Download Scandals: - International Food Safety

Rhino rescue plan decimates Asian antelopes
19:00 12 February 03
Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition
An antelope that just a decade ago crammed the steppes
of central Asia is this spring on the verge of extinction,
victim of an epidemic of poaching. Biologists say it is the
most sudden and dramatic population crash of a large
mammal ever seen.
In 1993, over a million
saiga antelopes roamed the
steppes of Russia and
Kazakhstan. Today, fewer
than 30,000 remain, most
of them females. So many
males have been shot for
their horns, which are
Now you see him, soon you won't
exported to China to be
(Image: NATUREPL.COM)
used in traditional fever
cures, that the antelope may not be able to recover
unaided.
The slaughter is embarrassing for conservationists. In the
early 1990s, groups such as WWF actively encouraged
CLONED CASH COWS SET
the saiga hunt, promoting its horn as an alternative to the
TO UNLEASH FRESH
horn of the endangered rhino.
STORM ON FOOD SAFETY
January 26, 2003
Saiga (Saiga tatarica) once dominated the open steppes
Agence France
from Ukraine to Mongolia. They have always been
Presse/CBC/NY
hunted for meat, horns and skins. However, even in
Times/Toronto Star
Soviet times, hunters killed tens of thousands each year,
PARIS - Scientists have,
without dramatically lowering the population.
according to these stories,
produced the world's
But since the collapse of the Soviet Union, a lucrative
first genetically-modified,
market in the horns has opened up, with hunters using
cloned cows whose milk is
motorcycles and high-powered weapons to chase and kill
intended for food, a
their quarry. In China, saiga horns fetch around $100 a
breakthrough that also points
kilogram. Organised gangs illegally export the horn by
to the next likely controversy
train from Moscow to Beijing, or across the border from
to embroil the
Kazakhstan.
biotech business.
The stories say that a team in
New Zealand say they have
Black with antelopes
produced a herd of
nine duplicate, transgenic
"The plains used to be black with these antelopes, but
calves whose milk boosted
now you can go out there and not see any at all," says
Abigail Entwistle, a zoologist from Fauna and Flora
International, a British-based charity. "This is the most
sudden change in fortune for a large mammal species
recorded in recent times."
yields of two types of
proteins called caseins by up to 100 percent.
The two key proteins are a boon to dairy manufacturers because they help
liquid cheese to solidify and they also drive off whey, a watery byproduct
that is unwanted in the curdling phase of cheese-making.
The researchers, led by Goetz Laible at Ruakura Research Centre in Hamilton,
on New Zealand's North Island, were cited as saying that the technique, if
taken out of the lab and adopted by the dairy industry, offered "substantial
economic gains," and could be widened, to "tailor" milk for human
consumption.
The stories explain that by inserting specific genes in a sheep, for
instance, they can produce a valuable protein in its milk which can then be
harvested for new drugs. Or, by producing pigs with specifically deleted
genes, they may gain tissues for human organ transplants that face less risk
of rejection by the patient's immune system. In addition, some pedigree
animals have been genetically duplicated for commercial reasons -- research
companies hope to sell the clones of livestock that, for instance, are
champion producers of milk.
But, the stories say, this is the first case in which a cow has been both
genetically engineered and cloned to produce an altered milk for human
consumption, rather than for medical research.
Laible's team did this by inserting into a bovine cell two additional genes
responsible for two casein proteins, beta and kappa.
The modified cell was then fused with an egg whose core had been removed -the standard technique in cloning -- and the resulting embryo then implanted
into a cow uterus.
Out of 126 transgenic, cloned embryos, just 11 (nine percent) survived to
become healthy, viable calves.
The stories add that whether or not food from cloned animals is safe for
humans is being considered by many countries, including Britain and the
United States. Governments are treading gingerly, given the angry debate
triggered by the the first generation of food that emerged from biotech
labs.
Sue Meyer, a biologist with the British watchdog group Genewatch, was cited
as saying that cloning and genetic manipulation of farm animals was
unacceptable on welfare grounds, as many lab studies have shown these
creatures are prone to sickness and early death. But there is also concern
as to whether food from these animals is safe because of the knock-on
effects of genetic tinkering, telling AFP that, "There's going to be
enormously important questions about safety and nutritional quality. When
you do genetic modification, when you introduce genes that change
finely-balanced biochemical pathways, the experience we've got from plants
is that you can have unexpected effects, raising or lowering other important
components. If you are directing production in the cell down one pathway,
increasing the activity of certain enzymes, you can have effects on other
pathways." If a company sought to introduce cloned, modified food in
Britain, public opposition "would just explode," she predicted.
Art Hill, a professor of food science at the University of Guelph, was
quoted as saying, "With this breakthrough we're a significant step closer to
designer milk," but that it would be at least five years before herds of
such transgenic cows produced any designer milk in commercial quantities,
adding, "The cows aren't there yet. There still needs to be a lot of work
done in studying the properties of this milk."
Hill was further cited as saying that protein-enriched milk could give New
Zealand an economic edge in selling high-value dairy products in Canada
because of the greater yields and lower costs, adding, "They may have their
eye on our cheddar cheese market if they could get their costs down enough
to ship substantial amounts here."
Cheese made from genetically engineered cows is not expected in groceries
any time soon. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has asked that milk or
meat from cloned animals not be sold while it develops a policy on such
products.
Location summary
Sector future
Scandals:
ONE DIED, 195 FELL ILL FROM PORK ROLLS IN AUSTRALIA: LAWYERS
February 3, 2003
Agence France Presse English
SYDNEY - Lawyers in Melbourne, renowned in Australia for its good cuisine,
launched court action Monday against a Vietnamese restaurant after a man
died and 195 people fell ill allegedly after eating there. Lawyers for the
group allege the diners suffered salmonella poisoning after eating pork
rolls at the Thanh Phu restaurant in suburban Footscray in early January.
They said a 43-year-old man died and 21 people were treated in hospital for
food poisoning. The youngest victim was an eight-month-old baby. It is
alleged the ingredients of the pork rolls were not properly refrigerated and
the restaurant's kitchen was not clean.
AUSTRALIA'S BARRIER REEF POISONED BY CANE FARM RUN-OFF:
REPORT
January 28, 2003
Agence France Presse English
BRISBANE, Australia - Australia's Great Barrier Reef is, according to a
scientific report released Tuesday, being poisoned by chemicals draining
from sugar cane farms.
The story says that the 200-page report by a Queensland state government
scientist found that the world's largest coral reef had already suffered
significant degradation and recommended restrictions on the sale of
fertilisers and pesticides to cane farmers. Cane farmers have previously
denied responsibility for problems on the reef, but Queensland premier Peter
Beattie said the report was conclusive. "The fact is that there is damage
to the reef and we need to take appropriate action," Beattie told reporters.
The report found that even though cane farms accounted for only 1.1 percent
of the catchment area that drains into the massive coral reef off
Australia's east coast, they were responsible for most damage
Politics as usual:
USDA: MOST MEAT PLANTS VIOLATE FOOD SAFETY RULES
February 4, 2003
Reuters
Randy Fabi
WASHINGTON - USDA Undersecretary Elsa Murano was cited as telling reporters
Tuesday that about 60 percent of the largest U.S. meat plants failed to meet
federal food safety regulations for preventing the E. coli bacteria in their
products, and that with proposed record level funding for its food safety
programs in fiscal 2004, USDA would begin imposing the "next generation of
enforcement" on the U.S. meat industry as part of its "war against E. coli,"
adding, "We are doing everything possible to prevent outbreaks of E. coli in
the summer, certainly to prevent these large recalls that we've had."
The story explains that in September, the department ordered all U.S. beef
slaughter and grinding plants to reexamine their food safety systems after
inspectors discovered E. coli was more prevalent in meat than previously
thought.
A preliminary review of these reassessments found 60 percent of 35 large
meat plants not meeting federal food safety regulations.
Garry McKee, administrator for USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service,
was quoted as saying, "They were scientific and design issues and not direct
food safety issues."
USDA said many plants could not verify that their food safety systems were
adequate.
