All Things Whistleblower: A GAP Blog

Let Them Eat Tomatoes...

As the hunt for salmonella continues, the food industry is getting more and more angry for the $100 million loss in revenue suffered because of the FDA has yet to pinpoint the origination of the outbreak. One grower's association has called for a Congressional investigation into the FDA. From The Wall Street Journal:

The collateral damage inflicted on thousands of innocent producers in this country by FDA blanket 'advisories,' such as with spinach and tomatoes, cannot go unchallenged," said Tom Nassif, the group's president and chief executive, in a written statement.

Industry leaders and consumers are probably even more frustrated with new reports showing that tomatoes may not even be responsible for the outbreak! A growing number of health officials are beginning to suspect that another ingredient commonly found in Mexican food may be to blame for over 800 cases of salmonella in the US from the past month.

According to the Baltimore Sun, the delay in finding the culprit…

…underscores the weaknesses in a government safety net that critics say relies on short-staffed state health departments and turf-conscious federal authorities.

A Congressional investigation may indeed be appropriate.

A Tale of Two Countries

Two big stories covering food safety today illustrate the difference in societal reactions to possibly contaminated food. First, South Koreans continue to protest (daily!) the import of US beef into that country on fears of mad cow disease, since American beef regulatory standards are, to put it mildly, lax. The protests have unfortunately turned violent.

Contrast this with the latest news on the US salmonella outbreak – CDC officials are now saying that tainted product could still be on store shelves, nearly two weeks after first announcing the outbreak. Officials have also announced they may never pinpoint the outbreak’s origin.

It should be clear to American consumers that the FDA has a greatly flawed mechanism for tracing the origin or packaging plant of any supply of produce. But here, we have seen no protests, whereas South Koreans have taken to the streets about a possible sickness – remember, no one has even fallen ill there yet.

Do South Koreans just care more than Americans about food safety?  

How Greece is Different from America

An Associated Press article details how, following an “outcry over tainted sunflower oil,” the head of Greece’s food safety division has resigned.

A quick thought - Considering just some of the scandals that have occurred in America just this year with regard to consumer safety (massive meat recall from tainted beef, heparin scandal, ongoing toy recalls), wouldn’t our country look a lot different if the heads of agencies that made these major blunders resigned, similar to what’s happened in Greece?

-- Dylan Blaylock

Food Safety Spotlight

There was a ton of food safety-related newspaper articles appearing today and over the weekend. While this has been a hot button topic for some time now, the increasing coverage means that more consumers are rightfully questioning the history, naturalness, and integrity of the food they consume. This isn’t just specific kinds of food, either – the breadth of food type where concerns are looming is wide. Consider these stories from just the last couple of days:

• American shrimp producers are pressuring the FDA to increase inspections of foreign shrimp, thought of as being inferior and possibly unsafe
• Some doctors are asserting that the natural sugar found in organic baby formula may have detrimental health effects
• Safety concerns about produce have led to a spike in demand for locally grown food
• Numerous factors, including diet and food quality, have led to an explosion of childhood obesity levels

-- Dylan Blaylock

Major Analysis Rails Factory Farming

A new thorough, 2½ year-analysis from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Pew Charitable Trusts concludes that factory farming “takes a big hidden toll on human health and the environment.”

Specifically, the report details how the amount of human illness is greatly increased by the use of antibiotics in feedlots, and that the environment is at risk due to “animal waste too intensely concentrated to be neutralized by natural processes,” according to the Washington Post.

Normally, with a report like this, corporate agricultural representatives would criticize it for a lack of thoroughness in some aspect, effectively creating doubt. But it’s difficult to do in this case. From the Post:

Several observers said the report, by experts with varying backgrounds and allegiances, is remarkable for the number of tough recommendations that survived the grueling research and review process, which participants said was politically charged and under constant pressure from powerful agricultural interests.

In the end, however, even industry representatives on the panel agreed to such controversial recommendations as a ban on the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in farm animals -- a huge hit against veterinary pharmaceutical companies -- a phaseout of all intensive confinement systems that prevent the free movement of farm animals, and more vigorous enforcement of antitrust laws in the increasingly consolidated agricultural arena.

