It’s been a month of cheers and jeers for the American meat industry. The good news? According to a recent study by the American Meat Institute Foundation, meat producers have significantly reduced listerosis outbreaks, a foodborne illness, by sharing effective food safety practices and research within the industry. The bad news? Where to begin?

Earlier in the month, the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) internal watchdog released a scathing report of the Food Safety Inspection Service’s (FSIS) inspection of pork slaughterhouses. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) made three key discoveries: many slaughter plants are committing the same food safety violations again and again; more than 25 percent of the plants visited did not examine the internal organs of the carcasses after processing; and OIG witnessed widespread mishandling of animals. The companies, which routinely flouted food safety rules, did so at no consequence as Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) failed to use the aggressive enforcement actions – suspensions and withholding the mark of inspection – available to them. Also, plant workers have replaced FSIS inspectors on the inspection lines. They have received little guidance or training. And, as a result, many have failed to inspect the carcasses’ internal organs, thereby eliminating the possibility of detecting contamination. Finally, inspectors failed to report humane handling violations, further allowing the animal abuse.

What particularly concerns NCL is the report’s review of the pork slaughterhouse pilot program, which is remarkably similar to the poultry pilot program FSIS seeks to implement throughout the poultry industry. This is a program that NCL, along with a robust coalition of food safety and workers’ rights groups, has been fighting against. More specifically, the report describes the effects of the HAACP-based Inspection Models Project (HIMP), a pilot program that began in 1997 that increased line speeds – in other words, the speed at which the meat passes through human inspection—and reduced the number of FSIS inspectors in a handful of pork facilities.

This report raised a number of concerns with the program. First, the USDA failed to conduct a comprehensive review to gauge whether HIMP has increased food safety and plant efficiency as intended. Despite limited oversight, OIG was still able to identify major flaws with the inspection procedure. With three of the HIMP plants receiving most noncompliance reports (formal write-ups of food safety violations), the program may increase the potential for food safety risks. Even more alarming, inspectors failed to manually inspect the internal organs in which disease and contamination may lurk. Second, HIMP plants, which lack any formal agreements with FSIS, have greater flexibility than other plants. As a result, HIMP plants have faster production lines and fewer inspectors, limiting their ability to improve food safety and to comply with food safety regulations.

HIMP has also been piloted in poultry slaughterhouses, and FSIS plans to expand the program to all poultry plants. As in swine slaughterhouses, the program would increase the speed of the poultry line and replace FSIS inspectors with plant workers, who would not be required to receive any new training. Like many consumer advocacy groups, NCL is particularly concerned about this program’s extension. Workers would have a third of a second to examine the chicken, meaning contamination and defects could go undetected. It is not only a food safety issue, but also a worker safety issue. Faster line speeds mean a higher incidence of repetitive-motion injuries, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, for slaughterhouse employees. And many of these workers, who are often new, undocumented immigrants, women and non-native English speakers, may be hesitant to speak up for fear of being fired or even deported.

Given the OIG’s findings in pork slaughterhouses, you may be wondering how USDA could even consider industry-wide HIMP implementation. Here at NCL, we are too. NCL’s conviction that implementing HIMP is a bad idea has now only deepened given the overwhelming evidence.

With the recent outbreak of foodborne illness — which has sickened at least 80 — caused by raw milk, more attention has been drawn to this contentious issue. Advocates of drinking raw milk claim that it has increased health benefits not available in milk that has been commercially pasteurized. With all the rhetoric surrounding the topic, it can be difficult for consumers to get a straight answer about raw milk. Here are some basic things you should know to make healthy decisions for you and your family.

What is raw milk?

The term raw milk refers to milk that has not been pasteurized. Pasteurization is a processing step that involves heating milk in order to kill off any bacteria that may be living in it. These bacteria come from the cows that are milked, especially from feces.

Is raw milk legal?

