Search benefits of washing rice

April 2009, eleven Colorado residents develop Campylobacter infections after consuming raw milk sold through a cow share program.  September 2009, thirty-five Wisconsin residents develop Campylobacter infections after consuming raw milk sold through a cow share program.  November 2009, three persons in Washington State develop pathogenic E. coli infections after consuming raw milk.  January 2010, five persons in Saratoga County, New York develop Campylobacter infections after consuming raw milk.

The list could go on and on.  Drinking raw milk is, to say the least, a risky proposition.  Sure, raw milk advocates argue that we should look at the numbers of illnesses caused by pasteurized milk as a comparison.  Unfortunately for raw milk supporters, the numbers just aren’t in their favor.  According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) documents (pdf), from 1973 to 2005, raw dairy products caused over 50% of milkborne illness outbreaks, despite the fact that only about one percent of the United States population drinks raw milk.

Without a doubt, the widespread use of milk pasteurization over the last 60 years has led to fewer incidences of foodborne illness.  According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), tainted milk was the source of approximately 25% of all reported foodborne and waterborne disease outbreaks in 1938.  Today, thanks to pasteurization, tainted milk accounts for less than one percent of such reported outbreaks.

Regardless of the clear safety benefits of milk pasteurization, there are still those among us that fight ardently for access to raw milk.  They claim that raw milk cures everything from diarrhea to rickets, from ear infections to asthma.  The claims made by sellers of raw milk often sound eerily reminiscent of the snake oil salesmen of yesteryear.  The feverish tone of these raw milk advocates begs one question: Who are raw milk sales really helping–average consumers or the farms that sell raw milk for up to $13.00 per gallon?

Raw milk salesmen (and women) have turned into classic cure-all peddlers as a way to boost sales.  I am certainly not disputing the fact that there might be health benefits associated with consuming the probiotics found in raw milk, even if the CDC doesn’t agree, and even though probiotics can be found in many products.  Nor am I claiming that farmers should be denied potentially lucrative revenue streams.  The main problem I have with this issue is that the advocates have stretched their sales pitches too thin, claiming that cows excrete an elixir that treats almost any ailment.  At the same time, they seem to be trying to sweep the potential dangers of consuming fecal-bacteria-tainted milk under the carpet.  Unfortunately, the end result is that the real victims of this deceptive advertising are often persons with already-weakened immune systems, such as children and the elderly.

The raw milk debate strikes a particular chord with me because it is so intertwined with my legal field of interest, products liability.  Products liability was born out of the need to hold producers of medicines liable for injuring consumers.  The rationale behind holding producers liable was simple: consumers couldn’t be expected to chemically analyze medicine before putting it into their bodies, therefore they had no choice but to rely on the producer’s good word that the medicine did what it purported to do in a safe manner.  From an ethical standpoint, this made sense.  If a supposed expert advertises a product as safe, it doesn’t seem morally sound to blame the consumer for his or her subsequent injury or death.

The birth of the products liability movement provides a valuable lesson about the raw milk debate of today.  By today’s standards, the claims made by producers of medicines in the mid-1800s often seem outrageous.  Products containing large amounts of mercury were a common treatment for syphilis.  Lead was also used to treat a variety of ailments.  Scientists even suspect that Beethoven’s death was likely due to lead poisoning, developed after a lifetime of exposure to lead-based medical treatments.

Of course, the error of comparing the treatment of diseases with toxic medicines to the treatment of diseases with raw milk lies in the fact that the dangers of such medicines were not known in the 1800s.  The dangers of consuming raw milk, on the other hand, were known by scientific pioneers such as Louis Pasteur as early as 1862.  Indeed, in the modern day there is no excuse for exposing persons with weakened immune systems to raw milk that is known to contain deadly bacteria.

Despite a clear history of outbreaks, and a history of contamination with deadly bacteria that was known by scientists over 140 years ago, raw milk advocates continue to fight for their right to consume the product and feed it to their children.  The internet age has created new avenues for proponents to reach consumers.  It has also created an unregulated communication forum in which assertions of fact are rarely questioned.  That sentiment of course applies to this article as much as it does any article posted on the World Wide Web.  But, I would urge consumers to think long and hard about the goal behind campaigns that tout endless positive benefits of a product, side by side with sales pitches about the lucrative cash-earning potential of product sales.  Like the products of yesteryear, we may one day look back in horror at the health risks consumers were willing to take in the name of a product that claimed to cure everything from heart disease to stomach cancer.

As with medicine, I will be the first to admit that some milk is more dangerous than other milk.  There are relative risks and benefits of consuming either raw milk or pasteurized milk.  Nonetheless, for the sake of my own health, I would rather avoid medications and milk that are not subjected to a sterilization process. Then again, I don’t pretend to have all the answers.  There may be some great benefits to raw milk, but it’s hard to ignore the federal government’s pleadings to stop the sale of raw milk.  The government may be wrong.  I may be wrong.  Or perhaps, the reality is that raw milk is simply not a safe product to feed to our nation’s children.  Nonetheless, I’m sure that many raw milk advocates will unwittingly continue to paraphrase Stephen Colbert as they keep trying to convince us that reality has a well-known anti-raw milk bias.

The USDA has proposed a rule that would stop poultry producers from selling chicken and turkey contaminated with high levels of certain types of Salmonella.

The rule, would make it illegal to sell chicken, chicken parts or ground chicken and turkey if it is found to be contaminated with certain types of Salmonella. It is to be applied by the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service. The proposed rule was more than three years in the making. An enforcement date has not yet been set. 

Once the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register the public and entities including industry organizations, individual producers and consumer groups will have 60 days to comment. The comment period could be extended. When the comment period ends the USDA will begin writing the final rule. 

The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service estimates the proposed rule would result in benefits to society of $20.5 million per year, ranging from $4.4 million to $39 million. The majority of the benefits would be derived from prevented illnesses of $12.9 million per year, ranging from $0.3 million to $28.7 million. FSIS also estimated avoided costs from a reduction in the risk of outbreak-related recalls for industry. Additional industry actions in response to this proposal may lead to additional benefits, according to the FSIS.

In it’s announcement of the 149-page proposed rule, the USDA boiled the regulation down to simple language:

“The proposal would establish final product standards to prevent raw chicken carcasses, chicken parts, ground chicken, and ground turkey products that contain any type of Salmonella at or above 10 colony forming units (CFU) per gram/ml and any detectable level of at least one of the Salmonella serotypes of public health significance from entering commerce. 

“The proposed Salmonella serotypes of public health significance identified for raw chicken carcasses, chicken parts, and comminuted chicken are Enteritidis, Typhimurium, and I,4,[5],12:I:- and for raw comminuted turkey are Hadar, Typhimurium, and Muenchen.”

The USDA says the proposal would require poultry establishments to develop a microbial monitoring program to prevent pathogen contamination throughout the slaughter system.

The proposed rule states that “if test results detect Salmonella at a level of 10 cfu/mL(g) or higher and at least one Salmonella serotype of public health significance, FSIS would consider products represented by the sampled lots to be adulterated and would issue a non-compliance record (NR). Therefore, all products in the lot represented by the sample would be prohibited from entering commerce. If any product from the lot represented by the product samples has entered and remains available in commerce, FSIS would request that the producing establishment recall the implicated products.” 

All producers would be required to have written plans on how to handle circumstances when and if violations of the regulation are found.

The proposed rule does not require poultry producers to test live chickens they receive.

“FSIS considered the available scientific research as well as input from the NACMCF and concluded that, at this time, the research does not support the use of a threshold for test results at the receiving step to reduce or eliminate Salmonella from raw poultry products. In addition, FSIS received several comments from small poultry processors and producers and trade associations representing the meat and poultry industries that expressed concerns that the measures under consideration in Component One would impose an overwhelming burden on small producers and processors,” the proposed rule states.

“. . . While FSIS has decided at this time not to establish a regulatory requirement that establishments characterize Salmonella as a hazard reasonably likely to occur at receiving or that incoming flocks be tested for Salmonella before entering an establishment, the Agency is focusing on a non-regulatory approach for reducing the Salmonella load on incoming birds. The Agency intends to provide updated guidance on pre- harvest interventions and practices for preventing or reducing Salmonella colonization of live birds. The Agency also will continue to explore and develop strategies for industry to address Salmonella contamination risk at receiving.” 

Scientific evaluation made up the basis for the proposed rule, according to the USDA’s Under Secretary for Food Safety Dr. Emilio Esteban. He said the proposal includes provisions based on feedback from “stakeholder engagement.” He said he wants public, private and consumer groups to provide feedback on the proposed rule.

“We encourage all interested stakeholders to submit comments and relevant data on the proposal as we work to finalize data-driven, science-based regulatory policies to address Salmonella in poultry,” Esteban said.

In addition to proposed rule on Salmonella in chicken and poultry, the USDA is addressing labeling concerns, including false and misleading claims on certain chicken products. Breaded stuffed chicken breasts were already addressed earlier this year with a regulation limiting the amount of Salmonella that they may contain. The USDA contends that depictions of the products on labels were confusing for consumers who thought the products were already cooked.

A separate regulation published earlier this year was drafted to end confusion about the origin of poultry.

“FSIS announced this year a final rule allowing the voluntary ‘Product of USA’ claim to be applied only to those FSIS-regulated products that are derived from animals born, raised, slaughtered and processed in the United States,” according to the USDA.

USDA’s proposed rule explains the rational behind the Salmonella regulation.

“Under this proposal, establishments would be required to incorporate statistical process control (SPC) monitoring principles into their microbial monitoring programs (MMPs). The proposed revisions would require that establishments use only validated and fit for purpose microbial sampling and analysis procedures, generate and record statistically meaningful microbial monitoring data, set benchmarks by which to evaluate microbial monitoring data, and otherwise define the statistical methods the establishment will use to evaluate the recorded data against the predefined limits.

“. . . Salmonella illnesses associated with poultry also represent a considerable economic burden, particularly when accounting for not just the direct medical costs, but also productivity losses, lost life expectancy, chronic illness, and other associated pain and suffering. A recent study estimates that the economic costs of Salmonella illnesses in the United States associated with chicken is $2.8 billion annually,” the proposal states.

