Can the FDA protect us and our pets?
By Gina Spadafori
June 3, 2007
William Hubbard, former associate commissioner of the FDA, writes a chilling commentary in the Boston Globe (thanks, Mike!):
Thousands of pet deaths from spiked wheat gluten, raising fears that humans could be next. Millions of shipments of imported foods from China, Vietnam, and other developing countries flooding into the country each year with no inspection by US authorities. Repeated foodborne outbreaks often resulting in deaths and severe illnesses — from US-produced spinach, sprouts, peanut butter, and other common foods. A plummeting drop in public confidence in the government’s ability to protect our food supply.
The bad news about our food seems to keep on coming, and it all points to the inevitable conclusion that the Food and Drug Administration cannot provide the protections for which it was created. What has happened to this century-old consumer protection agency that has led the way in establishing a safety net for consumer products on which Americans have so long relied?
The most common thread in FDA’s declining ability to carry out its responsibilities is a steady, debilitating drop in funding. The agency is simply overwhelmed by an ever-increasing workload, constant congressional demands to do more with less, and righteous indignation when the agency fails to meet unreasonable expectations.
With the exception of FDA’s drug review program, which is funded increasingly by industry “user fees,” FDA’s budget has been declining for a decade. Just as our schools cannot educate our children without teachers and fires cannot be extinguished without a fire department, our food supply cannot be inspected and monitored without the highly skilled scientists at the FDA.
Here’s the rest. Read it, and tell your elected officials this must change. Market forces cannot be trusted to protect the public health.
In the meantime, China thinks the FDA’s action on toothpaste is without cause:
China rejected a warning issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration urging consumers to avoid using Chinese toothpaste because it may contain a poisonous chemical used in antifreeze.
Calling the FDA warning “unscientific, irresponsible and contradictory,” China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine said in a statement posted on its Web site late Saturday that low levels of the chemical have been deemed safe for consumption.
The FDA increased its scrutiny of toothpaste made in China because of reports that the products may contain diethylene glycol, a thickening agent used as a low-cost – but frequently deadly – substitute for glycerin, a sweetener commonly used in drugs.
Here’s the rest. (Again, thanks Mike! I took the dogs to the river, but you kept on task!)
Apparently, this site hasn’t seen the following headline. I don’t have a url for the piece because I found it using a library resource and had the story delievered directly to my inbox.
Menu loses customers after recall; Two cancelled contracts worth 4.5% of ‘06 sales
David Friend. Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Jun 1, 2007. pg. B.5
The head of Menu Foods Income Fund says the company has lost two major contracts with unnamed North American customers as the pet food industry adjusts after the contaminated food scandal.
CEO Paul Henderson said yesterday the pet-food maker, embroiled in a massive pet-food recall over tainted wheat gluten from China that has been blamed for pet deaths, has lost two contracts representing about 4.5 per cent of sales last year.
But Henderson said he wasn’t able to tie the sales losses directly to the pet-food recall. “They don’t necessarily share the rationale for their decision. It would be speculation on my part,” Henderson said.
The contract losses are on top of an announcement made March 16, the day of a major recall, that Menu was losing cuts-and-gravy product orders from its largest customer. The company represented about 11 per cent of sales.
Wednesday, Menu Foods posted a loss of $17.5 million, or 91.8 cents per unit, for the first quarter ended March 31. That’s a sharp decline from a profit of $1.3 million, or 7.3 cents per unit, in the first three months of 2006 and includes about a half-month of the recall that began March 16.
Sales totalled $64.5 million, down 31.3 per cent from $93.9 million for the same period last year.
Menu Foods estimates the recall will cost about $45 million, excluding the impact of reduced sales or the costs of any claims or litigation that may exceed its insurance coverage. Henderson said about 90 class-action lawsuits have been filed against the company.
Comment by alteredcarbon — June 3, 2007 @ 9:42 am
Already a heatwave here, and am in for the day. Reading this, though, I don’t even know what to say.
Is this why we are still seeing pets becoming ill from food - cause the tainted stuff is still being included (and I think it is way more than melamine)? And same on the human side - this toothpaste with the ingredient the Chinese are claiming is “safe at low levels” killed 51 people in Panama last year (more pulled off the shelves this year). More dead, if you count the cough syrup deaths reported in the NYTimes.
