Food Safety Follow Up: Criminal Charges in the Salmonella in Peanut Butter Case

From NPR:

Four former executives from Peanut Corp. of America and a related company are facing federal criminal charges for covering up information that their peanut butter was contaminated with salmonella bacteria.

The charges are related to a nationwide outbreak of salmonella back in 2009. More than 700 people became ill, and federal investigators traced the source of the bacteria to peanut butter manufactured in Blakely, Ga., by the Peanut Corp. of America. The company is no longer in business.

More here:  link.

Organic tomatoes healthier?

NPR is reporting results from a new study that's good news for organic tomatoes:

A new study published in the journal PLOS ONE finds that tomatoes grown on organic farms were about 40 percent smaller than conventionally grown tomatoes. The upside? They pack more of a nutritional punch. The researchers found the organic tomatoes had significantly higher levels of vitamin C, sugar and lycopene.

Go here for the full story:  link.

Food Safety Part 2: Salmonella Recal Deemed Unnecessary

Blogger had trouble with Deanna's blog entry.  So I rebuilt it and split out the Salmonella recall story (below).  Fingers crossed: let's see if this works.  (--T.J.)

Salmonella Recal Deemed Unnecessary in Oregon and Washington. There was no recall for the salmonella outbreak in Oregon and Washington because there were no deaths and most people blamed it on the consumers rather than the poultry company. I agree that a recall in this situation was deemed unnecessary. If the chicken was sold under faulty conditions or became contaminated in the feed lot, then the poultry company would be to blame. The article states that salmonella is common in all chicken, not just Foster Farm products. This further proves that a recall was unnecessary for this outbreak. I agree that it must have been lack of education of food safety on the consumers’ end. A lot of people do not know how to wash their hands properly after touching meat.

Also, carelessly throwing raw poultry into a shopping cart on top of other foods is common. Unfortunately, not many people realize how unsanitary this is. Consumers should be wrapping the raw poultry in plastic bags that the grocery store supplies in the meat section of the store before placing it in their basket. They must also keep in mind to separate the raw poultry from their other items even though it is wrapped in plastic bags. Raw poultry juices can still leak out of a plastic bag if not wrapped correctly, so it is very important that you still keep it separated from everything else.

Food Safety

http://fillyourplate.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/food-safety-rating-system.jpg

The FDA versus the USDA                 

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that each year 1,000 people die from food-borne hazards in the U.S. The pie chart on page 5 shows that more food-borne illness outbreaks fall under the jurisdiction of the FDA than the USDA during the period 1990-2006. According to the second pie chart on page 5, the USDA has higher budgetary expenditures than the FDA for food safety programs and inspections by a total of $323 million dollars. The FDA actually inspects food processing facilities once every ten years rather than once every year. A frozen cheese pizza is inspected by the FDA while a frozen pepperoni pizza is subjected to USDA inspection. One of the FDA’s biggest problems is that it is empowered by the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to intervene only when food is found to be adulterated or misbranded. This is a problem because the FDA does not receive clear mandates from farm-to-table when it comes to food safety.

                  

 








Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) systems are currently in place for seafood, juice, meat, and poultry products. HACCP helps prevent food contamination because it is a program of quality assurance and preventative process control. It is true that less than one percent of food imported into the U.S. is inspected. This percentage definitely needs to be increased because it leaves the U.S.’s food supply vulnerable to substandard foods from foreign countries. The August-September 2006 E-coli in bagged spinach outbreak was due to uncleanly processing facilities. The FDA does not have the power to order a producer to recall any food product found to be contaminated. Today recalls of contaminated food are voluntary.

 

Will the New Laws Help Increase Food Safety?

The mandatory produce and safety standards state that the new law will establish minimum standards for the safe production and harvesting of fruits and vegetables. The new law does establish a mandatory inspection frequency for food facilities. The new law also gives FDA authority to issue a mandatory recall if a company fails to implement a voluntary recall after being asked by FDA. Under the enhanced product tracing abilities, the FDA is directed to establish a system that will enhance ability to trace both domestic and imported foods. Under Importer Accountability, the FDA will explicitly place the responsibility on importers to verify that their foreign suppliers have adequate preventative controls in place to ensure that the food they produce is safe. I think these laws will cause a huge decrease in outbreaks of foodborne illnesses across the U.S. I think the most useful law enforcements are those that have to do with imports because our country does not take it seriously.

More from NPR: The Phosphoros Footprint of Meat

Yesterday (while Thon was setting a new record for student-based philanthropy!), NPR was reporting ont the phosphorus footprint of meat.

...Geneviève Metson, a doctoral student in natural resource science at McGill University in Canada, did the math for you. She wanted to find out how much of the phosphorus that's mined and turned into supplements for animal feed or fertilizer to grow feed crops goes to the meat industry.

