CONGRESS TOOK AWAY OUR RIGHT TO KNOW AND WE LET THEM

OUR HIRELINGS HAVE TURNED ON US.
In December, 2015, Congress repealed the country-of-origin-labeling rule (COOL) on beef and pork after the World Trade Organization (WTO) imposed $1 billion in retaliatory import tariffs against United States if the rule was not overturned.

Congress allowed the WTO (World Trade Organization) to overturn a common sense label supported by a majority of Americans and then, against the wished of the vast majority of those who elected them, they simply traded OUR best interest and our health and right to know where our foods come from for PROFIT.

90% of those surveyed in 2013 favored country-of-origin-labeling for fresh meat sold in stores.

“Congress willingly kowtowed to international trade tribunals to gut COOL and even tossed out the labels for ground meats that the WTO ruled were totally trade-legal—a holiday gift to the meatpacking industry from Congress,” said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter.

Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) lamented that “Americans will no longer know where their meat is born, raised, and slaughtered.This is bad public policy and bad for food safety," she continued. "We should not let trade agreements change our rigorous standards. Informed choice is a bedrock principle of the free market. This type of corporate roll-back of consumer protections will only become more commonplace under the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership.”

Dr. Ron Prestage, president of the National Pork Producer’s Council, released a statement expressing gratitude to Congress for repealing COOL. “I know tariffs on U.S. pork would have been devastating to me and other pork producers,” he said.           

OUR CONGRESS FAILS TO PROTECT US AND SO DO THEIR AGENCIES. 




DO YOU CARE WHERE THE THINGS YOU CONSUME COME FROM?

WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW IF YOUR SALAD INGREDIENTS WERE GROWN IN FIELDS FLOODED WITH LIQUEFIED HUMAN WASTE, OR IF YOUR BEEF COMES FROM A NATION WHERE MAGGOTS IN THE PROCESSING AND PACKAGING PLANTS IS ALLOWED, HANDLED BY WORKERS WHO DON'T HAVE TO WEAR GLOVES OR EVEN WASH THEIR HANDS?

DO YOU CARE IF A NATION THAT SHIPS FOOD PRODUCTS TO THE U.S. ALLOWS MELAMINE, A PLASTIC-LIKE WHITE SOLID THAT IS A TRIMER OF CYANAMIDE, TO BE USED AS A "FILLER"?

WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW IF YOUR FOOD COMES FROM HIGHLY RADIOACTIVE SOIL LIKE IN THE AREAS HARDEST HIT BY THE CHERNOBYL AND FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR PLANT EXPLOSIONS?

HOW ABOUT SOME FRESH FISH FROM FISH FARMS THAT FEED EXCREMENT TO THEIR FISH?
From Forbes, Dec 21,2015:

"Quashing Consumers' Right-To-Know, Congress Repeals Country-Of-Origin-Labeling For Beef And Pork"

On Friday, Congress repealed the country-of-origin-labeling rule (COOL) on beef and pork after the World Trade Organization (WTO) imposed $1 billion in retaliatory import tariffs against United States if the rule was not overturned. The repeal was part of the omnibus spending bill signed by President Obama

Meat-packers complained that the cost of complying with the COOL program was too burdensome. The United States has lost two rulings and two appeals with the WTO regarding COOL since 2011. The import tariffs were authorized by the WTO on December 7th.

After the repeal, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a statement: "Effective immediately, USDA is not enforcing the COOL requirements for muscle cut and ground beef and pork." He reassured consumers that “all imported and domestic meat will continue to be subject to rigorous inspections by USDA to ensure food safety.”

HE LIED!

The USDA recently began allowing Brazilian beef back into our market after a long ban because of abscesses and toxins found in the meat, and after unsanitary conditions were discovered from the 'farms' to the packing plants that endangered humans who consumed it.
The Brazilian beef really wasn't "fit for a dog". 

Consumer groups and a very few politicians complained, a petition was signed by thousands in 2017 and, yesterday, USDA announced its reply to those who know the truth about Brazil. 