The Chinese have never stopped using some of these things, and they are still in our products, and it sounds like they plan to continue to use these various poisons at low levels in foods designated for export. Hey, we americans put arsenic in chicken feed, so what is wrong with them putting antifreeze components in toothpaste and cough syrup (other than the deaths of course)?
And our FDA’s idea of protecting us is to have the exporters “prove” that their products are safe, and free of taint. Same people who are declaring there nothing wrong a little bit of anti freeze with your toothpaste.
At least I know where they stand right from the Chinese govt’s mouth today - this kind of thing will continue with their imports. I already know where certain american companies stand, because they plan to continue using this stuff, despite these scary declarations.
I don’t know know exactly how I can avoid all that is coming our way, but I am not doing too badly for starters (garden, slaughter cow, use local grass raised beef, no processed foods at all - I do the processing). Still a risk from what I am reading, but a start. I won’t be buying anything made in China. I won’t be dealing with americans whose standards mirror that of the Chinese, or any other nation who feels the same way (mine included, but I am thinking of India and Mexico, who have high FDA rejection rates as well).
Comment by TC — June 3, 2007 @ 9:57 am
I believe Menu Foods loss of the customers has already been covered at length recently here. The news came out when they posted their loss, and there was speculation re which customers ditched them, etc.
Sorry, can’t remember which thread it was on here, but someone else likely will!
Comment by TC — June 3, 2007 @ 9:59 am
China has warned us. Take heed, we had all better shut up and get back to buying “Made in China” poisoned producs - globalism demands it of us.
As for the FDA former associate commissioner William Hubbard said:
“Wouldn’t it be refreshing if, just once, the White House and Congress fessed up to the real truth — that by letting the FDA wither away, the real failure has been theirs?”
Has the White House submitted a budget with increased or adequate funding? Which congress or congresses cut the budgets? Has the White House put pressure on Congress to increaase the budget, or has it supported its demise - wanna guess which one?
Comment by MFEMFEM — June 3, 2007 @ 10:50 am
The FDA ,even if 10 times bigger, can never inspect all imported food 100%.
You cannot inspect safety into food, just like you cannot inspect quality into an item.
You have to rely to a large degree on the intregity of the American importer.
Most of the companies there were hurt by the tainted petfood where those smaller companies that farmed out their manufacturing process to a joker company like Menu Foods where only the bottom line counted.
Bigger companies like Mars, Colgate Palmolive etc and even WalMart(eventhough they donot manufacture anything) will choose their suppliers very carefully and have long term contracts with such “proven reliable” suppliers. It will cut down on their own expensive inhouse inspection. They might even own or partially own the manufacturing plant outside the USA. A relatively small firm like ChemNutra would not have had a chance to become one of their direct vendors IMO. I cannot believe that any of those biggies will ever use Menu Foods again as a subcontractor. They(the biggies) might even buy some of Menu’s manufacturing plants in the near future though. I would be surprised if Menu Foods will survive this fiasco.
They also donot want to commit commercial suicide and donot want to be exposed to large class action law suits.
It is the smaller companies that will be more at risk as to food safety for the consumer. They donot have the financial means to check out their supplier abroad and have to rely on a source in the USA for their raw materials.
The FDA should get more teeth though and do away with that voluntarily recall if a health issue plus a time limit for the offender in complying.
Comment by Serijna — June 3, 2007 @ 11:29 am
Here’s an op-ed piece written in 2006 by William Hubbard, formerly the associate commissioner of the FDA.
He addresses the budgetary woes that have brought the FDA to its present state of incompetence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....00907.html
Comment by Maureen — June 3, 2007 @ 11:30 am
______________________________________________
So who’s been cutting the funding?
