunity, there will be those who take advantage of the situation through fraud, or those who will fail to meet the requirements needed to remain certified.

According to the Organic Trade Association, "Organic sales in the U.S. totaled around $47 billion in 2016, reflecting new sales of almost $3.7 billion from the previous year. Organic food now accounts for more than five percent of total food sales in the U.S. Organic food sales increased by 8.4 percent from last year, blowing past the stagnant 0.6 percent growth rate in the overall food market. Sales of organic non-food products were up 8.8% in 2016. "

To get a sense of the issue, we took summary data from USDA Enforcement Activity Reports  as well as the data posted for fraudulent organic certificates.  While there are those who say the issues involving organic are getting worse, this assertion may or may not be accurate.  It is difficult to tell how fraud and noncompliance are trending because it is difficult to know the reasons for the number of investigations being conducted and whether procedural changes in these investigations has changed over the past years.  But, it is clear that fraud and noncompliance issues do occur regularly.
In comes down to this.  For those purchasing organic, whether to redistribute or to use for processing, it is important to determine that the supplier is compliant and is currently listed in good standing.  This is especially important for imported products where bribes and fraudulent claims may be a bigger issue. 

For consumers, a big issue is someone calling produce organic without the official designation.  And of course there are those that say that USDA Organic is too full of loopholes allowing 'less then true organic' to meet the USDA standard.

Organic labeling fraud is booming
While organic market growth is at a double-digit pace, not all that’s labeled organic is so. Fraud and food safety issues abound.
John Vogel | May 30, 2017

Friday, April 28, 2017

Ginger Powder Recalled Due to Salmonella Contamination

Lords Organics, a California  is recalling Ginger Powder due to potential for Salmonella after product testing revealed the presence of the organism.  The product was sold through Amazon.com, so this should make tracking the individual purchases easier.

FDA Recall Notice
https://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm555723.htm
Lords Organics Recalls Ginger Powder Because Of Possible Health Risk
For Immediate Release
April 27, 2017

Friday, November 4, 2016

CDC Study - Outbreaks Associated with Organic Foods

A study conducted by CDC evaluated the outbreaks associated with organic foods.  From the study: "We identified 18 outbreaks caused by organic foods from 1992 to 2014, resulting in 779 illnesses, 258 hospitalizations, and 3 deaths".  Salmonella and pathogenic E.coli were the leading causes.  There were a range of foods involved: "Eight of the outbreaks were attributed to produce items, four to unpasteurized dairy products, two to eggs, two to nut and seed products, and two to multiingredient foods."  

As stated in this study, it is hard to calculate risk of organic foods compared to conventional foods.  However, we can say that just because it is organic, it doesn't mean that you still don't need proper handling and preparation.

It is also important to point out that over the period of time covered in this study, the capabilities for identifying outbreaks and tracking to the source have improved greatly.  So looking at the number of outbreaks occurring from year to year can be misleading.

Journal of Food Protection, November 2016
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iafp/jfp/2016/00000079/00000011/art00018
Foodborne Disease Outbreaks Associated with Organic Foods in the United States

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Researchers Find Low Income Individuals Willing to Forgo Produce

In a study published in Nutrition Today, researchers investigated opinions of  low-income individuals about organic versus conventional fruits and vegetables and found that their choices are impacted by the amount of messaging they are receiving, such as EWG's Dirty Dozen.  These people felt that organic was better, but because of the cost, were more willing to forgo fruits and vegetables because of cost even though there were lower cost conventionally grown produce.

This is a topic that has been addressed from a health standpoint,  where organic was found to be no more nutritious than conventional, and more importantly from a safety standpoint, whether biological contaminates or those that can lead to cancer.  USDA testing has continually shown that pesticide levels in produce are within established limits.

The issue is that many are missing the health benefits of having produce in their diet for the sake of avoiding some infinitesimal risk.