'TOUGH! We're allowing it in anyway.' 
The petition took USDA to task over failure to inspect the Brazilian beef;

(ii) The legal authority for the system and the regulations thereunder shall impose requirements equivalent to those governing the system of meat inspection organized and maintained in the United States with respect to:
A) Ante-mortem inspection of animals for slaughter and inspection of methods of slaughtering and handling in connection with slaughtering which shall be performed by veterinarians or by other employees or licensees of the system under the direct supervision of the veterinarians;

(B) Post-mortem inspection of carcasses and parts thereof at time of slaughter, performed by veterinarians or other employees or licensees of the system under the direct supervision of veterinarians;

(C) Official controls by the national government over establishment construction, facilities, and equipment;

(D) Direct and continuous official supervision of slaughtering and preparation of product, by the assignment of inspectors to establishments certified under paragraph (a)(3) of this section, to assure that adulterated or misbranded product is not prepared for export to the United States;

(E) Complete separation of establishments certified under subparagraph (3) of this paragraph from establishments not certified and the maintenance of a single standard of inspection and sanitation throughout all certified establishments;

(F) Requirements for sanitation at certified establishments and for sanitary handling of product;

(G) Official controls over condemned material until destroyed or removed and thereafter excluded from the establishment;

(H) A Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system, as set forth in part 417 of this chapter. (I) Other matters for which requirements are contained in the Act or regulations in this subchapter.

(iv) The foreign inspection system must maintain a program to assure that the requirements referred to in this section, equivalent to those of the Federal system of meat inspection in the United States, are being met."

"The Brazilian Track Record – It’s A Broken Record"
FOR 19 YEARS, FROM 2000 UNTIL 2019, BRAZIL FAILED EACH "AUDIT."

"On May 14, 2010, FSIS announced that Sampco, Inc recalled 84,000 pounds of corned beef products imported from Brazil due to the presence of the excessive levels of the animal drug ivermectin in the meat. 
That recall was later expanded to cover another 61,000 pounds of product on June 24, 2010.

It remains a mystery why those were the only two recalls since, at the time, there were millions of cans of imported corned beef products from Brazil in commerce in the United States.

In March 2010, the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued an audit report in which it was critical of the FSIS National Residue Program for beef cattle. In that report, the OIG specifically identified ivermectin as an animal drug of concern to human health.

THREE YEARS LATER, SAME STORY:
"The 2013 Audit
This audit was conducted between February 18 and March 16, 2013. Five meat establishments were visited with a special focus on swine slaughter facilities.

In addition, Brazil reported in 2012 that it had experienced its first case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in 2010 that it had kept secret for two years which led many countries to stop beef imports from Brazil.

The audit revealed the following deficiencies:
- the Brazilian meat inspection authority did not provide a standard guideline to its inspection personnel concerning the definition of SRM in cattle in accordance with FSIS' requirements cited in 9 CFR 310.22, resulting in inconsistent implementation of the SRM requirements throughout the system (this is a repeat deficiency from previous audits);

- the inspection authority’s ready-to-eat verification sampling program did not include on-going verification sampling of food contact surfaces and environmental (non-food contact) surfaces in accordance with FSIS' equivalence criteria for listeria monocytogenes control in ready-to-eat products;

- the inspection authority’s inspection personnel did not fully enforce its basic and ongoing HACCP requirements concerning the contents of HACCP plan and recordkeeping requirements in the five audited establishments (this is a repeat deficiency from previous audits);

- the inspection authority’s inspection personnel conducted periodic supervisory reviews at a lower than intended bimonthly frequency in two swine establishments audited; and the inspection authority’s inspection personnel did not fully enforce sanitation requirements to prevent cross-contamination of bovine carcasses in one slaughter establishment (this is a repeat deficiency from previous audits)."

SAME THINGS, BUT SOMETIMES WORSE, YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR. 

"Conclusion:
 FSIS has continued to permit Brazil to export pork products and thermally processed beef products to the United States although those products are subject to 100 percent re-inspection at the ports-of-entry.

Essentially, FSIS still does not trust the competence of the Brazilian meat inspection system even for those products.

This subverts the purpose of equivalency.

FSIS is still waiting for the Brazilian meat inspection authority to address the concerns raised during the 2015 and 2017 audits before it will permit Brazil to resume fresh beef exports to the United States.

The question is why?
One definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over. 

