Salmonella as an Adulterant in Raw Poultry

In October, Foster Farms poultry was linked to an outbreak of Salmonella but never recalled the product.   Many were outraged that Foster Farms did not recall the product, although Costco did recall cooked chicken product where the Foster Farm poultry was used.

Dr. Mel Kramer reviews (below) why Foster Farms did not recall product.  It hinges on the fact that Salmonella is not viewed (currently) as an adulterant.  This is because it naturally has the potential to be present on the raw poultry.

In another article, Dr. Nelson Cox discusses Zero Tolerance of Salmonella in Poultry.  Along the same lines, but viewed from an international trade standpoint.   There are those that argue that some European countries have gone a long way at reducing Salmonella in poultry, but as Dr. Cox points out, this may be difficult from an economic standpoint.  And even if we did reduce it, I believe we would still need to assume that there is still the risk that it is present.



Raw Poultry: Legal History, Public Policy, and Consumer Behavior
By Dr. Mel Kramer | February 14, 2014
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/02/raw-poultry-the-legal-history-public-policy-and-consumer-behavior/#.Uv58_qMo59B

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that, “as of January 15, 2014, a total of 430 persons infected with seven outbreak strains of Salmonella Heidelberg have been reported from 23 states and Puerto Rico.” In response to the news, the popular media, the technical and professional public health and consumer publications, including the blogosphere, have weighed in with opinions.

The question is whether or not the poultry producer should have voluntary recalled the raw chicken, which, based on epidemiologic, laboratory, and traceback investigations conducted by local, state, and federal officials, indicated that “consumption of Foster Farms brand chicken is the likely source of this outbreak of Salmonella Heidelberg infections.” This question is not only multi-faceted, but has a rich history from a public health, public policy and legal perspective dating back to the early 1970s.

California company recalls meat that was produced without inspection

 A California meat processor is recalling meat after a USDA investigation found that the company had processed meat without inspection.  A second investigation was conducted.  USDA indicated that the meat was “unsound, unwholesome or otherwise are unfit for human food”.  The company is recalling all the meat produced in 2013, which is a reported 8.7 million pounds.  The company has ceased operations and many local ranchers fear that the processing facility will go out of business, forcing them to find other ways of handling their cattle.

 

USDA News Relase

California Firm Recalls Unwholesome Meat Products Produced Without the Benefit of Full Inspection

Class I Recall 013-2014 (UPDATE)

Health Risk: High Feb 18, 2014

 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18, 2014 – Rancho Feeding Corporation, a Petaluma, Calif. establishment, is recalling approximately 8,742,700 pounds, because it processed diseased and unsound animals and carried out these activities without the benefit or full benefit of federal inspection. Thus, the products are adulterated, because they are unsound, unwholesome or otherwise are unfit for human food and must be removed from commerce, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.

 

The following Rancho Feeding Corporation products are subject to recall:

• Beef Carcasses” (wholesale and custom sales only)
• 2 per box "Beef (Market) Heads" (retail only)
• 4-gallons per box "Beef Blood" (wholesale only)
• 20-lb. boxes of “Beef Oxtail”
• 30-lb. boxes of “Beef Cheeks”
• 30-lb. boxes of " Beef Lips"
• 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Omasum"
• 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Tripas"
• 30-lb. boxes of "Mountain Oysters"
• 30-lb. boxes of "Sweet Breads”
• 30- and 60-lb. boxes of “Beef Liver”
• 30- and 60-lb. boxes of “Beef Tripe”
• 30- and 60-lb. boxes of “Beef Tongue”
• 30- and 60-lb. boxes of "Veal Cuts"\
• 40-lb. boxes of "Veal Bones"
• 50-lb. boxes of “Beef Feet”
• 50-lb. boxes of “Beef Hearts”
• 60-lb. boxes of "Veal Trim"

 

Beef carcasses and boxes bear the establishment number "EST. 527" inside the USDA mark of inspection. Each box bears the case code number ending in “3” or “4.” The products were produced Jan. 1, 2013 through Jan. 7, 2014 and shipped to distribution centers and retail establishments nationwide.

 

FSIS has received no reports of illness due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a health care provider.

