Nearly 18 years after the most common toxic bacteria strain E. coli O157:H7 was banned from ground beef sold in the country, the USDA has finally announced the addition of six other E. coli strains to the list of adulterants. This makes their presence in marketed beef products illegal.

Food safety advocates (including GAP, our coalition partners and noted Seattle food safety attorney Bill Marler) have been working to keep these non-O157 strains out of meat for years. But it seems to take an unnecessarily large number of illnesses and deaths to incite regulatory action, and even then, more will to overcome meat industry opposition.

According to a June 2011 report by the CDC, MSNBC reports, the "Big Six" E. coli strains (O26, O45, O103, O111, O121 and O145) together caused 451 U.S. illnesses in 2010 -- surpassing the infections caused by O157 for the first time. MSNBC writes:

Marler credited USDA officials with pushing through the new rule despite pressure from the meat industry in the US -- and from other nations, such as Australia and Argentina, which will have to implement new regulations as a result of the change.

Naturally, the meat industry has opposed the move, just as it did the decision to ban O157 in 1994, a year after the strain (traced to hamburger from Jack in the Box restaurants in Washington state) sickened at least 650 people and caused four deaths.

When Marler supported a petition to label the "Big Six" as adulterants last year, he wrote: "the people of this nation do not deserve another Jack in the Box-sized catastrophe as a pre-requisite for currently needed agency action."

Indeed, it took a national tragedy in 1993 to address deadly contamination in our food supply, despite previous warnings by many GAP whistleblowers working in meat processing facilities. These employees, trying to speak out on behalf of public safety, were ignored or harassed. Following the Jack in the Box outbreak, GAP urged the USDA to listen to these whistleblowers. In response, then-Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy visited GAP and pledged to investigate their concerns and protect each of them from retaliation.

It's safe to say, however, that retaliation against meat industry whistleblowers continues. Protections remain inadequate as workers, including USDA inspectors, are discouraged from being "overly" safety conscious. If they hold up the production line because they are worried the meat may be tainted with E. coli, they could be transferred, demoted, etc.

It's a positive sign that the agency has, at last, acknowledged the lethal harm pathogens beyond O157 pose (is antibiotic-resistant Salmonella next?). Now let's also acknowledge the importance of food industry workers, whose voices are essential to solve systemic contamination problems that they, often alone, witness firsthand. 

Sarah Damian is New Media Associate for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower advocacy organization.

A study released Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine details the Salmonella outbreak from 2008-09 that killed nine and sickened more than 700 people (with 166 hospitalized). The L.A. Times recap of the study verifies what former Peanut Corporation of America (PCA, whose peanut butter caused the outbreak) employee Kenneth Kendrick tried to warn state and federal officials about years before.

Photo via wikimedia user akarlovicDo you know where your honey comes from, or what's in it? Investigative reporter Andrew Schneider has mapped out the covert operations involved in bringing one-third (or more) of honey consumed in the United States to our grocery shelves, smuggled in from China and possibly tainted with illegal antibiotics and heavy metals. Although U.S. officials are aware of the problem, oversight has remained largely immobile.

Avoiding high U.S. tariffs and FDA's ban on the antibiotic chloramphenicol in food, exporters of Chinese honey have utilized multiple dishonest tactics to get their product into the states. Schneider writes:

When customs agents discovered that China usually shipped its honey in blue steel drums, the exporters quickly painted the drums green. 

It took investigators a while to learn that often -- while the drums were in port or en route at sea -- the Chinese shuffled drum labels and phony paperwork showing country of origin as places that didn't have an onerous anti-dumping tariff. The Russian Honey Federation blew the whistle on the Chinese relabeling millions of pounds as coming from Russia.

Sneaky, right? Chinese honey has also been routed through India and other Asian countries, where it has been repacked to cloud the true country of origin. The European Union, however, has prohibited honey imports from India after detecting lead and animal antibiotics. EU food safety investigators also discovered "an even larger amount of honey had been concocted without the help of bees, made from artificial sweeteners and then extensively filtered to remove any proof of contaminants or adulteration or indications of precisely where the honey actually originated."

