The chemical, melamine, is the same chemical that was responsible for the pet food recalls last year, and has caused 53,000 illnesses in children — including nearly 13,000 hospitalizations and 4 deaths.

The NYT says that there is widespread speculation that the contamination was being covered up due to government pressure tied to the Olympic games.

The delays have led to widespread speculation in China that the Sanlu Group and some government officials were attempting to cover up the scandal during the Olympics because Beijing had pressured Chinese journalists and companies not to release negative news.

22 companies have been caught producing melamine tainted dairy products, leading to something of a panic in China. The substance, used in the manufacture of plastics, looks like protein when tested and was used to artificially increase the protein count of the milk.

China Milk Cover-Up Started Last Year [NYT]
(Photo: Getty)

The recall was announced after an unspecified customer complaint, which we imagine went something like, "Hey, there was a chunk of metal in my bagel this morning, wtf." Luckily, no injuries have been reported.

"Voluntary Recall: Wegmans In-Store Made Bagels" [Wegmans] (Thanks to Jeff!)
(Photo: Getty)

VeryShortList says that BarfBlog is

a site maintained by a group of food-safety experts at Kansas State University, [and] seeks to keep the public informed about the latest food-poisoning outbreaks.

It also has interesting items about related issues, for instance this recent post that THC, the "happy" compound in marijuana, has antimicrobial properties.

If you have an interest in food safety the way some consumerists here love discussing personal finance, this is the blog to bookmark.

BarfBlog [VeryShortList]
(Photo: Getty)

From the New York Times:

Advocates for food safety condemned the agency’s decision and asserted that irradiation could lower nutritional value, create unsafe chemicals and ruin taste.

“It’s a total cop-out,” said Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food and Water Watch. “They don’t have the resources, the authority or the political will to really protect consumers from unsafe food.”

Dr. Laura Tarantino, director of the Office of Food Additive Safety at the F.D.A., said the agency had found no serious nutritional or safety changes associated with irradiation of spinach or lettuce.

“These irradiated foods are not less safe than others,” Dr. Tarantino said, “and the doses are effective in reducing the level of disease-causing micro-organisms.”

The government has long allowed food processors to irradiate beef, eggs, poultry, oysters and spices, but the market for irradiated foods is tiny because the government also requires that these foods be labeled as irradiated, labels that scare away most consumers.

“People think the product is radioactive,” said Harlan Clemmons, president of Sadex, a food irradiation company based in Sioux City, Iowa.

What do you think? Will you happily eat irradiated spinach?

F.D.A. Allows Irradiation of Some Produce [NYT]
(Photo: smcgee )

The article says,

A KFC spokesman, Rick Maynard, said KFC is committed to the highest levels of food safety.

"Our franchisee does not agree with the court's verdict, and they are looking at their legal options," Maynard said Monday.

The suit also alleged that Andrew, his wife and their children were victims of an employee scheme that targeted police officers.

"Employees maintained 'special servings' of food reserved for ... officers," the lawsuit said. "The 'special servings' had been urinated in or spit in by KFC/Taco Bell employees."

The employee accused of urinating and spitting in the Andrew family's food, Casey Diedrich, pleaded guilty last year to violating the Nebraska Pure Food Act and fined $100, according to court records. The prosecution was for the same incident described in the lawsuit.

A company spokesman said last year that Diedrich eventually was fired for missing work but not for any of the incidents the lawsuit cited.

What's even more shocking than the food contamination itself is that the management did nothing to prevent the family from consuming the tainted food. We can understand how the concept of CYA (cover your ass) may have been a factor, but when information has been brought to your attention that directly impacts the safety of your customers, as a restaurant manager, the only reasonable action is prevent anyone from consuming that food. Now, I'm starting to wonder about all the times that KFC has left me feeling nauseous—I better not.

Neb. cop, family win $40K over urine-tainted food [AP]
(Photo:Scott Ableman)

The misconceptions:

"You can wash it all off"
Sometimes the contamination is within. With veggies like raw bean, alfalfa, clover or radish sprouts, it is possible that the seeds have been contaminated.

"Local means safe"
According to the scientific director of the Food Safety Network at KSU, "It's more important to ask whether a farm is located near a high concentration of wildlife, what type of fertilizer is used, what water source is used and how often it is tested and what hygiene practices were used during the harvesting, storage and transportation processes."

"Fruits and vegetables are safer than meat products"
Because fruits and vegetables are often uncooked, anything they into contact with could contaminate them.

"A meat thermometer isn't necessary"
Instead of guessing, experts recommend a meat thermometer to be sure.

"Cooking kills everything"
You knew that proper cooking protects you against botulism and mad cow disease, right? Wrong, it doesn't.

"Food left out is harmless"
According to the USDA, foods such as meat, poultry, eggs and casseroles should be discarded if left at room temperature for more than two hours. If it's 90 degrees or hotter, then one hour.

For more delicious factoids, check out 8 Common Foodborne Illnesses And Their Symptoms.

In Depth: Top Food-Safety Misconceptions [Forbes]
(Photo: Meggito)

The Reporter obtained copies of the Chicago Department of Public Health’s daily inspection reports for the vendors who are returning to this year’s event after participating at last year’s event, which attracted 3.6 million visitors. The Reporter found that in 2007:

* More than 85 percent of the 67 food vendors had violations during their onsite inspections.