 

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that recalled product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

 

Consumers and members of the media who have questions about the recall can contact the plant’s Quality Control manager, Scott Parks, at (707) 762-6651.

 

Consumers with food safety questions can “Ask Karen,” the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.

Update: Second investigation launched into Rancho Feeding Corp.
By ROBERT DIGITALE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
http://www.petaluma360.com/article/20140211/COMMUNITY/140219907/-1/community?p=1&tc=pg

Published: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 at 4:50 p.m.
Last Modified: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 at 4:50 p.m.

A second office within the US Department of Agriculture has begun investigating a Petaluma slaughterhouse that has temporarily ceased operations while recalling a year's worth of processed beef, the agency reported Tuesday.


“USDA's Office of the Inspector General is conducting an ongoing investigation into Rancho Feeding Corporation,” said a statement released Tuesday by the agency's Food Safety and Inspection Service.

The statement noted that the administrator over the inspection service had separately “directed an immediate and thorough examination of the firm's practices, procedures and management.”

The 39-word statement was the most detailed to date on the agency's investigation of the North Bay's last remaining beef processing facility.

On Saturday the USDA announced that Rancho had initiated a recall of 8.7 million pounds of beef, essentially all the meat the company had processed in 2013.

In its news release, the agency asserted that Rancho “processed diseased and unsound animals” without a full inspection. The meat products are “unsound, unwholesome or otherwise are unfit for human food” and must be removed from commerce.

There are no reports of anyone becoming ill after eating the beef.

Robert Singleton, who owns Rancho with partner Jesse “Babe” Amaral, on Monday confirmed the company had voluntarily ceased processing and was compiling a list of affected companies. Singleton said the company undertook the recall out of “an abundance of caution” but declined comment on the government's allegations.

Other than the news release Saturday and the statement on Tuesday, officials with the US Department of Agriculture have declined to elaborate on the underlying reasons for the recall or the breadth of their investigation.

The recall affects all beef processed at Rancho between Jan. 1, 2013, and Jan. 7, 2014, a USDA spokesman said. The carcasses and other parts, commonly referred to as offal, were shipped to retailers and distributors in California, Florida, Illinois and Texas.

Last month the USDA announced that Rancho was recalling 41,683 pounds of meat produced on Jan. 8. The agency asserted that the meat didn't receive a full federal inspection.

You can reach Staff Writer Robert Digitale at 521-5285 or robert.digitale@pressdemocrat.com.

FOOD BUSINESS NEWS

California meat processor recalling a year’s production 

2/10/2014 - by Keith Nunes

http://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/news_home/Food_Safety_News/2014/02/California_meat_processor_reca.aspx?ID={39E6BB5C-DD5F-4312-8CB2-0F1768DF1FA3}

PETALUMA, CALIF. — Rancho Feeding Corp., a small California meat processor, is recalling all beef products processed between Jan. 1, 2013, to Jan. 7, 2014. The total amount is estimated to be in the range of 8.7 million lbs of product.

The recalled products were distributed to California, Florida, Illinois and Texas.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service said the recall was initiated because an investigation discovered the beef was processed without “the full benefit” federal inspection. Meat and poultry products that are shipped across state lines in the U.S. must be produced under federal inspection.

On Jan. 13, Rancho Feeding Corp. initiated a recall of 41,000 lbs of meat products that were produced without federal inspection on Jan. 8. A subsequent investigation by the F.S.I.S. revealed the issue to be much larger.

No illnesses have been associated with the recalled products, according to the F.S.I.S.

Chick-fil-A plans to only use antibiotic free chickens

Chick-fil-A said it will put plans in place to ensure that its poultry products will not be raised with antibiotics.  It indicated it will take about 5 years to accomplish this goal.

While 5 years seems like a long time, the no-antibiotic claim is not an easy thing to accomplish.  Whether we like it or not, antibiotics are important in controlling disease in poultry.  A supply chain that requires the elimination of antibiotics must be stout enough to endure handling of a disease outbreak.  Also, farmers within the current supply chain may not want to make the same pledge, or may need to have alternative channels to move poultry if that flock should require antibiotic administration.

