NAMI: More time needed to comment on dietary guidelines

The North American Meat Institute (NAMI) has formally requested an extension on the comment period for the scientific report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee from 45 days to 120 days. 
The committee released its report on February 19.
“To provide a thorough and meaningful review and comment, which has been encouraged by the agencies, a 120-day comment period is appropriate,” said NAMI Vice President of Scientific Affairs Betsy Booren, Ph.D. 
According to Booren, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) spent nearly two years reviewing the body of the evidence to formulate the report. Providing interested stakeholders a mere 45 days to review the 571-page report as well as the entire Nutrition Evidence Library does not allow adequate time for thorough review and input, she said. 
“The agencies have encouraged a transparent collaborative process, yet a limited time for review does not allow for such a process. Such a short comment period runs the risk of appearing to exclude meaningful comment,” Booren said. “The 120-day comment period will provide the most insightful response to the DGAC report, which will be useful as the agencies develop the final policy.” 
NAMI has previously registered strong concerns about the committee’s contradictory recommendations to eat lower amounts of red and processed meat while at the same time saying in a footnote that lean meat can be part of a healthy, balanced diet. The Institute also objected to the Advisory Committee’s focus on sustainability, which is outside the committee’s charter. "Lean meat's relegation to a footnote ignores the countless studies and data that the Committee reviewed for the last two years that showed unequivocally that meat and poultry are among the most nutrient dense foods available," said NAMI President and CEO Barry Carpenter in a statement. "Lean meat is a headline, not a footnote," he added.

House panel urged to pass Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act

Farm Bureau member Stacey Forshee on December 10 called on Congress to help consumers understand the difference between real food safety concerns and marketing ploys by passing H.R. 4432, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act. Forshee testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.
“As a hard-working American family who lives off the land and the products it provides, we would never allow a product we grew or raised to enter the food supply unless we knew it was safe,” Forshee said. A farmer and cattle rancher with her husband in north central Kansas, Forshee has seen firsthand the marked benefits of biotechnology crops, including higher yields over fewer tillable acres, reduced pesticide use and improved soil conservation.
The Forshees are not alone in seeing these benefits. Since 1996, more than 17 million farmers have added in excess of 110 million tons of soybeans and 195 million tons of corn to the world’s food supply. Farmers also avoided using 1.2 billion pounds of pesticide by choosing to grow genetically enhanced crops over conventional corn and soybeans.
Forshee praised the Food and Drug Administration’s science-based approach to labeling food products for safety, health and nutrition information. Labeling foods with biotechnology traits “will mislead consumers into believing such food products are materially different, create undue risk and should be avoided – all of which are scientifically false,” she said. Veering from FDA’s safe and proven approach would undermine the livelihoods of farmers and ranchers across the country, while doing nothing to further food safety, Forshee said.

FDA to require chain restaurants to post nutritional information

• 

  Roy Graber

  Chain restaurants will be required to post nutritional information about the foods sold at their locations under a new FDA rule.

  From WATTAgNet:
  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on November 25 said chain restaurants and vending machines with 20 or more locations would be required to provide customers with full nutritional information including calorie counts about the food being sold.
  "Americans eat and drink one third of their calories away from home and people today expect clear information about the products they consume," FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in a statement. "Making calorie information available on chain restaurant menus and vending machines is an important step for public health that will help consumers make informed choices for themselves and their families."
  Under the new rules, restaurants will be required to publish calorie information for all standards prominently on menus and menu boards. Food facilities at venues like movie theaters and amusement parks must also comply with the new rule.
  Temporary menu items and specials are exempt from the requirements.
  Establishments affected will also have to provide upon request detailed nutritional information for food items such as total calories, total fat, calories from fat, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, total carbohydrates, fiber, sugar and protein.
  The finalization of the new rules was required under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