* Of the 57 vendors with violations, the average number of violations per restaurant was four.



* Nearly 40 percent of all violations occurred during the first three days of the festival.



* One restaurant, Star of Siam, was cited for storing an open container of vinegar next to an open container of bleach. Another, La Justicia, was cited for storing enchilada sauce in a container that read “dish soap.”

The Reporter also said that 10 people will be filing lawsuits against Pars Cove Restaurant in connection with the salmonella outbreak that may have sickened up to 790 people at the taste last year. The salmonella was eventually traced back to some contaminated hummus.

Leaving A Bad Taste [Chicago Reporter]

David Acheson, the Food and Drug Administration's associate commissioner for foods says that Florida "fits with the time frame" of the outbreak, and "the trace-back continues, but we still have not identified a specific source of the outbreak." FDA investigators have still not begun testing farms because "we don't know yet where to send them," Acheson told reporters.

Meanwhile, Guanabee has a fun clip of Lou Dobbs acting shocked by the incompetance of the FDA, and CDC has confirmed that the total of number of people who have gotten sick now stands at 552, across 32 states. We're not shocked that the FDA can't locate the source of the salmonella, but that's only because we already knew that the FDA was broken.

FDA: Source of tainted tomatoes may never be uncovered [AJC]
Salmonella Tomatoes: Nobody Knows WTF Is Going On, Least Of All The FDA [Guanabee]
(Photo: The Joy Of The Mundane )

Looks like the FDA is now in the business of causing Raw Tomato outbreaks. WATCH OUT KIDS, HERE COMES THE TOMATO OUTBREAK!!!!

I think only e. coli breakouts are worse than tomato breakouts.

The first sign of the outbreak is adding superfluous letters to existing words like “untill”.

Hmm, sort of reminds us of this.

Here's the actual BBB complain that went unanswered by Taco Bell:

About 3 weeks ago i called the 800# asking what grade of beef they use. All they could tell me was usda approved. I called 4 times and got the same, twice i left my # and was told a nutritionalist would call me back....no call ever came. I next e mailed corp with the same question. I was answered by a Sandy Shakelford telline me:I have located a phone number contact in which you can inquire about our meat. Taco Bell Corporation 949-863-4500 and ask for the QA Department. I called a total of three times first got a prompt telling me to put in MY voice mail # to get my messages. Next i was transfered to a recording telling of bad cheese both plain and mixed and to throw them out and call in for a credit. Third was disconected. 4th i got a voice mailbox in the Quality control dept. i think his name was Steve...Again i left my question and # and again no call back. On Feb 27 i e mailed Sandy telling her what my phone experiance was and had not got an answer to my question...That was 10 days ago and again no contact from Sandy nor Taco Bell. Side note the web sight says contact us call 1800 TACO BELL when its actually 800 TACO BEL....The companys resistance to answer my question tells me what i was told by a friend that worked there that they use poor yet usda approved beef could be true.

"Inevitably there would be an increase in the cost of the products that is passed on to the consumer," Cal Dooley, the group's president and a former Democratic lawmaker, told a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee. "You are further compounding the rapid increase in food prices, the likes of which we haven't seen in recent years."

With the legislative changes, "you would get safe food from places like China, where they sell all manner of crap," Dingell told Dooley.
 
Under the proposal, food producers would have to pay annual registration fees of $2,000 per facility, generating $600 million for FDA food-safety activities, more than doubling the current budget. The FDA would be required to conduct inspections every two years of both domestic and foreign makers of drugs and medical devices.

The head of the union that represents 6,000 federal food inspectors told a congressional committee Thursday that the Agriculture Department tried to intimidate him and other employees who reported violations of regulations, an allegation denied by the agency.

Union chief Stan Painter said that following a mad cow disease scare in 2003, he told superiors that new food safety regulations for slaughtered cattle were not being uniformly enforced. Painter said he was told to drop the matter, and when he didn't, was grilled by department officials and then placed on disciplinary investigative status.

Painter said he was eventually exonerated, but the incident "has caused a chilling effect on others within my bargaining unit to come forward and stand up when agency management is wrong." He said that supervisors tell workers to "let the system work" rather than cite slaughterhouses for violations.

Well, um, isn't that part of the system? The enforcement part? No?

The USDA's spokesperson says they looked into Painter's allegations and found no evidence to substantiate them.

The spokesperson also said that the recent (notorious) failure to uncover animal abuse was "not because of a lack of inspectors, adding that he believes the agency has enough to do the job effectively." We're not sure, however, whether that statement to the AP was accompanied by a Nancy Nord-style wink.

Union head claims USDA tried to intimidate employees [AP]

After a deadly outbreak of E. coli 0157:H7 in September 2006, the committee examined the Food and Drug Administration's efforts to protect the safety of packaged fresh spinach. What they found wasn't pretty.