The sale of raw milk across state lines is illegal throughout the United States. This means that it is not widely available. However, certain states do allow the sale of raw milk within their borders.

Is raw milk safe?

There are many risks to drinking raw milk. Pasteurization is an essential part of making conventional milk safe and has been so for decades. Without the benefit of pasteurization, bacteria which may be in milk are not killed and are given an opportunity to multiply and grow. Risk of foodborne illness is increased by the consumption of raw milk.

Does raw milk cause foodborne illness?

A recent report from the CDC showed that raw milk contributes substantially to the burden of foodborne illness in this country. While raw milk accounts for only 1 percent of the total milk drunk in the US, it accounted for 73 of 121 dairy-related foodborne illness outbreaks between 1993 and 2006. Additionally, the report showed that illnesses from raw milk were more severe and resulted in higher rates of hospitalization.

Why do some people choose raw milk?

Given the dangers associated with raw milk, one might reasonably ask what the supposed benefits to drinking it are. Proponents claim that raw milk helps ameliorate a number of health conditions, such as asthma. Despite anecdotal support for this claim, no scientific studies have confirmed that raw milk confers additional health benefits. Furthermore, raw milk is nutritionally equivalent to pasteurized milk.

Our recommendations when it comes to raw milk? Drinking it means taking a gamble with your health, so we strongly recommend against it. Especially avoid giving raw milk to young children, pregnant women, the elderly, or those with a compromised immune system.

Orange juice has spent a lot of time in the headlines recently due to the detection of low levels of a fungicide called carbendazim. Is America’s OJ safe to drink? What’s the government doing about it and what does this mean for consumers?

Carbendazim is not approved for use in either the United States or the European Union, but it is widely used in other parts of the world to combat fungus that grows on fruit. At high levels, the fungicide has been correlated with liver cancer in animal studies.

Here’s what’s gone down: Coca Cola alerted the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the presence of carbendazim after finding it in samples of juice it tested. OJ from Brazil was implicated as the source of the residues. In response to the alert from Coca Cola, FDA began to test imported orange juice for the presence of the fungicide. The agency announced that it would ban any juices that contained more than 10 parts per billion (ppb) of carbendazim.

While the United States and European Union both ban it, only the EU has set a threshold for how much carbendazim is allowed in foods. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that carbendazim at less than 80 ppb is not harmful. Furthermore, FDA stated in a letter from January 9 that the “EPA has concluded that consumption of orange juice with carbendazim at the low levels that have been reported does not raise safety concerns.”

While FDA has stated that the level of carbendazim recently found in the orange juice is not harmful, the issue still raises concerns for consumers. There are three major things that need to happen here if consumers are to be protected. First, FDA should issue limits on the amount of carbendazim that can be present in orange juice, a move that would get rid of the current ambiguity surrounding the issue.

Second, country of origin labels (COOL) on juice allow consumers to decide whether or not they want to buy a product which comes from a country with a history of using chemicals not approved in the US. Unfortunately, our entire COOL system is under attack by the World Trade Organization (WTO). In order to protect consumers, the Obama administration should appeal the WTO’s recent ruling and fight to protect COOL.

Finally, FDA, which is responsible for the safety of much of the food in this country, should be adequately funded so that it can carry out its expanded mandate as prescribed by the recent Food Safety Modernization Act. Only with increased funding can FDA continue to do the work that protects our food supply.

While FDA has so far not found excess amounts of carbendazim in any of the samples it has tested, consumers may still want to avoid orange juice that contains this chemical. There are two ways to do this. First, if you want to avoid many pesticide residues, drink orange juice that is certified 100 percent organic. Second, look at the label to see where the orange juice comes from and drink only U.S. orange juice. For now, FDA has stated that it will not recall any orange juice and that the juice available is safe to drink.

From costumes and candy apples to haunted houses and hayrides, Halloween offers activities to please the most demure and daring alike. For parents of children planning to trick-or-treat, however, concerns about the safety of the candy their youngsters collect can dampen the festive mood.