The proposed rule also outlines problems with the current regulation in terms of reducing Salmonella infections associated with chicken.

“With respect to Salmonella illnesses associated with chicken and turkey, one study found that the proportion of outbreaks associated with these commodities was essentially unchanged from 1998-2017 and that both the proportion of outbreaks and number of outbreaks associated with chicken remained essentially constant. 

“During that period, the per capita annual consumption for pork, beef, and turkey all declined between 9 percent and 22 percent, while annual consumption of chicken increased by 15 percent,” states the proposal.

Costs associated with this proposal are addressed with the statement that “eligible very small (VS) and very low volume (VLV) establishments would have access to laboratory services provided by FSIS at no charge to analyze the establishments’ microbial monitoring samples for them.”

Reactions to the proposed rule

Consumer groups are generally praising the 149-page proposal as being a step forward for public health.

Consumer Reports said the proposed rule is a “momentous and significant step” toward protecting consumers. Brian Ronholm, the director for food policy at Consumer Reports, said too much poultry contaminated with Salmonella ends up on the market and sickens hundreds of thousands of people every year.

“By establishing final product standards that strictly limit Salmonella levels allowed in poultry, the USDA’s proposed rule will encourage processors to step up contamination prevention efforts and lower the risk that the chicken and turkey you bring home from the grocery store will make you sick,” Ronholm said.

Research has found that Salmonella on poultry is responsible for 29 percent of Salmonella illnesses in the United States. Salmonella contamination is widespread in chickens in part because of the often crowded and filthy conditions in which they are raised, according to Consumer Reports. Salmonella from live birds contaminates chicken and chicken parts while carcasses are being prepared for sale to consumers.

“A 2022 CR investigation, for example, found almost one-third of ground chicken samples tested contained salmonella. Of those, 91 percent were contaminated with one of the three strains that pose the biggest threat to human health: Infantis, Typhimurium, and Enteritidis,” according to Consumer Reports.

Although the USDA’s proposed rule is being embraced by consumer protection groups, the failure to include the Salmonella serotype Infantis is drawing fire. The rule would cover only Enteritidis, Typhimurium, and I,4,[5],12:I:- types of Salmonella in chicken.

A petition filed by a number of groups and individuals in January of 2020 identified 31 types of Salmonella that cause human illness and can be found in poultry. The petition asked the USDA to declare the serotypes as adulterants, thus making it illegal to sell poultry contaminated with them.

In May 2022, FSIS denied the petition without prejudice, citing a lack of sufficient data available to support the sweeping actions requested in the petition. In the response, FSIS agreed that an updated Salmonella strategy is necessary to reduce Salmonella illnesses associated with poultry and described how FSIS was working toward gathering data and information necessary to support a revised strategy 

The agency’s failure to include only three of those serotypes for chicken is seen as being deficient by some, including the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

The proposal does not cover Salmonella Infantis, which emerged as a leading human health threat in 2018, causing a large multistate outbreak. Adding this strain would ensure the rule covers 79 percent of outbreak-associated illnesses, according to USDA’s estimates.

“Salmonella Infantis is an important emerging threat to human health, and excluding this strain risks having a new standard that is outdated before the ink is even dry,” said the centers’s Director of Regulatory Affairs Sarah Sorscher. “In addition to including Infantis in its final proposal, USDA should also be sure to fulfill its commitment to revisit the standards regularly, swiftly incorporating new emerging threats in the future.”

However, overall the proposed rule is being lauded by all corners of consumer protection groups. Bill Marler, the Seattle food safety attorney who filed the petition on behalf of consumer groups and individual consumers, said the proposed rule is a major step by the USDA.

“Sure, I would like to ban all Salmonella from chicken, but I learned long ago that you never make progress by making ‘perfect the enemy of the good,’ ” said Marler. “Making the three Salmonellas that are know to cause human illnesses adulterants and limiting them in poultry is a good step for public health and in the long run a good step for the poultry industry.

“Kudos to Tom Vilsack, Jose Emilio Estaban, Sandra Eskin and all the great scientists and others at USDA/FSIS that worked on this. Not perfect in my mind, but awfully damn good.”

One consumer group, the Consumer Federation of America has a decidedly split opinion of the proposed rule. The federation contends that the proposed rule will move the needle forward on the protection of consumers from Salmonella on chicken and turkey sold at grocery stores across the nation.  

“Today’s proposed rule marks an important step forward for public health,” said Thomas Gremillion, the federation’s director of food policy. “For decades, consumers have had to pay the price for an ineffective and inefficient poultry inspection system that fails to hold companies accountable for shipping unsafe food to store shelves. Today’s rule sets safety standards where they matter to consumers: on poultry products themselves, rather than on the establishments that process the birds.”

The federation says the proposed rule will begin to put the responsibility of safe poultry on the shoulders of industry rather than on consumers. The proposed rule puts to rest the “antiquated notion” that Salmonella, no matter how virulent, can never be considered an adulterant because, in the words of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s 1974 decision in American Public Health Association v. Butz: “American housewives and cooks normally are not ignorant or stupid and their methods of preparing and cooking of food do not ordinarily result in salmonellosis.”

“Even back in 1974, the Butzcourt’s misogynist rhetoric did not square with the epidemiological and microbiological data,” the federation’s announcement said. 

The poultry industry is being cautious with its reaction to the proposed rule.

“Regarding the Salmonella Framework, while NTF (National Turkey Federation) believes that FSIS already possesses the authority and regulatory tools necessary to drive improvements in food safety without implementing a final product standard for Salmonella in turkey products, we will diligently review and provide meaningful comment on the proposal. NTF believes any standard should be science-based and should not impose unnecessary costs and product destruction for members of the U.S. turkey industry,” according to a statement from the industry group.

Comments on the proposed rule about Salmonella on chicken may be submitted online via the federal eRulemaking portal, available at www.regulations.gov; by mail sent to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mailstop 3758, Washington, D.C. 20250-3700, or by hand or courier delivery to 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Jamie L. Whitten Building, Room 350-E, Washington, D.C. 20250-3700. All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must include the agency name and docket number FSIS-2023-0028.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News,click here)

Outcomes from a workshop have shown that people don’t want diverging food safety standards between nations in the United Kingdom, according to research published by the Food Standards Agency (FSA).

Reasons given for these views include thinking it would mean additional complications for businesses and consumers, impact trade, and lead to mistakes in food production and manufacturing. However, there was some support for regulatory divergence- both from the EU and across UK nations- if it reduced prices.

Research was conducted with 78 people from England, Wales, and Northern Ireland who participated in four online workshops in January and February 2023.

Participants were surprised when told that food regulations could be devolved across the UK. This stemmed from a belief that food safety is unlikely to require national variation.  

Views toward regulatory divergence from EU legislation differed depending on attitudes toward the UK leaving the European Union. Those more optimistic about the exit focused on the potential benefits of reducing bureaucracy and lowering consumer costs. Those more pessimistic about it felt any changes could lead to increased costs, more significant confusion, and business complications.

People’s main concerns
People did not always understand the need for regulatory divergence and questioned the motivations behind different approaches. They worried trust in the FSA could be eroded if the public was not clear as to why regulations differed, and it could lead to suggestions that the UK was not prioritizing food safety in the same way as the EU. 

There was concern that regulatory divergence could impact how much the UK exports to the EU and other countries. Imports could also be affected, resulting in shortages if food produced elsewhere did not meet changed UK regulations.

After discussing four hypothetical scenarios, participants were most open to regulatory divergence on products and activities seen as low risk or having little impact on perceived safety. Product types deemed low risk included fruit and vegetables. Participants felt that divergence concerning meat or fish was riskier.

Changes to temperature were seen as less significant than other examples, including those related to inspection, animal welfare, or foodborne disease.

Participants had greater concerns if divergence impacted the contents of food rather than the way it was processed or stored. Changes to regulations involving adding ingredients to food or releasing chemicals within packaging were widely seen as more concerning. 

Meat sector focus
An earlier project looked at regulatory divergence in the meat sector. Seventy-six participants from England, Wales, and Northern Ireland participated in 14 online focus groups in July and August 2022. They believed meat needed to be more stringently regulated than vegetables because of perceived higher health risks if something went wrong.

Participants had not considered the extent to which the FSA is involved in the official control process. They were surprised at the scale of the meat industry in the UK, both in terms of the number of animals slaughtered and the hours spent on inspection each year.

Participants were largely unaware of the continuous presence of Official Veterinarians (OVs) and Meat Hygiene Inspectors (MHIs) at abattoirs. They found this reassuring, and it led to initial resistance to potential changes that regulatory divergence might bring. 

Respondents were skeptical about the motivations for regulatory divergence and were against it if changes were to save business costs. There were also concerns that changes were being made for political reasons to show the UK had left the EU rather than to support companies or consumers. People were more accepting if they felt divergence could reduce the burden on food businesses.

Participants did not understand why there would be a need or desire for rules to differ between UK nations. They said having a consistent regulatory regime would be less confusing and reduce complexity for consumers, businesses, and the FSA. Some feared regulatory divergence was an ongoing process that could result in a gradual lowering of standards. 

Respondents said it was important the FSA informed the public about proposed changes to the regulatory framework but said it was down to individuals to research the specific details. 

When introduced to examples, participants argued that lower water temperatures for washing tools were a small change compared to trained plant staff or artificial intelligence replacing the inspection role of OVs in abattoirs.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

All meat? Or no meat? Or what about something in between? That would be “hybrid meat.”  What in the world is that?

In this case, it would be made by mixing cultivated meat, often called cultured or lab meat, with plant-based meat.

Cultivated meat

Cultivated meat is meat grown in giant stainless steel bioreactors with animal cells taken from a live animal such as a cow, pig or chicken using a biopsy to do that. The cells are immersed in a carefully regulated nutrient solution that spurs them to grow until they become pieces of meat. An important part of this is that no animals need to be killed. The final product is not “fake meat,” as it has sometimes been called, but actual meat. Or “slaughter-free” meat as some advocates call it.  