______________________________________________
Bush Budget Would Reduce Funding for FDA Safety Inspections of Foreign Drug Plants
From: Medical News Today: Article Date: 17 Feb 2005 - 3:00 PDT
“Bush Budget Would Reduce Funding for FDA Safety Inspections of Foreign Drug Plants”
The fiscal year 2006 budget proposal released last week by President Bush would reduce funds for almost all…. FDA inspection programs, such as those that review imported foods and prescription drug manufacturing facilities abroad, USA Today reports. Under the budget proposal, the number of U.S. food safety inspections made next year would decrease by 5% from this year’s estimate, the number of inspections of prescription drug manufacturing facilities abroad would decrease by 5.8% and the number of inspections of U.S. blood banks would decrease by 4.7%. Some experts have raised concerns that a reduction in FDA inspections could leave the United States more vulnerable to counterfeit prescription drugs or improperly manufactured products. “We don’t want to end up with a buyer-beware market for necessary medicines,” according to Sarah Sellers, an FDA adviser, pharmacist and medication safety expert. In a statement, FDA officials said that the agency would focus inspections on areas with the highest risks. “Intelligent, risk-based inspections are more important than absolute numbers of inspections. (The agency) is committed to carrying out our mandate of promoting and protecting the public health,” the statement said. Bush proposed the reduction in funds for FDA inspections “amid criticism the FDA failed to inspect often enough a long-troubled British vaccine plant that the United States had counted on for half of its flu vaccine supply,” USA Today reports. In response, FDA officials have said that the agency will begin to inspect vaccine manufacturing facilities every year, rather than every two years as required by law (Appleby, USA Today, 2/15).”
Comment by MFEMFEM — June 3, 2007 @ 11:43 am
It’s appalling that our choices of food are becoming more and more, yet ironically less and less, as we realise we can’t eat what we’re being offered…
A similar feeling is happening over here in the UK… everyone is, rightly, getting worried about what’s in our food… and we have to rely on a body, which isn’t doing its job, to sieve out the inconsumables…
The Second Official
Blogblast for Peace
Wednesday
6th June 2007
Comment by Forest Dogs — June 3, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
Serijna - agree. The FDA needs way more teeth and powers. However, it will never have either the budget or a workable plan to inspect 100% of incoming items.
Additional protection on that point, of course, would be to refuse to do business with importers that have a certain level of rejections. Bam, no more trade for X time and then check to see if anything has changed before resuming the imports.
I am not even sure why this is such a difficult concept, except that politicians on both sides just LOVE this globalization thing, with their eyes shut to the dangers involved in just letting imports happen without any checks or balances.
As an individual, I am saying no to any item that is coming from any country or company that appears to not give a darn about what I want in a safe product. Bam - trade ban at my house. Like really, our government can’t figure out how to Just Say No?
Comment by TC — June 3, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
However, it will never have either the budget or a workable plan to inspect 100% of incoming items.
Comment by TC — June 3, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today released its Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 budget request to Congress totaling $1.95 billion, a 3.8 percent increase over FY 2006.
Talk about waste and abuse under the current management. Where is all this money going anyway? The FDA Black Hole?
Comment by Steve — June 3, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Lots of dog and cat food coupons in Sunday’s newspapers.
Colgate toothpaste has coupons in Sunday’s newspapers, also.
Trying to boost lagging sales, me thinks.
Comment by Evelyn — June 3, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
Ok. 3.8% increase — They inspect 1.3% now so, 1.3 + 3.8 = 5.1 So, CAN WE EXPECT *AT LEAST* A 5.1% INSPECTION??
Comment by Kat — June 3, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
Well, I must disagree, giving more money and power to an agency like the FDA , which is corrupt from the top down, is not the answer.
If, I say, and it is a BIG *if* the FDA was not such a bunch of lying spin masters and political paid off good old boys in bed with the very drug companies they are ALLEGEDLY regulating then I would certainly be in favor of getting them the tools they need to do the job.
As things stand, I feel it would be money down the rathole and power given into hands that cannot be trusted.
A fresh start is what the dismal situation cries out for, and I do not think it will happen.
The only thing I approve of giving the FDA at this point is a push off the taxpayer tit.
Comment by E. Hamilton — June 3, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
“There are 13 million food imports this year, with FDA able to inspect only about 1 percent. The system is so weak that many FDA professionals fear the word is out in the international community you can send virtually anything, of any quality, regardless of risk, to the United States, because no one’s looking”
yepper! That’s my BIG FEAR!
Comment by Kat — June 3, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
It sure is. It only takes 1 of the wrong things and We are all in big trouble.