The administration of antibiotics must be controlled, no doubt, but complete elimination is not as easy as it sounds.

 

 

NEW YORK TIMESBusiness Day
Chick-fil-A Commits to Stop Sales of Poultry Raised With Antibiotics
By STEPHANIE STROMFEB. 11, 2014


Chick-fil-A said on Tuesday that within five years it would no longer sell products containing meat from chickens raised with antibiotics.

The company said consumer demand was responsible for the change. “We have an ongoing process of constantly monitoring what our consumers prefer in terms of health and nutrition and what’s in our food, and this issue surfaced as the No. 1 issue for our customers,” said Tim Tassopoulos, executive vice president for operations at Chick-fil-A.

A growing number of restaurant chains, including Chipotle and Panera Bread, have made commitments to serve meat only from animals raised without antibiotics, and consumers have responded enthusiastically.

The trend exemplified what Daymon Worldwide, a consulting firm that works with the food industry and others, has identified as “free-from,” a quest among consumers for pure and simple products, free of preservatives, highly processed ingredients and anything artificial.

Subway announced last week that it would eliminate azodicarbonamide, a chemical that commercial bakers use to increase the strength and pliancy of dough, but, as noted by the consumer crusader Vani Hari, is also used for the same purposes in yoga mats and shoe soles.

And on Tuesday, Kraft said it was taking sorbic acid, an artificial preservative that had come under attack by consumers, out of some individually wrapped cheese slices.

Those were among dozens of product changes announced by major food companies in the last year. “All of this is makes for great P.R., but it doesn’t mean the products are necessarily any more nutritious,” said Michele Simon, a public health lawyer who writes the blog eatdrinkpolitics.com

Ms. Simon said that Chick-fil-A’s decision was different because antibiotic resistance is such an important issue. “This doesn’t make fried chicken nuggets good for you, but given the public health crisis caused by the practice of giving animals antibiotics, I think this is an important decision,” she said.

Concern is growing among public health officials about the increase in antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Last fall, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the first time quantified the toll such resistance is taking, estimating that at least two million Americans fall ill and at least 23,000 die from it each year.

The C.D.C. report said that “much of antibiotic use in animals is unnecessary and inappropriate and makes everyone less safe.” Then in December, the Food and Drug Administration announced a plan to curtail the use of antibiotics in animals.

Meat producers use antibiotics to prevent sickness in animals that are raised in close quarters in industrial farming operations. Chickens are treated, for example, with a small dose of gentamicin while still in ovo in an effort to prevent infection through a tiny hole made when the egg is administered a drug that prevents Marek’s disease and infectious bursal disease, highly infectious viral diseases that can wipe out flocks.

Antibiotics also are incorporated into feed commonly used by large producers to help animals grow faster and use feed more efficiently.

But producers are aware of the consumer demand for antibiotic-free meat. Bell & Evans, a smaller producer, has worked with its feed supplier to incorporate oregano into the kibble it feeds its chickens to act as a replacement for antibiotics, and Tyson last year started a line of chicken marketed under the label NatureRaised Farm, which is raised cage-free on a vegetarian diet without antibiotics.

Chick-fil-A already uses chicken breasts free from fillers, additives and steroids.

Rob Dugas, vice president for supply chain management at Chick-fil-A, said the shift would take time because it required changes by producers from the hatchery to the processing plant. “For instance, any flock treated with antibiotics today is aggregated into the larger production facility,” Mr. Dugas said. “For us, birds will have to be segregated all the way down to the egg production.”

Chick-fil-A executives said they could not say yet whether the changes would result in a price increase for consumers. Typically, antibiotic-free chicken is more expensive than traditionally processed poultry.

“We do know that it has a potential cost ramification, both to us and to our customers,” Mr. Tassopoulos said. “We are going to do everything we can to minimize the impact on the price of our products, and the growing interest in antibiotic-free meat may help with that by increasing

supplies.”

Making some Snow Ice Cream....Remember to use Safe Snow

With the endless parade of snowstorms hitting the northeast, it is always great to look for something creative to do with the snow.  Well, how about Snow Ice Cream.  Leave it to the celebrity chefs like Paula Dean to provide some food use for snow.