Important to keep in mind: This is not meat raised in the conventional way, on a farm or out in the field and then butchered and sold in grocery stores or restaurants.

Late last year, the FDA gave cultivated meat maker California-based UPSIDE Foods the green light for its chicken grown from animal cells, marking the first regulatory approval for any cultivated meat in the United States.

“Our chicken looks, cooks, and tastes like chicken because it is real chicken,” says a company website.

And just this week, UPSIDE Foods announced a new 187,000-square-foot facility north of Chicago. It will kickstart its operations by focusing on the production of ground-cultivated chicken products, paving the way for an innovative range of offerings. It has the capacity to expand production up to 30 million pounds annually.

In addition to working toward full approval to sell the product, UPSIDE Foods is planning to build its first commercial-scale facility. This plant will have an annual capacity of tens of millions of pounds of cultivated meat. UPSIDE hopes to have the facility up and running in the next couple of years, said a company official.

Out on the marketplace, it could take several years before consumers see lab-based meats in more than a few high-end restaurants and seven to 10 years before they hit the wider market, said Sebastian Bohn, who specializes in cell-based foods at CRB, a Missouri firm that designs and builds facilities for pharmaceutical, biotech and food companies.

Industry experts predict that while it could be as far away as 100 years before the vast majority of the world’s meat will be made this way, they also say it probably won’t happen on any scale to speak of until the next 30 years. That’s in large part because of the need to build the necessary infrastructure to produce enough of the meat and also to attract enough investors. And to get the price down to where ordinary shoppers would want to buy it.

In 2013, when news about the world’s first lab-grown burger came out, it cost $330,000 to produce. But by 2017, some industry experts were talking about lab-made burger meat that can be produced for $36 per pound — or $9 for a quarter-pound burger. Another recent study said that by addressing some technical and economic barriers, the cost of production of lab-made meat of more than $10,000 per pound today could be lowered to about $2.50 per pound over the next nine years. But that hasn’t happened yet, not by any means.

With a bow to consumers, at today’s National Association of State Departments of Agriculture’s 2023 Annual Meeting, NASDA members advocated for standards that ensure clear and consistent labeling for cell-based meat products, also referred to as cultivated, or cultured, meat. 

Plant-based meats

As for plant-based meats, also called “meatless meats,” most are made from pea or soy protein, a type of fat and some sort of binder. But they may also contain natural and artificial flavors to make the product taste more like meat. They come in all forms, among them Whopper burgers, IKEA’s plant balls, sausages, Bratwursts, meatballs, chicken patties and chicken nuggets.

In an earlier interview, Jeremy Kindlund, a vegetarian, and manager of the Sedro-Woolley Farmers Market, said he was happy to be able to eat an Impossible Burger while at the T-Mobile Stadium in Seattle watching a game.

“I think it’s a great thing that people are eating more plant-based foods,” he said. “It’s good for the environment and also a lot better than having mass-produced meat.”

Ironically enough, some vegetarians who tried the meatless burgers told reporters that they were “disgusted” by them because they tasted so much like meat.

Taste aside, price is also an issue here. Plant-based meat products cost more than meat from animals raised conventionally, but only about $1 per pound or several dollars or so more. But for families on a tight budget, that can be a deal breaker.

Footprint on the land

For some people, the environment comes into the picture.

In an earlier interview with “Business Insider,” Pat Brown, founder of Impossible Foods, said that the reason why he cares so much about replacing meat is that we’re in the “advanced stages of the biggest environmental catastrophe that our planet has ever faced” and that animal-based agriculture is a big part of that.

It comes down to the footprint of livestock on the land. For example, an analysis of the Impossible Burger found that its carbon footprint is 89 percent smaller than a burger made from beef. It also uses 87 percent less water and 96 percent less land.

Even so, it’s not like the total switch from conventional meat to plant-based meat is going to happen overnight, even though it is gaining in popularity. For that to happen, plant-based meats are going to rev up in scale. Big time. And considering how many meat animals are being raised across the world — and how large the world’s population is — that’s going to take a long time, especially since so many people in developing countries want to eat meat, and that’s a huge market waiting to happen.

Are they healthy?

Brooke Whitney, a Senior Communications Associate at UPSIDE Foods, told Verywell, a website providing health and wellness information by health professionals, that the nutrition profile of each cultivated meat “will depend on the specific product and company” that produces it.

But she said that UPSIDE Foods’ chicken “has fewer calories and lower fat than an average piece of conventionally-produced chicken.”

Melissa Mitri, MS, RD, a registered dietitian,  told Verywell that “lab-grown meat would likely contain fewer antibiotics and additives, than meat that’s been conventionally produced.

Meanwhile, a study on plant-based meats showed that fiber consumption was higher and saturated fat consumption was lower when eating plant-based meat instead of animal-based meat. And another pointed to heart-health benefits provided by plant-based meats.

Even so, some studies say that many of these plant-based foods are made from highly refined and processed ingredients and often contain more sodium than animal meats — sometimes up to six times or more.

Enter the hybrids

According to Steakholder Foods Ltd., an international company headquartered in Israel and at the forefront of the cultivate-meat revolution, the first commercial cultured meat products available will likely be hybrids.

The thinking behind this is that combining plant-based meats and cultivated meats could help boost the wider adoption of both.

And with more people watching what they eat based on concerns such as climate change, animal welfare and their own health, hybrid meats would give them the chance to eat them without compromising their values — while at the same time helping reduce their carbon footprint.

Not surprisingly, much of this comes down to price. By mixing the plant and animal proteins together the cost will come way down. 

Proteins such as soy and pea commonly used in plant-based meats are produced on a mass scale for very low prices. But that’s not the case with ingredients such as animal cells, amino acids, serums, fatty acids, sugars, salts, vitamins and other elements cells needed “to grow” cultivated meat. 

In December 2022, the Dutch food company Meatable and plant-based Love Handle in Singapore announced they’d be investing $6 million to establish the world’s first hybrid kitchen and innovation center in Singapore this year. The goal is to mass produce and release a wide variety of hybrid meat products to restaurants by next year and to supermarkets by 2025.

The company’s thinking is that if you want to make a dent in animal husbandry and the environment by the next generation, the product requires mass adoption. And that comes down to affordability.

Alternative protein and the future

From a global perspective, the hybrids would also help provide the world’s growing population with more varied protein sources.

“I’m all for anything that provides us with a safe food source,” said retired farmer Dick Klein in Western Washington. “We never know if in the future some sort of fungus, virus or livestock disease will wipe out a lot of our livestock. Right now we’re dealing with avian flu, which has already caused the deaths of more than 131 million domestic poultry flocks.

“If meat production has to move into a lab for a safe source, so be it,” he said. “Farming has changed. We’re really banking on alternative sources — anything that helps improve environmental quality and food and that offers health benefits.

Pointing out that today’s way of farming is based on an agricultural revolution that began 10,000 years ago, Klein said he’s heard some farmers say it’s time we change the way we farm and feed people.

“We’ll need alternative ways to feed people,” he said. “You can bet on that.”

What about food safety?

Bypass the cow, or other livestock raised for food, and you bypass a lot of food-safety problems, say advocates of alternative proteins such as plant-based meats and lab meats.

Uma Valeti, co-founder and owner of UPSIDE Foods, said food safety is an important part of his company’s corporate philosophy.

“Because we do not need to slaughter animals, we expect a much lower risk of fecal contamination, E. coli and salmonella among others,” he said in a previous interview. “Similarly, the risk of disease — swine flu, mad cow disease, avian flu and more — will be greatly reduced in our process.” 

He pointed out that when multiple animals are used for ground meat products, as is usually the case, bacteria from one animal can contaminate large volumes of products such as hamburgers and turkey dogs.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that pathogens in conventionally produced meat are the most common sources of fatal food-related infections.

53 hazards

On the other side of the fence, when considering if lab-grown meat is safe, an in-depth analysis by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), and a World Health Organization expert panel pointed to 53 potential health hazards. 

“As commercial cell-based food production grows, there is an increasing urgency to answer one of the consumers’ most important questions: is it safe to eat?” said a press release about this.

For this reason, FAO, in collaboration with WHO, has produced a publication, “Food safety aspects of cell-based foods“(https://www.isaaa.org/blog/entry/default.asp?BlogDate=5/10/2023#:~:text=“Food%20Safety%20Aspects%20of%20Cell,for%20cell%2Dbased%20food%20production). The 134-page document, based on extensive scientific literature, aims to share the current state of knowledge with relevant stakeholders and inform consumers about the food safety aspects of cell-based foods.

The results, according to the report, show problems and negative health consequences can include contamination with heavy metals, microplastics and nanoplastics, allergens such as additives to improve the taste and texture of these products, chemical contaminants, toxic components, antibiotics and prions.

According to the report, the focus should be on the specific materials, inputs, ingredients, potential allergens and equipment that play a particular role in cell-based food production.

At a recent symposium organized by the Animal Task Force and the Belgian Association for Meat Science and Technology in Brussels, Peer Ederer from Goal Sciences spoke about lab-grown meat, highlighting that lab-grown meat is not the answer. Despite the billions of dollars invested in cellular agriculture, as Paul Wood and others show, cultured meat will not be a true substitute for natural meat.

Then, too, a 2019 Oxford study shows that production in very energy-intensive bioreactors could have worse long-term environmental consequences than livestock farming when looking at CO2 emissions. 

Bottomline, says the study: Extreme caution is needed as there is still too little information and insufficient data on the actual safety of lab-grown meat.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

— OPINION —

Today the public comment period will close on a USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) rulemaking that, if all goes as planned, should increase the price of organic eggs. With food prices up 8.2 percent since September of last year, why would AMS do such a thing? And why would a group that represents consumers like mine, the Consumer Federation of America, urge it to act as quickly as possible even though acting quickly will, in all likelihood, cause prices to increase even more? The reasons have to do with what consumers expect from USDA certified organic products, and food safety. 