FDA issues guidance for animal food additive petitions

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has announced the availability of a draft document describing the type of information it recommends that companies provide when they submit a food additive petition for substances intended for use in animal food.
Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the FDA must approve food additives before they can be used in animal food.
The draft Guidance for Industry #221, titled "Recommendations for Preparation and Submission of Animal Food Additive Petitions," recommends that petitioners submit to FDA:

• Information to identify and characterize the food additive
• Information about the manufacturing methods and controls
• Data to show the food additive will have its intended effect and the amount of the food additive needed to achieve the intended effect
• The proposed labeling
• A description of the method or methods used to determine the strength, purity and quality of the food additive
• A safety evaluation of the food additive (this includes evaluating the safety to people who eat edible products of animals fed the food additive and the safety to the target animal species)
• Proposed tolerances for the food additive (this represents the maximum concentration of the additive allowed in edible tissues, for example, in meat, milk and eggs)
• Proposed food additive regulation describing the conditions under which the additive can be safely used in animal food
• Information to allow the FDA to assess the environmental impact from the manufacture, use and disposal of the food additive
The draft guidance is open for public comment for 60 days, starting on September 11. Although you can comment on any guidance at any time, to ensure that the FDA considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by November 12, 2013.

Ex-FDA commissioner pushes to limit antibiotic use in poultry, livestock production

Donald Kennedy, who served as commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from 1977-79, in a letter to the Washington Post advocated limiting the use of antibiotics in poultry and livestock production. Kennedy, like other critics of antibiotic use in animal agriculture, says overuse can lead to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can adversely affect human health.
Kennedy wrote that the agency was first advised during his term to eliminate the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture, but Congress stopped the effort before it ever began. However, he added that the FDA now appears to take steps in limiting antibiotic use by instituting Guidance for Industry 213, also known as Guidance 213. The voluntary policy would instruct pharmaceutical companies to stop marketing certain antibiotics for animal production purposes. Instead, antibiotics should be used judiciously, focusing on the treatment of animals for various health problems.
"The new guidelines cannot come soon enough," Kennedy wrote in the letter published on August 22. "More antibiotics were sold for use in food animal production in 2011, the last year for which complete data are available, rather than in any prior year. The FDA annually examines bacteria on retail meat and poultry, and each year the bugs show more resistance to antibiotics. …"
"The FDA should finalize Guidance 213, tell the public how data will be collected to ensure that its voluntary strategy is working and then, if antibiotic misuse continues unabated, apply the full force of regulation. It has been 36 years since the agency moved to restrict injudicious antibiotic practices that threatened the public's health.
Kennedy, now a professor emeritus of environmental science at Stanford University, also suggested in the letter that producers improve crowding and sanitation conditions that make poultry and livestock susceptible to disease. He believes that move will further reduce the need for antibiotics. 

FDA deputy commissioner sees FSMA development as a collaborative effort

With a number of the proposed rules covering portions of the Food Safety Modernization Act released, pace of the rule making work will increase, said Michael R. Taylor, deputy commissioner for food and veterinary medicine, U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “The industries and consumer groups are with us in publishing these rules,” Taylor said at the International Association of Food Protection convention in Charlotte, N.C. “This FSMA development has been a collaborative effort across the food community.”
“How these rules are implemented are what really determines the improvement in the safety of food,” Taylor said. “The development of the rules and the implementation strategies all have to come together in a coherent way. We want to do outreach on some of these implementation strategies.”
Taylor characterized the writing of the proposed rule for produce as being particularly complex. “The produce rule is one of the most challenging rule making activities that I have been involved in,” he said. Because of this complexity, he said that the FDA is having listening sessions on the produce rule to work with stakeholders to make sure that they can make all aspects of the rule work.
The FDA has issued a proposed rule for certification of third-party auditors. Taylor said that the FDA wants to strengthen the credibility of third-party audits. “These audits would be required for targeted uses initially; we think there is a broader rule potentially for accredited third party audits.” He explained that the FDA sees a potential for accredited third-party audits having a role beyond what has been spelled out initially in FSMA. This stance supports the goals of the Global Food Safety Initiative.
Taylor said that the changes to how the FDA looks at imported food mandated by FSMA are sweeping. “We are at the beginning of forming a brand new import oversight system, we look forward to working with stakeholders on developing it fully,” he said. When asked about the impact that increased food safety requirements might have on agriculture in the developing world, Taylor expressed optimism. “Increasing world trade for food can synergistically increase food safety.” He explained that FSMA’s rules regarding imported food along with help from the FDA and third-party audit schemes can prod agricultural operations in the developing world meet U.S. standards, which could open up markets around the world to their products.
When asked about resources that the FDA will need to fully implement FSMA, Taylor said, “FDA says they would need $400-450 million more than their 2012 base expenditures [per year] within in five years to be able to do everything that FSMA is requiring them to do. Without the funding, FSMA will not fulfill its promise.” He added that FSMA could be more disruptive than helpful if the needed additional funding is not provided. 

