Category: food safety

Death by a Thousand Cuts

Donald Trump has declared war. Not on North Korea; not on ISIS or Iran. Certainly not on Russia.

Donald Trump has declared war on the Food Safety Modernization Act.

Trump has not asked Congress to repeal the act or to void its regulations. He knows that would not happen. Instead, he has launched a stealth attack via the budgetary process. An attack on the underpinnings of the country’s food safety enforcement system.

Last week, the Trump White House submitted its budget proposal to Congress. Buried within a single line of the more than one thousand-page budget was the following information:

Foods Program
2016 Actual spending: $1,002,000,000
2017 Estimated spending: $985,000,000
2018 Proposed spending: $910,000,000

That’s correct. Spending on food safety activities under Trump is already on the decline and, if he has his way, will continue to decrease year by year until the Food Safety Modernization Act is nothing but an empty shell. Emasculated due to lack of funding.

How does this compare with the previous administration’s funding? Since the 2011 enactment of the Food Safety Modernization Act, funding for the Foods Program has increased year over year at least in line with inflation, except for 2013 (the year of the infamous budget sequester – the 10% across-the-board cut to all discretionary spending programs).

Actual Spending on Foods Program
(Inflation-adjusted value of 2011 spending in brackets for comparison)
2011: $836,244,000
2012: $866,920,000 ($853,550,000)
2013: $796,638,000 ($866,052,000)
2014: $882,814,000 ($880,101,000)
2015: $903,340,000 ($881,146,000)
2016: $1,002,000,000 ($892,262,000)
2017 (est’d): $985,000,000 ($909,054,000)

We were already nearly four months into the fiscal year by the time Trump’s occupation of the Oval Office began, mitigating his impact on the Foods Program spending for 2017. However, his budget proposal for 2018 will reduce spending on the FDA’s Foods Program to less than the actual dollars spent in 2011, when adjusted for inflation.

The Animal Drugs and Feed Program, which encompasses approval of veterinary drugs and enforcement of pet food safety, fares even worse.

Animal Drugs and Feed Program
2016 Actual spending: $159,000,000
2017 Estimated spending: $158,000,000
2018 Proposed spending: $108,000,000

The Animal Drugs and Feed Program has been the runt of the FDA litter for many years, its year-over-year funding having failed to keep up with inflation more often than not. Yet, in an age when pet food safety is more important to more people than ever before, Trump has proposed to cut the budget for this program by 32% in real dollars and by 38% in inflation-adjusted dollars (based on 2011 dollars).

Spending on the Animal Drugs and Feed Program has not been this feeble since 2008.

Actual Spending on Animal Drugs and Feed Program
(Inflation-adjusted value of 2011 spending in brackets for comparison)
2011: $158,771,000
2012: $156,909,000 ($162,057,000)
2013: $147,774,000 ($164,430,000)
2014: $164,313,000 ($167,098,000)
2015: $175,024,000 ($167,296,000)
2016: $159,000,000 ($169,407,000)
2017 (est’d): $158,000,000 ($172,595,000)

Other federal departments and agencies are not immune to the disease of deregulation by financial starvation. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency, and others too numerous to list here also are affected. Trump’s war on government regulation is unrestricted. And he is using the budget process as his primary weapon.

It is not a coincidence that I revived eFoodAlert when Trump took office. In the absence of robust and well-funded FDA enforcement programs, it is up to each one of us to provide the necessary vigilance. To recognize and report food safety issues. And to raise our voices in support of the regulatory and enforcement activities that are the essential underpinning of the Food Safety Modernization Act.

Remember Peanut Corporation of America. Remember De Coster Egg Farms. Remember the illnesses and deaths that resulted from the cavalier attitudes of the principals in both companies. Lack of enforcement breeds lack of compliance.

Trump has declared war on clean water, clean air, and food safety. It is time to fight back.

New E. coli O121 outbreak in Canada sickens six

Six residents of British Columbia were infected with E. coli O121 between February and April 2017, according to a report issued last Friday by the BC Centre for Disease Control (BC CDC).