From the report:

Packaged fresh spinach facilities were inspected only once every 2.4 years, less than half of FDA's stated goals. Frequent inspections are the cornerstone to the current safeguards for fresh produce and adequate resources are required for frequent inspections. FDA's performance goals state that 95% of high risk facilities like packaged fresh spinach facilities should be inspected at least once yearly. Over a seven-year period, FDA provided 199 inspection reports for 67 packaged fresh spinach facilities. This translates to an inspection rate of about one inspection of each facility every 2.4 years, less than half of FDA's stated goal.

FDA observed objectionable conditions during 47% of the packaged fresh spinach facility inspections. Of the 199 inspections reviewed, 93 documented "objectionable conditions," the most common of which involved plant sanitation, plant construction, and worker sanitation. For example, more than 60% of the inspections with "objectionable conditions" revealed problems related to facility sanitation, such as inadequate restroom cleanliness or accumulations of litter.

Despite observing objectionable conditions in packaged fresh spinach facilities, FDA took no meaningful enforcement action. FDA did not refer any of these inspections with objectionable conditions for further action by its own enforcement authorities. In one case, FDA did refer one inspection to the state for further action. FDA did not issue warning letters or pursue more aggressive steps such as seizures or injunctions.

FDA overlooked repeated violations. In 38 cases, FDA observed repeated violations by packaged fresh spinach facilities but did nothing to force correction. Instead of taking enforcement action, FDA continued to request voluntary compliance after recording violations at each inspection. 14 of these repeat requests for voluntary compliance were for precisely the same violations.

The California Department of Health Services and the FDA performed a joint investigation into the causes of the 2006 spinach outbreak and found that the outbreak probably did not originate in the facilities that are inspected by FDA. Instead, the problem began outside the plants and most likely was due to contamination of the water outside of the plant by cattle feces, pig feces, or river water. FDA does not routinely inspect the fields except in outbreak investigations. In fact, none of the 199 Establishment Inspection Reports reviewed by Committee staff indicated that any observations of field conditions had taken place.

Might want to think twice about fresh spinach.

FDA and Fresh Spinach Safety (PDF) [US House Of Representatives via Consumer Reports]
(Photo:jeffturner)

"I was trying to give my sister some candy and when I looked at it, it had a razor blade in it," said Chris, 10-years-old. His mother asked that we not use his last name.

The Pokemon cards and Valentines Day candy is imported from China by Sherwood Brands. In a recorded message Thursday Dollar General ordered all Pokemon candy and two others removed from store shelves.

"The items are the Pokemon cards and valentines candy. Dog valentine and pops and 20 strip, or 20 count strip Heart pops. Removing these items from the sales floor must become your most important priority today," said the recording from Dollar General Headquarters in Tennessee.

Importer Recalls Valentine Lollipops [AP]
(AP Photo/Polk County Sheriff's Office)

Dear Helen,

Thank you so much for your patience and please accept my sincere apologies for your trouble. I was not aware of this situation until someone emailed me from the Consumerist site. I had been tied up yesterday when you called and it surfaced internally that the UPS package had never gone out to you. Apparently there was a lot of conversation about it here but none of it reached me. I had previously been aware that someone had reported a possible foreign object in a Blondie and that we were following procedure to get information from the consumer and obtain the foreign object so we could examine it and proceed with internal investigation.

It being a Saturday I have not been able to speak to everyone individually, but I have garnered some information and it is on that basis that I am responding. I didn't want to his to go unanswered until Monday.

There were many failures here on our part:

• The call tag from UPS should have been issued the same day. I learned from Anna that your initial call had come in close to the time she leaves for the day on a Friday and her expectation was that the service team would have sent the package out the following Monday.
• Neither Anna nor the service team followed up to confirm that it had been done and then it apparently fell off everyone's radar screen while we were busy with Valentine's day (I offer that not as any kind of excuse but by way of hypothesis how we could possibly have dropped the ball on something so important).
• When it did surface yesterday, no-one informed me that we'd had a major customer service failure. Two weeks is a totally unacceptable period of time for such a thing to go on. Two days is unacceptable! We needed to know immediately not only to serve you better, but so that the internal tracking could be done as close to the production date and ship date as possible.

All of the people here at Dancing Deer that were involved in this failure are actually really terrific, talented, intelligent, caring, conscientious and hard working people. I am happy to tell you that this failure is not a pattern, but a really rare incident. Customer service is something we do really well. I am perplexed and troubled by the incident but more curious than anything else. It may, in the end, simply be explained by there having been a perfect storm of several people making an unusual error in both judgment and follow through simultaneously with the same customer. Sorry to say that would be you! I hope you will forgive us and stick with us while we seek to understand what that foreign object was to begin with.

By the way I am confused by the photograph that is posted on Consumerist.com. It appears to be Brownies, not Blondies, so any information you can give us will be helpful, and the more specific the better. If there is nay product left over please send that out. Anna confirmed to me today that the UPS call tag has now been issued. If you would like to speak to Anna this weekend please let me know and I can contact her.

You will note that the entire office team was copied on this email and I can assure you that there will be focus on this issue Monday morning and we will use our learnings from our poor performance with you to build a better organization with a higher level of confidence that such a thing could not happen again.

I have left you two voice messages, office and cell, and look forward to speaking with you. I am very sorry for your poor service and response from us. My cell phone is xxx-xxx-xxxx. Feel free to call me at your convenience.