McKee was further cited as saying the department has notified the plants to
fix the problem within 30 days. Meat companies are also being told add at
least one safeguard in their food safety systems that will reduce the risk
of E. coli.
Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director for the Center for Science in
the Public Interest, was cited as saying USDA's findings proved that
companies were not effectively implementing mandated food safety programs.
AMI BOSS RIPS MEDIA OVER SCARE STORIES ON USDA E. COLI HACCP
REVIEW
February 11, 2003
The Meating Place
Dan Murphy
www.meatingplace.com
Editor's note: The following statement was issued by J. Patrick Boyle,
president of the American Meat Institute, following the recent announcement
by Agriculture Department officials that its review of industry HACCP plans
showed more than half of the nation's biggest plants were deficient in their
recordkeeping and/or verification procedures and documentation.
"The beef industry benefits by doing everything in its power to ensure the
safest possible beef supply. HACCP is the cornerstone of our food safety
efforts and is something we take seriously. In fact, it was industry that
petitioned USDA in 1994 to make HACCP mandatory.
"We know that our HACCP plans and our food safety technologies are working
to enhance beef safety. USDA data indicate that bacterial levels on fresh
beef have declined since HACCP went into effect five years ago. In addition,
Centers for Disease Control data indicate that food-borne illnesses
associated with fresh beef are down. These numbers reflect an industry that
is committed to HACCP.
"Based on our knowledge of the facts, some news media have mischaracterized
comments made by USDA [officials] last week regarding reviews of HACCP plans
in large beef plants. USDA officials indicated that their reviews showed
that HACCP plans in some plants had 'scientific and design issues, not
direct food-safety issues.'
"USDA so far has reviewed HACCP plans in 35 of the 130 largest beef plants.
In 21 of the 130, 'design flaws' were identified. In a clarifying [that]
statement, the Food Safety and Inspection Service said" 'The plants have
responded to FSIS questions in writing in keeping with FSIS regulatory
requirements.' Stories bearing headlines like 'Most Meat Plants Violate Food
Safety Rules' are patently false. This type of reporting is inaccurate and
counterproductive.
"There are no benefits to taking food-safety shortcuts in [the industry's]
HACCP plans; to the contrary, [companies] benefit by having the best
possible HACCP plans, and that is what beef companies have tried to prepare.
The industry will take any comments provided by FSIS seriously and will make
appropriate changes to [its] HACCP plans.
"Careless reporting of this type of information serves only to alarm
consumers about a meat supply that is safe and getting safer every day."
MISINTERPRETING THE FACTS
February 10, 2003
Lean Trimmings
Edited by Kiran Kernellu
As any one of 8,000 establishments could attest to, it's difficult to
understand the regulatory tools and enforcement processes used by USDA to
measure compliance with its myriad rules and regulations. In a separate
item in this week's newsletter, we have set forth the regulatory steps to
the best of our understanding. Understanding the regulatory system goes a
long way to doing what it takes to be in compliance.
Unfortunately, Reuters reporter Randy Fabi got it wrong last week. He wrote,
under the headline, Most Meat Plants Violate Food Safety Rules, that about
60% of the largest U.S. meat plants failed to meet federal food safety
regulations for preventing the E. coli bacteria in their products, and named
his source as USDA.
He reportedly derived his misinformation from a briefing last Tuesday when
Under Secretary Dr. Elsa Murano and FSIS Administrator Dr. Garry McKee
briefed interested constituencies with an update about how the industry was
meeting the 2002 Directive requiring them to reexamine (re-assess) their
plans in light of evidence that E. coli O157:H7 was more prevalent in live
animals than was previously thought.
As part of the reassessment process, FSIS's Consumer Safety Officers (CSO)
are first visiting the 130 largest plants in the industry and examining
their HACCP plans. So far 35 plants have been reviewed, and in about 21 of
the reviews, the CSOs have asked for further scientific documentation about
preventing and eliminating food safety hazards. Dr. Murano and Dr. McKee
reportedly restated in response to questions from reporters that the
additional questions involved "scientific and design" issues related to
HACCP plans. Unfortunately, that was not the message that the Reuters
reporter gave, and his misinterpretation has been widely re-stated. We
encourage members who find the article in local papers to send it, and the
one about regulatory tools, to Reuters and seek clarification.
REGULATORY TOOLS FOR PRODUCTION OF SAFE MEAT & POULTRY
February 10, 2003
Herd on the Hill
Edited by Kiran Kernellu
The USDA is responsible, under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and Poultry
Products Inspection Act, of providing "continuous" inspection, including
ante and post mortem inspection, to assure that meat and poultry is
wholesome and not misbranded or adulterated. That is the law. Pursuant to
the Pathogen Reduction HACCP rule of July 1996, USDA required companies to
develop Standard Sanitation Operating Systems (SSOPs) and a Hazard Analysis
Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan for operations. USDA officials monitor
the activities in official establishments to confirm the effectiveness of
SSOPs and HACCP plans, and have developed regulatory tools to carry out
these responsibilities.
The first regulatory tool is the Non-Compliance Record (NR) issued by an
Inspector in Charge or off-line Inspector, which identifies a specific
non-compliance. It may be accompanied by a regulatory action to retain
product if food safety or direct product contamination is at issue. An NR
describes the unacceptable condition. Plants may simply accept the NR and
take corrective action, or may appeal the NR. Plants are expected to
indicate corrective action and what they will do to prevent reoccurrence in
writing.
After reviewing the SSOP or HACCP plans, inspectors could also issue what is
called a 30-day reassessment letter. A 30-day reassessment letter is not
considered an enforcement action. Rather, it is issued when there are
unclear provisions or questions about the design of the plan that require
clarification or resolution. In the event the response to the 30-day
reassessment letter is deemed inadequate, FSIS may issue a Notice of
Intended Enforcement (NOIE).
The next regulatory tool is a NOIE. A NOIE identifies repetitive
non-compliance traced to the same root cause, and a failure by the company
to prevent the reoccurrence. Plants have 72 hours or 3 business days to
respond to an NOIE.
If the response to the NOIE is unacceptable, the next regulatory step is a
Notice of Suspension, which will be faxed or hand delivered to the plant
officials identified on the grant of inspection, and unless there is an
imminent food safety risk, a company is usually allowed to complete the
shift before the suspension is effective. Inspection is restored when the
offending condition is corrected. Also, if appropriate corrective action is
taken immediately, then the suspension may be held in abeyance, usually for
a designated period of time.
In addition to the above, FSIS inspectors have the authority to take
immediate action to prevent adulterated or misbranded meat from leaving the
plant with the application of a RETAIN tag, or to use this tag to prevent
the use of unsanitary equipment or facilities. They would also issue an NR
after applying the tag.
Plants have the right to appeal at every level by asking the next level of
USDA to evaluate and reconsider. The appeal system is lengthy and
cumbersome, and often seen as a "rubber stamp" and ineffective. Also, plants
may fear retaliation and prefer to stay "under the radar line." Thus, there
are relatively few appeals of NRs. FSIS takes the position that retaliation
is neither tolerated nor condoned. There are special guidelines to be
followed if a company makes such a charge, and NMA recommends that its
members consult with it and/or counsel.
All regulatory and enforcement actions are recorded and included in the
Quarterly Report issued by FSIS and are available on USDA's website at
http://fsis.usda.gov/OA/haccp/qer.pdf. The most current one available is
April-June 2002.
Remember, the fundamental goal of industry, and USDA through its regulatory
role, is to ensure the production of food that is safe and wholesome.
EBOLA HEMORRHAGIC FEVER - CONGO REP: SUSPECTED
**********************************************
A ProMED-mail post
<http://www.promedmail.org>
ProMED-mail, a program of the
International Society for Infectious Diseases
<http://www.isid.org>
Date: Weds 5 Feb 2003
From: ProMED-mail <[email protected]>
Source: BBC news 5 Feb 2003 15:29 GMT [edited]
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2729571.stm>
Ebola outbreak feared in Congo
-----------------------------In the north of Congo-Brazzaville, 16 people have died in a suspected
outbreak of Ebola virus infection. The Congolese authorities say they are
extremely concerned that the virus might spread. There is no cure for Ebola
and little is known about the virus, which causes its victims to die from
internal hemorrhaging.