This rulemaking has attracted a lot of attention. The AMS had received more than 38,000 comments as of this writing. The proposed rule updates several regulations related to livestock production under USDA’s National Organic Program (NOP), but the most controversial provision concerns laying hens. Eggs.

Full disclosure: I buy organic eggs. I am also very, very cheap. I am so cheap that I struggle with visceral reactions to price tags at the grocery store: $3.49 a pound for cabbage? Outrageous! $3 off a six pack of sardines? Truly providence shines upon us! 

This has made for some tense moments with my wife over the years. 

Anyway, you may be thinking now, if he’s so cheap, why does he waste his money on organic eggs? The answer is complicated. Despite my acute price consciousness, I accept that I should pay more for food that reduces some of the “externalities” that modern industrial agriculture foists upon the environment, farmers, workers, animals, rural communities, you name it. Organic production has its problems, but overall, it helps. The biggest factor driving my purchase of organic eggs, however, is my family’s exposure to pesticides.

In this respect, I am not alone. In his book, “Resetting the Table,” Harvard professor Robert Paarlberg traces back the creation of the NOP to pesticide scares amplified by popular TV programs like 60 Minutes. In surveys today, consumers continue to cite health concerns as the main motivation driving their purchase of organic products. And as one group of commentators puts it, “the presence of pesticide residues in conventional food is the main difference between organic and conventional food.” Critics like Paarlberg point out that the pesticide residues on conventional crops are miniscule, and pose no health risk. Even proponents of organic food shy away from characterizing organic food as safer, partly because the NOP allows some pesticide use. 

Even so, pesticides are scary. Measuring the risk associated with chronic exposure is rife with uncertainty. And because pesticide residues on food crops bioaccumulate in animal tissue, including chicken eggs, many consumers have heightened concerns about pesticide exposure from animal products. 

What does this have to do with the AMS rulemaking? Good question. The AMS rule is nominally about animal welfare. In 2002, a large egg producer called “The Country Hen” sought to certify its Massachusetts facility as organic. As far as we know, chickens at The Country Hen were fed an exclusively organic diet and otherwise enjoyed all of the other benefits of living in an organic production facility. But they did not have outdoor access. Rather, they had access to a porch, like the one pictured here. The NOP rules require that organic producers provide “year-round access for all animals to the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, clean water for drinking, and direct sunlight, suitable to the species, its stage of life, the climate, and the environment.” 7 C.F.R. 205.239. The auditor at The Country Hen did not agree that the porch met those criteria. But the owner of The Country Hen appealed to higher authorities at USDA, and he won!

Twenty years later, according to USDA’s proposed rule, 35 percent of hens have outdoor access via a porch system or covered area. According to a more recent report, over half of certified organic eggs come from porch facilities where the hens never go outside. 

Without a doubt, these operations have lowered the cost of “organic” eggs. Miserly, pesticide paranoid consumers like me should thank The Country Hen and its imitators, right? Wrong! Just because I am cheap does not mean that I do not value institutional integrity. The NOP regulations are clear. The 15-member National Organic Standards Board has been clear, recommending way back in 2002 that “outdoor access” should mean access to open air and sunshine and exclude porches. And the popular conception of what organic eggs entail is clear. It’s not just feeding the chickens organic feed. According to a Consumer Reports survey, 83 percent of consumers who buy organic products say it is “extremely” or “very” important that eggs labeled “organic” come from hens that were able to go outdoors and move freely outdoors. 

This is a classic case of market failure, where a few sneaky companies are taking advantage of consumers’ incomplete information. AMS needs to fix the situation, and thankfully, the proposed rule will fix it. Except that it will provide an extremely slow fix. In its cost-benefit analysis, AMS has evaluated two options — implementing the rule over five years, and implementing the rule over 15 years. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the fact that AMS would even entertain the idea that large, sophisticated companies should have 15 years to continue duping consumers while they figure out a contingency plan smacks of corporate capture. 

Consumer advocates and other proponents of the rule, which was first introduced during the Obama administration and then withdrawn, have endorsed a three-year implementation timeline. But what about food inflation you ask? It’s true. Closing this loophole will make the price of organic eggs go up. However, a new label can help with that. 

Currently, the burden is on consumers to investigate whether eggs labeled “organic” comply with the NOP regulations. The market has responded with claims like “pasture raised” and “regenerative organic certified,” but for many consumers, spending more on these lesser known certifications is a bridge too far. A “100 percent organic diet” or “produced with organic feed” labeling claim would segment the market without undermining consumer confidence in the organic label. For consumers with concerns about pesticide residues in conventional eggs, who may care less about animal welfare and find themselves struggling to afford USDA certified organic eggs, a “100 percent organic diet” claim could present real value, and command a premium. 

For their part, companies could take advantage of USDA’s Process Verified Program (PVP) to add an air of legitimacy to a “100 percent organic diet” claim. The PVP provides independent verification of production practices and allows companies to use the USDA PVP shield on their products. Already, many egg companies participate in the PVP to make the claim that their hens eat a “100 percent vegetarian diet.” Why not a “100 percent organic diet”? 

One objection may be that this claim could undermine organic, but that seems farfetched. Organic is an economic juggernaut at this point, with annual sales projected to exceed $125 billion by 2026,  and nearly a quarter of consumers reporting that they always or often buy organic food. Demand for organic products will hold up, as long as USDA resists efforts to weaken the standards. 

Another objection is that a “100 percent organic diet” claim on eggs will not make money for companies like The Country Hen. But we will only find out if that is true once USDA restores integrity to the NOP. Let’s hope that we do not have to wait 15 years for that to happen. 

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News,click here)

She’s 18 now and hasn’t visited her aunt for several years. But like her aunt, she has a strong interest in cooking. Going into the kitchen, she’s pleased to see that her aunt has kept up with the times. Years ago, she was one of the first in the family to get a microwave and she recently got an air fryer.

“But, what’s that?” the young girls asks as she points to something she has never seen before.

“Oh, that,” says her aunt smiling, “is a 3D printer.”

“Here in the kitchen?”, the young girl asks. “What’s it doing here?

“I can make all kinds of food — including steaks with it,” her aunt says, obviously enjoying her niece’s bewilderment.

No, this isn’t a true-to-life scenario — not yet anyway. But it does lend a hint of what lies ahead in the almost hard-to-believe changes coming to the world of food — in this case 3D food printers.

And while some advocates say that 3D printed food is a highly anticipated innovation, others are not so sure. Just listen to what some of the shoppers, young and old, at a farmers market in Washington state had to say about it.

“Weird. How do they even do that?”

“Bizarre.”

“Too futuristic for me.”

“We’re old-fashioned,” said a Washington State University Master Gardener, who was at the market to provide answers to gardeners’ questions. “We think of food as coming from growing things.”

“Is it nutritious?” asked one of her fellow Master Gardeners. “That’s the whole purpose of food.”

“Scary. No thank you.”

“No way I’d get one for our household. We were slow to even get a microwave.”

“Maybe for decorating cakes, but definitely not for real food.”

On the other side of the coin, market manager Jeremy Kindlund said he thought it sounded exciting. “I can see a lot of potential in it,” he said.

He’s not alone in that outlook. In fact, a recent survey done by Hub.com, 3D printing experts, revealed that 3D printed food garnered an impressive number of Google searches per month when looking at a range of 3D printed advancements.  

Coming in second in the poll with 9,800 Google searches per month, 3D printed food followed 3D printed houses, which garnered 76,000 searches. Included in the 3D printed items in the survey were cars, shoes, human organs, drones, rockets, furniture, robots, dentures and even printed dresses.

In the category of 3D printed food, meat received 4,500 searches a month, thanks to what Hubs.com refers to as a “breakthrough” advancement last year.

3D printed cut of meat, not from the Israeli company, but from Dreamstime photo service.

That’s when an Israeli bioprinting company announced that it had actually printed a 104-gram (3.67 ounces) cultivated steak, perhaps the largest cultured steak produced until that time.

Simply put, cultured meat is not the same as plant-based meat. Instead it is produced from beef cells by taking a biopsy from a living cow and growing it in a nutritious medium until there’s enough critical mass to make the cells into bio-ink. The bio-ink is then printed using the company’s bio-printer. From there the printed steak is left in an incubator to allow the stem cells to differentiate into the fat and muscle cells that form the tissues found in steak. And, yes, it’s real meat.

This doesn’t involve slaughtering a cow to get beef — a decided plus for people who don’t like the thought of killing animals.

It’s also a plus for concerns about climate change because it means herds of cattle don’t have to be raised, and then slaughtered, to get beef, which adds up to impressive savings in water and other environmental benefits.

Once again, climate change comes into the picture. And beyond that scientists in favor of 3D printing point to the vast amount of resources needed to raise livestock, which is why they see this technology as a solution to meeting the pressing needs of the world’s growing population.

Regardless of their origin, plant or animal, it increasingly seems like the meat of the future will be coming not from animals, but from 3D printers, says an article in IDTechEx.

Then there’s the more down-to-earth prediction: Before long, every consumer’s kitchen will have a 3D food printer on one of its counter tops — just another kitchen tool to make preparing meals (or snacks) easier and faster.

These edible chocolate dessert cups were made with a 3D food printer and filled with regular whipped cream.

How do food printers work?
Most people know what a printer is. It prints out copies of pages you’ve put information on. That technology has been around for a long time. But a printer to make food? And what’s this about climate change? And protecting the environment?

Actually, there’s nothing all that complicated about how a 3D food printer works, at least the concept of how one works. Do you remember the pizza vending machines that popped up in 2015? In that case, dough is prepared and extruded from one of the printer’s cartridges onto a plate. Next, the dough is topped with tomato sauce and cheese and then sent to the oven — all of this in the same machine. Think of this as a primitive 3D food printing process.

Since then, advances have been made that involve using laser technology to heat up the food — again all in the same machine. Just imagine, pushing a button on the printer for ravioli and having cooked ravioli ready to eat when you open the printer’s door.

All of this, or at least some of it, is still in the future, but the future has a way of coming faster than we imagine.