Best regards,

Trish

PREVIOUSLY: This Two-Inch Metal Spear Does Not Belong In A Dancing Deer All-Natural, Organic Blondie

The video shows cows that are too sick to walk being lifted and prodded with forklifts in order to get them to move into the slaughter box. Although the USDA says it doesn't have proof that the sick cows entered the food supply, just the simple fact that workers were hitting sick cows with forklifts while 8 USDA inspectors looked the other way was enough to prompt the agency to shut down the company.

From the LA Times:

Cliver, professor emeritus of food safety at UC Davis, said the suspension of the plant is "long past due."

"It's a shame when USDA has to read about this stuff in the newspaper before they take action," he said. Cliver said he was especially shocked by the news, because as someone who has worked on food safety for 45 years, he believed in the federal inspection process. "That the most intensive inspection system we have was asleep on this situation bothers me enormously," he said.

One retired food inspector, who once worked at Hallmark, said the USDA supervisor in charge of the plant had to have been aware of the practices shown in the Humane Society's video.

"The supervisor should have known what was going on," said Paul Carney, western council president for the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals, the USDA inspectors' union.

Bill Bullard, chief executive of the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, an advocacy organization that represents cattle-raising farmers and ranchers, was also critical of the USDA's lax enforcement.

"We would hope that this example will impress upon the USDA the need to bolster its inspection processes to enforce the current law that prohibits downer animals in the human food supply," Bullard said.

USDA's oversight of meat safety criticized [LA Times]

From Reuters:

The FDA's proposal for a China office appeared in U.S. President George W. Bush's budget proposal for fiscal 2009, which was released on Monday.

It underscores the administration's belief that it "cannot inspect its way" to safe food across the country. The FDA now inspects only a tiny share of the food under its authority.

Under the president's budget proposal, FDA food safety spending at the FDA would grow by less than 10 percent, focusing on heading off problems with contaminated or otherwise unsafe food before it enters the marketplace.

FDA looks for "boots on the ground" in China [Reuters]

CBC News extracted this precious gem from the government department that inspects restaurants: "They say employees should not drop their pants behind the counter."

After reviewing the video, franchise owner Albert Buott exclaimed: "Good God almighty! Where's my managers? Who's allowing this to happen?" before confusedly adding: "Who's there? Where am I?"

Dairy Queen workers' hijinks on web shock owner [CBC News via BarfBlog]

Many Chinese companies were unfamiliar with the concept: One furniture maker asked for kosher certification, drawing a polite rebuff. Another facility asked to get certified as kosher even though it was smoking eel on site, a kosher no-no. The company was turned down; it is now building a separate, kosher-only facility.

And many companies weren't ready for the grilling the rabbis gave them on their first visits to their plants, seeing it as a sign of distrust. "In China, everything works on relationships," said Grunberg of the Orthodox Union, which certifies more than 400,000 products worldwide.

Whether kosher foods are actually less likely to be contaminated with, say, E. coli bacteria remains up for debate. While research is scant in this area, experts say it makes sense that kosher food could be safer because it's more closely monitored. "Jews aren't allowed to ingest bugs, so produce must go through a thorough washing and checking to ensure that no bugs are found within the leaves or on the surface of the fruit or vegetable," says Moshe Elefant, a rabbi and chief operating officer of the Orthodox Union KOSHER, a kosher certification organization based in New York. But bacteria can remain even after this type of washing, so consumers can't assume they're less likely to get food poisoning with bagged spinach marked kosher than with a conventional bag.

The same caveat applies to poultry and beef. A salting process that removes blood from the meat has antibacterial effects, but salmonella and E. coli can still survive, says Joe Regenstein, a professor of food science who teaches a course on Jewish and Muslim food laws at Cornell University. Kosher beef, though, is much less likely to contain the misshapen proteins that cause mad cow disease, rare as that is, probably because the animals are slaughtered young, before the disease sets in.

Health-conscious consumers put their faith in kosher certification [The Globe and Mail via BarfBlog]
China going kosher after recalls [Mercury News]
(Photo: nicasaurusrex)

Sadly, the real intent of the study was to measure how much of an impact "the media's relentless coverage of recalls" have had on customer trust, and not on topics like, oh say, whether mixing batches of meat is a sound business decision.

Although the majority of consumers remain confident in the overall safety of the U.S. meat supply, 34 percent said they are less confident than they were five years ago.

Only 35 percent of consumers surveyed agree that the U.S. government is doing everything it can to ensure meat product safety.

36 percent of consumers said they worry about serving fresh ground beef or hamburgers to their families due to concerns about E. coli contamination. The majority, however, indicated that such concern has yet to impact purchase habits or even intent.

Hartless said during an interview Thursday that the second and last time he visited the Burger King in Rutland was on June 18 when the lure of a home-style hamburger brought him to the restaurant.

"At that time they were promoting the Southwestern Whopper. Being from Texas I was excited. There's not a lot of spicy food here," he said.

Hartless, who moved to Fair Haven two years ago, said he didn't recognize anyone working at the restaurant and as far as he knows, no one in the restaurant knew him.

But while he was ordering his meal, he said the woman taking his order gave him a hard time about doing the order his way.