USDA should not let trade considerations supplant the welfare of U.S. consumers by permitting a weak and corrupt food safety inspection system to continue to export unsafe products to the U.S.
The Brazilian meat inspection system is not equivalent to that of the United States and immediate action should be taken to remove Brazil from 9 CFR 327.2(b)."

To which USDA, after 2 years and 2 months, pointed to ONE day in March that they inspected Brazil's imported beef as evidence it DID inspect the garbage.

"The USDA food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has completed its review of your petition dated December 6, 2017.

From June IO to 28, 2019, FSlS conducted an in-country audit to determine if appropriate food safety controls had been put in in [sic] place that would support lifting the suspension ofraw [sic] beef imports from Brazil. FS]S [sic] auditors discovered some systemic deficiencies during the audit. In response, Brazil provided FSlS with documented corrective actions and assurances concerning the 2019 audit findings.

The 2020 fSJS [sic] audit identified no deficiencies and confirmed that Brazil had implemented the necessary corrective actions. Consequently, as of February 2 1. [sic] 2020, FSlS has  reinstated Brazil's.eligibility to export raw intact beef products to the United States. Therefore, as stated above, we are denying your petition.

On March 18, 2017, FSIS instituted 100 percent product examination ofall [sic] shipments of Brazilian meat products imported into the United States, regardless ofcontents [sic]; condition of containet [sic] examination for 100 percent ofthermally [sic] processed products; and I 00 [sic] percent testing ofready.[sic] to-eat products for Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes.

Since August 2018, FSIS has reduced product examinations for raw pork and meat extracts from 50 percent to routine levels and has reduced to 50 percent condition ofcontainer [sic] and product examinations for thermally processed/commercially sterile products. These reductions in the number of intensified product examinations resulted from PSI S's review ofcorrective [sic] actions provided by Brazil, as well as FSIS' re-inspection data." 

USDA, IN ITS TYPO-RICH REPLY, ADMITS IT TESTED ALL RAW MEAT JUST ONE DAY IN 2017, A YEAR OF ANOTHER FAILED AUDIT, BUT THEN REDUCED THAT TESTING IN 2018.
BUT IT STILL ALLOWS THAT INTO THE U.S.BASED ON BRAZIL'S WORD THAT IT HAS IMPROVED?
THAT'S JUST CRAZY! 


Brazilian Meat Scandal: Is our Beef Safe?
4 April 2017

At the beginning of March, an investigation was under way in Brazil that resulted in Brazil’s federal police charging 21 meatpacking plants with violations that included bribing health inspectors for certificates and shipping contaminated meat products. The aptly named 'Weak Flesh investigation' caused a widespread temporary ban of exports from Brazil to its major markets which included China, Egypt, and the European Union.

One of the Brazilian meatpacking plant owners involved in the investigation, JBS Sao Palo, has meatpacking plants located in the United States. JBS is the second largest meatpacker in the U.S. This raised concerns that the U.S. had possibly received contaminated meat.

This also opens up previous issues and concerns with U.S. ranchers and producers regarding Congress’ removal of the country of origin labeling (COOL) requirement in 2015. With the removal of the country of origin labels, the consumer would never know where their beef or poultry was raised. Even though the meatpacking facilities involved in the Weak Flesh investigation have said that the possibly contaminated meat products were not sent to the U.S. As a precaution, the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) have already started testing all beef from Brazil for any contamination. There is still that lingering question of if the U.S. had the COOL requirements would that have at least given the U.S. a safety net for consumers and producers.

According to the USDA, after testing 174 samples of meat in 22 states, there is no evidence of contamination that would be harmful for human consumption. Now that the meat is declared safe in Brazil, attention is focused back onto the investigation of how this all started now that two dozen arrests have been made relating to the scandal.

Some U.S. law makers are already requesting that the USDA block the importing of Brazil’s beef but such a blow could damage the reputation of its meat even though the U.S. is not a major buyer. U.S. Senators Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Jon Tester of Montana, and U.S. Representative Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat have already called for a ban of the Brazilian beef. In a letter to President Donald Trump, Heitkamp says that allowing unsafe beef into the country endangers consumers and “the reputation of U.S. beef producers whose meat is sold next to imported meat- now without mandatory country or origin labeling”.