The Congolese Ministry of Health says 16 people are known to have died so
far, but communications with the villages of Kele and Mbou, 800 kilometers
north of Brazzaville in the Region of Cuvette West, are difficult. Dr
Joseph Mboussa, director in the Ministry of Health, says a villager has
been dying every few days since the outbreak began on 4 January, and
already the death toll could be much higher than 16.
The authorities were first alerted to a possible outbreak when a clan of
gorillas in the Cuvette West Region began to die. Tests carried out on the
bodies confirmed that the gorillas had died from the Ebola virus, and the
disease has now claimed more than 80 per cent of the gorilla clan.
Medical professionals are at great risk of contracting Ebola. The Ebola
virus is easily spread just by skin contact with an infected primate or
person. Dr Mboussa says this makes the virus particularly difficult to
contain, as Congolese funeral rites dictate that the body of a deceased
person be washed by the family before burial. The current outbreak is
believed to have been caused by villagers eating primates which were
already infected with Ebola.
An emergency team of health ministry workers was scheduled to leave for the
region on Wednesday to investigate the outbreak and try to contain it,
following delays caused by a shortage of petrol and funds for the trip.
Ebola experts working for the World Health Organization in Libreville and
Geneva also expect to leave soon to investigate the outbreak. Some years
ago in the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo, then President Mobutu
Sese Seko adopted a controversial policy of putting an infected village in
quarantine. The Ebola virus was contained but the entire village was wiped
out. The Congolese health ministry has so far asked local inhabitants not
to travel, but the authorities are hopeful they will not have to resort to
such drastic measures.
The forestry ministry already has several teams in place trying to make
locals aware of the dangers of eating primates, but they admit it is a
losing battle in a region where bush meat has formed a staple part of
people's diets for centuries.
[byline: Pascale Harter]
-ProMED-mail
<[email protected]>
[This is the same general region (Cuvette West) where the last Ebola
outbreak in the Congo Rep occurred in 2002. If Ebola is confirmed as the
etiology of this outbreak, it will not be the first human outbreak that
occurred coincident/following an observed outbreak in primates in this
region. As this newswire mentions, primate meat is part of the local diet
in this region. The preparation of infected primates for food source is the
most likely vehicle for transmission of the Ebola virus to the humans.
Given this, the occurrence of primate die-offs in known Ebola regions
should trigger increased efforts to alert the local population of the
increased risks involved with eating primates. But as the last sentence of
the above newswire suggests this is clearly easier said than done. - Mod.MPP]
[see also:
Ebola hemorrhagic fever, apes - Congo Rep.
2002
----
20030124.0207
Unexplained deaths, wildlife - Congo Rep: RFI
20021207.5996
Ebola hemorrhagic fever - Congo Rep: confirmed
20020613.4492
Ebola hemorrhagic fever - Congo Rep: suspected (02) 20020613.4482
Ebola hemorrhagic fever - Gabon/Congo Rep (26)
20020510.4151
Ebola hemorrhagic fever - Gabon: gorilla-to-human? 20020409.3915
Ebola hemorrhagic fever, new diagnostic test
20020228.3647
Ebola hemorrhagic fever - Gabon/Congo Rep
20020102.3149
2001
--Ebola hemorrhagic fever - Gabon/Congo Rep (04)
20011231.3142
Ebola hemorrhagic fever - Gabon/Congo Rep
20011225.3109
Ebola hemorrhagic fever - Gabon: dead wildlife (03) 20011220.3079
Ebola hemorrhagic fever - Congo Rep.
20011220.3075
Ebola hemorrhagic fever - Gabon (07)
20011220.3074
Ebola hemorrhagic fever - Gabon: dead wildlife
20011216.3041
Ebola hemorrhagic fever - Gabon: WHO confirms
20011211.3002
Viral hemorrhagic fever, suspected - Gabon
20011205.2950]
Location summary
Sector general information
Scandals:
Date: Mon 3 Feb 2003
From: Pablo Nart <[email protected]>
Source: Angola Press Agency (Luanda), allAfrica.com [edited]
<http://allafrica.com/stories/200301310611.html>
Sleeping sickness kills 26 people in Uije
----------------------------------------26 people died and 18 others became ill with sleeping sickness in 2002 in
Uije and Kitexe districts and at Wamba and "Vale do Loge" resettlement
areas, out of the 34 153 people assisted voluntarily in ambulatory
consultations.
The person responsible for fighting sleeping sickness in Uije, Kiala Gode,
reported that in 2002 there were 3870 traps placed by 304 tse-tse fly
capturers who took part in the operation in 177 villages of Uije, Negage,
Songo, Mucaba, and Kitexe distritcts. As result of the operation, 156 314
flies were captured in the districts of Uije and Negage under the campaign
meant to end the disease.
Kiala Gode revealed the lack of economic support for the extension of the
operation and control of the sleeping sickness in the rest of the district,
as well as for adequate nourishment and sleeping clothes for the 72
inpatients currently at the treatment centres in Uije and Negage.
USA: Biotech pigs may have entered food supply - FDA
06 Feb 2003
Source: just-food.com
Almost 400 pigs that had been used in US bioengineering research may have entered the food
supply because they were sold to a livestock dealer instead of being destroyed, the US Food and
Drug Administration has said.
The FDA said that researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign released 386 pigs from
biotech studies to a livestock dealer between April 2001 and January 2003. Animals involved in this
particular study were to have been destroyed by incineration or rendering to prevent their introduction
into the human food supply.
The FDA said the pigs did not pose a public health risk, but that the incident, if confirmed, would
represent a significant breach of the FDA requirements for this study, warranting strong action against
the responsible parties.
“The researchers claim that these pigs, which were the offspring of transgenic animals, did not inherit
the inserted genetic material from their parents - that is, they were not themselves transgenic. However,
FDA cannot verify this assertion because the researchers did not conduct sufficient evaluation or keep
sufficient records to assess whether the offspring inherited the inserted genetic material,” the FDA said
in a statement.
Because the pigs were experimental animals, the FDA said it had not yet determined the safety or
efficacy of the genetic material they contained but scientific evidence indicates that they would not
present a health risk.
“The genes were engineered so that the proteins would be produced primarily, if not exclusively, in the
mammary glands of lactating sows. None of the pigs sent to slaughter are believed to have been old
enough to lactate. Therefore, FDA does not believe that any product derived from these animals would
have to be removed from commerce for public health reasons, and USDA concurs,” the FDA said.
The FDA added that in collaboration with the US Department of Agriculture it was carrying out an
investigation into the incident.
Politics as usual:
EUROPE WARNS US: HANDS OFF OUR BIOTECH FOOD BAN
February 4, 2003
Agence France Presse English/ New York Times/Reuters
WASHINGTON - European Union farm chief Franz Fischler was cited as warning
Tuesday of a consumer backlash if the United States tried to dismantle its
ban on genetically modified foods, adding, "We would strongly advise not to
start action in this moment in the WTO. There is a clear risk... our
skeptical consumers would take this as an opportunity to make even more
difficulties against the use of GM foods than in the past. There is a
clear risk that if one starts action now that the European parliament could
be reluctant to make the final decision" on the approval process which could
come in "three or four months."
Peter Allgeier, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, was cited as telling
reporters that Washington was in consultations with potential allies on the
timing of any WTO action against the EU's four-year-old moratorium on
approval of genetically modified (GM) products, adding, "I am very confident
there will be others. I do not think we will be faced with a decision on
whether to go it alone."
The Times reported that the Bush administration has decided against
antagonizing its European allies and has postponed filing a case against the
European Union for its ban on genetically modified food, according to a
senior administration official.
A senior White House official who asked not to be identified, was quoted as
saying, "There is no point in testing Europeans on food while they are being
tested on Iraq,"
A cabinet meeting to consider the suit was canceled this week as European
agricultural officials descended on Washington to argue for patience.