Getting down to basics, most 3D food printing is done by feeding food materials such as doughs, cheeses, frostings and even raw meats into syringe-like containers that are then extruded from them as the nozzle is moved around “trace shapes” on a “plate” and forms layers one at a time. That’s how you get layers, such as for pizza.

Will you find this technology in a fast-food restaurant? Hardly. Instead, these printers are found in gourmet restaurants and fancy bakeries. Or you can go to special events featuring 3D food printers.

And there’s even a traveling restaurant that features not only 3D printed food but also tables, chairs, silverware and more made from 3D printing.

3D printed pear

But what about nutrition?
In Lynette Kucsma’s TedxHigh Point talk she lets her audience know right away that she has always considered herself a healthy eater. Which is why at first she was so skeptical about foods made using 3D printing.

But as she did some research on this, she discovered that she could eat healthy when using a 3D printer. In fact, she is now the co-founder and chief marketing officer at Natural Machines, the makers of Foodini.

When describing the status of this new technology, she told her audience: “This is science fact, not science fiction.”

She goes so far as to predict that 3D printers will follow the path of microwaves. When they were first introduced in the 1970s, “people didn’t get it,” she said. Some people even thought they could cause cancer. They’d ask “why do I need one when I already have a perfectly good oven in my kitchen?”

But things have changed, she said. Microwaves are now in 90 percent of our kitchens.

She predicted that 3D printers will follow the same route, but at a much faster rate simply because these days, technological advances move so fast. Before long, she said, they’ll be the size of a microwave and be a common kitchen appliance.

Turning to nutrition, she told her audience “Let’s print more of our food using fresh, healthy, real, wholesome ingredients. Let’s get away from packaged processed foods.”

She pointed out that by getting away from these foods, you’ll be eating more nutritious foods instead.

“And that’s healthier,” she said.

What about cost?
Filemon Schoffer, cofounder and CCO of Hubs.com, a 3D printing expert, said that the prices of 3D food printers vary depending on their features and audience.

A precise printer that can reach high nozzle temperatures is likely to be much more expensive, he said, and more appealing to businesses.

However, for those looking to get started at home you can get a basic model for around $100 to $500. Advanced home users are likely to spend around $300 to $1,000, while commercial users who want a more sophisticated model, can expect to pay over $5,000.

He said there are many models available to purchase for home use, however it’s important to do your research before spending money on a 3D printer, as there are so many different options.

What about food safety?
No problems with food safety, say the printers’ advocates, but that’s only if the food has been prepared in a machine that’s sterile and if the preparer follows sanitary procedures. No different from what’s necessary in any kitchen.

However, in The Essential Guide to Food Safe 3D Printing: Regulations, Technologies, Materials, and More, food safety with 3D printing is not a simple matter that will boil down to a clear yes or no answer. Producing 3D printed parts for food contact items requires careful consideration of the risks depending on their intended use.

A 3D printed part can turn into a petri dish squirming with bacteria within weeks. Even though some materials will survive the dishwasher, so will dangerous bacteria such as E. coli and Salmonella that live in the little nooks and crannies. Some toxic molds find favorable growth conditions on several types of plastic and are hard to remove. Neither cleaning with bleach nor microwaving is an option for eliminating germs.

No matter what, food that is consumed by people must meet strict safety standards.

Future
As 3D printing technology continues to soar, new research predicts the overall 3D printing market will continue to grow by 24 percent to reach $44.5 billion by 2026, according to research done by Hubs.com.

As it is now, there are dozens of food printers available on the market, thanks in part to public interest and the rapid growth in the technology involved.

Filemon Schoffer, cofounder and CCO of Hubs.com, said that overall, more signs of growth in 3D printing will be seen in 2022 and beyond, thanks to enhanced automation, scalable quality controls, reduced processing costs, and further industry consolidation.

He said, key factors such as this “will help 3D printing become the robust industrial manufacturing process that befits its massive potential.”

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

Food Safety Education Month

Mention sustainable agriculture and you’ll likely get a hearty thumbs-up. Ask why this is so, and you’ll hear how sustainable farmers take good care of the soil, their animals, the environment, their employees — and that this way of farming benefits consumers’ health and safety.

You’ll also be told that farmers who practice sustainable agriculture don’t overload the soil with chemicals and don’t confine their livestock in crowded, unhealthy quarters, making for safer food from a safer environment. Family farms, not corporate agriculture, will be a common theme in answers to questions about sustainable farming.

But ask someone for a definition of sustainable farming and while you’ll get an opinion about what it is, you won’t get a point-blank definition. That’s because there really isn’t one.

Even so, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition takes a good stab at it, saying that its vision of agriculture is one where a “safe, nutritious, ample, and affordable food supply is produced by a legion of family farmers who make a decent living pursuing their trade while protecting the environment and contributing to the strength and stability of their communities.”

By “family farmers,” advocates generally mean small- and mid-sized farms, although larger farms can also be sustainable.

Other goals include improving the tilth of the soil by building up organic matter, reducing erosion, avoiding the use of antibiotics in food animals, and, with an eye on climate change, keeping more carbon in the soil.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, agricultural sustainability is a complex idea with many facets, including the economic because a sustainable farm should be a profitable business that contributes to a robust economy;  and the social, so it deals fairly with its workers and has a mutually beneficial relationship with the surrounding community, and the environment.

Among other things, this involves

•Building and maintaining healthy soil;

•Managing water wisely;

•Minimizing air, water, and climate pollution; and

•Promoting biodiversity

Some refer to sustainable agriculture as “the wave of the future.” One reason for that description comes down to a marketplace reality: Many consumers are increasingly seeking out food that isn’t grown with harmful or synthetic pesticides or genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Or as one customer of Sylvanaqua Farms in Virginia put it: “Makes me feel a lot better about what I am eating and serving to my family!”

Unlike organic agriculture, there is no official certification or label for sustainable agriculture.

According to “Tillable,” organic agriculture and sustainable agriculture embrace two different concepts, although they may overlap.

While organic farming focuses on inputs such as synthetic fertilizers, sustainable farming focuses on the physical treatment of the land, which can include no-till practices, cover crops, and buffer zones. While both approaches are perceived as being environmentally friendly, farmers often go about them in very different ways.

And while organic food generally commands higher prices in the marketplace, that’s not the case with sustainable crops or livestock. Even so, some restaurants, grocery stores, and consumers who value sustainable agriculture are willing to pay more for food produced this way.

What about food safety?
That’s a good question. When asked if sustainable farming and food safety go hand in hand, Virginia Good, a farmer and board member of the Sedro-Woolley Farmers Market, said “that’s old thinking.” 

The two aren’t automatically entwined, she said, something that used to be assumed when sustainability became a buzzword. Some sustainable farmers, herself included, incorporate food safety practices into their farming; others don’t, although they should, of course.

Unfortunately, some farmers and consumers assume if you’re farming in “natural” ways there will be no problem with foodborne pathogens such as Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria, parasites, and viruses. Many see corporate agriculture as the true villain when it comes to contamination.

Looking around at the happy scene of vendors and their customers at the outdoor market, Good said most customers know the farmers they buy from and have faith they’re doing the right thing.

“Local” has become what’s important to them, she said.

Even so, so-called local doesn’t ensure that food safety practices are being followed. And it doesn’t necessarily mean the food is local; some of it comes from hundreds of miles away. No matter where it’s from, produce should be washed in clean water, the containers that food is transported in should be clean, and produce eggs, and meat should be kept cool while being transported to the market and at the market. Handwashing is also important because bacteria can travel from contaminated produce and meat to people, causing serious infections.

Food safety practices are no small matter because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that each year 48 million people in the United States get sick from foodborne pathogens, 128,000 are hospitalized and 3,000 people die.

Enter the backyard chickens
With time on their hands and concerns about their health dominating their thoughts during COVID lockdowns, some people decided to embark on a new venture: backyard chickens. This was true even for people who live within city limits.

Some have called it “explosive” growth in the practice. 

A lot of backyard poultry owners believe having a backyard flock is a good step toward sustainability. Besides this, it helped relieve boredom during lockdowns and they got fresh eggs in the bargain. And once the expense of building a chicken house and buying the chicks are factored into the equation — or ignored — there is the feeling that they can save money by going out and collecting their own eggs.

But this doesn’t mean there isn’t the need to become informed about foodborne pathogens, especially Salmonella, and how to prevent the bacteria from contaminating their flocks, their eggs, themselves, and family and friends.

Salmonella infection, known as salmonellosis, is a bacterial disease affecting the intestinal tract of humans, chickens and other birds and mammals. It can also be found on fresh produce.

Backyard chickens and other poultry can sicken people with Salmonella infections. In an ongoing outbreak that spans 47 states, the confirmed patient count currently stands at 863, according to recent figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

More than a fourth of those who have been infected are children younger than 5 years old. Thirty-three percent of patients have been hospitalized, and two people have died. The illnesses started on Dec. 15, 2020, with the most recently reported illness on Aug. 8, 2021.

Health officials say there are likely many more people who have been infected but did not seek medical attention or tests to confirm that they are part of the outbreak.

State and local public health officials are interviewing people about the animals they came into contact with the week before they got sick. Of the 527 people interviewed, 365 reported remembering contact with backyard poultry before getting sick.

Typical symptoms are diarrhea, fever, and stomach cramps. 

Most people recover without treatment after 4 to 7 days. But some people — especially those younger than 5 and adults 65 and older, and those with weakened immune systems — may become severely ill and need medical treatment or hospitalization. The CDC’s advice in cases like this is to seek medical attention right away.

Joe McGuire, a Sedro-Woolley resident who has a backyard flock of four chickens, said he thinks part of the problem is that some people treat chickens like pets instead of chickens.

“They’re flock animals, not pets like dogs and cats,” he said, pointing out that children especially shouldn’t hold them up to their faces and cuddle them.

The CDC agrees with that. It advises people to closely supervise children around backyard poultry.

“Don’t let children younger than 5 years touch chicks,” it says. “Don’t kiss or snuggle backyard poultry, and don’t eat or drink around them since that can spread Salmonella to your mouth and make you sick.”

Bottom line: Young children are more likely to get sick from germs like Salmonella. One in four sick people is a child younger than 5 years.