Nutrition Today
http://journals.lww.com/nutritiontodayonline/Fulltext/2016/09000/Low_Income_Shoppers_and_Fruit_and_Vegetables__What.6.aspx
Low-Income Shoppers and Fruit and Vegetables: What Do They Think?
Huang, Yancui MS; Edirisinghe, Indika PhD; Burton-Freeman, Britt M. PhD, MS
Abstract

Friday, March 25, 2016

CDC Updates Salmonella Outbreak Info on Raw Meal Organic Shake Product

CDC provided an update on an ongoing Salmonella outbreak linked to Garden of Life Raw Meal Organic Shake and Meal Products.  there are now 27 cases in 20 states.

The company issued a recall on January 29, 2016 and then expanded the recall on February 12.  The issue was stated to be a ingredient contamination issue, namely organic Moringa Leaf powder (moringa oleifera, is a plant that is native to northern India and is used for health benefits).

 
CDC Outbreak News
Multistate Outbreak of Salmonella Virchow Infections Linked to Garden of Life RAW Meal Organic Shake & Meal Products
 

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Consumer Reports Ground Meat Report - Hype versus True Risk

Consumer reports released a study of pathogenic bacteria found in ground beef titled – How Safe Is Your Ground Beef . The tag line – “If you don’t know how the ground beef you eat was raised, you may be putting yourself at higher risk of illness from dangerous bacteria. You okay with that?”

So Consumer Reports bought 300 packages of ground meat and tested for E. coli (including O157 and six other toxin-producing strains), enterococcus, salmonella, and staphylococcus aureus. Plus they tested for antibiotic resistance.
Results –
· All samples contained indicator organisms – enterococcus and generic E. coli.
· C. perfringens – 20 percent of the samples.
· S. aureus – 10 percent of the samples
· Salmonella – 1 percent
· Beef from conventionally raised cows was more likely to have bacteria overall, as well as bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics, than beef from sustainably raised cows. 18 percent of conventional beef samples were contaminated with superbugs—the dangerous bacteria that are resistant to three or more classes of antibiotics—compared with just 9 percent of beef from samples that were sustainably produced.
· The rest of the article goes on to state why they believe sustainably produced is safer than conventional.

Agree – there are pathogens, namely Salmonella and STEC E. coli, that can be present in meat, and when that meat is ground, these pathogens are distributed throughout. So if you undercook ground meat (aka rare or medium rare), the pathogens, if present, can survive and then may cause illness. So it is important to cook ground meat to 160ºF. and of course, verify with a thermometer.

The fact that ALL samples contained enterococcus and generic E. coli shows that ground meat is not sterile and because the indicators are present, we know that there is always the likelihood of pathogens being present. But it is important to point out, there was a very low levels of Salmonella and that no pathogenic E. coli were able to be isolated from their samples.

The study also looked at the prevalence (absence vs presence) for S. aureus and C. perfrigens as a indicator of safety.   First, these organisms only cause illness when the numbers are exceedingly high, so just being present is not as important as the number. These organisms are commonly found in the environment and in food at low numbers that have no health effect. Humans have a high prevalence of S. aureus in their nasal passage and C. perfringens in their intestines.

The antibiotic resistance numbers were not clear cut in that there are many variables. This is not anything different than has been found before.   However, the prevalence of the two most important pathogens in beef related illnesses (STEC E.coli and Salmonella) were too low, so nothing could be said with regard to that.   And there was no differentiation on which antibiotics (those used for humans, those used for animals, and those not really used).   

Unlike studies that are published in peer-reviewed journals, this study is not peer reviewed.  Also, it would have been better to look at numbers for S. aureus and C. perfringens rather than prevalence.

The other issue is determining what is more sustainable....that is, what provides the lowest carbon footprint while being able to feed a growing population.

Take home– if you want to buy organic or grass fed beef because you think it tastes better, great....if you are willing and able to pay the higher price.  But saying it is safer based upon these results may be more hype than true risk.  But of course the main stream media will push the hype.

Regardless, it is important to cook ground meat to the proper temperature and to handle it properly.

Monday, July 20, 2015

Study - Pesticide Levels on Produce Well Below Level for Health Concern

In a recently published study in the Journal of Food Contamination, a UCDavis researcher found that pesticide levels in foods are far below the level of concern for the period 2004 - 2005.  2240 food items were evaluated and that "All estimated exposures to the 77 pesticides were well below the chronic reference dose (RfD) – the EPA’s estimate of the maximum amount of a substance that a person could be exposed to daily without risk of harm over a lifetime".

