fda

What’s Food Safety Really About?

Posted on January 5, 2011 by Alison Ashton — 1 Comment ↓

Back in 2011, President Obama signed the long-awaited–and much-needed–Food Safety Modernization Act into law. The act updated America’s food safety system for the first time since the Great Depression and “represents a sea change for food safety in America, bringing a new focus on prevention,” noted Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., commissioner of food and drugs at the Food and Drug Administration.

Now the FDA has the authority to enforce food safety measures domestically and internationally, including mandating food recalls (before, recalls were voluntary) and blocking food imported from countries or producers who refuse FDA inspections. As Hamburg notes, half of our fresh fruit, 20% of of our vegetables and 80% of our seafood is imported. However, lack of funding has made implementing measures in the act slow at best.

An avalanche of high-profile food recalls in 2010 may have encouraged lawmakers to pass the act. From the nationwide recall that reclaimed more than a half-billion eggs through a recall of potentially tainted baked goods sold at Whole Foods, 2010 may go down as the year of the food recall. As Kurt noted in his commentary about the egg recall, large-scale industrially cultivated food that’s distributed nationwide can create nationwide food-safety problems.

The real fight is just beginning, says Marion Nestle, author of Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety (University of California Press), because Republican lawmakers have repeatedly balked at appropriating the estimated $1.4 billion needed to implement the law’s measures. Without the money, the law won’t have teeth. That’s bad news for the 1 in 6 Americans who are sickened by food-borne illnesses every year (not to mention the 3,000 killed by tainted food), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In the meantime, Bill Marler, an attorney who has devoted his career to litigating foodborne illness cases (starting with the Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak in 1993), predicts that despite the new law “2011 may well look like many of the years before to me – more outbreaks, more suffering and more lawsuits.”

Alphabet Soup: The Lastest News on BPA

Posted on November 5, 2010 by Alison Ashton — 4 Comments ↓

I recently found myself in the grocery store dithering over one of my favorite pantry staples: Canned tomatoes. I knew the canned versions come with a sidecar of bisphenol A (BPA), a substance with some serious health risks. Lia touched on those concerns when she wrote about the challenges of finding BPA-free containers for Noemi’s school lunch. And in recent months, there has been some news on the BPA front.

Widespread use, widespread risk

BPA is an organic compound used to harden plastics for water bottles, baby bottles, the lining of canned goods and all manner of plastic goods. It leaches into water and food, and it has been used in food cans for more than 50 years. BPA is detectable in the urine of 93% of the population, according to some estimates.

The problem? BPA mimics estrogen in the body and is thought to disrupt hormone function. The President’s Cancer Panel’s recent Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk report notes that a broad range of studies have linked BPA to breast and prostate cancer, diabetes, heart disease and early puberty (which is why parents are particularly concerned about exposing their kids to the stuff). A 2008 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that adults with higher urinary levels of BPA also have higher rates of heart disease, diabetes and liver problems. Some studies even suggest it interferes with cancer treatment. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has named BPA among the “dirty dozen” endocrine disruptors to avoid.

The latest news

Earlier this year, the Food and Drug Administration re-evaluated BPA (after declaring it safe in 2008). The agency agreed there’s “reason for some concern” about BPA, but declared the research (most of which has been done on animals) too limited to call for an outright ban on BPA. The FDA and National Institutes of Health are funding $30 million in new research into BPA’s safety–or lack of it.

Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is considering whether to add BPA to its Concern List of hazardous chemicals. While the EPA doesn’t have jurisdiction over BPA in food packaging, an EPA ruling would cover, for example, BPA in thermal cash register receipts that you get at the store. [UPDATE: The EPA has since declined to initiate regulatory action regarding BPA, though the agency will continue to monitor research on the effects of BPA on human health.]

While government agencies investigate BPA’s hazards, can manufacturers continue to stand by it. In April, the Can Manufacturers Institute (CMI) issued this statement: “CMI continues strongly to support the use of BPA epoxy coatings and believes our coatings are essential to food safety … Human exposure to BPA from can coatings is minute and poses no health risk that has been recognized by any governmental authority.”

Well, perhaps no American government agency has said outright that BPA is unsafe. But last month, Environment Canada, the Canadian version of the EPA, declared BPA toxic and is considering regulatory action that could be announced by the end of this year.

Consumer demand trumps regulation

In the meantime concerned American shoppers and consumer advocacy groups like the Environmental Working Group have prompted food manufacturers and retailers to get BPA out of our food supply. Last month, As You Sow, a nonprofit organization that promotes corporate social responsibility, and Green Century Capital Management, an investment advisory firm that advocates environmentally responsible investing, released their Seeking Safer Packaging 2010 report, which grades companies on their efforts to remove BPA from food packaging.