Even so, the conflict will resurface soon. Mr. Zoellick has said he believes
that genetically modified food could help alleviate hunger < as well as open
markets for American farmers < and wants the European opposition to be
confronted so that developing nations accept food from genetically modified
crops.
Ann M. Veneman, the United States agriculture secretary, has said that "our
patience is just running out."
Franz Fischler, the European Union's farm commissioner, said that he met
with Ms. Veneman and told her the problem would be resolved within three or
four months.
They are demanding labels that identify which food has been genetically
modified and has passed rigorous testing. The agricultural establishment in
the United States is just as strongly opposed, saying that once the food has
passed tests there is no need to distinguish it with label that could be
seen as a warning.
"That implies that there is something wrong with genetically modified food,"
said Elsa Murano, the Agriculture Department's undersecretary for food
safety. "It would be another kind of trade barrier."
Industry also complains of the cost. "Labeling is a sham," said Mary Kay
Thatcher, lobbyist for American Farm Bureau, a powerful agricultural group.
"It would be so expensive, it would shut down our exports."
Margaret Beckett, the British minister in charge of food and the
environment, said both sides of the argument had to understand the serious
cultural differences underlying the disagreement.
After the deaths in Europe from mad cow disease and the subsequent killing
of herds infected by foot and mouth disease, European consumers are wary of
any food that is not clearly labeled and easily traced.
The Times story says that while European nations agree on the need for
labeling in the face of deep consumer fears, American lawmakers have had a
more mixed record.
Although it took 12 years of lobbying by farmers, chefs and
environmentalists, the agriculture department last year created an official
organic label to show consumers what produce has been raised without
conventional pesticides or fertilizers, antibiotics or growth hormones. The
food is growing in popularity < it is a $4 billion industry < and public
response was overwhelmingly in favor of the new label.
As industry feared, the cost of the label has proved prohibitive for some of
the smallest farmers < averaging $5,000 each year < and the paperwork is
time-consuming. Federal officials believe that the process could be
streamlined over the years.
In last year's farm bill, Congress included a provision opposed by much of
agribusiness that required that all meat, fish and produce be labeled with
its country of origin within two years.
Already, Canada has complained that the new country of origin labeling will
restrict its trade with the United States, especially in meat. In a study
released last month, Canadian officials complained of the cost and suggested
that the new provision should be withdrawn.
That is unlikely until the European ban on genetically modified food is
lifted and the issue of labeling is confronted head on.
Trade and agricultural experts predict that in the end a compromise may have
to be reached among competing interests within the United States as well as
between the Europeans and the Americans.
"The United States is not monolithic," said John Audley of Carnegie
Endowment. "Business groups may have to yield on labeling while activists
will have to yield on allowing genetically modified food to be sold and let
consumers decide what they want."
RABIES & VULTURE DIE-OFF - INDIA
*****************************
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003
From: Pablo Nart <[email protected]>
Source: The Guardian, 4 Feb 2003 [edited]
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,888284,00.html>
Vulture deaths bring rise in rabies
-----------------------------------
The catastrophic decline of the vulture population in India, vital to
cleaning the streets of offal and rubbish, has led to an explosion in the
number of feral dogs and an increasing human death toll from rabies. An
unknown virus has been killing 3 species of the once numerous vultures in
the last 10 years. This has led to a crisis.
Habitually, butchers threw offal outside for the vultures, which
effectively solved the waste problem. The vulture's niche has now been
taken over by feral dogs, the main carriers of rabies. More people now die
of rabies in India than anywhere else.
Zoroastrians have had to abandon their traditional practice of placing
their dead on Towers of Silence for the vultures to eat.
So alarmed has the government become about the diminished vulture
population they have set up a rehabilitation centre to save sick birds and
release them into the wild.
Britain has donated 145 000 GBP [236 311 USD] for a centre near Delhi, and
Elliot Morley, the department of the environment minister for wildlife,
will officially open it on Saturday,7 Feb 2003. Mr Morley said "There has
been a very high mortality, around 97 per cent of vultures have disappeared."
[byline: Paul Brown]
-ProMED-mail
<[email protected]>
[While it may be true that an increase in rabies incidence is being
observed in India, the statement "more people now die of rabies in India
than anywhere else" was valid before the vulture die-off. The latest
available World Survey of Rabies that includes India (WHO, 1998) stated
that "the highest incidence continued to be observed in Asia with 33 075
reported human deaths due to rabies. Most of them (estimated 30 000)
occurred in India".
<http://www.who.int/emc/diseases/zoo/wsr98/HTML_version/wsr98index.htmldoes>).
- Mod.AS]
[see also:
2002
--Vulture die-off - India, Pakistan, Nepal (04) 20021018.5590
Vulture die-off - India, Pakistan, Nepal (03) 20021015.5557
Vulture die-off - India, Pakistan, Nepal (02) 20021014.5552
Vulture die-off - India, Pakistan, Nepal: RFI 20021010.5514]
Location summary
sector general information
Scandals:
MINISTRY SAYS DIOXINS FOUND IN GERMAN ANIMAL FEED
February 7, 2003
Reuters
BERLIN - Officials were cited as saying on Friday that animal feed produced
by a firm in eastern Germany tested positive in January for carcinogenic
dioxins, and over 100 tonnes of possibly contaminated feed could have been
exported to the Netherlands.
Germany's Agriculture Ministry was cited as saying in a statement that the
Dutch authorities had been informed.
Tests in January had shown animal feed produced by the company in the state
of Thuringia contained around 15 times more than the permitted level of
dioxin.
Dioxin has been linked to several cancers in humans, including lymphomas and
lung cancer.
Some 300 pigs that had been given the feed had to be slaughtered after tests
showed high levels of the poison, according to a statement on Thuringia's
Agriculture Ministry Web site
The growing controversy over food irradiation
Friday, January 31, 2003
By Melissa Knopper, E/The Environmental Magazine
Over the past several years, a series of
highly publicized recalls have sent panicky
consumers running to the fridge to check
for tainted meat.
It started in 1998 when Sara Lee recalled millions of pounds of hot dogs and deli
meat after 21 people died in a Listeria outbreak from a processing plant in Michigan.
Then, in 2000, a three-year-old Milwaukee girl died after eating watermelon splashed
with E. coli 0157:H7 (the most deadly form) at a Sizzler restaurant. Federal
investigators traced the E. coli, which made 600 other people sick, to a Colorado
Excel meat plant. Most recently — in the second-largest meat recall in U.S. history —
ConAgra recalled 19 million pounds of ground beef contaminated with E. coli that
made 17 people sick in Colorado.
As these outbreaks continue to generate publicity, people are looking for ways to
protect themselves from gaps in the country’s meat inspection system. Food
irradiation — an unpopular option in the past — is starting to gain more acceptance.
In fact, the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering proposals to
expand the number of foods that could be irradiated. The food industry already
irradiates raw meat and spices; soon, the government may permit irradiated
processed meats and imported produce. While it has won some support, food
irradiation also generates fiery opposition. As more stores offer irradiated products,
the issue is generating nearly as much controversy as genetically engineered foods.
Scientific Support
Many scientific organizations, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the World Health Organization, and the American Medical Association,
endorse food irradiation. The FDA has tested the safety of irradiated foods in both
animals and humans, and NASA originally used irradiation to protect the meals
astronauts ate in space.
Ricardo Molins, a microbiologist and irradiation expert with the National Academy of
Sciences, believes irradiation is a safe and effective way to reduce foodborne illness.
"We don’t live in a sterile world; mud and manure could end up in your hamburger,"
Molins said. "If people don’t like to eat their hamburgers well done, they should buy
irradiated meat."
Irradiation prevents food poisoning by killing harmful bacteria such as E. coli,
Salmonella, and Listeria. When high-energy beams of radiation pass through the
food, it damages the DNA of these microorganisms, reducing the potential for
disease. Irradiation will not eliminate viruses and prions, which are the infectious
proteins that cause mad cow disease. The process changes some foods, especially
those that have a high fat content. Irradiated eggs become runny, and some meats
develop an unpleasant odor and taste.