The report concludes by urging…

stronger reporting requirements for companies and a phaseout and then ban on antibiotics in farm animals except as treatments for disease, a policy already initiated in some European countries.Let’s hope this important study and its recommendations are followed through on.

-- Dylan Blaylock

You're Saying You Didn't Watch the Video?

The president of the slaughterhouse company whose workers’ abuses of cattle triggered the largest beef recall in history testified before a House committee yesterday under subpoena.

After making an opening statement that ‘downer’ cows did not enter the food supply, Westland/Hallmark Meat Company President Steve Mendell was shown the Human Society video which indicated otherwise. He then acknowledged that his opening statement was incorrect, and that ‘downer’ cattle had, in fact entered the company’s food supply. He then claimed he had not seen the video, which has been on the Human Society’s Web site for nearly a month.

Other news reports on this story include the LA Times, NY Times, and Chicago Tribune.

-- Dylan Blaylock

The Ag Lobby

The EPA is attempting to drop rules mandating factory farms to report levels of toxic gas emissions. This action is the result of agriculture industry lobbying.

According to the Washington Post, the EPA actually acknowledges that these emissions can pose health threats. But they still want to remove the rules anyway, justifying it by saying “local emergency responders don't use the reports, making them unnecessary.”

That’s bad reasoning, considering the several groups that do use the reports (the article sites “local air-quality agencies, environmental groups, and lawmakers”).

The mandate has been required since the ‘80s, and it doesn’t even set emission limits – it simply requires the reporting of such gas emissions, so that if local residents get sick, health officials can investigate what the cause may be.

Ah, agriculture industry lobbyists.

-- Dylan Blaylock

Possibly Tainted Meat Already Consumed

Three weeks after a video surfaced showing gross mistreatment of cattle at one of its plants, a California-based meat company has issued what is being billed as “the largest beef recall in history.”

Since the company is recalling its products from the last two years (issued after Feb. 1, 2006) however, the USDA admits that most of the product has already “probably been consumed.” The recall covers 143 million pounds of beef, but the actual amount returned will be much less.

Oh, and one primary consumer of the possibly tainted beef over the last two years? Schoolchildren, as the meat company was a huge supplier of school lunch programs throughout the country.

One interesting bit in the New York Times article was:

Technically, the Department of Agriculture does not have the authority to recall meat. However, it can withdraw its inspectors from a plant, putting pressure on a company to issue a recall.

With food safety a growing issue in America, and recall after recall scaring consumers, don’t you think the USDA should have the authority to do this?

-- Dylan Blaylock

Dueling Reports on Genetically Modified Crops

Two reports focusing on genetically engineered crops were released yesterday with very different conclusions. The first report, produced by the nonprofits Center for Food Safety and Friends of the Earth, states that such crops increase pesticide use and decrease global food security. The second report, funded partially by industry, takes the opposite view.  

One main point of contention between the two reports is the view toward a bacterial gene implanted in crops that protects vegetables from a common herbicide. While industry argues that this yields more plentiful crops, the nonprofits show that the gene increasingly is not working to fend off insects (requiring more, different pesticide use), and that the gene itself has spread to weed species (rendering it useless, requiring even more, different pesticide use).

We’ll go with Friends of the Earth and the Center for Food Safety on this one. GAP has worked with these groups on several occasions and found each to be solid partners in standing up for consumer and environmental rights.

Plus, their report isn’t founded by industry.

-- Dylan Blaylock

Study Shows Unacceptable Pesticide Levels in Children who Eat Conventional Produce

A Seattle PI article details that a yearlong study has shown “brain damaging” pesticides are present in children who had a diet including conventional produce. When children switch to eating organic produce and juices, the potentially unsafe chemical levels could no longer be detected within eight to 36 hours.

The types of pesticides shown as being present, organophosphates, have attempted to be phased out over time by the EPA. But activists say the agency should take a much more aggressive approach, and that current acceptable limits are much too high – levels that could lead to neurological disorders.

The study, which took place in Washington state, measured unsafe levels of chemicals in the urine and saliva of children ages three to eleven.

-- Dylan Blaylock