Takeaways - You can't use pesticides as a reason to avoid eating fruits and vegetables.  The health benefit far outweighs any risk. 
- The primary reason people buy organic produce is pesticides.  Based on this data, is the added cost of organic justified?


THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH
http://acsh.org/2015/07/consumer-exposure-to-pesticide-residue-far-below-levels-of-health-concern/
Consumer exposure to pesticide residue far below levels of health concern
Posted on July 16, 2015 by admin


A new study published in International Journal of Food Contamination shows that pesticide levels in food are far below levels that would warrant health concern.

The author of the study, Dr. Carl K. Winter of the Department of Food Science and Technology at the University of California – Davis, used FDA data on pesticide residue findings collected between 2004 and 2005 on 2,240 food items. A total of 77 pesticides were detected in the samples. (Dr. Winter is a member of ACSH’s Scientific Advisory Panel).

All estimated exposures to the 77 pesticides were well below the chronic reference dose (RfD) – the EPA’s estimate of the maximum amount of a substance that a person could be exposed to daily without risk of harm over a lifetime. As Ross Pomeroy at Real Clear Science notes, “These doses are extremely conservative, often inflated by two orders of magnitude to ensure consumer safety.”

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Increasing Demand for Organic Food Challenges Certifying Inspector Capacity

USDA estimates that the double digit growth in organic food will reach $35 Billion in sales this year.

According to a report in the WSJ,  this has created challenges for the inspectors who certify those farms as organic.  There are 81 accredited agencies who certify farms and according to the report:

40% of these 81 certifiers have been flagged by the USDA for conducting incomplete inspections; 16% of certifiers failed to cite organic farms’ potential use of banned pesticides and antibiotics; and 5% failed to prevent potential commingling of organic and nonorganic products


It is  not an easy task....farms must keep accurate records in order to show compliance with numerous restrictions.  And these records must be maintained over a number of years to demonstrate that the food can be called organic.

But for the consumer, they are willing to pay more than double for organic foods.




Wall Street Journal - Business
http://www.wsj.com/articles/organic-farming-boom-stretches-certification-system-1418147586?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

Organic-Farming Boom Stretches Certification System
USDA Farms Out Inspections, but Thoroughness Is Questioned
By
Caelainn Barr Dec. 9, 2014 12:53 p.m. ET


The $35 billion organic-food industry has nearly tripled in size in the past decade, challenging the Agriculture Department’s ability to monitor the more than 25,000 farms and other organizations that sell organic crops and livestock.

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Organic Food Safety - Fact versus Hype

In an opinion piece in the Des Moines Register, John Block writes about how consumers are mislead regarding the safety of organic foods. He references a report published in Academic Reviews (also below). In that report, conducted by independent researchers and based upon hundreds of scientific documents, researchers conclude that consumers have overpaid millions for organic foods on the false, and even misleading notion that organic foods are safer.

Should we care if people want to spend more on organic?  No.  Certainly people can choose what they want.  And it is always good to support local agriculture for those farms who have made organic their niche.  But it is a problem when people push this as safer.

While there is little support to indicate organic is more safe, in some cases, there actually may be increased risk.  Organic farmers and processors do not have the arsenal of preventive measures available that conventional farmers and processors do, so spoilage and pests can be a bigger issue.  One issue in particular...mold spoilage...that has the potential to increase the risk of mycotoxins, byproducts of mold growth that can cause serious health consequences.  Cleaning and sanitizing also becomes more difficult since there are limited choices of what can be used.  The same goes with preservatives.

As pointed out by Mr. Block, many of the organic producers and processors have pushed against having to comply with food safety regulations such as those proposed in FSMA.

It is interesting to note that many people who want organic also want to be sustainable.  However, with organic practices, there is the challenge of lower yields / higher loss, so this counters being more sustainable.  With food security being a huge issue worldwide, and even in the US, organic foods may not be the best answer.

Is organic food more nutritious than conventionally grown food?  No.  There is no evidence to support this either.

