Missouri eases rules on egg sales

The Missouri Department of Agriculture has changed laws making it easier for farmers' market merchants and roadside vendors to sell eggs directly to consumers. The agency has lessened licensing requirements where those who sell eggs directly to consumers now only need a $5 retail license, the Associated Press reported.
Missouri previously required dealer licenses for direct-to-consumer sales of eggs. The new classification applies to those who sell fewer than 25 cases of eggs weekly. Labeling requirements remain the same, where sellers must list their name, address, and the size and grade of the eggs.
State officials say the change is a response to the growing popularity of farmers' markets.

Reconciliation process will be the key to hopes of Egg Bill passage

Proponents of the Egg Bill (H.R. 1731 and S. 820) were unable to get this legislation added as an amendment to the Farm Bill in either the Senate or House Agriculture Committees. Agriculture groups who oppose the Egg Bill had too much influence on these committees and were able to block the legislation. But, Mike McLeod of McLeod, Watkinson & Miller, a law firm representing the United Egg Producers, said that the struggle to secure passage of the Egg Bill is far from over.
Speaking at the United Egg Producers' Legislative Board and Committee Meetings, McLeod said that the real battleground for the Egg Bill will be on the floor of the House of Representatives; because it is there that the influence of the Humane Society of the United States will be felt the most. Proponents of the Egg Bill will need to get two things accomplished on the House floor, according to McLeod. The so-called King amendment will need to be removed from the Farm Bill and the Egg Bill amendment will need to be added.
The King amendment, which would not allow a state to restrict movement of agricultural products into the state from other states, was added to the Farm Bill as an amendment by the House Agriculture Committee. McLeod called the King amendment the "anti-Egg Bill," but he said that some lawyers have espoused the position that the King amendment would be found to be unconstitutional if enacted and challenged in court.
If the King amendment is removed from the Farm Bill on the floor of the House and the Egg Bill amendment is added, then the reconciliation process can result in the Egg Bill being part of the final Farm Bill legislation. McLeod said that action on the Farm Bill on the House floor should begin around June 16. 

New Egg Bill to be introduced soon, sources say

The Egg Bill establishes a roughly 18-year transition period where conventional cages will be phased out and hens will be housed in either enriched cages, pictured here, or in cage-free systems.

A new, slightly revised, Egg Bill is likely to be introduced to both houses of Congress in the next few weeks, according to congressional aides cited in published reports. Chad Gregory, president and CEO, United Egg Producers, would not provide a date for the expected introduction of the legislation. He said that the United Egg Producers are committed to having the legislation reintroduced in Congress and getting it passed before the end of September.
The Egg Bill (H.R. 3798 and S. 3239) was introduced into the last Congress as an amendment to the Egg Products Inspection Act. Proponents of the Egg Bill attempted to have the Egg Products Inspection Act amendment added to the Farm Bill. Work on a new Farm Bill was postponed 12 months as part of the running battle over federal fiscal matters. Congress now has until the end of September 2013 to pass a new Farm Bill.
The United Egg Producers' agreement with the Humane Society of the United States was extended until the end of September of 2013. When asked about any changes in the 2013 version of the Egg Bill versus the prior bill’s language, Gregory said, “The 2013 Egg Bill and the prior Egg Bill differ slightly. We are calling them technical corrections. All [changes] are helpful for egg farmers.”
The United Egg Producers will hold its annual Legislative Meetings May 20-22 in Washington, D.C., and members are sure to spend much of their time on Capitol Hill lobbying their representatives to support passage of the Egg Bill.

Plenty of blame to be shared in egg recall

The significance of the 2010 egg recall is now becoming apparent. The short-term impact relates to an acute drop in consumption with a correspondingly precipitous decline in the average August Urner Barry price from 113 cents per dozen to the mid-70s by the second week in September. Contrast this value with a projected 117 cents for the month. Assuming that the generic shell-egg segment of the industry collectively experienced a decline of 40 cents per dozen, the loss in revenue for September alone would amount to $125 million assuming 162 million hens* with a 75% hen-to-pack yield.
The alleged circumstances, deficiencies and deviations from what could be regarded as prudent standards of operation by the management and ownership of the affected complexes and their affiliates are being emblazoned across newspapers in the U.S. fuelling concern over the safety of our product. Premature releases of preliminary findings by the FDA are adding to the rejection of shell eggs by domestic and food service users.
There is plenty of blame to go around. To name but a few:

• The owner and management of the implicated complexes who allegedly operated with complete disregard for accepted standards of prevention and detection of SE;
• The UEP and its directors for promoting its 5-Star Total Quality Assurance Food Safety Program, which was patently inferior to detect SE compared to the long-standing California and Pennsylvania EQAPs and the program initiated by the major producer of nationally distributed shell eggs;
• The UEP for not acting forcefully and expeditiously to publically disassociate its constituency of responsible producers representing 97% of production capacity from the alleged and widely publicized practices on the affected complexes;
• The UEP and its public relations advisors for mounting a lackluster campaign, which incorporated a blame-the-victim approach contrary to accepted principles of crisis control;
• The AEB for not acting quickly and authoritatively, applying its extensive resources to dispel concern among consumers in the face of negative publicity;
• The FMI in mandating an SQF program, which omitted the basic requirement that certified plants only pack eggs from flocks demonstrated to be free of SE, applying a comprehensive monitoring protocol;
• Purchasers of nest-run eggs from the affected complexes who repacked and distributed product without enquiring as to the SE status of supply flocks;
• The major chains and brokers who have imposed pressure on producers to supply eggs at the lowest cost, depriving the industry of the margins which would allow investment in effective biosecurity, SE vaccination, rodent control and monitoring; and
• The federal authorities for not coordinating their resources to provide the industry, initially with guidance and then successively comprehensive suppression and eradication programs. What have the USDA-AMS, USDA-ARS, USDA-FSIS or the FDA and their paymasters (Congress) contributed to preventing the SE crisis during the last two decades?

Am I bitter? Yes. Disappointed? Yes. A lot of good, honest and hardworking people, many of whom are friends and associates, will suffer from the acts of omission and commission, which contributed to the current situation. All that I can hope is that reason will prevail and that we will collectively develop a new attitude toward production of a quality product with inherent nutritional attributes for the benefit of our consumers and stakeholders.
Contrary opinions and rebuttals are welcome.
Inappropriate response to recall 
More from Dr. Shane about the blame-the-victim approach that caused backlash.

*(290 million hens in production less specialty and breaking flocks)

The SE recall: Inevitable or accidental?