Pretty unsurprisingly, she found that meat consumption is driving much of the phosphorus use in the food sector. And, she argues in a paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, the heavy phosphorus footprint of meat is good reason to eat less of it, given that phosphorous is a finite resource that might become scarce one day.
 

The full NPR story is linked here.  The research study is linked here.

More GMOs in the news!

GMO-related issuess continue to confronting farmers:

ON Feb. 18, NPR reported (link here) on a David-and-Goliath legal case that could upset Monsanto and other biotech companies.  Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman bought old, co-mingled, poor quality soybeans (some of which undoubtedly had Monsanto's Round-Up ready technology), and culled them for seed on a risky second-planting on fields were wheat was just harvested.

Monsanto took Bowman to court, and Bowman was ordered to pay Monsanto $84,000 for infringing the company's patent.
Bowman appealed. To the surprise of many, the highest court in the land agreed to hear his case. "I'm not a-gonna give in! Because I think I've done nothing wrong!" says Bowman.

Stay tuned to here what the U.S. supreme court has to say.  Any prognostications?

Superweed Solutions?  A follow-up to our Dave Mortensen's presentation and discussion on GMOs...

A Feb. 14, 2013, NPR piece offers a futuristic solution to superweeds:  using robots! One source suggests that it's not such a far-fetched idea.

Week 6: Agriculture and the Environment

The Greenhouse Hamburger

Nathan Fiala’s article, The Greenhouse Hamburger, made many points that I had only been vaguely aware of, until now, and I was surprised to learn the truth about the environmental impact of beef production. I did not expect livestock production to yield such a large quantity of atmospheric greenhouse gases, but, according to the figure titled The High (Greenhouse Gas) Cost of Meat, it outranks almost all well-known sources of CO₂, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and other gases that negatively affect our environment.

When most of us think of greenhouse gas production, our first thought is usually of massive traffic jams and factory smoke stacks spewing clouds of pollution into the air. In reality, one of the highest sources of greenhouse gas emissions comes from something more like this:


http://inmessycursive.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/hamburger-fridays/

I was not expecting livestock production to be second, just below energy production, on the ranking of greenhouse gas cost. There is so much in the media about reducing the environmental impact of our vehicles, from hybrid cars to carpooling, and about the impact of industry on our atmosphere, that these aspects of our culture overshadow the facts about the environmental impact of our diets.

Based on this article, one would interpret that concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) systems are good. Fiala says that CAFO systems are “not the cleanest production method in terms of CO2-equivalent greenhouse emissions”, but that they are better than most, according to implications from FAO data, and are economically efficient.

 

http://www.epa.gov/Region7/water/cafo/index.htm

CAFO systems are often chosen because they are so efficient, but there is also a great deal of opposition to them largely because of animal cruelty issues and the environmental impact of such concentrated waste production. The Environmental Protection Agency describes the parameters of CAFO systems and explains some negative effects of these system, including, for example, nutrient runoff decreasing levels of dissolved oxygen in nearby bodies of water and hurting the fish population. Another source, CAFO: the Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories, paints a much harsher picture of animal cruelty through the use of these systems, and I think it is worth checking out in order to see all sides of the argument of CAFO systems.
http://www.epa.gov/Region7/water/cafo/cafo_impact_environment.htm
http://www.cafothebook.org/index.htm

Can We Feed the World & Sustain the Planet?

In the second source, Can We Feed the World and Sustain the Planet?, Jonathan Foley lays out his 5 part plan to reduce environmental change while providing food for a growing population.
The aspects of our environment that have been adversely impacted by agriculture include, but are not limited to:

• Destruction of vital ecosystems: 25 to 70% of prehistoric grasslands, savannas, deciduous forests, and rainforests have already been transformed by agriculture
• Excessive consumption of fresh water: irrigation accounts for 80 to 90% of water used and not returned to the watershed, and rivers are drying up
• Contamination of fresh water: fertilizer runoff creates toxic "dead zones" at the mouths of major rivers and is harming the fish population
• Greenhouse gas emissions: the previous article discussed much of this, but greenhouse gas production from agriculture accounts for about 35% of all emissions

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/95/233523196_a4abdd1b24.jpg

The figure on page 64 uses different colors and sizes of shapes to compare the current state of our agricultural system to the goal state. The red and blue (food access and food production) must grow to provide for the increasing population and to feed the already huge population of hungry people we have currently. The yellow (environmental damage) must shrink dramatically. The present size of the yellow shape does not even fit within the graph, and reducing it is imperative to the future wellbeing of our population and planet.

