More foods getting labeled as US or foreign-grown

0 comments

Posted on 30th September 2008 by Gordon Johnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Date: 9/29/2008 2:34 PM

By LAURAN NEERGAARD
AP Medical Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) _ No more wondering where your hamburger came from, or where your lettuce and tomatoes were grown: Starting this week, shoppers will see lots more foods labeled with the country of origin.

It’s a law years in the making but timely, as China’s milk scandal and the recent salmonella-tainted Mexican peppers prompt growing concern over the safety of imported foods.

Still, hold the import-bashing: Numerous outbreaks in recent years have come from U.S.-produced foods, like spinach grown in California.

Until now, shoppers have had little clue where many everyday foods — meats, fresh fruits and vegetables, certain nuts — originate. That’s what the so-called COOL law, for country-of-origin labeling, changes.

Those who want to buy local — or who prefer, say, Chilean grapes and New Zealand lamb — can more easily exercise their purchasing power. Those worried about lax safety regulations in certain countries can avoid those imports. And the next time tomatoes are suspected of food poisoning, consumers may be able to tell investigators they bought only ones grown in a certain region, speeding the probe.

“We do see it as an important step on the road to a more comprehensive system for tracing food items” during outbreaks, says Caroline Smith DeWaal of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

“It will be a very good thing because we’ll have a lot more information,” adds Jean Halloran of Consumers Union. But, “you can still be fooled by the COOL label.”

How? There are bunches of exceptions. Fresh strawberries get a label but not chocolate-covered ones. Raw peanuts? Label. Roasted ones? No label. Those popular pre-washed salad mixes? Sometimes.

Here are some common questions as shoppers navigate the change:

Q: What does the new law require?

A: That retailers notify customers of the country of origin — including the U.S. — of raw beef, veal, lamb, pork, chicken, goat, wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables, peanuts, pecans, macadamia nuts and whole ginseng. (The aim was big agricultural commodities; ginseng was added for fear of imports masquerading as U.S.-grown.)

Q: Where will I see the country of origin?

A: Anywhere it fits. The rubber band around asparagus; the plastic wrap on ground beef; the little sticker that says “Gala” on an apple. If a food isn’t normally sold in any packaging — such as a bin of fresh green beans or mushrooms — then the store must post a sign.

Q: Aren’t many foods already labeled?

A: Some fresh produce already uses origin labeling as advertising. “Fresh from Florida” or “Jersey Grown” or “Vidalia Onion” tags don’t have to be changed under the new rules; the shopper should realize they’re all U.S. products.

The COOL law mandating such labels first passed in 2002, but lobbying by grocery stores and large meatpackers led Congress to delay the U.S. Department of Agriculture from implementing it. Seafood labeling was phased in first, in 2005 — a key change given recurring safety problems with fish and shellfish from certain countries, including China.

Q: What’s the biggest exception?

A: The labels aren’t for processed foods, meaning no label if the food is cooked, or an ingredient in a bigger dish or otherwise substantially changed. So plain raw chicken must be labeled but not breaded chicken tenders. Raw pork chops are labeled, but not ham or bacon. Fresh or frozen peas get labeled, but not canned peas. Raw shelled pecans, but not a trail mix.

Q: What if the foods are merely mixed together?

A: They’re exempt, too. So cantaloupe slices from Guatemala get labeled. Mix in some Florida watermelon chunks, and no label. Frozen peas, labeled. Frozen peas and carrots, no label. As for bagged salads, USDA considers iceberg and Romaine to be just lettuce, so that bag gets a label. Add some radicchio? No label.

Q: Must all stores comply?

A: No. Meat and seafood sold in butcher shops and fish markets are exempt.

Q: What if companies buy food from various places — beef from both U.S. and Mexican ranchers, for instance?

A: That’s a bone of contention between large U.S. meat producers and smaller ranchers that produce exclusively U.S. animals. Tyson Fresh Meats, for instance, says it’s too expensive to separate which of its cattle came from which country. So in a July letter to customers, Tyson said it would label all beef “Product of the U.S., Canada or Mexico.” The National Farmers Union is protesting; USDA is considering the complaints.

Q: Aren’t country labels on some processed foods?

