Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Federal Budget

Information & Access

Nonprofit Advocacy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo

"[P]eople acting in a group can accomplish things which no individual acting alone could even hope to bring about." - FDR

Home :  Regulatory Policy :  RegWatch : 
RegWatch:     

News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room

 R    E    G    •    W    A    T    C    H 


Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Would you feed your kids glow-in-the-dark food?
The FDA has announced that it will increase the amount of radiation that can be used to zap food products before they reach the table. Here's some insight from Public Citizen:

A recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decision to increase by 50 percent the maximum radiation dose that can be used to irradiate food raises questions about the health effects of consuming such food and should be reconsidered, Public Citizen told the agency today in a letter. Public Citizen believes the rule should be revoked and is requesting a public hearing.

The rule, on which final comments are due today, would significantly boost the dose of X-rays that could be used to irradiate fruit, vegetables, beef, poultry, pork, eggs and spices from 5 million electron volts to 7.5 million electron volts. The higher doses will allow large portions of food – such as shipping containers from overseas – to be irradiated in one blast.

The rule may result in some radioactivity in food depending on the energy applied, the type of food and how soon it is eaten after it is irradiated. While the radioactivity is likely to be temporary, questions about its effect on food and consumers remain. The FDA was reckless to not assess cancer risks associated with the new rule, the letter said.



Posted by Robert Shull, 12:14:21 PM



Friday, January 21, 2005

New Cases of BSE Highlight Need for Strong Safeguards
With two new cases of mad cow disease in Canada, questions of food safety in the U.S. are once again making headlines, and two new articles do nothing to squelch national fears.

According to the New York Times, scientists have recently discovered that the proteins that cause mad cow disease may be present in more parts of the animal than previously thought. Until now, scientists believed that the mad cow prion only existed in the brain and spinal tissue and removing those parts was enough to protect the food supply.

An In These Times article stresses the gaps that still remain in our current firewall against food safety. Though the current system prevents animal to animal feeding, it still allows calves to drink formula that contain blood protein. The article also questions whether the government testing system:

Of the 36 million cattle slaughtered in 2004 and put into the human and animal food supply, only 176,468 were tested. In at least three instances U.S. cattle have tested as possibly having mad cow disease on sophisticated “quick tests,” but further testing has led the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to announce the results to be negative. However, the government testing is secretive and suspect. No independent scientists or laboratories have reviewed or confirmed any of the suspected mad cows. Each time the USDA has announced a suspect cow the cattle futures market has been thrown into temporary turmoil, and the industry is pressuring the government to stop announcing suspect animals altogether.

It was private mad cow testing that eventually revealed the presence of the disease in Germany. So it is not surprising that when the Kansas-based Creekstone Farms Premium Beef company reached an agreement with Japan to sell beef that the company had tested to the Japanese, the USDA, invoking a 1913 law, warned that mad cow testing by private U.S. firms is illegal. Creekstone hoped to save hundreds of company jobs by testing its cattle and reopening its market with Japan.

Both articles point to a need for strong regulatory safeguards to protect our food supply from the threat of mad cow disease. Read OMB Watch analysis for more information.

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 12:13:05 PM



Wednesday, January 19, 2005

57 channels, nothing on, and the price is still going up
Consumers Union has an excellent companion website, Hear Us Now, with a wealth of information about, among other things, cable and satellite TV service. If you were concerned by the news that the FCC rigged a cost-benefit analysis in order to benefit the cable and media giants and deny consumers meaningful choice in their cable subscriptions, check out the Hear Us Now action alert, through which you can send comments to the FCC urging them to do the right thing.

Posted by Robert Shull, 08:38:22 PM



Tuesday, January 04, 2005

Listeria: How the food industry gets away with murder

Be sure to check out the latest report from the Consumer Federation of America: “Not ‘Ready to Eat’: How the Meat and Poultry Industry Weakened Efforts to Reduce Listeria Food-Poisoning.” It’s the harrowing story of the Bush administration reversing course from the Clinton administration and weakening efforts to protect the public from Listeria, a deadly foodborne pathogen, in order to serve its friends in the food industry.