For many Americans both young and old, Halloween stands out as the highlight of the fall. To keep Halloween about treats and terrors, rather than tricks and tummy-aches, follow these safe sweets tips:

• Don’t let your kids go trick-or-treating on an empty stomach! This will help minimize the temptation of snacking on candy that you haven’t had a chance to inspect yet.
• Instruct children not to eat any candy or other treats until a parent has had a chance to inspect their goodies. In addition to preventing youngsters from eating suspect treats, it will also keep concerns about choking, candy overconsumption, and allergenic items at bay – at least while wandering the neighborhood.
• Throw away baked goods, open items, and anything else not commercially packaged, even if your child thinks it came from a house you know. Following this rule with all items helps avoid dissent over desirable homemade treats.
• Throw away any treats that look like they may have been tampered with or appear suspect in any way.
• If you have a child with food allergies, check the ingredients on all items.
• If you have a small child, look for choking hazards, such as hard candies and chewing gum, and remove them from the stash.
• If you own a pet, keep candy well out of reach. Chocolate is particularly dangerous for dogs, and consumption of candy – and wrappers – is not good for any pets.

Have a happy, healthy Halloween!

Following a December 24, 2009 recall of 248,000 pounds of mechanically tenderized steaks that sickened 21 consumers in 16 states, nine of whom were hospitalized, consumer groups are calling on the U.S. Department of Agriculture to require labeling identifying all mechanically tenderized meat products; to include these products in its sampling program; and to inform the public and restaurants about the need for adequate cooking of these products.

USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has linked the illnesses to mechanically tenderized steaks produced by National Steak and Poultry and distributed to restaurant chains.

Often used on less expensive cuts of meat to increase tenderness, mechanical tenderization is a process that inserts small needles or blades into a meat product, such as a steak or roast. These needles or blades can transfer any pathogens located on the surface of the product to the interior, increasing the risk to consumers if the product is not cooked to a high enough temperature to kill the pathogens.  FSIS estimates that over 50 million pounds of mechanically tenderized products are produced each month. Currently this product is unidentifiable to consumers or institutions.

Assuring adequate cooking temperatures for mechanically tenderized products is particularly important. USDA currently recommends that consumers cook beef steaks and roasts to 145°F while it recommends that consumers cook ground beef products to 160°F in order to kill any pathogens that may have been distributed throughout the product. The higher cooking temperature for ground beef products is warranted, given that ground products may have pathogens distributed throughout the product, not just on the surface.

Mechanically tenderized steaks and roasts present a similar risk to consumers because pathogens may not be just on the surface of the product. These products require higher cooking temperatures to ensure that all internal pathogens have been killed. This is especially important since many consumers prefer steaks cooked to rare or medium, which means the products are cooked to a temperature lower than 160°F.  Since mechanically tenderized products are not labeled, food preparers may be cooking these products to unsafe temperatures and putting themselves, their families and customers at risk of deadly foodborne illness.

In a June 2009 letter to USDA, consumer groups outlined concerns that mechanically tenderized products presented an unnecessary risk to consumers. The letter, signed by numerous consumer groups, urged USDA to issue labeling requirements for mechanically tenderized products and to develop educational materials for the restaurant industry and the public. To date, USDA has not responded to those requests.

These groups, along with NCL, Consumers Union, and S.T.O.P., Safe Tables Our Priority, recently urged USDA to take steps immediately to address this risk to the public. The groups specifically ask USDA to:

• Require labeling that will allow all meat purchasersto clearly identify mechanically tenderized, non-intact meat products;
• Develop an educational outreach campaign to inform the public and retail meat purchasers about the proper cooking and handling procedures necessary to reduce the risk of foodborne illness from mechanically tenderized meat products; and
• Develop and implement a sampling program for the detection of E. coli O157:H7 in mechanically tenderized meat products.