It was considered prudent to refrain from commenting on the August recall following the SE traceback to Wright County Egg and Hillandale Farms of Iowa until more facts emerged. As a cynical observation, the HSUS was not as restrained since its publicity immediately implicated intensive cage housing with an unjustified and unsubstantiated epidemiological relationship between SE infection in consumers and commercial production systems — but I digress.
Let us return to what we do know from the FDA reports on its initial findings.
The outbreak appears to be associated with a single source comprising what is essentially a contiguous biological unit of 5 to 6 million hens in Wright County in North Central Iowa. This complement of hens represents approximately 2% of the nation’s flock of 280 million laying birds. No other farms, cooperatives, integrations or companies with an aggregate of 275 million hens have been identified as producing contaminated product as of the end of August.
Despite initial concerns, the incidence rate of egg-borne salmonellosis in consumers due to the specific strain of Salmonella enteritidis typed by PFGE, has declined as the implicated eggs, dating back to June have been either consumed or destroyed.
This outbreak was detected by traceback confirming the capabilities of FoodNet and PulseNet to identify foodborne disease in diverse populations in many states.
The CDC and FDA clearly have the ability to determine the source of an infection based on diligent patient interviews, using data on carton labels, wholesale and retail invoices and documentation with coordination among metropolitan, county and state public health investigators.
The extent of sale and transport of nest run eggs for packing and distribution can result in multistate outbreaks of SE. Traceback is obviously complicated by the profusion of brands and packs and packing plant imprints on cartons which do not necessarily relate to flock of origin.
In contrast to previous SE episodes, the FDA as the principal federal agency has acted forcefully and expeditiously to investigate the source and to motivate the recall and diversion of eggs to pasteurization. The quantity involved probably exceeds 12,000 cases per day unless affected flocks, farms or in-line units are depleted.
Now that the FDA has identified the source of infection and knowing the past history of the ownership of the enterprise concerned, it would be productive to consider the following questions to ascertain what procedures and accepted industry standards were ignored and disregarded and which otherwise may have averted the episode:
What SE detection program was followed and for how long? Most of the industry has subscribed to the UEP 5-Star program, which only requires one environmental drag swab assay within 2 weeks of depletion with obvious implications for the duration of possible vertical transmission to consumers in the event of infection of a flock. In contrast the most stringent EQAP, applied in Pennsylvania since the mid 1980s requires four assays during egg production extending over two cycles. Some producers satisfying customer requirements monitor all units on a complex, irrespective of flock age for environmental SE at quarterly intervals. A nationally distributed Brand has required their Franchisees to monitor flocks at four ages during production for the past five years.
What vaccination programs were followed and for how long? Did management of the affected complexes commence vaccination only when environmental positives were detected when testing was initiated within months of promulgation of the FDA Final Rule? It is a matter of record that for many years prudent producers have carried out programs of administering two or three successive doses of live mutant Salmonella typhimurium vaccine to pullets. In addition many operations also have administered inactivated emulsion vaccines prior to onset of production. Vaccination may be regarded as a cornerstone of an SE prevention program and as such is basically an industry standard. The FDA erred in not mandating this effective modality in their Final Rule for reasons that are inexplicable.
To what extent did the affected complexes apply appropriate biosecurity procedures with respect to parent flocks, their hatchery, rearing pullets and laying hens? Of obvious concern are precautions to prevent introduction and dissemination of SE during movement of flocks, equipment and personnel. Exclusion and baiting of rodents and especially mouse populations, which serve as reservoirs of SE, are critical components of an integrated control program.
What role did contaminated feed ingredients, especially animal proteins, play in either introduction of infection or subsequent propagation of SE? Did their common contaminated feed mill, delivery vehicles or personnel contribute to an ongoing cycle of infection? Was byproduct derived from ruminants and supplied by one or more rendering plants contaminated?
From the initial reports and comments by FDA officials and applying accepted knowledge within the industry we can immediately consider the following approaches to alleviation:
Disabuse ourselves of the incorrect notion that “SE is everywhere; it’s just a matter of looking”. In fact all the complexes I have been associated with as an auditor and consultant are free of SE environmental contamination. The “universal infection” point of view is flat wrong, self serving and anachronistic in the face of the FDA Final Rule.
We have sufficient knowledge of the epidemiology of SE in commercial flocks to implement successful and effective programs of prevention and monitoring given commitment and resources, which will add only fractionally to the cost of eggs. Programs must include biosecurity, vaccination, rodent suppression, placement of SE-free chicks, all vegetable diets and effective QC and monitoring at all levels of production. The legal implications and costs associated with persistent SE infection will be untenable in the future.
Unless the industry commits to rigid and effective control, consumer confidence will be eroded and SE will become the “new cholesterol” as a restraint to consumption
Purchase of nest run eggs should be supported by documentation of freedom from SE in all supply flocks. Did any of the companies taking advantage of the cheap price of the approximately 10,000 cases traded daily ever question the SE status of the implicated supplier?
An attitude of “lowest cost-whatever it takes” and disregard for the safety of product is intolerable. The “bad eggs” will have to adapt to acceptable practices or be “culled” by rejection of their products, lawsuits and regulatory action. Certainly condoning the deficiencies of irresponsible producers and receiving support from industry organizations is counterproductive and ultimately damaging to our image.
The final question arises as to how the industry will be affected by this outbreak and recall?
If we experience a subsequent recall from another source there may well be a marked erosion of confidence in shell eggs, a decline in consumption and further reduction in margins. The present “U-B windfall” may well be transitory as supply and demand attain equilibrium.
The trend towards a lower proportion of breaking noted during the past three years will be reversed and more pasteurized further-processed consumer and food service products will become available in response to consumer demand
Supply of in-shell pasteurized product will increase at a slow pace unless innovative technology such as microwave processing is introduced or more effective thermal immersion units are developed.
The need to counteract negative and distorted publicity from the opponents of intensive livestock production will be intensified. It will be critical to characterize the SE outbreak as a result of mismanagement if the facts support this contention. Complexes with cages demonstrated to be free of SE do not represent a risk to consumers. Intuitively, free-range and floor systems must have a greater potential for SE contamination than well managed cage units with belt manure removal.
The FDA will attempt to recover their tattered image by applying a zealous approach to otherwise compliant producers, citing technicalities and deficiencies in documentation. Ultimately a lack of understanding and resources will overwhelm the agency. The entire food industry will ultimately fall under the purview of a consolidated food safety agency paralleling changes in the UK and the EU where departments of agriculture have been discredited as protectors of consumer interests.

FDA plans to inspect 600 egg farms by end of 2011

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set the goal of inspecting 600 of the largest egg farms in the United States by the end of 2011.
The plan, which targets farms that have 50,000 or more hens, will give the government an updated look at the sources of 80% of the nation's eggs. The inspections will begin in September and will be conducted as part of a new FDA rule that went into effect in July regarding the prevention of salmonella in shell eggs. The ultimate goal is to prevent salmonella contamination and the resulting outbreaks from occurring. In the past, many inspections have taken place only after a contamination has been reported.
The FDA said it believes the new safeguards could reduce the number of salmonella cases by 60%. In their inspections, officials will be looking for safety violations that could increase the likelihood of contamination. They will be analyzing the proper refrigeration of eggs, adherence to employee sanitation standards and any unsafe bacteria around the farms.

U.S. enacts new egg safety rules

A new set of safety rules went into effect July 9 aimed at curbing salmonella contamination in eggs. The rules, a coordinated strategy between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the its Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) , requires egg processors having more than 50,000 laying hens to add preventive measures and use refrigeration when storing and transporting eggs, among other things.
Large producers that don’t sell all of their eggs directly to consumers and those who transport or hold eggs must comply with the rule’s refrigeration requirements/ Producers with fewer than 50,000 but at least 3,000 laying hens whose shell eggs are not processed with a treatment like pasteurization must comply with the new rules by July 9, 2012, while producers having less than 3,000 hens are not covered by the rule.