Last year the U.S. started allowing shipments of fresh beef from Brazil after banning them due to worries about foot and mouth disease in cattle. Now with this scandal, other global buyers may question Brazil’s overall food security system and turn to other suppliers. The timing of the scandal is bad for Brazil who is still trying to recover from the worst recession in the country’s history.

Nearly 1,900 politicians received bribes to the tune of $186 million over the course of a few years, including former presidents Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff.

Dozens of federal food inspectors were placed under arrest, and J&F Investimentos, the holding company of JBS SA, one of Brazil’s largest meatpackers and a prime suspect in the corruption investigation, agreed to pay $3.2 billion in fines.

WHEN EVEN CHINA BANS A FOOD, IT HAS TO BE VERY BAD
Reuters, Mar. 20, 2017

China, whose beef cattle industry is still dominated by small backyard farms, has not bought beef from the United States since a scare over mad cow disease in 2003.

China suspended imports of all meat products from Brazil, the world’s top beef exporter, as a precautionary measure after inspectors there were accused of taking bribes to allow sales of tainted food. South Korea, the EU and Chile also curtailed meat imports from Brazil.

Brazilian police on Friday named BRF SA (BRFS3.SA) and JBS SA (JBSS3.SA), along with dozens of smaller rivals, in a two-year probe into how meat packers allegedly paid off the inspectors and politicians to overlook improper practices.

China, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture calls the world’s fastest growing market for beef, accounted for nearly one-third of the Brazilian meat packing industry’s $13.9 billion in exports last year.

Australia, Argentina and Canada could fill in the gap during the ban, said Mike Zuzolo, president of U.S. brokerage Global Commodity Analytics. However, each shipper faces its own challenges in the market.

Tyson Foods Inc (TSN.N) declined to comment.


June 22, 2017, the U.S. suspended imports of fresh beef from Brazil, the fifth largest beef exporter to the U.S.
In October 2019, the U.S. informed Brazil it will continue to maintain the ban

WRONG! THE BAN WAS LIFTED, EVEN AFTER PETITIONS FROM CONSUMER GROUPS AND THE FDA's ADMISSION THAT IT TESTED 100% OF IMPORTED BRAZILIAN BEEF ONLY ON ONE DAY IN 2017!

The USDA began inspecting 100% of Brazilian meat imports in March 2017. Among the problems discovered were abscesses in the meat, which Brazilian deputy agriculture minister Eumar Novacki CLAIMED were 'rare adverse reactions to vaccines that prevent foot-and-mouth disease'.

James Roth, director of the Center for Food Security and Public Health at Iowa State University said ‘any injection into an animal might rarely produce an abscess’ if the needle is dirty. However, ‘]I]f abscesses are showing up in the meat, there has to be a failure in the slaughter plant because those should be caught and removed’

The USDA allows multinational meat-packers to label imported beef as “Product of USA” as long as it has undergone processing in the U.S., even if minimal. This misrepresentation has significant ramifications for American farmers, who have to compete with lower-priced imports.

While the Tariff Act of 1930 requires imported beef to be labeled with its country-of-origin “unless the beef undergoes substantial transformation” in the U.S., the U.S. Department of Agriculture has argued that imported beef can be treated as U.S. beef if it comes from a country with food safety standards that are equivalent to those in the U.S.

So, as long as it’s processed in a U.S. facility, it can be labeled “Product of USA”15 — even if that processing involves nothing more than unwrapping and rewrapping the package, or cutting a piece of meat into smaller pieces.

Contamination with pathogens and drugs is another widespread problem plaguing the conventional meat industry. Contaminants are also found in nonorganic collagen products, which makes sense since they’re a byproduct of the meat industry.

The ramifications are keenly evident in the beef industry, where tainted beef is being exported around the globe while local ranchers struggle to compete with bottom-priced imports.

While several countries banned Brazilian meat in March 2017, the U.S. didn’t suspend imports until June 22 that year, after meat inspections resulted in 11% of Brazilian meat imports being sent back.
Normally, the rejection rate is around 1%.

Considering the steady growth of grass fed ranching in the U.S., why are we still importing the vast majority of it?