"I asked for a Whopper with jalapenos and hold the onions," he said. "The girl told me they didn't have jalapenos but the last time I was in there they gave me jalapenos. When I said that, she told me that they never carried jalapenos. I told her that was fine, but she pulled out a list and said, 'Like you see, we don't carry them.'

"When she read back my order a few minutes later it was wrong," he added.

Frustrated, Hartless said he sat in a booth to wait for his meal. From the angle of the booth, he said he couldn't see the kitchen or the person preparing his sandwich.

When his order was ready, he said he took it home with him to Fair Haven where he sat down to dinner with his spouse and stepdaughter. He said after making his gruesome discovery, the rest of the sandwiches were searched but no additional objects were found.

The urge to think "Attention Whore! Frivolous Lawsuit!" is mitigated because Hartless submitted to a polygraph test and seems genuinely troubled. The poor guy was plagued by nightmares, the kind you do not have unless you suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome:

"I know it sounds kind of funny now but I had dreams where I would be doing random things and whatever I was holding would turn into the hamburger or the condom."

The report describes what it calls a "plethora of inadequacies," including:

• inadequate inspections of manufacturers, noting that foodmakers, for example, are inspected about once every 10 years.
• A "badly broken" food-import system and food supply "that grows riskier each year."
• A depleted FDA staff, which is about the same size as it was 15 years ago despite huge growth in agency responsibilities.
• A workforce with a "dearth" of scientists who understand emerging technologies.
• An "obsolete" information-technology system, with handwritten inspectors' reports and "piles and piles" of paper documents that are in warehouses with no backup, including clinical trial data.

"These people were horrified by what they found," [said William Hubbard, a former FDA associate commissioner]. While the subcommittee was supposed to look ahead to where the FDA needs to be, Hubbard says it came away concluding that "it cannot even do its job now."

The consumer groups who originally called for a ban on the practice are not pleased:

"We're outraged the FDA put the economic interest of the industry before the health and safety of consumers," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Food and Water Watch. "At worst (it's) dangerous, at best it's a consumer rip-off."

Bottom line: unless you know for sure your store doesn't use carbon monoxide on its meat, don't equate color with freshness, because the practice isn't going away any time soon.

"Food industry defends carbon monoxide use in meat" [Reuters]
(Photo: Getty)

• 1.3-pound packages of ''Century Farm 80/20 Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 3.0-pound packages of ''Century Farm 80/20 Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 1- pound packages of ''Century Farm 80/20 Ground Beef Patty.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Century Farm 85/15 Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 3-pound packages of ''Century Farm 90/10 Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/19/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Century Farm 90/10 Ground Beef Patties.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Century Farm 90/10 Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Century Farm 93/7 Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 1-pound packages of ''Century Farm 96/4 Extra Lean Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/19/2007 or 10/31/2007.
• 1-pound packages of ''Century Farm 85/15 Ground Beef Patties.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date 10/19/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Century Farm 93/7 Ground Beef Patties.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Century Farm 80/20 Chuck Ground Beef Patties.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Century Farm 80/20 Chuck Ground Beef for Chili.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007 or 11/03/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Century Farm Meatloaf Mix, Beef, Pork and Veal with Natural Flavors.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/19/2007, 10/22/2007, 10/31/2007 or 11/03/2007.
• 1.25- pound packages of ''Giant 75/25 Ground Beef, All Natural.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 3.0- pound packages of ''Giant 75/25 Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007.
• 1.25-pound packages of ''Giant 80/20 Ground Beef, All Natural.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 3.0-pound packages of ''Giant 80/20 Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Giant Eagle Ground Chuck Beef Patties 80/20.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/19/2007 or10/22/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Giant Eagle Ground Beef Patties 92/8.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/22/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Giant Eagle Ground Beef Patties 85/15 - Certified Angus Beef Brand.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/19/2007 or 10/22/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Giant Eagle Ground Round Beef Patties 85/15.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/19/2007 or 10/22/2007.
• 3.0-pound packages of ''Shop Rite, 80% Lean 20% Fat, Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007 or 11/03/2007.
• 3.0-pound packages of ''Shop Rite, 85% Lean 15% Fat, Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007 or 11/03/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Shop Rite, 93% Lean 7% Fat, Ground Beef Patties.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Shop Rite, 93% Lean 7% Fat, Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 1-pound packages of ''Shop Rite, 96% Lean 4% Fat, Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007.
• 1.25- pound packages of ''Stop & Shop 75/25 Ground Beef, All Natural.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007 or 11/03/2007.
• 5.0- pound packages of ''Stop & Shop 75/25 Ground Beef, All Natural.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 1.25-pound packages of ''Stop & Shop 80/20 Ground Beef, All Natural.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007 or 11/03/2007.
• 1.25-pound packages of ''Stop & Shop 85/15 Ground Beef, All Natural.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007.
• 1.2-pound packages of ''Stop & Shop 87/13 Ground Beef Sirloin, All Natural.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007.
• 1- pound packages of ''Stop & Shop 90/10 Ground Beef, All Natural.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007.
• 1.0-pound packages of ''Stop & Shop 80/20 Ground Beef Patties, All Natural.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Stop & Shop 80/20 Ground Beef Patties, All Natural.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 2.6-pound packages of ''Stop & Shop 80/20 Ground Beef Patties, All Natural.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Stop & Shop 90/10 Ground Beef Patties, All Natural.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007 or 11/03/2007.
• 2.5-pound packages of ''Stop & Shop 90/10 Ground Beef, All Natural.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/19/2007.
• 2.5-pound packages of ''Stop & Shop 93/7 Ground Beef, All Natural.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007.
• 1-pound packages of ''Wegmans 80/20 Ground Beef Patties.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/19/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Wegmans 90/10 Ground Beef Patties.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/19/2007 or 10/22/2007.
• 3.0- pound packages of ''Weis Premium Meats, 73/27 Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 1- pound packages of ''Weis Premium Meats, 80/20 Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007.
• 3- pound packages of ''Weis Premium Meats, 80/20 Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007 or 11/03/2007.
• 1-pound packages of ''Weis Premium Meats 85/15 Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007.
• 2.0 and 3.0 -pound packages of ''Weis Premium Meats 85/15 Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 2-pound packages of ''Weis Premium Meats 93/7 Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 1-pound packages of ''Weis Premium Meats 93/7 Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007.
• 1-pound packages of ''Weis Premium Meats 96/4 Ground Beef Extra Lean.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Weis Premium Meats 90/10 Ground Beef Sirloin Patties.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Weis Premium Meats Meatloaf Mix, Beef, Pork and Veal with Natural Flavors.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Weis Premium Meats 80/20 Ground Beef for Chili.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Meat Loaf Mix, Made with Beef, Pork, Veal, with Natural Flavors.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/19/2007 or 10/22/2007.
• 1.25-pound packages of ''Meatloaf Mix, A Blend of Fresh Ground Beef, Pork & Veal, All Natural.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007.
• Various weight packages of ''85/15 Coarse Ground Beef for Chili Meat, All Natural.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/2007.
• 1.3-pound packages of ''Ground Beef Chuck for Chili 80/20.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/19/2007 or 10/22/2007.
• 1.3 pound packages of ''Price Rite 85% Lean, 15% Fat Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 1.3 pound packages of ''Price Rite 80% Lean, 20% Fat Ground Beef.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 11/03/2007.
• 1.3 pound packages of ''Price Rite Meat loaf mix.'' Each package bears a Use by/freeze by date of 10/31/207 or 11/03/2007.