An Industry Cheers
Food industry groups, such as the Grocery Manufacturers of America and the
American Meat Institute, are in favor of irradiation. While surveys show consumers
tend to be wary of irradiated foods, some stores already sell them. East Coast
grocery chain Wegman’s started to aggressively market its own brand of irradiated
hamburger last summer.
"E. coli 0157:H7 is especially dangerous to young children, elderly people, and
anyone with a compromised immune system," said Wegman’s spokesperson Joanne
Colleluori. "This product gives our customers peace of mind."
Irradiation opponents, however, argue it could give the meat industry an excuse to
look the other way instead of cleaning up flaws in the system that led to the recent
outbreaks of foodborne illnesses. People are getting sick because of the increase in
factory farms where cattle are crowded into small pens, sleeping in their own waste,
said Patty Lovera, deputy director of Public Citizen’s critical mass energy and
environment program.
Instead of grazing on their natural diet of grass, the cows eat grain-based foods,
which cause E. coli to flourish in their digestive tracts. The animals move through the
slaughter lines so quickly, mistakes cause fecal matter to contaminate the meat, she
added. "The meat industry has created a system that makes it difficult to produce a
wholesome product," Lovera said. "They see irradiation as a quick fix."
But Matt Baun, a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) spokesperson, said, "There
isn’t going to be any lessening of sanitation in these plants as a result of irradiation.
We have 7,500 inspectors, and they are in every plant every hour."
The USDA will ask meat plants to use additional techniques to kill pathogens, such as
steam pasteurization. If consumers want to be sure they’re protected from E. coli,
however, Baun said it’s important to make sure they cook beef at 160-degrees
Fahrenheit.
What’s in Our Food?
Consumer advocates are also concerned about labeling. Congress recently passed a
measure as part of U.S. Senator Tom Harkin’s (D-Iowa) farm bill that would allow
grocery stores to label irradiated products as being treated with "electronic
pasteurization."
Groups like Public Citizen, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), the
Organic Consumers Association, and Food and Water feel this term is misleading and
confusing. Consumers must be vigilant because the FDA’s labeling rules for irradiated
foods have serious loopholes, Lovera said.
For example, restaurants, schools, and hospitals are not required to notify the public
if they are serving irradiated foods. Similarly, a company could make applesauce
with irradiated apples but would not have to disclose that on the list of ingredients.
"We’re encouraging people to contact big food companies like Tyson, Kraft, and
Hormel and tell them they don’t want irradiated foods," said Danila Oder of the
Minnesota-based Organic Consumers Union. Several groups are organizing letterwriting campaigns to oppose the FDA labeling changes.
And the Empire State Consumer Association in New York has been meeting with
Wegman’s and local school officials to call for a ban on irradiated products. The
group encourages consumers to instead buy from local farm markets, communitysupported agriculture programs, and food co-ops.
Activists from Public Citizen believe the government needs to do more long-term
studies of the potential health risks of a steady diet of irradiated food. They point to
the vitamin loss that occurs in some irradiated foods.
Scientists also have identified a new class of chemicals, called cyclobutanones, which
only occur in irradiated foods. A German study suggests these compounds could
accelerate the growth of cancer in humans. While Public Citizen believes the study
has merit, other scientists — including FDA investigators — have not been able to
replicate the results.
Meanwhile, activists at the Vermont-based Food and Water are raising questions
about the potential for nuclear accidents at irradiation facilities. There already have
been injuries and deaths when radioactive materials are mishandled at food
irradiation plants, said Executive Director Michael Colby. And the possibility of a
terrorist threat at these facilities is even scarier, Colby said. He argues that it’s safer
to keep dangerous materials in one guarded storage bunker.
Food and Water’s grassroots campaign also raises awareness about the corporate
politics behind the recent push to use irradiation for food safety. "From the
beginning, irradiation has been an attempt to use up nuclear waste products and to
put a smiley face on all things nuclear," Colby said.
In her new book, Is Our Food Safe? A Consumer’s Guide to Protecting Your Health
and the Environment, CSPI Director of Food Safety Caroline Smith DeWaal concluded
the benefits of irradiation outweigh the risks, although she agrees on the need for
more studies on long-term health effects. As long as packaging is clear and
understandable, DeWaal believes consumers should have the opportunity to buy
irradiated food if they want it. "The people who prefer natural foods probably are
going to avoid irradiated food; it really is an issue of consumer choice," she said.
"For many consumers, the ideal solution is to eat less meat and to avoid ground beef
because it’s one of the most risky foods."
Melissa Knopper is a Denver-based journalist specializing in health and science
topics.
Location summary
Sector irradiation
Politics as usual:
WORLD FOOD EXPERTS STILL DIVIDED OVER IRRADIATION
February 9, 2003
Reuters
Jeremy Smith
BRUSSELS -- International food experts will soon discuss revising -- if not
abandoning -- the maximum dose for irradiation, an idea that has, according
to this story, stirred opposition from the European Union and infuriated
numerous consumer lobby groups.
The story says that while most scientists have accepted irradiation as a
processing
technique, consumers and environmentalists have their doubts about foods
that are blasted with high-energy radiation in the form of gamma or X-rays
to kill unwanted micro-organisms. Now, the recommended upper limit for
absorbed radiation in food may be removed altogether if a committee of the
Codex Alimentarius Commission, due to meet in Tanzania in mid-March, can
reconcile wide differences of opinion among its members.
A Codex official was quoted as saying from the organisation's home base in
Rome that, "If they are successful a final text will be submitted to the
Codex Alimentarius
Commission for formal adoption in June. If they cannot agree, we can expect
a
two-year delay."
The story says that irradiation, endorsed by the World Health Organisation,
exposes food to low amounts of electrons or gamma rays to destroy
micro-organisms such as E.coli and salmonella. It causes chemical changes
but does not leave food radioactive. Codex, which groups officials from the
United Nations FAO and World Health Organisation, sets non-binding
recommendations for food standards often used as the benchmark in
international trade disputes. It has members from more than 160 countries.
Since the last major Codex meeting on irradiation, a working group has
drafted a compromise proposal that keeps a maximum dose but also inserts a
controversial clause saying that high-dose irradiation has no effect on
product safety. In a standard dating from 1983, Codex sets the maximum level
of absorbed permitted irradiation in food at 10,000 Gray (Gy), which
represents 10,000 joules of absorbed energy per kilogram (2.2 lb). Despite
the compromise Codex wording, agreement on whether to remove or keep a
maximum dose is still a long way off and observers say the debate could
still go either way.
Merav Shrub at Britain's Food Commission, an independent watchdog group, was
quoted as saying, "This document will be discussed and may, or may not,
be agreed at that (March) meeting. It may just get postponed with
further debate for another year. What they are proposing is a compromise
to keep the 10 kGy dose limit but with a comment saying that it's absolutely
safe at any dose anyway. It's a bit contradictory."
The story notes that several countries, including most EU member states
backed by Japan and South Korea, are opposed to removing this maximum dose.
In the European Commission, officials are wary about the idea of removing
the upper limit, saying the
resulting large-scale irradiation might flout good hygiene practices. At
present, the EU permits food to be irradiated under only one category: dried
aromatic herbs, spices and vegetable seasonings. All irradiated foods must
be properly labelled with the words "irradiated" or "treated with ionising
radiation." Five EU member states also allow the marketing of certain
irradiated foods such as fresh and dried fruits and vegetables, poultry,
shrimps, fish or frog legs on their national territory. The United States,
Australia, the Philippines and Thailand lie on the other side of the
argument and claim that the dose is self-limiting as amounts above 10,000 Gy
are only technically feasible for a few dry commodities such as spices.
Scandals:
Pure Water or Pure Peril?
Your bottled water is contaminated by pesticides. Gaping holes in regulations and
corporate irresponsibility in the fastest growing segment of the beverage industry make a
mockery of public health
New Delhi, February 4, 2003: We take it for granted that the bottled water we drink is safe. But a
Down To Earth exposé, based on tests conducted by the Pollution Monitoring Laboratory of the
Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) shows otherwise.