One of the main reasons is because Australia can produce it at a lower cost, as their climate allows for year-round grazing. In fact, in Australia, grass fed is the norm; 70% of the cattle there are raised on open pasture.

Raising grass fed beef in Australia costs 59 cents per pound. In the U.S., that cost is around $1.55 per pound for large-scale producers, and may go as high as $4.26 per pound for a small producer.

U.S. REGULATIONS DO NOT APPLY IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES

Contamination with pathogens and drugs is another widespread problem plaguing the conventional meat industry.

As reported in “Majority of Supermarket Meats Are Still Riddled With Superbugs,” 8 in 10 supermarket meats are contaminated with fecal bacteria, many of which are resistant to antibiotics, and factory farmed meats are three times more likely to contain drug-resistant bacteria than grass fed beef.

This really is no surprise, since overuse of antibiotics in livestock is the primary driver of antibiotic resistance, and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) routinely use antibiotics. They also use a number of other drugs, and they too can end up contaminating the meat.

As reported by Consumer Reports in August 2018, drugs such as ketamine (a hallucinogenic anesthetic), phenylbutazone (an anti-inflammatory pain reliever known to cause blood disorders and cancer), nitroimidazole (an antifungal drug with suspected carcinogenic activity) and chloramphenicol (an antibiotic associated with toxic effects in humans) are all found in the U.S. meat supply.

“The data — as well as Consumer Reports’ review of other government documents and interviews with farmers, industry experts, government officials and medical professionals — raise serious concerns about the safeguards put in place to protect the U.S. meat supply,” Consumer Reports states.

As for how are these drugs enter the meat supply, Consumer Reports lists a number of possible routes, including improper use (such as giving too high a dose or administering too close to slaughter), counterfeit drugs, contaminated feed and intentional misuse.

The factory farm system is indeed a breeding ground for intentional misuse, as profits are tied to the weight of each animal.
For example, Consumer Reports notes that:

“… cattle that can’t stand on their own are not allowed to be used for meat.
So … lame cattle are sometimes given phenylbutazone — a painkiller — shortly before slaughter, so they can ‘get the animal through the slaughterhouse gates without anybody looking closer.’”

Other studies have shown CAFO animal bones and hides can also be a source of heavy metals such as lead, which is another potential concern when buying nonorganic animal products.

Grass-grazed, free-range food animals are far healthier and therefore better for human consumption than feedlot animals or those packed in like sardines as many hogs, all poultry and calves raised for veal are.

Free-range improves animal welfare — Grass fed cattle are healthier and require few if any drug treatments.

Free-range is better for human environment — Regenerative grazing systems help restore grasslands, build soil and protect water supplies, whereas the concentration of manure in and around feedlots pollute air, soil and water

The only way to be sure you’re buying American-raised grass fed beef is to look for the AGA grass fed label.



No other grass fed certification offers the same comprehensive assurances as the AGA, and no other grass fed program ensures compliance using third-party audits.

Unless the beef has an AGA grass fed label, you really won’t know what you’re getting.
Chances are, its imported.         

In China, the adulteration and contamination of several food and feed ingredients with inexpensive melamine and other compounds, such as cyanuric acid, ammeline and ammelide, are common practice.

These adulterants can be used to inflate the apparent protein content of products, so that inexpensive ingredients can pass for more expensive, concentrated proteins.

Reports of widespread adulteration of Chinese animal feed and even infant formulas (The Chinese Milk Scandal) with melamine have raised the issue of melamine contamination in the human food supply both in China and abroad.

On 1 December, 2008, Xinhua reported that the Ministry of Health revised the number of victims to more than 290,000 with 51,900 hospitalized; authorities acknowledged receiving reports of 11 suspected deaths from melamine contaminated powdered milk and, globally, an unknown number of family pets died from kidney stones and kidney failure due to the plastic.
[Source: Chow Chung-yan (2 December 2008). "Number of melamine-sickened children revised up five-fold". South China Morning Post. Hong Kong. pp. A9.]

Because of the many months before the scandal was exposed, the media suggest the official figures are likely to be understated.

