A Company Errs On The Side Of Safety

On May 17, 2011, Nielsen-Massey recalled Madagascar Bourbon Pure Vanilla Bean Paste (Lot #11123) after its outside testing lab reported having found Listeria monocytogenes in a routine test sample.

The company also notified FDA and dispatched a recall letter to its customers within 24 hours of receiving the lab’s test results.

I have just received the following news release issued by Nielsen-Massey, which is self-explanatory.

Nielsen-Massey Vanillas’ Voluntary Product Recall Was Unnecessary

Found to be Based on Laboratory’s Error 

WAUKEGAN, Ill. (June 9, 2011) A voluntary recall of Nielsen-Massey Vanillas’ Madagascar Bourbon Pure Vanilla Bean Paste has been found to be based on a false-positive Listeria reading reported by the company’s outside testing laboratory. Subsequent investigations and further tests by the FDA, the outside lab in question and another independent lab brought in to re-verify the results, all came back negative. There were no positive results in any raw material used or for any of the equipment used in the process. Additionally, the other independent lab and the FDA laboratory, using the exact same gallon bottle of Paste which tested positive initially, found no trace of Listeria whatsoever. As the FDA did not have any findings as a result of their investigation, no Form 483 was issued.

On May 16, 2011, Nielsen-Massey’s outside testing laboratory advised Nielsen-Massey that it had detected potential Listeria monocytogenes contamination in lot no. 11123 of its Madagascar Bourbon Pure Vanilla Bean Paste product as part of its regular quality control testing. Nielsen-Massey acted immediately, notifying the FDA and writing and dispatching a recall letter to its customers within 24 hours of the lab’s notification. There have been no reports of illness related to Nielsen-Massey’s.

This recall did not affect Nielsen-Massey’s other products.

“We acted immediately when consumer safety became an issue,” said Craig Nielsen, chief executive officer. “And we would do the same thing again, since an error on the side of safety is almost always the right thing to do. But it’s extremely unfortunate that a laboratory error caused such inconvenience to our customers and consumers. We’ve notified all our customers and have apologized to them as well.

“For 104 years we have provided the world’s finest vanilla products made with the utmost care and safeguards. Nielsen-Massey remains committed to providing the world’s finest vanilla for the best customers in the world.”

My compliments to Nielsen-Massey’s management for erring on the side of consumer protection and food safety!

Temperance, Tea Parties, and Raw Milk

“Never again will any political party ignore the protests of the church and the moral forces of the state.”

-Wayne B. Wheeler, as quoted in Smithsonian, May 2010*

The godfather of prohibition did not wait until he had a majority behind his cause when he began his Temperance crusade. He did it – according to Daniel Okrent’s illuminating article in the May 2010 issue of Smithsonian – with minorities.

Wheeler focused on elections in districts where just a few percentage points separated the candidates, and mustered the temperance vote behind candidates who promised to support prohibition. His small groups of committed voters often were enough to swing close elections. Wayne Wheeler may not have invented pressure groups, but he was the first to use them effectively to gain a specific political objective in the face of a majority that was either opposed – or indifferent – to his aims.

The Tea Party movement has benefited from Wayne Wheeler’s lessons. Its members are among the most conservative elements of the US population. They represent the political opinion of a minority of the country’s citizens. They are, arguably, a minority even within the Republican Party. Yet this relatively small group of people has had a significant impact on the current round of election primary results – and on the policies of established politicians, including former Presidential candidate and self-proclaimed maverick, John McCain.

Then there’s raw milk.

The great majority of US consumers are either opposed – or indifferent – to legalizing retail sale of raw milk. Yet through the actions of a minority of committed consumers, raw milk can be purchased legally in 29 states. The number may be growing as raw milk advocates continue to refine the lessons taught by Wheeler’s temperance movement.

Earlier this month, supporters of raw milk fought successfully against a Massachusetts effort to place restrictions on raw milk “buying clubs” in that state. The movement also came within a whisker of achieving their goal in Wisconsin. A recent 1bill to legalize raw milk sales in the Dairy State was vetoed by Governor Jim Doyle.

The stated goal of the raw milk movement is to make retail sale of raw milk legal in all 50 states. Despite the occasional setback, they are well on the way to achieving that objective.

And the food safety movement?

Ask any consumer whether he or she supports food safety, and the answer will be “yes.” Why, then, has it been so difficult to achieve reform of our food safety system? I believe that the answer lies in the temperance, tea party and raw milk movements.

An omnibus food safety bill like S510 dilutes the message. It gets bogged down, and ends up taking a back seat to more politically pressing legislation. Eventually, it dies, because food safety isn’t glamorous.

We need to define our goals, rank them by priority, and tackle them one by one, district by district, and state by state.

Is mandatory recall authority for FDA and USDA our number one priority? If so, let’s promote a bill that tackles this single item, and swing our votes in favor of candidates who agree with us.

Do we want USDA to define all raw beef as adulterated if it contains Salmonella, Campylobacter, STEC E. coli, or any other human pathogen? Then we must craft a bill that focuses on this one issue.

Do we want to see true Country of Origin labeling for all food ingredients? That, too, should be a stand-alone bill.

The only way to achieve our food safety legislative goals is one step at a time – just like the temperance movement, just like the Tea Party activists. And just like the raw milk advocates.

Daniel Okrent’s article on Wayne Wheeler and the temperance movement should be required reading for all food safety advocates.

*Okrent, Daniel. “The Man Who Turned Off The Taps.” In: Smithsonian, pp. 30-37. May, 2010.


Ron Paul Is Right!

FDA Should Lift Its Ban On Interstate Sale of Raw Milk For Human Consumption

I never thought that I would agree with Representative Ron Paul. But after long reflection, I think that FDA should change its raw milk policy.

Consumers who wish to purchase and drink raw milk must navigate a labyrinth of regulations that govern its sale. Some states ban the retail sale of raw milk outright. Some permit it on store shelves. Still others allow its consumption through the back door of a “cow-share” program. Cow-share programs allow consumers to purchase a part of a dairy cow, and circumvent state laws that only permit consumption of raw milk by the cow’s owner.

This hodgepodge of state policies results in little or no oversight of raw milk producers and bottlers. And, in consequence, everybody suffers.

Earlier this week, representatives of the US dairy industry urged the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) to subject raw milk producers to the same regulatory and reporting requirements that are faced by producers of pasteurized milk. But how can FDA regulate raw milk producers while simultaneously banning the retail sale of their products?

The consumption of raw milk, and of dairy products made from unpasteurized milk, has been behind numerous outbreaks of food-borne disease. Many of these outbreaks have been linked to raw milk obtained through cow-share programs or purchased directly from dairy farmers.

In lifting the outright ban on interstate shipment of raw milk for retail sale, FDA would be able to bring raw milk under its regulatory umbrella. National standards could be set in cooperation with all 50 states, in much the same way that uniform standards have been agreed to for pasteurized milk. FDA and state regulators could insist on stringent safety and sanitation standards that would apply equally to all raw or pasteurized milk producers.

I have never been a supporter of the raw milk lobby. I know too well that raw milk, as it is produced and marketed today, is microbiologically risky. But prohibition isn’t working – just as it didn’t work for alcoholic beverages in the 1930s.

I have come to the conclusion that the only way to protect the US consumer from the health risks associated with drinking raw milk is to legalize it – and to hold raw milk to the same demanding safety standards that pasteurized milk must meet.

It’s time to recognize – and to regulate – raw milk.