FDA must publish proposed FSMA regulations by Nov. 30

A federal court has ordered the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to complete the new food safety regulations of the 2011 Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). According to a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the FDA must publish all proposed FSMA regulations by November 30. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton ordered the comment period for the regulations will not close later than March 31, 2014, and all final regulations shall be published in the Federal Register no later than June 30, 2015.
The FSMA was the first major overhaul of food safety laws since 1938. It improved the FDA's regulation and authority over food production in numerous areas, including preventing contaminated food imports, new preventative controls and hazard analysis requirements for food production facilities, and safer production of fruits and vegetables. The FSMA also granted the FDA new authority to, for the first time, mandate food recalls and suspend facilities, as well as new inspection and enforcement powers. But FDA regulations implementing the statute's mandates were needed before these improvements would take effect.
On April 22, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that the FDA had violated the law in "unlawfully withholding" the FSMA regulations. The court then ordered the parties to submit remedy proposals for new deadlines to complete the regulations, which the parties did on June 10. After consulting experts, the Center for Food Safety submitted new deadlines to the court. The FDA refused to submit meaningful deadlines, offering only "target timeframes" well into 2016, which it argued it could unilaterally change.
The court's Order Granting Injunctive Relief, issued on June 21, rejected the FDA's proposal. "Congress indicated that the rule-making process should be close-ended, rather than open-ended," according to the order. "Thus, the court finds defendant's 'target timeframes' to be an inadequate response to the request that the parties submit a proposal regarding deadlines that can form the basis of an injunction." The court granted the Center for Food Safety's motion for an injunction, set 2014-2015 deadlines as described above, and retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the order.

Public meeting to address agenda for international health meeting

The United States Department of Agriculture's Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety in conjunction with the department's Food Safety and Inspection Service is sponsoring a public meeting to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items, and draft U.S. positions to be discussed at the 36th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which will be held in Rome, Italy, July 1-5, 2013.
The public meeting will be held June 18, 2013, from 1 to 4 p.m. at USDA headquarters, the Jamie L. Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 107-A, Washington, D.C., 20250.
Documents and agenda items related to the commission will be accessible at the Codex Alimentarius Commission website. To join the public meeting by conference call, dial +1.888.858.2144 and use participant code: 6208658.
During the meeting, the committee will discuss:

• Election of Chairperson and Vice Chair
• Strategic planning for the Codex Alimentarius Commission
• Amendments to Codex standards and related texts
• Appointment of regional coordinators
• Matters referred to Codex Alimentarius Commission by Codex committees and task forces
• Matters of interest arising from the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization and other international organizations
Codex was established in 1963 by the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade through adoption of food standards, codes of practice and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments.
For more information about the public meeting, or to submit written comments contact: Jasmine Curtis, U.S. Codex Office, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 4865, Washington, D.C., 20250; telephone +1.202.690.1124, fax +1.202.720.3157, email: Jasmine.Curtis@fsis.usda.gov.
For more information about the 36th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, contact: Barbara McNiff, U.S. Codex Office, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 4861, Washington, D.C., 20250; telephone +1.202.690.4719, fax +1.202.720.3157, email: Barbara.McNiff@fsis.usda.gov.