This sounds great, however, people being people, we need to attach some conditions on the snow that will be used.  (These celebrity chefs always forget to mention those risks).  We need to remember that snow may become contaminated and that can make us or our kids ill.

• Always use freshly fallen snow.  The longer it sits, the greater the chances that snow will become contaminated.
• Never use discolored snow, especially if it is yellow.  Or brown.  Or multicolored.
• Do not use snow that is taken from around bird feeders, bird houses, or other places where birds may have pooped.
• Speaking of poop....avoid snow that is around animal paw prints.  Remember, those are not Lincoln Logs (Toy Story 3 reference).
• Do not take snow from areas close to roads or sidewalks where is a chance that road salt or deicing salts may have been used. 

Snow Ice Cream

http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/paula-deen/snow-ice-cream-recipe.html

Ingredients
8 cups snow, or shaved ice
1 (14-ounce) can sweetened condensed milk
1 teaspoon vanilla extract

Directions
Place snow or shaved ice into a large bowl. Pour condensed milk over and add vanilla. Mix to combine. Serve immediately in bowls.

List of Food Items that can be Toxic to Dogs

The Wire Fox Terrier won the 2014 Westminster Dog Show this week, (good choice, although I was partial to the Bloodhound)

 

 

There have been a few news stories on Xylitol, an artificial sweetener, and its toxicity to dogs.  We thought this would be a good occasion to list some of the food items that have been shown to be harmful to your pooch.

 

• Avocado and guacamole – contains a compound called persin that is toxic to dogs
• Alcoholic beverages – Inability to quickly detoxify the alcohol
• Bread Dough – Dough will rise in dogs stomach, also alcohol is produced as a byproduct.
• Bones from poultry, fish, or other meat – can lead to laceration of the digestive system
• Onions and Garlic, including onion powder – will destroy dog’s red blood cells         .
• Caffeine – Coffee, Tea, Mountain Dew, Red Bull – caffeine is toxic to dogs 
• Chocolate – contains theobromine which is toxic to dogs
• Eggs, raw – reduces absorption of Vitamin B, also may contain Salmonella or parasites. Cook it first. Grapes or Raisins – can cause kidney failure
• Hops - Unknown compound causes panting, increased heart rate, elevated temperature, seizures, and death
• Macadamia nuts – toxic to dogs
• Raw Meats and Fish – contain pathogens such as Salmonella
• Milk or dairy products – inability to process large quantities of lactose leading to upset stomachs and diarrhea
• Moldy foods - Can contain multiple toxins causing vomiting and diarrhea and can also affect other organs.
• Pits from peaches and plums – can cause obstructions in digestive system as well as inflammation       
• Salt – Excessive amounts can through electrolyte imbalance leading to vomiting, diarrhea, seizures.        
• Sugary foods - excess sugar over the long term can lead to obesity, diabetes, and dental problems
• Xylitol , artificial sweetener found in candy, gum, diet baked goods, and toothpaste – increases insulin causing blood sugar to rapidly drop
• Other items that may be in the house or yard – string, mushrooms, tobacco, rhubarb leaves, citrus oil extracts

 

 From ASPCA website

Foods That Are Hazardous to Dogs

http://www.aspca.org/pet-care/virtual-pet-behaviorist/dog-behavior/foods-are-hazardous-dogs

 

Most dogs love food, and they’re especially attracted to what they see us eating. While sharing the occasional tidbit with your dog is fine, it’s important to be aware that some foods can be very dangerous to dogs. Take caution to make sure your dog never gets access to the foods below. Even if you don’t give him table scraps, your dog might eat something that’s hazardous to his health if he raids kitchen counters, cupboards and trash cans. For advice on teaching your dog not to steal food, please see our article, Counter Surfing and Garbage Raiding.

 

Avocado

Avocado leaves, fruit, seeds and bark may contain a toxic principle known as persin. The Guatemalan variety, a common one found in stores, appears to be the most problematic. Other varieties of avocado can have different degrees of toxic potential.