1 mil. pounds of beef possibly tainted by e-coli recalled [AP]
(Photo: hans s)

The glowing shrimp have yet to sicken anyone, according to the FDA, and are just as safe as colored ketchup. One Thriftway manager said: "We don't hear a lot of complaints about glowing seafood, but then people rarely look at their shrimp and crab in the dark."

However, [the manager] admits that he might "take a peek" at the seafood now and then in a darkened freezer "just in case."

A caller who identified herself only as Barbara told the Seattle P-I on Monday that she had given some cooked shrimp she bought at the QFC in Wallingford to her three "very large" cats Sunday night as a "birthday treat."

An hour later, she said, she was frightened at what she found. She saw a greenish-blue glow coming from the cat bowl on the darkened porch. When she turned on the light, she found the six shrimp untouched. Her porky cats, which she said "would eat your leg off if you stood in one place long enough," didn't touch them.

She pulled open the refrigerator door. The light bulb had burned out weeks ago, she said, but the plastic bag holding the remaining shrimp glowed brightly in the chilled darkness.

Neither Peters nor Barbara, who also ate some of the shrimp, said they were made ill, just a bit queasy at the idea of consuming the glowing seafood.

Glow-in-the-dark shrimp — it's all a little fishy [Seattle PI via Slashfood]
(Photo: Edith Widder/Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution)

A logical person might conclude that its not really a good idea to package the meat in such a way that your customer might become ill from eating it. Not so, it seems.

At a hearing Tuesday meatpackers said that consumers should rely on the "use by" date and not the color of meat to determine its freshness. They also suggested sniffing the meat to see if it is bad, and claimed that "consumers routinely rely on sell-by dates" and not color to determine freshness. (Although if they didn't use color to determine freshness, one would assume that there would be no reason to spend extra money artificially dying meat to appear "fresher," but we're not supposed to think about that.)

One company, Cargill, said that it had decided to place warning labels on its carbon dioxide "dyed" meat:

Cargill Meat executive Scott Eilert said the processor, part of agribusiness giant Cargill Inc, based in Minneapolis, decided to add to its packages the words, "Color is not an indicator of freshness. Please refer to use or freeze by dates."

"We believe this effectively addresses the concerns of the (House Energy and Commerce) Committee in protecting public health while not undermining the adoption of the safety and convenience offered through case-ready packaging," said Eilert in written testimony.

Good plan.

Meatpackers tell shoppers "use by" date is key [Reuters]
(Photo:Maulleigh)

Canada seems have reached a similar conclusion, although, being Canadian, they announced it in a more polite and understated way. (Those stupid Canadians!)

Some 45 cases of illness caused by E. coli were reported in five Canadian provinces from July to September, including one death, said the CFIA in a statement. It said genetic testing found "the same unique E. coli pattern" in beef from an unnamed meat facility in Alberta that is "currently not operating."