FDA allows ionizing radiation of meat, poultry products

The Food and Drug Administration has amended the food additive regulations to provide for the safe use of ionizing radiation on meat and poultry products, according to final rules released in the Federal Register.
The first final rule provides for the use of a 4.5 kilogray (kGy) maximum absorbed dose of ionizing radiation to treat unrefrigerated and refrigerated uncooked meat, meat byproducts and certain meat food products to reduce levels of foodborne pathogens and extend shelf life. The second final rule amends the food additive regulations to increase the maximum dose of ionizing radiation permitted in the treatment of poultry products, to include specific language intended to clarify the poultry products covered by the regulations, and to remove the limitation that any packaging used during irradiation of poultry shall not exclude oxygen.
Both rules go into effect on November 30.

California genetically engineered food-labeling law unlikely to pass

California's Proposition 37, which would have required manufacturers to label all foods with genetically modified ingredients, looked unlikely to pass on November 7, gaining just 45 percent of the state's votes while 55 percent opposed it, with more than 50 percent of precincts reporting. The measure would have been the first of its kind in the U.S.
In 2011, 88 percent of all corn and 94 percent of all soybeans produced in the U.S. were grown from genetically engineered seeds. Some other commonly genetically engineered crops include alfalfa, canola, cotton, papaya, sugar beets and zucchini.
Supporters of Prop. 37 cited a lack of evidence that genetically modified food is not harmful to humans as a reason to support the measure. "Whether you buy genetically engineered food or not, you have a right to know what you are buying and not gamble on your family’s health," they said. Detractors said extra costs attached to printing new labels would be passed on to consumers. State enforcement of the proposition would cost tax payers anywhere between a few hundred thousand dollars to $1 million annually, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office.
Prop. 37 includes several labeling exceptions, such as foods made entirely from animals, certified organic food and wine. Other exceptions include foods that are:

• unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material.
• made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered ingredients.
• processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients.
• administered for treatment of medical conditions.
• sold for immediate consumption, such as in a restaurant.
• alcoholic beverages.

USDA extends public comment period for poultry slaughter proposal

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced an extension to the public comment period for their proposed rule to modernize the U.S. poultry slaughter inspection system.
The new plan, which the USDA says would provide the government with the opportunity to protect consumers from unsafe food more effectively, has caused some concern among those who think it might negatively affect health and safety of the American public. "We recognize that this proposal would represent a significant change from the current system and has sparked a debate on how poultry is inspected," said Dr. Elisabeth Hagen, under secretary for food safety. "We also value the different opinions being expressed about the proposal and have extended the public comment period to ensure all sides are presented in this debate."
The increased emphasis on food safety tasks proposed under the rule is consistent with the agency’s focus on foodborne illness prevention, said Hagen. Instead of focusing on quality assurance, inspectors will be able to ensure plants are maintaining sanitary conditions and that food safety hazards are being reduced throughout the entire production process. "Over the years we have seen — again and again — the need to modernize to keep pace with the latest science and threats," she said. "This poultry slaughter modernization proposal is about protecting public health, plain and simple, and I encourage stakeholders and the public to read the proposal and then let us know what you think."

EU clarifies protocol for banning GMOs

The European Union's high court has ruled that France erred in its ban on genetically altered corn, and has clarified the means by which member states can invoke a safeguard clause against cultivation of genetically modified organisms.
Monsanto sought review after France banned a type of genetically modified corn used in animal feed. The EU authorized the corn, which contains genes modified to combat a corn parasite, in 1998. The court ruled that cultivation of a GMO authorized as an existing product and pending renewal may not be suspended under a 2001 EU directive that applies to all GMOs, and France had used this directive for its ban. Member states may, however, invoke the safeguard clause under a 2003 directive related to GMOs for human or animal consumption, though this may be done only through a specific procedure, according to the court.
Member states must officially inform the European Commission as quickly as possible, the court's ruling said, and must establish a link between the GMO crop and "serious" risk, in a complete scientific evaluation involving the European Food Safety Authority. Such a risk assessment may be based on the precautionary principle.