A: Yes, tariff regulations have long required that a food put into consumer-ready packaging abroad be labeled as an import; that doesn’t apply to bulk ingredients.

Q: When does the change take effect?

A: The law goes into effect Tuesday, although USDA won’t begin fining laggards until spring. Violations can bring a $1,000 penalty.

EDITOR’s NOTE — Lauran Neergaard covers health and medical issues for The Associated Press in Washington.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.
Summary

China dairy brand won't survive tainted formula

0 comments

Posted on 24th September 2008 by Gordon Johnson in Uncategorized

, , , , , , ,

Date: 9/23/2008 11:59 PM

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) _ China’s Sanlu milk brand — the company at the center of China’s tainted baby formula scandal — won’t recover from the damage it has suffered, its New Zealand partner said Wednesday as it slashed the value of its holding in the company.

Tens of thousands of Chinese children have sought medical care, nearly 13,000 have been hospitalized and four infants have died because of Chinese-made infant formula contaminated by the industrial chemical melamine.

The Chinese government has now taken control of Sanlu Group Co., 43 percent owned by New Zealand’s Fonterra Cooperative, and shut down its operations, Fonterra Chief Executive Andrew Ferrier said at a briefing.

Told that Chinese authorities had now reported Sanlu received complaints about its infant formula as early as December 2007 but failed to alert authorities until Aug. 2, Ferrier said, “If these allegations prove to be true, then I’m appalled.”

“Sanlu has been damaged very badly by this tragedy,” he told reporters as he announced Fonterra’s annual results.

“The (Sanlu) brand cannot be reconstructed,” Ferrier said, adding he “can’t see clearly at this point” whether Sanlu group “will stay intact.”

He noted melamine contamination “is in dairy products across the whole country,” with 22 Chinese companies caught up in the scandal.

If it was true that local Chinese officials didn’t report the contamination to the central government until Sept. 9 as Beijing now claims, “then I am shocked,” he said.

“We were under the belief that people were aware at all levels” by early August, he said, adding, “It could have been that people were fooling us … at the local authority level.

He said he would not speculate when asked whether there had been a cover-up of the scandal because the Olympic Games were about to start in Beijing at the time the contamination was first reported by Sanlu on Aug. 2.

Ferrier again insisted that Fonterra “pressed” for an immediate public recall of Sanlu infant formula from that time — a step only taken on Sept. 9 after the New Zealand government alerted Beijing authorities to the poisoned formula.

“We pushed as hard as we could in the system,” he said Wednesday.

Fonterra, which trades dairy products in 140 countries, would now introduce “more comprehensive testing for every conceivable poison … round the world” in milk it purchases, he said, adding, “You can never be 100 percent absolutely certain against a criminal contamination of your supply chain.”

Ferrier said “we don’t know” when asked if Fonterra retains confidence in Sanlu’s board and management.

“You can bet Fonterra is gun shy about this whole thing and we need to get to the bottom of it,” Ferrier said. “There will be material changes to management and governance of this investment.”

While Sanlu had been profitable in 2007 and 2008, Ferrier said Fonterra had slashed the value of its investment in the Chinese dairy group by US$139 million to an estimated US$62 million.

Fonterra has poured nearly US$200 million into the joint venture since buying a 43 percent stake in December 2005.

Company Chairman Henry van der Heyden said the melamine contamination “is a criminal event,” but added his board was unanimous that Fonterra remain “committed to China.”

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

Food industry bit

0 comments

Posted on 25th July 2008 by Gordon Johnson in Uncategorized

, , ,

Date: 07/25/2008 07:06 AM

By LARRY MARGASAK
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) _ One of the worst outbreaks of foodborne illness in the U.S. is teaching the food industry the truth of the adage, “Be careful what you wish for because you might get it.”

The industry pressured the Bush administration years ago to limit the paperwork companies would have to keep to help U.S. health investigators quickly trace produce that sickens consumers, according to interviews and government reports reviewed by The Associated Press.

The White House also killed a plan to require the industry to maintain electronic tracking records that could be reviewed easily during a crisis to search for an outbreak’s source. Companies complained the proposals were too burdensome and costly, and warned they could disrupt the availability of consumers’ favorite foods.