In June 2008, Jiangsu media reported a two-month surge in the number of babies diagnosed with kidney disease; in July, a parent of a sick baby in Hunan questioned Sanlu's powdered milk and complained to the AQSIQ. Gansu Province sent a report to the Ministry of Health on 16 July to alert that one local hospital had identified an increase in the incidence of kidney ailments among babies in the months earlier, and that most victims had consumed Sanlu's baby formula.

In late October 2008, similar adulteration with melamine was discovered in eggs and other food.

The World Health Organization in 2009 called the incident one of the largest food safety events the UN health agency had needed to deal with.

A spokesman said the scale of the problem proved it was "clearly not an isolated accident, [but] a large-scale intentional activity to deceive consumers for simple, basic, short-term profits."

In the United States, the U.S. distributor of White Rabbit candies recalled the product when samples found in Hartford, Connecticut showed traces of melamine.

On 12 November 2008, the FDA issued a general alert against all finished food products from China, saying that information received from government sources in a number of countries indicated a wide range and variety of products from a variety of producers had been manufactured using melamine-contaminated milk.

THE FDA AND USDA ARE TOO LENIENT AND LAX

China has played an increasingly important role in supplying food to the United States. Between 1999 and 2008, China went from the eleventh largest supplier of U.S. food imports to the third largest.

Despite this increased presence, FDA only conducted a limited number of food facility inspections in China, as well as all other countries.

Only intense congressional and public scrutiny caused FDA to increase the number of food facility inspections in foreign countries.

In fiscal year 2009, FDA only conducted three food facility inspections in China.

FDA did not conduct any food facility inspections in Japan during fiscal year 2009, but conducted twenty-eight in 2010.

In Spain, FDA conducted three food facility inspections in 2009 and fifteen in 2010.

DOES ANYONE AGREE THAT THAT IS SUFFICIENT? 

A final note of caution; an FDA food facility inspection is not optional if the facility desires to export its products to the United States.

According to FSMA, FDA must refuse entry into the United States of any food from a facility that refused an FDA inspection.

THIS DOES NOT ALWAYS HAPPEN. 
THERE ARE TOO MANY LOOPHOLES AND TOO MUCH EXCUSE-MAKING. 


The Food Safety Modernization Act
On January 4, 2011, President Barak Obama signed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) into law amending the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

The FSMA is an attempt to increase food safety in the U.S.A.; specifically imported food safety. 
Before the  FSMA, the FDA had NO AUTHORITY to require a food company to recall unsafe food.
However, even this new authority requires FDA to establish some new procedures for holding hearings so a person subject to a “cease distribution” order has the opportunity to argue why the order should be modified or vacated.

FDA currently does not have procedures for holding this type of hearing (or to issue this type of order). Therefore, contrary to many opinions out there, even this important new recall authority is just about useless.

Large trade organizations joined public health advocates in supporting the bill, while groups aligned with individuals and small farms generally opposed it.

However, after Senate adoption of Jon Tester's amendment, which allows for the possible exemption of producers that sell less than $500,000 a year, many large food companies objected, arguing that the exemption puts consumers at risk.

THAT PROVIDES A HUGE LOOPHOLE FOR NATIONS LIKE CHINA.
The mega-companies can simply create multiple small companies and avoid any of the new regulations by this exemption for small companies. 

A year after enactment the FDA had fallen behind on expected progress.

It has yet to implement "a specific timetable for issuing" a process to create rule for science-based produce standards, has not completed rules for foreign supplier verification, and must still create a guidance that will help schools and childcare programs lessen allergy risks for school-age children.

As an example of the allergen problem, imagine a child with severe allergies to palm oil or anything derived from peanuts consuming a food product that contains such things but is allowed to slide through FDA approval because those products are concealed by terminology that groups ingredients like "natural vegetable oils/proteins" or "natural extracts/flavorings".
A child could die!
FDA was instructed to immediately increase the frequency of food inspections and can immediately require import certification of certain foods – but FDA received no new money with these amendments (thus it cannot inspect more than it already is, presumably) and it must establish certification requirements and standards before it can require import certifications.


The FDA's Inspection Problem: One Reason Our Food Supply Isn't Safe

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services, FDA's parent agency, has just issued a report sharply criticizing FDA's oversight of state food inspections.

This report is one more piece of evidence for how FDA's lack of resources makes our food supply less safe.

