Tag: Guest blog post

Guest Blog: Eggs By The Millions

The following Guest Blog first appeared on Le Blog d’Albert Amgar, a regular feature on ProcessAlimentaire.com, and is reproduced here in English (translation by Phyllis Entis) with the kind permission and cooperation of its author, Albert Amgar.

Eggs By The Millions

(Des oeufs par millions)

One cannot but rejoice at the 17 million eggs that was were donated by a number of countries in support of the struggle against world hunger.

According to the September 13, 2010 issue of World Poultry,

“During the past 12 months, egg farmers from around the globe have donated more than 17 million eggs to international hunger relief charities working in Central America, the Caribbean, Asia, Africa and Europe.


October 8th is World Egg Day, while events are taking place around the globe celebrating the humble egg; its versatility and its many health benefits, millions of undernourished people around the world are receiving help thanks to the generous donations of egg farmers internationally.”

This is commendable, and we salute the participants in this initiative. But what should we think of the astronomical quantity of 500 million eggs that were recalled from the market in the United States because of Salmonella contamination – all due to unscrupulous producers who short-changed consumers by pinching pennies on food safety. And let’s not forget the roughly 1,519 outbreak victims, reported to CDC for the period ending August 31st.

M. Amgar finishes by referring his readers to the eFoodAlert Consolidated List of Recalled Eggs, and to Doug Powell’s barfblog article, Marketing microbial food safety at retail is the only way to provide consumer choice and hold producers accountable.

About Albert Amgar: Albert Amgar lives in Changé near Laval in Mayenne, France. He worked as young scientist at the Parasitology and Tropical Medicine Service of the Pitié Salpétrière Hospital and later spent 12 years in the pharmaceutical industry. In 1989, he became director of a new association of agro-food industrialists named ASEPT in Laval (France). He was the general manager of ASEPT until his retirement.

There are many conscientious, reputable and caring people in the food industry, as demonstrated by the generosity of the egg farmers reported by World Poultry. There also are a few rotten eggs. Unfortunately, the smell produced by those rotten eggs overwhelms the senses and sends a negative message about the safety of the US food supply to consumers in the United States and around the world.

The House of Representative’s SubCommittee on Oversight and Investigations has scheduled a hearing into the Salmonella Outbreak and Egg Recall for 11:00 am on September 21st.


Guest Blog: Why Walmart Has It Right

The following Guest Blog first appeared on Safety Zone, a regular blog feature on the Meatingplace.com site, and is reproduced here with the kind permission of its author, Dr. James Marsden.

Why Walmart Has It Right

I should start by saying that I do not work for Walmart as a consultant, advisor or in any other way. It is not my place to defend the company or its policies. However, I believe that last week Walmart took a courageous position to improve food safety for its customers – one that will eventually improve food safety for all consumers.

What they are requiring

The action taken by Walmart was to require that its beef suppliers meet performance standards designed to reduce the risk of pathogen contamination. Specifically, Walmart will require its beef slaughter suppliers to implement an approved intervention or a combination of interventions between post-hide removal and final trim production that will consistently produce, at a minimum, an initial cumulative 3-log reduction of enteric pathogens by June 2011. Thereafter, they are requesting a further reduction goal to achieve a total cumulative 5-log reduction between post-hide removal and final trim production by June 2012. All intervention steps must be scientifically validated. In addition, interventions must not require a label declaration or have a negative effect on product quality and shelf life and must be accepted by consumers. For ground beef suppliers that are not vertically integrated and do not have slaughter house control, Walmart will require an approved intervention or a combination of interventions that will consistently produce, at a minimum, a 2-log reduction of enteric pathogens on raw trim used for grinding. Again, the intervention process or intervention steps must be scientifically validated. Processing suppliers must be in compliance with this new process control standard by June 2011.

Why I agree

The move was supported by at least one major meatpacker – Tyson Fresh Meat Co., as well as consumer groups and academicians, including myself. News reports about the Beef Safety initiative, including those posted on Meatingplace elicited comments that expressed skepticism and doubt about Walmart’s motives and the need for new requirements. Here are my thoughts on the subject:

  1. The performance standards are designed to assure that all beef slaughter plants and processing plants utilize effective, validated interventions. Most of Walmart’s suppliers and most plants in the U.S. already have these interventions in place. I agree with Jim Dickson at Iowa State University who believes that the initiative is more about proving efficacy than it is about implementing new interventions. (See: Meatingplace story on this.)
  2. Before making the decision to implement the new performance standards, Walmart determined that suppliers that already have the required interventions in place are price competitive.
  3. Unfortunately, there are still beef slaughter plants and processors that either have not implemented effective interventions, or do not have supporting documentation to show that they are effective. Walmart is allowing more than a year for these companies to implement effective, validated interventions.
  4. In the manufacture of ground beef, product from multiple processors is often co-mingled. As a result, there may be an increased risk of contamination when beef from plants with inadequate interventions is utilized.
  5. Retailers like Walmart have no way of knowing if the beef they purchase for their customers was processed using effective interventions or not. When foodborne illness cases and recalls occur, they are still held accountable. In order to reduce the risk of these occurrences, retailers have the right to insist that their suppliers use the most effective interventions available and scientifically document their effectiveness in controlling pathogens like E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella.
  6. It is worth noting that Walmart’s requirement for scientific validation of interventions is consistent with the in-plant validation requirements that were recently proposed by USDA-FSIS.

The bottom line is that it is time for all beef slaughter and processing plants to implement food safety systems for controlling E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella. Most have already done so and as a result, beef products are safer now than at any time in history. If effective systems were universally applied, the incidence of pathogen contamination and foodborne disease cases and outbreaks associated with beef products could be further reduced. These are the real objectives of the Walmart Beef Safety initiative. Walmart deserves a lot of credit for taking a position that is long overdue.

About Jim Marsden: Dr. James L. Marsden is Regent’s Distinguished Professor of Food Safety and Security at Kansas State University, and the senior science advisor for the North American Meat Processors Association. He is the past president of the American Meat Institute Foundation in Washington, DC and a graduate of Oklahoma State University.

Guest Blog: Raw Milk Wars – An Attorney’s Viewpoint

by R. Drew Falkenstein

There are some benefits to being a lawyer. One is the benefit of reading lots of laws, statutes, and regulations, and knowing the rules that courts are bound by in interpreting those laws. One of those rules is that a court will not read, or interpret, a statute to leave any other clear enunciation—whether entire part, phrase, or word—without effect. In other words, courts will not interpret a law by simply ignoring a specific provision contained in another part of the law.

With the raw milk wars heating up recently, arguments have been made about whether the distribution of raw milk across state lines is “interstate commerce.” This is relevant because, of course, federal law prohibits the distribution of raw milk across state lines—i.e. in interstate commerce. 21 CFR 1240.61 states:

No person shall cause to be delivered into interstate commerce or shall sell, otherwise distribute, or hold for sale or other distribution after shipment in interstate commerce any milk or milk product in final package form for direct human consumption unless the product has been pasteurized.

I recently wrote at foodpoisonjournal.com that:

There is, in fact and law, no “fundamental right to eat whatever we want,” and no indication in the federal Constitution that the founders intended such a right to be implicit in the Bill of Rights. In fact, these legislative attempts are a little ironic, considering that their sponsors, Mrs. Wallis and Mr. Paul, are undoubtedly strict constructionists when it comes to constitutional interpretation. Indeed, the only inference as to the founders’ intent that can fairly be drawn from the Constitution is that Congress is well within its rights to outlaw the interstate sale and shipment of raw milk.

My blog-post received the following comment: “buyers may form a delivery club to pickup milk and bring to dropoff points. This is legal because once the sale is made legally at the farmgate, the milk is out of commerce. It is then legally possessed private property and can be delivered across states.”

Applying the rule of statutory construction described above, courts must give effect to all provisions of 21 CFR 1240.61, including the words “cause to be” that appear, and directly modify, the following word “delivered.” As a result, a violation of the regulation does not depend on a direct sale to a customer in another state. It is sufficient to do any act that “cause[s] to be delivered” raw milk, ultimately, across state lines.

Clearly the addition of the three words “cause to be” would include actions like transporting the product across state lines, selling directly to a consumer who is part of another state’s market, and even producing milk that ultimately will be sold or distributed to consumers in other states. But it is also broad enough—and intentionally so by the regulation’s authors—to include raw milk produced under the guise of a cow-share (or herd-share or lease) agreement where the product ultimately reaches consumers in other states.

Contrary to the commenter on my blog-post it will be no defense in a civil lawsuit, or even in a criminal prosecution, that the milk was produced under the thin guise of an agreement designed only to obscure the legal reality. There is simply no constitutional right to consume raw milk for 21 CFR 1240.61 to run afoul of.



R. Drew Falkenstein is a lawyer with Marler Clark LLP in Seattle, Washington, whose practice is devoted to representing people sickened in foodborne illness outbreaks. Drew has litigated against some of the largest food companies and restaurant chains in the country, and frequently represents people who have been sickened in outbreaks linked to raw milk. His blog, foodpoisonjournal.com, is a widely read publication that comments on food safety of national importance, and major outbreaks and recalls.