Des Moines Register - Opinion
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/10/07/john-block-consumers-misled-organic-food-safety/16840717/
Consumers are misled about organic safety
By John Block 11:08 p.m. CDT October 6, 2014

Thursday, April 3, 2014

British Study Shows Organic Unlikely to Reduce Risk for Cancer


The British Journal of Cancer published an scientific study that indicates women who eat organic foods do not reduce the risk to develop cancer when compared to women who eat a more conventional diet.


British Journal of Cancer
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/bjc2014148a.html
Organic food consumption and the incidence of cancer in a large prospective study of women in the United Kingdom

K E Bradbury1, A Balkwill1, E A Spencer2, A W Roddam3, G K Reeves1, J Green1, T J Key1, V Beral1 and K Pirie1 The Million Women Study Collaborators4

1Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK
2Department of Primary Care and Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, UK
3Worldwide Epidemiology, GSK, Uxbridge UB11 1BT, UK
Correspondence: Dr KE Bradbury, E-mail:
kathryn.bradbury@ceu.ox.ac.uk
4Members of the Million Women Study Collaborators are listed before References.
Received 3 December 2013; Revised 24 February 2014; Accepted 26 February 2014
Advance online publication 27 March 2014
Top of page
Abstract

Background:

Organically produced foods are less likely than conventionally produced foods to contain pesticide residues.

Methods:

We examined the hypothesis that eating organic food may reduce the risk of soft tissue sarcoma, breast cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other common cancers in a large prospective study of 623 080 middle-aged UK women. Women reported their consumption of organic food and were followed for cancer incidence over the next 9.3 years. Cox regression models were used to estimate adjusted relative risks for cancer incidence by the reported frequency of consumption of organic foods.

Results:

At baseline, 30%, 63% and 7% of women reported never, sometimes, or usually/always eating organic food, respectively. Consumption of organic food was not associated with a reduction in the incidence of all cancer (n=53 769 cases in total) (RR for usually/always vs never=1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99–1.07), soft tissue sarcoma (RR=1.37, 95% CI: 0.82–2.27), or breast cancer (RR=1.09, 95% CI: 1.02–1.15), but was associated for non-Hodgkin lymphoma (RR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.65–0.96).

Conclusions:

In this large prospective study there was little or no decrease in the incidence of cancer associated with consumption of organic food, except possibly for non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Keywords:

organic food; cancer; cohort; women

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Organic Foods - No Support for Claims that it is More Healthy Compared to Convential Foods

There are many reasons people buy organic foods, but as a recent research article conducted by Stanford researchers show, the arguement that organic foods are more healthy may not be a valid one.  The research is based upon examination of  some 200 peer-reviewed studies.

I don't think that NPR article below was looking for a fight, they just cited this research study.  However, you might think otherwise after looking at the comment section.

The other arguement for people using organic is that it is safer.  Clearly, organic food has the same type of food safety issues as conventional food. 

One of the other primary determinants is pesticide residues on conventional produce.  USDA has stated that this is not a concern. (http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5049944 ).

People have the right to choose whatever type of foods they want.  Indeed it may be better for the environment, or there may be less long term impact on someone's body (although that is yet to be shown).  However, it is important that people acknowledge the research that has been done and factor this into thier risk determination.  Unfortunately, we go to great lenghts to avoid low risk issues (organic versus conventional), but overlook high risk practices (such as sunbathing).
Organic Food May Not Be Healthier For You
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/09/04/160395259/why-organic-food-may-not-be-healthier-for-you?utm_source=NPR&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20120904

Yes, organics is a $29 billion industry and still growing. Something is pulling us toward those organic veggies that are grown without synthetic pesticides or fertilizers.

But if you're thinking that organic produce will help you stay healthier, a new finding may come as a surprise. A new study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine finds scant evidence of health benefits from organic foods.

"There's a definite lack of evidence," says researcher
Crystal Smith-Spangler at Stanford University School of Medicine, especially when it comes to studies of people.

She and her colleagues collected 200 peer-reviewed studies that examined differences between organic and conventional food, or the people who eat it.