Schneider reports that four or five of the 12 major honey packers in the U.S. knowingly buy this illegal honey so they can sell it cheaper and make more money. According to Richard Adee, the Washington Legislative Chairman of the American Honey Producers Association, "we know who they are" and "everyone in the industry knows." But no names were revealed in the article.

We already know FDA's capacity to monitor imports is limiting, but it appears its will may be also. An anonymous import investigator remarked that an official description of honey, which currently does not exist, would require FDA "to inspect everything we're importing to ensure it's legal. That's the last thing we want to do." U.S. officials have arrested a short list of middle-men, explained Adee, but "haven't gone after the big operators buying the phony foreign honey."

The continuation of this illicit trade reiterates the various gaps within our food regulatory system, along with U.S. industry insiders' hesitation to name the bad guys (anonymous whistleblowing remains an option, FIC reminds).

When will the dollar bill stop holding precedent over honest food production? We must prioritize the integrity of the products Americans consume and hold industry accountable. 

Sarah Damian is New Media Fellow for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower advocacy organization.

Photo via flickr user cyanocoraxOnly when foodborne illness hits the mainstream media -- such as the recent (and justified) hubbub over antibiotic-resistant Salmonella outbreak tied to ground turkey -- do we all start to think about what actually goes on at meat processing plants and the workers there.

An NPR blog post Friday listed obstacles in the food safety oversight system that can cause horrific delays to massive recalls after a problem is known to exist (such as food giant Cargill's recall of the Salmonella- tainted turkey long after government officials were aware of contamination).

Keeping deliberate obstructions of food integrity under control seems like an impossible task for Chinese government officials. Perhaps, however, it’s just a blown-up version of what we face in the U.S., where oversight gaps and inconsistencies across our own food regulatory agencies abound. This Washington Post piece explores the structure of China's food system that has allowed food safety scandals to wreak havoc on a monumental scale:

And just why are there so many food problems in China? The answers, expert said, are complex, involving China’s system of myriad tiny farms, tens of thousands of small food-processing factories scattered across this vast country, and a regulatory system in which enforcement is divided among as many as 13 government ministries and departments.

The American food industry is more consolidated than that of China, a communist country (ironic?), but we’re alike in that food regulation in the U.S. is also split among more than a dozen different agencies (although the division of duties between the USDA and FDA is enough to cause problems). Chinese departments don't split up enforcement roles by type of product -- such as USDA-regulated meat and poultry -- but rather are "only responsible for a certain cycle, such as cultivation, production or sales.” The chief scientist for food safety at China's Ministry of Health acknowledges, because of this, "it's really difficult to control risk with this multi-layered management."

A Chinese website called "Throw it out the Window" was launched in June by "a fed-up 25-year-old graduate student" and a group of volunteers that have tracked 2,230 food safety scandals in the country since 2004.

We have enough to deal with at home (ground turkey recalls, misleading labels, antibiotic-resistance, etc.) let alone worry about the food coming from our number one trading partner. Apparently (according to the Post), FDA has been "increasing inspections of Chinese firms that export products to the U.S. market." But FIC has blogged about the obstacles FDA faces in China, including companies outright lying to inspectors and claiming they don't ship to the states. Already FDA officials can’t handle all the warnings of tainted food imports, only inspecting a tiny fraction of the millions of goods crossing our borders. It’s also interesting to note that FDA is “helping build China’s ‘technical capacity’ to improve its food safety regime” when our own means of regulation (that we in fact carry out) is far from efficient.

There have been a significant amount of arrests and company shutdowns in China, with authorities reporting that they have resolved more than 1,000 cases this year. But as Helena Bottemiller remarks in Food Safety News, "it's difficult to assess the overall impact of the waves of enforcement."

Indeed, the headlines of scandal have continued amidst high-profile crackdowns, with Chinese experts conceding that "the chances of getting caught and punished for producing or selling tainted food remains relatively small." (via WaPo). That's no surprise given China's high number of small food companies and its compartmentalization of enforcement bodies (on top of other conflicting interests and historic stifling of truth-tellers).