The original measure, snuck into the farm bill this past summer for largely pork barrel reasons, reduced federal regulation of small meat companies without specifically laying out a protocol that would guarantee federal inspection levels. And yeah, we know that federal inspection levels aren't exactly anything to be proud of, but they're better than nothing. Thankfully, other more responsible politicians have stepped up to develop a plan that would guarantee meat from small companies will still be inspected at the same level, whether by a state or federal agency, if they want to ship across state lines.

We're glad to see that this modified plan is being suggested that grants more independence to states while also providing a baseline of regulatory guidelines—it would be nice if the Consumerist didn't have to spend all of 2008 reporting state-by-state E. coli outbreaks.

"CFA, Consumer Groups Join Labor, Farm Groups and State Departments of Agriculture to Assure All Meat and Poultry Shipped Across State Lines Will Remain Subject to Federal Meat and Poultry Inspection Laws, Regulations and Policies" [Consumer Federation of America] (pdf file)

RELATED
"Bill would reduce meat inspections" [Chicago Tribune]
(Photo: Getty)

No. The company readily admits that the move is largely symbolic.

"We feel confident that all of our products from China meet the same high quality standards that we set for all of our products," the statement read. "However, our customers have voiced their concerns about products from this region and we have listened.

"We will continue to source products from other regions until our customers feel as confident as we do about the quality and safety of Chinese products."

Whole Foods has no plans to implement a similar ban.

Trader Joe's just says no to China [Chicago Sun-Times]
(Photo: Getty Images)

All of the banned poultry plants were major suppliers of U.S. poultry to Russia and are some of the most efficient facilities in the country, the export council said.

At least three of the poultry plants participate in a model U.S. Agriculture Department program to improve the efficiency of meat and poultry inspections and improve food safety, the council said.

The U.S. poultry industry has about 100 chicken plants and the loss of the 17 processing plants should not greatly disrupt business, said Paul Aho, an economist with the consulting firm Poultry Perspective.

"Russia banning us is not good news. But, it doesn't really influence things too much. There are 100 plants or more and the others ones can send it to Russia," said Aho.

Russia to ban some U.S. chicken/pork [Reuters]
(Photo: nukeit1)

After the Jack in the Box case, the USDA required each meat plant to adopt a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point plan. The plans let companies design their own food safety measures, usually around the need to process beef quickly.

"HACCP is an internationally recognized, prevention-based food safety program," Eamich said. "Inspection personnel have full authority to take immediate action to prevent the entry of adulterated products into commerce."

The hope was that meatpacking plants would adopt better practices. But inspectors today say their jobs have been reduced to monitoring a company's hazard analysis plan, instead of enforcing USDA's own inspection regulations.

"They [meatpacking companies] write their own plan," said one inspector, who asked to remain anonymous. "They write everything for themselves. We're 'monitoring' that now. It's just a joke. We mostly check paper now. You can put anything you want on paper."

Food inspectors overwhelmed [Chicago Tribune]
(Photo:Michael Berch)

The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service is investigating a Missouri facility that produced the batch pot pies. ConAgra, which is offering refunds for purchased pies, "believes the issue is likely related to consumer undercooking of the product" and is considering redesigning the package "to more clearly illustrate different cooking times for Banquet pot pies related to varying wattages of microwaves."

"Health alert on some turkey, chicken pot pies: USDA" [Reuters]
"ConAgra Advises Consumers To Avoid Banquet Turkey" [CNN Money]

• China's food system is fueled by hundreds of millions of private farms, "many no larger than a basketball court." These small private farms are often their proprietor's sole source of income; productivity is valued over safety.
• China's General Administration of Quality, Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (GAQSIQ) is responsible for export quality control, but most supervision is left to local officials. Of course, "some voiced the opinion that some corruption was evident at the local level."
• "If the Chinese system worked as described, it would be a closed and therefore safe system. Committee staff, however, did not find an American or other multinational executive operating in China who believes that China has a competent, independent inspector stationed at each of the 3,700 plants that, according to Chinese officials, are fully HACCP-controlled. Committee staff also was unable to find anyone who believed that every single lot was sampled. It is further believed that the export certificates are subject to counterfeiting."

And this is the good news. The inspectors originally wanted to visit the two plants responsible for the melamine wheat gluten contamination. In response, the Chinese delayed the investigators' visas. By the time the investigators arrived on site, one plant had been bulldozed. The other was chained-off, its records held by the local police, and thus, confidential.

The team looked to Hong Kong and Japan for regulatory inspiration. In Hong Kong, the government extensively tests food samples and sends inspectors to foreign plants that export high-risk goods. In Japan, 15% of food imports are inspected, but those imports are only accepted from a small number of plants that are inspected annually by the Japanese. The downside to both models is cost, both to the government and to consumers, who pay a premium for quality imported goods.

The investigators believe that an inspection regime backed by adequate resources can improve the safety of our own food supply chain:

The United States, however, needs to sample enough so that detection becomes a deterrent. This will require some multiplying of our current efforts. It will also necessitate significantly more laboratory capacity for FDA.

Food from China: Can We Import Safely? (pdf) [House Energy and Commerce Committee]
(AP Photo/Wong Maye-E)

...the import safety panel is expected to push for expanded use of technology to more quickly identify risky imports. Leavitt has supported the use of technology at the border that could read the contents of a sports drink bottle, for example, looking for potentially toxic chemicals without opening it. The FDA is developing a food-safety strategy to be unveiled this fall that would rely on risk-based inspection but has not asked for more resources to pay for more inspections.