A few of these studies followed people who were eating either organic or conventional food and looked for evidence that the choice made a difference in their health.

One study, for instance, looked at whether eating organic food while pregnant would influence the likelihood of eczema and other allergic conditions among children, and another looked at whether eating organic meat would influence the risk of a Campylobacter infection, a bacterial food-borne illness. When the researchers looked at the body of evidence, they found no clear benefits. But they say more research is needed.

It's important to note, though, that such studies have a really hard time uncovering subtle effects of our environment, or what we eat, on our health. Too many other powerful influences get in the way. Also, these studies only followed people for a very short time — about two years or less. That's hardly enough time to document any particular health benefit.

Most of the studies included in this collection looked at the food itself — the nutrients that it contained as well as levels of pesticide residues or harmful bacteria.

As you might expect, there was less pesticide contamination on organic produce. But does that matter? The authors of the new study say probably not. They found that the vast majority of conventionally grown food did not exceed allowable limits of pesticide residue set by federal regulations.

Some
previous studies have looked at specific organic foods and found that they contain higher levels of important nutrients, such as vitamins and minerals. We've reported on one particularly ambitious experiment, which is supposed to go on for a hundred years, comparing plots of organic and conventional tomatoes. After 10 years, the researchers found that tomatoes raised in the organic plots contained significantly higher levels of certain antioxidant compounds.

But this is one study of one vegetable in one field. And when the Stanford researchers looked at their broad array of studies, which included lots of different crops in different situations, they found no such broad pattern.

Here's the basic reason: When it comes to their nutritional quality, vegetables vary enormously, and that's true whether they are organic or conventional. One carrot in the grocery store, for instance, may have two or three times more beta carotene (which gives us vitamin A) than its neighbor. That's due to all kinds of things: differences in the genetic makeup of different varieties, the ripeness of the produce when it was picked, even the weather.

So there really are vegetables that are more nutritious than others, but the dividing line between them isn't whether or not they are organic. "You can't use organic as your sole criteria for judging nutritional quality," says Smith-Spangler.

Of course, people may have other reasons for buying organic food. It's a different style of agriculture. Organic farmers often control pests by growing a greater variety of crops. They increase the fertility of their fields through nitrogen-fixing plants, or by adding compost instead of applying synthetic fertilizer.

That can bring environmental benefits, such as more diverse insect life in the field or less fertilizer runoff into neighboring streams. But such methods also cost money. That's part of what you are buying when you buy organic.

So if you really want to find the most nutritious vegetables, and the organic label won't take you there, what will?

At the moment, unfortunately, there isn't a good guide. But a lot of scientists are working on it.

They're measuring nutrient levels in all kinds of crops, and discovering some surprising things, as The Salt reported last week — such as supernutritious
microgreens. They're trying to breed new varieties of crops that yield not a bigger harvest but a more nutrient-rich harvest.

The problem is, farmers still get paid by the pound, not by the vitamin. And consumers buy their food the same way. What this really requires is a whole new food system that can track those extra-nutritious crops from farmer's field to consumer's shopping basket.

Maybe, down the road, you will actually see signs in the supermarket that advertise, for instance, iron-rich beans. Maybe they'd be organic, or maybe not.

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Increased Risk of T. gondii in Free Range Animals

There has been some recent press surrounding Toxoplasmosis gondii, a parasite that has been identified as one of the leading causes of foodborne related deaths and hospitalizations. This parasite is acquired when individuals consume undercooked meat that is infected with the cysts imbedded in the tissue or when people come in contact with contaminated cat feces (cats are a natural host organism and they excrete/poop the more resistant oocyte). It can be a major health issue in immunosuppressed individuals including pregnant women with the infection being passed on congenitally, and it can cause mild illness in healthy individuals. (CDC link below) It can cause acute ocular disease. (Other studies have linked T. gondii infection with schizophrenia - citation below). 