Because it does not have the personnel to do its own inspections, FDA increasingly delegates them to state agencies.
The salmonella outbreak from peanuts in 2009 is a prime example of why the state system is too diffuse to work.

The peanut processing plant responsible for a 2009 salmonella outbreak was inspected multiple times by a state agency working on behalf of FDA. This outbreak resulted in one of the largest food recalls in U.S. history and has led to serious questions about the effectiveness of state food facility inspections.

FDA has long been unable to inspect more than a tiny fraction of food processing facilities and the situation is getting worse, not better: The overall number of facilities inspected decreased from just over 17,000 facilities in 2004 to about 15,900 in 2009. 
In 2009, it contracted with 41 states to conduct inspections, and these conducted 59 percent percent of FDA's food inspections.

ISN'T THAT LIKE ALLOWING A BURGLAR TO INSPECT THE LOCKS ON YOUR HOUSE FOR SAFETY? 

At great risk to the public, FDA gets its funding from congressional agriculture appropriations committees, not health committees.

In this era of cost cutting, FDA was lucky to get a $50 million increase in funding, or so everyone says.

But this is nowhere near enough to hire and train enough inspectors to do the job right.

The dispersion of authority leaves much room for flexibility in interpretation and lack of accountability, as the OIG reports consistently show.

For reasons of politics, this may not be the time to demand a stronger food safety system. But if not now, when?

A PDF ON CONTINUED DANGEROUS FOOD IMPORTS FROM CHINA IS VERY MUCH WORTH A READ. 

"There is no indication that China’s food safety situation is improving.
Melamine continues to appear in food inside China despite a spate of new food safety legislation.

A new direction would include:
• Revisiting the current trade agenda to make public health, environmental standards and consumer safety the highest priorities.

• Removing agriculture from the WTO. The WTO has been a failure for U.S. farmers and has encouraged companies to offshore food manufacturing to places like China with low wages and weak regulatory standards, putting consumers around the world at risk.

• Restarting the assessment of China’s poultry inspection system before considering allowing Chinese poultry products to be exported to the United States.
 
[NOTE: TOO LATE; WE NOW ALLOW IMPORT OF CHINESE CHICKENS, UNLABELED, AND U.S. POULTRY GROWERS ARE SHIPPING THEIR POULTRY TO CHINA FOR PROCESSING AND TRUST CHINA TO SHIP BACK WHAT THEY RECEIVED, WHICH WILL BE LABELED "PRODUCT OF THE U.S.A.".]

• Significantly increasing FDA and USDA funding to increase inspections of the growing volume of food imports from China and other countries. The FDA also needs the resources to conduct inspections in food facilities in China.

• Closing the loopholes in the current country-of-origin labeling rules on meats, seafood, fruits and vegetables, and expanding the labeling requirements to cover processed food.

Industrial pollution has fouled China’s water with more than 30 million tons of chemical discharges. 

China is the world’s biggest polluter, and the number of environmental 'accidents' in the country doubled between 2009 and 2010.

Industrial pollution further compromises food safety because effluent-tainted waterways irrigate crops and contaminate fish farms.

Unsurprisingly, China’s slipshod industrial model churns out dangerous food and consumer products.

One provincial government survey found that less than half of food and consumer goods met basic hygiene standards, meaning more than half could be dangerous to consumers.

When China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in December 2001, these unsafe products began to circulate more widely in the global marketplace.

In addition to driving U.S. family farmers off the land, Chinese imports have sent some American consumers to the hospital.

Imports from China have escalated despite repeated discoveries of deadly contamination, intentional product adulteration and food-borne illness in Chinese products. Headlines of melamine-laced baby formula, salmonella-tainted seafood, carcinogenic honey, deadly blood-thinning drugs and poisonous food packaging from China appear almost daily in media outlets around the world.

China’s farmers and fish farmers often use dangerous levels of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides — including banned chemicals. These chemicals remain on foods long after harvesting and processing.

In 2009, China’s Ministry of Health reported that the number of food poisoning cases from pesticides and food-borne illnesses rose steeply in the second quarter of 2009 — up 40 percent from the previous year.