Europe stance on GM crops concerns UK farmers union

The UK's National Farmers Union is concerned that the European Parliament is setting a "dangerous precedent" for EU legislation by ignoring scientific advice on genetically modified crop varieties.
Members of Parliament have backed a report, based on proposals from the European Commission, which would allow Europe’s Member States to disregard advice from the European Food Safety Authority and ban the cultivation of GM crops for non-scientific reasons.
“Farmers need all the tools available to them to contribute to ‘sustainable intensification’," said Dr. Helen Ferrier, NFU chief science and regulatory affairs adviser. "With the world population set to grow to 9 billion by 2050, Europe must be in a position to contribute towards global food security. We believe a common authorization procedure with common health and environmental safety will best serve EU farmers, consumers and the environment.”

EU reaches deal on poultry, pig meat origin labeling

The European Union has reached a deal on new EU-wide country of origin labeling for poultry, pork and other meat as well as nutrition labeling for other food.
Country of origin labeling will go into force within two years of the rules going into effect. Currently, the European Commission is working on specifying how to deal with animals born, raised or slaughtered in more than one country. By 2013, a decision will be made on whether to include processed meat products in the new labeling system.
Nutrition labeling must show foods' energy, salt, sugar, protein, carbohydrate, fat and saturated fat content, and will go into effect within five years.
The deal must still be formally approved by governments and the full parliament before becoming law.

FDA issues interim final rules for Food Safety Modernization Act

The Food and Drug Administration has published two interim final rules in the Federal Register, regarding the FDA's administrative detention authority and advanced notice of rejected imports, connected to the Food Safety Modernization Act.
The first interim final rule relates to the FDA’s administrative detention authority. Currently, the FDA has the authority to detain products deemed to have “credible evidence or information indicating that the article of food presents a threat of serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.” Under the FSMA, the criteria level has been modified to the more general definition “reason to believe that the article of food is adulterated or misbranded.” This change in administrative detention authority widens the FDA’s scope of products acceptable for detention to products that would normally be considered as part of a Class II recall.
The second interim final rule relates to importers giving advanced notice of imports that were refused entry into another country. Presently, importers must give the FDA advanced notice of imports electronically through a Customs and Border Protection or FDA system. This interim final rule implements an FSMA-mandated requirement that this prior notice include the identity of any country to which an article of food has been refused entry.
The requirements in both interim final rules will be effective July 3, 2011. Comments will be accepted on both interim final rules and reviewed by the American Feed Industry Association's FSMA work groups.

EU drafts legislation to allow processed animal protein in poultry, pig feed

Draft legislation amending the regulations for processed animal protein to allow it in animal feed has been published by the European Commission, according to the European Fat Processors and Renderers Association.
“The legislation will restrict the use of processed animal proteins to feed for omnivores and carnivores including pig, poultry and farmed fish," said Niels Leth Nielsen, EFPRA president. "The ban on feeding animal proteins to ruminants remains in place. Another important safeguard, the ban on intra-species recycling, also remains. The draft regulation requires that animal by-products destined for feed use are handled and processed separately to prevent any potential cross-contamination, ensuring that feed for cattle and other ruminants remains free of any processed animal protein."
The legislation will come before the member states for consideration later this year.

State-inspected poultry, meat can cross US state lines, says USDA

A final rule, implemented by the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, gives select establishments the option to ship poultry and meat products, bearing an official USDA mark of inspection, across state lines.