The concern proposed in this journal article is that organically raised meat is more likely to be a source of T. gondii. Free range pigs (organically raised) are more likely to be contaminated with the organism in that their diet is less controlled and so they are more likely to eat in places contaminated by cat feces. In one study, 17 of 33 organically raised pigs from Michigan were contaminated with T. gondii (in another study, the level in commercial pork was much lower ~0.3%). In free range chickens, the prevalence was higher (est greater than 17%) compared to commercially raised poultry (0%). The organism or the antibodies to the organism have also been found in sheep, goats (and unpasteurized goat milk), and venison.

Adequate cooking and freezing are important to prevent infection, especially free range/organically raised pork (as well as goat and sheep). Of course, preventing contaminated by infected cats is important. (Outdoor cats are more likely to become contaminated than indoor cats.)

(Free range animals may also be a higher risk for other pathogenic paracites such as Trichinella).

Foodborne Toxoplasmosis
Jeffrey L. Jonesa and J.P. Dubeyb
Clinical Infectious Disease. (2012)
Abstract
Toxoplasmosis can be due to congenital infection or acquired infection after birth and is one of the leading illnesses associated with foodborne hospitalizations and deaths. Undercooked meat, especially pork, lamb, and wild game meat, and soil contaminated with cat feces on raw fruits and vegetables are the major sources of foodborne transmission for humans. The new trend in the production of free-range organically raised meat could increase the risk of Toxoplasma gondii contamination of meat. Foodborne transmission can be prevented by production practices that reduce T. gondii in meat, adequate cooking of meat, washing of raw fruits and vegetables, prevention of cross contamination in the kitchen, and measures that decrease spread of viable oocysts into the environment.

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Has Artisanal Become the New Natural for Food Products?

In an article by Jillian Eugenios, she asks the question, “Does ‘artisanal’ even mean anything anymore?”. (http://bites.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/02/11503731-does-artisanal-even-mean-anything-anymore). It is in reference to a lawsuit filed against Dunkin Donuts and their new ‘artisan’ line of bagels. The lawsuit claims that this term should be limited to “products produced by hand, using traditional methods in small quantities”. My guess is that each Dunkin Donuts shop is not hand making bagels in the back of the store.

However, if I indeed want bagels made by hand in small batches, I will go to a family owned bakery. The term ‘artisinal’ in of itself, will not drive my purchase. My other guess is that the DD ‘artisanal’ bagels are probably pretty good. And if they were called by another name, say ‘really good bagels’ , they would still be pretty good bagels, regardless of the name.

And who is to decide what is ‘artisinal’? If a chain of family owned bagel shops makes bagels in the back of each store, can they call that artisanal? What if they centralize production to reduce costs and improve quality by making these same bagels in one location and then distributing them to the other shops…is this still ‘artisinal’? We have the same issue with term ‘organic’, and there are actually federal rules on what is considered, ‘organic’.

At this point, ‘artisanal’ is destined to become the new ‘natural’, or the new ‘gourmet’. We probably should spend more time on finding that quality product we like, or establishments we choose to buy from, rather than on what we call it.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Outbreak of Salmonella paratyphi B linked to Organic Tempeh

For Update (http://pennstatefoodsafety.blogspot.com/2012/05/updates-on-salmonella-linked-to-tempeh.html)

A North Carolina company, Smiling Hara Tempeh, is recalling unpasteurized Tempeh (fermented bean product) which has tested positive for Salmonella and linked to at least 34 cases of salmonellosis. The company has taken complete responsibility for this outbreak, and is recalling the product.  The product was produced in a shared commerical kitchen of a food incubator.

I think this case shows that no matter the size of the company, or the image they have (see website excerpt below), there is the potential for foodborne illness if all necessary preventive measures are not enacted. Too often, companies that are local, or that claim organic status, or that process foods in a traditional way consider themselves as being inherently safer than larger or conventional companies. Many consumers believe this as well. Salmonella does not read the internet, nor does it care about where those food products are made. If there is an opening, whether it is a processing error, less than hygienic personnel pracitces, or contaminated raw materials, Salmonella will simply take advantage of it.

The strain responsible for this illness was Salmonella paratyphi B which causes an illness similar to Typhoid Fever. It is a very serious infection with symptoms that include a high, sustained fever, headache, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and enlarged liver or spleen. Symptoms can last up to a week or longer, and patients are usually treated with antibiotics. There is also a longer incubation period (time of consumption to the time symptoms are seen) of 7 to 14 days or longer. (Because of this, there may be additional cases.)