This cutthroat food-processing industry encourages manufacturers to cut costs and corners.
The FDA reported in 2009 that a leading problem with Chinese imports is contamination with chemicals, dyes and poisonous ingredients.

In 2007, China demolished nearly 3,000 food-processing plants after a nationwide inspection found widespread use of illegal industrial chemical ingredients such as dyes, mineral oils and formaldehyde in foods including flour, candy, crackers and seafood.

Commercial and international trade interests deter U.S. leaders from being tough on imported food standards.
The billions of dollars of U.S.-China trade can apparently outweigh sound public health safeguards.

As one former U.S. trade official noted, the extensive corporate relationships and investment in China have created business pressure to “allow imports to come in as quickly and as smoothly as possible.” 

Both Democrats and Republicans in the White House have been reluctant to compromise potential exports by laying down the law on food or product safety issues.

Corporate-driven trade deals under the WTO prioritize investments and commerce above all other goals, including consumer health.
This model threatens consumers who could be sickened or killed by unsafe food.

Meanwhile, U.S. employers are offshoring American jobs and U.S. farmers are losing their land and livelihoods to benefit corporate-controlled food manufacturers.

Antifreeze in Toothpaste: In 2006 and 2007, 365 Panamanians died after using cold medicine and toothpaste from China containing the chemical adulterant diethylene glycol used in antifreeze.

 The FDA has repeatedly found poisonous Chinese toothpaste entering the United States and has issued bans on several, but not all, importers.  
Between 2002 and 2010, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled more than 1,500 Chinese products, representing 40 percent of all recalls. Some of the recalled products caused death and injury to children.

During 2007, the United States recalled 45 million lead-tainted toys, mostly made in China, including 9 million from Mattel alone.

Toxic Drywall:
Millions of sheets of Chinese drywall were installed during the recent U.S. housing boom and in the reconstruction after hurricane Katrina.
This drywall contained high levels of hydrogen sulfide that caused illnesses in thousands of unsuspecting homeowners and causing enormous corrosion-related property damage to tens of thousands of homes.
Owners gutted thousands of homes after discovering the toxic emissions and filed lawsuits against the construction companies and drywall manufacturers.


NEW FDA REGULATIONS AND AUTHORITY HAVE DONE LITTLE TO STOP FOOD HAZARDS.

2019 AND FDA IS STILL MERELY 'SUGGESTING'. 

"FDA’s guidance documents, including this guidance, do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities. Instead, guidances describe our current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited.

The use of the word should in FDA guidances means that something is suggested or recommended, but not required."


At least some of the food-borne outbreaks from romaine lettuce spinach, avocados, watermelons, cantaloupes, etc, occurring in 2017, 2018 and 2019 were the result of bacterial contamination originating from E. coli-contaminated manure.

Some came from Mexico, some from China, some from the USA.

But, as of 2019, the FDA was still "seeking input" on the use of raw manure on crop lands. 

WE ARE ON OUR OWN, AMERICA.
THE FDA, USDA AND EPA ARE NOT GOING TO HELP US.

THEY'RE THERE FOR BIG AG, FOR MEGA-CORPORATIONS AND NATIONS WITH WHICH WE HAVE TRADE AGREEMENTS. 

Again, we can't avoid foods from known violator nation because Congress, in the name of Big Agriculture, profits and "trade agreements", bowing to the World Trade Organization, the U.N.'s Codex Alimentarius which the Obama administration signed us onto in 2011, Big Ag, and Congress' incessant feeding at the Pork Barrel Trough, each Congressman giving priority to his/her own states, robbed us of the right to know where our food comes from. 

NINETY PERCENT of Americans want to know where all our food comes from.
We have an inherent right to know the sources of our food, all of our food, and to decide for ourselves what we wish to consume and what we deem too dangerous for human consumption

We can allow Congress to continue to deny us that right, or we can demand they give it back.

We should not rest until they listen to 'WE, THE PEOPLE', and capitulate to OUR wishes, not Wall Street's and not to some ignorant, profit-oriented trade agreement. 





________________________

SEE ALSO: 

-- The F.D.A.'s Blatant Failure on Food



-- FDA’s Drug Safety System Fails to Protect Public


-- FDA must start enforcing the law and return to a culture that places public health concerns ahead of industry profits.





//WW