After analysing 17 brands of packaged drinking water sold in and around Delhi and 13 brands
from the Mumbai region, the CSE lab found the samples to contain a deadly cocktail of pesticide
residues. Most of the samples contained as much as five different pesticide residues, in levels far
exceeding the standards specified as safe for drinking water.
The samples had enough poison to cause in the long term, cancer,
liver and kidney damage, disorders of the nervous system, birth
defects, and disruption of the immune system. Pesticides do not kill
immediately, but can cause irreparable health disorders as they
accumulate in the body fat.
The CSE lab tested for two types of pesticides: organochlorine and
organophosphorus. The findings were appalling. The four most
commonly found pesticide residues were lindane, DDT, malathion
and chlorpyrifos. Using European Economic Commission norms for
Click to enlarge
maximum permissible limits for pesticides in packaged water, the
Sunita Narain, CSE director and CSE lab tests of samples from the Delhi region showed that on
Down To Earth editor, fields
average, each sample contained 36.4 times more pesticides than the
questions from media
stipulated levels. The Mumbai samples were a shade better, primarily
because the source water used by the industry was relatively less contaminated.
CSE used European norms because the standards set for pesticide residues by the Bureau of
Indian Standards (BIS) are vague and undefined. The standards say, "pesticide residues shall be
below detectable limits". This, one would assume, means that there ought to be no pesticide
residues at all in the bottled water. But no, it actually means that one should not be able to find
the pesticide residues in the water. The BIS has specified the methodology for detecting pesticide
residues and this methodology, which is not very sensitive, does not detect pesticides unless
present in extremely high quantities.
Even for drinking water, the BIS norms specify that pesticide residues should be "absent". What
is plainly absurd is that if drinking water norms specify that pesticides should not be present, how
can packaged drinking water norms be so vague, and use a non-quantifiable phrase, such as
"below detectable limits"? Even going by drinking water norms, all the bottled water brands tested
by the CSE lab would fail the test of quality.
What was found:
Top seller Bisleri was third from the bottom, with pesticide concentration levels 79 times higher
than the stipulated limits (see graph). Kinley had concentration levels 14.6 times above the
maximum permissible amounts. Aquaplus — favoured by the Indian Railways — topped the
dubious list, crossing the limit by 104 times!
Contamination levels were significantly lower in packaged natural mineral water brands
Himalayan and Catch from Himachal Pradesh, a state with lower pesticide use.
In the Mumbai region, the worst brand was Oxyrich, with 16.7 times higher pesticide
concentration levels than the prescribed standards. Bisleri and Kinley fared better in the Mumbai
samples – they were ranked 7th and 4th respectively.
The lab also collected raw water from bottling plants to verify its findings. In all cases, tests
showed that the pesticides found in the source water matched the toxins found in the bottled
water — proof that the source of the pesticide residues is contaminated groundwater. Plants
manage to eliminate somewhere between 20 and 80 per cent of the residues. But no regulations
exist to ensure that bottled water plants are set up in clean groundwater zones.
The study is important because of the implications for public health. Pesticides ingested in small
quantities over time are known to have severe effects on the human immune system. What will it
take for regulatory bodies to tighten controls? Should the bottled water industry be allowed to play
havoc with public health and breach consumer trust?
Scandals:
January 2003
Of birds and bacteria
"Superbugs" that resist the usual antibiotic treatments are
nasty, and they could be in your chicken dinner. Here's how
to protect yourself.
In the fall of 1997, almost three-fourths of the broilers that
Consumer Reports bought in stores nationwide harbored
salmonella or campylobacter--the bacteria most likely to give
Americans food poisoning. Our new tests revealed
contamination in about half of the chickens we analyzed, but
there's a dark cloud within that silver lining. Many of the
contaminated chickens harbored strains of salmonella and
campylobacter that are resistant to antibiotics commonly used
against those bugs, which can cause fever, diarrhea, and
abdominal cramps.
As a result, the estimated 1.1 million or more Americans
Illustration by Terry Miura
sickened each year by undercooked, tainted chicken, or by
food that raw chicken juices have touched, may stay sick longer, possibly with more serious illnesses.
Doctors may have to prescribe several antibiotics before finding one that works. And patients may
have to pay more to be treated.
For what is, to our knowledge, the largest nationally representative analysis of antibiotic resistance in
store-bought chicken, we tested 484 fresh, whole broilers bought at supermarkets and health-food
stores in 25 cities nationwide last spring. Represented in our tests were 4 leading brands (Foster
Farms, Perdue, Pilgrim's Pride, and Tyson), 14 supermarket brands, 9 premium brands (usually from
smaller companies, usually more expensive, labeled as raised without antibiotics, and including freerange and organic brands), and 2 kosher brands.
Our shoppers packed the raw birds in coolers and shipped them overnight to a lab. There, tests
determined whether salmonella and campylobacter were present, showed whether those bacteria were
resistant to a range of human antibiotics, and measured the chickens' total plate count, an indicator of
spoilage. Key findings:
Campylobacter was present in 42 percent of the chickens, salmonella in 12 percent. Five percent of
all chickens had both campylobacter and salmonella; 51 percent had neither.
No major brand was less contaminated than others overall. Pilgrim's Pride had an exceptionally low
incidence of salmonella but, along with Tyson, a higher incidence of campylobacter than most other
brands.
All 12 samples from Ranger, a premium brand sold only in the Northwest, were free of
campylobacter and salmonella. Ranger's chickens also had among the fewest bacteria that can cause
spoilage. Ranger was the only brand that was clean across the board.
Ninety percent of the campylobacter bacteria tested from our chicken and 34 percent of the
salmonella showed resistance to one or more antibiotics.
To see whose chickens harbored bacteria and how many of those bacteria remained unaffected by
antibiotics, see How contaminated? How resistant?. We've also deciphered the claims you're likely to find
on packages of chicken, including free-range, organic, and natural, in Behind the labels.
HOLES IN THE SAFETY NET
Since 1998, a federally mandated system called HACCP (pronounced hass-ip) has been the
consumer's main protection against contaminated poultry, meat, and seafood. The initials stand for
Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points, and the system requires chicken producers to spell out
where contamination might occur during processing, then build in procedures to prevent it.
After slaughter, for instance, chickens typically become contaminated with bacteria naturally found in
their digestive tract, so processors spray carcasses inside and out with an approved disinfectant. Later,
the birds are submerged in an icy wash that must chill them from about 100' F to below 40'.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspectors monitor HACCP plans and sit on production lines,
rejecting carcasses that pass by with visible signs of illness or filth. They also test random samples for
the presence of salmonella, but, unfortunately, not for campylobacter. Studies that could create a
standard for campylobacter testing are under way, a USDA spokesman says, but no time frame has
been set for putting tests in place.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there has been a significant
reduction in major foodborne illnesses since HACCP was implemented. Still, the system has
shortcomings. USDA inspectors at meat and poultry plants are failing to spot faults in HACCP plans,
according to a report issued last August by the General Accounting Office, the government watchdog
agency. The agency concluded that inspectors missed problems or, when they found them, didn't
require quick corrections. "As a result," the report said, "consumers may be unnecessarily exposed to
unsafe foods that can cause foodborne illnesses."
HACCP protections have become even more important with the discovery of chickens harboring
antibiotic-resistant strains of campylobacter, salmonella, and enterococcus (a germ linked with deadly
hospital-acquired infections).
Antibiotics--which may include, experts say, low doses of human drugs such as penicillin,
erythromycin, and tetracycline--are given to chickens to prevent or reduce sickness and to speed
growth. That practice is based on studies dating to the 1950s that showed animals given antibiotics
reach their market weight faster, though perhaps only a day faster, than untreated animals.
When birds actually get sick, perhaps with respiratory disease from Escherichia coli picked up from
their own droppings, they need full-strength antibiotics for a short time. Flocks are too big for
veterinarians to treat individual birds, so all birds may receive antibiotics in their drinking water.
These drugs kill not only the bacteria that cause chickens to become sick, but also some of the many
other types of bacteria that normally live inside chickens. Their routine use in so many birds sets the
stage for the evolution of drug-resistant microbes that multiply around chicken coops, each of which
can hold up to 20,000 birds. Bacteria that survive drug treatment may eventually contaminate
carcasses during slaughtering and processing. And if chicken isn't cooked thoroughly enough to kill
those bacteria, they could end up on your dinner plate, then colonize your intestines.
