Des Moines Register: "Egg farms rack up violations"

by: desmoinesdem

Mon Aug 29, 2011 at 18:05:50 PM PDT

A year ago, the recall of half a billion eggs laid in Iowa made national news headlines. But if you thought that federal or Iowa government agencies would take meaningful steps to reduce the chance of another salmonella enteritidis outbreak in egg factories, guess again.

The Heck With SOTU, Let's Talk Milk Testing!

by: Something The Dog Said

Wed Jan 26, 2011 at 06:18:25 AM PST

So, this morning everyone is talking about the State of the Union which means I am going to talk about...milk.  And no, it is not Harvey Milk. The FDA is looking at testing milk for antibiotics. There is actually nothing new in that, currently there are six antibiotics that are commonly tested for in milk. If they are detected, then the milk can't be sold and is dumped.

My Uncle Don had a dairy farm in the thumb region of Michigan outside the very coolly named town of Bad Axe. I spent more than a little time there as a kid so I have some idea of what it takes to successfully run dairy farms. When you have a large group of big animals like cows one the major concerns is their health. It is very easy for them to get sick and antibiotics are a fact of life when you're keeping a herd.

"Originally posted at Squarestate.net"

Smoked Frankenfish May Not Wind Up On Any Bagels Soon*

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Sep 23, 2010 at 14:06:35 PM PDT

That's the latest. I recommend checking out Marion Nestle's piece The GM Salmon Saga Continues. First, the FDA will offer a 30-day comment period on the Environmental Assessment of the salmon (see more on the EA at the link). After that, they will issue a Finding of No Significant Impact or an Environmental Impact Statement. Those findings will result in a decision on whether or not they approve the salmon. The FDA is not giving any sort of timeline on when they will do this, although legally the timeframe is typically 180 days after the New Animal Drug application was submitted. Once the fish is approved, it will take 2 years to come to market.

The VMAC committee that met this past week apparently told the FDA it didn't have enough data to make a decision yet (which sounds about right, based on the actual data submitted to them). But in the meeting Tuesday about labeling, pretty much no one was for mandatory labeling. Apparently Greg Jaffe of CSPI wants AquaBounty to provide voluntary labels that say something like "AquaBounty salmon," "fast-growing salmon" or "environmentally friendly salmon." What?! Environmentally friendly? And Fox News is fair and balanced.

Last, but not least, the CEO of AquaBounty said he doesn't plan to confine production to Panama, hoping to open other operations in other countries, including the U.S. Fortunately, THIS approval process is ONLY for Panama, so he'd have to go through the whole legal process again before he could set up shop anywhere else.

Today's News on Frankenfish

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Sep 22, 2010 at 11:34:53 AM PDT

Beyond sharp and predictable differences over whether genetically engineered salmon belongs in the food supply, a rough consensus emerged Tuesday at a Food and Drug Administration hearing on labeling requirements: If the fish is approved for market, consumers should have a way to avoid it.

I'd like to see a new law passed here. Check out what the FDA says about labeling laws:

Under current law, FDA does not have the authority to require labeling based on consumer interest alone. For example, in Stauber v. Shalala, the court explained that, absent evidence of a material difference between milk from rBST-treated cows and non-rBST-treated cows, the use of consumer demand as a rationale for mandatory additional labeling would violate the law.

(The "Stauber" in that case is almost certainly MY FRIEND John Stauber. Kinda cool... but would be cooler if he had won his case.)

More news:
Panel Advises More Aggressive FDA Analysis of Engineered Salmon:

While a genetically engineered salmon is almost certainly safe to eat, the government should pursue a more rigorous analysis of the fish's possible health effects and environmental impact, members of a federal advisory committee said yesterday.

That is GREAT news. Although, with the data provided by AquaBounty and the FDA, the panel would have to be either entirely corrupt or stupid to decide otherwise.

Biotech Salmon Leaves Many Questions:

The first genetically modified animal aimed at consumers' dinner plates faces an uncertain future following a federal advisory panel on Monday that gave a mixed assessment on whether such food -- a salmon -- is safe to eat.

A number of the Food and Drug Administration's panelists raised concerns about the fast growing fish, made by Aqua Bounty Technologies Inc, saying there was not enough data to answer key questions about allergens and other potential risks.