Some people eat tempeh raw, but it is normally cooked, often through frying cubes cut from the block.   One would expect the cause to be either cross contamination (raw product contaminating clean surface or other food item) or through undercooking of the product.

Excerpt from Smiling Hara Tempeh website:
http://www.smilingharatempeh.com/
Smiling Hara(meaning “happy belly”) was created in 2009 and spawned from a passion to provide Western North Carolina with an organic, GMO-free, UNpasteurized, local source of Tempeh. We are committed to providing the most nutritious and fresh Tempeh possible, giving our customers the healthiest option and at the same time providing a market for local, organic farmers. We have developed a unique line of Tempehs, including not only the traditional soy Tempeh, but also a variety of legumes such as Black Bean and Black-Eyed Peas! We produce our Tempeh fresh every week right here in Asheville, NC.
Whether you are vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, or omnivorous, do your body a favor and incorporate local, unpasteurized Tempeh into your regular diet.
 A Intro to Tempeh From Wikipedia

Tempeh (English pronunciation: /ˈtɛmpeɪ/; Javanese: témpé, IPA: [tempe]), is a traditional soy product originally from Indonesia. It is made by a natural culturing and controlled fermentation process that binds soybeans into a cake form, similar to a very firm vegetarian burger patty.

Tempeh begins with whole soybeans, which are softened by soaking and dehulled, then partly cooked. Specialty tempehs may be made from other types of
beans, wheat, or may include a mixture of beans and whole grains.

A mild
acidulent, usually vinegar, may be added in order to lower the pH and create a selective environment that favors the growth of the tempeh mold over competitors. A fermentation starter containing the spores of fungus Rhizopus oligosporus is mixed in. The beans are spread into a thin layer and are allowed to ferment for 24 to 36 hours at a temperature around 30 °C (86 °F). In good tempeh, the beans are knitted together by a mat of white mycelia.
 Salmonella traced to Asheville tempeh
Tests confirm bacteria in Smiling Hara product as outbreak worsenshttp://www.citizen-times.com/article/20120501/NEWS/305010037/Salmonella-traced-area-tempeh?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CFrontpage
10:08 PM, Apr. 30, 2012
Joel Burgess Citizen-Times.com

ASHEVILLE — A local maker of fermented bean product confirmed Monday evening that its product tested positive for salmonella. as an outbreak caused by the bacteria worsens.

Smiling Hara Tempeh, which makes a soy, black bean and black-eyed pea version of the product, according to its website, had pulled the food from shelves earlier Monday.

Tests by the N.C. Department of Agriculture confirmed the bacteria was present in a sample collected from a routine inspection by the Food and Drug Protection Division, according to a statement from Smiling Hara Tempeh. Further testing is being done, it added.





Monday, November 21, 2011

Is your Organic considered Authentic Organic?

Large companies continue to move into the growing organic marketplace, often through the purchase of small organic companies, in order to capitalize on the growing demand of organic-buying consumers, but to also capture larger margins associated with organic.  There are organic watchdog groups, such as Cornucopia Institute, defining what is true organic , or ‘authentic organic’ and which brands meet that definition, and those that don’t (‘Greenwashers’).  According to this group, brands such as Kashi and Hain Celestial are practically the same as their non-organic counterparts.

For dairy, they have issued an Organic Dairy Ratings (cow star ratings…the more cows, the more ‘organic’).
http://www.cornucopia.org/dairysurvey/index.html

Cornucopia also has an extensive report on cereal products
http://cornucopia.org/cereal-scorecard/docs/Cornucopia_Cereal_Report.pdf

I personally do not buy organic, or better stated, do not pay more for an item because it is organic, so I find this concept of ‘authentic organic’ interesting.  Large corporations push the boundaries of organic to make it more available, but in doing so, they have the organic police crying foul.  So, on one side, if you’re are buying a mass produced organic brand, is it really any better than non-organic?  On the other side,  is there that much difference between authentic organic and ‘greenwashed’ products for someone to search out the true organic products?  Clearly, the plight of the mindful organic consumer is not an easy one.
Source (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/19/mark-kastel-cornucopia-good-food-movement.aspx?e_cid=20111119_DNL_art_1)


Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Local foods and organic foods face food safety issues too.