Comment by Trudy Jackson — June 3, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
If you are looking for the missing FDA budget just look for the file labeled I-R-A-Q.
Comment by FiverCat — June 3, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
i was eating a bag of organic pumpkin seeds i turned the bag over to see listed PRODUCT OF CHINA! the company is woodstock farms inConn. i got a hold of the companies telephone number and spoke to nicki at customer service she said the product is grown on a farm in china ! i asked her does this farm have to keep to organic regulations the same as in the u.s.? she said yes i then asked her who oversees this farm to make sure they follow u.s. regulations she said she believes the farm is owned by another goverment i asked her which goverment she did not know she said she would find out for me the package was listed as USDA ORGANIC! i said to her does theUSDA go to CHINA and inspect this farm she said that a third party inspects it she would not say whom or how often they go there!i told her that this is ridiculous especially with the situation going on with contaminated food coming from china and that for an organic food company to be so irresponsible to its customers! i told her i will not be using their products anymore she said she will get back to me with more info!
Comment by lindak. — June 3, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
http://www.dallasnews.com/shar.....08215.html
“Scientists say the Bush administration is developing a chemical testing program that favors the chemical industry when it comes to judging whether certain substances in the environment might cause cancer, infertility, or harm to babies in the womb.”
“What’s billed as one of the most comprehensive screening programs ever to check whether chemicals can disrupt human hormones, scientists say, may instead prove to be a misleading $76 million waste.”
“EPA officials say the agency has thoroughly and openly considered the test animal, test dose and animal chow issues. As for allowing the chemical industry to make decisions on how to test chemicals, the EPA said it is not worried about foul play.”
If only it were as easy to the lobbyists running our government out….
Comment by Ann H — June 3, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
If only it were as easy to *snip* the lobbyists running our government out…
Hey, I guess I learned how not to bracket “snip” :)
Comment by Ann H — June 3, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Comment by lindak. — June 3, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
“i was eating a bag of organic pumpkin seeds i turned the bag over to see listed PRODUCT OF CHINA!”
This is an example of a relatively common scam. Expect to see even more “organic” foods coming from China - “organic” is where the money is.
Comment by MFEMFEM — June 3, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
Several weeks ago, my dog tried to eat some Play Doh that fell on the floor. I scooped her up just in time before she got it. I checked the label: “Made in China”, and “contains wheat ingredients”. I emailed Hasbro, the Play Doh people, asking what quality control measures they had in place to make sure that the product was true to the original recipe and was not adulterated in any way. I got a canned “we are committed to quality” response, but they would not state that they can ensure their product ingredient integrity. I emailed them back and reminded them that even though it is not a food product, children and pets have been ingesting it for decades (gee, do you think they didn’t know this?). I restated my original question and have not heard back.
Because of their avoidance, I am going with the belief that Play Doh is toxic, even though it says “Non Toxic” on the label. Not sure I even want to make any from scratch because who knows where the Cream of Tartar comes from.
Comment by ango — June 3, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
Comment by Ann H — June 3, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
After the past few months, I can tell you who the real test rats are . . . . all of us and our pets!
Comment by JohnT — June 3, 2007 @ 6:50 pm
Yes, we are the test rats along with our pets. If too many fall victim, than it is time to investigate and possibly do something or suggest to the mfr’s to change to another poison (that is allowed), instead.
Comment by Evelyn — June 3, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
!! NEW USDA RECALL !! email just came in-
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_...../index.asp
WASHINGTON, June 3, 2007 - United Food Group, LLC, a Vernon, Calif., establishment, is voluntarily recalling approximately 75,000 pounds of ground beef products because they may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service announced today.
The problem was discovered through sampling done by the California Department of Health Services and the Colorado Department of Health, in coordination with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the course of an investigation into illnesses. The ground beef products were produced on April 20 and were shipped to retail distribution centers in Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon and Utah.
The labels of the products subject to recall bear the establishment number “EST. 1241” inside the USDA mark of inspection or printed on the package. All of the products bear a sell by date of “May/06/07,” a freeze by date of “May/07/07” or a produced on date of “April/20/07.” Products subject to recall include: [View Labels, PDF Only]
10-pound casings of “MORAN’S All Natural, 73/27 fine ground beef.”
10-pound casings of “MORAN’S All Natural, 90/10 fine ground sirloin.”