Technology Seen as Key To Upgrading Food Safety [Washington Post]
(AP Photo/Katsumi Kasahara)

The Chicago Tribune writes that "the requirement for a USDA inspection and stamp on meat that will be sold interstate hampers sales for smaller meat processors, according to beef industry advocates," and that the state of Minnesota feels its own state inspection procedures are equal to the those of the FDA. However, not all states have quality inspection procedures, or any at all.

The union that represents federal meat inspectors has argued against the measure:

"[It] would seriously endanger food safety by weakening the USDA federal meat and poultry inspection program and by increasing reliance on the more lenient, institutionally weaker state inspection programs — at a time when our nation's food supply is subject to increased risks from both accidental and intentional adulteration."

"Meat recalls point to possibility threat is growing" [USA Today]
"Bill would reduce meat inspections" [Chicago Tribune]
(Photo: Getty)

Carbon monoxide has been used to preserve the color of this product. Do not rely on color or the 'use or freeze by' date alone to judge the freshness or safety of the product. Discard any product with an unpleasant odor, slime, or a bulging package.

Unfortunately, a past movement to end the practice was scuttled by the meat industry, according to an editorial in USA Today:

In April 2004, the Department of Agriculture declared that this sort of packaging "could potentially mislead consumers into believing they are purchasing a product that is fresher or of greater value than it actually is and may increase the potential for masking spoilage." But the industry fought back, and little more than a month later, the USDA reversed itself, citing industry data and declaring that such packing "will not mislead consumers."

(Thanks, Fred!)

"Our view on food safety: When you buy red meat, looks can be deceiving" [USA Today]

RELATED
Summary of bill, with label warning on page 5 (pdf document)
(Photo: Getty)

The meat in question comes from frozen hamburgers distributed by Elizabeth, N.J.-based Topps Meat Co.. The recall affects 331,582 pounds of frozen beef patties that were distributed nationwide. All packages carried the number "Est. 9748" inside the USDA mark of inspection, and were produced on June 22, July 12 or July 23, the USDA said.

Here's a complete list of the recalled meat, compliments of your USDA:

• 10-pound boxes of "BUTCHER'S BEST 100% ALL BEEF PATTIES 75/25, 6 OZ. FLAT, 27 PIECES." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 23 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "BUTCHER'S BEST 100% ALL BEEF PATTIES 75/25, 4 OZ. (4-1), 40 PIECES." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 23 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "KOHLER FOODS 4 OZ. FLAT HAMBURGER, CODE: 60100, 40 PCS." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 23 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "KOHLER FOODS 6 OZ. FLAT HAMBURGER, CODE: 60200, 27 PCS." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 23 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "KOHLER FOODS 8 OZ. FLAT HAMBURGER, CODE: 60300, 20 PCS." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 23 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "SAND CASTLE FINE MEAT, 100% PREMIUM BEEF HAMBURGERS 80/20, 8 OZ. FLAT, 20 COUNT." Each box bears a packed-on date of "JUN 22 07."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "SAND CASTLE FINE MEAT, 100% PREMIUM BEEF HAMBURGERS 85/15, 6 OZ. FLAT, 27 COUNT." Each box bears a packed-on date of "JUN 22 07."
  
• 2-pound boxes of "Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef Hamburgers, 8 Quarter Pounders." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 12 08."
  
• 2-pound boxes of "Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef Hamburgers, 3 OZ., 10 COUNT." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 12 08."
  
• 3-pound boxes of "Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef Hamburgers, 6 OZ. PUB Burgers." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUN 22 08."
  
• 3-pound boxes of "Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef Hamburgers, 12 Quarter Pounders." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUN 22 08," "JUL 12 08" or "JUL 23 08."
  
• 3-pound boxes of "Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef Hamburgers, 16 Hamburgers." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 23 08."
  
• 5-pound boxes of "Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef Hamburgers, 20 Quarter Pounders." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUN 22 08," "JUL 12 08" or "JUL 23 08."
  
• 8-pound boxes of "Topps 100% Pure Ground Beef Hamburgers, 32 Quarter Pounders." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUN 22 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "Topps 100% PREMIUM HAMBURGERS 5 OZ. (1/2")." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUN 22 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "Topps HAMBURGERS, 3.2 OZ, 50 COUNT." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 12 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "Topps 100% PREMIUM HAMBURGERS, 8 OZ. (Pub Burger)." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 23 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "Topps 100% PREMIUM HAMBURGERS, 4 OZ. (4-1) Homestyle." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUL 23 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "WESTSIDE, 100% PREMIUM HAMBURGER, 8 OZ FLAT, 20 COUNT." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUN 22 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "WESTSIDE, 100% PREMIUM HAMBURGER, 6 OZ FLAT, 27 COUNT." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUN 22 08."
  
• 10-pound boxes of "WESTSIDE, 100% PREMIUM HAMBURGER, 5 OZ FLAT, 32 COUNT." Each box bears a sell-by date of "JUN 22 08."

Customers who have questions should contact Topps' Vice President of