“Listeria poisoning results in the highest rate of hospitalization of any foodborne pathogen, and the second-highest fatality rate (i.e., twenty percent of Listeria victims die),” the report explains. “Moreover, this pathogen is particularly deadly to a fetus: a pregnant woman who contracts Listeria food-poisoning will almost always suffer miscarriage or stillbirth or bear a child with severe disabilities. The costs of acute illness from foodborne Listeria poisoning alone are estimated to be $2.3 billion per year.”

The Clinton administration began the process of crafting a regulation to protect the public from Listeria:

In the proposed rule, USDA said it intended to establish pathogen-reduction “performance standards” for all ready-to-eat products and, under some circumstances, require final-product testing for Listeria to ensure that the standards were being met. A performance standard generally limits the amount of a particular pathogen in the final product. The proposed rule spelled out in detail the Clinton Administration’s view that performance standards were vital to protecting the public from Listeria in processed meat and poultry products.

Under the proposal, establishments producing ready-to-eat meat and poultry products also would have been required to test food-contact surfaces to verify that they are controlling Listeria within the entire processing environment. If an establishment found contamination on one of its food-contact surfaces, it would have to take corrective action to demonstrate that its product was not adulterated with Listeria.

The government changed its position radically when George W. Bush was elected. The new administration position basically abandoned the idea of holding food industry companies to a clear performance standard, instead weakening the rule to give the food business more “flexibility” in Listeria controls and allowing the government less authority to enforce protections of the public.

Why the radical change? To benefit the big food corporations like Pilgrim’s Pride, which supported the Bush/Cheney campaign and other GOP campaigns. The food industry’s own executives were appointed to key positions in the government agencies that are supposed to protect the public from the industry’s excesses, and those former executives may have had secret meetings with current executives:

USDA’s top food-safety officials have chosen to conceal just how much access industry officials had to them during the formulation of the Listeria rule. They have refused to release the public calendars detailing their meetings held over the past four years with industry groups that were advocating a change in USDA’s approach to reducing illness from Listeria. By contrast, officials at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) – as well as at other agencies --publish their calendars on their agency’s website each week so that the public can be informed about who is seeking to influence policy. In fact, the decision to withhold public calendars is inconsistent with the practice of other USDA officials who have released their calendars in response to Freedom of Information Act requests.

Get more information here.

Posted by Robert Shull, 07:51:01 PM




Latest Entries by Theme

All Themes

Enforcement

About This Blog

Rollbacks

Safety

Industry Influence

Cost-Benefit Analysis

In Congress

Publications

Consumer Issues

Environment

Public Health

In the Courts

Oversight

In the White House

Most Recent Entries for RegWatch

Industry Ties Bind FDA Advisors

Right Whale Protection Rule Finally Here

Industry Pressuring EPA to Weaken Lead Rule

EPA Won't Keep Rocket Fuel out of Water

Roof Strength Rule Delayed Again

Bush Taking Credit for Whale Rule He Delayed

What Should the U.S. Do about China's Bad Milk?

Did OMB Block Asbestos Cleanup in Montana Town?

Whale Protection Rule Clears White House, 573 Days Later

EPA Just Kidding Around on Children's Health

Archived Entries for Consumer Issues

August

July

May

April

March

February

January

December, 2007

November, 2007

October, 2007

September, 2007

August, 2007

July, 2007

June, 2007

May, 2007

April, 2007

March, 2007

February, 2007

January, 2007

December, 2006

November, 2006

October, 2006

September, 2006

August, 2006

May, 2006

April, 2006

February, 2006

January, 2006

December, 2005

November, 2005

October, 2005

September, 2005

August, 2005

July, 2005

June, 2005

May, 2005

April, 2005

March, 2005

February, 2005

January, 2005

December, 2004

November, 2004

October, 2004

September, 2004