2-pound chubs of “INTER-AMERICAN PRODUCTS 93/7 ground beef.”
1-pound chubs of “INTER-AMERICAN PRODUCTS 80/20 ground beef.”
1-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural 73/27 ground beef.”
5-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural 73/27 ground beef.”
3-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural 73/27 ground beef.”
1-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural, 90/10 fine ground sirloin.”
2-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural 93/7 ground beef.”
2-pound chubs of “MORAN’S All Natural 96/4 ground beef.”
3-pound chubs of “STATER BROS. MARKETS 73/27 ground beef.”
Comment by Kat — June 3, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
So much for “All Natural”
:::::sigh:::::
Comment by Kim — June 3, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
It’s all natural E. coli and made in the U.S.A.
Has the U.S.D.A. stamp of approval on it. It’s fine just eat it.
Comment by Tammy — June 3, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
Tammy
The U.S.D.A. stamp of approval, does not mean it is U.S. meat, nor does it mean it has actually been inspected.
Until we get mandatory Country of Origin Labeling for meats, a pound of hamburger can be a mixture of meat from many countries in one pound. It is imported, mixed together and ground.
I note the sarcasm “It’s fine, just eat it.”
Comment by Elaine — June 3, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
LOL at “all natural E. coli”
There’s a marketing possibility for someone!
Elaine - is that really true? It could be a mix? That is so gross…
Comment by Kim — June 3, 2007 @ 11:43 pm
Yes Kim,
It is true, and yes, it is a sickening possibility. It is always a mix.
The large packing plants ship boxed beef in from many countries. A few years ago some kangaroo meat was found in a shipment from Australia, so we can’t even be sure what kind of animal the meat comes from!
Since other countries have so much lower standards than we do, one or more boxes could contain the e coli, and then it gets mixed with all the other in a batch, thereby contaminating it all.
It wouldn’t be at all practical to grind each box from each country separately.
E coli is naturally in manure, and the problem is that the packing plants, in this country, or others do not properly clean the carcass to prevent contamination.
Which is why the warning label on ground beef reminds us to “Cook the sh** out of it!” (My quote.)
I would recommend finding a local supplier for your beef or some of the online suppliers. One is http://www.ranchfoodsdirect.com I think. I do raise my own beef, but we are also fortunate where I live to have a source of natural beef from local ranchers. Every now and then they have a sale on hamburger, and it is nothing like the literal cr#* you buy in the chain supermarkets!
Comment by Elaine — June 4, 2007 @ 12:25 am
Elaine,
I was being sarcastic.
Comment by Tammy — June 4, 2007 @ 1:02 am
I am VERY much an advocate of COOL. I know that having the USDA stamp of approval means absolutely nothing.
Comment by Tammy — June 4, 2007 @ 1:03 am
Chinese stocks tumble 8.3 percent
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....DHLFqs0NUE
Oh BOO HOO!
Comment by Tammy — June 4, 2007 @ 3:42 am
Wal-Mart Says ‘Go Slow’
Jordin Sparks and J.Lo Sing as Retailer Announces It Will Slow Store Expansion
http://abcnews.go.com/Business.....iness=true
Instead of spending all that money on entertainment Walmart should start buying more American products to sell. Their constant wasteful spending on crap like this is a slap in the face to their employees who they cheat out of hours, money, and health care. I really used to love Walmart, but took my rose colored glasses off and now see them for the greedy thugs they are.
Comment by Tammy — June 4, 2007 @ 3:48 am
COOL is on the books, but our President keeps delaying it’s implementation. He’s delayed it (again)until Sept 2008 in part because he believes business is capable of and willing to impose self-regulation.
Write Congress and demand they get behind Sen Durbin’s and Rep DeLoria’s overhaul of FDA. Question your favorite Presidental candidate if you have one, on where they stand about food safety in this country and what they intend to do about it.
