FDA

Since it’s that time of year to spread the holiday cheer,
What better way than to reproach FDA for having food safety regs disappear.
From melamine to mercury, consumers are kept on their toes,
About what next food will be contaminated with what? Who knows?!
Now is the time to give FDA a gift to remind them of what they let pass,
Through to the market, to grocery shelves, and onto consumers’ plates, alas!
-----------------
After a year of what could be described as one of the worst in terms of food safety debacles, we felt inspired to not only rhyme, but also think about what we would give to FDA as a holiday gift – if we could. A food gift basket would be appropriate, especially because of all the “goodies” we could choose from this year alone.  Cookies contaminated with melamine? Check. Jalapeños and peppers from Mexico? Check. And thanks to the latest news about fish with mercury, how about some canned tuna? Check!
Come to think of it, we could put together an entire holiday meal from all of the treats we could put in our basket. Now there’s a thought! Let’s take it from the top…

First off, we need hors d’ouevres. Listeria-style cheese and crackers should be a good way to kick off a meal. Once that’s been digested, then of course it’ll be time for a good salad… made with irradiated iceberg lettuce.
Now, on to the entrées! We could include in the basket some ground beef made from cloned cows, so that FDA can grill some burgers in their backyard. They could even sprinkle on some bacteriophages, just to spice things up a bit.

Make sure that beef has been treated with carbon monoxide! Otherwise people might actually begin to suspect that the meat is really twelve weeks old. If the burger seems a little bare, you can always include in the basket a jar of salmonella-laced jalapeños, for good measure.

For the seafood lovers out there, we can prepare a mercury-spiked tuna casserole from the canned tuna we mentioned earlier. And for anyone who’s still hungry after all that, then maybe we could add in some ready-made pork chops made from pigs treated with cephalosporin. After all, FDA seems to have forgotten that they themselves deemed such antibiotics a “public health risk” last July.

For dessert? Some melamine-enriched cookies should be easy to find – after all, they did find some on New York shelves just last week. And for the kids? Well, there are always bottles of baby formula, tainted with BPA. Voila! FDA, your meal is served. 

The list of FDA failings unfortunately goes on…
If you could add to our gift basket, what would you send?

- Erin Greenfield and Sofía Baliño

The Food and Drug Administration has finally decided to come to terms with the fact that melamine is something of a problem. As of last week, all dairy products have been banned from China unless an importer can prove the products are free of melamine contamination. While being a step in the right direction, this is clearly another example of too little, too late. The ban should have been imposed ages ago – and it does not cover all of the products that have been shown to be contaminated with melamine, such as the eggs found in Hong Kong. Nor does it address the possibility that meat, pork, and chicken may soon be added to that list due to livestock being fed contaminated feed.

FDA claims that it has been aware of the contaminated milk-related illnesses in China back in September 2008 – which was two months after the first cases were reported and receiving international attention. Instead of instituting a ban in September, however, they imposed some arbitrary standard for a safe level of melamine – which allowed unsafe products to still make it onto U.S. grocery shelves. Only now have they begun to do something – and yet it still is not enough, and only barely begins to address the problem. Which begs the question – how much more melamine will it take for the FDA to actually do its job?

This week FDA announced that it was opening three offices in China – which would be their first ever foreign offices.  However, this appears to be more of a business/public relations move than a food safety one, one which will garner much media attention but actually accomplish little – especially considering how we import $4 billion in food products from China every year, and are only sending a limited amount of staff.

All this goes to show is that the further we delve into this melamine scandal, the more there appears to be no end in sight, and all because the international community chose to look the other way. With all the negative attention that China is receiving for this melamine scandal, China has now decided to strike back and call out other countries for their own food safety failings. Specifically, Chinese authorities have begun to call out imports from Australia, the U.S., the U.K., and Argentina, for not meeting food quality standards – in most cases reporting findings of bacteria levels that are higher than the approved standard. Yet these countries have not received nearly the same level of backlash from the international community. Clearly China is not the only country that needs to push the envelope further and ensure the safety and quality of the products they export – and import.

- Sofía Baliño

Just when it seemed that the melamine scare couldn’t get any worse  – we find out that the problem may be far deeper than we imagined. Eggs sold in Hong Kong, imported from mainland China, have been found to have twice the FDA’s supposed “safe limit” of melamine.