"There are questions that have not been answered by the data that has been presented," panelist James McKean, a veterinarian and professor at Iowa State University, said.

But other panel members argued there was no difference between the altered salmon and its natural counterpart.

"I would not feel alarmed about eating this kind of fish," said Gary Thorgaard, a professor and fish researcher at Washington State University.

(I'd like to point out that saying the fish is probably safe is entirely different from saying that there's enough data to approve it.)

GE or Not, Farming Carnivorous Fish is Stupid

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Sep 21, 2010 at 14:33:56 PM PDT

He says:

But while GM salmon-and the engineering of other species for food-might help alleviate some of the pressure on wild fish, the debate misses the point. We've made an elemental mistake with aquaculture, choosing to farm the fish that we're used to catching and eating-like salmon or bass or cod-even though these species haven't taken very well to becoming our chickens of the sea. Even though the salmon farming industry has managed to improve its efficiency, farmed salmon still need  about 1 lb. of wild fish for feed per 1 lb. of salmon-so aquaculture becomes another cause behind the long emptying of the sea. The proportion is even worse for species like bluefin tuna, which are just beginning to be farmed. And even a more efficient GM salmon will do nothing to change the environmental problems associated with salmon farming.

Hallelujah. I'm glad someone's saying it. Fish farming of carnivorous fish is STUPID.

GE Salmon: Part 2

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 14:49:13 PM PDT

The long story short is that the committee that is hearing the salmon case today doesn't have any fish, salmon, or biotech experts on it (it's a committee of vets), so they added four "temporary voting members" with expertise fish and biotech. Two are scientists who are into GE animals (one used to work for Monsanto!), and one - the "consumer rep" - is a lawyer, not a scientist, who is highly pro-biotech. One of the scientists and the consumer rep (even calling him that makes me convulse in anger!) have both served on the USDA's heavily pro-biotech "AC21" biotech advisory committee alongside reps from Monsanto, DuPont, and Cargill. The fourth is a fish expert (the ONLY fish expert) who specializes in polyploidy, not genetic engineering.

Additionally, the FDA only gave the public 14 days to comment on the science used to justify the GE salmon's safety. And, as Consumers' Union points out, why is the FDA violating its own law here (as it would be if it approves the GE salmon)? All of the research on the salmon was done in Canada, but the salmon would be approved for production in Panama. According to the rules they are using to regulate the GE fish as a New Animal Drug, that should not be allowed.

How GE Animals Are Regulated

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Sep 20, 2010 at 01:42:49 AM PDT

GE Salmon Approval Meeting Starts Today

by: Jill Richardson

Sun Sep 19, 2010 at 01:18:42 AM PDT

Long story short is that the regular members of VMAC aren't fish experts or GMO experts, so they decided to add four extra "temporary voting members" to the committee - three of whom seem to be very much on board with the whole GMO thing. The fourth is a fix expert specializing in polyploidy (fish with extra sets of chromosomes). I've compiled a bit of information about each of them, which is linked from the VMAC link above, but I haven't had a chance to review many of their publications, public statements, etc, quite yet. Perhaps what worries me most is that three of the temporary voting members (everyone except the fish guy) have worked - at some time in their career - on increasing public acceptance of GMOs. Awesome. Furthermore, it seems to me that one of them (Wells) has a bit of a financial stake in the outcome of this hearing, since he works for a company that makes GE pigs for use in human medicine. No doubt an difficult regulatory process would not be good for his company.

Countdown to Legal Frankenfish (ACTION)

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Sep 13, 2010 at 14:37:11 PM PDT

The truth is that the creepy science is one thing - it makes for good tweets and blog post titles - but it's the sloppy, misleading science that's the bigger issue here. And the FDA's willingness to accept that as proof of the GE fish's safety. As I noted in the article, this isn't just about whether this one fish is safe... it's about our process of approving genetically engineered animals, particularly those that will be used for food. If sloppy science is acceptable now, what else will be legalized without a thorough check for safety? And what sorts of dangers will make their way into the U.S. food supply before anyone recognizes the harm they cause?

What's more, I've just learned that this article is merely "Part 1" of the story. There is even MORE bad science and regulatory mischief to be exposed, which I will hopefully do in the coming days.

If you don't want to find smoked frankenfish on a future bagel you eat, take action here.