Comment by Deb — June 4, 2007 @ 3:58 am
From the automatic FSIS notification e-mail received today: Consumers can register comments on the release into the food supply of chickens and hogs that consumed melamine, etc.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
[Docket No. FSIS 2007-0018]
Disposition of Hogs and Chickens From Farms Identified as Having
Received Pet Food Scraps Contaminated With Melamine and Melamine-
Related Compounds and Offered for Slaughter
AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), USDA.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
———————————————————————————————————-
SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is publishing
this notice to articulate its position on the slaughter for human food
of hogs and chickens from farms identified as having purchased or
otherwise received pet food scraps that contain melamine and melamine-
related compounds. The contaminated pet food scraps were used to
supplement animal feed on farms in several States. The results of an
interim safety/risk assessment indicate that, based on currently
available data and information, the consumption of pork, poultry, eggs,
and domestic fish products from animals inadvertently fed animal feed
contaminated with melamine and melamine-related compounds is very
unlikely to pose a human health risk.
Based on the findings of the interim safety/risk assessment, as
well as the results of validated testing for melamine concentration
that has been conducted on tissue samples of hogs and chickens exposed
to the adulterated feed, FSIS has determined that pork and poultry
products from all animals identified as having been fed animal feed
containing contaminated pet food scraps are “not adulterated” and are
thus eligible to receive the mark of inspection. All such animals that
were being held on farms have been released and may be offered for
slaughter for human food.
DATES: Comments on this Federal Register notice must be received by
August 28, 2007.
—more—instructions about where to write, etc.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Frame.....7-0018.htm
Comment by Maureen — June 4, 2007 @ 4:01 am
Here’s the FSIS release that mentions they are taking public comment. I posted the companion piece to this but it hasn’t popped up yet. It has the link to the e-mail addresses and subject matter that you can comment upon.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_...../index.asp
News Releases
FSIS to Seek Public Comments for the 30th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission
Congressional and Public Affairs
(202) 720-9113
Bridgette Keefe
WASHINGTON, May 30, 2007 - The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture, today announced a public meeting to provide information and receive comments on agenda items and draft U.S. positions that will be discussed at the 30th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), to be held in Rome, Italy, July 2 - 7, 2007.
The public meeting will be held from 1-4 p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, 2007, in Room 107-A, Jamie L. Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, D.C.
Agenda items and documents relating to the 30th Session of the CAC will be accessible prior to the meeting at http://www.codexalimentarius.net/current.asp.
Codex was created in 1963 by two United Nations organizations: the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Codex develops food standards, guidelines and codes of practice in order to protect the health of consumers, ensure fair food trade practices and promote coordination of food standards undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations.
The public is invited to submit comments on this meeting notice. Comments may be submitted by mail or electronic mail and will be posted on FSIS’ Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regul.....ces_index/.
For further information concerning the 30th Session of the CAC, contact F. Edward Scarbrough, U.S. Manager for Codex, USDA, by phone at (202) 720-7760 or by fax at (202) 720-3157.
Persons requesting a sign language interpreter or any other special accommodations for the public meeting should contact Jasmine Matthews, U.S. Codex Office, by phone at (202) 205-7760 or by fax at (202) 720-3157.
Comment by Maureen — June 4, 2007 @ 4:05 am
That is the scariest tooth brush I have ever seen. It is like a toothbrush clown.
Nancy
shuddering….
Comment by nancy — June 4, 2007 @ 4:59 am
I wonder if it came from the movie IT.
Comment by Jill — June 4, 2007 @ 6:19 am
Hi All,
I just got on, noticed Maureen’s post about CODEX. Last week I went to http://www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and watched a video clip about CODEX.
I think, before anyone goes to the FDA website to comment, you should read what they have to say about it at this website.
Comment by Elaine — June 4, 2007 @ 7:18 am
Here’a a new one that came in an email this AM:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_...../index.asp
*Codex Seeks Comments on Sanitary and Phytosanitary International Standard-Setting Activities*
Congressional and Public Affairs
202) 720-9113
Bridgette Keefe
WASHINGTON, June 4, 2007 - The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), today announced the publication of a notice of sanitary and phytosanitary standard-setting activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex).
The notice also provides a list of other standard setting activities of Codex, including commodity standards, guidelines, codes of practice and revised texts. The notice, which covers the time periods June 1, 2006, to May 31, 2007 and June 1, 2007, to May 31, 2008, seeks comments on standards currently under consideration and recommendations for new standards.