 

Birds, rabbits, and some large animals, including horses, are especially sensitive to avocados, as they can have respiratory distress, congestion, fluid accumulation around the heart, and even death from consuming avocado. While avocado is toxic to some animals, in dogs and cats, we do not expect to see serious signs of illness. In some dogs and cats, mild stomach upset may occur if the animal eats a significant amount of avocado flesh or peel. Ingestion of the pit can lead to obstruction in the gastrointestinal tract, which is a serious situation requiring urgent veterinary care.

 

Avocado is sometimes included in pet foods for nutritional benefit. We would generally not expect avocado meal or oil present in commercial pet foods to pose a hazard to dogs and cats.

Uncle Ben's Infused Rice recalled due to a cluster of illnesses

Mars Foodservice is recalling Uncle Ben’s industrial sized bags (5 lb and 25 lb) of Infused Rice products after Infused Rice Mexican Flavor was linked to a cluster illnesses. The illness appears to be a chemical issue in that the symptoms occur quickly, 30 to 90 minutes after consumption. Symptoms include a red burning/itching rash, headache, nausea, and flushness of the skin. There are three reported outbreaks impacting approximately 70 people, mostly children.

FDA NEWS RELEASE
For Immediate Release: Feb. 10, 2014
Media Inquiries: Theresa Eisenman, 301-796-2805, theresa.eisenman@fda.hhs.gov
Consumer Inquiries: 1-888-INFO-FDA
FDA warns against using Uncle Ben’s Infused Rice

Mars Foodservices recalls all lot numbers of Infused Rice linked to recent illness in Texas

Fast Facts

Government officials are investigating a cluster of illnesses associated with Uncle Ben’s Infused Rice Mexican Flavor sold in 5- and 25-pound bags.
Out of an abundance of caution, the FDA is warning food service companies and consumers not to use any Uncle Ben’s Infused Rice products sold in 5- and 25-pound bags.
These products are sold to food service companies that typically distribute to restaurants, schools, hospitals and other commercial establishments. However, the products may be available over the Internet and at warehouse-type retailers.
Food service companies and consumers who have purchased the products should not use the rice, and should return it to their point of purchase or dispose of it.
Uncle Ben’s Brand Ready to Heat, Boxed, Bag or Cup products sold at grocery stores and other retail outlets are not being recalled.

What is the Problem and What is Being Done about the Problem?

The FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and state and local officials have been investigating a cluster of illnesses associated with Uncle Ben’s Infused Rice Mexican Flavor sold in 5- and 25-pound bags.

On Feb. 7, 2014, the FDA’s Coordinated Outbreak Response and Evaluation Network (CORE) was notified of a cluster of illnesses at three public schools in Katy, Texas. Thirty-four students and four teachers experienced burning, itching rashes, headaches and nausea for 30 to 90 minutes, before the symptoms went away. Uncle Ben’s Infused Rice Mexican Flavor with the lot number 351EKGRV01, made by Mars Foodservices of Greenville, Miss., was the common food item eaten by ill students.

On Dec. 4, 2013, the Illinois Department of Public Health notified CDC of 25 children with similar skin reactions following a school lunch that served an Uncle Ben’s Infused Rice product. North Dakota reported a similar incident that occurred on Oct. 30, 2013. Three children in a daycare and one college student experienced flushing reactions 45 minutes after consuming an Uncle Ben’s Infused Rice product.

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.

Bacon Jam recalled - failure to understand acidified foods

A Canadian company is recalling bacon jam after testing by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) indicated that the product may permit the growth of Clostridium botulinum, a toxin producing bacteria responsible for causing botulism.

When developing products such as this, it is important that those products have product parameters in place (we often refer to them as hurdles) to prevent C. botulinum growth and toxin production.

• Having an equilibrium pH of 4.6 or less.  Equilibrium pH means that all components in the product must have reached this limit in 24 hours or less after processing.
• Having a low water activity of less than 0.85.  Water activity is a term used for the available moisture.  This water activity (or Aw) must be stable through time and consistent throughout the product.
• Having a preservative package (one or more preservatives that are added taking into account the food matrix)

Designing one or more of these parameters into the finished product will not necessary create a shelf-stable product, so in some cases, products will still need to be refrigerated.  It is also important that these product will need to receive a heat treatment.  For more information, you can review FDA's guidance on Acidified Foods.