Whistleblowers at contaminated egg facility were ignored

by: Deep Harm

Fri Sep 03, 2010 at 10:20:09 AM PDT

Two former workers at Wright County Egg facilities, Robert and Deanna Arnold, said they reported problems such as leaking manure and dead chickens to USDA employees, but nothing was done. (AP)

Aha! Got It! Dirty Details About the Egg Operations That Sold the Tainted Eggs!!!

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 22:25:37 PM PDT

In short, at Wright County Egg, they found holes in the buildings where other animals could get in, wild birds, standing water, rodents (a MAJOR risk factor for salmonella), escaped chickens, live and dead flies, live and dead maggots, and lots of poop (piles of manure 8 feet high!).

There were also some problems in the feed mill, which makes sense if the salmonella came from the feed. Birds were all over the place in there, and there were holes in several food containers. Plus some "avian like feces." No surprise, the FDA tested for salmonella and found plenty of it in there.

The report for the Hillandale, the other farm (the one not owned by DeCoster), was much less exciting. There's still a bit of manure, rodents, open holes in the structures, standing water, and lack of record keeping, but it's clearly not as bad as the DeCoster operation.  

Rodents, maggots and steaming piles of hypocrisy at egg farms

by: Deep Harm

Mon Aug 30, 2010 at 15:52:54 PM PDT

The inspectors found manure piles up to 8 feet high, holding doors open and giving wildlife access. "Wildlife" included live rodents, wild birds and a plague of flies, live and dead, including their larvae (maggots).  "Additional problems included overflowing manure pits, improper worker sanitation and wild birds [a potential source of avian influenza] roosting around feed bins," reports the New York Times.

The investigators also found salmonella bacteria in chicken feed and in barn and walkway areas, and in water used to wash eggs at a Hillandale facility.  It isn't clear, yet, which came first:  the salmonella or the egg.

Videos from FDA listening session

by: JudithM

Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 15:04:08 PM PDT

Michael Taylor, FDA's Senior Advisor, was there along with TX Deputy Commissioner of Agriculture Drew DeBerry and TX Associate Commissioner of State Health Services, Ben Delgado.  After comments from Mr. Taylor about the FDA's plans to propose regulations for how farmers grow and harvest crops, an industry panel spoke for about an hour.  Notably, there was not a single small or organic farmer or representative on the panel.  In contrast, the public comments that followed were almost entirely from small farmers.

A young intern videotaped the comments, and we've got about 7 posted on YouTube:

My statement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Brad Stufflebeam, CSA farmer:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Fa...

And 5 more statements:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Fa...

Michael Taylor's Got a New Job Title

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Jan 13, 2010 at 21:52:06 PM PST

Michael R. Taylor, J.D., was named Deputy Commissioner for Foods at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, on Jan. 13, 2010. He is the first individual to hold the position, which was created along with a new Office of Foods in August 2009 to elevate the leadership and management of the Foods Program.

- From MarlerBlog

I don't know if this means he's got any change in job responsibilities, since this already was his basic function at FDA. It seems to me he's just got a new job title and a revised org chart to go along with it.

UPDATE: Here are articles on this from NYT and WaPo. H/t Naomi Starkman

All Your Baby Are Belong To... Bisphenol A?

by: JayinPortland

Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 05:02:57 AM PST

Previous studies have found BPA in the urine of 93% of Americans tested. But Wednesday's study is the first to find it in the cord blood of U.S. newborns.

"It's alarming," Janet Gray, director of the Environmental Risks and Breast Cancer project at Vassar College, said of the study results. "What more evidence do we need to act?"

More than 6 billion pounds of BPA are used each year to make polycarbonate plastics and epoxy resins. The chemical is used in thousands of common products, including the lining of nearly all food and beverage cans and as coating for carbonless paper receipts.

FDA was supposed to complete their latest 'review' on the use of BPA on Monday, but the decision has been postponed.  Since we're already into December, I'm assuming the decision will not be made until well after the New Year.  Or, just like their first decision in 2008... maybe they'll sneak the news that they plan to do nothing into another end-of-the-week news dump sometime around, say, December 23 or 24?  Pardon my cynicism.

Many studies have linked BPA exposure to everything from increased risks for obesity by triggering fat-cell activity, to diabetes, heart disease in women, fertility defects, an increased risk of developing breast cancer later in life from fetal exposure, and erectile dysfunction and other sexual problems in men.