Backyard poultry such as chickens and ducks can carry Salmonella germs even if they look healthy and clean, advises the CDC. These germs can easily spread to anything in the areas where the poultry live and roam.

McGuire is serious about keeping everything clean when it comes to his backyard flock. Each and every day, he rakes up their droppings and puts them in a barrel.

When it comes to food safety, he dons boots that are only used when he goes into the pen. And he puts on a pair of gloves when he cleans the pen. He keeps the nesting boxes clean, and he washes his hands after cleaning the pen and collecting the eggs. From there, he puts the eggs into the refrigerator to keep them cool. And regularly cleans the fridge.

“You have to get used to it,” he said, about being so diligent about keeping things clean. “You want your chickens to be healthy.”

He views his setup as sustainable in large part because he applies the nitrogen-rich chicken droppings to his garden and enjoys a bountiful harvest during the following season months later. Thanks to this strategy, he doesn’t have to use synthetic fertilizers.

And while he appreciates the eggs the chickens lay, he said that “just watching them is more fun than anything else.”

Former dairyman Dick Klein agrees with McGuire on the importance of keeping things clean. He makes sure his chicken house is well-ventilated, and he cleans it on a regular basis. 

“Keep their environment as healthy as yours,” he said. “If you do that you shouldn’t have problems.”

And while he would like to let his chickens roam about, if he did, they would make short order of his garden. 

Besides this, there are too many predators, not the least, hawks and coyotes, that would quickly make a meal of them.

“I’ve even had a coyote grab a chicken in broad daylight,” he said.

Like McGuire, he counts himself as “sustainable” because he takes good care of his chickens and applies their manure in the garden soil to nourish it months before planting, which means he doesn’t have to use synthetic chemicals. And like most sustainable farmers, he doesn’t use antibiotics. 

As for how sustainable his operation is, he can’t count himself in that equation 

“I spend a lot on feed, but I give most of the eggs away,” he said laughing.

According to a research study, 93 percent of the 150 most populated U.S. cities allow people to have backyard chickens in some capacity. How many chickens you can have depends on local city ordinances. In most cases, roosters are not allowed.

Depending on the breed of chickens you raise you can expect 200-300 eggs per hen each year.

Go here for more information about food safety practices to use when raising backyard poultry.

What about farms and food safety?
Chris Newman and his wife Annie’s 120-acre farm “Sylvanaqua Farms” in Virginia, use an array of sustainable practices to produce eggs, pasture-raised chicken, grass-fed beef, and pork. Most of the land is forested.

Rotational grazing for the cattle and letting the pigs roam in the woods are key to raising their livestock in a sustainably environmental way, they say.

But Chris says that while a lot of the conversation about sustainability is about technological things such as no-till, no sprays, and no GMOs, the important part of sustainability is about people.

“Ultimately, feeding people needs to be at the heart of sustainable farming,” he told a reporter.

On a smaller scale, Nita Hodgins, manager for the farmers market and farm stand at Eagle Haven Winery Farmers Market and Farm Stand in Skagit County, WA, said that as a consumer she likes the thought of sustainable farmers using food safety practices. But she said she knows you can’t assume they are.

“I ask farmers about how they harvest their crops, how they clean them, and even how they transport them,” she said.

Sean Doyle

Sean Doyle, co-owner of Father and Daughter Farm, also in Skagit County, said that food safety and food quality go together.

He keeps his greens on ice, and those that aren’t on display are kept in a cooler until they’re put up on display.

He said food safety calls for robust cleaning and that the challenge is in sorting the produce to keep it away from anything that might contaminate it.

“We’re very sanitary,” he said. “We have to be.”

Gail Blackburn

Gail Blackburn, the owner of Innis Creek Farm in Whatcom County, WA, always ices almost all of her produce.

The greens are on “beds” of ice, and ice crystals are sprinkled among the broccoli heads.

Temperature is critical, she said about food safety. “You have to keep things cool.”

According to FDA, raw food including lettuces and greens should be kept at 41 degrees F or cooler to keep bacteria, especially E. coli, from proliferating. 

A sign at Blackburn’s booth lets people know that she’s “uncertified organic.” “All produce and flowers are grown using organic practices,” the sign says. “No pesticides or chemical fertilizers are used.”

Like many small-scale farmers, she has found that the organic certification process calls for too much time and paperwork. But she said that her sign lets customers know that her produce is grown without chemical pesticides or fertilizers, which is important to many people. 

Not two separate issues
In a publication for SCS Global Services, an international organization that deals in sustainability and food safety issues, Lesley Sykes, a service manager in the company’s Food and Agriculture division, cautions that food safety and sustainability are not entirely different issues, as many people might think, but rather flip sides of the same coin.

When it comes to the sustainability of a farm or ag company,  managing food safety risks is “an economic imperative,” she said. “One false step can cost a company its reputation.”

“Rather than flipping the coin to see which side of the food safety/sustainability divide we land on,” she said, “it’s time to build food safety and sustainability together.”

A global perspective
This past summer, the World Health Organization discussed plans to include food safety in the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. But as of yet, no food safety indicators have been recognized, despite the links that food safety has with sustainable development goals, which include zero hunger, good health and well-being, and decent work and economic growth. 

During a webinar to mark World Food Safety day on June 7, experts did bring up the subject of the potential of a Sustainable Development indicator for stronger food safety accountability to track global and national progress and to reduce the health burden from unsafe food.

Information from WHO said the topic could be introduced when there is a review of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2025.

But that’s not as soon as some people would like.

“We need to make a big noise at the pre-summit and an even bigger noise at the summit for food safety issues to breakthrough, said Lawrence Haddad, chair of an action track for the UN Food Systems Summit. Saying that though “he was shocked” that there wasn’t yet a food safety indicator. He is nevertheless glad that FAO and WHO are working on it. 

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Federal Judge Edward G. Smith Wednesday found farmer Amos Miller in contempt of court in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The judge is discussing with counsel how to resolve the issue of sanctions for the seller of unpasteurized, raw milk and uninspected meat and poultry products.

Miller is the owner of Miller’s Organic Farm in Upper LeacockTownship.    He’s long resisted federal food safety laws, recently saying his actions are intended to make it possible for his children to stay on the farm. “I am willing to take the stand to make sure that we preserve our culture,”  Miller told a local newspaper.

Miller’s Organic Farm is associated with a private membership group of as many as 2,000 food buyers. The farm fulfills orders for unprocessed meat and unpasteurized, raw dairy products.

On behalf of the USDA and FDA, the Department of Justice has filed numerous actions over the years against Amos Miller and his farm. Most recently, the DOJ won an injunction forcing Miller to cease violating food safety laws. Miller signed a consent degree in 2020 acknowledging he was violating the injunction.

Judge Smith ordered Miller to appear in his court on June 16. He was sworn and given the opportunity to explain why he should not be found in contempt of court. Miller was, however, found in contempt.

Government attorneys say that Miller shows a “singular, historic willingness to flout democratically enacted federal food safety laws of general applicability.” Specifically, he’s resisted USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Services responsibility for ensuring meat and poultry sold commercially is safe, wholesome, and correctly labeled and packaged.

Miller previously agreed to use a federally inspected slaughterhouse to process his meat but stopped because he objected to its use of antimicrobial citric acid.  Miller argues that regulations and inspections make food less safe, not more safe.

“If you put too many preservatives on the food, the body can’t break it down where you get the health benefits of it,” Miller has said. “That’s why all these illnesses are coming out.”

Miller’s Organic Farm advertises itself as organic, non-GMO, and free of chemicals, hormones, and antibiotics. He says many of his customers view the farm’s food as medicine.

In 2015, the FDA found unpasteurized, raw milk produced by Miller’s Farm was responsible for two illnesses and one death.  An outbreak strain of Listeria connected the cases.

Sanctions imposed by the court for the most recent contempt of court finding might result in the seizure of up to 2,100 pounds of Miller’s meat and a fine of up to $5,000 per pound.

When the DOJ last began legal action two years ago against Miller, it was based on these findings of fact, as edited for length and content:

  •  A self-styled “private membership association,” defendant Miller’s Organic Farm is an unincorporated, non-partnership, for-profit sole proprietorship farm business located at 648 Millcreek School Road, Bird-in-Hand, Pennsylvania 17505. In 1999, defendant Amos Miller’s father rented 648 Millcreek Road, Bird-in-Hand property to Amos Miller. The Amish farmer who had farmed the property before Amos Miller likely used pesticides. Miller’s Organic Farm began business operations in 2000. At that time, based on their expectation of consumer demand for nutrient-dense foods, Amos Miller and his father began focusing the farm’s business on organic and raw foods.
  • At all relevant times, defendant Amos Miller and his wife have solely owned Miller’s Organic Farm, which files its tax returns under Mr. Miller’s name. The Millers reside on the farm property. Miller is responsible for and has authority over all of the farm’s meat and poultry operations.
  • What Miller’s Organic Farm refers to as its “private membership association” is a diverse buyer’s club that: (a) Miller and his wife created in approximately 2000. Throughout the relevant period (2016 to present) Miller’s has approximately 2,000 members paying a one-time membership fee of $35.
  • It does not screen members for their views or beliefs. Most of the employees are not members of Amos Miller’s immediate family. Only some are members of Miller’s private membership association.
  • At its Bird-in-Hand location — through individuals who work there — , Miller’s Organic Farm both slaughters animals such as cattle and poultry and processes from those slaughtered animals meat and poultry products that are capable of being used as human food. At its Bird-in-Hand location, with the only exception being limited poultry that five or fewer neighbors take to Miller’s every year for slaughtering and processing using Miller’s equipment.
  • Those neighbors own that poultry and keep it for their own use after processing. Miller’s Organic Farm-owned poultry is raised not only at the Bird-in-Hand farm location but also at nearby Amish farms in Pennsylvania that Miller does not own.
  • Miller’s Organic Farm-owned beef cattle are raised not only at the Bird-in-Hand farm location but also at a farm located in Tazewell, VA, that Miller does not own.
  • Meat and poultry products that Miller’s Organic Farm sells to its members throughout the United States result from slaughtering and processing that Miller does at his Bird-in-Hand farm location.
  • Even Miller’s hot dogs are the result of Miller’s slaughtering and Miller’s processing, though the processed meat products are shipped to a Pennsylvania Mennonite individual for conversion into the final hot dog products before being returned to Miller’s for labeling.
  •  The sole exception to Miller’s slaughtering and processing of the meat and products that it sells are duck products that Miller’s sells, which come to Miller’s already slaughtered and processed.
  • Miller’s Organic Farm has not applied for federal inspection of its meat and poultry operations and has no current plans to apply for federal inspection of those operations.
  • At some point after the filing of this lawsuit in April 2019, Miller’s Organic Farm began considering changing its business model to fit within a “custom exemption” from federal inspection under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act for much of its meat and poultry operations.
  • Miller has not yet put those changes into effect, however, let alone in a manner that FSIS has approved of as compliant with relevant laws. To date during the relevant period,
  • Miller has taken only one animal (beef livestock), in approximately July 2019, to a federally inspected plant near Miller’s for processing and slaughtering. Miller’s has offered the federally inspected, processed meat food products from that single animal for sale to its members through a Florida co-operative.
  • Miller’s has stated that, going forward, it will base its decision whether to offer to its members additional federally inspected products on: (a) the level of member demand for the federally inspected beef products from that single animal; and (b) members’ responses to a survey that Miller wrote and sent to them during June 2019.  That survey presented members with four options, and was attached to a newsletter to Miller’s members stating that Miller’s views on why providing federally inspected products was not in Miller’s or its members’ interests.
  •  The fourth option presented was: “Miller’s Organic Farm should continue like we have been and continue to exercise our private right to freedom of choice to buy direct, off-the-farm, nutrient-dense foods.”
  • Amish-owned, Amish-operated establishment named Belmont Meats opened near Miller’s. Belmont Meats is a federally inspected facility with a federal grant of inspection and will slaughter and process meat and poultry that is brought to its facility.
  • Miller’s Organic Farm asserts that its procedures for sanitizing and cleaning its meat and poultry slaughtering equipment and work areas, and for ensuring that its meat and poultry are safe, involve Miller’s employees: (a) using hot, pressurized water mixed with 35 percent peroxide; (b) using soap; (c) smelling meat and poultry for freshness; (d) washing and rinsing meat and poultry when slaughtered; and (e) after slaughter but before processing, taking meat/poultry temperature with a stationary thermometer and then cooling the meat/poultry in a refrigerator or freezer.
  • Amos Miller oversees those efforts. Miller’s Organic Farm has not had any outside organizations test its meat or poultry products for safety, though Miller’s is “working on that now.”
  • At its Bird-in-Hand farm site, Miller’s Organic Farm operates a dairy and retail store business. The store sells Miller’s products only to Miller’s private membership association members, including to food co-operatives that participate or are otherwise members in Miller’s private membership association.
  • Such sales include meat food products and poultry products that require federal inspection and that members and food co-ops who are located throughout the United States — including Pennsylvania — order in person, by phone, by email, or through the internet. Miller’s fulfills those orders by itself transporting, or by arranging delivery services to transport, the purchased products.
  • During the relevant period, the meat food and poultry products that Miller’s Organic Farm has sold to members of its private membership association for human consumption, with the limited exception of beef products from one animal slaughtered in approximately July 2019, have not been federally inspected.
  • Miller’s Organic Farm cannot control whether its private membership association members share with non-members — in the members’ homes or otherwise — the non-federally-inspected Miller’s meat food and poultry products that the members commercially purchase.
  • Miller’s Organic Farm’s private membership association members pay Miller’s for meat food and poultry products that Miller’s sells to them and that are capable of being used as human food.
  •  Among the nationwide food co-ops that place orders for Miller’s Organic Farm’s meat food and poultry products on behalf of individuals who are both Co-op members and Miller’s members are (a) a Co-op named Pastured Farm Food Club (https://www.pasturedfarmfoodclub.com/) that Anke Meyn coordinates in West Palm Beach.
  • Miller’s Organic Farm’s members can order Miller’s meat and poultry products on the internet even if they are not members of participating co-ops.
  • They can do so through the FarmMatch website at https://www.farmmatch.com/millersorganicfarm/locations, which is operated by Max Kane of Wisconsin. FarmMatch currently allows for the delivery of Miller’s orders to pick-up locations in Massachusetts, Georgia, North Carolina and Arizona.
  • Miller’s Organic Farm occasionally sells its meat food and poultry products to its members at conferences around the United States, including Weston A. Price Foundation conferences.
  • Since 2016, the meat food and poultry products that result from slaughtering and processing at Miller’s Organic Farm, that Miller’s sells to its members, and that are capable of being used as human food commonly have included only the following labeling language — apart from the product name, “packed on” date, weight, and price: (a) “Miller’s Organic Farm/Private Membership Association”; (b) “NOT FOR PUBLIC SALE”; and/or (c) “NOT FOR PUBLIC SALE/Private Membership Association.” Although some of the labels that Miller’s Organic Farm used for meat and poultry products in 2016 and 2017 did not include the “not for public sale language,” Miller’s Organic Farm states that all such labels now include that language.
  • During just three months in mid-2016, Miller’s commercially sold to its nationwide member-customers at least 9,015 pounds of red meat food products for $85,062 and 5,085 pounds of poultry products for $39,050. Those monthly sales amounts are in line with monthly sales in the months since that time, until the present.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

As it turned out, Manhattan bank accounts and real estate were critical assets in bribing high government officials in a meat scandal in Brazil. And for that, J&F Investments S.A. has to pay millions to the U.S. government to escape criminal charges in North American for bribing Brazilian politicians and other officials. It was all part of an expensive settlement for the financial entity associated with the Batista family that’s behind JBS S.A.

J&F is the controlling shareholder of JBS S.A., the world’s largest meat company.  It has pleaded to one count of conspiracy in violation of the U.S. Foreign Corruption Practices Act (FCPA), which is associated with the bribery of Brazilian officials and companies.   Under a plea agreement, the U.S. Department of Justice is giving J&F a 50 percent credit for amounts paid to Brazilian authorities, cutting a $256.5 million fine down to $128.3 million.

The publicly-traded JBS S.A. is not a party to the agreement and does not have any liabilities arising from it.

To carry out the bribery scheme, J&F executives admitted using New York-based bank accounts to facilitate the bribery scheme and to make corrupt payments, including the purchase and transfer of a Manhattan apartment as a bribe, and holding U.S. meetings to discuss and further aspects of the illegal scheme.

James Dawson, special agent in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Washington Field Office Criminal Division, said, “No matter where it occurs, the FBI and our global partners are committed to diligently rooting out corruption that betrays the public trust and threatens a fair economy.”

“With today’s guilty plea, J&F has admitted to engaging in a long-running scheme to bribe corrupt officials in Brazil to obtain financing and other benefits for the company,” said DOJ’s Brian Rabbitt, acting assistant attorney general for the criminal division.

“As part of this scheme, executives at the very highest levels of the company used U.S. banks and real estate to pay tens of millions of dollars in bribes to corrupt government officials in Brazil in order to obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in financing for the company and its affiliates. Today’s resolution demonstrates the department’s continuing commitment to combating international corruption and holding companies accountable for violations of the FCPA.”

J&F admitted to conspiring with others between 2005 and 2017 to violate the FCPA by paying bribes to government officials in Brazil in order to ensure that Brazilian state-owned and state-controlled banks would enter into debt and equity financing transactions with J&F and J&F-owned entities as well as to obtain approval for a merger from a Brazilian state-owned and state-controlled pension fund.

Specifically, DOJ said between 2005 and 2014, J&F engaged in a bribery scheme involving more than $148 million in corrupt payments that were promised and made to and for the benefit of high-level Brazilian government officials, including a then-high-ranking executive at the state-owned Banco Nacional  (BNDES)

J&F was able to obtain hundreds of millions of dollars in financing from BNDES for the bribes. J&F also paid bribes worth more than $4.6 million to and for the benefit of a high-ranking executive of Fundação Petrobras de Seguridade Social, a state-controlled pension fund, in exchange for obtaining Petros’s approval of a merger benefiting J&F.

Also, J&F paid about $25 million in bribes to a high-ranking legislative official to secure hundreds of millions of dollars of financing from Caixa Econômica Federal, another  Brazilian state-owned and state-controlled bank.

In addition to the DOJ-J&F agreement,  it was also announced that JBS and the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) have settled with Pilgrim’s Pride Corp. for failure to maintain accurate books and records and internal accounting controls. JBS will pay $27 million to the SEC for a term of three years, during which extra government reporting will be required.

Pilgrim’s is not a party to the resolution and will not bear any liabilities arising from it, according to JBS.

“JBS and its controlling shareholder are committed to best corporate practices and close cooperation with authorities in all jurisdictions in which they operate. The agreements announced today represent an important step in their continuous efforts to improve their compliance and corporate governance programs,” said Guilherme Perboyre Cavalcanti with JBS investor relations.

Meanwhile, DOJ and Pilgrim’s have reached an agreement in the price-fixing case involving multiple defendants in federal court in Denver.

Pilgrim’s has repeatedly agreed to pay $110.5 million for the restraint of competition that affected three contracts for the sale of chicken products to one U.S. customer. The company said the agreement does not recommend a monitor, any restitution, or a probationary period and states that DOJ will bring no further charges against Pilgrim’s in the matter, provided that the company complies with the terms and provisions of the agreement.

“Pilgrim’s is committed to fair and honest competition in compliance with U.S. antitrust laws,” the company’s new chief executive officer Fabio Sandri said. “We are encouraged that today’s agreement concludes the Antitrust Division’s investigation into Pilgrim’s, providing certainty regarding this matter to our team members, suppliers, customers, and shareholders.”

Pilgrim’s named Sandri as CEO after Jayson Penn, the previous chief executive, was personally indicted in the price-fixing case.