How did it get there? Apparently through contaminated feed – which means that beef, chicken, pork, and fish may also be at risk. However, U.S. and European agencies have yet to do something about it.

While Hong Kong authorities are responding by expanding their testing of products to include pork, fish, and offal products, the same sort of initiative has yet to be seen in the U.S.. And in Europe, while authorities admit to being aware of the situation, they still have not issued any sort of alert to consumers. In this they are showing an astonishing degree of willful irresponsibility, shockingly similar to FDA’s backdated (and long overdue) recall of the contaminated Koala’s March cookies. 

It gets worse. The Taiwanese government found recently that ammonium bicarbonate – used in the manufacture of cookies, bread, and some Chinese snacks – had melamine levels between 70 and 300 parts per million – when Taiwan’s legal limit is only 2.5 parts per million. While Taiwanese authorities were quick to issue a ban on the sale of this item, the fact that it took this long for it to get discovered is cause for alarm.

Clearly the current food production standards in China are not designed to ensure public health. Even worse, the Chinese authorities have been anything but forthcoming about the issue. There are media sources that report that the health department of Liaoning found melamine in local eggs at the beginning of October. These same tainted eggs had been labeled by the food safety authorities as an “organic product.” While they did order an investigation into the feed company involved, they deliberately suppressed the news from the media.

In addition, a manager from a feed company based in the central Henan province recently told the Associated Press that the practice of using melamine in feed has been going on longer than previously reported – at least seven or eight years. The fact that this sort of deception went unnoticed for so long, or worse might have been deliberately hidden from the public eye, is unacceptable. And to think that only now the world has begun to figure it out.

The assumption that leaving China to its own devices will lead them to fix the problem on their own is purely wishful thinking. More recalls are in order – but even more importantly, the inspection standards in our own country need to be vastly improved, as do those abroad. China is not the only one to blame if our own country’s federal agencies will not take the time to verify that the food it is importing is safe.

Nanotechnology.  It’s a word we’ve been hearing for a while, describing what sounds like the wave of the future, building stuff tinier and tinier, so eventually we can have miniscule robots to climb into our mouths and brush our teeth for us. Right?

Well, no. It’s not quite like that.  Nanotechnology is the process of manipulating matter at a molecular level—or nanoscale. Nanomaterials have at least one dimension that is 100 nanometers or less. A nanometer is one billionth of a meter—approximately 1/100,000 of a human hair.

So while there is some research afoot to build tiny machines, the type of nanotechnology we’re talking about consists of engineering materials at the molecular level to create smaller versions of substances.  The technology has potential applications in healthcare, electronics, water filtration, food and agriculture, and consumer goods, to name a few. It can be used to create advanced materials that can make a surface water-repellent, anti-microbial, or electrically conductive, among other things. Nanomolecules are already being used in products from sunscreen and stain-resistant clothing to food and food packaging—over 600 nanoproducts are already on the market, with sales of over $50-88 billion in 2007. Products that contain nanotechnology are not required to be labeled, and they go largely unregulated.

In May, Food & Water Watch joined a group of organizations to petition the FDA to stop the sale of nano-silver because it is potentially dangerous to human and environmental health. Nano-silver, currently the most commonly commercialized nanomaterial, can act as a pesticide and an antimicrobial, and can leach into water and negatively affect marine ecosystems, killing off both harmful and beneficial microorganisms.

Now, preliminary reports have shown that carbon nanotubes, another type of nanoparticles used in sporting goods (tennis rackets, bike frames, etc), are carcinogenic in the same way as asbestos.

Not enough is known about nanomaterials for them to be widely used in commercial products. Some evidence shows that nanoparticles can be more completely absorbed by the body and may be taken up by organs and tissues. We have certain barriers in our bodies that function to keep dangerous things out of delicate places—for instance, the blood-brain barrier, and the placental barrier. Those barriers have been pretty good at protecting our brains and our fetuses thus far in the history of people. But when you have tinier particles, those barriers may not be as effective. Imagine rinsing couscous in a regular pasta strainer.