Codex carries out activities related to international sanitary and phytosanitary standard-setting aimed at ensuring food products are free from adulteration and are correctly
labeled.
Codex was created in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Codex develops food standards, guidelines and codes of practice in order to protect the health of consumers, ensure fair food trade practices and promote coordination of food standards undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations.
Persons wishing to submit comments should go to http://www.regulations.gov and, in the “Search for Open Regulations” box, select “Food Safety and Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “submit.” In the Docket ID column, select FDMS Docket Number FSIS-2007-006 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. The comments will be posted on the Agency’s Web site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/regul.....ces_Index/.
For further information, contact Edward Scarbrough, Ph.D., U.S. Manager for Codex, USDA, Room 4861, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250; or by phone at (202) 205-7760.
The U.S. Codex Office also maintains a Web site at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Regul.....mentarius/.
Comment by Kat — June 4, 2007 @ 8:59 am
Elaine, thanks for the caveat about being informed before making comments to the FDA.
Also, in a previous posting about the FSIS above, there’s a reference to the FDA’s call for comments re: the USDA’s release of the chickens and hogs that ate contaminated pet food. It’s more to the point of what most who visit this site are interested in and should be commenting on.
See posting at: Comment by Maureen — June 4, 2007 @ 4:01 am
Comment by Maureen — June 4, 2007 @ 9:08 am
Actually the CODEX is something we should be aware of, it is an attempt to give FDA control over our use of food supplements.
It appears to me that the CODEX control would benefit Big Pharma, as they could use FDA to eliminate our use of natural remedies, therefore leaving drugs as the only alternative.
Comment by Elaine — June 4, 2007 @ 9:21 am
Thanks for your posts, Maureen.
This blog has so many people working together, adding input to inform others, and I think we are making a difference by keeping informed and putting the food safety issue out there in front of the public.
We do need a concerted effort with congress to get the COOL legislation and food safety legislation passed.
Comment by Elaine — June 4, 2007 @ 9:26 am
RE: Comment by Elaine — June 4, 2007 @ 7:18 am
OH, MY! THAT IS ONE SCARY VIDEO!!
I always have trouble with Adobe’s Flash Video buffering, but I’m struggling through it…
Comment by Kat — June 4, 2007 @ 9:57 am
I am still a bit unclear on the full scope of COOL.. I realize it is better than what we have==or don’t have. But would it require country of origin for the additives in the finished products, the additives that are so suspicious now. My reading of it seems to say it will not. If that is so, we are left with a lot of uncertainty and vulnerability as additives proliferate the whole processed food spectrum.
Comment by DMS — June 4, 2007 @ 10:03 am
DMS,
COOL relates to meats and vegetables, the basic raw products. Correct me if I am wrong, someone, but I think that everything, including meats and vegetables is labeled as to COOL when it enters this country. COOL will require the labeling to be carried forward.
I am more familiar with the requirements for beef, and I know that all boxed beef entering this country has a COOL label on it. It goes to packing plants to be further processed, and they drop the labeling, preferring to just put the USDA stamp on it. Most consumers think the USDA stamp means it is U.S. meat. It is all about the money, Packers can buy meat cheaper from other countries, and they know if the consumer knows, they won’t mind paying more for beef produced in this country.
Live cattle entering this country are also marked as to COOL, and, again, they prefer to drop the label, and stamp it USDA to fool the consumer and make more money.
On one of the threads on Friday KAT found that imported foods must be labeled as to COOL, such as a jar of olives,but I think the law was under a different agency that the FDA, maybe department of Commerce?
Comment by Elaine — June 4, 2007 @ 10:49 am
I found it! Here is Kat’s post about COOL for imported foods, and it is the Dept. of Treasury law.
“The law does not specifically require that the country of origin statement be placed on the principal display panel, but requires that it be conspicuous. If a domestic firm’s name and address is declared as the firm responsible for distributing the product, then the country of origin statement must appear in close proximity to the name and address and be at least comparable in size of lettering.
*(U.S. Department of Treasury regulation)*
”
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/flg-7.html
Comment by Kat — May 31, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
Comment by Elaine — June 4, 2007 @ 11:15 am
COOL is a fabulous example why I would like to see the FDA, USDA and other government agencies disbanded: after what I have seen, heard and read over the past two+ months, I don’t trust any of them, not at all.