 

Jarred or bottled foods have been the food-of-choice for many entrepreneurs.  Product types include salsas, barbeque sauces, salad dressings, jams and jellies, and pickled products. There are a number of reasons including longer shelf-life, ease of processing and the ability to find niches within the market place (although is one guy's salad dressing that much better than one you buy at the store).   It is important that food product developers, especially novices, understand how product and process parameters impact food safety.  I guess Brad did not do his best efforts in understanding this.

  

  

Calgary Herald

Bacon jam recalled in Alberta over botulism concerns

http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Bacon+recalled+Alberta+over+botulism+concerns/9471881/story.html

By David Blackwell, Calgary Herald February 5, 2014

 

A brand of bacon jam is being recalled in Alberta after testing indicated it could contain the bacteria that causes botulism.

 

Kitchen by Brad Smoliak brand bacon spread is being removed from the marketplace after Canadian Food Inspection Agency tests revealed it may permit the growth of Clostridium botulinum.

Poll - Americans think more oversight will lessen their fears of unsafe food

Results from The Harris Poll indicate that people are concerned about the safety of their food and that food recalls are an issue.  In light of this, many feel that more government is needed.

It would be interesting to ask people some different questions:
Have actually become sick from food, provided they really know the symptoms of foodborne illness?  In our informal polling, we find that very few have had foodborne illness in their lives, never mind in the last few years.
Do you actually worry about the food currently in your house?  Again, most we talk with say no.

In this report, it is interesting that people rarely blame their own actions, but rather look to the few cases of foodborne illness that arise (mostly because of the amount of press that accompanies it), where it was indeed some big companies fault.

They also look at local food as inherently more safe...which as we know, is not necessarily the case.

Each day, 300 million people eat 2 to 3 meals a day (hopefully),  and yet we focus on that on those few cases that occurred somewhere in the nation within the past month.

This is not to say we can't do better.  Certainly each link along the food chain has to their part to ensure safety and quality of the food, including the consumer.

In the end, will the cost of additional oversight actually reduce the real risk of unsafe foods, or even the perceived risk?

(I hate news reports on polling people….it almost adds credence to what people already think even if it is wrong…for example a poll finds that out of 2000 people, most think that sasquatches exist…hell, that many people can’t be wrong, maybe they do exist ).

PR Newswire
Nearly Three-Quarters of Americans Looking to Government for More Food Safety Oversight
Vast majority at least somewhat concerned about food health and/or safety recallshttp://www.einpresswire.com/article/188993634/nearly-three-quarters-of-americans-looking-to-government-for-more-food-safety-oversight
PR Newswire
NEW YORK, Feb. 5, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- Food recall announcements have become something of a news cycle staple in the past few years. From spinach and peanut butter to chicken and pet foods, there seems to be little left in the U.S. food supply that should not be viewed with at least a modicum of suspicion. As such, it's likely not surprising that strong majorities of U.S. adults say food recalls have them at least somewhat concerned (86%, with 58% somewhat concerned and 28% seriously concerned) and believe there should be more government oversight in regards to food safety (73%). 

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll® of 2,236 adults surveyed online between January 15 and 20, 2014. (Full results, including data tables, available can be found here)

Food recall concerns – and calls for increased government oversight where the food supply is concerned – are stronger among some subsets of Americans than others:
Women are more likely than men to indicate being both seriously (31% women, 25% men) and somewhat (61% and 55%, respectively) concerned; they are also more likely than their male counterparts to believe there should be more government oversight in regards to food safety (77% and 69%, respectively).
Americans in low income households – specifically households with an annual income under $35,000 – are more likely than those in higher earning households to describe food recalls as a serious concern (36% in households earning <$35k, 21% in households earning $35k-$49,999, 26% in $50k+ households).
Turning to political leanings, Democrats (32%) are more likely than Republicans (25%) to characterize food recalls as a serious concern. The call for more government oversight rings most loudly from the Democrats' camp (86%) and least so from Republicans (60%), with Independents in the middle (70%).