While we have known this and have been saying it for some time, it is good  to see the media is communicating this type of information. 

Interesting statement from the article – The FDA has reported at least 20 recalls due to pathogens in organic food in the last two years, while the Agriculture Department, which oversees meat safety, issued a recall of more than 34,000 pounds of organic beef last December due to possible contamination with E. coli.”
 

Local, organic, natural foods not always safer as many small farms are exempt from laws

By Associated Press, Published: October 25


WASHINGTON — Shoppers nervous about foodborne illnesses may turn to foods produced at smaller farms or labeled “local,” ‘’organic” or “natural” in the hopes that such products are safer. But a small outbreak of salmonella in organic eggs from Minnesota shows that no food is immune to contamination.

While sales for food produced on smaller operations have exploded, partially fueled by a consumer backlash to food produced by larger companies, a new set of food safety challenges has emerged. And small farm operations have been exempted from food safety laws as conservatives, farmers and food-lovers have worried about too much government intervention and regulators have struggled with tight budgets.

The government has traditionally focused on safety at large food operations — including farms, processing plants, and retailers — because they reach the most people. Recent outbreaks in cantaloupe, ground turkey, eggs and peanuts have started at large farms or plants and sickened thousands of people across the country.

“While it’s critical that food processors be regularly inspected, there is no way the Food and Drug Administration would ever have the resources to check every farm in the country, nor are we calling for that,” says Erik Olson, a food safety advocate at the Pew Health Group. “Unfortunately, there are regulatory gaps, with some producers being completely exempt from FDA safeguards.”

The FDA, which oversees the safety of most of the U.S. food supply, often must focus on companies that have the greatest reach. A sweeping new egg rule enacted last year would require most egg producers to do more testing for pathogens. Though the rule will eventually cover more than 99 percent of the country’s egg supply, small farms like Larry Schultz Organic Farm of Owatonna, Minn., would not qualify. That farm issued a recall last week after six cases of salmonella poisoning were linked to the farm’s eggs.

A new food safety law President Barack Obama signed earlier this year exempts some small farms as a result of farmers and local food advocates complaining that creating costly food safety plans could cause some small businesses to go bankrupt. The exemption covers farms of a certain size that sell within a limited distance of their operation.

Food safety advocates unsuccessfully lobbied against the provision, as did the organic industry. Christine Bushway of the Organic Trade Association, which represents large and small producers, says food safety comes down to proper operation of a farm or food company, not its scale.

“How is the farm managed? How much effort is put into food safety?” she asks. “If you don’t have really good management, it doesn’t matter.”

Smaller farms do have some obvious food safety advantages. Owners have more control over what they are producing and often do not ship as far, lessening the chances for contamination in transport. If the farm is organic, an inspector will have to visit the property to certify it is organic and may report to authorities if they see food being produced in an unsafe way. Customers may also be familiar with an operation if it is nearby.

But those checks aren’t fail-safe. The FDA has reported at least 20 recalls due to pathogens in organic food in the last two years, while the Agriculture Department, which oversees meat safety, issued a recall of more than 34,000 pounds of organic beef last December due to possible contamination with E. coli.

Egg safety is equally ambiguous. While many people like to buy cage-free eggs, those chickens may be exposed to bacteria on the grounds where they are roaming.

So what can a consumer do? Experts say to follow the traditional rules, no matter what the variety of food. Cook foods like eggs and meat, and make sure you are scrubbing fruit and cleaning your kitchen well.

Do your part, and hope for the best, the experts say.

“Labels like organic or local don’t translate into necessarily safer products,” says Caroline Smith DeWaal of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “They are capturing different values but not ensuring safety.”

Bushway of the Organic Trade Association says one of the best checks on food safety is the devastating effect a recall or foodborne illness outbreak can have on a company’s bottom line.

“It’s just good business to make sure you are putting the safest products on the market,” she says.