The apparent but unintended consequences of the lobbying success: a paper record-keeping system that has slowed investigators, with estimated business losses of $250 million. So far, nearly 1,300 people in 43 states, the District of Columbia and Canada have been sickened by salmonella since April.

Investigators initially focused on tomatoes as a culprit. Now they are turning attention to jalapeno peppers.

A former member of Bush’s Cabinet and three former senior officials in the Food and Drug Administration told the AP that government food safety experts did not get the strong record-keeping and trace-back system originally proposed under a bioterrorism law to cope with a major foodborne illness.

“In retrospect, yes, if they (the regulations) had been broader and a bit more far-reaching, it could have helped with this,” said Robert Brackett, senior vice president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association. “It wouldn’t have hurt, for sure.” Brackett formerly was a top safety official at the FDA.

Under pressure in 2003 and 2004, the White House agreed to dilute record-keeping proposals by FDA safety experts.

“If the FDA had been given the resources and authority years ago that it asked for to solve these kinds of problems, I think we would have solved this already,” said William Hubbard, a former FDA associate commissioner.

Tommy Thompson, who was health secretary during the industry’s lobbying campaign, acknowledged that a more robust food-tracking system — opposed by business groups as too expensive — could have helped stem the current illnesses and business losses.

“We went in with the larger package but knew we had to compromise,” Thompson told the AP. “I was satisfied with this being the first step. It’s always better to be a Monday morning quarterback. We could have ended up with nothing. If we had more, would it help the situation now? Yes.”

According to government records reviewed by the AP, business groups met at least 10 times with the White House between March 2003 and March 2004, as the FDA regulations were under debate. Food industry lobbyists successfully blunted proposals using arguments familiar in other regulatory debates: The government’s plans would saddle business with unnecessary and costly regulations.

“The FDA’s strong proposed bioterrorism rules were significantly watered down before they became final,” said Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the Washington-based Center for Science in the Public Interest. The private advocacy group obtained the White House meeting records under the Freedom of Information Act and provided them to the AP.

Participants in the meetings included companies and trade groups up and down the food chain, including Altria Group Inc. and Kraft Foods Inc., when Altria was Kraft’s parent; The Kroger Co.; Safeway Inc.; ConAgra Foods Inc.; The Procter & Gamble Co.; the American Forest and Paper Association; the Polystyrene Packaging Council; the Glass Packaging Institute; the Cocoa Merchants’ Association of America; the World Shipping Council; and the Food Marketing Institute.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association spent $2.6 million on lobbing in 2003 and 2004, the period when the FDA rules were under consideration, according to federal lobbying records. The Food Marketing Institute spent $1.7 million during the period. The figures were for all lobbying by the trade groups and on their behalf.

The grocery group complained during the comment period that the FDA was overstepping authority that Congress had granted under the new bioterrorism law. It said the FDA wanted a “cradle-to-grave record-keeping system” to track every morsel of food delivered to every retail grocery shelf and said more tracking information does not always produce a better result.

The marketing institute said a proposed tracking system as envisioned by the FDA “would be exorbitantly costly.”

The food industry now says it will agree to a better tracing system operated by the government, as long as the industry can advise how to design it.

“We support the government requiring industry to have traceability systems that are effective and work,” said Jill Hollingsworth, group vice president for food safety programs at the marketing institute. “But industry has to come up with a system that follows products throughout the food chain.”

The FDA official in charge of the current salmonella investigation, David Acheson, said the agency slowly is reviewing paper records to help trace tainted produce. But Acheson disputed arguments that an electronic records system would necessarily have helped investigators.

“We still haven’t managed to figure out this outbreak,” he said in an interview days before the case’s biggest break — discovery of a tainted Mexican-grown jalapeno in a southern Texas warehouse.

The White House Office of Management and Budget defended its meetings with food industry groups in 2003 and 2004, saying it regularly meets with companies and individuals with a stake in proposed government rules.

“Our door is open for anyone — from non-profits, industry representatives to individual citizens — who request meetings on regulations,” OMB spokeswoman Jane Lee said. “These are listening sessions in conjunction with personnel from the regulating agency.”

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.