The Chinese government's expressed commitment to reigning in this nationwide threat to public health has allowed a unique effort not seen in other aspects of society, however. This not only includes the freedom of more investigative reporting witnessed in the media, but a new government-sanctioned reward program for those who blow the whistle on food safety violations. China has had to go outside its comfort zone, even paying people for the truth, to manage this overwhelming crisis.

If you think about it, our two countries aren't all that different in serious food safety problems. American food industry processing systems, like Chinese ones, are kept hidden, and problems aren’t addressed until hundreds are sickened and a media frenzy can’t be avoided. Both systems have serious oversight deficiencies. With China’s reward program as a potential exception, both countries have failed to take advantage of the workers along the supply chain who witness (and could halt) problems as they arise. Instead, the harassment of employees, in China and in the U.S., who speak up rather than hide what industry doesn’t want the public to know has been the norm.

With a complicated oversight structure and an apparent "lack of ethics among food producers," (from WaPo again) America … uh, I mean China, may have to resort to this encouragement of … yes, transparency, as a solution.

Sarah Damian is New Media Fellow for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower advocacy organization.

When it comes to food headlines, Springdale, Arkansas can't catch a break.

In the same city Cargill suspended its turkey processing plant after being linked to the recent Salmonella outbreak, a Tyson Foods truck driver died Wednesday morning after being pinned between two truck trailers outside Tyson's Springdale poultry plant. I might also add that this is the same Tyson facility where 170 people were hospitalized in June after a chlorine gas leak.

Photo via flickr user edkohlerOn the truck driver, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) opened an investigation Thursday that could take up to six months to complete. Tyson Foods safety and transportation personnel are also investigating. Merrill Reynolds, 50, worked for Tyson for almost 27 years.

Although rarely discussed, distribution is a major part of the food supply chain. Truck drivers play a vital role in food safety considering the huge amount of product, and high product turnaround, they are in charge of, which presents countless opportunities for contamination.

Just last week, another truck accident killed a Pilgrim's Pride (subsidiary of the Brazilian food giant, JBS S.A.) worker at a protein conversion plant (where leftover chicken parts become animal feed) in Texas.

Deficient oversight at these giant industry plants seems to be a recurring problem, not helped by the lack of whistleblower protections for meat industry workers. The employees charged with handling our food supply need an environment that not only keeps them safe, but also protects food products from being compromised.

Sarah Damian is New Media Fellow for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower advocacy organization.

Photo via wikimedia user phototram

The USDA has finally decided consumers should know when a meat product is composed of 40 percent water-salt solution. Wow, you think? Congratulations, Department of Agriculture, for at last addressing the common industry practice of pumping ingredients into meat and supporting adequate labeling.

According to the agency, 30% of poultry, 15% of beef and 90% of pork contain "added solution." Yet current guidelines don't make it clear to consumers when meat has been treated and may consist of solutions that "can have more than five times as much sodium as occurs naturally in those foods," according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI).

Why is so much salt and water injected into our meat and poultry? An NPR article quotes the American Meat Institute, which acknowledges that the solution adds to the product's weight and can "replace the flavor and moisture loss that results from raising leaner animals or from potential overcooking."

Of course the meat industry plays down the fact that it adds weight to a product that it sells by the pound! Producers pride themselves in having a product with less fat than a few decades ago, but now must replace it with sodium and water for “flavoring.” If they are so proud, then how come consumers have been left in the dark for so long?    

If a chicken breast or a pork loin has been "enhanced" with a sodium solution, people at the grocery store can’t easily tell the difference from those that haven't. In 2010, the Government Accountability Office pointed out that the FDA has "largely not responded" to citizen petitions (including CSPI's) to reconsider the GRAS status of ingredients such as salt.

The USDA's move to require prominent labeling of “added solution” on raw meat products is clearly needed. Though industry will have at least two years to get used to the idea, with the proposed rules not likely going into effect until 2014 at the earliest.

In today's convoluted food system, we hope to see more steps like this toward transparency.

Sarah Damian is New Media Fellow for the Government Accountability Project, the nation's leading whistleblower advocacy organization.