Antibiotic-resistant bacteria can enter your system from an outside source, such as undercooked
chicken, but bacteria that normally live inside you can also develop resistance--as a result, for
example, of the overuse or misuse of prescription antibiotics.
In either case, once the bacteria are in you, they may stay. Some stay for a short time, causing acute
illness; others live peacefully in your digestive tract only to cause hard-to-treat disease when
transferred to the bloodstream or urinary tract. Danish researchers recently found that when healthy
volunteers ate just one meal contaminated with antibiotic-resistant strains of the bacterium
Enterococcus faecium that came from chicken or pork, the bug lingered in the volunteers' intestinal
tracts for up to 14 days. Antibiotic-resistant E. faecium does not cause disease if confined to your
intestines, but if it escapes into your bloodstream, say during surgery, it can be fatal.
Also disheartening is that resistance can be "catching." Certain bacteria tend to carry their resistance
genes on circular strips of DNA, called plasmids, that can move to other bacteria, conferring resistance
upon them as well. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria in undercooked chicken, for instance, could pass on
their resistance to other bacteria already living in your intestines and make it hard to treat any infection
those bacteria might eventually cause.
Although stronger-than-usual or extended doses of antibiotics might eventually kill the bugs in most
people, resistant germs can be risky for the very young, the very old, and people with weakened
immune systems.
THE ROOTS OF RESISTANCE
What the CDC would later call a growing threat to
public health was suspected as early as 1952, when
two University of California bacteriologists warned,
according to an article in Scientific American, that
"chicks raised on antibiotics may develop resistant
bacteria and poison people who eat them." The
suspicion was confirmed in 1998, when CDC
researchers studied salmonella-tainted chickens and stool samples from people sickened by
salmonella. They found strains of the bacterium resistant to the human antibiotic gentamicin, a drug
routinely injected into chicken eggs to reduce the chance of bacterial contamination.
In May 1999, investigators in Minnesota published findings that revealed the presence of drug-resistant
campylobacter in store-bought chicken. They also found that newer fluoroquinolone antibiotics, such as
the anthrax drug ciprofloxacin (Cipro), had rapidly lost effectiveness against foodborne campylobacter
infections in people.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigators concluded in October 2000 that two fluoroquinolone
drugs made specifically for animals had spawned drug-resistant campylobacter in chickens' intestinal
tracts. One of the drugs was quickly pulled off the market by its maker. The FDA proposed to withdraw
approval of the second drug for treating disease in poultry, but its maker, Bayer, has challenged the
proposal. Hearings were ongoing as of last fall.
Last September, the agency announced a proposal that companies submitting animal drugs for FDA
approval assess their potential to promote resistance in humans.
The Animal Health Institute, which represents manufacturers of animal drugs, says antibiotic resistance
is a top concern. But it maintains that the use of antibiotics in food animals poses an extremely small
risk to human health and that the increase of bacterial resistance to antibiotics in humans is largely the
result of overreliance on antibiotics in human medicine.
A spokesman for the National Chicken Council, an industry group, notes that "a very large percentage"
of antibiotics used in chickens are not closely related to any drugs used in humans. The council also
points to data indicating that the overall usage of antibiotics in animals of all kinds has been declining
since 1999.
Indeed, four of the biggest U.S. poultry producers recently announced that they have reduced their use
of certain antibiotics. Last year, Tyson said it had "chosen to discontinue its previously minimal use" of
fluoroquinolone antibiotics in broiler chickens. Perdue says it stopped using fluoroquinolones last year.
Foster Farms says it stopped using them approximately five years ago and does not give other
important human drugs to chickens except when they're sick. Pilgrim's Pride says it stopped using
fluoroquinolones in October 2000.
Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a
nonprofit environmental group, applauds any cut in antibiotic use. "You don't ever want to use
antibiotics where you don't need them," she says. "The rule in antibiotics is, if you use them you lose
them." But Mellon points out that industry data don't provide specifics about antibiotic use and
production that would be helpful in monitoring ways to prevent drug resistance. The government
doesn't collect such data, either. "We know nothing," she says. "We are flying blind."
Moreover, although the use of fluoroquinolones may have tapered off, at least nine other antibiotics are
approved for use in both chickens and humans, and some are used in substantial quantities. For
example, the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that more than 380,000 pounds of erythromycin
are given to poultry every year to hasten growth and prevent disease.
Our tests support the need for continued concern.
WHAT WE FOUND
Overall, chicken had less bacterial contamination than in our 1997 study, but it was still far from
pristine, and there was widespread antibiotic resistance in the bacteria.
Contamination. You need swallow just 15 to 20 salmonella bacteria, or about 500 campylobacter, to
become ill. Both bugs can cause intestinal distress. Campylobacter can also cause serious
complications, including meningitis, arthritis, and Guillain-Barré syndrome, a severe neurological
disorder.
Of all the chickens we tested, 42 percent harbored campylobacter--down from 63 percent in our 1997
tests. Among big brands, incidence ranged from 34 percent, in Perdue, to 56 percent, in Tyson.
Supermarket brands as a whole were in the middle of that range.
Twelve percent of all chickens harbored salmonella, as against 16 percent in 1997. Pilgrim's Pride had
an extremely low incidence of salmonella: Only 1 percent of its chickens were contaminated. (Pilgrim's
Pride was in the news for less laudable reasons last October, when a company it owns recalled more
than 27 million pounds of cooked turkey and chicken deli meat. The meat was possibly contaminated
with listeria bacteria.)
As a group, the premium chickens were not significantly more free of microbes than others. On
average, 33 percent were contaminated with campylobacter; 12 percent with salmonella. That said, the
five premium brands labeled organic or free-range had no salmonella, and one of those, the free-range
Ranger, also had no campylobacter, at least in the 12 samples we tested. We wondered whether
Ranger's birds were treated differently from most others, so, without revealing our results, we checked
with Rick Koplowitz, chief executive officer of Draper Valley Farms, which raises Ranger chickens. His
answer revealed no unusual HACCP steps that would have made those birds cleaner.
Both kosher brands represented in our tests, Empire and Rubashkin's Aaron's Best, had a relatively
high incidence of salmonella: Five of 20 samples of Empire and 1 of 6 samples of Aaron's tested
positive. The incidence of campylobacter in Empire's chickens was slightly lower than the average for
all chickens. None of Aaron's chickens had campylobacter.
We're still pondering one interesting result from our tests: Of 97 chickens from three processing plants
in the Southwest and sold under the Pilgrim's Pride or Tyson name, only one harbored salmonella.
That could result, perhaps, from drier weather or different processes in the plants. In any case, a
Southwestern origin didn't make a difference when it came to campylobacter.
Spoilage. As a check of freshness, we measured total plate count, testing chickens for a broad class
of bacteria whose presence in large numbers can make foods smell or feel slimy, though they
generally don't make you sick. Only 12 of the broilers we tested, or 2 percent, had a total plate count
high enough to suggest they were almost spoiled. That's a bit better than in our 1997 study, when we
found 5 percent of birds had nearly gone bad. The 12 in this study came from 6 different brands.
Chickens from the premium brand Bell & Evans were relatively high in spoilage bacteria. It's possible
that those birds stayed in the case too long: Some Bell & Evans birds we bought didn't have a sell-by
date.
Antibiotic resistance. Despite the chicken producers' announcements and the premium-chicken label
claims, antibiotic resistance is still a concern, especially in chickens harboring campylobacter.
Our tests showed that if you are sickened by one of those chickens, two commonly used antibiotics-tetracycline, an older but still important drug used against germs from pneumonia to chlamydia, and
erythromycin, an option for patients allergic to penicillin--may not help. In 66 percent of the
campylobacter-contaminated chickens, the bacteria were resistant to tetracycline. In 20 percent, they
were resistant to erythromycin.