Lab tests on a sample of flour recovered from the home of one of the victims revealed the presence of a strain of E. coli O121 that was genetically identical to the strain found in the six outbreak victims. Neither the flour nor the microbe are a match to the nationwide outbreak of E. coli O121 illnesses that has been simmering in Canada since last fall.

The flour suspected of being behind the most recent outbreak was identified by BC CDC as “Rogers all-purpose flour in a 10kg bag with the lot number MFD 17 Jan 19 C” and was sold in Costco stores beginning in January 2017.

According to the Company’s website, Rogers Foods Ltd. mills its own flour in two locations: Armstrong and Chilliwack, BC. Its products are distributed across Western Canada and into Ontario.

In a statement posted on May 20th on its website, Rogers Foods Ltd. acknowledged the positive test result, while emphasizing that the microbe was found in a bag of flour that had already been opened. The Company also indicated that the production lot from which the E. coli O121 had been recovered was sold exclusively in Costco Wholesale stores in British Columbia.

According to a spokesperson for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), the BC CDC has formed a BC Outbreak Investigation Coordinating Committee. CFIA is participating in the investigation by carrying out an inspection of the manufacturing facility, while also conducting tests of flour samples drawn from the production date corresponding to the postive sample reported by the BC CDC.

As of this evening, no formal product recall has been announced. Nevertheless, BC CDC is recommending that consumers dispose of Rogers All-Purpose Flour (10kg bag; Lot #MFD 17 Jan 19 C) as a precaution.

 

Evanger’s sues supplier; says beef included tainted horse meat

Evanger’s Dog & Cat Food Company Inc. is suing Bailey Farms LLC, claiming that the meat supplier was at fault for a euthanasia drug found in Hunk of Beef and Against the Grain dog foods made by Evanger’s.

The suit, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County in Illinois on April 25, names Bailey Farms LLC as the sole supplier of meat for Evanger’s Hunk of Beef canned dog food. Holly and Joel Sher, owners of the Wheeling, IL, Evanger’s want $20 million in punitive damages from Bailey Farms, which is based in Marshall, WI.

Beef supplied by Bailey Farms contained horse meat, according to Evanger’s lawsuit. The company further claims the horse meat was the source of the pentobarbital contamination that sickened several dogs earlier this year, killing at least one.

Evanger’s is seeking unspecified damages, to be proven at trial, recovery of attorney’s fees and costs, and punitive damages of $20 million.

The lawsuit alleges that Evanger’s ordered more than 21 tons of “Hand Deboned Beef” from Bailey Farms in November 2015, and an additional 21 tons of “Inedible Hand Deboned Beef” in late May 2016.

“Inedible” beef is unfit for human consumption according to federal law; however, if not contaminated or adulterated, it may be used in the manufacture of pet food.

As recently as Feb. 9, Evanger’s claimed to use “human-grade USDA inspected meats” in its products. The company updated its website shortly thereafter, dropping the reference to “human-grade” from the description.

The November shipment was used to manufacture Against the Grain Hand Pulled Beef, and the May 2016 order was used in the production of approximately 50,000 cans of Hunk of Beef.

On Feb. 3, Evanger’s recalled five production lots of Hunk of Beef canned dog food after the Food and Drug Administration found pentobarbital, a euthanasia agent, in a sample of the food. Pentobarbital is a barbiturate that is used by veterinarians and animal shelters to euthanize animals.

On Feb. 14, Evanger’s recalled a single production lot of Against the Grain Hand Pulled Beef canned dog food after FDA detected pentobarbital in a sample of the product.

On March 3, 2017, Evanger’s recalled all “chunk beef” products manufactured between December 2015 and January 2017, due to the possible presence of pentobarbital in these products. All of the recalled products contained meat from a single supplier, according to the company.

This story first appeared in Food Safety News and is reposted here with permission.

Editorial comment: This is a fine example of the pot calling the kettle black. As recently as February 9, 2017, Evanger’s was proclaiming its use of “human-grade USDA inspected meats.” The suit filed last week reveals that the company placed an order with Bailey Farms for ‘inedible’ beef.