Hain Celestial, ConAgra and Heinz receive top marks for developing and testing BPA alternatives and starting to remove BPA from can liners; they also have time lines for eliminating BPA use entirely. General Mills gets a B+ for transitioning BPA out of its Muir Glen canned tomato products, starting with this fall’s tomato pack.

Among retailers’ private-label canned goods evaluated in the report, Whole Foods got the top grade: D+, because although Whole Foods is transparent on its stance regarding BPA–it opposes the stuff, obviously–it’s not actively developing alternatives, according to the report. (The natural foods giant, though, does “strongly encourage” suppliers to transition to BPA-free packaging where possible.)

But using BPA-free cans isn’t new, says Sonya Ludner, senior analyst with the Environmental Working Group. She notes that Eden Organic has used BPA-free cans in the late 1990s for all its canned bean products. Eden simply asked its supplier–Ball Corp.–to use the enamel liners made from vegetable resins that it was using before the introduction of BPA. It’s a solution that works for nonacidic ingredients, but not for acidic items like tomatoes. Manufacturers also are using alternative forms of BPA-free packaging. For instance, you can buy POMI’s tomato products in aseptic boxes or Lucini’s tomatoes packed in glass jars.

As the report’ s authors note, eliminating BPA is a good business move in response to growing consumer concern. “Companies are actually moving faster than regulators in phasing out BPA,” says Emily Stone of Green Century Capital Management.

Amy Galland, As You Sow’s research director, notes that this year 32% of companies have time lines to phase out BPA from packaging, up from just 7% last year.

Ludner says consumer demand, spurred by advocacy efforts by groups like the EWG, is driving this change. “I see a ton of momentum behind this, and I’m thrilled to see some action.”

GE Salmon in Front of FDA

Posted on September 20, 2010 by Lia Huber — No Comments ↓

Today was the first day of hearings for a new ‘brand’ (AquAdvantage) of genetically-modified salmon that grow twice as fast as normal salmon. The company, AquaBounty, is presenting in front of the FDA today (the Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee) and tomorrow (the Food Advisory Committee) to argue its case and, so far, the FDA seems on board. In response to people’s concern for food and environmental safety, the FDA responded with the resoundingly confident statement that “the fish shouldn’t cause any allergies not found in conventional salmon and that there is little chance they could escape.” (from this article on AP by Mary Clare Jalonick)

Hmmm.

First of all, what makes this fish genetically different from its natural cousins is that a growth hormone has been added to its gene structure, along with another gene that acts as a trigger to keep it active all year long. Given that this structure is unprecedented in nature, I’m curious to know what gives FDA officials the confidence to say that the added genes won’t have any effect on humans. And much of the evidence supporting the argument that there is no biological difference is supplied by AquaBounty, the very company that stands to profit from an FDA Yes.

Second, it seems a bit naive to say that there is little chance they could escape–despite the company’s assurances otherwise. True, most farmed fish aren’t cultivated in Prince Edwards Island and then shipped to the Panamanian highlands for “grow out.” (one of the fail-safes, by the way, is the use of chlorine to kill any possible escapees … not exactly friendly on the environment) But we’ve heard assurances before. Escapees from fish farms are a well-documented hazard of open water aquaculture. In one Canadian study, juvenile escapees were found in 75% of the streams surrounding the fish farm.

Third, these closing statements by AquaBounty’s CEO Ron Stotish just tick me off:

“Stotish says the fish would be bred in better conditions than many of the world’s farmed salmon, and could be located closer to population centers to help feed more people.” Stotish is clearly ‘feeding’ on the concern that global consumption of seafood is rising. That’s true, and it’s true that aquaculture will likely play a large part in feeding that demand (click here to read our piece on Farm Fresh Fish). But there are many other species that make more responsible choices for aquaculture; sorry, Mr. Stotish, we don’t need your salmon to feed the world.
“The company has also said the increase in engineered salmon production could help relieve endangered wild salmon populations.” Here’s a better solution … experiment with other sustainably wild-caught species (like black cod), and explore a variety of seafood that’s responsibly farm-raised (like barramundi, clams, mussels and arctic char).
“The company is also arguing that the fish do not need to be labeled as genetically engineered. Stotish said, ‘The label could even be misleading because it implies a difference that doesn’t exist.‘” I don’t know about you … but no matter what the FDA says, I don’t want my family being test subjects to see if an unnatural, overactive growth hormone in a food will affect our bodies. And I certainly think it’s my right to make that choice.

Here’s my question for the FDA … why? Why are you so eager to say yes to a company who has everything to gain by that yes, and so hesitant to say no to protect the public you’re charged to serve? Even if the risk is minimal, isn’t that too much given that we the people have nothing to gain and everything to lose? After all, you received 29,000 responses to the draft, the vast majority of which were against genetic engineering of our food.

If this irks you as much as it (obviously) irks me, you can take action here on Food and Water Watch. If you’d like to make your voice heard here on NOURISH Evolution, join the conversation in Eco Bites here.