Your chances of being cured by the usual doses of two fluoroquinolones, ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin,
may also be limited. The latest figures from the FDA, reported in 2001, indicate that 11,477 Americans
were infected in 1999 by fluoroquinolone-resistant campylobacter in chicken.
Antibiotic-resistant campylobacter appeared even in chickens from the two brands labeled "certified
organic," Rosie and Springer Mountain Farms. That isn't as surprising as it might sound. Although
antibiotics are not allowed in organic poultry, and farmers must demonstrate to organic certifiers that
they have not been used, antibiotic-resistant bacteria are ubiquitous and can persist in the environment
for years. In any case, we learned after our tests were finished that Springer Mountain Farms had
taken the organic claim off its label.
In 19 percent of the chickens contaminated with salmonella, the bacteria were resistant to ampicillin,
used against a dozen or more different bacterial infections. In 17 percent, bacteria were resistant to
tetracycline.
Six salmonella-tainted samples from the two kosher-chicken companies showed no antibiotic
resistance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Chicken becomes contaminated long before you put it in your shopping cart. For that reason, the first
line of attack needs to be a change in food-safety policies. But because consumers are the last line of
defense against unsafe food, we've also listed steps you can take.
What policymakers can do:
The government should require companies to monitor data on the use of antibiotics in food animals.
Congress should ban subtherapeutic uses of medically important drugs in poultry and other
livestock.
The USDA should extend its food-safety program to include testing for campylobacter in poultry
plants, should better train its inspectors to spot deficiencies, and should require speedy fixes.
What you can do:
Make chicken one of the last items you buy before heading to the checkout line.
Pick chicken that is well wrapped and at the bottom of the case, where the temperature should be
coolest. Sell-by dates are not a perfect indicator of freshness. We found a few spoiled chickens with
sell-by dates as far away as four to six days. If you can find a chicken with a sell-by date seven or more
days away, buy it.
Place chicken in a plastic bag like those in the produce department, to keep its juices from leaking.
If you'll be cooking the chicken within a couple of days, store it at below 40' F. Otherwise, freeze it.
Thaw frozen chicken in a refrigerator or microwave oven, never on a counter. Leave it in its
packaging and put it on a plate, so juices can't drip.
Separate raw chicken from other foods. Immediately after preparation, use hot, soapy water and
paper towels to wash and dry your hands and anything you or raw chicken might have touched.
Cook chicken thoroughly to kill harmful bacteria. Whole chicken should be heated to 180' F, breasts
to 170'. Use a thermometer; chicken that is no longer pink can still harbor bacteria.
Don't return cooked meat to the plate that held it raw. And don't use a sauce in which raw chicken
has been marinating unless it has been brought to a rolling boil for at least a minute.
Refrigerate or freeze leftovers within two hours of cooking.
FLORIDA TODAY Feb 7, 8:50 PM
Girl, 14, battles rare illness she may have gotten from kiss
By Corey Schubert
TITUSVILLE -- It was New Year's Eve in Fort Lauderdale and, in a festive
moment, 14-year-old Shay Eadens shared a kiss with a boy.
That innocent moment might have led to her catching a relatively rare
disease that caused doctors to amputate three of her fingers, several
fingertips and toes, and will keep her bound to a wheelchair for at least
the next two years.
Shay, who is being treated in a South Florida hospital, is no longer
contagious with invasive meningococcal disease, a bacterial infection that
restricts blood flow.
But with its ability to be spread through kissing, sharing eating utensils
or a simple sneeze from an infected carrier, public health officials in
Brevard County have looked into the case to ensure there's no threat of a
major outbreak on the Space Coast.
After investigating the incident, officials found there's no need for
residents to worry, said Barry Inman, epidemiologist for the Brevard County
Health Department. "There's no likelihood of this becoming a concern in
Brevard," he said, noting about two to four cases of the disease are
reported in the county each year.
Shay, who longs for the day she can return home to sleep in her own bed and
spend time with friends, is among about 2,500 people of all ages -- or one
in 1,000 people --throughout the nation affected by the disease.
About 135 Floridians have the disease, which most often affects people who
have deficiencies in their immune system, according to the Florida Bureau of
Epidemiology. College students living in dormitories also are at a modestly
increased risk.
Symptoms usually occur within 2 to 10 days after exposure and can include
sudden fever, intense headache, nausea, stiff neck, vomiting and a rash.
Invasive meningococcal disease can be life-threatening if not properly
treated within about 24 hours after symptoms occur, with a death rate as
high as 15 percent, the state bureau said.
Shay became seriously ill on Jan. 3 while staying with friends and was taken
to Florida Medical Center in Fort Lauderdale, said family friend Linda
Linogon of Titusville.
The eighth-grader at Jackson Middle School in Titusville then was sent to
receive specialized treatment at Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital in
Hollywood, said her mother, Kaisu Bagley, 45, of Titusville.
"She flat-lined in the process of transporting her from one hospital to
another" and suffered heart damage before being revived, Bagley said. "We're
hoping the damage is not permanent."
Since then, Shay has clung to her faith in God and her wish to return to
school next year.
"I'll be home in about a month and I'm looking forward to seeing everybody,"
said Shay, who plans to become a fashion designer.
"My friends help me get through this," she said, adding several friends from
Titusville have visited her in the hospital.
About 25 percent or more of the nation's population may carry the causative
organism for the disease -- neisseria meningitidis -- in their nasal
passages and never be affected, Inman said.
"Rarely does the disease affect anyone," Inman said. "I may be a carrier and
you may be a carrier, but we don't need to run out and get vaccinated or
treated for this, unless you know you've been exposed to someone who is
affected by the disease."
Invasive meningococcal disease is a bacterial infection that releases toxins
that can shut down major organs, Inman said. This can lead to the loss of
blood flow in fingers, toes and other body parts that may require
amputation.
Doctors already have removed three of Shay's fingers to the second knuckle,
one toe and the tips of other fingers and toes, Bagley said. She has been
treated with antibiotics, along with those who have come in contact with her
since acquiring the disease, and will need to continue to take heart
medication and undergo physical therapy for several years, Bagley said.
This week, doctors will remove half of Shay's right foot, Bagley said. No
other amputations appear to be needed.
Shay's family said her strong will to battle the disease has been an
inspiration. "She's my hero. She's a very brave young girl," said her aunt,
Liisa Cull of Port St. John. "The doctors told us from the beginning that
unless she was a fighter from within, she wouldn't make it."
The Fort Lauderdale teen that Shay's family members think carried the
disease and transmitted it to her was vaccinated shortly after Shay fell
ill, Bagley said. He was not affected by any of the common symptoms,
although two other Fort Lauderdale teens who were in contact with him also
fell ill and have recovered after being vaccinated, she said.
Public health investigators in Brevard informed officials at Shay's school
about the incident, but found no related cases of the disease, Inman said.
A vaccine is available through most area physicians, and in limited supply
through the county's health department, to greatly lower the risk of
acquiring invasive meningococcal disease, Inman said.
However, the only people who may want to consider being vaccinated are those
who soon plan to live in a college dormitory, Inman said.
The best way to prevent the disease from occurring is by reducing the chance
of direct droplet or saliva exposure through routine hygiene procedures,
such as covering one's mouth while sneezing or coughing and by not sharing
utensils, drinks and cigarettes, according to the Florida Bureau of
Epidemiology.
Location summary
Sector general information
Scandals:
U.S. SEIZES MORE HONEY TAINTED WITH ANTIBIOTIC
February 5, 2003
Reuters
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration was cited as saying on
Wednesday that nearly 185,000 pounds of honey imports were seized in Texas
because of contamination with a human antibiotic banned from U.S. food
products.
The containers of honey seized from Hoyts Honey Farm Inc. in Baytown, Texas
contained traces of chloramphenicol, an antibiotic drug used by physicians
as a last resort to treat life-threatening infections. The drug is not
widely used because it can cause a disease known as aplastic anemia, in
which the body's bone marrow stops making enough healthy blood cells.
Chloramphenicol is prohibited in all U.S. food and animal feed products by
the FDA.
The seized honey was stored in 266 drums, each containing 639 pounds, and
five totes, each weighing 3,000 pounds, the FDA said.