I do not believe that governmental agencies are the most efficient, most consumer-oriented and most incorruptible way of doing things.
Actually, a pack of people herded in from the street would probably have made a better job of protecting the interests of the people….
Well, at least the interests of lobbyists, bigbusiness and their cosy friends in the government have been protected, at any cost, (snortle).
I really would want to know what the presidential hopefuls have to say to a topic like that.
How are they going about to at least oversee the flood of wares of disputable reputation that are being shovelled into this country by cost/corner-cutting companies?
Or is this too hot a topic?
It seems so. They rather talk about ending the war (knowing very well the consensus of the people)instead of grabbing the hot potato of ‘food poisoning of the American people by American companies who buy in China or wherever’…
I better get away from the computer, like, NOW…
Comment by MaKo — June 4, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Well we all know that the FDA protects industry, that’s the Bush mandate. The don’t test, don’t inspect leaves risk assessments that can be manipulated based on the parties involved in the situations - a glaring “don’t ask, don’t tell” situation used for political advantage & probably will be their future employers after tenure at the FDA/USDA/FSIS ends.
I also think the smartest/best people to figure the issues out are *not* working for the government agencies.
5,000 humans die a year from food borne illnesses - do we really think they’ll protect our pets? I don’t. They don’t consider the toxic cocktails already in the system. They have on blindfolds and will not look at the whole picture. They can’t - it would be political suicide and probably destroy that lush paycheck on the other side of their door.
Comment by Ann H — June 4, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
My concern with COOL is that Company ABC in america can make some kind of bread with wheat gluten,vitamins, whatever from China or any other country, but the source of the additives will not be noted on the finished product. I would like to see them label everything. I don’t think it should be prohibitively expensive, even if they dochange vendors in their constant quest for the cheapest supplies. It will require different data entry for different lots and printing, but they should be able to work that out. Everything is computerized. They save enough buying on the open market. I want to know where every bit of my food comes from now—and it’s extending out into everything else I buy as well. But food is a must for me. If the big companies have the time to shop around and secure cheap imports that the FDA never inspects, then they should note the country of origin of all of their ingredients on the finished product. Maybe if this is required, they would consolidate a little more.
We all know you can not get a straight answer on the phone. Westbrae Organics told me they may even have to stop taking country of origin calls. Needless to say, I am not spending one more red cent supporting their customer service department!
Comment by DMS — June 4, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
DMS,
Surely you will agree that we need to know the country of origin of our meat and fresh vegetables, and that labeling should go clear through to the consumer.
Labeling all the ingredients as to COOL on products produced in the U.S. may take a separate bill. One reason for that would be that we already have the big food comglomerates fighting us tooth and nail on COOL.
Adding the food manufacturing to this would complicate and delay any labeling. USDA is already trying to make the meat and vegetable labeling sound too complicated and costly, and it isn’t.
Comment by Elaine — June 4, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Elaine, Yes, I definitely agree. I just think the bill needs to go further to be adequate.
Comment by DMS — June 4, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
The U.S.D.A. stamp of approval, does not mean it is U.S. meat, nor does it mean it has actually been inspected.
Until we get mandatory Country of Origin Labeling for meats, a pound of hamburger can be a mixture of meat from many countries in one pound. It is imported, mixed together and ground.
Comment by Elaine — June 3, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
************************
True.
I remember when I learned what the USDA label did and didn’t “really” mean, esp. with regards to inspection practices. I was pretty surprised at the time. I felt that the USDA wanted me to believe it stood for more than it does.
Comment by TC — June 4, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Comment by Elaine June 4, 2007 9:21am
……”it appears to me that the CODEX control would benefit big Pharma as they could use FDA to
eliminate our use of natural remedies, therefore leaving drugs as the only alternative.”
That is exactly the premise. Big Pharma wants all the money and control of how sick we stay and how much we become dependent only on the drugs they feed us. They would eliminate ANY thing that was naturally beneficial. We wouldn’t even be able to use dandelions as a curative unless we had a prescription from the medical profession. This is another example of we must fight as consumers to have control of being able to use food supplements without being harrassed by Pharma.
Comment by VJ — June 4, 2007 @ 6:53 pm