And it’s not just their size in relation to us—nanoparticles interact differently with the whole environment. Nanoparticles have different properties than their macro-sized counterparts. Food & Water Watch’s fact sheet “Sweating the Small Stuff” explains that nanoscale particles have “distinct electronic, magnetic, chemical, and mechanical properties.” They are more reactive and can even be explosive.

Food & Water Watch recommends that the government (EPA, FDA, and other relevant agencies) regulate all nanotech products as new chemicals, and the substances should be subject to more research and testing before being released into commercial products.  The Senate is currently considering a bill to reauthorize the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (S. 3274) which allocates over $1.6 billion in taxpayer funding for nano research with no funds specified for environmental, health and safety protection. Take action here to ask the Senate to include adequate funding for health and safety research on nanotechnology.

-Erica Schuetz
email • bio

Carrying a box of copies of Zapped! downstairs the other day, my coworker Erin and I encountered a friendly man in the elevator. “What’s the name of your book there?” he asked, and once we showed him the cover, he hazarded, “Oh, like with microwaves, right?” Then we were on level 1 and our companion was continuing to the basement. We didn’t have time to explain the truth about food irradiation—namely, that it is not the same thing that happens in microwaves.

This is an understandable—and common—misperception. Most Americans today don’t know what food irradiation actually is. This is due in part to the success of activists, who have prevented the technology from becoming widely commercialized, and in part to industry hype that aims to keep people in the dark about what exactly happens to their food.

So to clarify: Hauter’s book explains that the distinction between irradiation and the types of radiation in microwaves, radio waves, infrared light, and visible light is that irradiation uses ionizing radiation. Non-ionizing radiation can cause molecules to vibrate and heat up—that’s what makes microwaves good for leftovers. But ionizing radiation has enough energy to blow apart molecules, which then go careening into other molecules, knocking them apart, till they are all flying around like crazy and can combine into new types of matter (more on this later in the week). When people are exposed to ionizing radiation, that same energy can explode DNA molecules, leading to leukemia and other types of cancer.

When food is exposed to ionizing radiation, it doesn’t hold up too well either.  Irradiation can wilt and discolor food, and cause it to smell and taste nasty—apparently comparisons have been made to "burned feathers" and "wet dog." Mmmmm. Nutritionally, irradiation is also a disaster, destroying up to 91% of Vitamin E, 90% of Vitamin C, 50% of Vitamin A, and 95% of Vitamin B1. So why would we do it?

The motivation for irradiating is industry-driven. Irradiation allows food producers to store food longer, ship it farther, and avoid cleaning up dirty conditions at food production facilities. This translates for consumers simply as older food, fewer vitamins, and continued risk of foodborne illness. Irradiation is ineffective against mad cow disease and several other threatening pathogens, so irradiating instead of improving sanitation at plants is simply paying lip service to food safety.

But it won’t kill you…right?  Actually, we don’t know. There just isn’t enough research. While there isn’t conclusive evidence that eating irradiated foods could have the same effects as being exposed to radiation itself, some studies seem to suggest it. Experiments on lab animals fed irradiated foods have shown ruptured hearts, sterility, blindness, internal bleeding, cancer, tumors, stillbirths, mutations, organ damage, immune system failure, stunted growth, and a host of other problems. Of course, conflicting studies exist that mysteriously show irradiated food as having no health effects whatsoever. So we’re not saying it will kill you…just that it might. But isn’t that bad enough?

Currently, it’s possible to partially avoid irradiated foods. Single-ingredient foods, like fruits or cuts of meat, must be labeled with the flower-like “radura” symbol to show they’ve been irradiated, and are also more costly than their non-irradiated counterparts. But ingredients in prepared food can be irradiated without disclosure, and over 95 million pounds of spices are already irradiated annually in the US. Plus, the FDA is now considering a decision to futher loosen labeling requirements on irradiated food, allowing it to be labeled as “pasteurized” in some cases, and in other cases to be sold without any labeling at all.

So, will we soon be facing supermarket shelves stocked completely with zapped foods?  Not if we can help it. It’s due in large part to consumer rejection of irradiated food till now that the technology isn’t more mainstream already. And we, as consumers, can continue to stand up for our right to safe foods—not zapped foods. And check back tomorrow for more on irradiation and its consequences.

-Erica Schuetz
email • bio