A final rule has been announced that will broaden the market for smaller state-inspected plants, giving select establishments the option to ship poultry and meat products, bearing an official U.S. Department of Agriculture mark of inspection, across state lines.
The rule, implemented by the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service, establishes a voluntary cooperative interstate shipment program. "We're excited to announce this new rule that offers smaller plants the opportunity to expand their market and sell their products to new customers," said FSIS Administrator Al Almanza. "Allowing these state-inspected establishments to ship their products across state lines has the potential to expand rural development and jobs, increase local tax bases, strengthen rural communities and ensure that food is safe for consumers."
In participating states, state-inspected establishments selected to take part in the program will be required to comply with all federal standards under the Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act. These establishments will receive inspection services from state inspection personnel that have been trained in the requirements of the FMIA and PPIA.

USDA proposes 'test and hold' rule for poultry, pork shipments to help prevent recalls

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has proposed a "test and hold" rule that would prevent packers from shipping out poultry, pork and beef to grocery stores before USDA inspections are completed.
According to the USDA, the government organization inspects "billions of pounds of meat, poultry and processed egg products annually," and it believes that "44 of the most serious recalls between 2007 and 2009 could have been prevented" if the proposed rule had been in place. "We believe this will result in fewer products with dangerous pathogens reaching store shelves and dinner tables," said Elisabeth Hagen, USDA undersecretary for food safety.
Many larger meat packers, including Cargill Inc. and Tyson Foods Inc., already hold back product during testing, which can take 24 to 48 hours to complete. "While we don't typically favor more government regulation, we believe it makes sense in this case to mandate 'test and hold' for the whole industry," said Gary Mickelson, a spokesman for Tyson Foods.
The American Meat Institute has also said it supports the proposed rule. "We are pleased that the USDA has indicated that it will make mandatory our voluntary test and control procedures," said AMI President J. Patrick Boyle. "We believe that this policy will prevent needless recalls, further ensure food safety and maintain consumer confidence."

Food Safety Modernization Act focus at feed mill forum

Vice President of Feed Regulation and Nutrition for the American Feed Industry Association Richard Sellers addressed feed mill managers at a recent seminar, focusing on the Food Safety Modernization Act and its ramifications on the industry.
During the event, sponsored by the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association’s Poultry & Egg Institute, Sellers said that the industry is experiencing some of the most significant changes in the Food and Drug Administration's regulation of feed since 1958. “You need to know what is in the Food Safety Modernization Act in order to comply,” said Sellers. “You will not see anything like this law in the history of the Food and Drug Administration and probably will not see anything to the magnitude of this bill in the future.”  
The new law applies to all ingredient processing, feed manufacturing, pet food, feed and ingredient imports and transportation. Sellers discussed some of the new facets of the law that he said need to be addressed by all companies:

• Determining each company’s risk level
• Foreign supplier compliance to ensure they comply with the FSMA
• User fees for re-inspections
• Implementation timelines

Other talks at the event included Jim Norris, senior safety administrator of Bunge North America, presenting “Safe Entry and Reclaim from Flat Storage Spaces;" Andy Yersin of Kemin Industries presenting "Salmonella Control and Prevention;" and Don Holman of Tyson Foods discussing "Transportation Guidelines — Comprehensive Safety Analysis 2010."

New York state bill to mandate SE vaccination

Bill A5912-2011 was recently introduced into the State of New York Legislature, sponsored by five members. The State Agriculture and Marketing Law would be amended by adding section 96-(c)-30 to mandate compulsory vaccination of flocks supplying eggs intended for sale in the state of New York.
The proposed amendment will empower the commissioner of agriculture to establish and issue rules and regulations relating to vaccination of flocks against SE.
This action is effectively “window dressing” since it is unlikely that that are any commercial flocks either in New York state or are operated to ship eggs from supplying states that have not been vaccinated. Since the commissioner will subsequently have to rule on the types of vaccines, routes of administration and ages of flocks receiving vaccine it is not possible to comment on the proposal.
At best it will make no difference to the incidence rate of SE among consumers in New York state, and at worst it will add additional costs for paperwork, administration and surveillance.