All 5 of the solutions are very much intertwined and important for meeting the goal of sustainable agriculture, so it is difficult to pick which would be the most promising. However, between evidence from the first article and data from this article, the idea of shifting our diets away from meat, especially beef, seems simple, practical, and effective.
Only about 60% of all crops produced actually feed people; 5% are used for biofuels and industry and the remaining 35% is animal feed. If everyone on the planet switched to an all-plant diet, we could see a 50% increases in total calorie supply. Humans don’t need meat to be healthy, and it takes so much more of the world’s resources just to raise a cow from birth to maturity and then slaughter it and cook it, that it makes more sense to eat plant sources of protein like legumes or nuts. The reality of this situation, unfortunately, is that meat is so ingrained in our culture that making this dietary shift is much easier said than done.

http://www.iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/cow-toy-car-stuck-head-1259518194w.jpg

 

Another solution that I find quite sensible is the goal to reduce food waste. The food has already used fertilizer, water, and other resources in its production, so for it to actually make it to its final destination of nourishing a person should be a primary goal of those looking to improve the agricultural system. These two solutions focus on fixing the problem of hunger with the resources we already have, rather than actually changing farming practices, but they would reduce the need to expand farm area into important ecosystems.
It is imperative that changes be made in global agricultural practices because if these guidelines can be successfully implemented, we could see a healthier world and be able to feed the growing population.

 

http://www.elementalreiki.com/node/699

 

 

 

 



TedTalks: Johan Rockstrom

fast forward to 15:00 (or watch the whole thing!)

Freakonomics: The Illogic of Farm Subsidies, and Other Agricultural Truths

An interesting Q & A style article featuring agricultural economist Daniel Sumner. Check it out:
The Illogic of Farm Subsidies, and Other Agricultural Truths

Week 5- Biofuels

Food or Fuel?

In the rush for bioenergy, the world has turned to food for production of ethanol.
Pros:

• Reduced Greenhouse Emissions
• Energy independence
• Sustainability

However these benefits come at a economic, social and environmental cost.
Cons:

• Increasing the price of basic food staples
• Hurting the world's poor (37 countries now in a food crisis)
• Environmental damage from fertilizer runoff and nutrient erosion

Is it worth it?

Although I felt the article was rather biased against using food for fuel, I agree with the author that the cons outweigh the pros. Food is already a scarce resource in other countries and it's gluttonous to convert it into fuel while countries such as Bangladesh, Haiti, and Egypt are having food riots. Though the process is marketed as sustainable since food can regrown, the need for food is ever increasing with population and the practice is not suitable in the long run.

(http://www.wri.org/stories/2008/08/food-or-fuel-the-bioenergy-dilemma)

(http://www.cartoonmovement.com/depot/cartoons/2011/01/ZxOaqfzvTYafpU3l0ZJmMA.jpg)

Local Biofuel

Bionol Clearfield LLC, an ethanol plant, began operating in  Clearfield, PA a few weeks ago. Clearfield  is located slightly west of central Pennsylvania.

http://clearlyahead.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Clearfield-County-Map.png

“For its corn supply, the ethanol plant has an agreement with Lansing Trade Group, which is headquartered in Overland Park, Kan. currently, up to 75 percent of its corn is off trucks coming from Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio, Schmidt said.” 

This is beneficial since the corn supply is staying relatively local rather than importing from the corn belt in the Midwest.  Assuming that Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio can keep up with the demand, it will probably be helpful for the farmers in the region.

(http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/6331/pennsylvania-ethanol-plant-now-producing/)

'

(http://media.philly.com/images/600*450/20110828_inq_ethanol28z-a.JPG)

Biofuels in Europe

The European Union (EU) proposed an end to "first generation" biofuels in Europe. It turns out that due to indirect land use change these biofuels were actually worse than the fossil fuels that they were replacing. By converting land to be more biofuel efficient, the environmental benefit was lost. In response to this the European Union is pulling funding for biofuels in 2020 that do not have "substantial greenhouse gas savings".

Biofuel supporters are upset because they feel that the proposed bill will severely reduce the number of biofuels produced. It was argued that the funding would be severely hurt since investors won't be interested after what happened to the first generation.

On the other side, environmentalists are upset as well. They feel that the EU should have done more to restrict these first generation fuels. By delaying until 2020 the issue was compromised rather than outright corrected.  It was quoted that the government chose to be "precisely wrong rather than roughly right."

The incoming "second generation" of biofuels should be much better for the environment. They will only be subsidized if there is at least a 45% increase in carbon emission savings.In addition, they will also use less food. The requirement has been stated that at least 40% of the fuel should come from non food & feed sources. 

(http://www.energyrefuge.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/biopact_europa_biofuels_potential.jpg)

Corn Ethanol

Chances are that there is some ethanol in your gas tank right now. It is estimated that 95% of all U.S. gasoline contains ethanol. This gasoline blend helps to oxygenate the fuel as well as reduce air pollution. 

In addition to the ethical controversy of producing corn ethanol, opponents of corn ethanol argued that it cost more energy to produce than was yielded. However, studies using updated data have shown otherwise. The production of corn ethanol  does, in fact, produce a net gain in energy (meaning it has a positive energy balance). 

(http://perc.org/sites/default/files/2011/05/ethanol-corn.jpg)