The agreement will likely require approval by the Court.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here)

Opinion

Editor’s note: Each Spring, attorneys Bill Marler and Denis Stearns teach a Food Safety Litigation course in the LL.M. Program in Agricultural and Food Law at the University of Arkansas School of Law. This specialized program for attorneys brings together those who are interested in our food system, from farm to table. As a final assignment, students are asked to write an op-ed or essay on food safety, with the best to be selected for publication in Food Safety News. The following is one of the essays for 2020.

By Alexia Kulwiec

As to that delicious steak or pork chop you are about to sink your teeth into, do you know where it came from? Will the grocery refrigerated cooler where you purchased that meat be empty tomorrow? 

In the quest to produce beef and pork free of pathogens that could cause food borne illness, the United States has created a system that leaves the nation’s food supply vulnerable to a health crisis such as the country is now experiencing. At the same time, the U.S. system has decreased the ability of smaller local producers, often involved in humanely raising healthy animals, to provide healthy foods to the consumer. While strong health and safety measures are needed in the local food movement as elsewhere, smaller operations could be a large part of, if not the, solution to the current vulnerability in the U.S. food supply.

The world, but specifically North America, is beginning to experience the drastic impact of the ongoing consolidation of the meat processing industry, with concerns growing over the stability of the food supply. U.S. and local regulations must change to decrease this impact and can do so by supporting local independent growers. In the United States, USDA inspected meat processing plants have temporarily closed in South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Wisconsin. In Canada, a Covid-19 outbreak at a single Cargill plant in Alberta impacted close to one-half of Canada’s beef supply. Closed plants cannot process the beef and pork demanded by consumers. In turn, farmers and ranchers lack a market for their products.  As an alternative and supplemental supply of meat products, consumers can obtain food locally sourced from producers they know and trust. 

Until recently, the position of the USDA, and perhaps of consumers generally, was that to ensure a safe meat supply, meat must be slaughtered in USDA inspected plants. The federal Wholesome Meat Act requires processing of all beef and pork to be slaughtered and processed in USDA inspected facilities or state facilities that follow standards at least as stringent as federal rules.  

In the abstract, this regulation has some merit – consumers rightfully demand beef and pork products free from pathogens, illness or other contaminants that could cause injury or illness. To date, while safety of meat produced has improved, the meat processing system itself, broadly speaking, is failing to meet the needs of American consumers. The past month in the United States has demonstrated that consolidation has led to a serious vulnerability in U.S. meat production as well as compromised safety and health of the meat processing workforce. 

Also the food system as presently constituted, in part because of USDA regulations, fails to support local independent operations that help address the instability of the market. 

Not healthy for the stability of the U.S. food supply
There has been tremendous consolidation in meat processing industries over the last several decades. The top 4 beef processors control approximately 80% of the U.S. meat supply. The top 4 pork processors account for approximately 63% of the U.S. market. The consolidation into just a few top processors has led to fewer and larger meat slaughter and processing facilities. As we have seen the past few weeks, the closure of one or more of these plants can have a serious impact on the nation’s supply of beef and pork. By one estimate, 10% of all beef production and 25 % of the U.S. pork production has closed after 13 packing and food processing workers died after contracting Covid-19. Because of the consolidation in the meat industry, one plant closing can have an enormous impact on the U.S. supply of fresh beef and pork.  

Not healthy for workers
Workers in the meat and poultry industry on average earn less than $15 an hour and earn 44% less than workers in other manufacturing jobs. Yet this is dangerous work and has been prior to Covid-19. Eight plant workers died between 2013 – 17 from work related injuries, and a good number more lost body parts or were hospitalized for work injuries. Many suffer unreported injury and illness, particularly disabling musculoskeletal illness caused by high lines speeds and difficult repetitive work. Workers report long hours without breaks, lack of adequate access to sanitation facilities, and tremendous pressure to meet high productions quotas.

The regulatory system has supported growth of large-scale slaughterhouses and meat processing plants, where social distancing is impossible, line speeds have put workers’ safety at tremendous risk and conditions have already caused unnecessary injuries. Employees work shoulder to shoulder, processing up to 400 cattle per hour. During the Covid-19 crisis, workers have reported being encouraged to work even if they appeared sick. Many did not receive any PPE, Personal Protective Equipment, and at least 13 workers have died from exposure to the virus. As well as the toll on workers, this has led to the closure of a number of plants. This negatively impacts the nation’s supply of beef and pork.

Not healthy for local and smaller producers and their markets
The consolidation of the U.S. meat processing industry has been particularly difficult on smaller, local operations. Local processing plants that satisfy the USDA or state requirements are in short supply. Massive consolidation in the meat processing industry has led to the processing of most beef and pork in fewer but large processing facilities. As a practical matter, such facilities serve the industry. The often will not accept small quantities for processing, thus making it nearly impossible for smaller meat producers to ensure inspection of products for sale to consumers. At best, small producers are often told that plants cannot process their meat for six months. At worst, they are turned away. In addition, small producers have to transport their animals long distances for processing at these plants, often hundreds of miles. This transportation has an obvious environmental impact and causes unnecessary stress to the animals transported for slaughter. These delay and distance hurdles also create financial disincentives for small producers to raise animals for sale locally.

Meanwhile, reports suggest that consumer demand for local sustainably grown foods is increasing. Consumers want to know how their food is grown and processed, are interested in a shorter supply chain, and wish to support local producers. 

These producers can certainly be part of any solution, yet they lack feasible access to approved processing facilities. In addition, while custom slaughter operations can process meat for an animal owner, these facilities are prohibited from processing meat for sale. This in turn continues to drive the consolidation of the industry that has made the nation’s food supply vulnerable during a crisis. Expanding the ability of these independent facilities, with appropriate safety regulations, to process meat for sale would help expand our nation’s safe meat supply.

Is the 400 an hour cattle processing really the best method to provide safe and healthy food?
So how do we keep this local food supply safe? Modifying regulations that allow for differences for smaller, local plants could increase the number of smaller plants. The current USDA meat processing  regulations are numerous, difficult, and unduly burdensome on a smaller operation. Accounting for the differences in the size of processing plants while maintaining safety standards could go a long way towards decreasing reliance on a number of large plants. This would lessen the vulnerability to our food supply of the closure of one large facility. Allowing for a more diverse production system but with continued stringent safety standards would limit our reliance on the four corporations that control 80% of the American beef market and the few controlling pork production.

Modifying OSHA regulations protecting workers, such as providing for slower lines speeds and perhaps a plant design that allows workers more space, can impact the safety and health of employees as well maintain a healthier workforce. This in turn makes plant closure less likely in the event of a virus or other illness. Such a system can, and should, continue to impose rules to ensure the health of the meat supply. Certainly this may impact price. However, more competition from a more diverse supply chain would also positively impact price, as will transportation savings to independent producers

To this end, one option is the proposed change in federal law called the Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption Act (“the PRIME Act”), H.R. 2859. The Prime Act would repeal the ban on sale of meat processed by “custom slaughterhouses” that meet state regulations and basic federal requirements, but not those needed in larger facilities that are not as relevant in smaller operations. Currently, animal owners can have their own meat processed in these facilities but cannot sell products processed at custom facilities.

Opponents argue against permitting farmers and ranchers to sell to consumers without the benefit of USDA inspection citing health and safety concerns. Yet under the PRIME Act, states are free to develop regulations of the industry to ensure safety while increasing access to wholesome food.

Opponents have also argued that there is a lack of accountability by the smaller producers under this system. Yet, smaller local producers are much more financially impacted by any problem in their food production. One illness is likely to drive them out of business, which in turn drives them to often utilize far greater protections in raising, slaughtering and processing their animals. 

In the alternative to new federal legislation permitting local processing and sales directly to the consumer, the USDA and the states must increase the number of inspectors and provide for an increased number of smaller facilities. A greater number of smaller facilities would ensure that the impact of just one plant closing would not have a great impact on the U.S. food supply. It would also allow for greater physical space between employees, protecting them from contact during a health crisis such as Covid-19. It serves local producers, and the environment, in that they will spend less on transportation and be more likely to be able to profit from selling their meat locally. It helps meet consumer demand for locally grown organic food that meets animal welfare standards. Without more facilities, a local farmer or rancher who raises cattle in pasture without unnecessary antibiotics and houses the animal in clean facilities is often forced to then stress the animal by transporting them hundreds of miles for slaughter and processing, thus defeating many of the benefits of animals raised humanely. 

The current USDA practices and procedures drives out small producers and processors at a critical time when our food supply demands more, not less, producers. This in turn has placed the U.S. market for meat, and consumers, in a vulnerable position. It has placed almost all of our beef and pork production in the hands of just a few giant corporations.  As the Covid -19 virus has made us painfully aware, the corporations placed profit before the safety of our overall meat supply, not to mention their workers whose very lives have been put at risk. In light of the inadequate number of processing facilities and inspectors, regulations need to be modified to protect the industry, health and safety of workers, and the nation’s food supply.  

1. See  Dianne Gallagher, Meat Processing Plants Acorrs the US are Closing Due to the Pandemic. Will Consumers Fell the Impact?, CNN Business (April 27, 2020).  See also  Danielle Kaeding, JBS USA Announces Temporary Closure of Green Bay Meatpacking Plant, Wisconsin Public Radio (April 26, 2020). See also National Farmers Union, April 22, 2020 Media Release: Covid-19 Shuts Down Half of Canada’s Beef Supply, https://www.nfu.ca/. While not the subject of the post, the issue is beginning to surface in poultry as well: workers in Georgia and Alabama have contracted the covid-19 virus, with some plant mangers sending employees home. A Vancouver chicken plant closed after 28 workers tested positive for Covid -19.

2. 21 C.F.R. § 601 et. al.

3. Amelia Lucas, Meatpacking Union says 25% of US Pork Production hit by Coronavirus Closures, CNBC (April 23, 2020). 

4.Taylor Telford and Kimberly Kindy, As they Rushed to Maintain U.S. Meat Supply, Big Processors saw Plants become Covid-19 Hot Spots, Worker Illnesses Spike, Washington Post, April 25, 2020.

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)